The Tariff and 
 the Farmer 
 
 BY S. PAYSON PERRY 
 
The Tariff and the 
 
 Farmer 
 
 How it Lessens the Exchange Vakie of His Products 
 
 How it Subjects Him to Most Unfair 
 Trade Conditions 
 
 The Result 
 
 Four Decades of DecHning Agricultural 
 
 Prosperity 
 
 By S. Pay son Perry 
 
 
 ' • 
 
 Worcester, Mass. 
 
 Press of F. S. Blanchard & Co. 
 
 1908 
 
^ 
 
 t^ 
 
 u.b^ 
 
 
 '"\ 
 
 Copyright. 1908, 
 
 By S. PAYSON PERRY. 
 
 WORCESTEE, Mass. 
 
 W 1 * 
 
 
1 J 
 
 , , » t ^ 
 
 • '< ■, 
 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 Chapter Y. 
 
 Chapter Yl. 
 
 The Farmer Protected from Imag- 
 inary Danger 
 
 The Agricultural Masses Not Pro- 
 tected - - - . 
 
 Chapter III. Less Foreign Demand for Agri- 
 cultural Products 
 
 Chapter IY. Less Foreign Demand Intensifies 
 
 Home Competition and Lowers 
 Price - - - - 
 
 Chapter YII. 
 
 Chapter YIIL 
 
 Confiscation Rates of Duties 
 Greatly Increase the Cost of 
 Farmers' Supplies 
 
 The Farmer Subjected to Most 
 Unfair Trade Conditions. 
 
 The Strong Trade Position of 
 Manufacture _ _ - 
 
 The Same Continued. The De- 
 fenseless Trade Position of 
 Agriculture _ - . 
 
 Four Decades of Declining Agri- 
 cultural Prosperity under High 
 Protection. 
 
 The National Yiew 
 
 9 
 
 22 
 
 34 
 
 49 
 
 61 
 
 70 
 
 87 
 
 98 
 
 ^^rkA QQ 
 
Contents. 
 
 Chapter IX. 
 
 Chaptee X. 
 
 Chapter XI. 
 
 The Independent Farmer Sinking 
 to the Position of Mere Tenant 107 
 
 How the Farmer has Fared in the 
 Manufacturing Section of the 
 Union - - _ - 119 
 
 To what are National Prosperity 
 and High Eate of Wages Due I 134 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 How TO Make Country Life More Attractive. 
 
 * 
 
 This is the question the committee recently appointed 
 by President Eoosevelt has to answer. 
 
 Hon. Emory Washburn, a former Governor of Massa- 
 chusetts, said, ''All men speak well of agriculture, but all 
 who can shun it." Why! The two chief indictments 
 brought are the isolation of the farmer's life and the 
 unprofitableness of the occupation. 
 
 If those who bring the first charge were subjected to a 
 strict examination, in most cases we think it would be 
 made apparent that other objectionable features were in 
 combination with it that would largely be obviated if 
 crops brought in a plentiful supply of money. Money 
 will not buy everything, but a sufficiency will buy a great 
 variety of things and add immensely to the enjoyment of 
 life. The isolation of the situation does not stop men 
 from braving hardships and extreme peril, even risking 
 life itself in the search for gold. Make it worth while in 
 a financial way and plenty of families will gladly face 
 the isolation of countrv life. Even were it not so. Con- 
 gress is powerless to provide a remedy. 
 
 Is it in the power of Congress to make the 
 pursuit of agriculture more profitable? To a 
 certain extent, and in certain ways, it certainly 
 is. The industry has greatly suffered from the 
 fact that its interests have not had fair representa- 
 
6 Introduction. 
 
 tion at Washington. There the farmer is conspicnous 
 by his absence. Advantage has been taken of this, and 
 laws passed most injurious to his interests. For this 
 our agricultural leaders are responsible. They have 
 always assumed that all that was necessary to make the 
 industry prosperous was a scientific knowledge of pro- 
 duction. President Eoosevelt truly says, ''Our atten- 
 tion has been concentrated almost exclusively on getting 
 better farming." ''We hope ultimately to double the 
 average yield of wheat and corn per acre . . . but it 
 is even more important to double the desirability, com- 
 fort and standing of the farmer's life." 
 
 The President sees what apparently our agricultural 
 leaders have never perceived, that doubling the yield per 
 acre, in other words "getting better farming," does not 
 necessarily greatly benefit the farmer. The one surely 
 benefited is the consumer of such products. For the 
 result may be so large a surplus that the money return 
 per acre will be less than before. • To benefit the farmer 
 the crop groivn on an acre must command a larger sup- 
 ply of tvhat the farmer buys. 
 
 Now the farmer is a large purchaser of manufactured 
 products, and in the exchange that takes place between 
 the individuals of the two industries, legislative enact- 
 ments have a most important bearing. Chief of the laws 
 having such a bearing is the tariff system. As most per- 
 sons well informed concerning foreign trade know, the 
 laws relating to the tariff are practically made by our 
 manufacturers. It is the object of this little book to 
 show that the effect of these laws is to greatly lessen the 
 exchange value of farmers' products. A repeal of these 
 laws, or, if that is asking too much, a large reduction in 
 rates of duties on articles imported which are similar to 
 
Introduction. 7 
 
 those piircliased by our farmers would much increase 
 the profits of agriculture. 
 
 Of all occupations, that of the farmer's is poorest paid. 
 (For reasons why, see chapters VI and VII.) The 
 United States census of 1900 indicates that, subtracting 
 from gross income there given, business expenses and 
 interest upon capital of four per cent., the net income 
 received from the labor of the average farmer and his 
 family is only about $400. The Labor Bureaus of Sta- 
 tistics in Massachusetts and at Washington indicate that 
 the wages of the average workman and his family 
 engaged in manufacture are near twice this sum, or 
 about $800 per annum. 
 
 Since 1900 there is evidence going to show that farm- 
 ers at the "West are obtaining better prices for their prod- 
 ucts. But little, if any, improvement has taken place in 
 the condition of the Eastern farmer. It is even very 
 doubtful if he is as well off as before, since there has been 
 a general rise in cost of business and family supplies. 
 
 This book is a part of a much larger work, to which 
 the author has devoted many years of research and 
 thought. It is believed to be the only publication in 
 existence that gives a comprehensive view of the bearing 
 of the tariff upon agricultural interests. The author is 
 a life-long farmer — for many years a good Eepublican — 
 made an independent by a study of the tariff question. 
 In doing this work he has been actuated by as purely 
 patriotic motives as when he shouldered a rifle in the 
 dark days of 1862. 
 
 He is well aware that many persons consider the tariff 
 question as settled, but ' ' nothing is ever settled that is 
 not settled right. ' ' To believe that the present system of 
 wrong and gross oppression will always continue is to 
 
8 Introduction. 
 
 doubt the existence of a just Grod. Conditions have 
 remained much the same for more than forty years, 
 because the class, blinded by party leaders, has never 
 given it consideration. The indications now are that the 
 time is near when the subject will be taken up and the 
 other side of the tariff question will be heard. No change 
 is likely to come until the agricultural masses demand it ; 
 for it is true now, as ever, that ''they who would be free 
 themselves must strike the blow. ' ' 
 
HOW THE EXCHANGE VALUE OF 
 
 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IS 
 
 LESSENED BY THE TARIFF. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Farmer Protected from Imaginary Danger. 
 
 In 1890, when a large increase was made in rates of 
 duties on manufactured goods, the Republican politicians 
 sought to gain the favor of the agricultural masses for 
 the measure (the McKinley bill) by increasing the rates 
 of duties on agricultural imports. Mr. Dingley said: 
 ' ^ The duties on such agricultural products as are shipped 
 from Canada and disastrously compete with the products 
 of our farmers, have been largely increased." Let us 
 examine this "disastrous" competition. 
 
 From the annual report of "Commerce and Naviga- 
 tion of the United States for 1893," pages 534-539, we 
 compile the following. The imports include both free 
 and dutiable : 
 
 Agricultural Imports from, axd Exports to^ the 
 Dominion of Canada for the Fiscal Year Ending 
 
 June 30, 1889. 
 
 (Values given in round numbers.) 
 
 Imports from Exports to 
 
 Canada, Canada. 
 
 Horses, $3,269,000 $178,000 
 
 All other animals. 1.924,000 362,000 
 
 Eggs, 2,346,000 27,000 
 
10 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 
 
 Imports from 
 
 Exports to 
 
 
 
 Canada. 
 
 Canada. 
 
 Hay, 
 
 
 $1,082,000 
 
 
 Provisions (meats and dairv 
 
 
 
 
 products), 
 
 
 177,000 
 
 $7,334,000 
 
 Breadstuffs : 
 
 
 
 
 Barley, 
 
 
 7,719,000 
 
 
 Corn and com meal. 
 
 
 
 3,696.000 
 
 Wheat and wheat flour, 
 
 
 116.000 
 
 5,307,000 
 
 All other breadstuffs, 
 
 
 87,000 
 
 387,000 
 
 Cotton, raw, 
 
 
 
 2,981.000 
 
 Vegetables, 
 
 
 908,000 
 
 
 Miscellaneous (hemlock bark; 
 
 
 
 fruits and nuts; hides 
 
 and 
 
 
 
 skins, other than fur- skins; 
 
 
 
 sugar and molasses; wool, 
 
 flax, 
 
 
 
 hemp, etc. ; seeds ; tobacco, 
 
 un- 
 
 
 
 manufactured), 
 
 
 2,363,000 
 
 2.313,000 
 
 Totals, $19,991,000 $22,585,000 
 
 A condensed, balanced statement of the agricultural 
 trade between the two countries for 1889. Canada sent 
 to the United States more than was returned: 
 
 Of animals, $4,653,000 
 
 Of eggs, hay, vegetables and miscellaneous products. 4,359,000 
 
 Total, $9,012,000 
 
 • 
 
 The United States sent to Canada more than was 
 
 returned : 
 
 Of provisions (meat and daii^^ products), $7,157,000 
 
 Of breadstuffs, ^ 1,468,000 
 
 Of cotton, raw, 2,981,000 
 
 Total, $11,606,000 
 
 This trade that returned a balance in favor of the 
 United States farmer of $2,594,000, Mr. Dingley called 
 ''disastrous" competition. 
 
 Mr. Dingley stated the new rates of duties on agricul- 
 
Farmer Protected from Imaginary Banger. 11 
 
 tural imports ; many of these were from 50 to 100 per 
 cent, above the former rates. Oats were raised from 10 
 to 15 cents a bushel ; butter and cheese, from 4 cents per 
 pound to 6 cents ; hops, from 8 to 15 cents per pound. 
 None of these were of sufficient vakie to have separate 
 mention in the importations. With one single exception, 
 the driblets of imports were so small in comparison with 
 the productions of the same kind of this country that 
 even had they not been balanced by exports, no general 
 effect could possibly have been produced by their intro- 
 duction here. Barley was the exception; the value of 
 that imported was nearly one-fourth of the production of 
 this nation. But if the additional rate of duty gave at 
 first a better price to our producers, the advantage seems 
 to have been lost in a year or two, for price then sank to 
 the level of, or below, that of former years. 
 
 The rate of duty was increased on wheat, in spite of 
 the fact that neither from Canada nor from any other 
 part of the world was more than $125,000 worth imported 
 that year (1889) into the United States, against an 
 exportation abroad of over $96,000,000. 
 
 Of provisions (meat and dairy products) it is seen 
 scarcely any were imported from Canada, and we 
 exported to that country over $7,000,000. Yet the Cana- 
 dian invasion appeared so alarming in these products to 
 Mr. Dingley and other Eepublicans that the rates of 
 duties on butter and cheese were raised 50 per cent, and 
 hams and bacon 200 per cent. The same year we sent 
 abroad of hog products alone over $66,000,000 worth, 
 while the total importations of all meat products at the 
 same time were but $472,000. The farmer who cannot 
 see through such plain political trickery as this cannot 
 see through a ladder with rounds two feet apart ! 
 
12 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 To try to exclude Canadian products from the United 
 States is mere foolishness. Take wheat to illustrate the 
 matter. Suppose Canada had a hundred million bushels 
 to export. The cost is said to be about the same to send 
 to New York or to Liverpool by way of the St. Lawrence 
 Biver. Suppose further that, because of our high duties, 
 instead of this increase coming into the United States 
 and directly competing here, it goes to England and com- 
 petes with our wheat there. So long as we have a great 
 surplus to send abroad, how much more will the Ameri- 
 can farmer get for his wheat by meeting the competition 
 there than here? His market there would be taken to the 
 extent of the 100,000 bushels, and it looks as if in conse- 
 quence that number of bushels would remain this side the 
 ocean. 
 
 What other countries besides Canada are in position 
 to compete with the American farmer? Surely, not the 
 populous nations of Europe who are now receiving the 
 bulk of our immense agricultural exports ! They cannot 
 even supply themselves with a sufficiency of agricultural 
 products. 
 
 On the same occasion the passage of the McKinley bill 
 in 1890, when Mr. Dingley was doing his best to protect 
 our farmers from ''disastrous" trade with Canada, we 
 also hear from Mr. McKinlev. He was as much con- 
 cerned about the danger that threatened the farmer as 
 Mr. Dingley — the tvheat grower he seemed to have par- 
 ticularly in mind. He said : ' ' The agricultural condition 
 of the country has received the careful attention of the 
 committee, and every remedy which was believed to be in 
 the power of tariff legislation to give relief has been 
 granted by this bill. The depression in agriculture is not 
 confined to the United States. The reports of the Agri- 
 
Fanner Protected from Imaginary Danger. 13 
 
 cultural Department indicate that this distress is gen- 
 eral ; that Great Britain, France and Germany are suffer- 
 ing in a greater degree than the farmer of the United 
 States." "It has been asserted in the views of the 
 minority" (Democratic members of the committee) 
 ' ' that the duty put on wheat and other agricultural prod- 
 ucts would be of no value to the agriculturists of the 
 United States. The committee, believing differently, has 
 advanced the duty upon these products. As we are the 
 greatest wheat-producing country in the world, it is 
 habitual to assert, and it is believed by many, that this 
 product is safe from foreign competition. We do not 
 appreciate that while the United States last year raised 
 490,000,000 bushels, France raised 316,000,000, Italy 103,- 
 000,000, Eussia 189,000,000, and India 243,000,000; and 
 that the total production of Asia, including Asia Minor, 
 Syria and Persia, amounted to over 315,000,000 bush- 
 els." "Our sharpest competition comes from Eussia 
 and India, and if we will reflect on the difference of the 
 cost of labor in producing wheat in the United States, 
 and in competing countries, we shall readily perceive how 
 near we are to the danger line." "The farmers of the 
 United States have therefore come to appreciate that the 
 time is already here when the American farmer must 
 sell his products in the market of the world in competi- 
 tion with the wheat produced by the lowest priced labor 
 of other countries. And that his care and concern must 
 be to preserve his home market, for he must of necessity 
 be driven from the foreign one unless he can by diminish- 
 ing the cost of his productions successfully compete with 
 the unequal conditions I have described. ' ' 
 
 In the last quotation Mr. McKinley indicates that a 
 change of condition had taken place in regard to compe- 
 
14 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 tition abroad and at home. But when was the time when 
 the American farmer was not in competition in foreign 
 markets with the lowest priced labor of other countries ? 
 And where was there any evidence of increased danger 
 of being driven from the home market? To secure the 
 support of farmers for his measure he sought to frighten 
 them by drawing on his imagination. 
 
 As concerns the wheat trade, for which he seemed to be 
 particularly anxious, he tells what the production was of 
 certain countries, but does not give the quantities con- 
 sumed by the same. The material point as to whether or 
 not the wheat trade of those nations is likely to prove 
 dangerous to American agriculture is what is the amount 
 of surplus. But of this he gives no idea. If a nation 
 produces a billion of bushels, and all it can produce is 
 consumed by its people, the farmers of other lands have 
 little more reason to fear disastrous trade from such 
 source than as if that country were a desert waste with- 
 out production or people. Two of the countries, the 
 amount of whose productions of wheat he gave, France 
 and Italy, were importers and not exporters of wheat. It 
 is safe to say also that of wheat produced in Asia, outside 
 British India, very little is exported. Supplies from 
 British India are very uncertain, owing to the great fam- 
 ines that often prevail there. Certainly, at the time 
 when Mr. McKinley made his speech, there was no reason 
 for apprehending danger from India, as for several years 
 there had been a falling-off in exportations. Data have 
 not been found for recent years by the writer, but the 
 report of ^'Commerce and Navigation of the United 
 States for 1893 ' ' makes this significant sentence in refer- 
 ence to wheat and other breads^tuff s : ''They would also 
 show that the United States need have little apprehen- 
 
Farmer Protected from Imaginary Danger. 15 
 
 sion of being crowded out of European markets by Brit- 
 ish India wheat. Apart from the testimony given by 
 trade figures, which show that British India is called 
 upon for wheat only when other supplies have been 
 exhausted, we have the testimony of experts who are 
 almost unanimous in declaring the inferior quality of the 
 Indian product. " » 
 
 A single sentence in the Statesman's Year Book, 1902, 
 would indicate that little need be feared from wheat pro- 
 duced in Russia, whatever may have been the prospect in 
 1890, since such exportations have largely decreased: 
 "The quantities of wheat imported from Russia into the 
 United Kingdom in five years from both the northern 
 and southern ports of the empire were as follows : 1896, 
 17,241,600 cwt.; 1897, 15,049,900 cwt.; 1898, 6,232,500 
 cwt.; 1899, 2,518,200 cwt.; 1900, 4,478,300 cwt." In still 
 another place the same authority shows by a table that in 
 1899 and 1900 more wheat was sent from Russia to 
 United Kingdom than to any other country in Europe, 
 with the exception of France. The latter nation in those 
 years took nearly double what the former took, but even 
 here there was a large falling-off in 1900 from what was 
 sent in 1899. 
 
 But the groundlessness of Mr. McKinley's fears is best 
 shown by the United States record of exportations. In 
 1888 and 1889, the years immediately preceding the Mc- 
 Kinley tariff, the percentage of domestic wheat exported 
 had fallen from a previous average of about 26% to about 
 22%. Since then, from 1890-1901, eleven years, the 
 annual average has been about 35%. In 1900 the total 
 value of breadstuff imported was $1,804,000 ; exported, 
 $262,744,000. And instead of sending abroad a total of 
 agricultural products of $630,000,000, as in 1890, the rec- 
 
16 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 ord of 1906 is over $975,000,000. And this successful 
 competition in foreign lands, remember, is beyond the 
 guard of our tariff duties in the open field with all the 
 world. Does it look very much as if the foreigner could 
 drive the American farmer from the home market under 
 a free trade svstem! 
 
 Under President Eoosevelt's administration. Secre- 
 tary Shaw of the Treasury Department is following in the 
 footstejDs of Mr. Dingley and Mr. McKinley. He came 
 out as an alarmist concerning cattle and beef in a speech 
 made in the State of Vermont in August, 1902 : ' ' Suppose 
 we take the tariff off beef, and then suppose the herds of 
 cattle from Mexico and South America are brought in 
 here by the hundred thousand. They will find their way 
 to the stockyards, and the butchers will be compelled to 
 bid against the packers then as now. The removal of the 
 tariff on live stock and meat would not restore the butch- 
 ers to business. It might ruin the farmers." ''The 
 farmer as it is has ample reason to be apprehensive." 
 
 Now it is easy to suppose anything. We might specu- 
 late what would happen suppose the moon should come 
 down to the earth. We think Mr. Shaw's supposition is 
 a little more likely to happen than this. 
 
 Was it not a singular time to apprehend danger to the 
 producer of beef, when there was such a scarcity, real or 
 artificial, that there was a general uproar over the land 
 at the price consumers were compelled to pay! 
 
 But we turn to examine the probability of Mr. Shaw's 
 supposition. To ruin our farmers engaged in the pro- 
 duction and fattening of cattle would require a great 
 invasion indeed. A ''hundred thousand" cattle, in a 
 country where there are over 69,000,000, would hardly be 
 more than a drop in a bucket. But where is the immense 
 
Farmer Protected from Imaginary Danger. 17 
 
 multitude to come from? A large portion, according to 
 Secretary Shaw, is to come from South America. Of all 
 South America only the Argentina Kepublic and Uru- 
 guay are doing much with cattle, or are likely to in this 
 generation; in the remaining portions the people, or 
 climate, or country, or all together, are not adapted to the 
 business. 
 
 The two divisions mentioned, especially the Argentina 
 Eepublic, have a good many cattle— together something 
 less than one-half the number in the United States. But 
 think of the immense distance they must be brought to 
 reach us, 6000 to 8000 miles. How many of the animals 
 would die in the long passage through the hot equatorial 
 regions ? Or who would want to eat fresh beef killed the 
 other side of the equator! 
 
 The exports of Argentina of "animals and their prod- 
 ucts" in 1899 is given as over $115,500,000. But un- 
 doubtedlv much more than two-thirds of this consisted of 
 wool, hides and skins, and mutton. One authority gives 
 the value of the exports of wool that year as $61,000,000 
 gold ; and reports also that 2,372,969 carcasses of frozen 
 sheep were exported, and the value of hides and skins 
 was very great. 
 
 For some years we have been competing with Argen- 
 tina in the free English market. With what result? 
 Where she supplied about $1,000,000 of fresh beef in 1899 
 the United States put in over $29,000,000 ; and in 1901 the 
 value of such exports from the United States is given as 
 over $31,000,000. In the latter year the United States 
 sent abroad over $37,000,000 of cattle, most of which 
 ($35,000,000) went to Great Britain; Argentina sent of 
 cattle to the same place in 1899 about $7,000,000. The 
 fact is, her great dependence in the export trade is on 
 
 2 
 
18 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 sheep. Nearly $7,500,000 worth of sheep was sent to 
 Great Britain in 1899, where we sent abroad but $29,427 
 to all the world. 
 
 What has been said of Argentina will apply pretty 
 closely to Uruguay, which may be called a small edition 
 of the other. 
 
 Now as to Mexico, which borders on the United States 
 on the southwest, and is thus near to us, with no equa- 
 torial regions to cross, the idea that she is likely to prove 
 a formidable rival in cattle and meat products is so wild 
 we are reminded of the lines of — 
 
 "Ocean into tempest tossed 
 ' To waft a feather or to drown a fly." 
 
 Mexico, like the United States, is surrounded by a high 
 tariff wall. A ''special exposition bulletin" of a few 
 years ago says, "Corn, cereals, meat and flour of all 
 kinds are now virtually excluded from all parts of Mexi- 
 co, save the narrow strip of country called the free zone, 
 on account of a prohibitory tariff." Again, ''the impor- 
 tation of food and food products in Mexico is greatly 
 restricted, owing to the high duties." It went on to state 
 that ham, bacon, sausage and lard pay about ten cents 
 per pound duty. If it is high protection that has made 
 the United States great, enriched the people and caused 
 the payment of large wages, let the protectionist explain 
 why it has had no such effect in Mexico. Why are her 
 great natural resources of mineral wealth hardly devel- 
 oped at all ? Why has not manufacturing activity taken 
 the place of the torpor that seems to rest upon her peo- 
 ple? Why do not immigrants throng her ports! With 
 the same industrial system credited with working such 
 
Farmer Protected from Imaginary Danger. 19 
 
 wonder here, tlie two countries are at the opposite iDoIes 
 of most that makes life endurable and desirable. 
 
 The quotations that follow show the utter absurdity of 
 making a hob-goblin of Mexico in beef competition. 
 These are taken from ""Geographical and Statistical 
 Notes on Mexico," by Matas Eomero, one of the best 
 known and most distinguished of that nation. He was 
 for a number of years Mexican minister to the United 
 States. Such a writer is not likely to represent things as 
 worse than they are. 
 
 ''Mexico will be before long a very large producer of 
 cattle and other animals, and they will form a large share 
 of her exports. Mexico has sent within two years about 
 400,000 small, undeveloped cattle to the United States at 
 about $15, Mexican silver, per head." ($3,000,000 gold 
 value.) ''As we have the silver standard, all our public 
 accounts are kept in silver, and that makes our exports 
 appear twice as large in value as they really, when stated 
 in the money of the United States, are, while we give our 
 exports in the value of the country whence they 
 come, that is, their gold value. That has given the idea 
 of a very large balance of trade in favor of Mexico." 
 "Inquiry was made in Liverpool about the possibility of 
 the Mexican live-animal trade with England, and it was 
 found that the initial difficulty is the small size of the 
 Mexican cattle, as cattle weighing 1200 pounds are con- 
 sidered small by the trade there, and from 900 to 1000 
 pounds is therefore extremely small." He speaks of the 
 desirability of importing larger cattle for breeding pur- 
 poses, and adds, "Mexico could export annually and 
 easily after the next ten years 400,000 of fatted cattle." 
 
 "A great need of Mexico is a reliable supply of good 
 and healthful water through artificial means." He speaks 
 
20 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 of great loss of stock through lack of water, and shrink- 
 age by so mnch unnecessary traveling of stock to water. 
 ''They cannot grow fairly, much less fatten, and over 
 one-half the annual increase die of exhaustion, while the 
 value of stock lost in one year would supply permanent 
 water at convenient distances, and prevent three-fourths 
 of the loss and shrinkage novv^ sustained." "Mexico is 
 now suffering from an annual decrease in rainfall, owing 
 to the continual decrease in the timber-bearing area, the 
 rainfall being more and more unequal every year during 
 the past twenty years, but the winters are becoming more 
 and more severe, and the frosts are reaching farther and 
 farther south each year." "Many large cities through- 
 out the republic are without any certain water supply, 
 and many that have a sufficient supply show by their 
 death-rates that the supply is bad, and during the greater 
 part of the year is the cause of widespread disease." 
 
 He says that Indian corn, wheat, oats, barley, all grow 
 very well in the proper regions of Mexico. 
 
 The fauna includes three species of large felidse, the 
 puma or American lion, jaguar and ocelot; among the 
 smaller is the wildcat. Wolves are common in the north- 
 ern states, and also the covote: besides which there are 
 bears, wild boars and bisons." "The ophidians are rep- 
 resented by a few boas in the southern forests, and sev- 
 eral species of snakes, some extremely venomous, as the 
 rattle and coral snakes. Noxious insects infest the hot 
 regions in myriads ; alacianes, or scorpions, in two differ- 
 ent varieties are everywhere feared, and many children 
 were every year killed by their stings in the city of 
 Durango before a proper antidote was found and used. 
 Scolopendras, gigantic spiders, tarantulas and mosqui- 
 toes abound." 
 
Farmer Protected from Imaginary Danger. 21 
 
 Snch is the inviting picture drawn by one of the most 
 prominent Mexicans of his native land. Before the pro- 
 duction and fattening of cattle can be carried on to 
 such an extent as to be a danger to the American farmer, 
 a change must be made to a larger breed, many millions 
 of dollars be laid out in providing water, and dangerous 
 and pestiferous creatures must be destroyed. Mr. Shaw 
 is at least a generation ahead of time. 
 
 A few facts concerning the population of Mexico from 
 the Statesman's Year Book, 1902 : The population in 1900 
 consisted of 6,716,007 males and 6,829,455 females. Of 
 the total population 19% are of pure, or nearly pure, 
 white race, 43% of mixed race, and 38% of Indian race. 
 Natives descended from ancient Indian tribes, and speak- 
 ing little or no Spanish, numbered in 1895 1,908,707. Of 
 the mixed and Indian race only a very small proportion 
 can be regarded as civilized." ''In 1895 10,345,899 of 
 the population could neither read nor write; 1,782,822 
 could read and write; 323,336 could only read, and the 
 attainments of 39,516 persons were unknown. ' ' 
 
 Matas Eomero states that the average annual value of 
 live stock exported for f^jQ years, 1891-1896, was $1,124,- 
 560. This is understood to be young animals of an aver- 
 age value of $5 to $9. This is the present showing of 
 one of the nations that Mr. Shaw is tremblingly afraid 
 will, in the near future, swamp our markets with beef 
 products. 
 
22 The Tariff and the Fanner. 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 The Agkicultueal Masses Not Pkotected. 
 
 Because a duty is named to be paid by all agricultural 
 j)roducts similar to those grown in this country, except 
 cotton, when imported, many farmers are under the 
 impression that the value of their products is thereby 
 increased. Now a duty of 1000% may be named for an 
 article and the producer never gain one cent by it. All 
 depends on whether or not there is a large supply abroad 
 of such product that would come in were there no duty. 
 A foreign nation may produce a $100,000,000 worth of 
 wheat, or corn, or potatoes, or hay, and all be reciuired to 
 feed its own people and animals. If such is the case, it 
 is not in position to compete in our markets. It is only 
 those nations who have large surplus supplies whose com- 
 petition is to be feared. If farmers would keep in mind 
 that the United States is the world's headquarters for 
 agricultural products, and that we are exporting these to 
 almost all nations, which means that these are produced 
 here cheaper than abroad, they could not have their fears 
 so easily excited. If farmers abroad cannot undersell 
 and keep out American goods from their own markets, or 
 if the quantity they produce is insufficient to supply their 
 own people, they are not in position to compete in our 
 markets. In refuting the expressed views of three prom- 
 inent advocates of protection in the last chapter^ it was 
 indicated that it was for the reason just given why the 
 farmers of the United States need not fear the farmers 
 of foreign countries. 
 
Agricultural Masses Not Protected. 23 
 
 For many reasons, such as the greater intelligence of 
 our farmers, tlie greater 'natural productiveness of our 
 land, the greater number acres in possession of each, the 
 more extensive use of horses and machinery, and the 
 facilities by wa}^ of transportation afforded for disposing 
 of surplus products, the farmers of other countries are 
 everywhere afraid of the competition of our agricul- 
 turists, if not in their own home markets, then in the 
 foreign markets they wish to supply. 
 
 Mr. Henry Gannett^ says : ' ' Of the entire agri- 
 cultural product of the world the United States pro- 
 duces 23%." ^'Farming is more intensified in Europe 
 than in America, the product per acre being probably 
 twice as great." ''He (the American) is enabled by the 
 use of better tools and more machinery to work an 
 area three or four times as great as the European culti- 
 vates. The American uses machinery in farming as far 
 as possible; the European scarcely at all." ''For every 
 man here engaged in agriculture a product valued at $900 
 is contributed, while the average Frenchman produces 
 but $580, and the average German but $510 in agricul- 
 tural products." For these reasons we can, and do, pro- 
 duce cheaper than most foreigners in spite of the fact 
 that the rate of wages paid is from 50 to 100% higher 
 than in other countries. 
 
 The Story Told by Agricultural Imports and Exports. 
 
 "The total imports of the products of agriculture for 
 the year 1887, free and dutiable, were in value $197,308,- 
 240. Of this sum products worth $46,678,443 were 
 
 ^ Taken from an article of Mr. Gannett' sin the Forum of May, 1902. Mr. 
 Gannett was geographer in the 10th and 11th Censuses, and since 1882 has 
 been chief geographer of the United States Geological Survey. 
 
24 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 admitted free of duty, and the remainder paid a duty. 
 Do the agriculturists want all .duties removed and their 
 products driven from this market?" A quotation from 
 a speech made by Mr. McKinley in the House, May 18, 
 1888, when the Mills tariff bill was under examination. 
 Here it is assumed that the protective system is such 
 an effectual defense to the farmer that its removal would 
 result in disaster to him. Mr. McKinley voiced what pro- 
 tectionists of to-dav would have our farmers believe: 
 that protection bars out immense quantities of agricul- 
 tural products that would break down our farmers ' home 
 market if admitted. A knowledge of the main facts con- 
 cerning foreign trade in agricultural products would do 
 away with this belief. 
 
 In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, the value of 
 agricultural imports was more than double what Mr. Mc- 
 Kinley stated them to be for 1887. If the quantity then 
 indicated an alarming state of affairs, the danger in 
 these later years would appear to be most threatening. 
 The ^^Year Book of the Department of Agriculture, 
 1901, ' ' gives the value of agricultural products both as to 
 the amount imported and the amount exported for 1900. 
 In the following table the figures there given of such 
 imports are classified and condensed : 
 
 Agricultural Imports. 
 Year ending June 30, 1900. 
 
 Items. Class 1 . Class 2. Class 3. 
 
 Classified and condensed. 
 
 Class 1. Non-competing — 
 Raw silk, etc., $45,330,000 
 
 Goat skins, 21,988,000 
 
 Coffee, chocolate and 
 
 cocoa, 58.678,000 
 
 Jute, manila hemp, sisal 
 
 grasses, etc., 24,277,000 
 
Agricultural Masses. Not Protected. 25 
 
 Items. Class 1. Class 2. Class 3. 
 
 Bananas, currants, 
 
 dates, almonds, figs, 
 
 cocoanuts, etc., $10,697,000 
 
 India'O, singer, spices, 
 
 vanilla'^beans, " 6,074,000 
 
 Tea, 10,558,000 
 
 Class 2. Protected — 
 
 Sheep and wool. $21,626,000 
 
 Semi-tropical products, 
 
 lemons, ' oranges, 
 
 plums, prunes, etc., 8,565.000 
 
 Rice, rice meal. etc. 2,279.000 
 
 Sugar and molasses, 101,141,000 
 
 Tobacco, unmanufactured, 13,297,000 
 
 Class 3. Unprotected- 
 Animals alive (not in- 
 cluding sheep) , $3,166,000 
 Hides, cattle and other 
 (not includinsr goat 
 
 skins), ^ • 35,948.000 
 
 Meat products, ■ 1,215,000 
 
 Dairv products, 1,814.000 
 
 Other animal matter, 9,996.000 
 
 Breadstuffs, ■ 1,804.000 
 
 Cotton, flax and hemp, 10,057,000 
 
 Vegetables, , 2.935,000 
 
 Other vegetable matter, 4,677,000 
 
 Totals, $177,602,000 $146,908,000 $71,612,000 
 
 Percentage each class, 42.28 34.97 17.04 
 
 In the table given in the Year Book are items that are 
 clearly manufactured products. Why they are included 
 among, and designated, agricultural products we cannot 
 explain. The value of the total of these importations is 
 $24,000,000, or 5.71% of all the agricultural imports for 
 that vear. 
 
 ^Ye divide the agricultural imports into three classes. 
 Class 1 consists of articles not produced at all in the 
 
26 The Tariff and the Fanner. 
 
 United States, or only to an insignificant extent. In other 
 words, these are products for which our farmers are not 
 in competition. With the exception of tea, which was 
 dutied that year though it has since been admitted free, 
 nearly all the articles in this class were on the free list. 
 Protection renders no assistance to the farmer here. But 
 this class diminishes the agricultural import list by 
 $177,602,000, or a percentage of total of 42.28%. 
 
