Which is best for the farmers, protection or free trade? An address before the Agricultural Society of Lancaster County delivered at Lancaster city, Pa., February 7, 1887

HP 17(3 WHICH IS BEST FOR TIIK KARMKKS, PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE? AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY OF LANCASTER COUNTY, DELIVERED AT LANCASTER ClTY, PA., FEBRUARY 7, 1887, BY THOMAS H. DUDLEY, OF CAMDEX, NEW JEHSKY. ANSWER TO COL.^SB^EKIY, OF VIRGINIA, AND HON. FRANK KURD, OF OHIO. \ Mr. President and Gentlemen : — It is always unfortunate when any question relating to political economy is introduced into politics, and doubly unfortunate when such a question as Protection or Free Trade is introduced. It is discussed often by men who know nothing about it, simply because it has been incorporated into the party platform, and op- posed by men equally ignorant, because it has been condemned by the other party. Protection is either right or wrong; is a benefit or else an injury; and it should be examined and considered calmly and dispassion- ately as to whether it promotes or retards the prosperity and wel- fare of the country. The examination should be a practical one, and not from a theo- retical standpoint. Many things are very beautiful in theory, but when applied practically, under new or different conditions, are per- fect failures. You might as well prescribe the same bill of fare for all mankind as to attempt to apply the same theory in political economy to all nations. What may be good for England, with her redundant population and her peculiar climate and soil, may not be suited to the people of the United States, with our sparse popula- tion, our great abundance of land, and genial climate. Hence the theory that works in one country may not work in another. There- fore the statesman should look at it from a practical, rather than a theoretical, standpoint. Outside of Switzerland no civilized coun- try in the world has ever adopted Free Trade. England has not now, and never has had, Free Trade ; she has a tariff for revenue only ; and next to the United States raises more revenue from her tariff system than any nation in the world. Free Trade is unre- stricted commerce. A tariff for revenue conflicts with the funda- mental principles of Free Trade as much as a tariff for Protection. At the Farmers' National Congress, held at the City of Wash- ington on the llth of January, 1887, Col. Beverly, of Virginia, the president of the body, in his address delivered at the opening, uses this language : " The tremendous power of associated capital seeks to wrest from us (the farmers) an undue share of the fruits of our toil, under the delusive pretext of indirect taxation. Taxed as a class, directly or indirectly, out of all proportion to our equita- ble share of the'necessary public expenses," etc. The charge intended to be made by the president is, that the pro- visions of the Protective Tariff which we now have are such that the WHICH IS BEST FOR THE FARMERS, farmers of our country are taxed directly or indirectly out of all proportion to what they ought to pay toward defraying the neces- sary expenses of the government ; that they, in consequence, are de- prived of more than their share of the fruits of their toil ; and that this is done for the benefit of the manufacturing interest. These in substance are the charges which the president of the congress makes. They are either true or untrue. If true, and the farmers of our country as a class are being unduly taxed, and are paying more than their just share for the benefit of the manufacturers or anybody else, all will agree that it is a wrong, and one which ought to be corrected, and at once, by proper legislation. If, on the other hand, the charges are untrue their untruthfulness should be shown, for the tendency of such charges is to array class against class, and one industry against another, and in this way do a great injury. All the classes and all the different industries of the country should work in harmony with each other. All the people, property, and industries should be equally taxed and equally pro- tected in their rights and privileges. The incendiary only destroys one or more buildings which can be replaced by money; but the man who sows the seed of discord and controversy among the people does a wrong the injury of which it is difficult sometimes to compute, and the effects of which may last for generations. Let us see whether the charges are true or untrue. There are per- sons known as Free Traders, both in this country and in England, who advocate the adoption of the English system of a tariff for rev- enue only, in place of the American system of Protection. These people pretend that a Protective Tariff works an injury to the farm- er, and they assert that if we will repeal our Protective system and permit England and other European countries to bring their man- ufactured commodities into the country free of duty, our farmers and the people generally will be benefited ; that they then would be enabled to buy all their manufactured commodities much cheap- er than they can now buy them, and that the difference between what they are now paying for these commodities and that which they would have to pay, if we were to repeal our Protective Tariff, marks the amount which is wrongly taken from them, and which they call unjust taxation for the benefit of the manufacturer. They contend that to this extent the farmer is wronged, and has his prop- erty unjustly taken from him without any corresponding benefit or advantage. Among those who hold these views is the Hon. Frank Kurd, of Ohio. In his address before the Board of Agriculture of New Jersey, on 27th of January last, he is reported to have said : PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE? "The whole basis and foundation of a Protective Tariff is an in- crease of price on articles of consumption." This is untrue in the- ory, and still more untrue in practice. It is astonishing that any intelligent man who knows anything about the question should as- sert this, and all the more so when it has not only been denied but its untruthfulness shown over and again. A Protective Tariff is never levied to increase the price on articles of