The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1894-07-13
Mistaken Diagnosis.
BROWNSVILLE, July 10, 1894.

ing lew rellarks 10 you upon Judge Hines
speech, which appeared in your issue of July g.
and ask that the same may be published
Money, whether gold silver, is simply n
medium of exchange; it really has no intrinsic
value but represents certain quantity of labor
performed, whether that labor has been expended
to produce a bushel of wheat, a barrel of corn or
a bale of cotton.
Judge Hines says: cover production never hurt
any one yet the more we have or produce, of the
necessities of life the better we are Off"
perfectly agree with that statement, but dis
sent from his logical deductions.
He claims that recommendation is responsible for
cheap land, and attributes all the woes of the
farmer to it. 1t seems to me that cheap land is just
the condition most beneficial to the farmer; for
the cheaper he can get it, the more he will pur-
chase, and the larger will be his production of
wheat, corn and cotton, which the Judge says,
'never hurt any one"
The farmer is concerned only with what the
land produces not the land itself, which cannot be
used for food, nor worn for apparel. An acre of
farming land of the value of, say, $50 will produce
as much corn and cotton an acre of city land
worth perhaps 81 100000, surely the Judge does
not mean it would be boon to the farmer if he
was compelled to purchase at the latter instead of
the former figure.
The real cause of the present distress in my
opinion, is our high tariff-and the high, false
speculative price of land-and the only remedy l
can see, is free trade, and the Single Tax.
Very truly yours,
A. l.. BLESSING NJ. D.
Our correspondent places a miscon
struction on Judge Hines argument, and
seems to misunderstood its whole scope
Perhaps he will see the point the Judge
was making if his language is made to
read, 1.-The cause of the fall in the price
of land" is attributable to recommendation
The same cause which brought the sprice
of $50 an acre land to SIS, also brought
down the price of wheat from 81 to so
cents bushel, and all other products of
the farm in like proportion. Our medical
friend is entirely mistaken when he
says "cheab land is just the condition
most beneficial to the farmer" On the
contrary when land is high priced the
more of it the farmer will buy. Land
was never so cheap in this part of
Maryland, and everywhere else we believe,
as now, but you can scarcely gi0e a
farmer land. That seems funny
doesn't it, Doctor? but it's true neverthe-
less. We are discussing farm land, not
city land. There is no analogy between
them whatever. City land is not land in
its productive sense. 1t is only solid
spot to stand on while the occupier fishes
his profits out of the pocket of productive
industry. A man on city lot never
produced mouthfull of food in the world,
nor a dollar of wealth in the sense of
production. He is paid commission for
exchanging the products of one person
for the products of another. He is time
saver for each and go between. We
don't say he is not worthy of his hire,
and doesn't honestly get what he has.
Only he is not wealth producer and the
land, or rock, or pile of logs he stands
upon is in no wise land i'll its productive
sense.
Now why does cheap land go begging
for purchaser and dear is snapped up
eagerly? 1t is the income derived from
farm lands that governs the price, and
the price of the products governs the
income. Land that will raise 30 bushels
wheat to the acre When wheat sells for
$3.50 bushel is eagerly snapped up at a
high price. Land that raises 30 bushels
OF wheat to the acre which sells at so
cents bushel nobody will buy. And
why Because it costs exactly the same
amount of labor to raise the same guam
tity of wheat under both conditions, and
the cost of raising a bushel of wheat in
this section is 81 cents. Cheap land is a
good thing in the cities where you want
place to put a dwelling or store, and
make living at anything else than farm.
ing but cheap farm land Is bad thing,
not per Sc, but because the produce of the
land when converted into cash determines
the income from the investment. A
farmers land is his investment. A CITY
mans land is not his investment unless
he is one of the landlord drones, whom
the single takers are whetting their knife
to skin. When you attempt to compare
farm lands with city land they won't
compare. The two are for entirely diff
ferent purposes. The latter is conven-
lent roasting place, or fishing place. The
city land and the business investment are
wholly different. The farmers land is his
business investment and income producer
1.-THE farmer is concerned with what
the land produces, not the land ITSELF"
argues Doctor Blessing That is not
putting the proposition fairly. He is
concerned with what the produce sells
for. If recommendation has contracted the
circulating medium and reduced the price
of everything the farmer raises, it be-
comes a vital concern of the farmer
especially If on the other hand, salaries,
annuities, interest, fees, taxes remain
very nearly the same, he is giving twice
the amount of work to buy the same
things in this catalogue of expenses he
used to pay. Hence he is very naturally
dissatisfied and Judge Hines statement of
his condition is exactly true.
Our correspondent fails to give any
reason, logical or otherwise, showing that
the high tariff lalthough we are no de-
lender OF it,, is the cause of the present
distress Neithar hoe o,,x, ,>o-.., 49,