 Class 2. These imports are similar to those produced 
 by a very small number of our farmers. No doubt at all 
 about protection to the producers of these. The wool 
 rj duty averaged about 49% that year, the duty on lemons 
 \1 43, oranges 63, rice 63, unmanufactured tobacco mostly 
 71 and 188, and sugar nearly 74%. But because a few 
 farmers are protected it does not follow that the average 
 individual or the class is — ' ' one swallow does not make a 
 summer. ' ' We even claim that the favor shown to these 
 makes it harder for the rest of the class. The duties on 
 these goods undoubtedly increased the cost of all similar 
 products grown in the United States, and so made higher 
 the cost of farmers' supplies. If the writer's memory 
 , serves him rightly, when duties were put on wool in 1897, 
 in less than a year's time the price went up ten cents a 
 pound, causing an advance in all goods into which wool 
 enters. In 1889 the export price of refined sugar is given 
 in the United States Statistical Reports as 7.6 cents per 
 pound. In 1890 the Eepublican party put sugar on the 
 free list and the export price fell in 1892 to 4.6 cents per 
 pound. About the same fall in price in sugar for those 
 years took place in the New York market. In 1894 and 
 1895 the price of hard granulated there was 4.12 cents a 
 pound. The duty was again put on, and in 1900 the price 
 i is given as 5.32 cents per pound. 
 
Agricultural Masses Not Protected. 
 
 These cases illustrate the effect of protection of such 
 goods as compose Class 2 upon the farmers of Class 3. 
 Where is there any compensation for the latter for the 
 loss that results! 
 
 Now as to the very limited extent of production in 
 these lines. The growth of semi-tropical fruits is con- 
 fined almost entirely to two states, California and Flor- 
 ida, and the total value of all such products in the United 
 States was but a little over $8,000,000, while the value of 
 all the agricultural crops of those two states is given as 
 over $106,000,000. The value of all the wool produced in 
 the United States that year, 1899, the time the census 
 figures for 1900 were made, was $45,723,000; lambs 
 under one year, $42,000,000. 
 
 Three states produce most of the rice — South Carolina, 
 Georgia and Louisiana. The total value is quite insignif- 
 icant in comparison with most farm crops — $6,329,000. 
 
 The tobacco crop was valued at $56,993,000; three 
 states— Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia— are 
 credited with $33,789,000 of this. 
 
 All that the farmers seem to get out of raising cane 
 and beets, etc., for the making of sugar is about $32,500,- 
 000; and a single state, Louisiana, produces nearly half 
 of this. Finally, the total value of all the wool, lambs, 
 semi-tropical fruits, tobacco, rice, sugar and sugar mate- 
 rial produced in 1899 (Continental U. S.), farm value, 
 was not far from $192,000,000, which was a little more 
 than 4:7c of all the value of our agricultural products. 
 Yet from this narrow field the government gathered from 
 importations in 1900 over $80,000,000 revenue money. 
 (In 1906, $94,000,000.) Of this a large portion over 
 $57,000,000 in 1900 came from duties upon sugar. 
 
 The exportations of products of Class 2 were only to 
 
 / 
 
28 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 the amount of $42,137,000, and of this over $29,000,000 
 came from tobacco. The total value of Class 2 imported 
 into the United States in 1900 was $146,908,000, or 34.97% 
 of all agricultural imports. 
 
 Duties are nominally levied on all agricultural prod- 
 ucts that are similar to those produced in the United 
 States when these enter our ports. Cotton is the most 
 important if not the only exception. But what has chiefly 
 given color to the view that agricultural interests were 
 protected has been this 4% interest. The producers of 
 this insignificant fraction of agricultural production, 
 such as are mentioned in Class 2, have made noise enough 
 to be what they have represented themselves to be, the 
 agricultural community. In this respect they resemble 
 that interesting but not very valuable creature, the coy- 
 ote or prairie wolf. It is said -when a few of these are 
 around a camp, the volume and variety of sound is so 
 great that a tenderfoot can hardly be convinced that he is 
 not surrounded bv a multitude. It is a case where the 
 tail seems to wag the dog. 
 
 Outside Class 2, who ever heard of farmers organized 
 to advance their interests in the political field! The two 
 of these most heard from are the growers of wool and 
 tobacco. The latter received greater public attention in 
 1902 from the resignation of the President of its associa- 
 tion, Mr. Frey. The selfish near-sightedness of his asso- 
 ciates concerning tariff legislation was more than he 
 could endure. 
 
 For many years the wool-growers have made them- 
 selves felt in Congress, undoubtedly making a greater 
 uproar over their sheep interests than has been made by 
 all other farmers put together. These men are respon- 
 sible, by reason of high duties on raw wool, for more than 
 
Agricultural Masses Not Protected. 29 
 
 half the outrageous rates of duties levied on manufac- 
 tures of woolen, the average rate in 1900 being over 91%. 
 
 Class 3. The Unprotected. These imports, as far as 
 they go, are similar to those produced by the great mass 
 of farmers. This division of farmers includes all en- 
 gaged in agriculture that are not indicated in the small 
 circle of Class 2. Let us try to realize something of the 
 vast interests and persons this division represents. The 
 value of their products in 1899, census year, was $4,717,- 
 069,973 less the value of products of the farmers indi- 
 cated in Class 2, $192,000,000. The division includes 
 those who grow the great grain crops, corn, wheat, oats 
 and barley ; all those engaged in the raising or fattening 
 of horses, cattle and hogs ; the producers of hay and for- 
 age, of cotton, of apples, small fruits, and vegetables; 
 also the persons engaged in the dairy, poultry and eggs 
 business, together with the growers of many other kinds 
 of products of minor importance. We should say that 
 the farmers whose chief interest lay in this direction 
 would number over 5,000,000 or a total of 5,700,000. 
 
 The total sum of agricultural imports reported by the 
 Department of Agriculture for 1900 was $120,139,288. 
 About 83% of these have been accounted for, and so far 
 no protection has been discovered for the agricultural 
 masses. Whatever there is must come in this the remain- 
 ing 17%. The value of imports. Class 3, was only $71,612,- 
 000, and of this amount $32,853,000 was on the free list, 
 leaving the value of the dutied portion but $38,759,000. 
 
 The matter sifts down to this: that the agricultural 
 masses, save a small fraction of 4%, were protected only 
 to the extent of less than one-tenth of the total importa- 
 tion of agricultural products in 1900. 
 
 The table given in this chapter shows clearly what the 
 
30 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 imports of Class 3 are, with the exception of two con- 
 densed items. The first of these is "Other animal mat- 
 ter." The products that chiefly make up this item are 
 bristles, crude; feathers and down, crude; hair; glue; 
 hide cuttings and other glue stock; grease; bones and 
 hoofs. "Other vegetable matter" is the second con- 
 densed item. Its parts are made up principally of hay, 
 hops, nursery stock and seed. 
 
 How pitifully small the value of the importations of 
 Class 3 look when compared with home production. The 
 former seem little more than a drop in a full bucket. 
 "Animals alive, not including sheep, "imports $3,166,000; 
 value of the same in the United States, $3,022,975,000. 
 "Meat products," imports $1,215,000; value slaughtered 
 in the year the census was taken, 1899, nearly $190,000,- 
 000. " Breadstuff s," imported $1,804,000; grown in the 
 United States in one year $1,478,000,000. "Dairy prod- 
 ucts," imports $1,814,000; produced in the United States 
 $472,000,000. And so on throughout the list. What pos- 
 sible effect could the slight values imported have? 
 
 Note how insignificant is the revenue derived by gov- 
 ernment from importations of Class 3 in 1900 : animals, 
 in round numbers, $883,000; breadstuffs, $377,000; pro- 
 visions, including meat and dairy products, $920,000; 
 vegetables, $1,042,000. Compare with these figures the 
 revenue derived from the importation of manufactured 
 goods : cotton in 1900, $22,000,000 ; iron and steel, $7,800,- 
 000; leather and manufactures of, $4,600,000; woolen 
 goods, $14,000,000. The revenue derived by government 
 from all manufactured goods imported ready for con- 
 sumption was between $90,000,000 and $100,000,000. 
 
 With the facts before us showing to what an extremely 
 small extent protection is thrown over the articles pro- 
 
Agricultural Masses Not Protected. 31 
 
 duced by tlie great mass of our farmers, liow absurd 
 sounds the question propounded by Mr. McKinley: ^'Do 
 the agriculturists want all duties removed and their prod- 
 ucts driven from this market!'' 
 
 But it will be said that the insignificant amount of 
 imports of Class 3 comes from these being barred out by 
 the tariff system. Duties, however, of far higher rates 
 do not prevent large importations of manufactured 
 goods. The explanation here is that the prices of manu- 
 factured goods in this country have been lifted to a high 
 artificial elevation, this giving opportunity for similar 
 goods coming in over high tariff bars. The case of agri- 
 cultural products. Class 3, is entirely different. Here 
 the current of trade flows in great volume outward. Over 
 $761,000,000 of these products found a market beyond 
 our shores in 1900, nearlv twentv times the size of the 
 dutied inflow. More than half of this great value goes to 
 Great Britain. What is the significance of this! Great 
 Britain is the centre of the world's market for such prod- 
 ucts and they are freely admitted to her ports. Here the 
 farmer of the United States, of Canada, of South Amer- 
 ica, of Australia, of Africa, and of Europe all come in 
 competition. With what result! That the United States 
 farmer successfully competes for the trade of Great Brit- 
 ain to the extent annually of from $300,000,000 to $400,- 
 000,000. The other half of these agricultural exports 
 from the United States goes to nations where in almost, 
 if not every case, the home farmer is protected by high 
 duties. Now if these products in vast quantities can be 
 carried abroad 1000, 2000, 3000 miles, and at much ex- 
 pense and with every disadvantage successfully compete, 
 how can the foreigner with the additional expense of 
 seeking a market here drive our farmers from the home 
 market under free trade conditions! 
 
32 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 If there is any nation in position to compete with our 
 farmers, it is Canada; and it is from here that most of 
 our agricultural imports of Class 3 come, with the excep- 
 tion of hides and cotton. To show how absurd is fear of 
 the Canadian farmer, we give the totals of the various 
 agricultural products imported from and exported to 
 Canada for the year ending June 30, 1906 : 
 
 United States Ageicultukal Tkade with Canada. 
 
 
 Imports from 
 
 Exports to 
 
 
 Canada. 
 
 Canada. 
 
 Animals, 
 
 $1,710,386 
 
 $4,703,682 
 
 Breadstuffs, 
 
 384,691 
 
 5,525,081 
 
 Cotton, unmanufactured, 
 
 9,970 
 
 7,778,767 
 
 Fruits and nuts, 
 
 230,902 
 
 1,741,919 
 
 Hay, 
 
 501,849 
 
 93,141 
 
 Hides and skins, other than fur skins. 
 
 3,479.450 
 
 101,565 
 
 ;\Ieat and dairy products, 
 
 84,166 
 
 3,095,168 
 
 Seeds, 
 
 826,900 
 
 1,128.234 
 
 Tobacco, leaf, 
 
 208,013 
 
 1,379,734 
 
 Vegetables, 
 
 529,675 
 
 95,694 
 
 Totals, $7,966,002 $25,642,985 
 
 Here it is seen the American farmer is sending three 
 times the value of products to Canada that the Canadian 
 farmer is sending to the United States. Over $25,000,000 
 worth of our agricultural products cross the line and are 
 sold in the Canadian's home market. Most if not all of 
 these, we believe, pay a Canadian duty. If they can be 
 sold there, with a tax the Canadian farmer does not have 
 to pay, why does the farmer of the United States need to 
 be protected from the Canadian farmer in our markets? 
 
 Since writing the above it has occurred to the mind of 
 the writer that opponents might urge that the story of a 
 single year's imports and exports was insufficient data to 
 
Agricultural Masses Not Protected. 33 
 
 establish what is claimed. This objection is met by giv- 
 ing the result of the classification of agricultural imports 
 for the year ending June 30, 1906, made from the Year 
 Book of the Department of Agriculture of that date. 
 ^'Forest products'' are not included in this classification; 
 these were not returned in the Year Book of 1901 as agri- 
 cultural imports and exports. This is a recent innova- 
 tion. We give the totals in round numbers : 
 
 Class 1. Non-competing imports, $246,159,000 44% 
 
 Class 2. Protected imports, 158,238,000 28% 
 
 Class 3. Competing imports, 103,901,000 19% 
 
 Manufactured imports, 48,792,000 
 
 The agricultural import trade with foreign lands was 
 far larger than in 1900, but the percentage of each class 
 varies hut little from the percentage found in 1900. And 
 so we are sure will be the result, no matter what year is 
 examined. 
 
 It is not the taritf that protects the farmer. He needs 
 no protection from outside competition, for he can pro- 
 duce cheaper than his foreign rivals. 
 
 To sum up the lesson of the chapter : (a) In 1900 the 
 dutied imports similar to those produced by the great 
 mass of farmers comprised less than one-tenth of the 
 total of agricultural importations, (b) Imports of agri- 
 cultural products. Class 3, have not been kept out by the 
 tariff. Where the great current of trade flows outward 
 the most exorbitant rates of duties can have no effect. 
 
34 The Tariff and the Fanner. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Less Foreigx Demand for Agricultural Products. 
 
 AVe have met and refuted the claim that farmers profit 
 bv "protection." "We now advance to the next position, 
 which is that the system is most disastrous to agricul- 
 tnral interests. 
 
 In the United States the trade interests of agriculture 
 and manufacture are antagonistic in the highest degree. 
 This must be the case from the industrial relations they 
 bear to each other. The farmer buvs what the manu- 
 facturer produces and sells, and those engaged in manu- 
 facture buy what the farmer produces and sells. Here 
 is a double relation — each buvs of the other and sells to 
 the other. When from the foundation of the world 
 were the trade interests of buver and seller ever the 
 same? 
 
 In this chapter we consider the effect of protection 
 upon the farmer's foreign market. 
 
 The famous report of Secretary Walker made in 18-15 
 bears upon this point. The following quotations are from 
 that document: ''It seems strange that while the profit 
 on agriculture varies from 1 to 8%, that of manufacture 
 is more than double. The reason is that whilst the high 
 duties secure nearly a monopoly of the home market to 
 the manufacturer, the farmer and planter are deprived 
 to a great extent of the foreign market by those duties. 
 The farmer and planter are to a great extent forbidden 
 to buy in the foreign market and confined to the domestic 
 
Less Foreign Demand for Products. 35 
 
 articles enlianced in price by tlie duties." "The farmer 
 and planter are asked to sacrifice the markets of the 
 world, containing a population of eight hundred mil- 
 lions." 
 
 Mr. Stanwood in his book, ''American Tariff Contro- 
 versies in the Nineteenth Century, ' ' quotes the above and 
 much more, and disputes the position. In closing his re- 
 marks, which seem to us weak and lacking in i^oint, he 
 adds, "If this view of the subject be accepted, it follows 
 that the tariff affected in no wav the amount of Ameri- 
 can produce which could be or was sold abroad; and the 
 allegation of Secretary Walker that it had a tendency to 
 exclude the farmer and planter from the foreign market 
 falls." 
 
 Taking the export record, let us see whose allegation 
 falls, and also whose view is sustained in later years. 
 
 From 1827 to 1831, inclusive, the per cent, imposed on 
 dutiable imports averaged higher than any other five con- 
 secutive years in our history up to 1865, the per cent. 
 being 42.9. Domestic exports (merchandise, consisting 
 chiefly of agricultural products) were valued in round 
 numbers for those years, respectively, as follows : 
 $57,800,000, $49,900,000, $55,100,000, $58,500,000, and 
 $59,200,000. The gain under the high duties is barely 
 perceptible. 
 
 In 1833 the compromise tariff act went into effect with 
 its reduction in the rates of duties, and at once the value 
 of exports rapidly increased. In three years, in 1836, the 
 amount rose to $106,200,000. For two years the panic of 
 1837 caused a fall in value, but the four years that suc- 
 ceeded these show an annual average of $102,000,000; 
 a vast increase in value over the exportations of 1827- 
 1831. 
 
36 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 Then came tlie higher duties of the protective tariff of 
 1842-46, when exports annually averaged about $94,000,- 
 000. 
 
 But under the low revenue duties of the tariffs of 1846 
 and 1857 the value of exjjorts bounded up from $101,700,- 
 000 in 1846 to $316,200,000 in 1860— a most marvelous 
 increase; a percentage of gain in trade which our com- 
 merce has rarely, if ever, matched. AVith the export 
 record before him, how could Mr. Stanwood come to the 
 conclusion he did! 
 
 That most of this gain was in agricultural products is 
 evident from data furnished by the American Almanac 
 for 1888, page 26: "Total exports of agricultural prod- 
 ucts," 1850, $123,800,000; 1860, $295,000,000. Of these 
 values raw cotton comprised the chief part, in the former 
 year nearly $72,000,000 and in the latter about $192,000,- 
 000. In the exportations of 1850-60 the products of the 
 West cut a comparatively small tigure. Her great stores 
 of provisions, which in later years swelled to vast pro- 
 portions, at this period were but little drawn upon. The 
 railroad system had penetrated but a small part of her 
 territory. 
 
 T'lien came the Civil War with its interruption of busi- 
 ness, chauging the channels of industry. The young men 
 were swept from the farms into the army and into the 
 manufacturing centres. The South could no longer send 
 its cotton abroad. The country could but little more than 
 supply its own demands for provisions for man and 
 beast. For these reasons the value of agricultural exports 
 for several years was at a low point. Nor for some years 
 after 1870 had agriculture so far recovered from the 
 effects of the war — the destruction and demoralization 
 wrought at the South, and the high prices caused by the 
 
Less Foreign Demand for Products. 37 
 
 desertion of the farms for the army and for the large 
 rewards reaped in the manufacturing centres — as to per- 
 mit of drawing fair conckisions in regard to the export 
 
 trade. 
 
 Still another phase has to be taken into account in 
 drawing such conclusions; we indicate this by the ques- 
 tion—when did retaliatory tariffs begin to operate? 
 
 "The Statesman's Year Book of 1902," page 588, says, 
 "Since 1879 Germany has been protectionist in her com- 
 mercial policy." "Commerce and Navigation of the 
 United States, 1893," page 111, shows that France began 
 to increase the rate of duties on wheat in 1883. For a 
 few preceding years they had been at about 2%. These 
 were now increased year by year until in 1888 they stood 
 
 at 22.81%. 
 
 Mr. D. A. Wells in his "Economic Changes" states 
 that "Russia commenced raising her duties on imports in 
 1877, and has continued to do so until the Eussian tariff 
 at the present time" (book copyrighted in 1889) "is in a 
 great degree prohibitory. " " Italy and Austria-Hungary 
 entered upon their reactionary policy in 1878 ; Germany 
 
 in 1879; France in 1881 ; the Dominion of Canada in 
 
 1879 and 1887 ; Belgium and Brazil in 1887." Mr. 
 
 Wells says, "As the existing restrictions on commercial 
 intercourse within recent years have not been all imposed 
 at one time, but progressively, and as their influence has 
 accordingly been gradual, the world does not seem to 
 have as yet fully appreciated the extent to which the ex- 
 change of products between nations has been thereby 
 interrupted or destroyed. Germany, by repeated enact- 
 ments since 1879, has imposed almost prohibitory duties 
 on the importation of wheat. Belgium prevents the im- 
 portation of cattle and meat ; France, of pork and pork 
 
38 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 products." ^^Tlie avowed policy of the United States has 
 for years been to prohibit or obstruct trade on the part 
 of her citizens, in respect to many articles, with the citi- 
 zens of all foreign countries ; and with this examjDle, and 
 in part from a spirit of retaliation, there can be no doubt 
 that the objective of much of the restrictive commercial 
 legislation of other countries in recent years has been the 
 United States — a policy which has notably affected the 
 agricultural supremacy of the latter country in the 
 world's markets; the exports from the United States, 
 comparing 1888 with 1881, of cattle, having declined 24.5 
 in quantity and 19% in value: of hog products 43.3 in 
 value, and of dairy products over 50% in value. The de- 
 cline in the value of the exi3orts of the United States to 
 France has been especially noteworthy, namely, from a 
 value of $99,000,000 in 1880 to $40,000,000 in 1886, and 
 $37,780,000 in 1888." 
 
 From these quotations from D. A. Weils and other 
 authorities it is evident that about 1880 the nations began 
 to pay us back in our own coin. In 1880 and 1881 the 
 exportations of agricultural products were unusually 
 large, so it seems more fair to take the average value of 
 six years as a basis for computation. The average of the 
 years 1878 to 1883, inclusive, is $620,000,000. Glancing 
 along the record from 1880 it is seen that only six times 
 was this value of agricultural exports exceeded clear up 
 to 1898. These years were 1881, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1894 
 and 1897. The average value of the six years 1892-1897, 
 inclusive, was about $641,000,000; the last year, 1897, 
 $683,000,000 ; in 1880, $685,000,000. Under low rates of 
 duties, 1850-1860, eleven years, the percentage of gain in 
 agricultural exports was 138%. In eighteen or twenty 
 years of high protective duties hardly any gain in value 
 
Less Foreign Demand for Products. 39 
 
 at all. To this time no reference is made in Eepublican 
 platforms ; but when, after 1897, for several years came a 
 great increase in the volume of agricultural exports, pro- 
 tectionists credited the result to their system. If the fat 
 years were due to this system, why not the lean years? 
 Can the different results be laid to unpropitious events? 
 Let the man who denies that the tariff affects the export- 
 ation of agricultural products answer. 
 
 Mr. Stanwood says: ''Now one of the most striking 
 developments of the quarter of a century from 1870 to 
 1895 was a vast extension of the area of production, and 
 consequently of the markets for buying and selling. Yet 
 this extension was only an intermediate cause of the 
 great economic and industrial upheaval. It was itself 
 caused, or at least made possible, by an increase in the 
 means of communication to a degree never witnessed in 
 any like period of the world's history. A statement that 
 the tonnage of steam shipping engaged in international 
 trade increased more than five-fold in the twenty-five 
 years is impressive ; but it fails to convey an idea of the 
 enlarged facilities for the transportation of the products 
 of all the continents to the wholesale marts of Europe 
 and America. " ' ' Consider what has taken place on land, 
 particularly in this country. The railroad mileage of the 
 United States was more than tripled during the period. 
 What is more important, the mileage of the northern 
 states and territories west of the Missouri increased 
 from 12,000 to 78,000 miles. It is not an exaggeration to 
 say that the few trunk railway lines which constituted the 
 entire mileage of that vast region in 1870 would have 
 been of little value in bringing to market the produce of 
 the region had it been inhabited by a producing com- 
 munity. But in the ensuing quarter century so much of 
 
40 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 the region as is capable of raising surplus crops lias been 
 covered with a network of railways, giving ever-increas- 
 ing facilities in the number and speed of trains, and aug- 
 mented benefits in the form of greatly reduced freight 
 charges. The result has been a rapid settlement of the 
 countrv. That now covered bv the fourteen states of the 
 great Northwest, from Kansas to Washington, had an 
 aggregate population of less than two millions in 1870; 
 in 1890 they had more than seven millions ; m 1900 nearly 
 nine millions." 
 
 ''The settlement of the agricultural land of the North- 
 west has brought about a greatly augmented production 
 of food, a shifting of the centre of food production, and a 
 new competition in food markets. Accompanying and 
 promoting these results has been a prodigious increase 
 in the efficiencv and the use of asTicultural machinerv." 
 
 Most of the above description of the changes that took 
 place from 1870 to 1900 on land relates to only fourteen 
 states. Mr. Stanwood does not here refer to the great 
 changes that took place in many others of what old- 
 fashioned folks still call western states, those east of the 
 Mississippi Eiver, or to the southern states. Concerning 
 the latter, now included in the two general divisions of 
 south Atlantic and south central states, it used to be 
 said that it was mainly devoted to the raising of cotton. 
 Now, not only has the highest quantity of cotton raised 
 before the war been doubled, but, besides, agricultural 
 produce, consisting of corn, wheat, oats, hay and forage, 
 meat, vegetables, tobacco, orchard and forest products, 
 etc., are raised to the value of $984,000,000, a sum some- 
 thing less than three times the value of cotton produced 
 in 1899. 
 
 In regard to facilities for producing crops and trans- 
 
Less Foreign Demand for Products. 41 
 
 porting mercliandise, as concerns most products, it is 
 evident the change was so great as to present the appear- 
 ance of a new world since the time 1850-60. The average 
 cost of sending a bushel of wheat from Chicago to New 
 York in 1858, all way by rail, is given as over thirty-eight 
 cents. In 1870 the charge was twenty-six cents; in 1898 
 but twelve cents. This means a large further reduction 
 in cost of getting grain from the farms to Chicago. In- 
 stead of at some times and in some places burning corn 
 for fuel because the cost of reaching the market was too 
 great, the surplus is now sent on for consumption. In- 
 stead of corn, oats, and the refuse of wheat after the 
 flour has been extracted being the main reliance at the 
 West in the feeding of live stock, hay now is largely sub- 
 stituted. The production of dairy products to a great 
 extent, of vegetables and of fruits, has lessened per capita 
 the consumption of wheat and meat by the western peo- 
 ple. In these various ways the surplus of exportable 
 products has been largely increased. 
 
 Now with all the changes that have taken place, the 
 vast increase in area of production, and in the number 
 of persons so engaged, with much improved appliances; 
 with cost of carriage from the farms to Chicago, from 
 Chicago to New York, and from New York to Liverpool 
 greatly decreased, it is exceedingly strange that from 
 1878-1883 to 1892-1897 there was almost no increase in 
 the value of total agricultural exports ! 
 
 Again, Mr. Stanwood says that the idea is erroneous 
 '^that sentiments, national friendliness, a desire for reci- 
 procity, rather than necessity, price, and hard-headed 
 business considerations, regulate the purchases of a na- 
 tion, particularly purchases of articles of food. Accord- 
 ing to modern ways of trade, the person who sells flour 
 
42 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 or cotton or pork to be sent abroad is rarely or never the 
 person who buys silk or wine or crockery to be imported. 
 They are not only not the same persons but they have no 
 business relations with each other, and their several acts 
 are not mutually dependent, since neither knows what the 
 other has done, is doing, or is about to do. Each trans- 
 acts his own business. The one sells what he can and 
 receives a foreign credit which he sells to a banker ; the 
 other buys what he thinks he can sell at a profit, and buys 
 a foreign credit with which to pay for his purchases. 
 The aggregate is the foreign trade of the country and is 
 the resultant of a great number and a great variety of 
 individual acts, each dictated by the selfish motive of the 
 person performing it, and in no sense and to no degree 
 by a consideration of the public welfare." 
 
 No exceptions are taken to these statements, but the 
 bearing on the point he is striving to maintain is not very 
 obvious : namely, that excessive taxation of imports has 
 no ''tendency to exclude the farmer and planter from 
 foreign markets." Those who know much about foreign 
 trade are well aware that it is between the individuals of 
 different nations, each moved by the desire of gain and 
 with no regard for the "public welfare." As he says, 
 "hard-headed business considerations regulate the pur- 
 chases of a nation." Now what are these "hard-headed 
 business considerations" which determine the direction 
 that foreign trade will take ? An exporter of our agricul- 
 tural products studies the situation. He ascertains as 
 nearly as possible what price the article he has to offer 
 will bring in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, or 
 at any point to which he has a mind to send. .The various 
 items of cost involved in exporting are computed. In 
 this reckoning the very largest item of cost may be the 
 
Less Foreign Demand for Products. 43 
 
 duties levied on such goods, which are imports in other 
 lands. This item may exceed all other costs put together, 
 and be so large as to cause a certain loss if such goods 
 are sent to some nations. The exporter's examination of 
 tariff charges will show that all, or nearly all nations, 
 save the United Kingdom, impose duties on American 
 products, often to the point of prohibition. In conse- 
 quence, that small free trade country, hardly more than 
 a spot in extent on the world's big map, annually takes 
 half or more of our agricultural exports. Is not this fact 
 strong, presumptive evidence that these hostile tariffs of 
 other lands (generally recognized as retaliatory for our 
 own high duties) exclude our farmers' products from 
 those nations! 
 
 Mark, too, the effect that the free trade s^^stem has had 
 on the industry of the United Kingdom. Agriculture in 
 consequence has become unprofitable. To a large extent 
 the people have been driven into manufacture or into 
 mercantile pursuits. In other words, free trade has 
 given our farmers a far larger market there, and the 
 same cause would produce similar results in other na- 
 tions. 
 
 There is another ''hard-headed business considera- 
 tion" which causes a loss of trade to our farmers. When 
 the exporter of any foreign land is determining with 
 what country he will have dealings, he is likely to find 
 that some grades of every class of manufactured goods 
 cannot be sent to the United States because of our heavy 
 taxation of imports. A market is found for this portion 
 in other joarts of the world. Often this will be an agri- 
 cultural country. Well, when the cargo is discharged the 
 next step is to load for the return voyage. Whether that 
 foreign exporter is in the United Kingdom, or in France, 
 
44 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 or Germany, the first-named country is right in the path 
 of the vessel on the return trip. And as that nation is 
 the world's market for agricultural products, this class 
 of merchandise is likely to furnish a return cargo. So 
 far as this is made up of products similar to those pro- 
 duced by our farmers, we lose such trade. Thus in the 
 three ways indicated agricultural trade has been, and is, 
 sacrificed to increase the profits of manufacture by the 
 protective system. It would not be strange if European 
 trade, driven off from our shores bv excessive duties, 
 had done more to develop agriculture in South America, 
 Australia and other foreign lands than all other influ- 
 ences put together. 
 
 How an}^ one can believe that the heavy taxation of 
 foreign imports will not affect our export trade, the 
 larger portion of which consists of agricultural products, 
 is beyond comprehension. Surely, it is impossible to be- 
 lieve that a tax which averages 50% will not shut out 
 much merchandise from our ports which would otherwise 
 enter; and if our tariff has such effect, how can the retal- 
 iatory tariffs of other countries, aimed especially, as they 
 usually are, against our exports, imports in other lands, 
 fail to have the same effect upon products we would send 
 there? It is unreasonable to think otherwise. The 
 trouble in perception comes from the fact that it is not 
 the manufacturer's bull that is goaded. Were it his bull, 
 not a moment would be lost. Action would at once be 
 taken. 
 
 It remains to explain the great expansion in agricul- 
 tural exportations in recent years. That it is not due to 
 high duties is obvious ; for if so, how can it be accounted 
 for that under practically the same heavy taxation of 
 importation there was little if anv advance from 1878- 
 
Less Foreign Demand for Products. 45 
 
 1883 to 1892-1897! It is pretty evident that while Mr. 
 StaiiTvoocl combats the idea that high duties do not lessen 
 the exportations of agricultural products, on the other 
 hand he does not believe that these increase such export- 
 ations : for strange to say he ascribes the prosperity of 
 recent years chiefly to other causes than the protective 
 system. Listen to this: ''The political conditions under 
 which the act of 1897 (Dingley Act) was passed and the 
 commercial and industrial conditions that have pre- 
 vailed during the years it has been in operation have been 
 as favorable to its success as those conditions which ap- 
 plied to the two preceding acts were unfavorable." 
 
 Again he says: ''MeanwhiJe, prosperity had returned 
 to the country. Good crops, an ample market, and high 
 prices rewarded the efforts of the farmers, and enabled 
 them to pay off a portion of their indebtedness which 
 they had been tempted to wipe off with a silver sponge. 
 Every avenue of commerce was crowded ; every industry 
 was full of activity; every branch of trade felt the im- 
 pulse of good times. In 1897 the country was ready for 
 a season of great prosperity. The industrial revolution 
 alreadv mentioned as a check to activitv was substan 
 tially completed. The uncertainty as to the monetary 
 standard was dispelled. In short, all things were made 
 easy for the success of the tariff. The act of 1897 did not 
 make prosperity possible, nor did it create prosperity. 
 Undoubted Iv it added largelv to the benefits the countrv 
 would have enjoyed had the act of 1894 been undisturbed. 
 After all, it is a truism — a narrow. margin separates suc- 
 cess from failure. In a business enterprise, when once 
 the margin is on the right side, every addition is wholly 
 profit. It cannot be doubted that the Dingley Act gave 
 an enormous increment to the profits of American com- 
 
46 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 merce and labor, which would, in any event, probably 
 have been satisfactory/' 
 
 It is a wonderful thing, perhaps without a precedent, 
 that a protectionist should claim so little as due to the 
 system he upholds. But it is evident that the change of 
 conditions taking his own statements was so great that 
 these alone were amply sufficient to account for the 
 greater prosperity and the larger exportations. 
 
 A change to far more favorable industrial conditions 
 at home must invariably result, other things being equal, 
 in a large increase in foreign trade, both in importations 
 and exportations. This would account for no inconsider- 
 able gain in agricultural exports. What had still greater 
 effect was the larger crops of exportable products raised 
 in the United States. Thus, in wheat, the annual average 
 number of bushels produced since 1896 was about 80,000,- 
 000 bushels more than the average of that year and the 
 three preceding years. The annual average gain in corn 
 for the same years, about 426,000,000 bushels ; of oats, 
 46,000,000 bushels; of pounds of cotton, 1,247,000,000. 
 These computations are in round numbers, but are near 
 enough to convey a good idea of the gain made in produc- 
 tion in recent years. 
 
 On the other hand, the wheat crop of Europe annually 
 averaged something like 55,000,000 bushels less for the 
 five years from 1897 to 1901 than the three preceding 
 years, 1894-1896. 
 
 Besides this, we apprehend that the continuous fall in 
 price of these products ever since war times, until they 
 have reached a level far below what tliev were before the 
 war, has had much to do with the increase in exporta- 
 tions ; for it is a well-known fact that low prices stimulate 
 consumption ; in other words, far more persons can afford 
 
Less Foreign Demand for Products. 47 
 
 to buy and use an article when it is low in price. It would 
 seem that this rule would be particularly applicable with 
 foreigners, the rate of whose wages is much below our 
 own. 
 
 If to what has gone before is added the strong prob- 
 ability that the low jDrices and abundance of American 
 products to a considerable extent displaced in the Euro- 
 pean markets the exports of other nations, and very likely 
 even of European farmers, it would seem that ample 
 explanation had been made for the large increase in our 
 agricultural exports in recent years. Back in 1890 Mr. 
 McKinlev said, when the tariff that bears his name was 
 under discussion : ' ' The depression of agriculture is not 
 confined to the United States. The reports of the Agri- 
 cultural Department indicate that this distress is general, 
 that Great Britain, France and G-ermany are suffering 
 in a greater degree than the farmer of the United States." 
 This distress was partly due to full crops in Europe, but 
 more, we think, to the low level of American prices, which 
 even then were below those of the "pauper labor of 
 Europe." But most of our exports were at still lower 
 figures in 1898-1901. 
 
