The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1886-12-10
miscellaneous.
The Farmer and Protection.

Every day of his life amostr-thc farmer is
reminded of his deep obligation to protection
1t is TO that beneficent policy, he is told, that
he is indebted for his magnificent home mar
ket and the increase of his tlocks, his fields
and his wealth. Without it'helis assured the
springs of his prosperity would run dry and
he would become Ms poor as the toiling hus.
bandman in theFefee despotsms of the Old
World.
Ifthe,hrmer believes this tits mot 2to';be
wondered at that he supports protection and
votes for the party that upholls it, But does
he believe il Or, rather has he any good
reason to believe il? The mere iteration and
releraion of the statement are not proof.
Has he any other? He has had now for a
quarter Of n century all the blessings of Il
high protective tariff. He ought TO be rich
and prosperous, out of Gebt and perfectly
happy. Is he?
If he is he is much misrepresentcd. 1t is
the common talk that the farmer is one of
the hardest worked and poorest paid men in
the community. The one crop, il is said,
that never fails Is the crop ofmOrtgages; and
il il but n little while since the cry went up
all over the land that tCnai.t farmiI g-the
conclusive evidence of decadcnce in the prof
its of agriculturc-was on the swift increase.
Much of ihis talk 10 doubt is the cxaggera-
ton in which men are prone to indulge as to
the harGshps of their own particular lot in
life. But it would hardly be possibleif far
mers are so magnificenty prosperous as they
should he under the protectionist theory
for this sort of thing to be said and repeated
without exciting universal derision. That it
does not excite such derisiou, but is on the
contrary more than half believed, makes it
very necessary that the protectonist should
IA tn la linn IA, off. To
of his policy upon agriculture.
That he will not do it is perfectly safe as
sumption. If he had had the proofs he would
have produced them long since, instead of
plying the farmer with mere dogmatic ducla-
ration. But if the farmer will take up the
question for himself he will find overwhelm-
ing proofs against the beneficial effects of
protection on agriculture.
If he will compare, for instance, the figures
of the profit on his grain and wool and other
farm products-for which, it is alleged he is
indebted to proteCtion-with the enhanced
cost-which he certainly owes TO the tariff
of everything he uses or consumes, he will
find the alleged benefits of protection largely
overbaanced by its unquestioned burdens.
Bat in general way he can test the compar
alive benefits of protection and free trade
or n near approach thereto-without any
elaborate investigation.
He can do this by n brief comparison Of
census figures. The value of the farms in the
United States in 1850 according to the cen
sus was 1921 1854 In 1860, after ten
years of a low tariff with no protection in it,,
the value had more than doubled, the total
being $6,545, 045 ,007. Then came ten years
of high protective tariff. The total of farm
values by the census of 1870 was 50 262, S03-
$751; or only Al per cent. more than in 1860.
In 1880 it had increased $40, i97,096,776. or
only 8 per cent. gain over 1870. In other
words, during what may be called the free
trade decade farm values increased 100 per
cent. and over. In the first ten years Of pro-
lection they increased only Al per cent, and
in the second ten years but 8 per cent, less
than half the increase in twenty years of pro-
lection that there was in ten of free trade.
The figures as TO increase in value of farm
implements and machinery are not quite SO
striking, but they are still full OF significance.
They ale shown by the following table: