The record-union., 1894-04-28

will make the price of wheat ninety
cents in place OF eighty cents.
Veil" say some objectors. that is a
bounty"
No. it is not a bounty. IF a hundred
bushels of wheat were raised in the
United States and the Government
were to pay certain per cent.
would be bounty. Now observe the
difference. We export out of every 100
bushels raised from 10 to % bushels. The
Government, let us say, would pay 10
cents bushel on 25 bushels, which would
be 81 so; but the price of wheat will not
alone be 80 cents for the % bushels ex-
ported. but for the 70 bushels sold at
home as well. In other words, the entire
100 bushels will bring 10 cents a bushel
more to the grower, giving him net ad-
vance of $40 at an outlay by the United
States Government of s. 90. That is clear,
is it not?
es, it is clear; but is it not also clear
that the workingman will be compelled
to pay this $40, or that portion of it which
he may consume in the purchase of
wheat, as he will have so cents to pay for
wheat in place Of so cents.f
Very good; that is understood, The
alternative presented to the workingman
lies in the choice of an advance in the
hand or in the decline in the rate of
wages, together with an increase in the
hours of labor, on the other. Let the
workingman bear in mind that the
American farmer is not responsible for
the condition which placed labOr-saving
devices and machinery in the hands of
the cheapest field labor In the world. No.
England is responsible, for England
wanted these cheap-labor countries to
g., Oh aI,o I,a
cheapest raw material, that it was possi-
bic for the world to supply her. Well,
that condition is here, and here, too, is
the choice for the workingman-a demor
allied labor market, reduction in wages
and lengthening of the hours of labor, or
an advance in the price of wheat and cot
ton. 1t is for him to choose. Is it not
fact that when wheat and cotton were
high his labor union was strong and that
with the decline in these great staples
the demand for his labor declined, his
ton weakened, and that this deteriorat-
ing condition must continue until the
cause is removed?
There are some labor agitatOrs-some
honest, some dishonest, some ignorant
who assert that protection has no influ-
ence on the wage rate. In some insignif-
icant minor cases, no; on the whole, yes,
and 1t needs not even the knowledge of a
merchant having experience in home
manufactured and imported goods to
demonstrate this. Two dollars a day as
against ''gulden" forty cents day is
proof sufficient.
But" say some of these, $50 day !?
Who receives 81 day? Are there not
many who work for 81 day?"
Well, the class who work for 81 here re-
ceive half ''gulden" a day in Austria.
Is there not evidence enough to show the
fallacy Of the statements of such shallow
agitators in the fact that while thousands
come to this country, but very few go to
Europe for work at Increased wages?
Let US return to the question Of the rem
edy. Quite few critics have written me
why it is that we permit Liverpool to fix
the price on our agricultural staples
why we cannot do this ourselves. The
reason why the worlds price for staple
agricultural products is fixed by Liver
pool is because Liverpool is the buyer of
the surplus. Ii the United States were
the buyer, we would fix the price. We
have surplus it must be sold to some
one willing to buy (observe. not some
one that we can compel to buy, but some
one willing to buy;J that "some one will
ing to buy" is (by reason of the introduce
ton of labor-saving machinery in the
cheapest labor countries of the world)
now able to buy wheat and cotton at
much lower prices than formerly. Now
there is no law to compel us to sell
against our will. We can hold our sur
plus at a higher price that England is
willing to pay, but England will not buy
1t from us II she can obtain it cheaper
elsewhere, and, as a result, the surplus
would be on our hands.
well, but why cannot we do without
a surplus? Would it not be benefit if
we did no exporting Of staple agricult-
ural products at all?
Y es; great benefit to the producer,
and for this reason: If bushel of wheat
were worth 81 in Liverpool and if the
price of freight from Liverpool to San
Francisco were 20 cents and the tariff duty
10 cents more, wheat would be worth at
least 81 80 a bushel in San Francisco, be-
cause the grower would sell at no lower
price than that at which the same COM
modify could be bought from some one
else. Now, the growers, having produced
just enough for home consumption,
would hold the key to the market they
would charge whatever they pleased. Of
course if they charged more than 81 30
people would refuse to buy from them,
and would import from Liverpool or
from other foreign sources. Their charge
for wheat would, then, be limited to a
figure which would prevent importing,
and that would be no less than 81 30
But as soon as there should be surplus
for export the same wheat would bring
only 80 cents instead of 81 80. What a
tremendous difference! Yet this is the
law.
well, but why produce so much as to
create a surplus? The road is clear; if
the producers are not donkeys, let them
produce just enough for home use and
they will have no cause to grumble, and,
in place Of getting 80 cents, as this plan
proposes instead of so cents under the
present system), they would be receiving
81 30, and without the interference OF
Government at all. Is not this solu-
ton ?"
Not at all. 1t is no solution; it is a
theory. You may just as well argue
with all the shoemakers, bricklayers,
cigarmakers and carpenters that if one
half of them, or quarter of them, were
willing to remain at home, or become
clergymen, dancing-masters, wood
choppers or philosophers, the others
might receive higher wage rate. Now
try it, and you will succeed about as well
as to argue with grain-grower or cotton
planter that he should reduce the volume
OF his industry. Bear in mind that a
large number have debts and interest to
pay, families to support and hired hands
10 lOIs toudlI bucS6 ledNe LUelr HSIuS
uncultivated? If A and c. leave a por-
ton of their fields uncultivated, it will
manifestly be in the interest of B and ID,
who might cultivate all their lands. Who
is to dictate how much shall be culti-
waited, how much uncultivated? and
who shall cultivate and who shall not?
Shall we leave it to the law of cause and
effect? Yes; leave it to the law of cause
and effect-and you eliminate the free
holder. demoralize the wage rate and kill
the Republic.
Besides there is another factor in the
case-a factor that must not be over
looked. We import teas, coffees, drugs,
in fact hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of goods and merchandise. We
must pay for these. We must pay with
our wheat and cotton. Curtail the great