Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1890-07-31

Thcy Prefer 4" DO That which whit
Pay xheul the Beat.

Thcy Prefer 4" DO That which whit
Pay Iheni she Beat.
Editor Gdrstte.: The following Ia taker
from the Stats Santiael:
WHY HAS NOT FagE TRADE MADE ENGLISH
FARMERS PRosPERoUs2
The Democratic press Is particularly
vehement lust at present In COMMUNICATING
American farmers on the hsrdships to
which they are subjected by the tariff
which protects their wool, potatoes, vege-
TABLES and dairy products from foreign
composition" says the Boston Journal. at
u noticeable, however, that none of our
| Democratic contemporaries cite the advan-
tages which the farmers have obtained by
the inauguration OF free trade policy In
England. IL our contemporaries are anxious
for any information on this topic We would
respectfully refer them to a recent article
In the London Times discussing the state
OF English agriculture. Between 1859 and
| 1859 more than four and half million
English acres were given over to grass.
In 1889 40.5 acres out Of every 100 in the
British Isles we're devoted to permanent
| pasture. In 1889 55.8 acres out OF 100 wore
beiug utilized for that purpose. Meanwhile
more than third OF the acreage devoted to
wheat had gone out OF cultivation. The
number OF farm horses had decreased
4gOOO and the number OF sheep 4,000,0O0
These are few Of the things which free
trade has dons for English agriculturlsts.
Lei our Democratic contemporaries Q 10
these figures II they will, and then ask the
American ag-iculturist4 II they wsnt TO
try the same experiment.
Like most or all smanations from pro-
teotionists cooccrning their favorite
theory. the above is misleading and only
misleading. The transcribers OF the ex-
tract would create the impression that
English free trade in manufactures is not
favorable to the English farmer. II is
favorable, for it seems the farmer must
consider II favor not TO be oppressed.
SO far as he is thereby able to buy his
goods without that unnatural and knnyish
enhancement OF price puFposed by pro
teotlon, but it has nothlug TO do with the
changes alluded 10. The English tenant
farmer d3votss his land to grass, for
which 1t 10 excellently suited and pro-
duces meat; not because his soil is worn
out in cereal production, for the want OF
that Intelligent protection preventive of
tbs undue growth Of and accumulation
OF wealth in cities, but because ii profits
him more to Craze for his own great
market than to compete with the agri-
cultural populations of the United States,
India and Russia in the production of
low priced wheat, and this too notwith-
standing the fact that he raises a great
deal more wheat per acre and receives q
higher price than do tie producers of
the countries named. England is the
great exporter OF manufactures and her
experience and cOnsummate skill enable
her 60 supply these necessarIes OF life to
tue practically enslRved agricultural mil
lions of the earth at the lowest figure.
Would this Boston Journal intimate
that the device OF the protective tariff
there, enabling her manufacturers to
combine and sell ut q higher price at
home than they do abroad, would favor
ably influence English husbandfy? II
Is almost an insult even to the political
sagacity of tie American farmer to pre-
sent him with such "Yapkee notion. . |
For, in the event of such restrictions
there, the empowering by the govern
ment OF certain class of citizens to tax
him, would be the only matter for the
English farmer or land owner to consider
In relation tolhis owniinterests. The.price
OF his wheat in his own great market
would still huotuate cOrrespondently to
the inflow from foreign countries lust as
1t does now, and il his obtuseness had at
hrst exposed him to deception he would
coon discern that however, others Of his
compatriots might be benefited by the
arrangement, he himself was plus a
minus quantity and minus quantity
only.
OF course the writer in the Boston
Journal does mot approve of the quondam
corn laws OF England. He 10 all for
direct bene6. to manufactures and Gin
direct" benefit to agriculture. As the
British constitution m ,kes tho British
mobility the guard of the agricultural in
tereHt, the people thought the ''corn lawsn
10 their day uncalled-for and go beratsd
them in prose and rhyme that their repeal
was soon effected.
It is said in the above extract that 'the
plumber of farm horses had decreased
$4,000 and the number Of sheep 4, GOO, 900.
This may possibly be Misrepresentation
In the American reprint, for in country
enlarging its grazing area, while the num-
Der OF farm horses would naturally
decrease, the number of sheep especially
In great manufacturing country, could
not be expected to do 40. q. b. j..
------e-e-D-