consumption. Under our Protective Tariff we admit coffee, tea, spices, etc., free of duty. Mr. Hurd, under his English tariff for revenue only, which he advocated so strongly, most likely would impose a duty on tea, coffee, and spices. Not producing these in this country the tariff would most likely enhance the price to the extent of the duty levied ; but such a tariff would be one for Revenue only and not a Protective Tariff in any sense. The manufacturing of steel rails in this country commenced in 1867. England was charging us then for steel rails over $150 per ton. In 1872 they were selling for $112 per ton. About this time there was imposed a duty of $28 per ton. In 1874, two years after this, they were selling for $94.25 per ton. In 1876, two years later, they were selling for $59.25, and in 1885 they sold down as low as $27 per ton. Previous to 1860 the tariff on earthenware was twenty-four per cent. The pottery industry at this time was substantially unknown, and England supplied the United States with nearly all the pot- tery commodities which we used. She had no competition, and fixed her own prices, and the people of this country had to pay them. The Protective Tariff raised the duty to forty per cent., and since then it has been still further in- creased to fifty-five per cent. Under these duties the industry has sprung into existence, and grown to an extent so that our home manufactures are now making one-half of all the crockery used in the country ; and the home competition has forced down the price in England as well as in this country, so that now you can buy as much for two dollars and fifty cents as you could in 1860 for four dollars, and many descriptions are actually cheaper, and selling here in the United States for a less price than they are being sold in England. Whilst residing at Liverpool I ordered a watch of one of the makers in that city : he charged me forty guineas, or $200 in our money. After I came home I gave this watch to my son, and bought one made in the United States, for which I paid $100, that I now carry, a far better time-piece, and more satisfactory in every way. The duty then and now is twenty -five per cent, on watches, WHICH IS BEST FOR THE FARMERS, and, as we shall hereafter see, we are exporting our watches and clocks to England. By our present Protective Tariff on the lowest grades of un- bleached cotton cloths there is a duty of two and one-half cents per square yard, on bleached three and one-half cents, and on colored prints four and one-half cents, with a corresponding higher rate on the higher grades of cotton goods. Will Mr. Hurd, or any one else, pretend that these duties have increased the price, or in any way added one cent to the cost, of cotton goods in the United States ? The manufacturers in this country are selling some of these goods made here at a price as low as the duty which is imposed by the law upon them; and, as we shall hereafter see, we are exporting our cotton goods to England, and selling them in the markets there in open competition with the English manufactures. In none of these cases has the duty increased the price ; so far from this, it has not only put it down, but forced the English manufacturer to reduce his price, which he would never have done so long as he had the monopoly of our market and could fix his own price for his com- modities. It was not until home competition came in and forced him that he put down his prices. These examples, showing the untruthfulness of Mr. Kurd's state- ments, might be multiplied, but possibly enough have been given to satisfy any reasonable man. The first of our present Protective laws was passed in 1861. Mod- ifications and changes of these laws have from time to time been made since, but the American Protective system may be said to have then been inaugurated. Before this period we had what has been regarded as Free Trade, or, more properly, the English system, a tariff for revenue only. In answering these gentlemen, and others holding the same views, let me call your attention to this fact — that there is not a single manufactured commodity, so far as I know, but what is cheaper to- day in the'United States, under our Protective system, than it was in 1860, under Free Trade, and before the Protective Tariff went into operation. Crockeryware is 37 per cent, cheaper than it was in 1860; cotton goods are at least 20 per cent, less; and woolen goods, including dress goods and carpets, from 20 to 25 per cent. less. Silk goods, taking them on an average, are from 35 to 40 per cent, cheaper in price than they were in 1860, and so with all other kinds of textile goods, iron and steel commodities, including ma- chinery, edge tools, ironware, farming implements, tools, household goods, furniture, etc. We have already seen the decline in steel rails, and that they PROTECTION OR have been sold within the last two years as low as $27 per ton — a reduction from $150, under our Protective system, to $27 ! No one will pretend that the farmers have been injured by these re- ductions in the price of manufactured commodities. Everything of these that they buy can be purchased to-day cheaper than they could in 1860, before we had the Protective Tariff. What has caused this decline in prices? Why is it that since we adopted our Protective system the prices of all manufactured commodities in this country have gone down and are cheaper than they were under Free Trade ? The answer is, domestic competition and machinery, with the inventive genius and versatility of character of our people, have caused it ; it is the natural outgrowth of the American system — just what you might expect from such a nation and such a people as we have. Give them proper protection and they will outstrip the world in pro- duction. But this is not all the Protective Tariff has done. The contention of the Free Traders is, that if you abolish it our farmers could buy of the English their manufactured commodities cheaper than they can now buy them. All we have to do in order to relieve the farmer, so they say, is to introduce Free Trade and permit all foreigners to bring their manufactured goods into the United States free of duty and take the place of those that we are now manufacturing. Let us look just at one thing that