The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-02
TIE TARIFF AND THE FARMERS.

consider only the interests of the manufacture
er. Isn't it about time that we heard some
thing in the interest of the farmer, and the
millions of laboring men and thousands OF
manufacturer who get no benefit from high
protective tariff For years past agriculture
has been on the decline while the value of the
lands has decreased largely and rapidly
Statistics show that while the wealth OF
manufacturers has increased rapidly, the
wealth of the farmers has not.
It is little remarkable that each sentence
of the foregoing contains separate and
distinct misstatement. First, it is not true
that 'the advocates of protective tariff
consider only the interests of the manu-
facturer" They hold that the American
people are unit, American industry an
entirety, and that the protection of one
important industry inures to the benefit OF
all. That the development of manufactures
benefits the farmer is proposition too plain
to require argument. as is also the proposition
that the maintenance Of a high rate of wages
in one branch of industry benefits wage
workers in all other branches Free trade,
carried to its logical conclusion, would close
nearly every manufacturing establishment IN
the United States. Can any man in his senses
believe this would benefit farmers? On the
contrary, is it not plain that they would lose
home market for their products and be
further injured by the forcing of hundreds OF
thousands of laborers out of manufacturing
into farmingf And is it not equally plain
that the destruction of one large branch OF
industry would reduce the demand for labor
and thereby lower wages in all other branches7
But, say the free-traders, the farmer would
be able to get his blankets, his clothing,
his TOOLS ETC., so much cheaper under free
trade. We deny it. He never got them
cheaper than he does now, and never would
under free trade Besides. if he had no mar
ket for his products, what would he have to
buy with, and if the wages of the working
! men were reduced to the European standard,
| what would they have to buy withf The
| ultimate effect of free trade would be to
make us an exclusively agricultural people
| This would be going backwards. The true
| development and prosperity of the country
requires diversified industries and the more
numerous the industries the greater the pros
perity will be. The manufacturing indus
tries Of the country to-day employ not less
than 5, 600, 900 people, to whom 81, 500 900, 600
in wages are paid, and they produce about
| 81, OOO 900, 900 worth of manufactured COM
modities annually. These people and all
| those dependent on them are fed by the
farmer and mainly constitute his home mar
ket. The free-trader says farmers would be
benefited by destroying these industries and
this market. We deny it. How manufac-
turing benefits farmers is we'll illustrated by
little story attributed to Major Smith, Of
Atlanta, better known as 'Bill Arp"
''You know was an old-fashioned Demo-
craft" said Bill, brought up to believe in
| free-trade and sailors rights. l am one now;
but something has happened. l own little
| farm near Gainesville. ] used to gather my
corn and sell it in Atlanta for whatever they
would give me. l had some pasture land for
my stock, and l raised wheat vegetables and
fruit in a small way. What we could not
into operation old Joe Brown started some
iron developments near by, and the Carriers
| vile station became quite village The day
| before left home / sold seventeen loads OF
hav. Buyers didn't bargain for it, but came
| and took all could spare at my own price.
haven't sold a bushel of corn in several years.
Those fellows come and buy it by the dozen
for roasting-ear It's so with everything
that grows on my land. / cannot raise as
much 50 they want. I'm in favor OF the thing
that did it, so Pm protectionist"
This very thing occurs in thousands of COM
munities and to hundreds of thousands of
farmers in the North. It is no use to tell these
men that they would be benefited by policy
that would destroy manufactures; they know
better.
The further statement is made that 'for
years past agriculture has been on the decline,
the value of lands has largely decreased, and
statistics show that while the wealth of manu-
facturers has increased that of farmers has
not" This is utterly and absurdly untrue,
Statistics shcw nothing of the kind. On the
contrary, they show that the progress of agri-
culture and the accumulation of wealth in
that branch of industry has kept even pace
with others. Occasionally there is year OF
short crops in which the total of agricultural
products does not equal of the proceed
ing years, but in any decade or in any five
years there has been great increase. The
total acreage of improved farms, the value of
farm lands, the value of crops, the amount
and value of exports. the number and value
of farm animals--in short, everything per-
tanning to agriculture-has enormously in
creased if not in every year. at least in every
term of years. Indeed, TO branch of industry
has profited more by the protective tariff
policy than agriculture fact which goes te
prove that in political economy what benefits
one benefits all. A man who gets nourishine
food does not develop his right arm at the ex
pense of his left or his upper limbs at the
expense of his lower; he nourishes and
strengthens his whole body. Wise protection