The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1889-04-16
THE DECLINE OF THE FARMER
From Belford's Magazine
CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK.

Nor is there any mystery in the in,
equality of conditions just spoken OF
The farmer is legally Disseminated
against. We live under a policy OF
"protection;" and that mean dis
elimination. The protected ndl,
vidual is specially favored, and always,
of necessity, at somebody else's ex
pense. The. farmer, unfortunately, is
one of those who get little or n O bene-
fit from tariff protection; because, pro,
ducing, as a rule, what encounters no
foreign competition, there is nothing
for him to be protected against. But
while, under a high tariff, he gets
nothing more for what he has to sell,
he is forced to pay increased prices
for whatever he buys from those who
are protected" They are in pocket,
and he is out of pocket; they grow
rich, and he grows poor.
To illustrate: The farmer raises
wheat. He sells a part at home, and
the surplus, which the home market
will not take, he sends to Liverpool.
The price in Liverpool, less the cost
of transportation, is, for perfectly
obvious reasons, the price he gets for
his grain both at home and abroad.
But suppose that, after the wheat is
marketed, with the proceeds he con
cludes to purchase i'm Liverpool what
he needs-clothes for himself and his
family, crockery and tinware for his
ILL 40o1o fo~ bic h01Cn onI hIC fo IT0o
and with what result? He finds
that he cannot bring his purchases
into his own country without paying
duties on them that will nearly or
quite double their cost. These duties,
he further finds, are "protective;"
that is, imposed that the manufactur-
ers of the same article in this country
may not be competed with from
abroad, and may thus be enabled to
charge higher prices for their goods.
So, instead of purchasing in Liverpool,
where he sells cheap, and where he
could buy cheap, he comes back and
buys, at nearly double Liverpool fig
ures, from the protected home manu-
facturers. The tariff has added moth
ing to the price of what he sells, but
has doubled the cost of what he buys.
Now, under that arrangement, who
has the advantage? Who is built up,
and who is pulled down =? who is fos-
tered, and who is sacrificed? We can
understand why, under such a system
while our grain-growing farmers
and it is equally true of the producers
of cotton and beef and numerous
other staples-grow poor and poorer,
and their lands become less and less
valuable, our protected manufacturers
become millionaires, with palaces at
home and castle abroad. And when
we read a short time ago hat a gentle
men had given five million dollars to
a charity, not one of us was surprised
to learn a little later that he was a
large proprietor in a leading iron
works-an Institution that enjoys in
an especial degree the benefits of the
protective system. But what business
has any one man to have five millions
to give away,-not as the fruit of any
superior merit in him, but of the gov
erhment's partiality ,-while so many
others, just as virtuous, just as indus
trious, and just as capable, are being
almost literally taxed to death ? A
public policy which not only makes
such a distinction possible, but actually
creates it, must have something in it
exceedingly questionable, if not radi-
cally and dangerously wrong. The
farmer is relatively poor because he
does not have fair play.
With equitable treatment, there
would seem to be no reason why the
farmers capital-for he is a capitalist
would not pay as we'll as any other.
How does it stand in the scale of
earnings? The following table, show
ing the annual interest or profit paid
by the leading investments in this
country, while not perhaps absolutely
correct, has been carefully compiled
from the best obtainable sources of in.
formation, and is unhesitatingly sub
mitted:
On Investment in farm lands, ........... 2 per cent
railroads, steamboats,, and
shipping. ..... "
poflr1n1