must follow if this is done. All imported goods into our country, under the present tariff, except those on the free list, now pay duty, and this duty takes the place of tax, and goes toward defraying the expenses of the government. Nearly all the expenses of our government are paid in this way, and the people, including the farmer, are relieved to this extent from direct tax. When you repeal the tariff and introduce Free Trade your revenue will cease, and you will have to provide some other mode to procure the money necessary to pay these expenses. There is but one way left, and that is by direct taxation in some form or other levied directly on the farmer, mechanic, and others. There is no escape from this. The foreign manufacturer who brings his goods here now has to pay duty, and in this way, as we have seen, most of the Federal taxes are paid. Repeal the tariff and you then permit him to bring his commodities into the country and sell them without paying one cent of our taxes, and you shift the whole burden of their payment upon our own people — our manufacturers, farmers, and mechanics. Taxes must be paid in some way or other, either by duties on im- ports, or else by direct taxation. They are now divided. The for- WHICH IS BEST FOR THE FARMERS, eign manufacturer who brings his commodities here to sell has to pay his proportion of these taxes. Under Free Trade the foreigner would be entirely exempt, and the whole would be imposed upon our own people. But let us pursue this question further, and see whether the far- mers are being injured. Upon investigation it will be found that nine-tenths of the manufactured commodities used by the farmers of our country, including clothing, household goods, furniture, and im- plements of husbandry, tools, etc., are as cheap in price in this coun- try as they are now selling for in England, and in some instances even cheaper. During the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1886, we ex- ported from this country 193,841,353 yards of cotton goods, enough to wrap around the earth at the equator four times and halfway around it again. Of this quantity we sent 11,957,842 yards to Great Britain. We also exported $435,536 worth of cotton wear- ing apparel, and $1,144,137 worth of other manufactured cotton goods ; much of both of these two last named went to England. When I was in England, over two years ago, I saw at the lead- ing dry goods stores our cotton goods for sale, better in quality and cheaper in price than those manufactured in England. Now let any American farmer reflect for one moment on the extent of the use of cotton goods in his house : all the underclothing of him- self and the members of his family, and often the dresses in calico his wife and children wear ; the sheets in which he sleeps, the tick- ing on the bed, and, it may be, the table cloths on his table, as well as the towels and napkins he uses, and the curtains at the windows. We exported $773,878 worth of glassware, some of which went to England. Now it is pressed glass that we find on the tables of our farmers, as well as most of the other people. That which is made in this country is better in quality and just as cheap in price as that which is made in England. We also exported $163,908 worth of crock- ery ware. We have already seen the great reduction there has been in the price of this ware. Our farmers generally use what is known as the white ware for their tables. The whiteware made at Trenton, New Jersey, is just as good and cheaper in price than that which is made and sold in England. Most farmers in this country have clocks and watches. We ex- ported last year $1,110,273 worth of clocks and $255,887 worth of watches. Of these, $167,714 worth of the watches and $480,296 worth of the clocks went to England. There is no country that makes better and cheaper time-pieces than those made in the United States. Our Yankee clocks, as they PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE? are called, are in use all over England, and exposed for sale in al- most every clock store in the kingdom, better in quality and cheap- er in price than any made there. We exported $111,715 worth of cutlery. Our cutlery is equal to any made in England in quality, and as cheap in price. We exported $1,181,056 worth of saws, edge tools, etc. ; of this to Great Britain, $162,643. Our edge tools, axes, etc., are found in most all the hardware stores of England, and superior in quality and cheaper in price than those made there. We exported $1,285,285 worth of locks, hinges, and hardware, including $187,112 worth to England. We exported $3,685,220 worth of machinery ; of this, $636,138 worth went to England. We exported 554,365 pairs of boots and shoes, some of which went to England. The farmer can buy his boots and shoes in this country as cheap as he can in England. We exported $2,121,812 worth of household furniture, and $331,235 worth of woodenware ; over $213,000 worth of the former and over $124,000 worth of the latter went to England. Furniture and woodenware of all kinds, from the wooden bedstead down to a clothes pin, except where hand- carved, are cheaper in this country than in England. We exported $466,156 worth of woolen wearing apparel ; of this, over $71,000 worth went to England. We exported $664,304 worth of rubber and gutta-percha goods, including 8720 pairs of boots and shoes, to England. Our export of carriages and horse cars was $1,340,198 worth, and of agricultural implements, including reapers, mowers, plows, etc., $2,360,021 worth, much of which went to England. All of our agricultural implements and tools, as a rule, are better in quality and cheaper in price than those made in England, and this will apply as well to wagons, carts, barrows, etc. We also exported $1,778,660 worth of fire-arms; over 10,300,000 pounds of nails and spikes ; $196,208 worth of stoves ; $546,022 worth of lamps, etc. ; over 18,600,000 pounds of soap; over 8,000,000 pounds of wire; and $1,314,639 worth of books, maps, etc. Paper in this country at the present time is cheaper than in England. As a rule, commodities are not exported unless they are selling for less in the country from which they are exported than they are in the country into which they are taken. The object of