The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1892-08-12
OUR CASE.
lConLinued nom second page.l

eign consumer that does not attach to
the domestic. l don't. prefer the do
nestle consumer because he is the best;
he consumes more, and has more money
to pay for his living than any. other con-
sumner in the wide, wide world.
MORE AMERICAN CONSUMERS.
The agriculturists of this country do
not want more farmers. They want
more people who do not raise their
own food, and whom they can supply.
Every farmer would rather have fac
tory for his neighbor than another farm
er. Every factory that is built up in
creases the farmers customers, the
value of his product and the value of his
land. Every factory that is broken
down diminiShes the farmers custom
ers, the value of his product and the
value of his land, and increases his COM
petitors. If the workingmen OF this
country cannot get employment In the
factories, they must seek it elsewhere:
They cannot find it in other mechanical
pursuits, so they must go to the land.
There every man can go when he cannot
find work at his accustomed occupation,
and when he goes there he takes out OF
the ground living, and he is no longer
the consumer of your products, but pro-
duces for himself and becomes compel.
itor of yours instead of customer OF
yours, as he is to-day. Every new In
dustry increases the farmers home mar
ket, and furnishes him what he most
wants, profitable customers.
1t is no fault of the new tariff law II
the farmers of the United States do not
supply every agricultural want OF our
entire population We framed That law
to give them this market. And we
framed that law not only to give them
the exclusive control of this market, but
to encourage industries which would IN
crease the consumers by increasing the
factories and the demand for labor there
in. Every product of the farm is pro-
tected by the new law directly, and by
the maintenance of our thousands OF
great enterprises indirectly secures for
the farmer the best market in the world
for his products.
How do agriculturists fare in free
trade England? Let Mr.. Gladstone an
swer:
1--WE have in many parts of this coun-
try not only stationery but decreasing
rural population. There are no just sac,
rifices that ought not to be encountered
in order to stop the process which leaves
the rural laborer in a condition where he
can hardly hope to keep his wife and
children even with an insufficient supply
of the necessaries of life"
Cardinal Manning wrote year and a
half ago that land was going out OF cul-
tivation in parts of England.
Fair Plan, an English publication,
gives the rate of wages paid to agricul-
tural laborers at Berwick, Carlisle, Whit
by and Thirsh, the four principal agri-
cultural centres of England.
The wages paid to young men run
from S15 to S37 80 year; to men, ordl-
nary laborers. from $40 to $50 year;
for managers of farms from $50 to Sl5O
wear: plowmen, 500 to 800 year. For
girls, S25 to $50 a year; female managers
of farm houses and diaries, $50 to 500
year. go.
There is nothing in the condition OF
agriculture in England under free trade
to induce our farmers to exchange what
they have for what it offers, and there Is
no market abroad so valuable to them as
the one they have at home. 1t should
be the aim and purpose of every farmer
to retain it.
THE HOME MARKET.
Horace Greeley presents the value o.
home market in way which an
|
'It seems to me self-evident that Pro
lection tends to shorten the distance be
tween the farmer and the artisan ant
the manufacturer, hence to diminish til,
, cost of exchanging their respective pro
ducts and thus to secure to the farme
not only surer and steadier markets TO
his produce, but an ampler recompenc
for his labors. Such are the cOnclu
sions that long ago made me protec
ZIONIST. Distant markets are all but IL
evitably inconsistent, uncertain markets
Europe has deficient harvests one yea
and buys grain of us quite frequently, bu
next wear her harvests are quite bOuntC
GUS and she requires very little NOR
food than she peoduces, no matter ho'
freely we may be buying of her fabrics
Hence our wheat now sells very far b.
low the price which ruled here whe
Europe had a meagre harvest. A remot
market virtually restricts the farmer
two or three great staples, while nef
markets enable him to diversity his PR
ducts, and thus maintain and increas
the productive capacity of the soil"
This statement is as true as it was
years ago when it was penned by i
great author, and has never been su
cessfully answered. Itcomes with pee
liar force now.
We constitute less than per cent.
the worlds population, and yet we CO.
sumo 20 per cent. of the sugar of IL
world, 80 per cent. of the coffee of Il
world, 80 per cent. of the iron of Il
world, 80 per cent. of the steel of Il
world, 80 per cent. of the copper, 80 d.
- cent. OF the lead, p per cent. of the CO
= ton, 80 per cent of the wool, 40 per cen
4 of the coal, and 80 per cent. of the tin
the world. Yet there are those wi
would adopt an economic policy tn
\ would give to the other nations this u
II matched market. We would preserve
n as far as possible, for ourselves, and tn
u is what protection means. Why shou
we surrender it to the outside wor
when we can, for the most part, supp
it and thus employ our labor and o.
capital and furnish profitable mark
at home to our agricultural producers?
The enemies of Protection talk u
n ceasingly about its burdens, but do u
u particularize. If there is anything tn
D the free traders shrink from it is fac
Y and conditions. They cannot deslgna
Is the character of the injury which they
'"' persistently allege follows the protect
tariff. Everything around them cont
- diets their theories. Trade and bushes
,r wages and prices all unite in destroyi
IL their argument. Nor do they propo
any remedy or present any relief.