Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 9, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 March 1891 — THE FOREIGN MARKET. [ARTICLE]

THE FOREIGN MARKET.

WHAT THE! FARMER SELLS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES. tMatistfrs of Foreign Trade in Farm Products—Where the Bushel ot Wheat and Barrel of Pork Go To—England Is the Farmer’s Best Foreign Market—Great Importance of the Foreigu Market to Our Farmers. When a man undertakes to defend a false system he is constantly compelled to make untrue arguments. Our protection organs labor early and late to Ahow the farmer that the foreign market is of very little value to him. While .Blaine is trying to get the farmer “a market for another bushel of wheat and another barrel of pork," and the organs ■applaud his efforts, they even forget themselves still and go back to their old job of showing that the foreign market is no good. But the facts about the farmer’s foreign market are clearly set forth in the figures published by the Treasury Department. Those figures for the year ending Dec. 31, 1890, have recently been published; and they are well worth the -attention of any farmer who wants to know the size of his foreign market and where his greatest foreign market is. The figures of the department show that the total exports of agricultural products in 1890 amounted to $628,772,000, which was 74.33 per cent, of all •our exports. On the other hand, exports ■of manufactures were $156,983,000, or only 18.56 percent, of the total. These figures show that where the manufacturer exported $1 worth of goods the farmer exported $4 worth. The foreign market is therefore four times more valuable to the farmer than to the manufacturer. The heaviest single item of agricultural exports was raw cotton, reaching $254,275,000, or about 40 per cent, of all .agricultural exports, and about 30 per cent, of all exports of every kind. Exports of cotton in 1889 were still larger, being $266,649,000. The next largest item in the total was provisions, $142,842,000. These were divided as follows: Beef products— Canned beef, $8,610,000; fresh, $13,837,000; salted or pickled, $6,039,000; tallow, -'55,738,000. Hog products—Bacon, $37,855,000; hams, $8,495,000; pork, fresh ■and pickled, $4,704,000. Dairy products Butter, $3,228,000; cheese, $8,130,000. The exports of provisions for the past -three years make an interesting comparison, showing, as they do, a gratifying increase. These are the figures; 1883 $ 91,249,000 1889.. 123,307,000 1890.. 142,842,000 The next heaviest exports are bread--stuffs, $141,602,000. Here aie the principal items: Corn, $37,603,000; wheat, $42,348,000; wheat flour, $52,709,000; oats, $4,141,000; rye, $1,025,000; cornmeal, $917,000; oatmeal, $579,000; bar■ley, $463,000. Besides the exports of provisions as above given, there was a considerable export of live animals, principally cattle. 'Total exports of animals were $35,665,000, of which the exports of cattle reached $33,297,000, against $25,673,000 in 1889. Exports of hogs were $970,000; horses, $808,000; mules, $358,000; sheep, $199,000. There were also some exports of miscellaneous agricultural products. These were as follows: Bones, hoofs, horns, etc., $400,000; fruits, $2,845,000; hay, $577,000; hides and skins, $1,483,000; hops, $2,172,000; seeds, $2,945,000; leaf tobacco, $21,155,000; vegetables, $1,370,000. Besides these exports of raw farm gvoduce, there were some $40,000,000 of manufactured goods exported, of which -our farmers furnished the raw materials. These were as follows: Cotton goods, *511,113,000; leather and manufactures of leather, $12,575,000; lard oil, $646,000; -cottonseed oil, $5,400,000; oilcake, $7,762,000; manufactured tobacco, $4,018,'OCO.

The above figures afford some Idea of the vast importance of the farmer’s foreign market In the face of such figures the protectionists have the effrontery to try to persuade the farmer that he cannot compete in the markets of the world with the pauper labor of countries less prosperous than ours, and they even go to the length of saying that if it were mot for McKinley’s humbug duties on farm produce our markets would be flooded with the cheap products of other -countries! These figures prove the ability of our farmers to hold their own in the world's market. Yet McKinley made it a reproach to the Democratic minority on the Ways and Means Committee a year ago that they stood forth in defense of that market for our farmers. “The ‘world’s market,’ to which the advocates •of tariff for revenue only invite the farmers of this country, ” he said, “is today crowded with the products of the •cheapest human labor the earth affords. All over the old world there is a rush of their surplus to that market, and it ifi to such a contest as this that free trade would allure American agriculture.” And still our* farmers go into that market and beat “the cheapest human labor” on its own ground; and they are in no mood to withdraw from that market, as McKinley seems to advocate, if his words mean anything. The farmers •know too well that if they should cease to sell in the foreign market they should fail to find sale for all their products at home, and thus depress prices -to an absolutely ruinous figure. But the farmers are not fools; they know that the more of our farm products is taken by Europe and the more of manufactured goods that is sent to us in exchange, the better off they iare. The freedom of that exchange, so •beneficial to our farmers, is obstructed In the interests of the manufacturers solely under the false cry of “protection to American labor. ” Another important fact shown by the Treasury figures is that England is far and away tlie farmers’ greatest foreign market all the silly protectionist talk about England, “the grasping Briton,” and the like, let the farmer consider the following figures: Total exports of cattle, $33,297,000, of which England took $31,364,000; canned beef, 88,610,000, to England, $G,356,000; fresh beef, 813,837,•000, to England, 813,654,000; salted . beef, 86,125,000, to England, 83,952,000; tallow, 85,738,000, to England, $2,643,000; bacon, 837,855,000, to England, $30,966,000; hams, $8,495,000, to England, 86,857,000; lard, $36,062,000, to England, $11,139,000; butter, $3,228,000, to England, sl,3ss,ooo;cheese, $8,130,000, to England, $7,080,000. Our exports of breadstuffs were also principally taken by England. The leading items were: Corn, $37,603,to England, $19,474,000; wheat, >43,348,000, to England, flour, $52,709,000, to England, $33,356,-

rr 1 t* rr 000. Exports of raw cotton amounted to of which England took $148,000,000. Hops to the value of $2,172,000 were exported, of which all except about $65,000 went to England. Of $21,155,000 of leaf tobacco England took $6,191,000. Thf£ is the state of our export trade now. How will it be if our mad McKinleyism -has the effect of driving England into opening up new sources of supply? Many facts point to such an outcome of our McKlnleyism. What will the farmer then think of McKinley’s “farmers’ tariff?”