exporting is to obtain better prices' than can be obtained at home. And this will apply to our exports to other countries of manufactured commodities during the past year. Something over two years ago I attended the national agricul- tural exhibition of France. It was held in Paris, and a grand exhibition it was — quite worthy of the great nation it represented. There were fourteen or fifteen acres of ground covered with WHICH IS BEST FOR THE FARMERS, farming implements, tools, machinery, etc. I spent four days at it. All the exhibitors had their price-lists upon their exhibits. I was careful to obtain their list of prices. The lowest-priced horse-rake was 250 francs, or fifty dollars of our money. You can buy just as good a one in any town in the United States for twenty-seven dol- lars. The lowest-priced mower was $102 in our money, and no better if as good as we sell for sixty dollars. The lowest-priced reaper, without the binder, was $185 ; no better than ours for $110. The plows, harrows, and cultivators were twenty per cent, more in price than they are selling for in the United States. There was not a hoe, fork, shovel, spade, or rake on the ground but what was dearer in price and inferior to ours in quality. I therefore repeat what I have before said, that under our Protective Tariff the prices of all manufactured commodities, instead of being enhanced,' have actually been reduced; and that nine-tenths of all manufactured commodities now used by our farmers in the United States are as cheap, and in many instances cheaper, than they are in England. This being so, what becomes of the argument of Frank Hurd and other Free Traders, that our farmers are being overtaxed and in- jured by our tariff; that they are paying more than their proper share or proportion of the expenses of government by reason of the Protective Tariff? There is not a word of truth in the assertions, or a single fact upon which the charges can be truthfully based. The statistics of the country, as well as the prosperity of our peo- ple, give a crushing denial to all these charges and assertions. Now how much better off would the farmers of our country be if our tariff was repealed, and they were compelled to go to England to buy what they require, when many of these commodities of the same quality are dearer in price there than they are in the United States ? You must remember the assertions of the Free Traders are that what they have to buy is cheaper in England, and the object in repealing our laws is to enable the farmers to buy there. Is it likely that these people over there, after we repealed our tariff laws, and were wholly dependent upon them, as we then should be for what we require, would be willing to sell to us cheaper than they do now? According to all the laws of trade, as you increase the demand, the prices go up. Would it not be so in this case? All you buy here would then be bought there, and the quantity would be doubled, if not quadrupled, and the price would go up ac- cordingly and in the same proportion, and our farmers would have to pay it. This would follow just as certain as the night follows the day, and they would find to their cost that the Englishman is quite as selfish and willing to make money as any of our own peo- PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE? pie. But suppose they were to agree not to put up the price, and continue to sell to us at the same prices they are now selling, our farmers would in many instances have to pay more than they are now paying here at home, and would have, in addition, to pay the costs and expenses of transportation across the ocean, with the com- mission of the middle-men. But some will answer, if we can compete with England in manu- factured goods why do we want a Protective Tariff? My reply is, that 'we are not now discussing the needs of a Protective Tariff, but whether the farmer is being injured and robbed by ours; whether he is compelled, in consequence of this tariff, to pay more than his proper and just share of the expenses to support the gov- ernment. This is the question we are considering. But to satis- fy those who are so anxious to have Free Trade, and so anxious to introduce English goods into our country to take the place of those we are manufacturing here, I will answer the question. First, we want Protection in the cases where we can compete so as to keep the manufacturing industry of all these commodities here in our own country in order to give our laboring people the benefit of making them. We want our own people to be employed so they can receive the wages. We think it more important that these wages should be paid to our own people than that they should be paid to the Eng- lish people. We manufacture* in the United States, one year with another, about $7,000,000,000 worth of commodities, and pay the laboring people each year who are directly employed in making them about $1,500,000,000. Now if these goods are made in Eng- land these wages would be paid to the English work people there, and not to our people. It is just a question whether they shall be paid here at home to our own people, or whether they shall be paid to the work people over there. But there is another reason why we require Protection where we are competing : we do not want our country to be made the dump- ing-ground for the overproduction of Europe. The overproduc- tion in Europe is of frequent occurrence, and arises sometimes in this way : Three men, or more, if you please, are manufacturing fancy woolen goods or any other goods ; one may be at Preston, one at Manchester, and another at Leeds, in England. Neither knows what the other is doing. They have to manufacture in advance and upon their own judgment as to style and the demands of the market. For instance, for winter goods they begin to manufacture the spring before. These men, and possibly others, not knowing what each other are doing or intend to do, in the exercise of their wits, as to the class 10 WHICH IS BEST FOR THE FARMERS, and style of goods which are likely to be salable in the market the coming autumn or winter, all hit upon the same class or style, and when the season opens for placing them on the market find they have more than the market requires. There is overproduction, and