 This is the way the record stands : with low duties a 
 gain in agricultural exports of 138% in eleven years; 
 this, too, when the vast West had but just begun to con- 
 tribute to the result. Under high duties, after retaliatory 
 tariffs got in their destructive work the gain in five-year 
 periods from 1878-1882 to 1899-1903, twenty-two years, 
 twice the former time, was 38%, at the very time when 
 the great volume of western products was rapidly in- 
 creasing, and the cost of transportation had been greatly 
 reduced. 
 
 In closing, the following table not only indicates where 
 
48 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 most of our principal agricultural exports go, but also 
 how large a portion of the recent increase was taken by 
 the free trade nation. The values given represent in 
 round numbers the aggregate of these exports : wheat 
 and wheat flour; corn; beef: canned, fresh, salted, 
 pickled ; pork : salted, fresh, pickled ; tallow ; lard ; bacon, 
 and hams ; dairy products ; cattle, horses and sheep ; cot- 
 ton, and tobacco. 
 
 Exports 1896 1901 Gain 
 
 United Kingdom, $297,100,000 $450,700,000 $153,600,000 
 
 France. 27,000,000 42,800.000 15,800,000 
 
 Germanv, 62.600.000 124.400.000 61,800,000 
 
 All Europe, 451.100,000 734,400,000 283.300,000 
 
 All nations, 505,700.000 807.400.000 301,700,000 
 
 All nations minus Europe, 54,500,000 73,000,000 18,500.000 
 
 Taking out cotton and tobacco, the export record of 
 above products stands thus : 
 
 1896 1901 Gain or Loss. 
 
 United Kingdom, $195,800,000 $294,800,000 +99,000,000 
 
 France, 4.900,000 4,800,000 —100,000 
 
 Germanv. 16.800,000 44,400.000 +27,600,000 
 
 All Europe, 244,800,000 407,100,000 +162,300,000 
 
 All nations, 291,200,000 466,300,000 +175,100,000 
 All nations minus 
 
 Europe, 46,300,000 59,100,000 12,800,000 
 
 It is seen that of these products, including cotton and 
 tobacco, the little free trade nation takes much more than 
 half of all that we export; in other words, more than all 
 the rest of the big world. What a demand there would be 
 for our farmers' products if all the world were open like 
 the United Kingdom to our trade ! That the world is not 
 so open is due more to our high protective system than to 
 anv other cause. 
 
Less Foreign Demand Intensifies Home Competition, 49 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Less. Fokeign Demand Intensifies Home Competition 
 
 AND Lowers Price. 
 
 With low duties the gain in value in exportations of 
 agricultural products was rapid and continuous; under 
 high duties the movement was fitful — now a loss, then a 
 gain, on the whole for twenty-two years nearly at a stand- 
 still. The stagnation in the latter case was more sur- 
 prising bcause conditions in regard to production and 
 transportation were in the highest degree favorable for 
 a brilliant record in the export trade. The one hindrance 
 to such success, the all-pervading influence of which was 
 felt at every seaport in the United States, was the high 
 protective system, which lay like a rock in the way of all 
 our commerce. Such were the facts established in the 
 preceding chapter. We are now to consider the effect 
 upon agriculture of a greatly restricted market. 
 
 In the industrial world it is recognized that the wider, 
 the larger the market for a product, other things being 
 equal, the higher will be the price. To limit the market 
 produces the same effect as to increase the supply; and 
 where supply is increased, demand remaining the same, a 
 lower price results. Here we have the position of the 
 American farmer whose market abroad is restricted by 
 our high duties. To a great extent, products that under 
 free conditions would have gone abroad, have remained 
 here, intensifying competition, and causing price to fall 
 to a low level. 
 
 The opposite of what has been said concerning the 
 
 4 
 
50 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 effect of an increase in supply is true, which is : decreas- 
 ing the supply, demand remaining the same, increases 
 the price. So essential is it considered by great manu- 
 facturing corporations to get rid of a superfluity in order 
 to sustain their bloated prices here, that it is said that 
 their surplus products are disposed of in England regard- 
 less of cost. We present views of prominent friends of 
 these corporations. Here is what Mr. John P. Young, 
 who has long been managing editor of the San Francisco 
 Chronicle, a staunch protectionist, has to say as regards 
 the effect of dumping a surplus on Great Britain. The 
 trouble with industry there is "chiefly because the for- 
 eigners who export to G-reat Britain are resorting to 
 methods which permit them to maintain prices at home 
 by dumping their surplus on the one country which still 
 consents to be made the victim of the practice." ''It is 
 the common custom to dispose of surplus stocks without 
 reference to the cost of production. In the United States 
 this was done for many years in a bungling fashion ; but 
 a leaf was taken out of British experience, and American 
 manufacturers now seek to market their surpluses with- 
 out breaking home prices. They learned the hitter lessoyi 
 that the surplus ichen dumped on the domestic (home) 
 market fixed the price ivithout reference to the cost of the 
 product/' Again Mr. Young: "The idea is now gener- 
 ally entertained by workingmen in the United States, and 
 it is shared by those of Germany, that excessive compe- 
 tition in the home market is destructive to home in- 
 dustry/' 
 
 Our politicians are most profoundly impressed with 
 the importance of getting rid of surpluses away from 
 home. For our manufacturers they seem to regard it as 
 a matter of life and death. Why should not the same 
 
Less Foreign Demand Intensifies Home Competition, 51 
 
 principle apply to agricultural products! Senator Bev- 
 eridge, at Cincinnati, in October, 1902, is reported to 
 have said: ''And so you see that the little puff of agita- 
 tion for unconditional tariff reduction is born of unrea- 
 son and nurtured by a thoughtless disregard of the sale 
 of our surplus upon ivhicli our whole prosperity de- 
 pends.'' 
 
 Here we have an expression from Senator Hoar of 
 Massachusetts, taken from the Boston Journal: "We 
 are sending our products abroad. We expect to send our 
 products abroad in larger degree. A prosperous manu- 
 facturing country that sends its products abroad ivill 
 alivays, if it is to remain prosperous, get higher prices 
 for its product at home than it does abroad. In other 
 words, it dumps its surplus in foreign markets. Lord 
 Brougham stated that very powerfully more than fifty 
 years ago. He declared in his speech that the English 
 manufacturers held their foreign markets by their power 
 of breaking down foreign competition by underselling 
 them with their own surplus, which they could not sell 
 at home."' 
 
 The effect of disposing of a surplus in the home mar- 
 ket is indicated in these words of D. A. Wells: "If pro- 
 duction exceeds, by even a very small percentage, what 
 is required to meet every current demand for con- 
 sumption, the price which the surplus will command in 
 the open market will govern and control the price of the 
 whole ; and if it cannot be sold at all, or with difficulty, an 
 intense competition on the part of the owners of accumu- 
 lated stocks to sell will be engendered, with a great reduc- 
 tion or annihilation of all profit."^ 
 
 The agricultural situation after 1880, the time already 
 
 1 <( 
 
 Recent Economic Changes," page 78. 
 
52 The Tariff arid the Farmer. 
 
 noted when the effect of retaliatory tariffs began to be 
 felt, very closely resembles this description of Mr. Wells. 
 In his book, ''Eecent Economic Changes," in a note, are 
 given some extracts from the ''Eeport of the Chamber of 
 Commerce of Cincinnati" of Ohio, the year ending Aug. 
 31, 1886. We quote: "There is one condition revealed 
 by the statistics of 1885-86 that is very noticeable, which 
 is that prices in general touched the lowest point in a 
 quarter of a century. There were those who supposed 
 that the shrinking processes had been arrested in the pre- 
 ceding year, and yet the figures for 1885-86, in nearly all 
 departments of business, show lower prices than the pre- 
 vious year. In presence of the low prices of 1884-85 it 
 seems almost incredible that so much of market value 
 could be wrung from them as has been during the past 
 year."^ Again from the same report: "It may be inter- 
 esting to take a glance at the tremendous reduction which 
 has taken place in the past five years, which, in articles 
 that enter into the every-day wants of man, in not a few 
 instances has been equal to almost one-half their value in 
 1881-82. The gravitation to a lower plane of value has 
 been so steady as to prevent a full appreciation of the 
 enormous shrinkage to which commodities have been sub- 
 jected. Thus, in mess-pork the depreciation in the gen- 
 eral average price since 1881-82 has been 48.57c ; in prime 
 steam lard, 46; hams, 24.4; shelled corn, 43; aats (which 
 in Europe have shown no tendency in recent years to fall 
 in iDrice), 39.4; rye, 32.6; bran, 33.8; extra butter, 46.9; 
 tallow, 41.4; flour, 34.3; linseed oil, 30; salt, 18.6; cheese, 
 17.1; fair to medium cattle, 18.3; middling cotton, 21.7; 
 Louisiana rice, 28.9; barley, 18.6; and wool, 15%."^ 
 
 ' "Recent Economic Changes," 201. 
 ' "Recent Economic Changes," 202. 
 
Less Foreign Demand Intensifies Home Competition. 53 
 
 " The report for the year ending August, 1887, thus 
 states the further experience of the Cincinnati market: 
 'Low as were the prices of breadstuff s in the previous 
 year, they touched in the past year (1887) still lower 
 points. The same is true of cattle, sheep, molasses, 
 sugar, rice, syrups, salt, and, during most of the year, 
 
 potatoes.' " ' 
 
 Confirmatory evidence of the above is furnished in the 
 seventh biennial report of the Wisconsin Commissioner 
 of Labor Bureau, according to "Farm and Fireside" 
 journal. ''The depression has been severe since 1884. 
 About this time a rapid fall set in, which continued until 
 temporarily checked by the short crops of this country in 
 1890, and in Europe in 1891 and 1892." . The Commis- 
 sioner attributes the cause of agricultural depression ''to 
 the fact that our power of production increases at a much 
 greater ratio than the consuming power, resulting in 
 what may be called over-production. ' ' 
 
 Exactly, "over-production," produced in part at least 
 by the partial closing of the foreign door ! Just as west- 
 ern production began to move eastward in great volume 
 the rates of protective duties were doubled. Largely pre- 
 vented from passing off over the sea, these western prod- 
 ucts filled full our eastern markets, driving our farmers 
 here into other lines of farming. Year after year the 
 competition grew more intense all over the nation as 
 western and southern farmers multiplied and broadened 
 out into new branches of agriculture. Year after year 
 the production of fatted animals, of hay, of grains, of 
 butter, of many vegetables, of small fruits and orchard 
 products rapidly increased till the eastern farmer had no 
 chance save in a few products such as milk, a few vege- 
 
 * "Recent Economic Changes," 202. 
 
54 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 tables and small fruits; everytliing that could be trans- 
 ported long distances was out of the question for him. 
 Pent in these narrow limits, the competition of eastern 
 farmers among themselves became so great that even in 
 the few lines left them there was little or no profit for 
 the average farmer. For many years these, by careful 
 economv, have little more than obtained a livelihood. 
 
 This short explanation makes clear how our pernicious 
 foreign policy has involved all the agricultural class, not 
 simply the producers of exportable products. 
 
 As the proof already offered may be deemed insuffi- 
 cient to establish the fact of a great fall in the price of 
 agricultural products after 1880, we proceed to examine 
 official figures and statements. The following table was 
 prepared from figures obtained from Statistical Abstracts 
 of the United States : , 
 
 Average Annual Export Prices per Decade, with Per 
 
 Cent, of Gain or Loss, of Corn ; Wheat ; Cotton ; 
 
 Bacon and Hams ; Pork, Salted or Pickled ; 
 
 Beef, Salted or Pickled; and Butter. 
 
 Corn, 
 
 AVheat, 
 
 Cotton, 
 
 Bacon and 
 
 Pork, 
 
 Beef, 
 
 Butter, 
 
 bushel 
 
 bushel 
 
 pound 
 
 Hams, lb. 
 
 pound 
 
 pound 
 
 pound 
 
 1840-50 $.593 $1.05 
 
 7.91 c, 
 
 record begi 
 
 ns in 1855. 
 
 per cent. 15 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 half a 
 
 decade. 
 
 
 1850-60 .685 
 
 1.268 
 
 10.58 
 
 9.54 c. 
 
 8.64 c. 
 
 . 7.96 c. 
 
 18.12 c 
 
 percent. 35 
 
 9 
 
 
 31 
 
 27 
 
 20 
 
 38 
 
 1860-70 .924 
 
 1.389 
 
 37.97 
 
 12.54 
 
 10.94 
 
 9.58 
 
 25.02 
 
 per cent. — 26 
 
 —8 
 
 
 —17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 13 
 
 1870-80 .686 
 
 1.276 
 
 15.17 
 
 10.4 
 
 8.95 
 
 7.78 
 
 21.77 
 
 percent. — 18 
 
 —21 
 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 —13 
 
 19 
 
 1880-90 .56 
 
 1.011 
 
 10.53 
 
 8.8 
 
 7.51 
 
 6.76 
 
 17.60 
 
 percent. — 20 
 
 21 
 
 
 — 7 
 
 —16 
 
 —18 
 
 —10 
 
 1890-1900 .45 
 
 .797 
 
 7.77 
 
 8.19 
 
 6.28 
 
 o.ol 
 
 15.87 
 
Less Foreign Demand Intensifies Home Competition. 55 
 
 Percentage of Fall in Price from Decade 1870-80 to 
 1890-1900 OF Above; Twenty Years. 
 
 Corn AVheat Cotton Bacon Pork Beef Butter 
 
 percent. .34 .37 41 21 30 29 26 
 
 Here it is seen that tlie record of corn is quite similar 
 to that of the rest. The prices of all rise and fall in uni- 
 son, and the percentages of rise and fall often show a 
 remarkable coincidence. It is seen there was a large 
 gain in the price of both corn and wheat in the decade 
 1850-60, under low duties, over the preceding decade. 
 The war period sent the values of all way up. 
 
 It is further seen that prices in 1870-80 were almost 
 precisely at the same level as those of 1850-60, with the 
 exception of cotton and butter. But the prices did not 
 stop where they were before the war; under the highest 
 duties ever known in the United States they plunged down 
 to a depth about 30% lower, as is shown at the foot of the 
 table. 
 
 These prices most remarkably sustain the view pre- 
 sented in chapters VIII, IX and X of the agricul- 
 tural situation during the last fifty years. A prosperous 
 condition is indicated from 1850-60, and almost a strug- 
 gle for existence during the last twenty of those years. 
 For the last few years it is probable that conditions have 
 somewhat improved for the farmers of the West and 
 South, owing to favorable seasons and a large foreign 
 demand for agricultural products ; but where is there evi- 
 dence of better davs for the Eastern farmer! 
 
 But it will be claimed that the price of manufactured 
 goods has fallen more than those of agriculture, and this 
 may be true. But this admission does not injure our posi- 
 tion nor help that of 'our opponents. Why has there been 
 
56 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 in the last fifty to sixty years a large fall in the price of 
 manufactured goods? Because of great improvement in 
 methods and in the machinery of production. These 
 same agents have been at work in the agricultural field, 
 but no such degree of success has followed here. Listen 
 to Mr.- North, one of the chiefs in the preparation of the 
 census report of 1900. In the American Monthly Eeview 
 of Eeviews of September, 1902, he says : ' ' The increased 
 horse-power employed in manufacturing is, on the whole, 
 the most striking fact brought out by the census. The 
 total horse-power so employed was reported in 1890 as 
 5,954,655; in 1900 as 11,300^081, an increase of 89.8% in 
 ten years. It is commonly calculated that one horse- 
 power is equivalent to the labor of ten men, a very low 
 average, since it makes no allowance for the fact that the 
 engine never tires and never varies. It means that the 
 horse-power employed in our manufactures in 1900 was 
 equal in its producing ca]3acity to the labor of 113,000,000 
 able-bodied men working everv dav in the vear. How 
 insignificant in contrast appears the contribution to in- 
 dustrial wealth of the 5,316,892 men, women and children, 
 the actual average number of persons employed in the 
 census year to direct and supplement this tremendous 
 power. ' ' Again ' ' to the much more general use of power- 
 driven machinery in this country may safely be attrib- 
 uted the remarkable advance of the United States to the 
 first rank among the manufacturing nations." Again, 
 ^'the apparent value of products per wage-earner has 
 increased from $1065 in 1850 to $2148 in 1900." Mr. Car- 
 roll D. Wright says : " It is impossible to arrive at an 
 accurate statement as to the number of persons it would 
 require under the old system to jDroduce the goods made 
 by the present industrial system with the aid of inven- 
 
Less Foreign Demand Intensifies Home Competition. 57 
 
 tion and power machinery. Looking at this question 
 without any desire to be mathematically accurate, it is 
 fair to say, perhaps, that it would require from fifty to 
 one hundred million persons in this country, working 
 under the old system, to jDroduce the goods made and do 
 the work performed by the workers of to-day with the aid 
 of machinery."^ 
 
 In efficiency of production, where there has been an 
 advance in manufacture of from three to six fold, it is 
 doubtful if the power of agriculture is 50% greater. That 
 is, in the former, two men will now do what fifty years 
 ago would, on the average, have required from six to 
 twelve men; but in agriculture two men now will hardly 
 make good what three performed then. In the harvest- 
 ing of wheat, barley, oats, in the hay field, and in the turn- 
 ing of milk into butter, there has been a large increase of 
 efficiency. These are representatives of a few products 
 where very much more is now accomplished with fewer 
 men. But it takes just as long now to milk cows and per- 
 form most of the chores of a dairv farm. The writer is 
 not aware that there has been much abridgment of labor 
 in the growing of the corn crop (certainly not in the east- 
 ern states) ; or in the production of most vegetables, or 
 of orchard fruits ; or of beef, pork, poultry ; or of eggs ; 
 or, for the last fifty years, of cotton. If the writer is not 
 mistaken, it takes just as long as ever to raise live stock, 
 horses, cattle, sheep, hogs and fowls. In short, if the 
 entire circle of agriculture is included, the scientific 
 advancement and the aid of machinery will be found far 
 less than is popularly supposed. Marked success in a 
 few lines and small gains in many others have been mag- 
 nified as to the grand result. Let those who feel like dis- 
 
 1 '< 
 
 Industrial Revolution of the United States," p. 334. 
 
58 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 puting the position explain why, with nearly four times 
 the farms of fifty years ago (indicating an equal increase 
 in number of farmers), the value of agricultural products, 
 according to Mr. Xorth, in the same article above referred 
 to, has been increased less than two-fold. By the same 
 census authority a four and a half fold increase of wage- 
 earners in the same time in manufacture produced about 
 a twelve-fold greater value. There has been a large 
 artificial advance in the price of manufactured goods, but 
 not to such an extent as this. If there has been such a 
 great general increase in efficiency of labor on the farms 
 as agricultural writers and as state boards of agricul- 
 ture would have us believe, let them solve the riddle why 
 the total value of such products is now so small. To help 
 them we throw in two more items. The number of 
 acres of land per farm in 1850 was 202.6 ; in 1900, 146.2. 
 The other item is, in 1900 the total value of all farm 
 property was five-fold greater than in 1850. Xow why, 
 with nearly four times the number of persons engaged, 
 and five times the value of capital invested, was the value 
 of products less than two-fold what it was in the former 
 time // there has been a great increase in efflcienci/ 
 throughout the industry? 
 
 If in one industry, because of improved methods and 
 the greater use of machinery, one man can turn out a 
 13roduct several times greater than formerly, while in 
 another industrial conditions are such that science has 
 made far less progress, it certainly would be unreason- 
 able to expect that as the prices of the first fall, those of 
 the other should fall in equal measure. 
 
 In closing the chapter careful consideration is called 
 to the significance of large agricultural exports at a time 
 when ''articles manufactured, ready for consumption," 
 
Less Foreign Demand Intensifies Home Competition. 59 
 
 when imported, are subject to an average duty of 50%. 
 If this export trade were of small dimensions, or if the 
 products were those of a small section of the country, the 
 aspect would be different. But its large volume for sev- 
 eral successive years of products similar to those pro- 
 duced by perhaps half of all engaged in agriculture, 
 under conditions that would seemingly i^revent all 
 exchange, gives this movement a most peculiar signifi- 
 cance. 
 
 We call attention to the magnitude of this trade. The 
 census of 1900 gives the total value of agricultural prod- 
 ucts of the United States for the preceding year, 1899, 
 as $4,717,069,973. This includes all that is con- 
 sumed of such products on the farms. The agricultural 
 community comprises from 35 to 40% of the total popu- 
 lation. Of live stock there are : neat cattle, 52,000,000 ; 
 horses and mules, 20,000,000 ; sheep and swine, over 100,- 
 000,000 ; and the number of the feathered tribes probably 
 several billions. To feed this vast multitude of men and 
 animals would, we think, provide a market for one half 
 the value of the total production ; or, setting it very low, 
 would take $1,700,000,000. 
 
 The annual average value of agricultural exports for 
 the last few years has been over $850,000,000. A con- 
 siderable portion of this value, however, represents rail- 
 road carriage and other costs of shipment to seaport. 
 The farm value would doubtless be much less than $800,- 
 000,000. Perhaps more than one-fourth of the total value 
 not consumed on the farms has for a few vears been sent 
 abroad. 
 
 The large proportions of this trade and its persistence 
 for a term of years are conclusive evidence that it is not 
 a surplus dumped in foreign lands and sold regardless of 
 
60 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 cost like the products of over-loaded trusts. Our agri- 
 cultural exports are the products of millions of farmers 
 scattered over a wide territory of many states. From the 
 same territory comes the supply of similar products that 
 are sent to the Eastern States. The farmer receives the 
 same price per bushel or pound for that exported as for 
 that consumed at home; so that the price of our agricul- 
 tural products, whether sold at home or abroad, is on a, 
 level with that obtained by the farmers of Europe. 
 
 That this level is far below that of manufactured goods 
 in the United States is evident, otherwise there would be 
 no occasion for a 50% duty on such manufactured prod- 
 ucts when imported. The farmer, then, is selling at one 
 level and is forced by the tariff to buy his supplies at a 
 far higher level. How much higher the level is is here 
 indicated. In a note, found in the United States Census 
 Eeport of 1900, a prominent English statistician, Mr. 
 Mulhall is quoted as affirming : ' ' The value of American 
 manufacturers is artificially raised by protective duties 
 fully 33% over the real value." The effect upon the 
 farmer is exactly the same as if he received pay for his 
 products in a depreciated currency and had to pay for his 
 purchases with gold at a high premium. The champion 
 of this system is the same ^' Grand Old Party" that prides 
 itself on its maintenance of the gold standard. So long 
 as its pets receive the benefit, it cares little if the farmer 
 is paid in depreciated trade checks. 
 
Cost of Fanners^ Supplies Increased. 61 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 CONFISCATIOX EaTES OF DuTIES GrREATLY IlTCREASE THE 
 
 Cost of Farmers^ Supplies. 
 
 No term of weaker meaning than confiscation is ade- 
 quate to apply to rates of duties that have been imposed 
 for many years on imports of manufactured goods. In 
 recent vears the ''ad valorem rate on dutiable articles 
 manufactured ready for consumption" has annually aver- 
 aged about 50%. In 1903, the most recent record of 
 United States foreign trade that is at hand, the rate of 
 duty on cotton manufactures averaged 53% ; on leather 
 and manufactures of, 35%. Of the manufactures of 
 leather, gloves formed the greater part of value, and 
 these averaged duties of 53%. The imports of iron and 
 steel averaged duties of 32.15%. The rate here falls to 
 a low figure, because raw material to a large amount is 
 included, or manufactures not much advanced. Iron and 
 steel manufactures, ready for consumption, of skilled 
 workmanship did not enter the country to much extent. 
 They were excluded by duties of this size: "machinery, 
 not elsewhere specified," 45%; ''total fire-arms," about 
 the same ; ' ' total cutlery, ' ' 64% ; ' ' total wire : round iron 
 or steel," 41%. 
 
 Earthenware averaged 59% duty. 
 
 The average ad valorem rate of duty paid by manu- 
 factures of woolen was 91%; that is, before the im- 
 ported goods could be put on the Auierican market, a 
 sum nearly equal to the cost of their manufacture must 
 
62 The Tariff and the Fanner. 
 
 be paid Uncle Sam. Dress goods, women's and chil- 
 dren's, imported to tlie value of $7,384,463.72, paid duties 
 of $7,634,757.65, or over 103%. 
 
 Now, considering these duties in the light of a tax — 
 one of the ways of obtaining revenue for the support of 
 the United States government — how do the charges com- 
 pare with common rates of taxation? In the State of 
 Massachusetts, where tax on property for state, county 
 and town or city purposes is but $8 or $10 a thousand, 
 the rate is thought to be quite low, but when this rate 
 rises to $20 a thousand — 2% — it is regarded as oppres- 
 sively high. The tax payers strongly object to such an 
 exorbitant tax. And well thev mav when the usual rate 
 of interest is but 5% or less, for nearly half the income 
 is taken by the tax collector. Is it strange that the peo- 
 ple murmur when so large a part of their living is swept 
 away ] What, then, shall be said of revenue taxes aver- 
 aging 50 7t of value! 
 
 Again, in home competition, other things being equal, 
 a manufacturer who is at a disadvantage of 10% would be 
 regarded as fearfully handicapped, and, unless profits in 
 that line were large, a few years would bring bankruptcy 
 or retirement. What, then, must be the effect on foreign 
 competition subject to a disadvantage of 507c on the aver- 
 age, with many exceptional cases where rates of duties 
 rose from 80 to 100%? The effect has been that while 
 there has been an increase in value of manufactured 
 products in the United States of 200% in the thirty years, 
 1870-1900, the increase in imports of "articles man- 
 ufactured ready for consumption" from period 1870-74 
 to period 1900-04 has been only 11% — an annual average 
 gain that is ahnost imperceptible. The trade in finished 
 products has been well-nigh strangled by the strong hand 
 
Cost of Farmers^ Supplies Increased. 63 
 
 of group monopoly exerted through the national govern- 
 ment. President Dolan of the Manufacturers' National 
 Association knew well what he was talking about when he 
 said (chapter VI) that over "the home market, the great- 
 est of all markets, our control is absolute." 
 
 Organized manufacture is in complete possession of 
 the field. Her forces command the door through which 
 competition could come from abroad — her industrial 
 groups are in league to prevent the effect of mutual com- 
 petition at home. 
 
 When a comparatively few men in each industrial 
 group can fix the price of their products, and when, inside 
 of a wide range, no matter how exorbitant, the ]3eople 
 must pay or go without, no one with knowledge of human 
 nature would expect that reasonable prices , would be 
 charged. The case will be exceptional when price is de- 
 termined solely by the sellers, where this is not expanded 
 as far as thought policy to go. The Standard Oil Com- 
 pany illustrates human greed when given a free hand. 
 Bearing what would seem to be an intolerable burden as 
 the possessors of hundreds of millions of dollars, the crav- 
 ing for more and more is still so strong that, according 
 to the newspapers, the price of oil is held so high as to 
 return annual dividends of 40% or more. One might 
 as well try to fill a bottomless pit as to attempt to satisfy 
 human greed for gold. 
 
 There is no other great class or occupation situated as 
 the farmer is in regard to the protective system. The 
 people engaged in trade, transportation, domestic service, 
 and persons in the professions for the most part dwell in 
 the business centres alongside of those engaged in manu- 
 facture. When incomes, salaries, wages, go up in the 
 latter employment, the higher remuneration is soon 
 
64 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 reflected in the near-by occupations. A richer prospect 
 attracts mankind as irresistibly as flies are drawn by 
 molasses. If few of those in other lines do not them- 
 selves change to the more profitable, many of their chil- 
 dren not held by the ties that bind the fathers will seek 
 the richer reward. In one way or another, where men 
 are in intimate contact, profits and wages in the various 
 occupations, other things being equal, will tend to a com- 
 mon level. This is not denying that superior ability, a 
 larger purse, or powerful advantage of any kind may 
 leave those of average ability or circumstance far behind. 
 Nor do we deny that for some cause, hard to understand 
 sometimes, there is a great diversity in the value of re- 
 ward received for labor. Still the above proposition is 
 true as a general rule; and being true, the exchange of 
 service between those of the various occupations are 
 nearly if not quite on equal terms. Here the rates of 
 profit and wages are based on those received in manufac- 
 ture, which in turn are based on cost. For this reason 
 the higher cost of living caused by the protective system 
 does not have the injurious effect as upon those engaged 
 in agriculture. In the former case increased cost is bal- 
 anced by larger profits and wages. This is not true with 
 the farmer whose products sell according to degree of 
 competition. Here, no matter how high cost of living 
 may rise, if degree of competition remains the same, 
 there is nothing to increase his profits and equalize the 
 situation. Much to the same effect is this sentence of the 
 Worthy Master of the National Grange in his address at 
 the annual meeting of the organization in 1907: ^'What- 
 ever injustice may be occasioned by the existence of com- 
 binations of capital constituting trusts which are able to 
 control the output and ^^ the price of their products, 
 
Cost of Farmers^ Supplies Increased. 65 
 
 falls heaviest upon the farmer, for his is, and must 
 remain, a competitive industry." 
 
 The Farmer a Large Purchaser of Manufactured 
 
 Products. 
 
 The agricultural masses comprise from 35 to 40% of 
 the total population. Manufactured goods to an immense 
 value are purchased by them. No other class requires 
 so great a variety of such products. The home of the 
 well-to-do mechanic is filled by a large variety of such 
 articles. In the pantry will be found boxes and dishes of 
 wood, tin, glass and iron; quite a collection of crockery- 
 ware; knives, forks, spoons; various spices and canned 
 goods. In the kitchen, sitting-room and parlor there are 
 chairs, tables, stoves, lounges, a refrigerator, looking- 
 glasses, pictures, curtains, a musical instrument, book- 
 cases more or less filled with books. In the chambers are 
 bed-steads with their mattresses, blankets, sheets, 
 springs ; bureaus ; toilet sets ; besides more chairs, look- 
 ing-glasses and curtains. In the closets hang the many 
 articles that make up the wearing apparel of husband, 
 wife and children that are not folded away in the bureau 
 drawers. Even the up-to-date workman in this land of 
 advanced civilization gives employment to a multitude 
 of manufacturing trades besides those of the carpenters, 
 masons, lathers and painters, etc., who build and prepare 
 his house. 
 
 In addition to all this the fore-handed farmer provides 
 shelter for his hay and live stock; sheds, hen-houses, 
 barns; buys harnesses, wagons, carriages, sleighs; very 
 many small tools for general repairs and for cultivating 
 the soil; other expensive farm machinery such as plows, 
 harrows, cultivators, horse-rakes, mowing and reaping 
 
66 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 machines, manure-spreaders, liay-cutters, and winnowing 
 machines. Multiply what the average farmer yearly buys 
 of manufactured products in building a home, supporting 
 his familv and carrying on his industry by the number of 
 farmers in the United States (from fiye to six million) 
 and the total sum, we believe, would be between one and 
 two billions of dollars. 
 
 AVe are often reminded of the great gain that accrues 
 to the farmer from the manufacturing industry, but 
 rarely is acknowledgment made of the boundless indebt- 
 edness of the manufacturing class to the farming com- 
 munity. The farming class provides three essentials, 
 without either one of which manufacture here would 
 wither and die : food to nourish and sustain its millions ; 
 raw material for its shops, and a market for its products. 
 From no other source than the American farmer could 
 the two former be obtained ; and where in the wide world 
 are there purchasers who could furnish a market for that 
 which is now taken bv the American farmer ? The farmer 
 could get along without the American manufacturer, as 
 he did in old colonial davs ; but what could the latter do 
 without the American farmer? 
 
 How much more farmers' supplies cost because of con- 
 fiscation rates of duties, no one can tell. Mr. Mulhall, a 
 noted English statistician, has already been quoted as 
 saying: "The value of American manufactures is arti- 
 ficially raised by protective tariffs fully 33 /v over the 
 real value." If the increase of artificial value did not 
 approach this per cent., why the need of 509^ duties? 
 
 Governor Cummings of Iowa in an interview reported 
 in the Outlook of September 20, 1902, when asked for an 
 example of a monopoly which should be deprived of pro- 
 tection, replied: "Well, take tin plate and steel rails: 
 
Cost of Farmers'' Supplies Increased. 67 
 
 take barbed wire, wliicli has been an absolute monopoly 
 for four or five years. The prices of this and kindred 
 articles are exorbitant because of the monopoly, as I 
 have discovered." When asked how much too high the 
 price of these articles was, the Governor replied: "About 
 100%." He also added: "The tariff question is more or 
 less involved in what is called the trust question, because 
 of the market tendencv of the times. This tendencv is 
 towards combination. ' ' 
 
 The Outlook of October 25, 1902, presents views of 
 other western men. These were interviewed by a staff 
 correspondent of that paper. We give extracts. Ex- 
 Senator Washburn of Minneapolis "declared himself to 
 have been what may be called an extreme protectionist. ' ' 
 ' ' I believe the doctrine of protection has been vindicated 
 by results. Under its influence great industries have 
 grown up from small beginnings. They have now 
 reached a point where they no longer need protection. 
 Unnecessary protection, however, has enabled them to 
 develop into great monopolies. Certainly those pro- 
 tected industries which have smothered competition have 
 forfeited any rights which they now have to the benefit 
 of protective duties. Sheltered as they are by the Ding- 
 ley tariff, they make profits of from 25 to 100%." "A 
 tariff revision is inevitable; the sentiment for it in this 
 section of the country is general, deep, unpartisan, and 
 is daily increasing in force. The revision planks in the 
 Eepublican platforms in this State aiid Iowa were in- 
 spired by a desire for wider markets on the part of mill- 
 ers, lumber-dealers and other business men; while there 
 is a righteous indignation on the part of farmers, house- 
 builders, railwav contractors and others at the enormous 
 prices of barbed wire, Imnber, glass, steel rails and 
 
68 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 paper." ''Eevision should be made, first, on general 
 principles, and further, with a view of its effect on the 
 combinations which are now becoming monopolies, and 
 thus fixing prices on all commodities produced in this 
 country. Politicians may as well understand first as last 
 that our people are not going to put themselyes perma- 
 nently under the yoke of commercial slavery, which is 
 the logical and inevitable outcome of tolerating the pres- 
 ent outrageous trusts and monopolies. To this a proud 
 people will never consent." 
 
 Judge Birdsall, Colonel Henderson's successor as Con- 
 gressional candidate, declared that ''Iowa Kepublicans 
 believe in the greatest good to the greatest number; but 
 what is the situation! Our people are being depressed 
 by the greed and avarice of a few men. Home competi- 
 tion no longer regulates the prices of certain commodi- 
 ties. We propose so to readjust the tariff as to force 
 monopolies into competition with the markets of the 
 world. ' ' 
 
 Again Governor Cummins of Iowa. He said : ' ' We 
 must tell ambitious promoters that they have got to 
 choose between their monopolies and the tariff; they can- 
 not have both." "The producer uses excessive duties 
 as a club to enforce more than a just price for what he 
 produces. If there were no tariff, or a low tariff on cer- 
 tain schedules, the shelter to the formation of some mo- 
 nopolies would be withdrawn." ''Protection once shielded 
 American labor and was a mine for lawful profit; it now 
 fosters industrial piracy and monopoly." 
 
