Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-09-18

and we may add. the country generahy III
ruin.
PROTECTION AND THE FARMER.
In 1880 about 100000 OF our people were
engaged In agriculture. and about 1.V"'o"l
were directly supported from WORKING III
tho soil.
There can be no controversy about the
fact that agriculture Ii pre-eminent'y ,he
most important interest In this country
II has been well said. the condition OF us
prosperity constitutes the barometer OF the
prosperity OF the whole country.
II crops and prices are good. all other
Industries nj once feel their buoyant In
nuence. When, I'm 1850 and 1884, all other
Industries were Frustrated. IL was not
protection but the farmers that set the
idle furnaces. the hammers. ana the
spindles of the protected Industries again
in motion. II was the unprotected class
~ our regulation who infused new life
into and reklndled the courage OF the
other.
IL has been this class and not the pro-
tected manufacturer who have kept the
| balance OF trade In our favor, anu we
have already seen that our exported
manufactured metal and textiles In issV
| were about s2i 10000. while last year the
| former exported slsl,0o.ep OF p'eao-
| sturrs alone and sG20c0.0oo OF pork.
And since the war. what they call the
decrepid and lazy South. up TO lsso, mad
| besides supplying all the factories or THIS
| country. exported s5.000c00.cO0 worth OF
! cotton about $500. 900 .O00 OF tobacco, 10 say
| nothing OF her rice and other products
IL is the product of agriculture then that
| has kept the balance OF trade IN our
| favor, and brought 10 our shores the golu
| of the Old World. To the farmer - due
| more than TO all others combined that
"unexampled prosperity of the country
OF which Mr.. Blaine spoke
| Now, let us see what part OF this great
| wealth has been shared 10y the farmers
| From the census the total value OF wealth
| In the whole country In 1850 was $I,WoVo,-
| 600 in round numbers. OF that the farmers
| owned nearly 5000. 100000. or more than
one half. After ten years OF low revenue
| the total wealth increased to $l6,~p,Vn,VOo
| In 1860 the farmers share was still ~
! OC1. 900, 900, or still one half. But when. In
| 1880. after twenty years of protection. the
total wealth of the United States had In
creased to $40, 600 O00. 0D0 the farmers share
/ was but s12, 0O0 0O0, 600, or a little more than
one fourth.
Thus. while under low tariff. the dg-
gregate wealth OF one half OF our popula-
ton increased at an even rate with the
other half; during twenty years OF pro-
lection the farmers increased only S0D,-
V0ND. or 81 per cent. Wnlle tnht OF iir
other half increased $4,000, O01, 900, or 800
per cent. Doesn't this show who pays
the duties? Again. from 1850 to 1850. farm
value increased over 100 per cent; again,
| from 1850 to 1870, farm value increased
over Al per cent: again, from 1870 TO 1SSO
| farm value increased over 9 per cent, and
| that, though immense tracts Of the pub
| lie domain were settled upon and swelled
| the list Of lands to be valued.
During the same periods live stock in
creased In the first 100 per cent; in the
second i per cent, and in the last. y
per cent
Again, contrasting an agricultural state
and a manufacturing State, say Illinois
and Massachusetts,, we find from figures
| compiled by Mr.. Lleb that in 1870 the
wealth Of Massachusetts, per capita was
sj77: Illinois was $3.50 During the low
tariff period up to 1850 Massachusetts in
creased to 1922 per capita: Illinois, 500;
while from $50 to $3.50. during twenty
years OF protection. Massachusetts In
creased to $l.56s per head, @hile Illinois
increased to sl.O0j.
FOCTs THAT SPEAK VOLUMES.
Thus. the new State OF Illinois. which
has exported more bread stuffs than any
other State in the Union. while 1t trebled
under twenty years Of protection; and
Massachusetts an old State that OK
ported comparatively nothing, on the con-
trary, increased in wealth only Is pee
cent. In the iow-tarff decade. nut tfon
500 TO 1880 she increased IL $50 per cent,
as has been properly said, having no
other resources than the great sucking
pump placed over the agricultural states
by "A despotic government falsely styled
the government of the people.
When IL H. a fact, as already shown,
that by far the larger part Of our pro-
ducts are products of the farm, and when
we also remember that, according to re-
liable estimates. II our factories We're
run at their capacity for eight months
they would be able TO supply the home
demand, is not the claim that by in
creasing our factories we could absorb
the agricultural products TOO weak 10 so
down? AS has been said. the protectionists
by their argument get themselves into a
hole.
The Springfield Republican says agricu-
ture as Il fairly profitable industry has
COME to be unknown in a great many
sections of New England. The business
fiourished in 1860. reached It's elimination
in 1867 and has been going down ever
since.
The farmers OF the West pay over
800 10000 every year in interest on the
mortgages on their farms and this con-
ditiOn will grow from bad TO worse until
the people of this country demand relief
from their burdens Of taxation. This the !
Democratic party proposes to give you. |
while the Republicans propose 10 in |
crease these burdens. Which should you,
which will you sustain?
LABOR.
1t has often been and truly said that |
all the questions entering into this tariff |
controversy, that of the wages of labor |
is the most important.
There IL no better evidence Of the !
general prosperity OF a country than that |
there Is work at remunerative wages for |
all who desire work. If IL were true !
that tariff could be so constituted as |
to secure TO the workngmen of this |
country steady work at fair wages. there
would be little opposition among our peO-
pie to the high tariff.
HIGH AND Low WAGES.
But let US look at a few Of the facts
relating TO the subject. and see If it 1
does II the claim of the prOtectiOnist. |
that the high tariff increases wages. is |
correct, wages ought TO be low in low
tariff countries. and high in high-tarin /,
countries. No one can dispute this.
Now, the facts prove the very reverse,
for when we consider the countries Of /
Europe we find Germany. France, Italy,
and Spain. high-protectiye countries. pay
ing low wages. Germany, with a higher |
tariff than France. pays lower wages;
France. with a higher tariff than Bel
GUM, pays lower wages: Belgium. with ,
tariff laid for revenue only. pays lower |
wages than free-trade England while in
Italy and Spain, with almost prOhibitivc /
tariff, wages are lower than in Germany. !
In China, where the much-talked-of Chi
nese wall exists. wages are 50 low that /
a white laborer could not exist on d
months pay for one week.
Again: IL the high tariff raises wages,
in the same country a change from high
to low ought 20 lower' wages. while Il
change from low to high ought to in
crease wages
Now, let US look again at the facts:
About fifty years ago English workmen.
under tariff. did not receive two thirds
Of the wages they receive to-day: and.
mark this, workmen employed in cotton
and woollen' mills did not receive one half
they now get; in other words, their wages
have doubled under free trade.
Let US now see what the experience