they must submit to a loss, and the question with them is the extent of the loss, and what is best to be done. They very naturally come to the conclusion not to break down their own market, and resolve to keep up the price at home and realize the profits there as far as they can, and send the surplus to the United States and throw it upon our market at whatever price it may sell, and in this way to unsettle and break it down, and bring ruin upon our manufacturing and business men, in the hope that they may profit by it in the future. Whilst I was consul at Liverpool I invoiced hundreds of invoices to the amount of millions of dollars at about half the price it cost to make the goods in England. This was done in consequence of overproduction, and the goods in most instances were sent to break down our markets. - All of our business men suffer from this, and none more than the industrial and laboring class, including those engaged in farming, as well as others. We therefore require a Protective Tariff, even where we are com- peting with Europe in producing, to protect labor and develop our own resources. It having been shown that the farmers are not overtaxed or in- jured by Protection, and that the charges to that effect are entirely untrue, and destitute of facts to sustain them, let us now go further and see what benefits, if any, they derive from it; in other words, how the Protective Tariff affects them. In 1880, as appears by the census, there were but 17,312,099 persons who worked and earned wages in the United States out of a population of over 50,000,000. This would leave over 32,600,000 persons who did not labor or earn wages. Of those who worked and earned wages there were 7,670,- 493 employed in agriculture, 4,000,000 in professions, a fraction less than 4,000,000 in manufacturing, etc., and 1,800,000 in trade and transportation. It will be observed here that the whole number en- gaged in agriculture is 7,670,493, and not one-half of our popula- tion, as Frank Hurd and other Free Traders are in the habit of stating when addressing the farmers, or even half who earn wages. Our population to-day is computed to be not less than 60,000,000 ; and the number who work and earn wages in all the different branches of industry and trade are probably increased in the same proportion as the population has been increased — more farmers, PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE? 11 more manufacturers, more professional men, and more people em- ployed in trade. These people who work, as well as those who do not work, are all fed by the farmer, and constitute what is called the home market. Those who do not work are, as a rule, supported and fed from the wages earned by those who do work. Now the agricultural products of the United States, outside of cotton, tobacco, and the fruits and vegetables that are consumed in our cities and towns, amount, one year with another, to over $3,000,000,000. Any reflective man must know that there necessarily are millions of tons of sweet po- tatoes, tomatoes, onions, beets, carrots, green peas, beans, apples, pears, plums, peaches, strawberries, raspberries, and blackberries carried into our cities and towns and consumed by our people that can not be well computed or the value stated, which generally are not included when we speak of our products. Now of these agricultural products, leaving out cotton and to- bacco, at least ninety-two per cent, are consumed here at home by our own people, and less than eight per cent, are exported. The statistics of the country show these facts. The home market takes at least ninety-two per cent., and the foreign market less than eight per cent. You can thus see the importance of the home market and the comparative insignificance of the foreign market to our farmers in the consumption of their products. And it may be mentioned just here that the home market is near our doors and always certain, while the foreign market is distant, uncertain, and capricious — dependent upon the harvest abroad, whether good or bad, and is always open to the competition of other nations. Now the power to buy depends upon what one receives. The wages the laboring man earns limits his capacity to purchase, and this applies as well to the purchase of agricultural products as to other mer- chanplise. The wages received always depend upon his employ- ment. If he is employed he earns wages ; if he has no employment he earns no wages. The question of the home market, whether good or bad, then turns upon our people being employed. If they are all employed, or all those who are able to work, then the home market is good, for the people can buy ; if, on the other hand, they are not all employed, then the home market is poor, to the extent that our people are not employed. That brings us directly to another question — the diversity of industrial pursuits in order to give employment to our people. It may be stated in this way : The power to buy agricultural prod- ucts, as well as other commodities, depends upon the wages our people earn, and the amount of wages they earn upon their employ- 12 WHICH IS BEST FOR THE FARMERS, ment, and the employment upon the extent and number of our in- dustrial pursuits. The more numerous and general our industrial pursuits the more people there will be employed, the more wages earned, and the better the home market will be for the farmer. If Protection, then, tends to contribute to the increase of industrial pursuits, — and no one can deny but what it does, — then the farmer is not injured, but directly benefited by it. No class of people in the country are more benefited than they are. This always has been and always will be the case. No civilized nation ever has been or ever will be prosperous and great without diversified in- dustries. Labor produces wealth, and wealth gives power. The manufacturing industries of the country to-day employ not less than 5,000,000 people, to whom $1,500,000,000 in wages are paid, and they produce about $7,000,000,000 worth of manufactured commodities annually. These people and all those who are de- pendent upon them are fed by the farmer, and constitute, as we have seen, a part of his home market. The wages they earn in the mill and workshop enable them to buy the