Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 50, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 January 1891 — TWO VIEWS ON CROPS. [ARTICLE]

TWO VIEWS ON CROPS.

-SECRETARY RUSK AND STATISTICIAN DODGE. ■Sangrains Uncle Jerry Congratulates the Country—He Thinks Protection Ha* dispelled the Agricultural C oud —Statistician Dodge Keports Poor Crops. In his second annual report Secretary Jlusk congratulates the President “and the country at large upon the generally improved outlook in agricultural matters. ” He calls attention to agricultural "depression in 1889 whe'n the present administration went into power. But when lie looks at the condition of agriculture, Uncle Jerry imagines that he sees a vast improvement He says: “The cloud which seemed to rest .gloomily upon American agriculture has been lightened, while the wise, economic legislation already secured holds out still brighter promise for the future. ” Uncle Jerry seems honestly to fancy that the “tin-whistle duties, ” as Butterworth called them, on wheat, corn, barley, eggs, etcare really going to improve the condition of the He gives tables to show the increase in price of a number of agricultural products, which increase the old gentleman imagines to be the result largely of the higher duties on these articles. JJut how the McKinley duty—or any ■dutjr, for that matter—on corn can raise the price of corn he does not undertake to show. As we imported only 1,626 bushels of corn for the fiscal year 1890, Against 101,000,000 exported, it would tax the sanguine genius of even Uncle Jerry to show how the corn duty has helped our farmers or can help them. About the same time the Secretary’s jrepqrt was issued another publication wa3 sent-forth from the . Department of Agriculture. This was the statistician’s ■“report on the yield of crops per aqre.” On the very first page of this report it is stated that the yield of corn per acre for the current year is the lowest ever reported, except the year 1881. The report also’ states that the yield per acre in 1889 was nearly one-half larger. Secretary Busk is gratified at the improved -outlook for agriculture, but our farmers will hesitate to accept his rosy anticipation, aa they know very well that the higjier prices of the present time are •capped short crops. No sensible farnfer fs willing to have higher prices at the expense of poor crops; he prefers rather large crops at low prices. The larger part of the corn grown by our farmers js consumed on the farm as food sor 1 man and beast. So far as this part of the corn crop is concerned, high prices avail nothing, and low production is •disastrous. It is stated that many farmers in clitinois are actually buying.corn at existing high prices to feed to their stock, St) low was their yield. Returning to the statistician’s report, he saiys that the corn shortage this year is principally “in the corn-surplus Statfe)’ That shortage is explained in •detail in several pages of the report. Some of the causes of the failure of the •crop. aj;e as follows: “Worms,” “hot winds,” “haii-storms in August,” “midsummer drought,” “excessive rains,” “frosts,” and “all possible drawbacks.” The farmers usually look upon all these things as evils to be deplored. The report on the yield of potatoes is ■of a similar nature. The average yield is stated to be the lowest, with two exceptions, ever reported. The acreage was smaller than usual, and this fact, together with the failure of the crop, makes the supply per capita smaller than in any recent year. ” The statistician thinks that these facts “amply warrant the advance in prices now ruling in all markets.” When our own ■crop is short there is usually a considerable importation of potatoes; but the statistician is of the opinion that the recent increase in the duty to 25 cents a bushel may check the large importation which our own scarcity would seem to make necessary. In other words, when our farniers have hardly any potatoes to sell, the duty comes into play to add greatly to the cost of the potatoes consumed by the poor in cities; but when our crop is abundant we supply our own market, and the duty then cannot possibly benefit our farmers. On the other hand, ipany of our farmers will be compelled to buy seed potatoes next spring with the McKinley duty added. Fruit is an important product of many of our farmers. The statistician reports that “th 6 season has been the worst for fruit that tne department has ever reported. ” McKinley raised the duties on -all kinds of fruit, but it is difficut to see how this will affect our farmers, except to increase the prices of the few lemons And oranges, nuts, raisins and prunes which they buy for their children. The only crop that the statistician reports very favorably on is sugar, saying, “the crop will be a large one.” But what do the farmers in general think of the McKinley bounty of 2 cents a pound -on sugar. The larger the crop of sugar the greater the sum taken out of the treasury to pay the sugar growers for doing their own work. The prospect is thatj with the introduction of the sugar beet, our sugar production will increase -enormously in the next fifteen years, nnd In proportion as this sugar bounty grows in volume so much the more clearly will all other farmers be convinced of the injustice of the whole bounty system. Why should the grower of sugar have a bounty while the growers of wheat and corn and cotton are neglected? Is the grower of sugar a public benefactor in any higher sense than is the grower of other farm products? The fact is that the high tariff.makers •are so accustomed to treating the farmer as the common burden-bearer of the entire country that when they do make a show of giving him some of the “benefits of protection” it is half humbug and pretense and half undisguised paternalism, for which there is no warrant in ■the Constitution.