 In his letter of acceptance of nomination for the office 
 of Governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Wm. L. Douglas says 
 in part: "Careful estimates show that the average tax 
 per family was about $111. Of this tax $16.52 per family 
 
Cost of Farmers^ Supplies Increased. 69 
 
 went to tlie government. Over $94 went to the trusts and 
 other protected interests." 
 
 The Situation" is Now Before Us. 
 
 Because of their defenseless trade position the agri- 
 cultural masses are selling their products on a level with 
 the poorest paid (the agricultural) of the ''pauper labor 
 of Europe"; while they are buying their supplies in a 
 monopolized market at prices so high that 50% duties 
 are thought required to keep out foreign competition. 
 
 Put in another form: while the farmers pay for what 
 they buy in gold dollars held at a high premium, they 
 receive for what they sell depreciated currency which the 
 manufacturers will not take back at more than seventy- 
 five cents on a dollar. This condition is largely due to 
 the protective system, of which it has been said it pro- 
 tects American industry. 
 
70 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 How THE Farmer is Subjected to Most Unfair Trade 
 Conditions — The Strong Trade Posi- 
 tion OF Manufacture. 
 
 The two great producing industries of the nation are 
 agriculture and manufacture. A third industry, mining, 
 is sometimes classed with the first of these, and again 
 with the last. The two great connecting links between 
 the two divisions of producing industries are trade and 
 transportation. Domestic and personal service and the 
 professions are built on these four industries. It is 
 apparent, then, that the products of the field and of the 
 shop form the basis of all occupations. The individuals 
 of these industries take of the other a greater value of 
 products than is taken by the individuals of any other 
 branch of occupation. Owing to inequality in trade posi- 
 tion the farmer is forced to consent to a most unfair 
 exchange ; and here we have the chief cause of the decline 
 of agricultural prosperity. Put in definite language : the 
 cause of such decline is the strong trade position of man- 
 ufacture on the one hand, and the defenseless trade posi- 
 tion of agriculture on the other hand. 
 
 In this chapter we consider the trade position of man- 
 ufacture. 
 
 Most of the time from 1860 to 1900, while there has 
 been a great demand for manufactured products, there 
 has been a great surplus of agricultural products. But 
 as this feature will be taken up in the next chapter we 
 
The Strong Trade Position of Manufacture. 71 
 
 merely mention it here as showing how favorable to man- 
 ufacture were market conditions. 
 
 Manufacturees in Position to Adjust Supply to 
 
 Demand. 
 
 Not only has there been a great demand for manufac- 
 tured products because of the rapid industrial develop- 
 ment of a new country, but the industry is one that can 
 protect itself when production threatens to outrun de- 
 mand. Price is thus maintained in bad years or at least 
 held to a far higher level than would be the case if the 
 supply of products were not under control. When prod- 
 ucts begin to accumulate, by concert of action the mills 
 can be run fewer hours, or a portion of the workmen laid 
 off, or the mills shut down for davs or weeks. Some- 
 times it is said that rival establishments are paid to 
 remain idle. In these ways manufacturers can protect 
 their interests, but largely at the expense of their work- 
 men. 
 
 Farmers have no such control over production, as 
 months before it is known what the harvest will be. the 
 seeds are x)laced in the ground. 
 
 In manufacture cost of production can be ascertained, 
 as the items of cost are in terms of dollars and cents. 
 The resulting advantage is that a person will stubbornly 
 refuse to sell for less than the cost. Price is thus held 
 nearer to a fair level than it otherwise would be. This 
 is worth a great deal to all in that line. When cost is 
 unknown the seller's position is weak. He can give no 
 reason for his price and does not know but what he can 
 afford to sell for less. Furthermore, if a man finds after 
 fair trial that he cannot obtain cost price, he under- 
 stands without a long ruinous delay that he must quit the 
 
72 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 business. This is not only for his own advantage, but 
 his early forcing out improves the chance of those who 
 remain. Competition is less intense. 
 
 Again, manufacture is divided into several hundred 
 non-competing groups. 
 
 The census of 1900 groups the industry under 348 
 heads. Opposite the name of each division is given the 
 number of establishments, the amount of capital invested, 
 average number of wage-earners with total wages paid, 
 the cost of material, and the value of products, including 
 custom and repair work. A great many of the divisions 
 evidently include several distinctly separate branches. 
 So it is quite probable that manufacture is divided into 
 more than 400 non-competing groups. 
 
 Let those who are incredulous of such a number stroll 
 through the rooms of a department store, or along the 
 streets of a populous city with its brilliant show windows, 
 and note the great variety of products exhibited. To a 
 large extent each one of them indicates a separate trade 
 or industrial group. 
 
 This division was largely brought about by the factory 
 system which caused manufacturers generally to pursue 
 a single specialty. For it was seen that where attention 
 was centred upon a single object, or a part of a single 
 object, production being reduced to a few processes, ma- 
 chinery could be invented most nicely adapted to exact 
 requirements — the result being economy of material and 
 far greater efficiency in production, which increased the 
 size of the profits. 
 
 Again, this division into groups comes from the nature 
 of the many kinds of raw material, and the adaptation of 
 the finished product to supply a great variety of human 
 wants. The metals, wood, leather, cotton and wool com- 
 
The Strong Trade Position of Manufacture. 73 
 
 prise a large part of the grand divisions of raw material ; 
 from these there are branches which subdivide into many 
 lines of distinct industries. 
 
 It is easy to see that there is no competition between 
 men engaged in producing iron and steel products and 
 others in the woolen industry. Is there any between the 
 tanners of leather and those who turn this material into 
 shoes ! or still others who make horse harnesses, or belt- 
 ing, or leather pocketbooks ? In the iron and steel indus- 
 try is there any competition between the manufacture of 
 wire and axes ? of those who make plows and carpenters ' 
 tools? of those who construct mowing machines and 
 steam engines ! Probably there are more than a hundred 
 products made entirely, or largely, of steel and iron 
 where there is no competition between the makers. Often- 
 times these are as distinctly separate trades as though 
 belonging to different grand divisions. 
 
 Now, if we liken the manufacturing industry to a huge 
 checker-board marked with 400 squares, each one of 
 which represents an industrial group, it will readily be 
 perceived that when instead of general, indiscriminate 
 competition throughout the entire mass, competition in 
 each case is confined to individuals of the same group, 
 the industrial classes occup}' a vastly more favorable 
 position. Suppose, instead of a manufacturer's following 
 a single specialty, he carried on half a dozen. The pro- 
 portionate extent to which these would be turned out 
 would vary. If the market price of one increased, more 
 units of that class would be produced to the partial neg- 
 lect of the less remunerative. TNHien the price of another 
 kind indicated greater profit, more of these units would 
 be turned out. The see-saw would be continuous. 
 
 Suppose, further, that in another shop six classes of 
 
74 TJie Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 products were manufactured, some of the same kind as 
 made in the first shop, and that the same see-saw opera- 
 tion went on here. Xow let these two be representative 
 of all the men engaged in manufacture, each one follow- 
 ing several specialties, and each producing the most of 
 what at the time seemed to promise the greater profit. 
 It is evident the industrv would be in a state of dire con- 
 fusion. No one could make calculation of what the mar- 
 ket could absorb of anything. No one could tell how 
 much of this or that would at any time be thrown on the 
 market. With some products the market would be 
 flooded ; there would be a scarcity of some other products. 
 The price would not be determined by cost at all, but by 
 the relative scarcity or abundance of the thing in the 
 market. This is the position of the farming community. 
 
 The patent system is another defense against compe- 
 tition, far more so than was intended when the measure 
 became a law. According to report, not only are patents 
 sometimes re-issued without justifiable cause, but these 
 at times are brought up and put to sleep, as the expres- 
 sion is; that is, when a new patent comes on the mar- 
 ket that would involve the substitution of new machinery, 
 instead of waiting for a rival to avail himself of the val- 
 uable invention to turn out products at a lower cost, the 
 manufacturer often buys the patent and then pigeon- 
 holes the new designs. He will not use them or let any- 
 body else. Dangerous competition is prevented both by 
 the re-issue of patents, and by putting valuable inven- 
 tions out of other people 's reach. 
 
 We pass now to active, personal measures of defense 
 against competition, which is by those of the same trade 
 co-operating together, or taking action calculated to hold 
 price up; for to a great extent those in the same line of 
 
The Strong Trade Position of Manufacture 75 
 
 business, instead of bidding against each other to secure 
 trade, work in various ways to maintain price. Note the 
 advantageous position in manufacture for co-operating 
 with each other. 
 
 In 1900 there was an average of from seven to eight 
 workmen to each proprietor or firm. Many firms employ 
 from 50 to 100 workingmen. Steel and iron show ah 
 average of 333 wage-earners. It is seen that only a few 
 of the men engaged in manufacture have anything to do 
 with determining price. The fewer that need to be 
 consulted the easier, as a rule, to form price agreements. 
 To this it can be added that where the object is to get the 
 higher price the assent of not more than a majority of 
 the proprietors of a group, sometimes not more than a 
 half dozen, would be required for the fixing of prices. 
 The business sense of the rest would operate to bring 
 them into line. 
 
 Furthermore, the few men of each group who decide 
 what price shall be are located in the large towns and 
 cities in easy reach of each other by steam or electric 
 roads, telephone and telegraph. How near manufac- 
 turers are located to each other is indicated by the fact 
 that about half of the value of manufactured products 
 in 1900 was returned from four states — New York, Penn- 
 sylvania, Illinois and Massachusetts. 
 
 Now as to the way of co-operating or coming to under- 
 standing. These range all the way from a mere practice 
 of conforming to the price charged by others, with no 
 expressed agreement, to legally written documents to sell 
 at certain rates with heavv fines for all violations of 
 agreements. Many times, associations are formed with 
 officers and bv-laws the more surelv to hold individuals 
 to contract. Still closer unions are formed by placing 
 
76 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 independent establishments nnder the control of the same 
 board of directors. Sometimes large establishments 
 prevent the lowering of the price of their product when 
 in the hands of retailers by fixing the price of such goods 
 after they have passed through the hands of jobber and 
 wholesale dealer. Those who fail to conform cannot 
 obtain a new stock of such goods. Such action is far 
 more warranted than where retailers are not allowed to 
 sell similar goods manufactured by rival firms. 
 
 From the following quotation it is seen that Mr. James 
 Logan, manager of the United States Envelope Com- 
 pany, located in Worcester, Mass., denies that there is an 
 agreement or understanding between manufacturers, but 
 it is seen that the method he indicates eliminates compe- 
 tition largely, if not entirely, which is the chief thing 
 sought. He says : ' ' The price-list established by the con- 
 solidated coriDoration is not guessed at by the rule-of- 
 thumb, but is wrought out on a scientific basis of account- 
 ing, and that price-list is the base from which not only 
 the consolidated corporation does business, but every one 
 of its competitors, not that the competitors of the large 
 corporations altogether adhere to either list prices or 
 standards of quality, but the list as established is the 
 base line from which they make all their calculations. 
 I believe I am perfectly safe in saying that in not one sin- 
 gle industry does the large corporation control the market. 
 It maintains at great cost a system by which its costs of 
 production are very accurately determined, and when a 
 new price-list is issued, all competitors will duplicate 
 that list within forty-eight hours, or just as soon as they 
 can get it through the printing-office. They are not called 
 upon to exercise one particle of judgment, and they 
 don't; they simply follow copy, and they follow it so 
 
The Strong Trade Position of Manufacture. 11 
 
 accurately tliat if there should happen to be a blunder in 
 the list, they will duplicate the blunder. From the fact 
 that all manufacturers print practically the same list, 
 many persons labor under the mistaken notion that there 
 is an agreement or understanding among all manufac- 
 turers, but such is not the case. 
 
 ''Xow suppose there was no large corporation to 
 establish a price-list or base-line; suppose that not only 
 all of the competitors of the so-called trust or large cor- 
 poration, and also each of the constitutent companies 
 which make up the larger corporation, were making their 
 own list-price with absolutely nothing to guide them 
 except the very imperfect data which some of them for- 
 merly kept. I have not a particle of hesitation in saying 
 that in the next three years half of them would go out of 
 business."^ 
 
 Here we have direct evidence from a prominent mem- 
 ber of a corporation of how all those in a branch of indus- 
 try are brought into unity of action. It would take a per- 
 son capable of pointing out the difference between half 
 a dozen bushels of corn and six bushels of corn to show 
 material difference in the effect produced by this method 
 and a direct understanding. It seems everything is 
 determined by the large corporation of a branch of indus- 
 try, and these can charge for the different items of cost 
 what they please. Xor do we understand that the base- 
 line, cost of production, is identical with the figures on 
 the price-list. It is a dead-line that cannot be gone below 
 with safety. What sort of competition is this where all 
 rise and fall following the motion of the big mogul ? 
 
 By the methods indicated, and still others, trade is put 
 in harness, free competition is prevented, and price is 
 
 ^ Quoted from paper read before Worcester, Mass., Economic Club. 
 
78 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 held at a high, unfair level. Price is no longer deter- 
 mined by cost, but all it is thought the trade will bear is 
 exacted. 
 
 Said the Midvale Steel Company, in a letter^ sent to 
 the Ways and Means Committee protesting against 
 change in the rates of duties on metals, etc., ''It is well 
 known to the honorable members of the committee that 
 the price at which nearly every article manufactured in 
 this country is sold is not based on its cost so much as it 
 is fixed by agreements or understandings between manu- 
 facturers, who regulate the amount of product and the 
 output to the factories, points of deliveries, and the 
 prices and terms at which manufactured article is sold." 
 
 A one-price system has become widely prevalent. 
 Group monopoly has become an established fact. The 
 people are delivered into the power of corporations, of 
 whom Senator Hoar said (see next chapter) they have 
 no soul and no conscience, and are not zealous for honor 
 or reputation except so far as these are essential to get- 
 ting money. 
 
 But to a large portion of these industrial groups one 
 thing more was essential to the perfect working of 
 monopoly schemes: they must he shielded from the effect 
 of importations from abroad of products similar to their 
 oivn. Here comes in manufacturers' defense by govern- 
 ment against competition, which is 
 
 The Protective System. 
 
 Of what avail would be group combinations if over the 
 Canadian border and from every seaport similar prod- 
 ucts had free course? Merchants would then fill their 
 
 * Published in Semi-Weekly X. Y. Evening Post, Jan. 27, 1897. 
 
The Strong Trade Position of Manufacture. 79 
 
 stores with the foreign goods and the high-priced prod- 
 ucts of monopoly would remain unsold. To prevent this, 
 there are what are called protective duties. 
 
 The effect of these in increasing the cost of what the 
 farmer buys has been told in preceding chapters. 
 
 To sum up : Manufacture is, to a great extent, organ- 
 ized to obtain trade advantage. Occupying a naturally 
 strong position, by many devices manufacturers have 
 aimed to, and largely succeeded in gaiuing control of the 
 Americaji market. Divided into several hundred non- 
 competing groups, in very many of these the individuals 
 composing each are in zealous collusion to hold price at a 
 high artificial level by destroying the effect of mutual 
 competition. At the same time their associations have 
 so great influence at "Washington as to prevent foreign 
 competition, except under such conditions as nullify the 
 effect. 
 
 To make all future resistance to this trade tyranny 
 imDossible, in 1895 the Manufacturers ' National Associa- 
 tion was organized, and an address was sent out to induce 
 all manufacturers to connect themselves with it. The 
 address stated that ''the general purpose proposed for 
 the national association was to obtain the advantage of 
 united action for the promotion of the interests of Ameri- 
 can manufacturers, both at home and abroad." ''If we 
 shall have a national organization, the power will be 
 employed with all the force of concentration and always, 
 we believe, with advantage both for manufacturers and 
 for the nation." It is stated that the next "convention 
 will consist of over four hundred delegates, all manufac- 
 turers. ' ' 
 
 President Dolan made further explanation. "First of 
 all, and of more value than all else, is the principle that 
 
80 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 the home market, the greatest of all markets, the only 
 market over which our control is absolute, shall be held 
 firmh^ for our own trade. Quite of secondary impor- 
 tance, but still of large importance, is the theory that we 
 should reach out for all the foreign trade that may be 
 had without sacrifices at home, etc." ''A truly National 
 Association of American Manufacturers, speaking with 
 right and by authority for the entire body of manufac- 
 turers of the country, can accomplish these results, or 
 any other results just right and of genuine value to the 
 nation, at which it aims." 
 
 This association, by which it was most sincerely hoped 
 ''great and patriotic purposes" will be accomplished, is 
 purely a manufacturers' organization, and careful pro- 
 vision was made to keep it from ever becoming anything 
 else. The purpose is to unite and concentrate the whole 
 power of the industry so that they can obtain anything 
 they desire of national legislation. How was the abso- 
 lute control asserted by President Dolan obtained! By 
 the groups working together to suppress the effect of 
 mutual competition, and the exclusion by the tariff of 
 foreign competition. The ''great and patriotic pur- 
 poses" of holding absolute control of the home market, 
 etc., could never have been accomplished if only the com- 
 paratively few "trusts" and combines took a hand. It 
 was brought about, and monopolies established by the 
 entire body working each in its own group or circle. 
 
 Senator Lodge of Massachusetts is reported to have 
 said that the tariff has nothing to do, or no coimection 
 with trusts and monopolies. Such a statement, if made, 
 is as far from the truth as the east is from the west. 
 Protection in this country has been the starting-point of 
 the whole nest of iniquity. Doubtless, no less than two- 
 
The Strong Trade Position of Manufacture. 81 
 
 thirds of the oppressive monopolies of the present day 
 are the direct result of the prevention of foreign compe- 
 tition by the tariff. And this robbery of the people does 
 not stop at production, but is often carried on through the 
 various channels of trade down to the consumer. Here 
 is some interesting reading touching. on this point from 
 the Iron Age of Oct. 10, 1901: ^'The question of the 
 grading of prices to the various classes of trade has 
 always been a difficult one for manufacturers to deter- 
 mine." "The manner in which this question has been 
 decided bv the multitude of consolidations and combina- 
 tions of the past few years is significant. AVith signal 
 unanimity they have adopted a policy in the grading of 
 their prices which recognizes the jobber more thoroughly 
 and completely than before. This has been done by not 
 only establishing a wide differential between the jobber 
 and the retailer, but by making a list of who, are to be 
 ranked as jobbers and to whom alone jobbers' prices can 
 properly be given." ''To have adopted a different pol- 
 icy would, moreover, have alienated the wholesale trade 
 and put an immediate and troublesome obstacle in the 
 way of maintaining the high prices which had been estab- 
 lished. The jobbers, too, were prompt in making earnest 
 and emphatic appeals to the associated manufacturers 
 for ample protection." To the arrangement made the 
 retailers objected, as formerly they could buy close to 
 what the jobbers had to pay, now "under this system 
 called to pay a broad jobbers' profit on these goods." 
 
 From the Iron Age, same date as above. The 
 Seventh National Hardware Convention was held at 
 Cleveland. From the Treasurer's Keport: "Our atten- 
 tion has been called to the system adopted by some man- 
 ufacturers of notifying the trade on postal cards and 
 6 
 
82 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 other printed communication of changes in prices. These 
 are very liable to fall into the hands of consumers.'' 
 ''We hope that during the year an additional number of 
 our members will adopt the system of adding to the fac- 
 tory cost of goods a proper percentage to cover the 
 expense of distribution before arriving at the true cost. ' ' 
 ■ Not onlv are the manufacturers often in collusion to 
 prevent all competition among independent factories, 
 but they can control price through the intermediate 
 hands that pass the goods on to the consumer. By this 
 means the trading world, both wholesaler and retailer, 
 come in for an equal degree of the high profits of the 
 producer. Protection shields all, and the accumulative 
 artificial increase of price is borne by the farmer with no 
 offset of advantage. 
 
 Besides the desire to obtain the highest possible profits, 
 manufacturers often have another strong incentive to 
 hold them to their mutual agreements. The nature of 
 this is indicated by a little item found in the New York 
 Semi-weekly Evening Post of Jan. 16, 1902: ''The lead- 
 ing producers of wire and wire nails ' ' held a conference 
 at Pittsburg. After agreeing to advance the price of 
 nails comes this sentence: "Forfeits of $10,000 for each 
 concern were posted to bind to the agreed price and to 
 stop the price cutting." 
 
 How far combinations have extended in the industrial 
 world is indicated by "the unanimous report of the com-' 
 mittee on commercial law of the American Bar Associa- 
 tion," made at its annual meeting in 1903. Here are 
 extracts: "The modern combination's primary object is 
 to control trade and commerce in plain articles of pro- 
 duction, and substitute a more or less perfect monopoly 
 in the place of a more or less free competition. It 
 
The Strong Trade Position of Manufacture. 83 
 
 changes entirely the basic principle of commercial rela- 
 tion between man and man. ' ' 
 
 "Combination as an economic force is fast coming to 
 take the place of competition. The producers are com- 
 bining, transportation companies are combining, trades- 
 men are combining, workmen as well as employers are 
 combining, everything seems to be combining in some 
 form of combination, and everybody seems to be a com- 
 biner. The competition that still remains is fast dis- 
 appearing. Workmen are refusing to compete for jobs. 
 Labor unions are enlarging the spheres of their activity 
 and extending their operations. The union of the employ- 
 ers is still stronger and more far-reaching than the union 
 of the workmen. We are now having combination of com- 
 binations. The United States Steel Corporation is a com- 
 bination of a dozen heretofore competing producers, who 
 themselves were combinations of still other producers, 
 and these in turn, often of combinations of still others. 
 To trace them back to their beginnings is like discovering 
 all the multitude of sources that go to make up the vol- 
 ume of the swollen Mississipi)i. ' ' 
 
 The great class of which it is not true that they are 
 combining is the agricultural ; and it is significant that in 
 the above indictment no mention is made of the men so 
 engaged. As usual, the fact of the farmer's existence 
 was forgotten or ignored. 
 
 To what extent the nation is brought under bondage is 
 indicated by Mr. Franklin Pierce in his book, ' ' The Tariff 
 and the Trusts." We give an illustration of his state- 
 ments, pages 65 and (^Q: "The Pittsburg Plate Griass 
 Company has a capital of $10,000,000. In 1899 it con- 
 trolled 682 out of 946 pots in the manufacture of glass, 
 and it increased the prices of plate glass within three 
 
84 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 years 150%, as described in the prior chapter. It had an 
 understanding in 1900 with other companies, and thus 
 controlled the prices of plate glass. According to the 
 testimony of Mr. Fred Gr. Elliott (the manager of John 
 Lucas Company) before the Industrial Commission on 
 Dec. 20, 1900, the Pittsburg Plate Griass Company sent to 
 the firm of John Lucas & Comi^-anv a letter, of which the 
 following is a copy : 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., Oct. 27, 1900. 
 
 Gentlemen : We have just been advised by our general 
 office that any permission that has been given to the job- 
 bers whereby they were allowed to import plate glass 
 must be at once withdrawn, and we hereby beg to notify 
 you to this effect. 
 
 We will ask vou to send to this office at once a memo- 
 randum of any foreign glass which you may have ordered 
 which you have not received. Please include in this 
 memorandum that which mav be alreadv on the water, as 
 well as the portion that has not yet been shipped from 
 abroad. Kindh" give this matter your prompt attention, 
 and oblige. 
 
 Yours trulv, 
 
 Pittsburg Plate Glass Company." 
 
 So much for the impudence of the trusts in advancing 
 prices and controlling foreign trade. Here is more, 
 showing the tremendous increase in prices permitted by 
 trade regulations and tariff legislation. We quote from 
 the Springfield Weekly Eepublican of Nov. 21, 1907 : 
 ' ' There appears in the current issue of American Indus- 
 tries, organ of the National Association of Manufacturers, 
 as severe an arraignment of high tariff iniquities as is 
 often heard, and it comes from a protected manufac- 
 turer, H. E. Miles, president of the National Association 
 of Implements and Vehicle Manufacturers. He starts 
 
The Strong Trade Position of Manufacture. 85 
 
 off with the very frank admission that "I have made 
 monev everv vear ont of the tariff graft." He goes on 
 to say: "Under this tariff, those who supply the facto- 
 ries I am interested in with their material, have consoli- 
 dated or formed trusts and have raised the prices 25 to 
 50%. All those years I have, as before, made my sale 
 price on a percentage of costs, and when the tariff pets 
 raised their prices, as they did $50,000 to me, I made the 
 charge against the jobber $60,000, and I know beyond 
 question that he also figured on a percentage basis, and 
 charged more than $70,000 for the $60,000 he paid me. 
 The product went through one or two other hands before 
 reaching the consumer. The $50,000 I paid becomes 
 about $100,000 to the agricultural consumer. ' ' 
 
 In this connection a paragraph in the Springfield 
 "Weekly Eepublican of Dec. 5, 1907, is of interest. The 
 will of Chas. H. Deere, implement manufacturer, evi- 
 dently of Rock Island, 111., shows property valued at $20,- 
 000,000, all of which goes far to sustain the truth of state- 
 ments made bv a Worcester blacksmith to the author; 
 one of which was that shafts that a while ago he bought 
 for $1.75 were now sold for over $11. This statement 
 was made in November, 1907. 
 
 Mr. Miles ' remarks show one of the ways by which the 
 tariff increases the cost of articles produced in the 
 United States. The ''tariff pets," that furnish raw 
 material, form associations or combinations and force 
 price way up. Then each succeeding intermediate 
 between these and the consmner compute the same i)er- 
 centage of profit as before on these greatly increased 
 values. 
 
 The plate glass letter reveals another feature of this 
 adorable tariff measure. In spite of our exorbitant 
 
86 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 duties, it is evident from this letter that home prices are 
 so high that jobbers can profitably import foreign goods. 
 They are intimidated from doing so by these "tarii^ 
 pets," who are, as claimed by Mr. Dolan, then President 
 of the Manufacturers' National Association, in absolute 
 control of the markets of the United States. 
 
 The advantageous trade position of manufacture 
 comes from control of the market, and this control from 
 the suppression of competition. This is brought about 
 or caused : 
 
 By power to adjust supply to demand. 
 
 By knowledge of cost of production. 
 
 Is greatly promoted by the division of the industry 
 into hundreds of non-competing groups. 
 
 By the patent system. 
 
 By mutual co-operation or such action as tends to pre- 
 vent fall in price. 
 
 By the protective system. 
 
Defenseless Trade Position of Agriculture . 87 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Defenseless Teade Position of Agriculture. 
 
 Have tlie leaders in the agricultural ranks recognized 
 tlie trend of the times and taken measures to guard 
 farmers from the destructive effect? If bugs, or worms, 
 or blight threatened the destruction of crops, the alarm 
 would be sounded in farmers' journals, from agricul- 
 tural colleges, and from the Agricultural Department at 
 Washington. But when the crops are exchanged for 
 what the farmer requires, the men who manufacture such 
 supplies, by organized action, or by the enactment of hos- 
 tile legislation, may work greater injury than bug, or 
 worm, or blight, and our agricultural leaders look on in 
 silence. Why? 
 
 The leading men in agriculture, especially at the East, 
 have confined attention strictly to production. Their aim 
 has been to have the farmer produce the most and best 
 at least expense. There is the sum and substance of all 
 the mighty efforts of most of the agricultural leaders for 
 more than fifty years. Like the man with the rake in 
 Pilgrim's Progress, the eyes of farmers have been kept 
 fixed on the ground, blind alike to heavenly vision and 
 the work of designing men robbing them of the fruit of 
 their labor. Year after year, in season and out of sea- 
 son, the agricultural mind has been stuffed with the same 
 everlasting diet of production. Much the same matter 
 has been threshed over and over, from morn to night, 
 from youth to hoary age. The doses have been adminis- 
 tered at farmers ' meetings held in the winter all over the 
 
88 The Tariff and the Fanner. 
 
 country. State boards of agriculture have been organ- 
 ized in many of tlie states, and from these have gone 
 forth thousands of bulk\' secretaries' reports, which now 
 lie on shelves hardly ever glanced at. Hundreds of 
 farmers' papers have deluged the land from Maine to 
 California, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, 
 with tons of — shall we sav literature? Then there are 
 agricultural colleges in many if not all of the states, and 
 from these sources have issued incessant bulletins. 
 Above all the rest is the Agricultural Department at 
 Washington, and from this eminence tracts and expen- 
 sive volumes have been rained down. 
 
 If it is true that ''all work and no play makes Jack a 
 dull boy, ' ' how much more is it true that confining minds 
 continually to the same general topic, with no change, no 
 let-up, especially when this topic relates to the very work 
 followed all day long, tends to weary, stupefy, and dis- 
 gust men with books and papers. 
 
 Where the editors of agricultural journals and speak- 
 ers at farmers' meetings have shown a lack of judgment 
 is in not perceiving that to produce the most at least 
 expense is but half the problem. This part is no more 
 essential than to get a fair price for it, nor so much so. 
 If a better agricultural education causes a larger quan- 
 tity to be thrown on the market, and overstock it, the 
 price per bushel or pound will almost invariably fall so 
 low that the total product will bring less than a lighter 
 yield. Should this occur, who but the consumer is the 
 gainer? The farmer has been required to harvest the 
 crop and carry the larger yield to market. For this 
 extra expense and toil he has received less than he would 
 with the smaller vield. 
 
 An illustration of the truth of this on a national scale 
 
Defenseless Trade Position of Agriculture. 89 
 
 is afforded by the annual reports of the Agricultural 
 Department in regard to the potato crop. An examina- 
 tion of the record for the last thirty or forty years will 
 show that, as a rule, less has been received for the total 
 product of the country when there was a large yield than 
 when the number of bushels has been far smaller. 
 
 So, too, an improvement in quality, should this result 
 come from a more scientific education — if the change is 
 general over the country — may not put an additional dol- 
 lar into the farmer's pocket, but go to tickle the palate of 
 the consumers. This is made plain by the apple crop. 
 In a year of plenty a barrel of fine large apples may sell 
 for $1. The next year, if there is a scarcity, a barrel of 
 scrubs may fetch $2. This shows, as far as the pocket 
 of the farmer is concerned, that, except where the 
 improved quality is in limited quantities, the higher edu- 
 cation in this respect is not so lucrative as is generally 
 supposed. If the better quality cannot be obtained, the 
 inferior article will bring just as much ; and if next year 
 farmers all over the nation would contract production to 
 three-fourths the usual quantity, the probability is that 
 they would take in just as much money. Unless this 
 position can be successfully assailed, it is evident that 
 there has been an immense amount of talk and ink 
 thrown away so far as improving the condition of the 
 farmer is concerned. If this tongue and pen energy had 
 been expended in making market conditions favorable 
 for agricultural products, not only would the financial 
 position have been greatly improved, but the influence of 
 the farmer would have been far greater, and the nation 
 is in need of this conservative influence. 
 
 Thank God, the light is breaking in one direction. In 
 the address of Mr. X. J. Bachelder, worthy master of 
 
90 The Tariff and the Fanner. 
 
 the National Grange, forty-first annual session, 1907, 
 occurs this passage : 
 
 "The development of manufacturing, transportation 
 and commercial interests is not only an advantage, but a 
 necessity to agriculture, but those interests have no claim 
 for public recognition that takes precedence over the 
 claim of agriculture. This statement holds true in regard 
 to the estahlishment of policies and the enactment of 
 laivs. If conditions exist under which the manufacturer, 
 the railroad manager and the merchant can pay prices 
 for labor in the transaction of their business that the 
 farmer cannot afford to pay, there is reason to investi- 
 gate the cause of such conditions. The advice of those 
 ivho ivould limit the work of this great fanners' organ- 
 ization to a study of crop production and stock feeding, 
 important and necessary as these may be, is not suggest- 
 ive of a deep sincerity for the farmers' interests. It is 
 not luise to leave the management of public affairs affect- 
 ing agriculture to others, inasmuch as ours is the basic 
 industry, upon the prosperity of which prosperity in all 
 other industries depends. The field of study and investi- 
 gation open to the farmers through this organization is 
 as broad as the field open to any other class of people 
 without infringing in the least upon partisan or sectarian 
 ground. It is not only the fanner's right, hut his duty, 
 to engage in a discussion of public matters." 
 
 The main object of producing more of an article than 
 one consumes is to obtain the means of buying the prod- 
 ucts of other industries. In such exchanges the grossest 
 injustice may be perpetrated. Civilized man has rarely 
 scrupled to take advantage of the savage, often obtaining 
 for a mere bauble that which was of great value. Not 
 because he was a savage was he cheated, but because 
 
Defenseless Trade Position of Agriculture . 91 
 
 ignorance gave opportunity. Give the average business 
 man of to-day opportunity, and not only will liis own 
 countr^onen be likely to be imposed upon and cheated, but 
 his near relatives mav fare no better. He is inclined to 
 be good to himself. He is not apt to be deterred by a 
 high sense of honor or justice. His rule is not fair 
 profits, but get all he can. Said Senator Hoar of Massa- 
 chusetts, in his speech in the Senate upon trusts, in Jan- 
 uary, 1908, speaking of the corporation and corporate 
 control of wealth : ' ' It is not zealous for its own honor or 
 reputation, except so far as its honor or reputation is 
 essential to its getting money. It has no soul and no 
 conscience. In general, the men who are most powerful 
 in its management can, if they see fit, avoid responsibility 
 to public opinion. They always expect to avoid personal 
 liability for obligations." 
 
 Thus spoke a noted lawyer, held in high esteem by the 
 nation, one of Massachusetts' most prominent Republi- 
 can citizens, one not given to making rash statements. 
 
 It is men like those to whom Mr. Hoar referred, whom 
 our agricultural leaders have left in full control to dic- 
 tate the policy of the nation, who insist to-day that there 
 shall be no lowering of tariff bars. Is it strange, then, 
 that the interests of farmers in foreign trade have been 
 sacrificed? 
 
 Makket Conditions. 
 
 Most of the time since 1860, with the exception of war 
 period and a few years after, there has been a great sur- 
 plus of agricultural products; and for the same time, 
 with the exception of a few years of depression, a great 
 demand for manufactured products. 
 
