Pike County Democrat, Volume 23, Number 24, Petersburg, Pike County, 4 November 1892 — Page 10

FACTS FOR THE FARMERS. Driven to the last Ditch by the Mill-Owners. FARMING NO LONGER PATS IN THE UNITED STATES. A Condition. Not • Theory, Note Coufrontlnc Ihe American Farmer—Whot Khali Bo Uone with Bin Surplus If Ho May Not Exeliamt It for Mill ]*rodUets and Compete with Mill* Owners? *V> Mr A*vrt«l* ft™r ,• The increase In the value or our farms between 1850 and 1800 was as follows: r«l»« jgf.O $6,015,045,007 I860."..".'."..-.. 8.871,576.191 Total increats, ton year*. 88,578.169,586 Average yearly increats. 837,816.958 Between I860 and 1880 the Increase In the value of our farming lands was as follows: ,880 . 810,197,006,776 .y^a.* 1. 6.615.015.007 Total increase, twenty yeare. 83,659,051.768 A voraca yearly la.-raasa. 177,603,588 •Ihe actual increase In the twenty years after 1800 was the same as for the ten years before. The yearly increase dropped from 1014 to 8H per cent. In these twenty years the population more than doubled. 8. The'average value of our improved land was 811 per acre In 1850 and 810 In 1800, an Increase In the ten years ol 85, or 45 per cent, in the decade. Its value was 810 per sere In 1880. an Increase of 83 In, twenty hleh tariff years, or 9 per cent, eaoh deoade. Before 1800 the annual Increase In value per acre was 50 cents. Since 1800 It has been only 15 cents yearly. 3. The total acreage In farms at the three different periods was as follows:

1850. 2S3,560,614 I860. 407.218.538 1880. 536,081.835 Increase.. 118,651.024 128,809,207 ' Yearly increase. 11.365,193 6.443.468 With all toe enormous railroad expansion and opening up ol new territory Oetween I860 and 1880, farming bad ceased to pay and fewer people went into lu In I860 toe acreage was 18.7 per Inhabitant; in 1860 It Increased to 18.0; In 1880 It decreased to 10.7. 4. Tlie average value of eacO farm In 1860 was $3,858; In I860 It was $3,251; In 1880 It was $2,508. The increase between 1850 and i860 was $983. Tbe decrease oetween 1860 and 1880 was $882. 5. Tbe average value of farm land per inhabitant In 1850 was $142. It InoreaBed to $211 in I860 and declined to $303 In 1880. 6. In New Jersey, wblcb Blnoe 1800 bas become merely tbe kitchen-garden for her owa cities. New York, Brooklyn and Philadelphia—her 2.086,287 acres having a population of nearly 5,000.000 to lend—tbe value of her Improved larm land has declined since 1800. In the ten years before 1860 It Increased In value $25, or from $68 to $83 per acre. In 1880 It was worth only $81 per aore. The yearly increase in the value of New England’s farms before 1860 was $10,386,628. Since 1860 It bas been $5,218,678. These facts are taken from the United States Census of 1880. Their full significance will be understood more clearly by bearing In mind a few every-day trains. (l. All that the people of the United States eat, wear and use mast be provided by their own labor. What they eat Is provided by tbe tanner; what they wear and use & provided by our factories and mills—ny the mlU2. All that the people eat can be and is provided by our farmers; but all that they wear and use Is not provided by the mill-owners. A part of It is provided by our farmers In excnange for their surplus. a in 1880 the farmers numbered 7,670,4oa Of these 5,773,008 were working to supply the American market with what It wanted to eat, and 1,807,483 were working to supply the American market with what was needed lor wear and use—olothtng. Iron and the like. Of the $2,213,402,564 w ortn of larm products raised that year bnly $1,666.025,861 could he profitably disposed of, or were needed bere, leaving a surplus of $546,476,703, which bad to be exported—exchanged abroad tor manufactured products— and brought hack bere for anal sale to their countrymen. 4. When their surplus farm products were ■ent abroad for exchange Into something their oountrymen wanted, they bad to Import the payment. Kotning Is permitted to oome into this country except through the CnatomBouse. When their payment passed through the Custom-House all of It which would lutein fere with the mills and faotorles was taxed 48 per cent, average, and the whole was taxed 38 per cent.

