Wichita eagle., 1888-10-23
FACTS AND FIGURES.
To the Editor Of the Eagle.

Some few days ago our attention wa!
called to the following figures which ap
peared in one of our Wichita papers:
The figures are not only misleading
but the conclusions drawn from them 81
erroneous that we deem it duty to an
swer them. 1t is set forth that Gin 1851
the total wealth of the United States was
$1,000, 100000 Of this the farmer own
ed about $4,000, 0OO,0 900, or more thar
one half. Under ten years Of low tariff
this wealth was increased to SIC, 900, 0O0,
900, the farmers share being $4,000, 600,
900, or still one half. But when In 1880
after twenty years of protection, the ma
tional wealth had reached $43, 900, 0OC
600, the farmers share but 81 900, 000, 900,
or little more than one-fourth. Thus
it appears that while under a revenue
tariff, the aggregate wealth of one-half
the population-the agricultural half
had increased at an even rate with the
other half, under twenty years of pro.
lection the farmers wealth increased
only 81, 900 00O, 900. while the wealth OF
the other half increased $23, 900, 000, 900,
or nearly six fold
Now let Us look into the above
figures and see if the proper application
of them has been made, and if the
proper conclusions have been drawn. In
the first place it is shown that the total
wealth of the United States in 1850 was
$1,000, 100000, and that the farmers
possessed 81, 900, 900, 900 of that amount,
or $500, 900, 600 more than one-half. In
1860, after ten years of low tariff, the
$1,000, 900, 900 of wealth had increased to
! SIG, 900, 600 900, and the farmers share
was $4,000, 100000, or exactly one-half.
Thus it is seen that the farmers in ten
years of low tariff dropped hack $780,
900, 900, but our statistician was very ST.
| lent on that point.
There are two reasons why the farmers
do not keep up their old proportion of the
material wealth of the country, one be-
ing because they constitute but small
proportion of the population Of the
| United States-which we shall prove
further on-and the other being the fol-
| lowing: In the early history of our
country we were almost entirely an ag-
ricultural country and the farmers owned
all the wealth, SO to speak, but as each
decade passed the country was devel-
oped, railroads were built, the cars of
which are in one sense the market wag
ons of the farmers, great cities and
towns, the markets of the farmer, We're
built up, and we might refer to many
large cities and towns which we
might call almost purely agri-
cultural cities. in which manufacturing
industries constitute but a very small
proportion of their various business en-
terprises, and as business and the avoca-
tions of men became more and more d.
versified, it was out of the question to
expect the farmers, who are but small
part of the whole people, TO still hold
one-half of the wealth. Farther, it
would neither be right or fair.
1t is stated in the quotation we have
made that the agriculturists constitute
one-half of the population of the United
States. That proposition is really too
but it serves our purpose to do it.
last December that there was in 1880
1870, 1893 persons engaged in agricultural
pursuits in this country and by referring
to MulhallS work on statistics we find
he is right, excepting he does not ex-
plain that that number is only those over
ten years of age, those under ten years
not being taken in account. Our total
population in 1880 was 50,00O,000. OF
that number 36,761.607 constituted
those over ten years of age.
What part Of 36,761, 607 is 1870 93?
1t is about one-ffth instead of one-half.
Hence we find that the farmers, or one
fifth of the people owned $4,000, 100000
of the 5000, 100000 in 1880
or nearly one-third of all
IL. Ill oF ft,n INT cod
states BY referring to above quota
ton these words will be found: 'Under
twenty years of protection the farmers
wealth increased only $4,000, 900, 5000,
while the other half increased $23,000,-
O00,000." Other half, indeed: nonsense.
We have shown that the farmers are
only one-ffth Of our population, so how
could they be expected to keep up with
the other four-fifths. If our farmers
prosper in an equal proportion with "a
like number of other persons engaged in
some other pursuit, then that is all they
should expect.
Again we read that the farming west
sells to the manufacturing east 600, 900
tons of grain every year, that
the six New England states and Penn
sylvania, New York and New Jersey buy
buy of the west and south ten hundred
million dollars worth of agricultural pro-
ducts annually. In 1887 the entire
emounts of all products and manufac-
tured articles only reached $685., 100000,
of that amount about $500, 900, 900 were
secured by the sale of farm products. By
these figures We see that the former east
ern market alone is worth double the
amount to them than all the foreign
markets of the world. So farmers vote
to keep your home market.
In the consideration of the amount of
the material wealth of the United States |
there is one thing that stands out very |
prominently in support OF high protect |
i've tariff being the right thing, and that !
is that our wealth under low tariff OF |
ten years, between 1850 and 1860 only |
increased $4,000, 900, 900, and in fact it |
only amounted to $4,000, 100000 since |
the discovery of America in 1892, up to |
1860, period of 1853 years, while under |
a high tariff from 1850 to 1888 it increas |
ed from SIG, 900, 900, 900 to $50, coo, 000,- |
900, an increase of S44. Zoo, 0OO,0 900 In |
perion of IS years. The fact Is that |
when the high protective tariff OF 1861 |
was adopted our national prosperity, |
greatness and wealth shot forward like |
meteor. with an impetus unparalleled in |
the history of nations, until we stapd to-
day the greatest and most wealthy ma
ton on the globe.
Instead of voting for Ebey, after read |
ing his speeches. we would rather write |
his political epitaph. and thus indite the
words on his political tomb: Poor Ebey, |
or no boys in congress, was the cause Of |
his demise, and as our soul, untrammeled |
and freed from error, mounts on infinite |