 Since 1860 two-thirds or more of the vast territorial 
 
92 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 expanse of the United States has been opened up for 
 settlement bv the railroads. In that vear there was some- 
 thing over 30,000 miles of roads being operated; nowmore 
 than 200,000 miles. Eight after the Civil War the Home- 
 stead Act, passed in 1862, began to affect the situation. 
 At about the same time the railroad companies began to 
 put land on the market for a few dollars an acre. This 
 is the situation that has faced the eastern farmer for 
 manv vears, anv amount of land in the market that could 
 be obtained for little or nothing. Such a lure caused a 
 tremendous rush of settlers from the East and abroad. 
 In 1860 the number of farms was 2,011,077; in 1900 the 
 number had risen to 5,739,657; an annual average 
 increase of 92,000 farms. The inevitable result was an 
 immense continuous surplus of agricultural products. 
 During the very years when this ever-increasing flood 
 was pouring upon the eastern markets, the doors of most 
 foreign nations were closed against us by retaliatory 
 tariffs. (See chapter III.) 
 
 How have the times been with manufacture? During 
 the above-mentioned forty years the opportunities 
 enjoyed for the gaining of wealth have far surx)assed 
 anything told in history. In addition to legislative 
 favors, which gave manufacturers absolute control of 
 the richest markets of the world, and provided their 
 operatives with the cheax3est food supplies, the opening 
 up of a new country multiplied business enterprises. The 
 population has much more than doubled since 1860, the 
 increase being nearly 15,000,000 of people. Just to clothe, 
 provide shelter and furniture for this great increase in 
 population all these years was a stupendous task. Near- 
 ly 3,000,000 new farms have been equipped with machin- 
 ery. Shops and factories sufficient to give employment 
 
Defenseless Trade Position of Agriculture. 93 
 
 to 4,000,000 of people, who have connected themselves 
 with the industry since 1860, have been built and filled 
 with machinery. Iron ore enough to provide steel rails 
 for more than 170,000 miles of new track has been welded 
 into shape, and with the immense number of cars and 
 locomotives required, is now a part of our huge trans- 
 portation system. The enumeration of services required 
 and rendered for the welfare of the 45,000,000 people who 
 have come on the stage since 1860, is far from complete. 
 Meanwhile, the work of caring for the wants of the 31,- 
 000,000 who made up the population in 1860 must not be 
 left out. If all the magnificent opportunities of the man- 
 ufacturing field could be spread out before the eye, the 
 great world would be astonished at the sight ; and if the 
 sum total paid for performance could be written out, that 
 paid to a far greater number of workers in the agricul- 
 tural field would be found quite insignificant. Between 
 the price received where there is a large surplus of prod- 
 ucts and that obtained where supply is not equal to 
 demand, the margin is wide. 
 
 In agriculture cost of products cannot be ascertained. 
 In rare cases, no doubt, a close approximation can be 
 made, but it is safe to assert that the exact cost of no 
 product of the field can be ascertained. In many cases, 
 close calculation, joined to long-continued observation, 
 note-book in hand, would give basis for a good guess. 
 But the problem is such a difficult one that even the most 
 intelligent farmers long ago gave up all attempt to deter- 
 mine cost. A volume could be written showing why the 
 cost of the various agricultural products cannot be ascer- 
 tained. In few words, we shall go straight to the heart 
 of the chief difficulty. 
 
 Here the cost of products is only to a small extent in 
 
94 The Tm^iff and the Farmer. 
 
 dollars and cents, not in terms that can be computed. 
 Here the cost of one thing depends on the cost of another 
 and that on the third, and so on till the circle is complete 
 of products of indefinite cost. What is the cost of milk? 
 That depends chiefly on the cost of other products, raised 
 usually on the same farm, hay, green fodder and grain. 
 What is the cost of these! That depends largely on the 
 cost of manure made on the farm. And the cost of 
 manure has much to do with the cost of hay and grain. 
 There you have a vicious circle. And if one knew what 
 a cord of manure cost when made on the farm, who can 
 tell how much of the manure applied went to the first 
 year's hoed crop, how much to each of the three or four 
 succeeding years' crops of oats, or grass I 
 
 Then, when several crops are raised in the same year, 
 who can tell the cost of man and team for each in plant- 
 ing, caring for, and harvesting? It is all mixed up, even 
 where there are no cows to milk. 
 
 Most of the work is done by the farmer and his boys. 
 What is a fair price to charge for them? He should 
 charge for his horses what they cost him, all things in- 
 cluded. How much is this? 
 
 The extreme stupidity sometimes exhibited even by 
 farmers of general good sense in regard to cost is almost 
 beyond belief. Talking with the owner of one of the best 
 farms in the town where the author resides, the statement 
 was' made that his corn cost him but thirty cents a bushel. 
 Greatly interested as to how such a result could be 
 figured out, the inquiry was made: ''How much did you 
 allow for manure ? " " Nothing at all ; that was made on 
 the farm." 
 
 Still another instance that fell to the author's notice: 
 There was a man said to be extensively engaged in vege- 
 
Defenseless Trade Position of Agriculture. 95 
 
 table gardening wlio often lectured before farmers' clubs 
 and granges. He was regarded as one of the best 
 informed men in the state in this line. He got to talking 
 about corn and maintained that Xew England farmers 
 could afford to raise it. He had tested the matter and 
 proved that corn could be raised in Massachusetts for 
 fifty cents a bushel. AVhat gave a false impression here? 
 In the experiment he used his gardening land, made 
 exceedingly rich by constant application of manure. No 
 allowance was made for this totally unfair condition. 
 The crop was charged only with a few dollars' worth of 
 fertilizers. Of course, the yield was phenomenal, two or 
 three times the usual. This gave a very low cost per 
 bushel. 
 
 An account was seen in an agricultural paper of a 
 farmer who did most all of his own work, claiming his 
 farm paid him 20%. Several items of cost were not 
 entered ; the most important was he charged nothing for 
 his own services. 
 
 In manufacture cost can be measured, and this knowl- 
 edge goes far to hold price at a fair level. In agriculture 
 cost cannot be ascertained; price is determined solely by 
 degree of competition. How vitally this affects the in- 
 dustrial situation has been shown in preceding chapters. 
 That in agriculture competition will be most intense, and 
 in consequence that price is likely to fall far below cost, 
 will be evident from a discussion of the next proposition, 
 which is that — 
 
 Agkiculture is Not Divided into Non-co:mpetixg Groups 
 
 If, like manufacture, agriculture was divided into hun- 
 dreds of non-competing groups, and farmers generally 
 confined attention to single specialties, the degree of com- 
 
96 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 j)etition would be immensely decreased. Besides, there 
 would be a multiplicity of associations caring for the 
 different interests. There would be appeals for legisla- 
 tion. There would be tierce attacks on the protective 
 system as most injurious to the farmer's interest, and it 
 would soon find place in the garret of forgotten things. 
 The interest of a man carrying on several lines of pro- 
 duction is fatallv divided, both in field care and the direc- 
 tion of legislation. 
 
 To secure full attention to the interests of a product 
 there is nothing like having many individuals caring for 
 it as a single specialty. Unfortunately, there is little to 
 cause a division into separate groups, or to cause farmers 
 to pursue single specialties. Probably there are less 
 than thirty different kinds of our agricultural products 
 for which beast or man affords verv extensive markets. 
 The division of those engaged in farming into this num- 
 ber of groups would still leave the number of persons in 
 each too large for successful monopolization. But the 
 effectual bar to the creating of monopolies here is the 
 great similarity of soil and climate throughout the United 
 States. So great is this similarity of conditions that 
 many if not most of our products flourish in more than 
 half our wide domain. But a few products, like cotton, 
 rice, sugar-cane, and sub-tropical fruits, are confined to 
 certain sections of the countrv. At little cost the farmer 
 can turn from the production of one crop to another. He 
 can make the change at once, though fair success may 
 require a year or two of experience. Let monopoly here 
 seize on a line of products and send price to a high level, 
 the very next year the number of growers of those crops 
 would be greatly multiplied. The quantity thrown on the 
 market would not only break the wings of monopoly, but 
 
Defenseless Trade Position of Agriculture. 97 
 
 might result in prices as far below as it had risen above 
 a fair level. 
 
 Something more remains to be added in the compari- 
 son of trade positions. In combinations for fixing price, 
 other things being eqnal, the fewer the persons in the 
 movement that need to be consulted the greater the suc- 
 cess. The number of proprietors in manufacture is one 
 to every seven or eight workmen ; in agriculture the num- 
 ber of laborers is fewer than the number of farmers. 
 
 Then again manufacturers are located in the centres of 
 population in easy reach of each other by car, train, tel- 
 ephone and telegraph ; the farmers are scattered all over 
 the territory of the nation, widely separated from each 
 other, with no direct way of communicating, utterly un- 
 known to each other. 
 
 There is no headquarters of production. There is no 
 way of concentrating agricultural supplies and forcing 
 them on the market by a few guarded channels. For 
 most agricultural products supplies can be obtained from 
 a thousand sources and these enter the market at as 
 many points. 
 
 For these reasons farmers' products are simply 
 thrown on the market, and the degree of supply to de- 
 mand determines the price at all points. Nothing is 
 done — nothing can be done to hold price at a fair level. 
 The inevitable result of millions of men competing under 
 existing conditions is to cause price to fall far below a 
 reasonable level. 
 
 To cap all, as if the trade position of agriculture was 
 not bad enough, the national government increases the 
 degree of competition by giving away farms, by making 
 great tracts of land available by irrigation and by its 
 foreign policy of restricting trade. 
 
 7 
 
98 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 FOUR DECADES OF DECLINING AGRI- 
 CULTURAL PROSPERITY UNDER 
 HIGH PROTECTION. 
 
 CHAPTER VIIL 
 
 The National View. 
 
 At the close of the nineteenth and the beginning of 
 the twentieth century it is eminently fitting to take a 
 backward glance. Xot only is that time fitting, but un- 
 usual facilities are given for such a review. The United 
 States Census, 1900, includes many statistical tables con- 
 cerning agriculture, in a retrospective view covering fifty 
 years in decade periods. It will be seen that these data, 
 and those from manv other sources, fullv confirm the 
 words of the Worthy Master of the National Grrange, 
 Aaron Jones, spoken at a business meeting of the order 
 at Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1903: "Agriculture 
 has not enjoyed an equal degree of prosperity with man- 
 ufacture and other industrial and commercial enterprises 
 in the United States. Farmers are losing their relative 
 position in the wealth and production of the nation." 
 And he adds, "It is the duty of this order and every 
 farmer to investigate and discover the causes that have 
 contributed to this condition, and aid in their removal 
 wherever found." 
 
 This book is exactly in the line of duty indicated by 
 Worthv Master Jones. 
 
The National View. 99 
 
 First a backward glance at the general situation of 
 agriculture for the last fifty years. 
 
 In 1850 the value of agricultural property exceeded 
 the wealth owned by the rest of the nation. In ten 
 years the value of the former had doubled, while non- 
 agricultural wealth had much more than doubled. In 
 forty years more, 1860-1900, the value respectively was 
 about twenty and one half billions, and nearly seventy- 
 four billions of dollars. This for the nation. The 
 agricultural gain for the forty years was chiefly 
 caused by the addition of millions of new farms 
 at the West and Southwest where land was for- 
 merly almost valueless. In the North Atlantic divi- 
 sion of states, where new land has not been a factor, 
 from 1850-60, ten years, agricultural property increased 
 in value $769,000,000; in the next forty years under high 
 duties the increase was but $496,000,000. And in the 
 last twenty years, from 1880-1900, the value fell off 
 $246,000,000. In this same division of states, the total 
 value of all property rose from $3,131,000,000 in 1850 
 to $38,301,000,000 in 1904. Leaving out the Wall Street 
 state, and the round figures are $2,050,000,000 in 1850, 
 and $23,532,000,000 in 1904. About a ten-fold increase. 
 
 We claim that this section of the Union gives a fairer 
 criterion of the agricultural situation than where many 
 new states, each with a vast acreage of land, have in- 
 creased by billions of dollars the value of agricultural 
 property. 
 
 Now it is not at all strange, with the rapid growth of 
 the manufacturing centres, and the vast extension of the 
 railroad system, that the wealth of the non-agricultural 
 portion should multiply faster than that of the agricul- 
 tural community. What is most surprising is the fact 
 
100 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 that, as the wealth of the nation rapidly increased, the 
 percentage of gain to the farmer (where conditions were 
 normal) decreased, and in the last twenty years, 1880- 
 1900, suffered an actual loss of nearly 8 per cent. 
 
 We now enter on a closer examination. The first evi- 
 dence of waning prosperity we present is two tables : 
 one showing the total value of farm land, including 
 buildings, at different periods, with percentage of gain; 
 another giving the total value of all farm property, land, 
 buildings, machinery and live stock, and the percentage 
 of gain. 
 
 Value of all Farm 
 
 
 Value of U.S. Farms, 
 including Buildings. 
 
 Percentage 
 of Gain. 
 
 Property in U.S., 
 Land, Buildings, 
 Machinery and 
 Live Stock. 
 
 Percent- 
 age of 
 Gain. 
 
 
 (In round numbers.) 
 
 
 
 1850 
 
 $3,271,000,000 
 
 
 $3,967,000,000 
 
 
 1860 
 
 6.645,000,000 
 
 103.1 
 
 7,980,000,000 
 
 101.2 
 
 1870 
 
 9.262,000,000 
 
 39.4 
 
 11,125,000,000 
 
 39.4 
 
 1880 
 
 10,197,000,000 
 
 10.9 
 
 12,180.000,000 
 
 9.5 
 
 1890 
 
 13,279.000,000 
 
 30.2 
 
 16,082,000,000 
 
 32.0 
 
 1900 
 
 16,674,000,000 
 
 25.6 
 
 20,514,000,000 
 
 26.2 
 
 These tables show at a glance that there is no material 
 difference in the percentage of gain of the two columns 
 of values. Whether the value of real estate held by farm- 
 ers is considered alone or in conjunction with the per- 
 sonal property, the percentage of gain in value of the 
 first given decade is four times greater than the average 
 of the four following decades. It is not evident from 
 the figures that farm property shared to an equal extent, 
 if at all, in the great inflation of values common to most 
 I^roperty during the war period, 1860-70. During that 
 decade there was practically no increase in the number 
 of acres of land in farms. The value of new buildings. 
 

 The National VinvJ ' ' '*'- ' '' a'Ol 
 
 and the increased value of the improved acres (about 16 
 per cent, larger) would go in part at least to make up 
 the 39 per cent, increase in value. Had there been a 
 great inflation of values in the war period, the small per- 
 centage of gain of the three last decades as compared 
 with that of 1850-60 would be imputed to the gradual 
 fall to a normal basis. 
 
 Now unless some explanation can be fbund for the 
 apparently far greater prosperity enjoyed before the war 
 than since, it must be admitted that the golden age of 
 agriculture was from 1850-60 under low revenue duties. 
 During this decade there must have been an average 
 annual gain in value of more than 10 per cent, to amount 
 to the 103 per cent, in ten years. What per cent, on the 
 average would give the gain in decades ending in 1880, 
 1890 and 1900 ? A trifle over 3 per cent. 
 
 To show that the greater prosperity 1850-60 was real, 
 and not all due to the gain of new land at the West and 
 Southwest, we present other tables. 
 
 p . Average value per Percent- 
 
 The Number of Acres tlT^ai ^^^® °^ ^^^°^ ^^^ °^ 
 
 of Land in Farms. rt:^ Land, including Gam or 
 
 ^^^^- Buildings. Loss. 
 (In round numbers.) 
 
 1850 293.500,000 $11.14 
 
 1860 407.200,000 38.7 16.32 46.5 
 
 1870 407,700.000 0.1 18.26 12.0 
 
 1880 536,000,000 31.5 19.02 4.0 
 
 1890 623,200,000 16.3 21.31 12.0 
 
 1900 838,590,000 35.0 19.88 —7.0 
 
 Here it is seen that the percentage of gain in number 
 of acres of land was not much greater from 1850-60 than 
 from 1870-80, or 1890-1900. And yet the increase in 
 value of farms was 103 per cent, in the first of these 
 
102 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 decades, and less than 26 per cent, on the average in the 
 last three, the ratio being as 4 to 1. 
 
 Glancing now at the average value per acre of farm 
 lands with buildings, it is seen that from 1850-60 the per- 
 centage of gain was over 46 per cent., while from 1890- 
 1900 there was not only no gain but a loss of 7 per cent. 
 
 • 
 
 The Story Told by Mortgaged Property. 
 
 In the political campaign of 1900 Eepublican papers 
 and orators affirmed that so prosperous had been the 
 three last years under President McKinley that the farm- 
 ers had paid off their mortgages. The data concerning 
 indebtedness had been collected the previous year, 1899, 
 but we think were not published till 1902 or 1903. 
 
 There had been abundant crops* at the West and South 
 in the three years mentioned, 1897-99. But in spite of a 
 large foreign demand, prices were low. Still the large 
 quantities when disposed of returned vast sums of 
 money, so that it was thought likely that there might be 
 considerable truth in the statements of partisan journals 
 and speakers. If so, the number of farmers previously 
 bearing burdens must have been great indeed. Here is 
 a partial list of the columns of figures showing how 
 many farmers owned their farms, and how many of the 
 owned farms were mortgaged. The part given comprises 
 the returns for the nation, for the grand divisions, and 
 for fourteen of the more prosperous states. 
 
 The last column shows what per cent, of the owned 
 farms were mortgaged, does not include farms carried 
 on bv ^'Farmers' Families" who are tenants. 
 
The National View. 
 
 103 
 
 " Farmers' Families' 
 having Homes.' ' 
 
 Continental United States, 
 North Atlantic Division, 
 South Atlantic Division, 
 North Central Division, 
 South Central Division, 
 Western Division, 
 
 Massachusetts, 
 
 New York, 
 
 Pennsylvania, 
 
 Ohio, ^ 
 
 Indiana, 
 
 Illinois, 
 
 Michigan, 
 
 Wisconsin, 
 
 Minnesota, 
 
 Iowa, 
 
 Missouri, 
 
 Nebraska, 
 
 Kansas, 
 
 California, 
 
 1900— Owned Per Cent. 
 
 T-. -n/r i. J Mortgaged, 
 
 Free. Mortgaged. „hnn+ 
 
 2,422,678 
 
 315,070 
 
 416,425 
 
 887,774 
 
 654,546 
 
 148,863 
 
 19,058 
 
 89,934 
 
 107.661 
 
 138,568 
 
 97,290 
 
 92,768 
 
 85,608 
 
 77,622 
 
 67,015 
 
 67,673 
 
 109,729 
 
 39,024 
 
 61,865 
 
 33,847 
 
 1,094,573 
 195,921 
 83,858 
 634,559 
 138,955 
 41,280 
 11,976 
 77,429 
 51,438 
 58,669 
 55,889 
 60,089 
 79,836 
 65,645 
 54,377 
 76,417 
 80,692 
 32,430 
 44,370 
 16,072 
 
 31.00 
 38.00 
 17.00 
 41.00 
 17.00 
 22.00 
 37.00 
 46.00 
 32.33 
 29.00 
 36.48 
 39.31 
 48.25 
 45.82 
 44.79 
 53.03 
 42.37 
 45.38 
 41.76 
 32.19 
 
 iThe number of ''Farmers' Families" and the number of farms agree 
 within less then one per cent. 
 
 But the number of mortgages, numerous as 
 thev are, is far from indicating the real condi- 
 tion of the agricultural masses. More than one- 
 third of the farmers were too poor in 1900 to 
 obtain possession of a farm by giving a mort- 
 gage. A mortgage usually implies that the purchaser 
 has the means of paying a considerable part of the price. 
 A part paid down gives additional assurance to the seller 
 that the investment is a safe one. Men who have no 
 capital can rarely find owners of farms willing to risk 
 a trade where the mortgage given represents the total 
 price. Uncle Sam has given away many millions of 
 
104 
 
 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 acres of land to men without means, and in a few years 
 these may have acquired sufficient value to put on small 
 mortgages for implements, teams, etc. Other than this 
 way, if a man without capital wants a farm he generally 
 has to hire either by agreeing to give a certain share of 
 the crops or pay so much cash when the crops have been 
 converted into money. We think it fair, then, to define a 
 tenant as one who is too poor to obtain possession of a 
 farm by giving a mortgage. 
 
 The census record for 1900 shows the following condi- 
 tion — ''Per Cent, of Farm Families Having Homes;" — 
 in other words : 
 
 Per Cent, of Farms 
 Owned or Hired. 
 
 Continental United States, 
 North Atlantic Division. 
 South Atlantic Division, 
 North Central Division, 
 South Central Division, 
 Western Division, 
 
 Farms Owned.' 
 
 
 Free. Mortgaged. 
 
 Hired. 
 
 44.4 20 
 
 35.6 
 
 48.2 30 
 
 21.8 
 
 45.9 9.3 
 
 44.8 
 
 42.2 30.1 
 
 27.7 
 
 42.3 8.9 
 
 48.8 
 
 63.4 17.6 
 
 19.0 
 
 An examination of this table shows that more farms 
 were mortgaged than hired in the North Atlantic and 
 North Central Divisions ; while in the South Atlantic and 
 South Central Divisions few farms were mortgaged, but 
 very many hired. 
 
 Does the above table indicate a prosperous condition? 
 For the nation but a little over 44% of the farms tilled 
 by the owners were free of incumbrance; the owners of 
 207c more were mortgaged; while over 35% were carried 
 on by tenants. In that stronghold of agriculture, the 
 North Central Division, 58% of all the farms were either 
 mortgaged or let to tenants. 
 
 Another important link in the chain of evidence of the 
 
The Kational View. 105 
 
 decline of agricultural prosperity is the slow gain in 
 total annual value of agricultural products. As shown 
 by one of the preceding tables the capital invested in 
 the industrv has increased four-fold since 1850; the num- 
 ber of farmers as indicated by the number of farms has 
 multiplied three-fold; and owing to the substitution of 
 the quick-moving horse for the slow-going ox and great 
 improvement in farm machinery, the labor of man is far 
 more productive than fifty years ago. For these reasons 
 the quant it u produced in 1900 must have been three or 
 four times as much as in the former time. Did the value 
 received by the farmer show a corresi^onding increase! 
 For answer we turn to Mr. S. X. D. North, one of the 
 prominent supervisors of the census of 1900. In an arti- 
 cle published in the American Eeview of Ee^dews Sep- 
 tember, 1902, pages 319 to 324, he says, ''The population 
 has in the meantime increased two and one quarter fold 
 (since 1850) and the value of agricultural products some- 
 thing less than two-fold." 
 
 The slow increase in total value of agricultural lorod- 
 ucts will be far more apparent by a comparison with the 
 increased value of manufactured products. The value of 
 manufactured products increased twelve-fold. The in- 
 crease in number of average wage-earners was about 
 four and one-half fold. The increase in capital is given 
 as nearly seventeen-fold, but was actually far less. In 
 1890, for the first time, ''Live capital, i.e., cash on hand, 
 bills receivable, unsettled ledger accounts, raw materials, 
 stock in process of manufacture, finished products on 
 hand, and other sundries, was for the first time included 
 as a separate and distinct item of capital." These items 
 undoubtedly added billions of dollars to capital. To indi- 
 cate the enormous effect we give the percentage of gain 
 
106 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 in capital before and after: from 1870-80, 31.7%; from 
 1890-1900, 50.7%. In 1880 returns of value of capital were 
 given by former methods, in 1890 came the change indi- 
 cated above, and the apparent gain was 133.8%. In 1850 
 the total annual value of agricultural products must have 
 been more than twice that of manufacture. In 1900 the 
 total annual value of the latter was nearly three times 
 that of the former. Under somewhat similar conditions 
 where manufacture shows a twelve-fold increase, agricul- 
 ture in the fifty years, forty of these under the highest 
 kind of protection, shows less than two-fold. Is it strange 
 that the poverty of returns in agriculture caused such a 
 desertion of farms that where in 1880 the 44.3% of those 
 engaged in farming fell to 35.7 in 1900! 
 
 Summary of the chief links of the chain proving de- 
 cline in agricultural prosperity : 
 
 (1) In the nation, a rapid decline in the percentage 
 of gain in value of agricultural property in the last forty 
 years. 
 
 (2) A great decline in the percentage of gain in value 
 of the average acre of land with buildings, with a posi- 
 tive decline of 7% in such value in the last decade. 
 
 (3) The great percentage of mortgaged and hired 
 farms in 1900. 
 
 (4) The small increase in the total annual value of 
 agricultural products during the last fifty years. 
 
 (5) The large decline in the percentage of those who 
 follow agricultural pursuits. 
 
 What a pity that there are no data as to the amount 
 of wealth in possession of manufacturers and the holders 
 of bonds and stocks of manufacturing companies, by 
 decade periods ! 
 
Independent Farmer Becoming Tenant. 107 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The Independent Fakmer Sinking to the Position 
 
 OF Mere Tenant. 
 
 ''There was one remark made by Ex-governor Bout- 
 well at the Old Home celebration at Lunenbnrg last week 
 which particularly arrested the attention of his listeners. 
 'Farmers tell me,' he said, 'that it is hard to make both 
 ends meet, and I am glad of it'. The astonished auditor 
 then had matters explained as follows : — 
 
 " 'We look about and see such aggregations of indi- 
 vidual wealth as were never dreamed of when I was a 
 lad, or in middle life. This vast capital is seeking safe 
 investment, and if it can find it at 2%, and safe, it is 
 satisfied. If farming were profitable these people would 
 certainly buy up all the land and hire its cultivation for 
 profit, and the present self-respecting and respected 
 farmer would become practically a serf on the soil. So I 
 am glad of the struggle, for it keeps our sturdiest people 
 still self-supporting, industrious, self-reliant; still the 
 sound common sense of the nation, its backbone in every 
 great stress. So it is fortunate the condition is what we 
 hear, and what I have explained.' " 
 
 "Whether the provincial life is being buttressed in its 
 independent position and hardy virtues by a meagre and 
 laborious existence, or whether it is not thereby weak- 
 ened, may be questioned. In the Roman republic the im- 
 poverishment of agriculture preceded and led up to its 
 enslavement; and it is decidedly open to doubt whether 
 existing conditions on our farms, as described, offer as 
 great resistance to the centralizing tendencies of the 
 
108 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 time as would more prosperous conditions. If the latter 
 prevailed there would be smaller aggregations of individ- 
 ual ^vealth with which to effect a practical serfdom of the 
 soil." 
 
 The above is copied from an article in the Massachu- 
 setts Springfield Weekly Eepublican of AugTist 8, 1902. 
 
 We think the doubts expressed by the journal exceed- 
 ingly well taken. Which is most likely to be the sturdy, 
 independent farmer admired by Mr. Boutwell — the one 
 who has a master in the form of a mortgage so heavy 
 that to keep the interest paid requires unceasing, exhaus- 
 tive effort, where care presses incessantly like a dead 
 weight on the breast; or the man whose well-directed 
 efforts on a fertile farm have secured a handsome bank 
 account to his credit? AVhich of these two will dare look 
 a haughty opponent square in the face and express op- 
 posing views — the one whose weak financial condition 
 causes a constant seeking of favors from those about 
 him, or the other on whom no man has any hold, who 
 feels perfectly able to care for himself? 
 
 Did Mr. Boutwell take into consideration the fact that 
 because of poor returns, the old original Yankee stock 
 has largely been driven from the farms, and into their 
 places have come men from Canada, Sweden, Germany? 
 Will this change to men of less intelligence, who have 
 not inherited love for our country and its free institu- 
 tions, lessen the danger of the farmer's becoming a serf 
 on the soil?" 
 
 Whoever heard before that the way to keep ''our 
 sturdiest people still self-supporting" was by making it 
 ' ' hard to make the two ends meet ? " 
 
 The farmers of 1776 brooked no tyrants, but in our day 
 the blood of agricultural prosperity has been sucked to 
 such an extent by the vampires of monopoly that no life 
 
Independent Farmer Becoming Tenant. 109 
 
 seems to be left in the agricultural community. They 
 endure wrongs without a murmur, -compared to which 
 those of 1776 were mere shadows. 
 
 Mr. W. J. Ghent does not see with Mr. Boutwell's 
 eyes. In his book, ''Our Benevolent Feudalism," occur 
 these sentences: "The subject of the changing status of 
 the farmer — a change which involves his ultimate reduc- 
 tion to the sixteenth century level— is too large to receive 
 adecjuate treatment in these pages." 
 
 "In most ages the working farmer has been the dupe 
 and prey of the rest of mankind. Now by force and now 
 by cajolery, as social customs and political institutions 
 change, he has been made to produce the food by which 
 the race lives, and the share of his product which he has 
 been permitted to keep for himself has always been piti- 
 fullv small. Whether Roman slave, Frankish serf or 
 English villain; whether the so-called 'independent' 
 farmer of a free democracy or the ryot of a Hindu 
 prince, the general rule holds good." 
 
 "Xeither do small holdings in agriculture mean eco- 
 nomic independence. As the late census reveals, they 
 mean tenantry. The proportion of farms operated by 
 owners is decreasing; tenantry is becoming more and 
 more common, and so is salaried management of great 
 estates. Of the 5,739,657 farms of the nation, tenants 
 now operate 2,026,286. Owners operated 74.5% of all 
 farms in 1880; 76.6% in 1890; 64.7% in 1900. The ten- 
 dency is general, and applies to all sections." 
 
 ' ' This remarkable growth of tenantry would be consid- 
 ered in any other than our own complacent days as an 
 alarming, even an appalling fact." 
 
 How far the process of reducing the farmer to the 
 position of mere tenant has gone in twenty years we show 
 by computations from census figures. We present the 
 
110 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 figures for the nation ; then for the grand divisions ; last- 
 ly give the separate record for more than a third of all 
 the states. In the latter case, we start from the Atlantic 
 Ocean, and pass into the very heart of the nation, nam- 
 ing the great states where agriculture is in the most 
 flourishing condition; then, making a long skip over the 
 Eocky Mountains, show how things are in the oldest set- 
 tled of the Pacific States. We thus bring to view nearly 
 all but some of the newer states and the Southern States. 
 
 The Number of Farms Worked by Owners and Tenants. 
 
 
 Owners. Percentage 
 
 ; Tenants. 
 
 
 
 
 
 of In- 
 
 
 Percent- 
 
 
 1900 
 
 1880 crease or 
 
 1900 
 
 1880 a 
 
 tare of 
 
 Continental United 
 
 Decrease. 
 
 
 Increase. 
 
 States, 3,712,408 
 
 2,984,306 
 
 24.4 2,024,964 1,024,601 
 
 97.6 
 
 North Atlantic 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Division, 
 
 536.724 
 
 584,847 
 
 8.21 
 
 140,782 
 
 111,292 
 
 26.5 
 
 South Atlantic 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Division, 
 
 536,627 
 
 411.673 
 
 30.3 
 
 425,598 
 
 232,756 
 
 82.8 
 
 North Central 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Di\dsion, 1.583,841 
 
 1,350,225 
 
 17.3 
 
 612,726 
 
 3:47,743 
 
 76.2 
 
 South Central 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Division, 
 
 852,620 
 
 565.556 
 
 50.7 
 
 805.546 
 
 321,092 
 
 150.9 
 
 Western Div., 
 
 202,596 
 
 72,005 
 
 181.4 
 
 40,312 
 
 11,718 
 
 244.0 
 
 States : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Massachusetts, 
 
 34,112 
 
 35,266 
 
 3.31 
 
 3,603 
 
 3,140 
 
 14.7 
 
 New York, 
 
 172.517 
 
 201,186 
 
 14.21 
 
 54.203 
 
 39,872 
 
 35.1 
 
 Pennsvlvania, 
 
 165,982 
 
 168,220 
 
 1.31 
 
 58,266 
 
 45,322 
 
 28.5 
 
 Ohio, ' 
 
 200.788 
 
 199,562 
 
 .6 
 
 75,931 
 
 47,627 
 
 59.4 
 
 Indiana, 
 
 158,449 
 
 147,963 
 
 7.1 
 
 63.448 
 
 46.050 
 
 37.8 
 
 Illinois, 
 
 160,453 
 
 175,497 
 
 8.51 
 
 103,698 
 
 80,244 
 
 29.2 
 
 Michigan, 
 
 171.048 
 
 138,597 
 
 23.4 
 
 32,213 
 
 15,411 
 
 109.2 
 
 Wisconsin, 
 
 146,799 
 
 122,163 
 
 20.2 
 
 22,996 
 
 12,159 
 
 89.1 
 
 Minnesota, 
 
 127,904 
 
 83,933 
 
 52.4 
 
 26,755 
 
 8,453 
 
 216.5 
 
 Iowa, 
 
 148.886 
 
 141,177 
 
 5.5 
 
 79,736 
 
 44,174 
 
 80.5 
 
 IMissouri, 
 
 197.989 
 
 156,703 
 
 26.0 
 
 86.897 
 
 58,872 
 
 47.6 
 
 Nebraska, 
 
 76,715 
 
 51,963 
 
 47.6 
 
 44,810 
 
 11.424 292.24 
 
 Kansas, 
 
 112.172 
 
 115,910 
 
 3 21 
 
 60,926 
 
 22,651 168.98 
 
 California, 
 
 55,782 
 
 28,810 
 
 93.6 
 
 16,760 
 
 7.124 135.26 
 
 ^ Loss. 
 
Independent Farmer Becoming Tenant. Ill 
 
 Here it is seen that for the nation, tenant farming has 
 increased in twenty years nearly 100%, outstripping the 
 gain in ownership four-fold. In 1880 about one farmer 
 in four was a tenant; in 1900 more than one farnier in 
 three. To this statement should be added what was 
 noted in the sixth chapter, that 31% of those who owned 
 the farms they carried on had a mortgage upon them; 
 in other words, nearly one-third of the farms owned were 
 mortgaged. At the rate tenant farming has increased (a 
 percentage of gain of 97.6% in twenty years) in much 
 less than forty years the independent farmer will be ex- 
 tinct — landlordism will be universal. 
 
 From this general statement concerning the nation we 
 pass to observe the condition in the sections or states. 
 Eeversing the order in which the grand divisions are 
 usually given, we first glance at the status of the Western 
 Division. This group consists of Montana, Wyoming, 
 Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, 
 Washington, Oregon and California. But little of this 
 vast extent of territory was settled in 1880 — the greater 
 part of California was not. Even in 1900 less than 4% 
 of the total land surface of this division was improved. 
 Its herds and flocks, from which was obtained a very 
 large part of the value of its products, mainly drew sus- 
 tenance from its boundless grazing lands. Its great 
 farms or ranches are not yet cut to civilization size ; and 
 their comparatively high value indicates farmers with 
 means much above the average of the class. With all 
 conditions relating to the industry so different from 
 those usually existing in agricultural communities, it 
 could not be expected that data of value to the subject 
 in hand could be obtained from this section of the nation. 
 
112 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 The South Atlantic and South Central Divisions. 
 