products of the farmer. Close up the mill and workshop, and they cease to earn wages, and their power to buy is gone. The Protective Tariff has built thousands of mills and added millions of dollars of capital to our industrial pursuits, so that our manufactured commodities have run up from $1,800,000,000, in 1860, to $7,000,000,000 at this time. Among the numerous industries which have been built up and promoted by our Protective system since its adoption in 1861 there are three that stand out most prominently as creatures entirely of Protection: the crockery, the steel-rail, and the silk industries. Before the adoption of the Protective system, in 1861, crockery and silk industries in this country only existed in name, and were of no account commercially ; and steel rails were not even manufactured in the United States. They are now all-important. The silk in- dustry to-day employs more than 40,000 persons and manufactures upwards of $50,000,000 worth of commodities — more than one-half of the whole consumption of the country. During the past year we manufactured over 1,500,000 gross tons of steel rails, to the value of not less than $52,000,000, and gave employment to thousands of our people. This is more than England or any other country has made. We imported less than 42,000 tons, therefore substantially manufacturing our whole consumption. In crockery ware we manu- factured during the year over $6,000,000 worth of ware — consider- able more than one-half of the whole consumption of the country, and giving employment to thousands of our people. These three industries owe their existence entirely to our Protective system. PROTECTION OR FREE Without Protection we should never have had any one of them. It was Protection that brought them into existence and gave them life, and that has sustained them since. They have given employ- ment to thousands of our people, a market for our farmers, and greatly reduced the price of all these commodities to the consumers. Of the manufactured commodities used by our people about nine- ty-two per cent, are manufactured at home, and less than eight per cent, imported. But the Free Trader says you can buy these com- modities cheaper in England than you can in the United States ; that the Protective Tariff prevents the farmers of this country from getting the advantage of buying in England, and they therefore pro- pose to repeal our Protective Tariff and substitute the English sys- tem— one for revenue only — in its place, to enable the farmers to buy their manufactured commodities in England to take the place of those which are now made in the United States. In the language of Mr. Beverly and Mr. Hurd, this will relieve them of the unjust taxation to which they are subjected. All their arguments lead directly up to this. Suppose we accede to their demands and re- peal our Protective Tariff, what would follow ? The commodities we now manufacture would be manufactured in England, and the wages we now pay to our own people in the Uni- ted States would be paid to the work people in England, and the profits on the manufactured products would also be paid to the English manufacturer ; in a word, our mills and workshops would be closed and our people thrown out of employment. Our work people would lose their wages and the English people would gain them. A practical example will show how this would work, and how the farmer is benefited by Protection. We will take the silk industry of New Jersey. We made last year, in New Jersey, $28,- 320,400 worth of silk goods on a capital invested of $11,500,000, and employed in this industry over twenty thousand work people, to whom were paid over $6,700,000 in wages. These twenty thou- sand people employed in this business, some in Paterson, some in Paesaic, some in Hoboken, some in Newark, and some in other lo- calities, received this amount of wages. Many, indeed most of these persons, have others dependent upon them. Men have families and girls have parents who live from the wages earned in the mills. If you assume that each of these persons has two dependent upon him or her, and who thus live from the wages earned, it will make sixty thousand people who are directly living from this one industry. Now suppose all these people should be gathered together in one town, they would make a large city of themselves. But when you put them together in a town you create the necessity for other per- 14 WHICH IS BEST FOR THE FARMERS, sons living with them. They would want churches for religious worship, and clergymen to preach; schoolhouses, and. teachers to instruct their children ; carpenters, masons, plasterers, and painters to build and keep the houses in repair ; cabinetmakers to manufac- ture furniture ; shoemakers, tailors, and hatters to make clothing ; wheelwrights, blacksmiths, and carriage and harness makers ; store- keepers, butchers, and bakers, to feed the people and supply the necessaries of life ; doctors arid lawyers, hackmen and day laborers. You would have banks and insurance offices. Nor is this all. There must be some kind of government, and men to carry it on. Your police, fire, light, water, and tax [departments would require many men. With all these and those dependent upon them you would swell your city to not less than one hundred thousand people, all of whom, directly or indirectly, would be dependent upon this one industry; and all of whom, every man, woman, and child, whether working in the mill, attending school, engaged in building houses, making clothes, baking bread, tending the stores, ministering to the sick, or performing police duty, would be fed by the farmer. Now although not all gathered in one city, so far as New Jersey is concerned, this one industry of silk manufacturing in the State gives employment to and supports, directly or indirectly, this num- ber of persons scattered up and down in different locations. And the farmer feeds them. And so with every other manufacturing in- dustry, not only in the State of New Jersey, but in the whole United States, whether in cotton, iron, steel, wool, paper, or anything else, the farmer not only feeds them and all those dependent upon them, but all the other persons who live off of them, whether as