The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1892-08-27

MISUNDERSTANDING states are creditor
states, and the farming states are
debtors, the former derived all the
benefits Of resumption Of specie pay
ment, and the latter suffered ali the
hsqdships of it-so that the fall in
prices really represents great loss
inflicted on the agricultural states.
THE DEPRESSION OF AGRICULTURE.
@. But has not the agricultural
interest thrived and prospered under
the protection policy9 Are not farm
ers better off under it?
A. No. The agricultural interest
has not thrived under it. Farmers
are growing worse off every year: and
conclusive proof Of this is that farm
mortgages in the West are rapidly
and even alarmingly increasing every
year, lands are becoming lower in
value and more difficult Of sale, and
in many of the best farming regions,
the obnoxious landlord and tenant
system is taking the place of indie
pendent proprietors
@. Still, has not the farming inter
est developed far more under the last
twenty seven years of high tariff than
it could have done under a low tariff?
A. The census reports furnish an
interesting and instructive negative
answer to your question.
The total value of farms in the
United States in 1850 was 1921.
575,425. In the next decade, ending
in 1850, this had increased to sc, Cas-
045, 007--the increase being $3,373,
47S,58l, or more than 100 per cent.
In 1870 the total value was $9,262,-
S03, S6l-the increase in this decade
having been $2,6l7,75s,S54, or about
40 per cent. At the end of the fol
lowing decade, in 1880, the total
value was $10,197, 096, 776-the in
crease having been 1894, 292, 915-or
less than 10 per cent.
These figures show that in the low
tariff decade from 1850 to 1860, the
total value of farms increased two
and half times as much as in the
high tariff decade, from 1860 to 1870;
and nearly as much as in the two
high tariff decades between 1860 and
lSS0-and this, too, although the
population of the country increased
over 5000, 000---from 81 ,443,321 to
50,155,7S3, in these last two decades,
They show also, that the only one of
three decades, between 1850 and
1880, in which the increase was less
than a billion, was the high tariff
period from 1870 to 1880.
The number of farms in the coun-
try increased 595, 004-from ,449 ,093
to 2,044, 077-in the low tariff de-
cade, between 1850 and 1860; and it
nearly doubled, increasing from g..
044, OFT to 4.0SS, 907--in the two fol-
lowing decades, between 1860 and
1880; but while the number was thus
largely increased, it took them TWEEN
ty years of high tariff to show as
large a per centage Of increase in
value, as they made in ten years of
low tariff. Again, the value of agri-
cultural improvements and machin-
cry increased go per cent, in the low
tariff decade, between 1850 and 1860,
and only 81 per cent and 20 per
cent. respectively, in the two follow
ing high tariff decades.
The value of all live stock on farms
increased nearly 100 per cent.-from
1914, 100, 4l6 to$1 ,0S9, 329,9l5---in the
low tariff decade, between 1850 and
1870; and only 30 per cent in the
two following high tariff decades be
tween 1860 and 1880. There was an
actual falling off of nearly $25,0OO,-
600 in the last decade. There were
45, 100000 more farm animals in the
country, but they were not worth as
much by $25,0O0,O00. The numbers
were, for 1870, s5,766,000; for 1880, |
13l, 100000; and the values were, for
1870. $l,525, 276,457 and for 1880, |
81, 800, 464,607. The average value
of all farm animals fell off from
$17.70 to $lL.50 per head, in the de-
cade between 1870 and 1SS0--a per-
iod in which the high tariff policy is
claimed to have reached it's greatest
development, and brought the largest |
amount of benefit to the manufactur-
ing states.
CAN WE MANUFACTURE WITHOUT PRO
lection?
q. Suppose the protective duty on
imported goods were reduced, would |
not the country be flooded with for
eign manufactures, and our own in |
dustrial establishments be forced to
close up and turn off their armies of
employees to become idlers and |
tramps?
A. Why should this be the case?
@ Because we cannot make goods
as cheap as they are made abroad.
A. But we can make goods as
cheap as they are made abroad-and
cheaper, too.
@. Yes-a few articles, perhaps,
which we have peculiar facilities for
making, but would we not have to
abandon the manufacture Of all pro-
tected articlesp
QUININE.
A. The history of the quinine duty
answers your question. There was
a heavy duty on this medicine down
to 1878, and the wholesale price of it
was $3.50 an ounce-three times it's
weight in silver. The medicine is
universally used in many diseases,
and the people came at last, to per-
ceive that the duty on it was tax,
and severe one, on their health, and
demanded its repeal. When bill
to repeal it was introduced in Con
gress, the five firms engaged in max
ing quinine set up loud cry against
it, declaring that they could not man
ufacture the medicine without pro-
lection; that if the duty were remov-
ed, cheap quinine would be imported
from Europe to monopolize our mar
kets, and the result would be that
our quinine mills would be closed up,
their owners impoverished, their
workmen thrown out Of employment,
and a valuable and necessary indus
try be lost to US forever. In spite of
this cutlery, Congress repealed the
duty, and put quinine on the free list
which was an invitation to the
world to bring all the quinine it had
to dispose of to the country and sell
it in free and open market. 1t is
now eleven years since this was done,
and what has been the result? Have
our quinine mills been closed up,
3 l. L L