 These two divisions include the former slave-holding 
 states (save Missouri), the District of Columbia, Dela- 
 ware, and Oklahoma. Here again were abnormal condi- 
 tions that so affected the situation as to prevent the 
 drawing of fair conclusions. The general impoverish- 
 ment of the planters by the war and the freeing of the 
 slaves caused a large part of the land to be thrown on 
 the market even as late as from 1880-1900. At the same 
 time there were hundreds of thousands of former slaves, 
 or the children of such slaves, who desired to obtain 
 farms, but few of them had means to purchase. So here 
 it is not strange that the percentage of gain in rented 
 farms was nearly three times greater than increase in 
 ownership. Even if under fair conditions there had been 
 a great degree of prosperity, the natural indolence of the 
 negroes, when they are their own bosses, would prevent 
 the gradual acquiring of land ]30ssessions on the part of 
 the greater number. 
 
 The North Central Division. 
 
 This includes Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wis- 
 consin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North and South Da- 
 kota, Nebraska and Kansas — a magnificent array of 
 agricultural states that comprises within its limits more 
 than half the value of all farm property in the United 
 States. If there was prosperity anywhere in the agri- 
 cultural community, it should be found here. What is 
 the record for this division! Seventeen per cent, increase 
 in ownership from 1880-1900 and 76% gain in the num- 
 ber of rented farms. Of those who owned farms almost 
 42% were mortgaged. 
 
I 
 
 Independent Farmer Becoming Tenant. 113 
 
 Of the states of this division Nebraska is the most 
 recently settled, and it is seen that to every man who 
 came into possession of a farm by purchase, more than 
 six rented the farms they carried on. In 1900, 45% of 
 all farms owned by those who tilled them were mort- 
 gaged. 
 
 The historical State of Kansas shows a decrease in 
 ownership of farms of over 3%, and an increase in the 
 number of farms rented of 169%. About 42% of the 
 farms owned by the tillers thereof were mortgaged. 
 
 The story of Iowa is nearly as bad: less than 6% 
 ownership gain, and 80% gain in rentals; while 53% of 
 the owners who tilled their farms carried mortgages. 
 
 Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota show a far larger 
 increase in ownership than Iowa, and the percentage of 
 mortgaged is somewhat less; but there is a far greater 
 gain in rentals, especially in Minnesota. Here a gain in 
 ownership of over 52% is accompanied by a gain in ten- 
 ants of 216%. 
 
 Illinois shows a comparatively small gain in rented 
 farms, but a positive loss in ownership of over 8%. 
 
 The last of the North Central group to which we call 
 attention is Ohio. No state in the Union is better cir- 
 cumstanced for securing rich agricultural returns. It is 
 centrally located, with all its territory easily accessible 
 by water or railroads. Its soil is most fertile. The land 
 is cut into small farms, indicating intensive farming. In 
 population only three states exceed it, which gives its 
 farmers a market for the most profitable crops at their 
 very doors. A very large portion of its people are en- 
 gaged in manufacture. In 1900 the value of such prod- 
 ucts was so great as to give Ohio the fifth place in this 
 industry. If the theory is sound that protection creates 
 
 8 
 
114 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 manufacturing centres, and that these furnish extremely 
 lucrative markets to the surrounding farmers, the farm- 
 ers of this State should be rolling in wealth. Here is 
 opportunity for testing the theory. The reign of pro- 
 tection began in 1860. The farmers have been under its 
 benign influence for four decades. How have they fared! 
 Here is one of the tables furnished by the census report 
 of 1900 that tells the story : 
 
 Ohio Farms. 
 
 The total value of farm land with buildings (with percentage of gain and 
 loss) in round numbers. 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 1850 $358,758,000 
 
 1860 678,133,000 -f89 
 
 1870 1,054,465,000 -f55.5 
 
 1880 1,127,497,000 +6.9 
 
 1890 1,050,032,000 —6.9 
 
 1900 1,036,615,000 —1.3 
 
 Before the days of Republican protection a gain in the 
 value of land and buildings of over $319,000,000, percent- 
 age gain 89% in a single decade; under the highest pro- 
 tection ever known in the United States a loss in two 
 decades of $90,000,000, or 8%. 
 
 Then in regard to the value of buildings on the Ohio 
 farms. Ohio was admitted to the Union in 1802. It then 
 had a population of 45,365. In those early days little 
 more could have been expected in the way of buildings 
 on farms but rough sheds for man and beast. As time 
 went on these naturally would give way for something 
 larger and better. By the time of the great Civil War 
 we should look to see the families provided generally 
 with comfortable small framed houses, warm sheds for 
 the stock, and much of the hav, formerlv stacked, imder 
 a roof. The forty years since added, bringing up to 
 
Independent Farmer Becoming Tenant. 115 
 
 1900, should have seen large front additions made to the 
 dwellings, and barns of generous proportions everywhere. 
 But what sum does the census of 1900 state as the value 
 of the buildings on the average Ohio farm? Just seven 
 hundred and ninety-three dollars ! Less than $800 worth 
 of buildings after nearly one hundred years. And much 
 the same pitiable story of agricultural poverty is told by 
 the census for a large part of the United States. When 
 we compare the cost of buildings erected by farmers 
 with the outlay made in the small and great manufac- 
 turing centres, the comparison is most startling. 
 
 The percentage of gain in ownership of Ohio farms 
 from 1880-1900 was hardly anything, less than one per 
 cent., while the gain in rented farms was nearly 60%. 
 
 NoT^' it will be claimed by some who have reasons of 
 their own for keeping the agricultural community in 
 ignorance of the true condition, that this letting to ten- 
 ants indicates a high degree of prosperity and not the 
 reverse. Cases have been cited to the writer of farmers 
 in some sections of the country who were getting into 
 years, renting their farms and taking up their abode in 
 the iriore populous centres, supporting themselves there 
 by the gains made in many years of toil and the sums 
 obtained by the rental of the farms. It is evident that 
 such farms carry a double burden, which would imply 
 large returns. But if the profits were large why did the 
 percentage of these renters rapidly increase? Why, if 
 they received only fair profits, did they not gradually 
 obtain the means for the purchase of a farm! If gener- 
 ally they did gain the necessary amount, or even enough 
 to gain possession of a farm by giving a mortgage, why 
 did they not exchange the status of a renter for that of 
 owner! In the twenty years from 1880-1900, there was 
 
116 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 plenty of time to make such a change if the pursuit of 
 farming had proved profitable. The rapid increase of 
 renters over gain in ownership seems to be conclusive 
 evidence that little more than a living was realized by 
 the greater part of those renting farms. 
 
 Driven from this position there are those who will say : 
 *'The evidence presented of declining agricultural pros- 
 perity is ancient history. Since the census was taken in 
 1899 a new heaven and earth have appeared in the agri- 
 cultural world. Not only have the western farmers paid 
 off their mortgages, but handsome banking accounts now 
 stand to their credit. ' ' It was shown in the eighth chap- 
 ter that much the same talk was current with Eepublican 
 speakers and papers in the campaign of 1900. How far 
 off they were from the truth has been seen. The reports 
 of increased x^i'osperity since 1899 among the western 
 farmers comes not onlv from biased but also from un- 
 biased sources, and there seems to be little doubt of the 
 fact. But those who believe that the burdens of many 
 years can be dropped by a few prosperous seasons know 
 little of the hardships of the farmer's life. The average 
 farmer usually, even with close economy, barely makes 
 the two ends meet. If, then, there comes a time when for 
 several years the dollars are more plenty, there are many 
 ways of investing the surplus besides paying oif a mort- 
 gage. There are repairs to make, new machines or wag- 
 ons or animals to purchase, or perhaps a small addition 
 need be made to house or barn. So that unless there is 
 a persistence for many years of good times the indebted- 
 ijess is likely to be but little diminished. Is such persist- 
 ence to be expected? We consider the larger returns to 
 be chieflv due to four causes : 
 
 (1) Unusually favorable seasons that have given a 
 
Independent Farmer Becoming Tenant. 117 
 
 larger yield of crops. Experience lias taught that un- 
 interrupted success for this cause is rarely enjoyed. 
 
 (2) To a very large foreign demand. The continu- 
 ance here depends partly on the size of home crops, part- 
 ly on the size of the crops of foreign nations, further, 
 to events; and again to the continuance of low export 
 
 prices. 
 
 (3) To a far more diversified farming. Instead of 
 confining attention chiefly to the production of corn, 
 wheat, oats, the raising of swine, horses and cattle, the 
 latter mainly for beef, for many years a large portion 
 of the western farmers have gone into the poultry, Qgg 
 and dairy business ; the growing of hay and vegetables ; 
 the production of apples and small fruits. There is a 
 limit to the market for these things. When competition 
 for this market becomes too intense the profit sinks below 
 the living line. In our opinion a close approach has 
 already been made to the dead-line. 
 
 (4) To a smaller surplus of agricultural products. 
 This is chiefly due to what is said to be a fact that most 
 of the land desirable for agricultural purposes has been 
 portioned out into farms and is now more or less under 
 cultivation. This means a smaller annual gain in quan- 
 tity of products— a lessening of degree of competition. 
 In other words demand is gaining on supply. This to 
 farmers is the most encouraging feature. Still this may 
 be offset by more intensified farming in the future, and 
 by success in great irrigating schemes by which vast 
 tracts of land now worthless may be made exceedingly 
 productive. 
 
 But suppose the good times to continue for many 
 years, will the larger part of the benefit be reaped by the 
 farmers? We think not. Unless we are much mistaken 
 
118 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 the prices of manufactured goods have already advanced 
 to so high a level that, taking in the entire agricultural 
 community, the higher price of farm products has been 
 fully offset. The products of the farmers of the eastern 
 states have increased little if any in value. The gain, 
 so far as we have noted, has been mostly in western 
 products, and at the south in cotton. In Massachusetts 
 the retail price of milk, the farmer's great sale product, 
 has, until a few months, for many years, remained un- 
 changed. At least this is the case in Worcester County. 
 The recent advance has been chiefly caused by the higher 
 price of western grain. This and other factors have more 
 than offset all the gain made by the higher price of milk. 
 If the farmers as a whole have received a larger net 
 gain, give the manufacturers a little more time to tighten 
 the bands of group monopoly, and it is certain that agri- 
 culturists will not be burdened with much superfluous 
 cash, even if their farms produce great crops for which 
 high prices are received. 
 
 SUMMAKY. 
 
 (1) Ex-governor Boutwell is convinced that farmers 
 find it hard to make the two ends meet ; and W. J. Grhent 
 believes that a change is going on that will ultimately 
 reduce the farmer to the sixteenth-century level. 
 
 (2) National statistics show that tenantry farming 
 has increased nearly 100% from 1880-1900; a gain four 
 times that made in farm ownership. In all the sections 
 and states, ownership is rapidly losing ground. 
 
How the Eastern Farmer Has Fared. 119 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 How THE Faemer Has Fared in the Manufacturing 
 
 Section of the Union. 
 
 The North Atlantic Division, which comprises the 
 states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu- 
 setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey 
 and Pennsylvania, may well be called the factory or 
 work-shop of the nation. In 1900 the value of the manu- 
 factured products of these nine states was closely equal 
 to that of the other thirty-five, being the immense sum of 
 $6,498,000,000. The number of the wage-earners in this 
 industry exceeded that of those so engaged in the other 
 thirty-five states. The total population of the nine states 
 is to the number engaged in agriculture there as 20 to 1. 
 Now if proximity to manufacturing centres, to large 
 masses of food consumers, is all that is required to enrich 
 farmers, those of this section should have enjoyed the 
 highest degree of prosperity. And if protection is bene- 
 ficial to the agricultural industry, the three decades of 
 high tariff that followed the war period would naturally 
 be expected to show larger gains in farmers' property 
 than in the decade of low duties that preceded the war. 
 Here is the record, and each one can judge for himself: 
 
 The North Atlantic Division. 
 
 
 Value of Farms, in- 
 cluding Buildings. 
 
 Percentage 
 of Gain or 
 Loss. 
 
 Average Value 
 per Farm of all 
 Farm Property. 
 
 Percent- 
 age of 
 Gain or 
 Loss. 
 
 1850 
 
 $1,455,000,000 
 
 
 $3,440 
 
 
 1860 
 
 2,122,000,000 
 
 +45.8 
 
 4,344 
 
 +26.2 
 
 1870 
 
 2,527,000,000 
 
 +19.1 
 
 4,899 
 
 +12.8 
 
 1880 
 
 2,803,000,000 
 
 +10.9 
 
 4,592 
 
 6.2 
 
 1890 
 
 2,539,000,000 
 
 9.4 
 
 4,510 
 
 1.8 
 
 1900 
 
 2,477,000,000 
 
 2.4 
 
 4,355 
 
 3.4 
 
120 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 The first table shows a gain in ten years, under low 
 duties, of $667,000,000, while the farms, with high duties, 
 in twenty years, 1880-1900, sustain a loss of $326,000,000. 
 The percentage of gain in value from 1850-60 is well up 
 towards 50%, while in the twenty years mentioned there 
 was a loss of nearly 12%. In the second table, while the 
 average farm, with its live stock and machinery increased 
 in value over $900 from 1850-60, there was a loss of $237 
 from 1880-1900. Another glance at the table shows that 
 forty years of hard work from 1860 to 1900 increased the 
 average farmer's property just $11. The average farm 
 is somewhat smaller in area in recent years than for- 
 merly. We repeat to give emphasis. Under a revenue 
 tariff the value of the average farmer's possession 
 increased in ten years $900, while forty years of the 
 highest protection ever known added but $11. 
 
 The Situation in Eegakd to Tenure of Possession. 
 
 Taking this division of states as a whole, there was a 
 decrease in the percentage of those who owned the farms 
 they tilled of over 8% in twent}^ years, 1880-1900. In 
 1900 over 38% of such farms were mortgaged. Massa- 
 chusetts, the fourth state in value of manufactures, sus- 
 tained a loss of 3.3% in farm ownership, and of this 
 37% was mortgaged. Pennsylvania, rank two in value 
 of manufactured articles in 1900, shows a slight decline 
 in farm ownership of a little more than 1%, but one-third 
 of these were mortgaged. The gain in tenant farms was 
 28.5% in the twenty years. New York, the largest man- 
 ufacturing state in the Union, shows a fall-off of farm 
 ownership of over 14%. Of the farms owned 46% were 
 mortgaged. The Springfield Weekly Eepublican of July 
 25, 1907, states that the United States Agricultural De- 
 
Hoiv tlie Eastern Farmer Has Fared. 121 
 
 partment has recently been investigating tlie deprecia- 
 tion of farm values in this State. "Half a dozen of the 
 leading agricultural counties of the State show declines 
 in total farm valuations of from 10 to 40% since 1880. 
 The abandoned farms of the State contain over 1,200,000 
 acres, an area equal to the whole of Ehode Island, or half 
 that of Connecticut. Many farms can be bought to-day 
 at 50% less than the cost of the building thereon." "The 
 counties that show largest depreciation in value of farm 
 lands lie along the great highway of commerce and popu- 
 lation between the East and the West, including the rich 
 valleys and fertile low-lying hills of the Mohawk 
 region traversed by the New York Central Eailroad." 
 
 The Xorth Atlantic Division, when compared with 
 other sections of the nation, shows a surprisingly small 
 gain in number of tenants, only 26.5%; this against a 
 South Atlantic gam of 82%, North Central 76%, South 
 Central 151%, and Western of 244%. The percentage in 
 gain of tenants in Pennsylvania was 28.5, New York 
 35%, while in Massachusetts the percentage was but 
 14.7%. Why this comparatively small gain in the num- 
 ber of rented farms in this division of states and 
 especially in Massachusetts? Light is thrown on the 
 subject by a prominent Massachusetts man. Ex-govern- 
 or Washburn said: "All men speak well of agriculture, 
 but all who can shun it." The farmers here are in close 
 proximity to the manufacturing centres, where far larger 
 profits and wages are received than in agriculture. Why, 
 then, should men become farm tenants! 
 
 The Deceptive Aspect of Census Returns in the Value 
 
 OF Agricultural Products. 
 
 If the agricultural situation is as has been described in 
 this and preceding chapters, how can the great increase 
 
122 . The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 in total value of such products for the last decade, 1890- 
 1900, be explained ? Leaving out new states where the 
 continual addition of hundreds of new farms would 
 necessarily cause a rapid increase in total value of such 
 products, and gains are everywhere shown ranging from 
 25 to over 100%. The gains in the states of the North 
 Atlantic Division are seen to be from about 50 to 75%; 
 those of the North Central from 75 to over 100%). Ken- 
 tucky, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia are 
 near the 100%c class; some of the South Central States as 
 low as from 25 to 50 %c. According to census reports the 
 national gain from 1890-1900 was over 91 %c. Yet on the 
 excellent authority of Mr. North, already quoted in chap- 
 ter I, we are assured that in fifty years, 1850-1900, the 
 gain in total value of agricultural products was less than 
 two-fold. If the gain in the ten years mentioned was 
 91%o, it is seen, if credit is given to Mr. North's state- 
 ment, that there was scarcely any gain at all from 1850-90. 
 The explanation of the conundrum is that the census 
 reports of the total value of agricultural products for the 
 two periods 1890 and 1900 are not comparable. The 
 value of very many farm products were taken into 
 account in 1900 by the national census for the first time. 
 In the magazine article before referred to, Mr. North 
 says : ' ' The census of 1890 placed the value of the prod- 
 ucts of agriculture at $2,460,000,000, but it omitted the 
 value of live stock on farms, of stock sold for slaughter, 
 etc., and statisticians have accordingly increased the 
 figure to $3,289,000,000." That ''etc." of Mr. North's 
 includes, we think, all the following products : forest 
 products, honey and wax, forage, clover seeds, other 
 vegetables than potatoes, dried beans and peas, peanuts, 
 broom corn, hops, ''miscellaneous" seeds, flowers and 
 
Hoiv the Eastern Farmer Has Fared. 123 
 
 « 
 
 plants, nursery products, small fruits, grapes and nuts. 
 The value of these products in 1890 was estimated by the 
 statisticians to be $829,000,000. The value of all prod- 
 ucts (formerly omitted) in 1900 was not far from $1,741,- 
 000,000. What the value was in 1890 could have been 
 little more than a guess on the part of the statisticians. 
 Whether the guess was near or far off for the nation as 
 a whole, no one can tell. In the returns of the various 
 states the estimated part is not added to 1890 returns. 
 The great percentage of gain shown by the states in the 
 value of agricultural products for this reason is only 
 apparent, not real; made to appear so by comparing a 
 portion of the value of agricultural products of 1890 with 
 the full value of 1900. 
 
 The case of Massachusetts is an illustration of how 
 erroneous is the impression given. The national census 
 indicates a gain in value of nearly "51% from 1890-1900; 
 whereas the State reports show a gain of less than 11% 
 from 1885-1895. A no inconsiderable part of the increase 
 shown by the State census came from a far more minute 
 search than ever made before. As indicating a more 
 searching examination is the far greater number of prod- 
 ucts specified by name. To illustrate : under the general 
 heading of ''Fruits, Berries and Nuts," but four prod- 
 ucts are named in 1885 ; in 1895, twenty-four. Under the 
 head of ''Vegetables" in the former year fifteen are 
 named; in the latter year, thirty-four are specified. 
 Under the general headings of "Animal Products," 
 "Food Products," "Wood Products," "Wooden Prod- 
 ucts," and "Other Products," the number of products 
 named in 1895 is double that named in 1885. 
 
 A class not included in the latter year, but entered in 
 1895, comes under the general head .of "Products from 
 
124 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 the Mines, Quarries, Pits, etc."; seventeen products are 
 named. To show what close scraping was done to give 
 as large a total value as possible, we note one dollar's 
 worth of gravel from Belchertown, Norfolk and Milford. 
 Sudbury and Grafton are each credited with muck to the 
 value of $1. Four towns have a return of $1 of sand; 
 three towns the same value of fish. The total value of 
 this class of products is $226,549. It is evident, then, 
 that if the same thoroughness had been exercised in the 
 State report of 1885 as in 1895, the increase in gain in 
 value of agricultural products of 11% would have been 
 largely reduced. Of course, it is possible that a state 
 whose gains from 1885-95 were less than 11% might have 
 gains from 1890-1900 of 51%, as indicated by the national 
 census. But the fact of many omitted products at one 
 census-taking makes valueless any comparison in the 
 latter case ; and failure here, there is no other alternative 
 than to fall back on the State censuses that were more 
 carefully made. 
 
 (2) In still another respect, as regards the total value 
 of agricultural products, the census figures are rhost 
 deceptive; they imjDly far larger returns than the facts 
 warrant. In proving this we shall confine remarks 
 chiefly to the State of Massachusetts, though the charge is 
 applicable to a more or less extent to most parts of the 
 United States. We refer to the great duplication of 
 values. Massachusetts officials carrv the matter one 
 step further than the national officials. This is the value 
 of manure made on the farms. This product is treated 
 just as if it were sold for cash and the money deposited in 
 the farmer's pocket. There is no reason why its value 
 should appear as a part of the farmer's income. While 
 it is a product of the farms, it is only when changed into 
 
Hoiv the Eastern Farmer Has Fared. 125 
 
 the forms of hay, vegetables, etc., that profit accrues 
 from it. The introduction of its value into the account 
 is a bluff game whose only conceivable object would seem 
 to be to present a larger total value. It is just as much 
 a duplication of value as when, after an entry of hay and 
 grain values, the value of milk, beef, pork, poultry and 
 eggs made from these products is also included. But the 
 duplicating does not stop here. The butter and cheese 
 made on the farms, and cream sold from the very milk 
 already put on record, are entered at their face values. 
 There is no denial of the matter in the State report. 
 Under the head of "Duplications of Value in the Dairy 
 Eeturns" occur these passages: ''In the first place, the 
 milk product has been obtained without regard to the 
 subsequent use made of it, and may be considered accu- 
 rate when taken by itself. The returns as to cream are 
 also accurate when considered alone, but the value of the 
 cream is also included in the value of the milk. The 
 'cream used' means cream consumed by the family as 
 cream, that is, does not include cream turned into butter. 
 The value of the butter, complete by itself,^ includes the 
 value of the cream entering into its composition, a value 
 which is also included in the value of the milk." Again, 
 ' ' The duplications of value due to the manipulation and 
 transformation of products in the various farm pro- 
 cesses are not confined to the dairy products. They are 
 onlv more manifest there on account of the simplicity of 
 the operations. Of course, the value of hay consumed 
 by the stock is in reality transformed into the value of 
 animal products" (a part of which is manure), "and 
 milk, and in the latter case, appears finally in the value 
 of the butter. The value of cereals consumed by the 
 poultry is represented in the value of poultry products. 
 
126 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 and the same effect may be traced in various direc- 
 tions." 
 
 The vahie of hay, fodder, cereals, etc., in 1895 was 
 
 returned as $13,595,000 
 
 The value of the products, dairy, animal, poultry, 
 meats, largely produced by the consumption of 
 above hay, fodder, cereals, etc., 23,637,000 
 
 The sum of the two totals, $37,233,000 
 
 The value of all other products, $15,647,000 
 
 Tims more than two-thirds of the total value of agri- 
 cultural products in 1895, as given in the State census, is 
 largely of fictitious value when considered for the pur- 
 pose of ascertaining the real income received by farmers. 
 The value of products whose totals run into the millions 
 is repeated twice, sometimes three times, and we are not 
 sure but what in some cases four times. The value of 
 hay, grain, etc. (save the small part sold, and this is 
 undoubtedly offset several times over by purchased west- 
 ern grain) reappears chiefly in the dairy, poultry, etc., 
 products. It may be disputed that the value of the hay 
 and grain fed to furnish the needed horse-power is to be 
 looked for in the value of the products, vegetables large- 
 ly. But in no other way is the farmer paid this expense, 
 and the power is as essential to the carrying on of busi- 
 ness as the manure is for the growth of plants. 
 
 The value of hay, grain, etc., and manure is given as 
 $15,965,000. The State report indicates a further dupli- 
 cation in dairy products of $3,152,000. This added to 
 above duplication gives a total of over $19,000,000. The 
 latter sum taken from the State valuation leaves a remain- 
 der of less than $34,000,000 as the amount of income of 
 Massachusetts farmers. This is quite a fall from the 
 reputed sum of $52,880,000 for the year 1895. 
 
Hoiv the Eastern Farmer Has Fared. 127 
 
 Has the home market theory in its application to agri- 
 culture been vindicated in Massachusetts? It has 
 already been demonstrated beyond dispute that, taking 
 the North Atlantic Division as a whole, the theory has 
 completely failed to work. The golden age for the farmer 
 was before the protective system was initiated. How has 
 it succeeded in the State of the division, Massachusetts, 
 where the home market theory has had the best oppor- 
 tunity of enriching the farmer? After forty years of 
 the highest protection it is time to inquire. The state 
 ranked fourth in 1900 as regards the value of manufac- 
 tured products, and from the density of its population 
 gathered into numerous large centres might well be 
 called the State of cities. 
 
 The above calculation indicated that the total valua- 
 tion of agricultural products in 1895 was about $34,000,- 
 000. The State report of that year failed to give the num- 
 ber of farmers whose production this represented. But 
 the national census of 1900 states the number of farmers ' 
 families who owned or hired farms to be 36,510. Wages 
 were paid and fertilizers were bought to the amount of 
 about $9,000,000. The interest on the property involved 
 at 4% (savings bank rates) was about $8,800,000. The 
 value of western hay and grain bought above the amount 
 of the same sold of Massachusetts growth, we call $1,000,- 
 000, though doubtless twice as much. Deducting these 
 amounts from the total real income and $15,200,000 is the 
 sum earned by the labor of the farmers' families, an 
 average of $416 to each family. But for the farmer's 
 capital this sum would be all he had to pay personal and 
 family expenses, keep buildings and all farm implements 
 in repair, maintain the value of all live stock, board a 
 hired man a portion of the year, keep buildings insured, 
 and shoe the horses. 
 
128 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 • 
 
 How mucH better than this is the prospect given by the 
 United States census, 1900! 
 
 Here we are informed by census officials, in answer to 
 inquiry sent on, that ''no duplications took place as be- 
 tween milk, butter and cream,'' as in the Massachusetts 
 State census of 1895. 
 
 The United States census gives the average value per 
 farm of products of North Atlantic States as $984. This 
 is the gross income : 
 
 To obtain net, we deduct value fed to live stock, $254.00 
 Paid for hired help, 105,00 
 Fertilizers, 23.00 
 Interest on $2219 (land) at 4 per cent., 88.76 
 Interest on, and maintenance of values, $2136 (build- 
 ings, machinerj^, live stock), 8 per cent., 170.88 
 Tax (call value but $3000 for tax purpose) at $15 
 
 per thousand, 45.00 
 
 Total, $686.64 
 
 Here a sufficient rate of interest was allowed to cover 
 maintenance of values, keeping buildings and machinery 
 in repairs (in the latter case providing new when worn 
 out), and furnishing the means to buy cows or horses as 
 required to maintain value of live stock. 
 
 After deducting the value of the various items, what 
 remains is $297.36. From this must be still further 
 deducted the board of a hired man for a portion of the 
 year, and the cost of shoeing the horses. What then 
 remains (less than $250, we judge) represents the total 
 labor earnings of a farmer's family. He has this advan- 
 tage over the workman, a cheap house to live in, value 
 about $1000; so that the small income he receives is not 
 diminished by a rent bill. 
 
Row the Eastern Farmer Has Fared. 129 
 
 Now what does the average workman's family receive! 
 In a Massachusetts Labor Report of 1875 Mr. Carroll D. 
 Wright tells of an examination made by the bureau into 
 the condition of 397 families of many manufacturing 
 trades. The fathers of these families earned on an aver- 
 age in a year $574.89. The other members of the 
 family, boys and girls, earned enough to bring the aver- 
 age per family to $762.72. Seven nationalities of wage- 
 earners were included in the 397 families. 
 
 According to the April number of World's Work, 1905, 
 the Bureau of Labor Statistics at Washington has been 
 trying to ascertain what is the increased cost of living. 
 ^'For the jDurpose of its study of the diet of working peo- 
 ple, it inquired into the habits of 13,000 persons who live 
 in cities in thirty-three states. From this study was con- 
 structed an ^average' family, consisting of 5.31 persons. 
 The family income is here found to be $827.19 a year." 
 
 "Part IV of the Annual Eeport of the (Massachusetts) 
 Bureau of Statistics of Labor for 1907, ' ' gives these esti- 
 mates as the average earnings in nine leading industries : 
 males $585.45, females $383.25, young persons $291.39. On 
 the same page, 362, of this report, referring to these esti- 
 mates, it says : ' ' They are substantiated also by the 
 returns of the eleventh census taken for the year ending 
 December, 1904, and for which the average yearly earn- 
 ings for men in Massachusetts were returned as $546.60, 
 women $343.58, and children $227.11, the difference in 
 wages for women and children being somewhat affected 
 by the age limit, which was x)laced at sixteen by the cen- 
 sus and twentv-one bv the schedule for annual statistics 
 of manufactures." 
 
 It is evident from these various reports from the best 
 authorities that the farmer's family for its labor receives 
 
 9 
 
130 The Tariff and the Faryner. 
 
 little, if any, more than half the earnings of the work- 
 man's family. 
 
 As having an important bearing, it should be said that 
 the Massachusetts State census for 1895 returned a far 
 greater value of agricultural products than ever before, 
 or was returned by the national census of 1900. Yet $416 
 was the labor earnings of the farmer's family, from 
 which further charges to the amount of from $50 to $100 
 were still to be taken. 
 
 Strongly confirmatory of above figures is the evidence 
 of ex-Congressman J. H. "Walker, formerly a prominent 
 shoe manufacturer, and for many years one of the fore- 
 most in New England in advocating the cause of protec- 
 tion. He was credited by many as very well informed in 
 statistical matter. In 1878 a Congressional committee 
 was on an investigating tour, and this question was put 
 to Mr. Walker: ''Is it practical for the government to 
 assist laborers to become land owners and farmers?*' 
 He replied : " I think that scheme one of the most imprac- 
 ticable of the long list of proposed remedies for the inevi- 
 table. The wages of agriculturists, including the income 
 of small farmers, is not half that of the average mechan- 
 ics, excepting cotton and woolen operatives ; and as it is a 
 question of wages more than of work, the average 
 chronic beggar for work would only be insulted when, 
 being upon his land, he learned the abstinence practiced, 
 and work done by small farmers." 
 
 We have always thought that this statement of an 
 advocate of protection was made at an unguarded 
 moment. 
 
 The number of ''farmers, planters and overseers" was 
 given in 1900 as 5,674,875 ; of " agricultural laborers ' ' as 
 4,410,877. The labor bill for the average farm was but 
 
Row the Eastern Farmer Has Fared. 131 
 
 $62. Ample evidence this that most all the work was 
 done by the farmer and his hoys. Only occasionally in 
 seed-time and harvest does the average farmer hire help. 
 What, then, is the average farmer but one of Mr. Walk- 
 er's ''small farmers," whose income '4s not half that of 
 average mechanics," with the exception he notes! What 
 stronger backing can be asked for the above comparison 
 of the farmer's family earnings with that of the work- 
 man's family! 
 
 Will any one claim that the average wage-earner is 
 entitled to receive more for his efforts than the average 
 farmer for his! We affirm that the ability and educa- 
 tion required to carry on a farm greatly exceed those 
 necessary to perform the duties of the average wage- 
 earner. Let us see. The farmer unites in his person the 
 office of laborer and business manager. As a laborer he 
 must know how to use at least fairly well the many tools 
 and machines required for planting, caring for and har- 
 vesting a variety of crops. He must know not only how 
 to hold plow, run a planting or sowing machine, drive a 
 mowing machine, but have considerable skill in the use 
 of carpenter's tools so as to be able to make any repairs 
 of farm machines and buildings. Besides in many cases 
 he must be able to milk the cows and drive horses. As a 
 business manager, he must know when to put in the vari- 
 ous crops, and how to care for them; and later, when 
 and how to harvest, and when and where to dispose of 
 them to the best advantage. To do this successfully 
 requires much experience and good judgment. Besides, 
 he has general oversight over everything done, and over 
 all property. This usually includes the care of horses, 
 often of cows; in the latter case he must attend to the 
 sale of the milk. These are far from being all his duties. 
 
132 The Tariff and the Fanner. 
 
 The duties performed by the millions of those engaged 
 in the hundreds of manufacturing trades are so various 
 as to preclude any description of them. Sufficient to say 
 that the part performed by the average unit of persons 
 is restricted usually to the narrowest limits. In perhaps 
 the majority of cases it consists in waiting upon and 
 slightly assisting machinery in doing the work. This, 
 which at times requires a trained eye and a skilled hand, 
 the result of years of practice, is in the main largely of 
 a mechanical nature where the man is little more than a 
 part of the machine. AVhere the few motions involved 
 are continually repeated fifty or a hundred times a day, 
 vear in and vear out, little if anv mental effort is 
 required. Now as compared to a person whose daily 
 em2^1o^TQent this description fits, the carrying on of a 
 farm requires far superior attainments and should in 
 consequence receive a much larger reward. 
 
 The Moke Impoktaxt Facts of the Chapter. 
 
 (1) Statisticae. (a) An increase in value of total 
 agricultural property in the Xorth Atlantic Division in 
 ten years under low duties of about 46% ; and a decrease 
 in value of the same in two decades of highest protection 
 of nearlv 12%. 
 
 (b) A gain in vahiG per farm of all farm property of 
 $904: in ten years of low duties, while forty years of high 
 protection shows a gain of only $11. 
 
 (2) In New York, the very centre of the manufactur- 
 ing section, are abandoned farms containing 1,200,000 
 acres, while some of the leading agricultural counties of 
 the State show declines in total farm valuation since 1880 
 of from 10 to 40%. 
 
How the Eastern Farmer Has Fared. 133 
 
 (3) The great apparent gain in value of agricultural 
 products in the last decade was largel}^ due both in this 
 division of states and throughout the United States to a 
 far more searching investigation. 
 
 (4) When allowance is made for census duplications 
 of values, it is seen that the earnings of the average Mas- 
 sachusetts farmer's family is less than half the wage 
 received by the workman's family. For the farmer of all 
 the North Atlantic States the situation appears worse 
 than for the Massachusetts farmer. 
 
134 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 To What ake National Pkospekity and High Rate of 
 
 Wages Due? 
 
 This subject does not strictly relate to the farmer's 
 interest in the tariff, but to points in dispute that have 
 an important bearing. Not to say a few words upon 
 them would be like an army leaving behind it a fortress 
 of the enemy. 
 
 We dispute the claim that national prosperity and high 
 wages are due to the protective system. 
 