lawyers, doctors, teachers, storekeepers, butchers, bakers, tailors, dressmak- ers, carters, or mechanics. Now if the Morrison bill had passed, reducing the duty twenty per cent, on silk goods, every one of these silk manufactories would have stopped, and the twenty thou- sand people employed would have been thrown out of work, and those directly or indirectly dependent upon them would have lost their living. And this is not all that would have followed. The manufacturer would have lost his capital invested in the business. Who would have been benefited by this ? Not the laboring man, for he would lose his employment ; not the women and children depend- ent upon him, for they would lose their support ; not the farmer, for he would lose his home market. He feeds the whole of these people now, but when they would lose their wages they could no longer buy. It is the money earned in the mills and workshops with which they buy, and when the wages stop they cease to pur- chase. Who then would be benefited ? Not our people but the peo- PKOTECTION OR FREE TRADE? 15 pie of England, France, and Belgium. The silk goods we are now manufacturing here would be manufactured there, and the wages and profits now earned by our people in the manufacture of these goods would be earned there, and paid to the people in those coun- tries. But this is not all. The twenty thousand people who would have their wages thus taken from them and thrown out of employment can not starve. Some, no doubt, would become paupers and a charge upon the counties in which they live ; but most of them would make an effort to earn their bread to keep up life. What would they do ? The most natural thing for them to turn to, and probably the only thing for which they would be fitted outside of their own trades, would be agriculture ; for even if suited for any other industry, a tariff for revenue only would paralyze and injure to a greater or less extent every other manufacturing industry in the country, and persons employed in these, as well as the silk in- dustry, would be turned out of employment and have their wages stopped. In this way the repeal of the Protective system would destroy the home market. The object avowed by Frank Hurd, and others of his school, is to enable the farmers to buy in England what they now consume of manufactured commodities. If this should be done to the extent that they bought in England our manufactories could not sell and would have to stop, and the business and the wages paid, as we have seen, would cease here and be transferred to England. Suppose that one-fourth of the people now engaged in manufac- turing should in this way be thrown out of employment in the mills and factories, it would be over one million two hundred thousand persons. Now if one million of these should go into agriculture, — and the chances are that a much larger number would be thrown out of the manufacturing industries, and more than a million go into agricul- tural pursuits, — what would be the effect upon the production of agriculture ? It would add not less than thirteen per cent, to the production ; supposing these products, outside of tobacco and cotton, now to be $3,000,000,000, they would be increased $390,000,000 ; that is, our surplus of agricultural produce would be just $390,000,- 000 more than they now are. The whole of our exports of agricul- tural products last year, including wine, lard, cheese, butter, linseed oil, canned goods, etc., partly manufactured, was $484,954,595. Of this, cotton and tobacco amounted to $232,244,099. Deducting cot- ton and tobacco, there would remain only $252,710,496 of agricul- 16 WHICH IS BEST FOR THE FARMERS, tural products exported, including wine, canned goods, lard, cheese, butter, linseed and cotton-seed oil, and flour, all partly manufac- tured commodities. You would thus increase your agricultural products, outside of tobacco and cotton, $390,000,000, which would be $130,000,000 more than what you are now exporting. But this is not all. There would not only be an increase in the products, but there would be a falling off in the present home market to the extent of those persons who would be taken from the manufactur- ing industry and transferred to agricultural pursuits. Taking these at one million the decrease in the home market would be over six per cent. This would amount to $180,000,000, outside of tobacco and cotton. This added 'to the $390,000,000 would make our surplus agricultural products $570,000,000 more than they are now, making the total surplus we should then have, $822,710,000. What are we to do with this surplus ? We can not or have not been able to sell our present surplus during the past year at a profit to our farmers. What could we do with it when it is increased $570,000,000 ? Let us see what proportion of this surplus would naturally fall on our wheat crop. The average yearly crop is about 450,000,000 of bushels. The surplus would be increased 85,000,- 000 of bushels. We only exported last year a fraction over 53,- 000,000 of bushels, and much of this exported was sold at a price so low that in some instances it scarcely paid the western farmer his expenses in raising it. We should add 85,000,000 of bushels to that which we exported last year. The great increase in pro- duction of wheat of itself would have the effect to put down the price, not only of wheat, but of all agricultural products. This most certainly would follow. Who would be benefited? The farmer ? No ; for he could not raise a single bushel more on an acre of land than he does now, and he would have to sell it for less. He would lose, and| the laboring people of the country would lose ; for all the industries of the country would be injured and crippled, many of them probably entirely destroyed. England would be benefited. She can not and does not raise sufficient food to feed her own people ; more than one-half of all her breadstuffs are imported. She paid for agricultural products to feed her people, outside of tea, coffee, sugar, and spices, and fruits, over $500,000,000 last year, and this amount is increasing from year to year. England would, therefore, be benefited, for she would be able to buy all of these products at a much less price than she is now paying. Our farmers would lose, and the English people would gain — gain