The state republican. (Jefferson City, Mo.) 1871-1896, 1892-11-10
LIE PRICE OE E


Some Republicans have attempted
to explain the reason why farming is
no longer profitable on the ground of
over-production. This is not the
cause. II is because the farmers
have q limited market for their pro-
ducts. Twenty-Five years ago farm.
ing was profitable and now it is not.
Then England depended principally
upon the United States for her sup
plies, and now a large per cent OF
such supplies are purchased in India.
1t has been the policy of the Repub-
lican party to discourage trade with
England as much as possible, and 1t
has succeeded TO such on extent that
| wheat is lower than it v e was be-
fore in the western and southwestern
markets. The farmer who adheres
to a party that favors his W ruin
has no business to complain. Provi-
dence will not help people who do
not try to help themselves.-J. q.
Tribune.
II THE statement were true, that
the low price of wheat is due to the
fact that India supplies q large per
cent of it, it would only demonstrate
the wisdom of protection, because, il
our farmers suffer from foreign COM
petition would not every manufacturer
also suffer and be driven out of bust
ness if he were forced to compete
with the manufacturer of Europe:
And if it is true that India wheat is
reducing the price now, why is not
equally true that in time they will
supply the markets of the United
States and drive every famer out OF
business. 1t is n danger that the
Republican party would meet by put.
ting a tariff that would keep the
wheat of India out of the United
States. But lets see what the diff
Guilty really is.
If the low price is due TO over pro.
duction the farmers should know it
and if due to competition with the
pauper labor of India they should
know it. We think that the Republi-
cans who have contended that the
low price was due to over production
were right. The yield in the United
States for the past three years, has
been as follows;
1880. .m....... ..... 800 900 600 bushels.
1891 ............ GIL 900 900 bushels.
1892 SO 900 ,000 bushels.
The short crop of 1890 probably
explains the 90c. wheat in 1891, while
the large crop of 1891 and 1892, no
doubt accounts for the present SOC.
wheat. 1t is estimated that the
amount required for home consump.
= ton is 367 100000 bushels, and as
the crop for 1890 was only $4,000.
600 bushels there were left for eX
port only 81, 600, 600 bushels while
the surplus from the crop of 1891
-. and 1892 left for export 1896 900 ,O0O
bushels.
The Tribune thinks that England
ought to pay us 90c. per busheI
, whether we have $4,000, 900 or 1896,
600, 0C0 bushels TO sell. Not much
the English are too smart to do that.
but they take advantage of the oyel
production and hammer the price
down. But says the Tribune they
\ wont buy from us and are buying
in lntia because the United State.
d~iscourugcs trade with that country
Let's see about India. The whea
raised in India in 1881, ten year
ago, was 235 600, 600 bushels, nov
II what was the increase ten years later
1892, why the production was 2O3,
A O00, OO0 bushels, or 81. OO0,O bush
els less than in 1881. When we real
ize that our surplus for 1891 wa
i PA 600 goo bushels, being 4 100000
bushels more than the entire wlea
l. crop of India for 1892, it will Civ
n us u fair idea of over propuction AM
.c the cause Of the present low price o
Il wheat.