The Marietta journal. [volume] (Marietta, Ga.) 1866-1909, 1888-11-29

the product. After Georgia has been bled
Tor years upon er cultural pursuits nv
reason OF tri ute tu>ins tariff, she will
reach the time WIN Eer own Iuanufaetur-
ing interests have developed, and there
would be no consumers in the United
States to pay her tribute; her products
would be compelled to seek the markets of
the world in which to find places for sale.
and the tariff, instead of then helping her
manufactures, would check them. IF
Georgia wishes manufactures if the farm
ers OF Georgia wish a home market from
manufactures located in Georgia, free the
agricultural interests of our state from a
system of tariff taxation, which can Justly
be termed robbery, and the profits
in the hands of the farmers and
merchants in Georgia will be
amply sufficient to build the manufactures
for Georgia, with money saved within
Georgia's own limits.
To my mind the home market idea is in
tensely ridiculous, not only for the reasons
that have already given showing that the
manufactures of Georgia would prosper
by reason OF reduction of the tariff. but
because by examination of the history of
other states find that the growth of the
manufactures under a protective system
OF taxation at the expense of the farmers
has failed to build up the agricultural in
terests of the states where the manufactor-
les are located. Ours is a broad land.
Quick transportation enables the consumer
to find what he needs, if it is within the
limits of the United States, aud producer
and consumer will come together without
regard to state lines. There is no better
illustration of this foot hoY h. l.
Massachusetts.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Is considered the typical manufac-
turing state of the country. From
1866 to 1880 the capital invested in manu-
featuring industries increased from S133.
1872, 327 TO $303 806, 1856; the number of hands
employed, from 217, 421 to 1926, and the
value of the annual product from 1885, 545.-
922 to 1851, 135, 282. 1t will be long time.
under the most favorable auspices, before
the Georgia manufacturing products can
be expected to be worth so much money.
But how Jared the agricultural interests of
Massachusetts, in the meantime?
In 1860 there were 50, los farms valued at
$123, 255 ,948; in 1873 there were 3S.4O6 farms
valued at $146, 1877 AIS. Shere were $685.
724 acres in farms i'll 1860, aud 3, 359 O79 acres
in 1880. There were raised in 1860. in the
state, 3,103,109 bushels of barley,
buckwheat corn, oats, rye and wheat;
in 1880 only 2,S19656 bushels
were raised, the amount of each crop fall
ing off from $4,000 bushels in buckwheat to
over 100000 in oats.
In 1860 there were 509,838 horses, mules
oxen, cows, other cattle, sheep and swine
in 1880 the number had been reduced TO
409,025.
In 1860 the farmers of Massachusetts
made 13,592,627 pounds of butter and
cheese; in 1880 they made only 1O,4S5, 115
pounds.
In 1860 they raised 3,201,9O bushels of
Irish potatoes; in 1880 they raised only
3,070, 3S9 bushels.
In 1860 the population of Massachusetts,
was 1921 ,066, and in 1880 il was /, 785, 0S5.
Out of Massachusetts, fourteen counties,
four of them, in spite of the general in
crease in population from 1860 to 1880.
showed less number of inhabitants in
1880; and it is fact that there are deserted
farms in every part of Massachusetts, and
that the gain in population since 1860 has
been entirely confined to the large towns
and villages, the farming communities hav-
ing either lost population or remained at a
stand-still.
If the enormous growth of the manufac-
tories in Massachusetts did nothing for the
agricultural interests in the state, how can
it be claimed that the farmers of Georgia
will be so wonderfully blessed by the
growth of our manufacturing interests?
You have been told that the protective
tariff system originated in 1889 and received
at first the approval of southern statesmen,
and this fact is mentioned for the purpose
of making you believe that protective
tariff will advance your interests. You
should also have been told that the
first tariff bill, known as the "Ham-
ilton tariff" was tariff which aver
aged only s per cent on imports, and the
bill itself provided that it should cease at
the end of seventeen years, for it was be-
lieved by the statesmen of those days that
an per cent tariff lasting seventeen years
was all the subsidy needed for the benefit
of the manufacturing interests of this
country. Yet to-day the proposition to re-
duce the AZ per cent tariff to 40 per cent
tariff is bitterly denounced as free-trade
movement. Nor should you be msled by
the claim that your interests will be ad-
vanced by the
GENERAL PROSPERITY
resulting from protective tariff
I have not the time to-day to discuss the
effect of the tariff upon the laborers en-
gagged in protected enterprises. / am con-
tident that for the work which he accom-
plishes the average American laborer re-
ceives no more pay than the European la
borer, but of one thing 1 am sure, if ne
receives more, the tariff does not affect the
amount, for while the laborer is prevented
from buying the necessaries of life at Eu-
ropean prices, nothing prevents European
pauper labor from coming over to this
country to turn him out of his work or re-
duce the amount of his pay.
To show that the general growth of the
country has not been produced by the pro-
tective tariff, give you the following
statistical facts which are obtained from an
authentic source:
Under low tariff, our population,
as appears from the census, in
creased from 1870 to 1850 So per cent.
from 1850 to 1860, 50 per cent. In 1870, after
nine years of high protective tariff the in
crease of population was % per cent, and
from 1870 to 1880, 30 per cent.
According to the census of 1860, the value
of our manufactures was $1,S85, 1851 ,676, an