in the decrease of price they would have to pay for their food, and gain in the increase of their sales of their manufactured com- PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE? 17 modities that our people would then buy, to take the place of these which they now purchase of our own manufacturers. The gain to England would be double, with a corresponding dou- ble loss to ourselves. The farmer who owns a hundred acres of land could not then raise one single bushel more wheat than he does now. If his crop is now 400 bushels, it would not be more then ; and if it is worth $400 now, and the price goes down by the increased production and loss of home market one-fourth, as it most likely would do, if not much lower, his wheat would only be worth then $300, and so with all the other crops the farmer raises. His profits would be one- fourth less, and he would have just this much less to support him- self and family. And this would apply to every farmer in the country. But there are those who will probably say that these additional farmers can send their increased surplus products abroad and sell them there. The answer is, that we have now more surplus than we can sell at a profit, either at home or abroad. This is one of the complaints the farmers now make all over the country. This condition of things will not be helped by the destruction of the home market which the farmer now has, and an increase in ag- ricultural products. But would the foreign market take more? It would not have to pay as much as it is now paying for what it buys, for as you in- crease production over consumption the price falls. Then, as now, the people abroad would take just what they require to feed their people, and no more. It will be admitted that wheat is the great agricultural staple, and in all wheat-growing districts is mainly depended upon by the farmer. The wheat crop of the world is computed to be about 2,110,000,000 of bushels. Of this about 1,110,000,000 are grown in Europe, about 450,000,000 in the United States, and 287,000,000 in India, and the remainder in other parts of the world. India and the United States raise more than can be consumed in their respective countries, and each has a surplus. . Eastern or Southeastern Europe also has a surplus, whilst there is a deficiency in Western Europe, which is the market not only for the surplus of wheat, but for the surplus of most of the other agri- cultural products which we produce. The total deficiency of wheat in Europe, one year with another, is about 200,000,000 bushels. If they have a good harvest it is much less, and with a very bad harvest it may be something over. 18 WHICH IS BEST FOR THE FARMERS, Until within a few years the United States has been the country from which most of this deficiency in wheat and other agricultural products has been drawn. The next country that has supplied wheat to England has been Russia. But our farmers now have a most formidable competitor in India. In 1879 India exported to Europe less than 2,000,000 bushels; last year they exported 39,312,969 bushels, and the United States only exported 53,025,938 bushels, for which our people only real- ized eighty-eight cents a bushel in England. The total crop of wheat in India last year was 287,000,000 of bushels, whilst ours in the United States was about 450,000,000. Our farmers are, there- fore, brought face to face with open competition in India. Where the production is more than the consumption loss must fol- low. We have seen that the deficiency in wheat is confined to Western Europe, and only amounts to about 200,000,000 bushels, taking one year with another. This deficiency has been met, until within the last few years, by Eastern Europe, mainly Russia and the United States. The surplus from Eastern or Southeastern Europe and the United States, without any increased production, is now quite enough to make up the entire deficiency of Western Europe, including England. Russia and the United States could of them- selves, with a good harvest, almost if not quite do it. Australia is sending some wheat and other agricultural products to Europe ; and now comes India and throws in last year upwards of 39,000,- 000 bushels. It is this additional quantity from India, added to the surplus which existed, that has made the overproduction, and from which the farmers are now suffering. It is this that has put down the price of wheat in this country, and the difference between what it was selling for before the India wheat was introduced and what it is now selling for on our total crop marks the loss the farm- ers of this country have sustained. This loss was not less than $100,000,000 last year. The lands in India are just as fertile and productive as ours. There are millions of acres that have never been cultivated, and by means of the extension of their railway system are fast being brought into cultivation. There are whole districts of country in India lar- ger than all the New England States and New York together that have not a single mile of railroad in them, and no means of trans- portation to the seaboard except by ox-carts. Field labor in India can be had from six to eight cents per day, the hands feeding them- selves out of these wages. As has been stated, it is this competition in wheat from India that has put down the prices during the past two or three years, and in some of the Western States almost below PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE? 19 the cost of production. Our farmers might as well understand that so long as they are dependent upon Europe as their only market for their surplus products they will never be able to realize the past prices for their wheat unless famine, pestilence, or war should inter- vene to temporarily put them up. No agricultural machinery, with the wages we are paying in this country, can compete with the labor of India at seven cents per day. The foreign markets, therefore, can not be depended upon to take our present surplus agricultural products, much less the increased surplus which would be created by the repeal of our Protective system and the adoption of the Eng- lish system, — a tariff for revenue only, — with the large additions to agricultural pursuits and consequent large increase of products which wou