Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-05-27
TARIFF AND THE FARMER
The Condition Of the Agricultural Glass.
Economic Discussion Among
the Farmers.
Eject OF the Tariff on the Farmers-Compara
tive Prices-Deelining Social Dignity
The Exodus from the Farm.

throughout Inc country, among Lnem
THE GAZETTE, printed, at the request OF
the Reform club of New York city, Sc
ries of seven questions relating to the
condition of the farmer, and to the effect
of the tariff upon that condition. Many
hundreds of answers were received
mo silly from farmers themselves.
From these answers it appears very
clearly that the farmers are far from be-
ing as prosperous as in times past. Over
400 out OF the sos testify, with a greater
or less degree of emphasis, to this fact.
''Not by long shot, "almost all in
debt, - "they go in debt for their ma
chinery,' 'bad condition financially,
morally and socially - ''less prosperous
than ever before" degeneration, -
ssdecidedly no. ''formerly they could
buy land and make it pay for itself, they
cannot do so now worst condition they
have been in for fifty years, mot one
in fifty is as prosperous rs formerly,
''majority complaining, ''more dis
enlargement than for thirty years,
''not prosperous or happy, ''not
nearly so prosperous as during the later
sixties and early seventies this from
Ii OcIL6NOE IL plOLCSLAOhJ Aoh LIS eAAAA
crops are mortgaged, they are deeply in
debt, and many of them have given up
the struggle, - "can scarcely make
enough to carry him from crop to crop, -
"'not SO many land owners as ten years
ago, - barely making q living, "not
by devil of sight, - ''not by about ~
per cent. - Gin debt and no show to
get out, - ''twelve months behind in
store and blacksmith bills. Such is
the tone of the answers received.
Those who say that the farmer is as
prosperous as he has ever been consti-
tute very small minority of the whole
number, as some do not answer the
question at all, others answer it with
many reservations, and in some cases
the answers are so doubtful that they
could be counted as fairly on one side as
the other. 1t is significant that some
thirty of those who are ranged on the
side of prosperity believe that the tariff
has had bad effect.
This widespread dissatisfaction has, as
might have been expected, aroused a
lively interest in economic discussion.
There is substantial agreement among
farmers generally that there Is some
thing wrong. They want to know what it
is The natural conditions are all favora-
bic so the trouble must be an artificial-a
man-made one. In the discussion many
reasons for the great depression of the
agricultural GLASS appear. Probably the
most popular one is that the farmer is
compelled to sell at low price and buy
at high one. OF course that means ruin.
There is much complaint about our inan-
ciaI system which Is call in the interest
of the capitalists. Upon the trusts is
thrown a large measure of the blame. 1t
is said that all classes are organized for
the oppression of the farmer. who al
lows other people to make both his buy
ing and selling price. Some attribute the
trouble to the rapid depreciation of the
land, much of which was bought at very
high prices. Nor is the tariff forgotten.
There are but twenty-five out of
the whole number who state positively
that the tariff has had beneficial eff
feot upon the farmer. With these the
''home market argument is the favor
lite one. The great majority think that
the effect of the tariff has been ruinous.
1t is, they say, the cause of the high
price paid for commodities and the low
price paid for produce; it restricts the
farmer market; it compels him to buy
in protected market and to sell in
free trade market; it provokes retalia-
ton on the part of other nations; it
builds up trusts and monopolies; it makes
the farmer protect other folks and
leaves him unprotected; its effect is
''bad,' "ruinous,' "fatal," ''de-
moralizing," "paralyzing; it is a
course, - a'burden, "a "deadener, "
a 'robberYstf it ''raises hell, - and 1t
g impaFeffshes the farmer.
lSEween this very small and this very
large class, there is q class of doubtful
men, most of whom evidently lean to
the tariff reform side, and nearly all of
kwhom are at least Indifferent to proteo-
/ ton. Some of them "don't know"
others say, s'little effect, ''''no effect, -
''question unimportant; still others
balsaee things, and give third judg-
f1eat, now on one side, now on the
other.
The preponderant opinion is that a
bushel of wheat or barrel of corn will
not buy as many necessaries of life as
thirty years ago. There is grert posi-
tffeHess on both sides of this question.
It is certain that wheat and corn have
recently been very low Many of the
necesssries of life which the far
mer buys have fallen in price very
materially in thirty years-that is GER
tain, too. But the farmer has to have
more. Things which were once luxuries
are necesssries now. Again, it is claimed
that so large proportion of the proceeds
of trade go TO commission men and
bEai7dlemen and railroads, that there is
f{ie left for the farmer. The quality of
the articles purchased is very inferior,
and so, quality for quality, they are
really dearer than thirty years ago. Two
suits of shoddy clothes year at IS to $40
q suit are not as cheap as q good wooden
suit costing S25 to $50. There is great
complaint about the high price OF sugar.
What specially pinches is, that bushel
of wheat will not ''pay as much debt
and taxes'' as it would thirty years ago.
From some cause the farmer is running
behind, and so, as 300 of them vote, he
has s'lost social dignity as COM
pared with merchants and mechan-
les. And he has lost dignity because
he is running behind-such is the yer=s
dict. Knowing all these thIngs-sbat
the farmer Is barely making q living,
that he Is being taxed TO support other
industries, that he always gets the bad
|,end of trade, and that ne is LOSING.
"a social dignity as compared with tie
other claases of his fellow cit izens-it Is