 National prosperity and industrial progress, we claim, 
 are due to our unrivaled natural resources and their 
 development by the most industrious, enterprising and 
 ingenious of all people. The natural resources consist 
 chiefly of the riches of the soil and mineral wealth. The 
 value of these taken from the ground in 1850 must have 
 been over $2,000,000,000. There was a steady rise in 
 value year after year till 1900, when the figures stand at 
 $5,800,000,000. It is claimed that intensified farming 
 and scientific treatment can wring annually from the 
 earth twice or thrice what is now obtained. 
 
 Mr. Carroll D. Wright says, ''The natural resources of 
 the United States consist of almost every species of raw 
 material produced by or from the earth essential to make 
 a nation great in the three lines of development — agricul- 
 ture, manufacture, commerce." Again, '''The United 
 States, according to careful estimates, possesses at least 
 50% of the coal area of the world. Our supply is esti- 
 mated to be equal to the demand for 1000 years.'' 
 
National Prosperity and High Wages. 135 
 
 Mr. Henry Gannett, in tlie Forum of May, 1902, gives 
 condensed statements showing to what extent the United 
 States is suppljdng the world with products drawn from 
 its natural resources. Mr. Gannett was geographer of 
 the tenth and eleventh censuses, and since 1882 has been 
 chief geographer of the United States Survey. In 
 mining, he says, we produce 34% of all the iron ore that 
 is mined; 34% of all pig iron comes from our furnaces, 
 and 37% of all steel comes from our crucibles and con- 
 verters. Of gold we produce 31%, silver 33, copper 56, 
 lead 25, quicksilver 29, and zinc 25%. ''Tin is the only 
 metal of importance in the arts which we do not produce 
 in quantities." Of all products mined the United States 
 produces about 39%. 
 
 Yet it seems this vast nation, producing a large part of 
 all that is required to sustain the world, must be care- 
 fully guarded from other far less-favored nations. How 
 could a nation possessed of all this wealth of natural 
 resources be anything but prosperous? 
 
 All these almost inexhaustible stores of agricultural 
 and mineral wealth were in the ground when the Indian 
 held sway, but there was then no industrial progress. 
 Nor was there much for more than a century after the 
 white man came. Not till the printing-press gathered 
 from thousands of sources, and everywhere scattered the 
 knowledge obtained, did industrial progress make rapid 
 strides. To whom are we indebted for the printing-press? 
 Primarily to the Chinese! The honor of inventing and 
 making practical movable types is claimed by some for a 
 Dutchman, by others for a German. 
 
 The chief factors that come next in the line of develop- 
 ment are the factory and railroad systems. The latter 
 everj^here opened up the vast wilderness to settlement, 
 
136 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 and was the connecting link between the farmers and 
 those who toil in the shops, bringing food and raw manu- 
 facturing material to the latter, and carrying back to the 
 farms clothing, farm machinery, etc. To whom are we 
 most indebted for the steam engine ? To an Englishman. 
 Whose inventive mind caused steel rails to be substituted 
 for iron and greatly cheapened the cost! Another 
 Englishman. Who or what greatly increased the cost of 
 building railroads? Our protective system, by the heavy 
 duties imposed on rails. 
 
 The factory system did not have its beginning here. 
 Mr. Carroll D. Wright affirms : ^ ^ The inauguration of the 
 factory system in the United States was some fifteen 
 years later than its birth in England. ' ' 
 
 Mr. 0. P. Austin, chief of the Bureau of Statistics of 
 the United States, after giving credit to our great rail- 
 road system as the chief cause of our wonderful develop- 
 ment, states that "the value of the manufactures of the 
 United States is nearly double that of the United King- 
 dom, and about equal to that of G-ermany, France and 
 Eussia combined." 
 
 Yet this giant dare not face its weak opponents in the 
 open field. 
 
 The industrial situation cannot be better described 
 than in the words of Mr. Henry Clews ' ' ' Special Weekly 
 Market" letter of Dec. 28, 1901: ''Since 1896 the growth 
 of our manufacturing enterprises has many times 
 exceeded the growth of agriculture, and we are rapidly 
 changing from an agricultural to a manufacturing nation. 
 With our magnificent mineral resources, with unequalled 
 facilities for transportation, with unlimited supply of 
 capital to aid enterprise, with a better supply of skilled 
 labor than any competitor, with unrivaled capacity for 
 
National Prosperity and High Wages. 137 
 
 organization and the use of machinery, all backed with 
 abundance of energy, brains and opportunity— with all 
 these requisites in plenty, is it surprising that our situa- 
 tion is the wonder and envy of the world?'' 
 
 Yet with everything in its favor, this, the largest agri- 
 cultural and manufacturing nation, is threatened with 
 bankruptcy and ruin if its citizens are allowed to trade 
 on an even footing with the people of other nations ! 
 How, then, in the old colonial days, when there was lack 
 of everything, and when the English Parliament sought 
 by strict legislative enactments to crush out manufactur- 
 ing enterprise, did industrial progress go steadily for- 
 ward! 
 
 Whence came the ability to create the condition 
 described by Mr. Clews ! A large part is inherited from 
 way back before the first tariff act. In Bishop 's History 
 of American Manufactures it is said of the colonists : 
 ''They were gathered from the most productive and 
 ingenious nations of Europe." 
 
 High wages are due to the great demand for and 
 efficiency of labor. From what has immediately pre- 
 ceded, it is evident that the call for labor in developing the 
 resources of the nation must have immensely exceeded 
 that ever known by any nation in any age. High wages 
 were here before the first tariff act, and were the reason 
 given for the need of such legislation. The talk that 
 under free trade wages would fall to the European level 
 is merely for pohtical effect. For some fifty years free- 
 trade England has been in a few hours ' sail of Germany, 
 with its far lower rate of wages. Have English wages 
 fallen to the German level! No, and we doubt if there 
 has been relatively any approach to the higher level. 
 The United States with its vast population of 80,000,- 
 
138 - The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 000 of people has its own level of wages. The high level 
 is not given by one kind of occupation, but is the effect 
 of competition in all — in agriculture, manufacture, trade, 
 transportations, personal service. The service of all but 
 manufacture must be rendered in this country, and a 
 large part of manufacture also. Under free trade there 
 are doubtless a few branches of the latter industry that 
 would be lost to this country, but if the past is any guide 
 this would be balanced by an equal gain in foreign trade. 
 How absurd it is to believe that the loss of say $300,000,- 
 000 or $400,000,000 worth of work would cause a fall in 
 wages. That amount is an exceedingly small fraction ia 
 the total sum earned by all the people. Have the mil- 
 lions of emigrants coming to our shores caused a fall in 
 wages ? There have not been enough to supply sufficient 
 help to the farmers. 
 
 Not only is there a prodigious amount of work to do 
 in this country, but the means has been provided by the 
 invention of machinery for a very large iDroduct per 
 wage earner. 
 
 Mr. Gannett, before quoted, says that the average gross 
 manufactured product per hand in the United States is 
 $1900; in France, $650; in England, $485; and in Ger- 
 many, $450. He adds, ''This enormous difference in 
 efficiency between the artisans of the United States on 
 the one hand and those of Europe on the other, which is 
 due mainly to the universal use in this country of the 
 most modern machinerv and methods, enables us not onlv 
 to hold our own markets, but to invade successfully the 
 home market of other countries." 
 
 Mr. North, one of the directors of the census of 1900, 
 says : ' ' It means that the horse-power employed in our 
 manufactures in 1900 was equal in its producing capacity 
 
National Prosperity and High Wages. 139 
 
 to the labor of 113,000,000 able-bodied men. How insig- 
 nificant in contrast appears the contribution to industrial 
 wealth of the 5,316,802 men, women and children, the 
 actual average number of persons employed in the cen- 
 sus year to direct and supplement this tremendous 
 power." 
 
 The following statement is found in Mr. Carroll D. 
 Wright's '' Industrial Evolution of the United States": 
 ^'Looking at this question without any desire to be 
 mathematically accurate, it is fair to say, perhaps, that it 
 would require from fifty to one hundred million persons 
 in this country, working under the old system, to produce 
 the goods made and do the work performed by the work- 
 ers of to-day with the aid of machinery." Number of 
 workers 5,316,802. 
 
 The people of the United States have been frightened 
 for many years by a vision of the dire effect of losing a 
 little work to the foreigner under free trade conditions. 
 We have given an idea of the value of products of agri- 
 culture and manufacture; we add something in regard to 
 the value of the free-trade exchanges that take place 
 inside the United States. Senator George F. Hoar at 
 Concord, Mass., in 1900, put it thus: ''In internal com- 
 merce that thrusts into insignificance all the foreign com- 
 merce of the world. ' ' 
 
 In Mr. James Gr. Blaine's book^ a more definite state- 
 ment is made: ''Fifty-five millions of people carry on 
 their exchanges by ocean, by lake, by river, by railroad, 
 without the exactions of the tax-gatherer, without the 
 detention of the custom-house, without even the recogni- 
 tion of state lines. In these great channels the domestic 
 
 1 (< 
 
 Twenty Years in Congress." 
 
140 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 exchanges represent an annual value perliaps twenty-five 
 times as great as the total of exports and imports." 
 
 The rate of duties from 1850-60 were from 50 to 100% 
 lower than under the Dingiey tariff. Did foreigners 
 crowd our producers out of the home market? The 
 crushing answer given by the census is : ^ ' The value of 
 our manufactures increased 85% that decade." Since 
 then there is strong evidence that the rate of wages 
 abroad has risen relatively more than in the United 
 States. The far greater use of machinery here than in 
 foreign lands has nearly, if not quite, put our manufac- 
 turers on an even footing in all branches with their for- 
 ,eign rivals. 
 
 Is tariff coddling conducive to industrial progress? 
 The 85% gain in value of manufactured products under 
 the low duties of 1850-60 does not indicate it. Under 
 high duties the gain from 1870-80 was but 27%; from 
 1880-90, 74.5%, and from 1890-1900 only 38.8%. 
 
 Mr. Carroll D. Wright says: "It is a curious fact, well 
 known to those familiar with patents, that depressed 
 periods often result in the stimulation of invention. ' ' He 
 then goes on : ' ' During the last twenty or thirty years of 
 the period ending with 1860 there were patented some of 
 the most important inventions of the age." This period, 
 with the exception of from 1842-46, is the time of lowest 
 rates of duties way back nearly ninety years. 
 
 The noted writer on economic subjects, Mr. Francis A. 
 Walker, quotes with approval this statement : " It was an 
 axiom of the late Mr. John Kennedy, who was called the 
 father of the cotton manufacture, that no manufacturing 
 improvements were ever made except on threadbare 
 profits. ' ' 
 
 We turn now to the hard times of 1893-97. In the lat- 
 
National Prosperity and High Wages. 141 
 
 ter year, when the Dingley bill was being constructed, the 
 two Eepublican leaders, Mr. Dingley in the House and 
 Mr. Aldrich in the Senate, agreed that, owing to 
 ''changed conditions," less protection was required than 
 at the time of the passage of the McKinley bill in 1890. 
 The Senator said: ''The bitter contest that is going on 
 among the leading nations of the world for industrial 
 supremacy has brought about improvements in methods 
 and economy of production to an extent not thought pos- 
 sible a few years ago." Is the industrial gain credited 
 to "protection" by this man who has led the protection- 
 ists many years in Congress? No, to hitter contest/' 
 
 AVhat said Mr. Archer Brown in the Forum Magazine 
 of November, 1900, of this same time : ' ' The trials of the 
 lean years following the panic forced economies of manu- 
 facture and modernizing of plant to a point that excited 
 the admiration and wonder of rivals of other nations." 
 Again: "Let us glance at the marvelous record of our 
 progress since the uses of adversity taught us how to 
 make the cheapest iron and steel, thereby opening up the 
 markets of the world. ' ' 
 
 The Forum says of Mr. Brown: "He has been closely 
 identified with the movement for the export of iron, and 
 has spent several months in Europe stud}dng conditions 
 and organizing business there; is director of a number 
 of leading iron, steel and coal corporations, also director 
 of the North American Trust Company." A man so 
 engaged, occupying the positions he did, should best 
 know the facts of the situation. 
 
 The storv is told. The little book goes forth on its 
 mission. It is believed to be the only publication in the 
 world that gives a comprehensive view of the bearing of 
 
142 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 the protective system upon the agricultural industry. It 
 can no longer be said that the case of the farmer against 
 the tariff has never been formulated. Here it is made 
 evident that of all men the American farmer is the great- 
 est sufferer by the system. In comparison with the 
 injury done him, that received by the foreigner is insig- 
 nificant. Here is shown the cause of agricultural unrest ; 
 it is the unprofitableness of the industry, the direct effect 
 of the protective system. 
 
 Xow the question is, can farmers be roused to thought 
 and action, which means 
 
 CoMMERciAi. Freedom, 
 
 or will they continue to be led like ''dumb-driven cattle" 
 by those who profit by their stupidity, and forever 
 remain in 
 
 Commercial Boxdage! 
 
The Tariff and 
 the Farmer 
 
 By S. PAYSON PERRY 
 
 Condensed, Popular Edition 
 
Copyright, 1908, 
 
 By s. payson perry. 
 
 Worcester, Mass. 
 
CONTENTS OF LARGER EDITION. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 Chapter IV. 
 
 Chapter V. 
 
 Chapter VI. 
 
 Chapter VII. 
 
 Chapter VIII. 
 
 The Farmer Protected from Imag- 
 inary Danger - - - 9 
 
 The Agricultural Masses Not Pro- 
 tected - - - - 22 
 
 Less Foreign Demand for Agri- 
 cultural Products - - 34 
 
 Less Foreign Demand Intensifies 
 Home Competition and Lowers 
 Price - - - - 49 
 
 Confiscation Rates of Duties 
 Greatly Increase the Cost of 
 Farmers' Supplies - - 61 
 
 The Farmer Subjected to Most 
 
 Unfair Trade Conditions. 
 The Strong Trade Position of 
 
 Manufacture - - - 70 
 
 The Same Continued. The De- 
 fenseless Trade Position of 
 Agriculture - - - 87 
 
 Four Decades of Declining Agri- 
 cultural Prosperity under High 
 Protection. 
 
 The National View - - 98 
 
Contents. 
 
 Chaptek IX. 
 
 Chaptek X. 
 
 Chapter XI. 
 
 The Independent Farmer Sinking 
 to the Position of Mere Tenant 107 
 
 How the Farmer has Fared in the 
 Manufacturing Section of the 
 Fnion - . - - 
 
 119 
 
 To what are National Prosperity 
 and High Eate of Wages Due ? 134 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 How TO Make Country Life Moee Attractive. 
 
 This is tlie question the committee recently appointed 
 by President Eoosevelt has to answer. 
 
 Hon. Emory Washburn, a former Governor of Massa- 
 chusetts, said, ''All men speak well of agriculture, but all 
 who can shun it." Why? The two chief indictments 
 brought are the isolation of the farmer's life and the 
 unprofitableness of the occupation. 
 
 If those who bring the first charge were subjected to a 
 strict examination, in most cases we think it would be 
 made apparent that other objectionable features were in 
 combination with it that would largely be obviated if 
 crops brought in a plentiful supply of money. Money 
 will not buy everything, but a sufficiency will buy a great 
 variety of things and add immensely to the enjoyment of 
 life. The isolation of the situation does not stop men 
 from braving hardships and extreme peril, even risking 
 life itself in the search for gold. Make it worth while in 
 a financial way and plenty of families will gladly face 
 the isolation of country life. Even were it not so. Con- 
 gress is powerless to provide a remedy. 
 
 Is it in the power of Congress to make the 
 pursuit of agriculture more profitable? To a 
 certain extent, and in certain ways, it certainly 
 is. The industry has greatly suffered from the 
 fact that its interests have not had fair representa- 
 
6 Introduction. 
 
 tion at Washington. There the farmer is conspicuous 
 by his absence. Advantage has been taken of this, and 
 laws passed most injurious to his interests. For this 
 our agricultural leaders are responsible. They have 
 always assumed that all that was necessary to make the 
 industry prosperous was a scientific knowledge of pro- 
 duction. President Eoosevelt truly says, ''Our atten- 
 tion has been concentrated almost exclusively on getting 
 better farming." ''We hope ultimately to double the 
 average yield of wheat and corn per acre . . . but it 
 is even more important to double the desirability, com- 
 fort and standing of the farmer's life.'' 
 
 The President sees what apparently our agricultural 
 leaders have never perceived, that doubling the ^deld per 
 acre, in other words "getting better farming," does not 
 necessarily greatly benefit the farmer. The one surely 
 benefited is the consumer of such products. For the 
 result may be so large a surplus that the money return 
 per acre will be less than before. To benefit the farmer 
 the crop grown on an acre must command a larger sup- 
 ply of tuhat the farmer buys. 
 
 Now the farmer is a large purchaser of manufactured 
 products, and in the exchange that takes place between 
 the individuals of the two industries, legislative enact- 
 ments have a most important bearing. Chief of the laws 
 having such a bearing is the tariff system. As most per- 
 sons well informed concerning foreign trade know, the 
 laws relating to the tariff are practically made by our 
 manufacturers. It is the object of this little book to 
 show that the effect of these laws is to greatly lessen the 
 exchange value of farmers' products. A repeal of these 
 laws, or, if that is asking too much, a large reduction in 
 rates of duties on articles imported which are similar to 
 
Introduction. i 
 
 those purchased hy our farmers would much increase 
 the profits of agriculture. 
 
 Of all occupations, that of the farmer's is poorest paid. 
 (For reasons why, see chapters VI and VII.) The 
 United Sta'tes census of 1900 indicates that, subtracting 
 from gross income there given, business expenses and 
 interest upon capital of four per cent., the net income 
 received from the labor of the average farmer and his 
 family is only about $400. The Labor Bureaus of Sta- 
 tistics in Massachusetts and at Washington indicate that 
 the wages of the average workman and his family 
 engaged in manufacture are near twice this sum, or 
 about $800 per annum. 
 
 Since 1900 there is evidence going to show that farm- 
 ers at the West are obtaining better prices for their prod- 
 ucts. But little, if any, improvement has taken place in 
 the condition of the Eastern farmer. It is even very 
 doubtful if he is as well off as before, since there has been 
 a general rise in cost of business and family supplies. 
 
 This book is a part of a much larger work, to which 
 the author has devoted many years of research and 
 thought. It is believed to be the only publication in 
 existence that gives a comprehensive view of the bearing 
 of the tariff upon agricultural interests. The author is 
 a life-long farmer — for many years a good Republican — 
 made an independent by a study of the tariff question. 
 In doing this work he has been actuated by as purely 
 patriotic motives as when he shouldered a rifle in the 
 dark days of 1862. 
 
 He is well aware that many persons consider the tariff 
 question as settled, but ''nothing is ever settled that is 
 not settled right." To believe that the present system of 
 wrong and gross oppression will always continue is to 
 
8 Introduction. 
 
 doubt the existence of a just Grod. Conditions have 
 remained much the same for more than forty years, 
 because the class, blinded by party leaders, has never 
 given it consideration. The indications now are that the 
 time is near when the subject will be taken up and the 
 other side of the tariff question will be heard. No change 
 is likely to come until the agricultural masses demand it ; 
 for it is true now, as ever, that ^ ' they who would be free 
 themselves must strike the blow. ' ' 
 
THE TARIFF AND THE FARMER. 
 
 Eeview and Summaky of the Larger Edition. 
 
 '^In most ages the working farmer has been the dupe 
 and prey of the rest of mankind. Now by force and now 
 by cajolery, as social customs and political institutions 
 change, he has been made to produce the food by which 
 the race lives, and the share of his products, which he has 
 been permitted to keep for himself, has always been piti- 
 fully small. Whether Eoman slave, Frankish serf, or 
 English villain; whether the independent farmer of a 
 free democracy, or the ryot of a Hindu prince, the gen- 
 eral rule holds good."^ 
 
 In chapter I is shown how attempts were made to dupe 
 the ' ' independent farmer of a free democracy. ' ' 
 
 In 1890 the total value of our surplus agricultural 
 products sent abroad was $629,000,000; in the previous 
 year, 1889, $532,000,000. Of the latter, $22,585,000 went 
 to Canada. In return, that country sent us not quite 
 $20,000,000 of agricultural products. Most persons 
 would say that we were getting the best end of the bar- 
 gain. But a new tariff bill was being considered in Con- 
 gress, and the managers of it wished to secure the sup- 
 port of the agricultural vote. So it remained for Mr. 
 Dingley to make the remarkable discovery that the prod- 
 ucts coming in over the border were ^ ' disastrously ' ' com- 
 
 ^ W. J. Ghent, in ''Our Benevolent Feudalism," page 47. 
 
10 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 peting with those sold by our farmers. To remedy this 
 duties were increased from 50 to 100% on products for 
 which there was no evidence in United States annual 
 reports of commerce and navigation that any was being 
 imported. The rate of duties on wheat was advanced 
 when we were sending to all nations in 1889 to the value 
 of $96,000,000, and getting back only $125,000. Scarcely 
 any meat and dairy products came from Canada, and we 
 exported there that year $7,000,000 worth, yet the inva- 
 sion seemed so alarming that the rates on butter and 
 cheese were raised 50%, and those on ham and bacon 
 200%. The same year hog products were sent abroad 
 to the value of $66,000,000, and the total value sent in 
 was but $172,000. 
 
 On the same occasion Mr. McKinley had visions of our 
 wheat driven from foreign markets. He also made a 
 remarkable discovery, which was that ''the time was 
 already here when the American farmer must sell his 
 products in the market of the world in competition with 
 the wheat produced by the lowest priced labor of other 
 countries." That is what the American farmer has 
 always done. He feared a great flood of wheat from 
 nations he named, some of whom had not enough to feed 
 their own people. He told the many million bushels of 
 wheat raised by different countries, but forgot to men- 
 tion the material fact, which was the amount of surplus. 
 That would have put an entirely different face on the 
 matter. 
 
 The next phantom brought to view in the opening chap- 
 ter was conjured up by Secretary Shaw of President 
 Roosevelt's Cabinet. Probably he could not sleep nights 
 for fear of a cattle invasion. "Suppose we take the 
 tariff off beef, and then suppose the herds of cattle from 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 11 
 
 Mexico and South America are brought in here by the 
 hundred thousand. It might ruin the farmers." ''The 
 farmer as it is has ample reason to be apprehensive." 
 
 As it is, under the present rates of duties, in 1906 the 
 imports of meat and meat extracts from the countries 
 mentioned were less than $55,000. The value of cattle 
 imported from Mexico was $316,000, and none whatever 
 from Argentina. 
 
 Of all South America only Argentina is in position to 
 compete with our farmers to any extent even under con- 
 ditions of free trade. That republic has a very large 
 number of cattle. The first obstacle in the way of bring- 
 ^ing them here is a long sea voyage of from 6000 to 8000 
 miles across the stormy equatorial regions. Many would 
 die on the passage, and those who lived through would 
 be in no condition for the butcher. They would have to 
 be refitted. 
 
 Why, too, would these be unloaded at the doors of the 
 United States when prices are so much better in Great 
 Britain that our shippers can afford to send there $35,- 
 000,000 worth of cattle, as they did in 1901 ? 
 
 Then, too, whether cattle or meat, the competition of 
 Argentina must be met either in the United States or 
 Great Britain. If met in the latter country, the less we 
 supply there the larger the number left in our home mar- 
 ket. So it makes little difference ; the result is the same. 
 
 For some good reason, no doubt, the export trade of 
 Argentina is mostly made up of wool, hides and skins, 
 and mutton; only to a far smaller extent of cattle and 
 
 meat. 
 
 There is still Mexico to consider. What is the proba- 
 bility of our being overwhelmed by cattle and meat 
 invasion from there under free trade! Before serious 
 
12 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 competition can come from this quarter the country must 
 be cleared of noxious reptiles and animals ; water be pro- 
 vided at an immense expense for the stock; the cattle 
 changed for a larger breed; and in place of millions of 
 ignorant, indolent Indians and half-breeds steeped in 
 j)overty, there must be men of a totally different stamp 
 and education, rich enough to provide themselves with 
 the essentials of civilization. Is this change likely to^ 
 come in our dav? 
 
 We now pass from the consideration of spectres 
 created by the lively imagination of politicians to a direct 
 and full exposure of the fraudulent claim that the farmer 
 is protected (see chapter II). 
 
 When the Mills tariif was being discussed in the House 
 in 1888, Mr. McKinley asked this ciuestion, ''Do the agri- 
 culturists want all duties removed and their products 
 driven from this market?" A brief examination of our 
 agricultural foreign trade for any year would show the 
 absurdity of this question. 
 
 In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, the value of 
 agricultural imports was twice that of 1887, the year 
 quoted by Mr. McKinley. If there had been danger then 
 of our products being driven from our home market 
 under free trade, much more so in the later year. 
 
 The total value of agricultural imports as given by the 
 Year Book of the Department of Agriculture for 1900 
 was $-1:20,139,288. Before proceeding to a classification of 
 these products we note articles to the value of 5.71% of 
 total that are clearly manufactured products. These are 
 set one side.. The remainder we divide into three 
 classes : 
 
 Class 1. Non-competing Products. These are not 
 produced to any considerable extent by our farmers. 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 13 
 
 Chief of these are coffee, raw silk, goat skins, jute and 
 sisal grasses and tea. Total value, $177,602,000, or 
 42.28%. Nearly all are on the free list. 
 
 Class 2. Protected. That is, products similar to those 
 produced by our farmers that are effectively protected. 
 These include raw sugar material, wool, tobacco, semi- 
 tropical products, and rice. Their value in 1899, includ- 
 ing lambs dropped that year, was only about 4% of total 
 agricultural production. There is no dispute but those 
 engaged in these lines of husbandry are protected. But 
 what sort of protection is this for the farmers engaged in 
 producing the 96%? Because 45% duties are levied on 
 wool, and still higher rates on raw sugar material when 
 imported, every family of the agricultural community 
 has to pay more for clothing and the sugar it eats. 
 Also the food and clothing of all persons not engaged in 
 farming are increased in price, which causes a rise in 
 wages of those who handle farmers' supplies. Where is 
 there any compensation to the agricultural masses for 
 the extra gain made by the 4% fraction! 
 
 About 83% of the $420,000,000 value has now been con- 
 sidered, and Uncle Sam's system so far has resulted only 
 in increasing the farmer's taxes. The value of the 
 importations of Class 2 was $146,908,000, or 34.97%. 
 
 Class 3. Unprotected. These imports, as far as 
 they go, are similar to those produced by those repre- 
 sented by the 96%. We call these unprotected, though 
 nominal duties are levied on nearly every agricultural 
 product similar to those produced here, when imported, 
 with the exception of cotton. The value of this class of 
 imports was but $71,612,000, and of this amount $32,853,- 
 000 was on the free list. Of the $38,759,000 that was 
 dutied $19,408,000 consisted of hides. The value of live 
 
14 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 animals imported (not including sheep), of breads tuffs 
 (includes all grain brought in), of meats, dairy products 
 and vegetables was only about $10,000,000. 
 
 Here we have protection to the agricultural masses 
 brought down to about the vanishing point. Now it will 
 be claimed that the reason why so small a value of com- 
 peting agricultural products is imported is that these 
 are kei3t out by the tariff. But this claim is knocked into 
 smithers when answer is made that the products named 
 above, imported only to the value of $10,000,000, were 
 exported the same year to the extent of $492,000,000. 
 When competition is successfully met way beyond where 
 tariff bars have any effect, how absurd sounds the ques- 
 tion of Mr. McKinley, ^'Do the agriculturists want all 
 duties removed and their products driven from this mar- 
 ket?" The agricultural masses will suffer no harm if 
 given the freest trade. No protection is given them. 
 
 We have next to consider the effect of protection on the 
 exportation of agricultural products (see chapter III). 
 
 In the famous report of Secretary Walker made in 
 1845 it is asserted that ''the farmer and the planter are 
 deprived to a great extent of the foreign market by those 
 duties. ' ' The high protective duties of the tariff of 1842 
 are referred to. 
 
 This position of Mr. Walker is combated by Mr. Stan- 
 wood in his recently written book on tariff controversies, 
 who adds in his closing remarks, ''If this view of the 
 subject is accepted, it follows that the tariff affected in 
 no way the amount of American produce which could be 
 or was sold abroad." We understand Mr. Stanwood 
 takes this view of high protective duties generally. Now 
 to come to such an opinion as this is to ignore the report 
 of the agricultural export trade. Especially does this 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer, 15 
 
 view appear false when the gain made in exports from 
 1846-60, under low duties, is contrasted with that made 
 from 1880-97 with high duties. The starting-point, 1880, 
 is taken as being about the time when retaliatory tariffs 
 began to affect our export trade. 
 
 The percentage of gain in the former shorter time was 
 210%. At this time most exportations, about four-fifths, 
 consisted of agricultural products. In 1880 the value of 
 agricultural exports was $685,000,000. The average of 
 ^ye years before and after this date was $620,000,000. In 
 1897 the value was $683,000,000; the average of five 
 /ears before and after, $641,000,000. The percentage of 
 gain of one five-year period over the other was not 4%. 
 After 1897 the percentage of gain was much more, but 
 still from this date to 1906 inclusive was but 67. From 
 1880-1906 the gain in agricultural exports was but 54% ; 
 in fourteen years of low duties a gain of 210%; in 
 twenty-six of the highest duties but 54%. 
 
 Looking at the matter from a common-sense stand- 
 point, it is impossible to believe but that high protective 
 duties have decreased the flow of agricultural products 
 abroad to a large extent. The example of the United 
 States has been followed by other nations, with the 
 exception of Great Britain. The great increase in rates 
 of duties imposed upon our exports in those countries 
 could not fail to shut them out in whole or in part, for 
 the larger part of this merchandise consisted of agricul- 
 tural products. 
 
 After referring to the time when various nations 
 increased rates of duties, Mr. David A. Wells, in his book, 
 ''Eecent Economic Changes," says: ''There can be no 
 doubt that the objective of much of the restrictive com- 
 mercial legislation of other countries in recent years has 
 
16 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 been the United States, a policy which has notably 
 affected the agricultural supremacy of the latter country 
 in the world 's market. ' ^ 
 
 By referring to chapter III it will be seen that the 
 little free trade nation of Great Britain takes much more 
 than half of all our agricultural products, which goes far 
 to confirm the assertion that were the ports of all nations 
 equally open to us, there would be a vast increase in value 
 of agricultural exports. The American policy has sent 
 the European workmen into the fields instead of into the 
 shops; it has tended to develop other agricultural 
 nations at the expense of our farmers. 
 
 This brings us to the inquiry of the effect upon agri- 
 culture of a greatly restricted market (see chapter IV). 
 
 The number of farms in the United St^ites in 1850 was 
 1,449,073; in 1860, 2,044,077; in 1900, the number had 
 risen to 5,739,657. From 1860-1900 the average annual 
 increase was over 92,000 farms. This great increase 
 came primarily from the opening up of the country by 
 the railroad system. But it was greatly hastened by the 
 policy adopted by Congress of giving away farms. 
 
 With such a tremendous development taking place, 
 largely due to the action of Congress, it would seem to be 
 incumbent upon that body to do everything possible to 
 open out avenues of trade in foreign lands, and thus vvo- 
 tect the agricultural interests from the evil effect of an 
 ever-increasing surplus. Instead of this, legislation was 
 enacted that well might have closed every foreign door 
 to our products. Instead of rendering aid to farmers 
 whose home market was flooded with western products, 
 Congress did what it could to make the position more 
 difficult. Had manufacturers been in the place of farm- 
 ers, there would have been no protective duties, but the 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 17 
 
 freest trade. Neither would Congress have been per- 
 mitted to give away farms. 
 
 The ever-increasing agricultural surplus caused a con- 
 tinuous fall in prices from the close of the great war to 
 1897, inclusive. Price went far below what it was before 
 the great war. The fall was so great that with any other 
 industry the result would have been universal bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 
 We note now the views commonly held as to the power- 
 ful influence a surplus has upon price. Mr. John P. 
 Young, long managing editor of the San Francisco 
 Chronicle, said that American manufacturers ^'learned 
 the bitter lesson that the surplus, when dumped on the 
 domestic market, fixed the price without reference to the 
 cost of the product." ''The idea is now generally enter- 
 tained by workingmen in the United States, and it is 
 shared by those of Germany, that excessive competition 
 in the home market is destructive to home industry." 
 
 Senator Beveridge speaks of the ' ' sale of our surplus 
 upon which our whole prosperity depends." 
 
 Senator Hoar's words are: "A prosperous manufac- 
 turing country that sends its products abroad will 
 always, if it is to remain prosperous, get higher prices 
 for its products at home than it does abroad. In other 
 words, it dumps its surplus in foreign markets." 
 
 The effect of disposing of a surplus in the home mar- 
 ket is indicated in these words of Mr. David A. Wells : 
 ' ' If production exceeds by even a very small percentage 
 what is required to meet every current demand for con- 
 sumption, the price which the surplus will command in 
 the open market will govern and control the price of the 
 whole ; and if it cannot be sold at all, or with difficulty, an 
 intense competition on the part of the owners of the 
 
18 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 accumulated stocks to sellwill be engendered, with, a 
 great reduction or annihilation of all profit. ' ' 
 
 So intense has been the desire to sell with American 
 farmers that they are competing to an immense value 
 with the poorest paid ''pauper labor of Europe." 
 
 It is now time to consider the effect of high protective 
 duties on the farmers. 
 
 The agricultural community annually purchases man- 
 ufactures to a vast value, probably nearly $2,000,000,000 
 worth of products, usually entered by the census reports 
 under the head of manufactures. These consist chiefly 
 of clothing, the many articles comprised under the word 
 furniture, /ill the machinery and tools, large or small, 
 required to carry on a farm ; articles of food more or less 
 changed for the consumption of man or beast, and the 
 buildings necessary to shelter the family and live stock. 
 As most of all this is manufactured in this countrv what 
 has the tariff to do with it ? Under free trade the price 
 of a large part of the products indicated was regulated 
 by outside supply. A rise in price was likely to be fol- 
 lowed by an increase in imj)ortations, a fall in price by a 
 decrease of imports. The tariff interfered with this 
 self -regulating arrangement, either by shutting out or 
 largely increasing the price where the article came in. 
 Our home producers then came into absolute control of 
 the American market, as claimed bv President Dolan of 
 the Manufacturers' National Association (see chap- 
 ter VI). • 
 
 Under ordinary conditions this might work no injus- 
 tice, but for the last twentv or thirtv vears conditions 
 have been unusual and extraordinarv. 
 
 The manufacturing industry in the United States is 
 divided into at least from 300 to 400 distinct groups. In 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 19 
 
 most cases only the individuals of the same group are 
 in competition with each other for the same product. 
 Now instead of these competing with each other for the 
 trade, it is more and more becoming the custom to estab- 
 lish a standard price, subject to some variations. While 
 price is based upon cost, which includes fair profit for 
 service performed, it by no means stops at that level ; it 
 is carried up as high as it is thought the traffic will bear. 
 With foreign competition shut out, and themselves sole 
 judges of what the price shall be, no one who knows 
 human nature would expect an exhibition of fairness or 
 moderation. Each group has a monopoly in its line, 
 and each is eager to make the most of it. With irrespon- 
 sible agents, all seeking to become quickly rich, in the 
 place of the self -regulating method of free trade no one 
 can doubt but that farmers' supplies will be and have 
 been greatly increased in price. That this is the result 
 is the opinion of men of prominence (see chapter V). 
 Mr. Mulhall, a noted English statistician, gives it as his 
 opinion that '^the value of American manufactures is 
 artificially raised by protective tariffs fully 33% over 
 the real value. ' ' 
 
 Governor Cummins of Iowa expresses the belief that 
 tin plate, steel rails, barbed wire and kindred articles 
 are made about 100% too high by tariff monopoly. 
 
 Ex-senator Washburn of Minneapolis speaks of indus- 
 tries that, ''sheltered as they are by the Dingley tariif, 
 make profits of from 25 to 100%." He speaks, too, of 
 ''the enormous prices of barbed wire, lumber, glass, steel 
 rails and paper." 
 
 Ex-governor William L. Douglas of Massachusetts, 
 one of the largest shoe manufacturers in the United 
 States, thinks of the tariff tax that where "$16.52 per 
 
20 The Tariff and ike Farmer. 
 
 family went to the government, over $94 went to the 
 trusts and other protected interests." 
 
 The evidence of Mr. H. E. Miles, president of the 
 National Association of Implements and Vehicle Man- 
 ufacturers (see chapter VI), a protected manufacturer, 
 is directly to the point; he knows what he is talking 
 about, for he is in the game himself. He starts off with 
 the frank admission, ''I have made money every year out 
 of the tariff graft." He goes on to say, "Under this 
 tariff those who supply the factories I am interested in 
 with their material have consolidated or formed trusts, 
 and have raised the prices 25 to 50%. All those years I 
 have, as before, made my sale price on a percentage of 
 costs, and when the tariff pets raised their prices, as 
 they did $50,000 to me, I made the charge against the 
 jobber $60,000, and I know beyond question that he also 
 figured on a percentage basis and charged more than 
 $70,000 for the $60,000 he paid me. The product went 
 through one or two other hands before reaching the con- 
 sumer. The $50,000 I paid became about $100,000 to the 
 agriciiUnral consumer.' ' 
 
 It is the United States government that sustains a sys- 
 tem under which such oppressive transactions are per- 
 mitted and made possible. 
 
 Now while the protective system is the chief cause of 
 agricultural unprofitableness, there are still other cir- 
 cumstances that put the farmer to a disadvantage in the 
 warfare of business. His trade position throughout is 
 weak and defenseless (see chapters VI and VII). This 
 we shall proceed to show by the use of what has been 
 called ' ' the deadly parallel column. ' ' 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 21 
 
 The Adverse Trade Position of Agriculture. 
 
 (1860-1900.) 
 
 Manufacture. Agriculture. 
 
 Market Conditions. 
 
 Most favor able. 
 
 Due to the great demand of 
 a rapidly growing nation 
 for transportation sup- 
 plies, for buildings, for 
 farm and manufacturing 
 machinery, and for prod- 
 ucts required for dispatch 
 of business and supply the 
 many wants of civilization. 
 
 Most imfavorahle. 
 
 Due to the rapid develop- 
 ment of the west and south- 
 west by the railroad system, 
 whereby 92,000 new farms 
 annually increased the ever- 
 growing surplus of such 
 products. 
 
 Can he ascertained. 
 
 Expense in terms of 
 lars and cents. 
 
 dol- 
 
 The effect. 
 
 (1) Price is held to the 
 level of cost. 
 
 (2) When cost increases, 
 the prices of products rise 
 in equal measure. Busi- 
 ness floats safely on the 
 rising tide. 
 
 Cost of Production. 
 
 Cannot he ascertained. 
 
 Cost dependent on articles 
 of indetinite value pro- 
 duced on the farm. 
 
 The effect. 
 
 (1) Blind competition — 
 price driven to the lowest 
 level. 
 
 (2) When cost increases, 
 there is no connecting auto- 
 matic device to cause an 
 equal rise in the value of 
 products. If supply is 
 large to demand, price may 
 fall in the face of advanc- 
 ing cost. 
 
22 
 
 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 CoNTKOL OF Supply. 
 
 Various devices for regu- No control whatever, 
 lating supply to demand. 
 
 Method of Sale. 
 
 Practically a one-price sys- 
 tem, with price advanced 
 as high as the market will 
 bear. 
 
 Every kind of price fixed 
 in each market by chance 
 and degree of competition. 
 
 How Pkice is Held at a High Aetificial Level. 
 
 (1) By associated effort 
 destructive to home compe- 
 tition. 
 
 (2) By the interference of 
 the national government 
 which prevents foreign 
 competition. 
 
 (1) No associated effort — 
 in no way held up. 
 
 (2) No aid received from 
 the national government. 
 
 The Position fok Associated Effokt. 
 
 Ideal. (1) Divided into 
 hundreds of groups, with 
 competition confined to 
 those of the same group. 
 (2) The groups centrally 
 located, individuals in touch 
 with each other by the use 
 of modern facilities, and by 
 printed price-lists. 
 
 Impossible. (1) No divi- 
 sion into non-competing 
 groups. 
 
 (2) Completely isolated 
 from each other, and scat- 
 tered all over the nation. 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 23 
 
 (3) Not easy to pass from 
 one trade to another, ma- 
 chinery different, and much 
 time required to gain skill 
 in practice and learn mar- 
 ket condition of new trade. 
 
 (3) Easy to pass from one 
 branch to another. Mil- 
 lions of farms with such 
 similarity of climate, soil 
 and farm machinery that 
 manv diiferent kinds of 
 products can be grown with 
 equal facility. 
 
 The Patent System. 
 
 This and the abuse of the 
 system a great aid in hold- 
 ing price to a high level by 
 private monopoly. 
 
 Is not applicable. 
 
 The Protective System. 
 
 Trust and group monopoly 
 protected from foreign 
 competition by prohibitory 
 taxes. 
 
 The pretence of protection 
 here mere humbug and 
 hypocrisy. There is undis- 
 putable proof of no protec- 
 tion. Per contrary, the 
 value of products is depre- 
 ciated, and the cost of sup- 
 plies greatly increased. 
 
 For a long time even among farmers it has been a dis- 
 puted point as to whether or not farming was profitable. 
 Officials of all kinds any way connected with agricultural 
 educational boards have loudly affirmed that it paid; a 
 natural view to take when these know they will be held 
 partly responsible for adverse conditions, or when these 
 are inspired by those who make or break them. Those 
 
24 The Tariff and. the Farmer. 
 
 on both sides, so far as observation has gone, reason 
 from a biased standpoint, or from very limited and utter- 
 Iv insufficient data. The basis on which some form an 
 opinion is how it fared with a few well-known individ- 
 uals, or with the farmers of the countv in which thev 
 resided. If, by close economy, these manage to pay 
 considerably more than their bills, some seem to regard 
 this as a prosperous condition. 
 
 For a settlement of the question a national view is 
 essential. The condition of the class as a whole must be 
 taken into consideration. Nor is this sufficient. The field 
 of observation must be extended to other industrial 
 classes, and comparisons made as to how labor and capi- 
 tal are paid in them, and the degree in which wealth has 
 accumulated there. 
 
 A careful investigation has been made along these 
 lines, and the evidence is now before us. So clear and 
 unmistakable is this that the above question may be 
 regarded as forever settled. Not only has it been made 
 evident that farming did not pay, but the direct cause of 
 such unprofitableness is pointed out. The search into 
 the agricultural situation has covered a wide field. It 
 now remains to bring together and focus the bearing of 
 the more important features developed. 
 
 The Evidence of Agricultural Unprofitableness Under 
 
 THE Protective System. 
 
 (a) The deplorable tenure of farm possession (see 
 chapter IX). 
 
 In the national campaign of 1900 Republican orators 
 and papers asserted that farmers had been so prosperous 
 under the administration of President McKinley that 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 25 
 
 mortgages on farms had been largely wiped out. That 
 was talk for political effect. When the census report of 
 1900 came to hand, a year or two later, taken and made 
 up by Republican officials, it was seen that a vast num- 
 ber of farms were either mortgaged or hired. The total 
 number of farms was given as 5,698,901. Of these about 
 3,643,684 were owned by those who tilled them, but 1,094,- 
 573 were mortgaged, something less than a third. Either 
 to defeat comparison, or some other unknown reason, the 
 returns for 1900 were put in such a way that it could not 
 be ascertained whether or not there had been an increase 
 in the number of mortgaged farms. 
 
 The number of hired farms was 2,013,903. That is, 
 more than half the farms in the United States were, by 
 the census returns of 1900, shown to be either mortgaged 
 or hired. Of hired farms there had been an increase in 
 twentv vears, 1880-1900, of 97%, against an increase in 
 ownership of 24%. At that rate of increase in forty 
 years more, tenant farming or landlordism would be well 
 nigh universal. Few men would then own the land they 
 
 tilled. 
 
 But it is in the older portions of the Union, where 
 cheap new land with its virgin fertility has not obscured 
 the situation, that the trend of the times is most surely 
 indicated. In the North Atlantic section there has been 
 an actual loss in ownership of farms by those who tilled 
 them of eight per cent., and of those who owned the 
 farms they tilled thirty-eight per cent, were mortgaged. 
 In the same twenty years there has been an increase 
 in hired farms of twenty-six per cent. Now what is 
 the significance of a great number of mortgaged farms 
 and the rapid increase of hired farms f If the business 
 was profitable why should not the man who hired a farm 
 
26 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 be able in a few years to pay down the small part usually 
 required to purchase on mortgage? He would naturally 
 desire to do so to have a permanent home, and secure to 
 himself the improvements he made. After giving a mort- 
 gage fifteen or twenty years should see the man free 
 from debt. But here in these old settled states, where 
 farms rarely change owners, after the lapse of a hun- 
 dred years the profits are so small that the owners are 
 getting rid of them either by leasing, selling, or, where 
 this is impossible, by abandoning them. The process 
 known as ' ' skinning ' ' is under full swing, where the man 
 in transient possession by lease robs the farm of its fer- 
 tility, giving back nothing or little. 
 
 (b) The almost imperceptible gain in total annual 
 value of agricultural products against most surprising 
 manufacturing gains (see chapter VIII). 
 
 The amount of capital invested in agriculture has 
 increased four-fold since 1850; the number of farjns 
 three-fold; the quick-moving horse has been substituted 
 for the slow-going ox, and there has been great improve- 
 ment in farm machinery and methods. Also, the number 
 of people to feed and provide with raw material for 
 clothing has increased two and one-half fold, and there 
 has been a vast increase of live stock to feed. Further, 
 the value of agricultural exports has increased nearly 
 five-fold. Yet Mr. S. N. D. North, a prominent super- 
 visor of the census of 1900, states that the annual value 
 of agricultural products in fifty years has increased less 
 than two-fold. 
 
 The same official credits manufacture with a twelve- 
 fold increase in value of products, though the number of 
 wage-earners had increased but four and one-half fold. 
 The nominal increase of capital invested was seventeen- 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 27 
 
 fold, but the real increase was far less, as shown in above 
 chapter. 
 
 This tremendous difference in gain in value of prod- 
 ucts indicates a great inflation of prices in one industry 
 and depression of prices in the other. Further, accord- 
 ing to Mr. North's statements concerning agricultural 
 gain, the value of its products in 1850 must have been 
 more than half that of 1900, or not less than $2,400,000,- 
 000. This would give an average value per farm of $1656. 
 In 1900 the average value of products per farm is stated 
 to be $822, not half that of the above figure. The two sec- 
 tions of the Union now showing the highest returns make 
 a poor exhibit beside that for 1850, the North Atlantic 
 $981, the rich North Central division but $1074. Can any 
 one explain why the farms of to-day appear to yield less 
 than half the value of what they did in 1850! 
 
 (c) Under normal conditions where there has been a 
 most rapid gain in non-agricultural wealth, there has 
 been a marked decline in the value of agricultural prop- 
 erty (see chapter X). In the decade that preceded high 
 protection, 1850-60, the value of agricultural property 
 increased wonderfully fast. The cause of this evidently 
 was that the business was so prosperous that there was a 
 great demand for farms. This sent up the value. In 
 1850 the value of agricultural property exceeded the 
 wealth of all the rest of the nation (chapter VIII). In 
 ten years the increase in value of the former was 101% ; 
 of the latter, 158%. These ten years was under the sys- 
 tem of low revenue duties. Then followed forty years of 
 high protection. The gain in agricultural property was 
 156%; average per decade, 39%. The gain in non-agri- 
 cultural wealth, 803%; average per decade, over 200%. 
 During the entire fifty years the chief cause of the 
 
28 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 increase in agricultural wealth was the addition of new 
 farms ; over four million were added in that time. In 
 the North Atlantic division of states, where conditions 
 have been normal, from 1850-1900 the gain in agricul- 
 tural property was nearly 46% in the first ten years, and 
 less than 17% in the forty years of high i^rotection; 
 46% against an average per decade in the latter period of 
 a little more than 4%. In the last twenty years there 
 was an actual decrease in value of total agricultural 
 property of nearly 12%. 
 
 How has the average farmer of the North Atlantic 
 Division fared! From 1850-60 the value of the average 
 farm, with its buildings, live stock and machinery, shows 
 an increase of over $900; the next forty years the 
 increase is but $11 ! 
 
 This division of states comprises seven of the old thir- 
 teen original states. It is nearly 125 years since the close 
 of the Revolutionary War. What is the value of the 
 buildings, barn, dwelling-house and sheds of the aver- 
 age farm! $1437. What is the average value of such 
 buildings of the rich agricultural section of the North 
 Central Division! $773. For the nation the average is 
 $620. How far removed is the average farmer of the 
 United States from living in a hovel! 
 
 How have the non-agricultural classes fared during 
 the last fifty years! We all know that the manufactur- 
 ing centres have gone ahead in great leaps and bounds, 
 both in population and wealth. As a specimen of the 
 vast increase in wealth in manufacturing states, here are 
 a few figifres ; Wall Street state is purposely omitted : In 
 1850 the estimated valuation of Massachusetts' property 
 is given as over $573,000,000 ; in 1904 as $4,358,000,000 ; 
 Rhode Island for the same years, $80,000,000 and $710,- 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 29 
 
 000,000; New Jersey from $200,000,000 to $2,733,000,- 
 000 ; Ohio from $504,000,000 in 1850 to $5,019,000,000 in 
 1904. Yet in this latter State the vahie of average farm 
 buildings in 1900 was less than $800. And while there 
 was a gain in valne of farm land and buildings of $319,- 
 000,000, or 89%, from 1850-60, the census shows a loss in 
 such property of $90,000,000 from 1880-1900. 
 
 In 1850 the wealth of the non-agricultural classes of 
 the United States was $3,168,000,000 ; by 1900 it had risen 
 to $73,860,000,000, or twenty-two fold increase, while 
 the wealth of the agricultural classes for the same tune 
 increased but four-fold. 
 
 (d) Labor and capital invested in agriculture paid 
 about half what it receives in manufacture (see chap- 
 ter X). 
 
 In agriculture almost all the work is done by the farm- 
 er, assisted by his family. How does the pay received 
 for this compare with the value of the wages of the work- 
 man's familv^ 
 
 We think it will not be questioned that the net income 
 of the average Massachusetts farmer is at least equal to 
 that of the average United States farmer ; it is probably 
 more. No doubt his farm expenses are larger than those 
 of the United States farmer. But, then, the gross income 
 of the former is much larger than that of the latter. The 
 Massachusetts farmer is credited with an annual gross 
 value of products of $1122; the other of $822. The 
 average gross income (to find net, deduct business 
 expenses, interest and tax from gross) received by the 
 farmers of the richest agricultural section, the .North 
 Central, is $1074. 
 
 As near as could be figured out from the rather blind 
 Massachusetts state census of 1895, the net value of the 
 
30. The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 average farmer's products of that State was $416. This 
 was the sum after making all due allowance and charging 
 4% for property invested, including in the interest 
 charge a dwelling of the value of $981.50. This is the 
 amount received for the labor of the average farmer's 
 family. Besides paying all family expenses, this sum 
 must keep all the buildings and farm machinery in 
 repair, replacing the latter with new when worn out, fur- 
 nish a hired man with board for a portion of the year, 
 insure the buildings, shoe the horse, and pay taxes; 
 that is, if all exj)enses are paid without the aid of capi- 
 tal, as is done bv the workman. 
 
 Is the showing given by the United States census of 
 1900 any better! Here the average value of products 
 per farm for the North Atlantic States is given as $984. 
 This is the gross income. From this must be deducted 
 $686.64 (see chapter X), which leaves $297.36. This to 
 be still further reduced by the cost of the board of a 
 hired man for a portion of the year, and the blacksmith's 
 bill for shoeing the horses. Compare this with the wages 
 received by the workman and his family. 
 
 In a Massachusetts Labor Eeport of 1875 Mr. Carroll 
 D. Wright states that the fathers of 397 families of 
 many manufacturing trades earned on an average, 
 annually, $574.89. The boys' and girls' wages brought 
 up the income of the average family to $762.72. 
 
 According to the April number. World's Work, 1905, 
 the Bureau of Labor Statistics at Washington, in a 
 recent investigation into the habits of 13,000 persons who 
 live in cities in thirty-three states, found the average 
 family income to be $827.19. This is nearly if not quite 
 double 'what the farmer's family has to pay family 
 expenses received from its labor. That this great dis- 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 31 
 
 parity of reward has been of long standing is shown by 
 the reply of Mr. J. H. Walker to a Congressional commit- 
 tee in 1878. He was asked his opinion as to the wisdom 
 of putting men out of work onto farms to be given them 
 by government. He said : ' ' The wages of agriculturists, 
 including the income of small farmers, are not half that 
 of the average mechanic, excepting cotton and woolen 
 operatives ; and as it is a question of wages more than of 
 work, the average chronic beggar for work would only be 
 insulted, when, being upon his land, he learned the absti- 
 nence practiced, and work done by small farmers.'' 
 
 Could the difference of reward be put in more caustic 
 language than done by one who, for many years, was the 
 most prominent advocate for protection in Massachu- 
 setts ! 
 
 The Gist of the Situation. 
 
 agriculttjke. 
 
 Here associated effort is confined exclusively to pro- 
 duction. So far as this has been successful, the main 
 result has been to throw a larger surplus on a market 
 which for many years has been ruinously overstocked. 
 The inevitable effect : the depression of prices. 
 
 Now the object of producing is to obtain means to pur- 
 chase agricultural supplies. These are chiefly manufac- 
 tured products. In selling and buying there are inter- 
 mediate agents. But practically there is an exchange of 
 products between those engaged in agriculture and those 
 engaged in manufacture. 
 
 MANUFACTURE. 
 
 Associated effort here instead of seeking greater profit 
 by increasing knowledge of the arts and sciences, and by 
 improved methods of production, has done all that could 
 
32 The Tariff and the Fai^mer. 
 
 be done to create a condition of scarcity, real or artificial. 
 By influence exerted on the general government cheap 
 supplies from abroad have been shut out. Taking ad- 
 vantage of a highly favorable trade position, by various 
 devices, competition among home producers has been 
 largely eliminated. The combined effect of political 
 action and associated effort has caused price to be lifted 
 to a high, artificial level. 
 
 On such an unfair basis exchange has been carried on 
 for more than forty years. How could agriculture be 
 prosperous under such conditions? 
 
 The Protective System 
 
 is not only chief of the adverse trade conditions that has 
 caused the position, but to a great extent it 
 
 commands the entire situation. 
 
 The Eesult 
 
 (a) Deplorable tenure of farm possession. 
 
 (b) An almost imperceptible gain in total annual value 
 
 of products, against most astonishing manufactur- 
 ing gains. 
 
 (c) Under normal conditions, where there has been 
 
 most rapid gain in non-agricultural wealth, there 
 has been a marked decline in the value of agricul- 
 tural property. 
 
 (d) Labor, and capital invested, is paid about half what 
 
 it receives in manufacture. 
 
 Finally, 
 
 the grreat monumental 
 
 Eesult 
 
 IS 
 
 That while the business of our manufacturers, whose 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 33 
 
 products are similar to those of the best paid labor in 
 Europe, is protected by the tremendous odds of a fifty 
 per cent, tax; our farmers are competing in Europe, to 
 the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars, with the 
 poorest paid ''pauper labor of Europe." 
 
 The review and summary of the agricultural situation 
 ends here, but there are points in dispute, not strictly 
 relating to the farmer, but having most important bear- 
 ings, of which a few words should be said. Not to say 
 them would be like an army leaving behind it a fortress 
 of the enemy. 
 
 We dispute the claim that national prosperity and high 
 wages are due to the protective system. 
 
 National prosperity and industrial progress, we claim, 
 are due to our unrivaled natural resources and their 
 development by the most industrious, enterprising and 
 ingenious of all people. The natural resources consist 
 chiefly of the riches of the soil and mineral wealth. The 
 value of these taken from the ground in 1850 must have 
 been over $2,000,000,000. There was a steady rise in 
 value year after year till 1900, when the figures stand at 
 $5,800,000,000. It is claimed that intensified farming 
 and scientific treatment can wring annually from the 
 earth twice or thrice what is now obtained. 
 
 Mr. Carroll D. Wright says, ' ' The natural resources of 
 the United States consist of almost every species of raw 
 material produced by or from the earth essential to make 
 a nation great in the three lines of development — agricul- 
 ture, manufacture, commerce." Again, "The United 
 States, according to careful estimates, possesses at least 
 50% of the coal area of the world. Our supply is esti- 
 mated to be equal to the demand for 1000 years." 
 
34 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 Mr. Henry Gannett, in tlie Forum of May, 1902, gives 
 condensed statements showing to what extent the United 
 States is supplying the world with products drawn from 
 its natural resources. Mr. Gannett was geographer of 
 the tenth and eleventh censuses, and since 1882 has been 
 chief geographer of the United States Survey. In 
 mining, he says, we produce 34% of all the iron ore that 
 is mined; 34% of all pig iron comes from our furnaces, 
 and 37% of all steel comes from our crucibles and con- 
 verters. Of gold we produce 31%, silver 33, copper 56, 
 lead 25, quicksilver 29, and zinc 25%. "Tin is the only 
 metal of importance in the arts which we do not produce 
 in quantities." Of all products mined the United States 
 produces about 39%. 
 
 Yet it seems this vast nation, producing a large part of 
 all that is required to sustain the world, must be care- 
 fully guarded from other far less-favored nations. How 
 could a nation possessed of all this wealth of natural 
 resources be anything but prosperous? 
 
 All these almost inexhaustible stores of agricultural 
 and mineral wealth were in the ground when the Indian 
 held sway, but there was then no industrial progress. 
 Nor was there much for more than a century after the 
 white man came. Not till the printing-press gathered 
 from thousands of sources, and everywhere scattered the 
 knowledge obtained, did industrial progress make rapid 
 strides. To whom are we indebted for the printing-press! 
 Primarily to the Chinese? The honor of inventing and 
 making practical movable types is claimed by some for a 
 Dutchman, by others for a German. 
 
 The chief factors that come next in the line of develop- 
 ment are the factory and railroad systems. The latter 
 everywhere opened up the vast wilderness to settlement, 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 35 
 
 and was the connecting link between the farmers and 
 those who toil in the shops, bringing food and raw manu- 
 facturing material to the latter, and carrying back to the 
 farms clothing, farm machinery, etc. To whom are we 
 most indebted for the steam engine! To an Englishman. 
 Whose inventive mind caused steel rails to be substituted 
 for iron and greatly cheapened the cost! Another 
 Englishman. Who or what greatly increased the cost of 
 building railroads! Our protective system, by the heav>' 
 duties imposed on. rails. 
 
 The factorv svstem did not have its beginning here. 
 Mr. Carroll D. Wright affirms: "The inauguration of the 
 factorv svstem in the United States was some fifteen 
 years later than its birth in England." 
 
 Mr. 0. P. Austin, chief of the Bureau of Statistics of 
 the United States, after giving credit to our great rail- 
 road svstem as the chief cause of our wonderful develop- 
 ment, states that "the value of the manufactures of the 
 United States is nearly double that of the United King- 
 dom, and about equal to that of Germany, France and 
 Russia combined." 
 
 Yet this giant dare not face its weak opponents in the 
 open field. 
 
 The industrial situation cannot be better described 
 than in the words of Mr. Henry Clews' "Special Weekly 
 Market" letter of Dec. 28, 1901: "Since 1896 the growth 
 of our manufacturing enterprises has many times 
 exceeded the growth of agriculture, and we are rapidly 
 changing from an agricultural to a manufacturing nation. 
 With our magnificent mineral resources, with unequalled 
 facilities for transportation, with unlimited supply of 
 capital to aid enterprise, with a better supply of skilled 
 labor than any competitor, with unrivaled capacity for 
 
36 The Tariff and the Farmer, 
 
 organization and the use of machinery, all backed with 
 abundance of energy, brains and opportunity — with all 
 these requisites in plenty, is it surprising that our situa- 
 tion is the wonder and envy of the world ! ' ' 
 
 Yet with everything in its favor, this, the largest agri- 
 cultural and manufacturing nation, is threatened with 
 bankruptcy and ruin if its citizens are allowed to trade 
 on an even footing with the people of other nations ! 
 How, then, in the old colonial days, when there was lack 
 of everything, and when the English Parliament sought 
 by strict legislative enactments lo crush out manufactur- 
 ing enterprise, did industrial i3rogress go steadily for- 
 ward ! 
 
 Whence came the ability to create the condition 
 described by Mr. Clews ? A large part is inherited from 
 way back before the first tariff act. In Bishop 's History 
 of American Manufactures it is said of the colonists: 
 ''They were gathered from the most productive and 
 ingenious nations of Europe. ' ' 
 
 High wages are due to the great demand for and 
 efficiency of labor. From what has immediately pre- 
 ceded, it is evident that the call for labor in developing the 
 resources of the nation must have immensely exceeded 
 that ever known by any nation in any age. High wages 
 were here before the first tariff act, and were the rea?son 
 given for the need of such legislation. The talk that 
 under free trade wages would fall to the European level 
 is merely for political effect. For some fifty years free- 
 trade England has been in a few hours ' sail of Germany, 
 with its far lower rate of wages. Have English wages 
 fallen to the German level! No, and we doubt if there 
 has been relatively any approach to the lower level. 
 
 The United States with its vast population of 80,000,- 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 37 
 
 000 of people has its own level of wages. The high level 
 is not given by one kind of occupation, but is the effect 
 of competition in all — in agricnlture, manufacture, trade, 
 transportations, personal service. The service of all but 
 manufacture must be rendered in this country, and a 
 large part of manufacture also. Under free trade there 
 are doubtless a few branches of the latter industry that 
 would be lost to this country, but if the past is any guide 
 this would be balanced by an equal gain in foreign trade. 
 How absurd it is to believe that the loss of say $300,000,- 
 000 or $400,000,000 worth of work would cause a fall in 
 wages. That amount is an exceedingly small fraction t(? 
 the total sum earned by all the people.- Have the mil- 
 lions of emigrants coming to our shores caused a fall in 
 wages ? There have not been enough to supply sufficient 
 help to the farmers. 
 
 Not only is there a prodigious amount of work to do 
 in this country, but the means has been provided by the 
 invention of machinery for a very large product per 
 wage earner. 
 
 Mr. Gannett, before quoted, says that the average gross 
 manufactured product per hand in the United States is 
 $1900; in France, $650; in England, $485; and in Ger- 
 many, $450. He adds, ''This enormous difference in 
 efficiency between the artisans of the United States on 
 the one hand and those of Europe on the other, which is 
 due mainly to the universal use in this country of the 
 most modern machinery and methods, enables us not only 
 to hold our own markets, but to invade successfully the 
 home market of other countries. ' ' 
 
 Mr. North, one of the directors of the census of 1900, 
 says: ''It means that the horse-power employed in our 
 manufactures in 1900 was equal in its producing capacity 
 
38 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 to the labor of 113,000,000 able-bodied men. How insig- 
 nificant in contrast appears the contribution to industrial 
 wealth of the 5,316,802 men, women and children, the 
 actual average number of persons employed in the cen- 
 sus year to direct and supplement this tremendous 
 power." 
 
 The following statement is found in Mr. Carroll J). 
 Wright's ''Industrial Evolution of the United States": 
 "Looking at this question without any desire to be 
 mathematically accurate, it is fair to say, perhaps, that it 
 would require from fifty to one hundred million persons 
 in this country, working under the old system, to produce 
 the goods made and do the work performed by the work- 
 ers of to-day with the aid of machinery." Number of 
 workers 5,316,802. 
 
 The people of the United States have been frightened 
 for many years by a vision of the dire effect of losing a 
 little work to the foreigner under free trade conditions. 
 We have given an idea of the value of products of agri- 
 culture and manufacture ; we add something in regard to 
 the value of the free-trade exchanges that take place 
 inside the United States. Senator Greorge F. Hoar at 
 Concord, Mass., in 1900, put it thus: "An internal com- 
 merce that thrusts into insignificance all the foreign com- 
 merce of the world. ' ' 
 
 In Mr. James Gr. Blaine's book^ a more definite state- 
 ment is made: "Fifty-five millions of people carry on 
 their exchanges by ocean, by lake, by river, by railroad, 
 without the exactions of the tax-gatherer, without the 
 detention of the custom-house, without even the recogni- 
 tion of state lines. In these great channels the domesti< 
 
 1 (( 
 
 Twenty Years in Congress." 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer, 39 
 
 exchanges represent an annual value perhaps twenty-five 
 times as great as the total of exports and imports." 
 
 The rate of duties from 1850-60 were from 50 to 100% 
 lower than under the Dingley tariff. Did foreigners 
 crowd our producers out of the home market? The 
 crushing answer given by the census is : ' ' The value of 
 our manufactures increased 85% that decade.'' Since 
 then there is strong evidence that the rate of wages 
 abroad has risen relatively more than in the United 
 States. The far greater use of machinery here than in 
 foreign lands has nearly, if not quite, put our manufac- 
 turers on an even footing in all branches with their for- 
 eign rivals. 
 
 Is tariff coddling conducive to industrial progress? 
 The 85% gain in value of manufactured products under 
 the low duties of 1850-60 does not indicate it. Under 
 high duties the gain from 1870-80 was but 27%; from 
 1880-90, 74.5%, and from 1890-1900 only 38.8%. 
 
 Mr. Carroll D. Wright says : ''It is a curious fact, well 
 known to those familiar with patents, that depressed 
 periods often result in the stimulation of invention." He 
 then goes on : ' ' During the last twenty or thirty years of 
 the period ending with 1860 there were patented some of 
 the most important inventions of the age." This period, 
 with the exception of from 1842-46, is the time of lowest 
 rates of duties way back nearly ninety years. 
 
 The noted writer on economic subjects, Mr. Francis A. 
 Walker, quotes with approval this statement: ''It was an 
 axiom of the late Mr. John Kennedy, who was called the 
 father of the cotton manufacture, that no manufacturing 
 improvements were ever made except on threadbare 
 
 profits." 
 
 We turn now to the hard times of 1893-97. In the lat- 
 
40 The Tariff and the Farmer. 
 
 ter year, when the Dingiey bill was being constructed, the 
 two Eepnblican leaders, Mr. Dingiey in the House and 
 Mr. Aldrich in the Senate, agreed that, owing to 
 '^changed conditions," less protection was required than 
 at the time of the passage of the McKinley bill in 1890. 
 The Senator said: ^'The bitter contest that is going on 
 among the leading nations of the world for industrial 
 supremacy has brought about improvements in methods 
 and economy of production to an extent not thought pos- 
 sible a few years ago." Is the industrial gain credited 
 to "protection" by this man who has led the protection- 
 ists many years in Congress! No, to bitter contest/^ 
 
 What said Mr. Archer Brown in the Forum Magazine 
 of November, 1900, of this same time : ' ' The trials of the 
 lean years following the panic forced economies of manu- 
 facture and modernizing of plant to a point that excited 
 the admiration and wonder of rivals of other nations." 
 Again: "Let us glance at the marvelous record of our 
 progress since the iises of adversity taught us how to 
 make the cheapest iron and steel, thereby opening up the 
 markets of the world. ' ^ 
 
 The Forum says of Mr. Brown: "He has been closely 
 identified with the movement for the export of iron, and 
 has spent several months in Europe studying conditions 
 and organizing business there; is director of a number 
 of leading iron, steel and coal corporations, also director 
 of the North American Trust Company." A man so 
 engaged, occupying the positions he did, should best 
 know the facts of the situation. 
 
 The story is told. The little book goes forth on its 
 mission. It is believed to be the only publication in the 
 world that gives a comprehensive view of the bearing of 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer. 41 
 
 the protective system upon the agricultural industry. It 
 can no longer be said that the case of the farmer against 
 the tariff has never been formulated. Here it is made 
 evident that of all men the American farmer is the great- 
 est sufferer by the system. In comparison with . the 
 injury done him, that received by the foreigner is insig- 
 nificant. Here is shown the cause of agricultural unrest; 
 it is the unprofitableness of the industry, the direct effect 
 of the protective system. 
 
 Now the question is, can farmers be roused to thought 
 and action, which means 
 
 Commercial Freedom, 
 
 or will they continue to be led like ''dumb-driven cattle'' 
 by those who profit by their stupidity, and forever 
 
 remain in 
 
 Commercial Bondage? 
 
The Tariff and the Farmer 
 
 TERMS 
 
 
 For Larger Edition 
 
 
 One Copy 
 
 $.50 
 
 Five Copies to one address 
 
 2.00 
 
 Condensed, Popular Edition 
 
 
 One Copy - - - - 
 
 $.25 
 
 Five Copies to one address 
 
 1.00 
 
 Ten Copies to one address 
 
 1.50 
 
 Money must come ^vith order 
 
 
 Address S. Payson Perry 
 
 
 Worcester, Mass. 
 
 
 Box 754 
 
 
I 
 

 i»AS^j. ■.^mvi t iioj' ii i,tit^j B tt T ^ 
 
 ift f^ 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 ii^H 24 1937 
 
 ,D 18 ^9^^^ 
 
 JAN n 194a 
 
 toAK i>4 ..43 
 
YC b7P27 
 
 272198 
 
 H / 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CAIylFORNIA I^IBRARY