5. This tax is levied to protect tbs American mill-owner from the competition of the American farmer. The 14.300 protected milt-owners and the 1,897,483 farmers are fighting one another lor the “ home marketr tor manufactured goods—the mill-owners to get It all; the larmers for a share of it. If the mill-owners gain It all, the 1,897,483 tanners must abandon their land and Una other work. The tax is not levied to keep out the foreigner. He cannot come here except as an immigrant, and then he is welcomed. He sends nothing here except in payment tor oui farm surplus. We have nothing else to buy with (that is. generally speaking, our farm surplus ranges from 74 to 83 per cent, of all we have to sell or buy with). What he sends here must be bought and paid for in our farm produots; what we send abroad must be bought and paid for In his manufactured produots. No money is or can be used In .International trade and commerce, (laid and Silver exported or Imported are merely metals—produots of mines—and there are not enough In all the world to buy one year’s exports and Imports of the world. d. The business question Isi "Shall our 1,897,485 larmers be permitted to supply their countrymen yearly wtih mill products worth 8415,000,000 ^abroad), by an exchange of our surplus farm products tor them, or shall they be tax*! out of the business to protect the 14,300 mill-owners from their competition?” This question it Is for you to decide. It is a >ght between the farmer and the mill-owner. Nobody else is particularly interested In It or eares very much which wins—exoept that by giving .the mill-owner absolute control snd ny destroying the competition prices will be The tariff is simply a tax upon the payment you receive lor the 30 per cent, of the products ot your farms, which must bo sold abroad. What else can It be? The protective part Of It Is simply for the protection ot American mills against the competition of like gooda received In exchange tor the American farm surplus. You may have loet money la the peat thirty ytars, hut yoa haven’t loet sense, and U It le for any

an? other purpose, what is that purpose» can you imagine any r The facts already given and tuts Tlew otthe question are new to you, but It there Is any error In the argument you can see It. On the chance that you may he sufficiently interested to listen, here are some more taots worth your consideration: 1. The war which the protected mlll-ownera began In 1803 has been Increasing In Importance every year, it will not end until the farming industry is ruined. They cannot break down your competition exoept by the ruin ol all In the business. It Is not 1,887,485 Individual farmers who are hurting their trade. It Is 31 per cent, ol what each Indlvldual farmer of the whole 7,870,493 raises which hurts them. If you will stop your exports they need no protection, because no lorelgn goods can then come Into the country. All tney want now Is for each farmer to reduce his crop 31 per cent. S. between 1830 and 1800 your agrlouU tural exports increased S3 per cent, yearly. In the twenty-eight years since then they have increased 3 per oent. yearly. That shows well lor the work of the mill-owners, hut here is something which shows better. 3. f^nce 1881 they have driven your exports of farm products down 8330,000,000. Here are the figures: V!,t iif Affrirtilyear, tural JSscparte. 1881. 8730,304,933 1888. 558,818,819 1883. 018,308,448 1834. 530.3*5,318 1885. 530.178,000 1880. 484,834,383 1887 .-. 58o,0?3,T98 1888 . 500,840,080 1801. 048,751,344 There has been no gain. Even the famine In Europe was not sufficient to bring the exports up to a decade ago. 4. The protective tariff duties have Increased steadily every year. The tax on your payment when It enters into competition with their mill products is levied speclheally, not by percentage, so that It shall Increase in percentage every year. The average which lu 1881 w as 43 per cent.. In 1888 was 48 per cent. You could not pay this tax and compete with them. Your farm products were held here, there was a glut In this market, and ycu know how your prices here have dropped, without being told. 6. Your lorelgn market gives you the only control you can have of prices here by providing two customers. Americans and foreigners, competing against each other lor your farm products, make prices high. 0, once connned to the " home market,” your own competition with one another will destroy you. There were 1,897,485 more on larms In 1880 than were required to supply the “ home market." 7. The protected manufacturer Is oarrylng the war Into your own corn-fields. Manufacturing as cheaply as the foreigner, having but a very small duty to pay on lorelgn products, he la selling his mil) products atroad lor lorelgn farm products and underselling you In your own home market. If you do not believe It, look at theexports of agricultural products for 1888 or 1889. Here Is the result:

EXPORTS OF AMERICAN LABOR PRODUCTS. Acripclliira/. Jfnxnfacl* -<», 1881.*780.894.948 *89,919,880 1888.. 800,840,088 130,800,087 His exports have increased 46 pel cent. Your exports bare decreased 31 per cent. Of ibe total exports you bave lost 10 per cent, and be bas gained 10 per cent. The Spanlsh-American Bunco, Reciprocity Is a bunco. It assumes that we pay Spanlsh-American countries In gold or silver when we do not pay In merchandise —that all trade is barter. The report of the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury tor 1800 sits down heavily on Mr. Blaine’s reciprocity flgures with tbe following official statement of our actual Imports and exports: ns UNITED STATES IN ACCOUNT WITH /Strops. Imports from foeport* to Merchandise,...*449,987,388 *683.736,897 Gold and silver.. 8,736,799 80,938,681 Amsrtca Merchandise.. 938.874,860 183,888.088 Gold and silver....... 33,159.836 6,168.678 -Foe. 93 and 64-100. And for twenty years past tbe statement Is tbe same. We send more gold and merchandise to Europe than we receive. We receive from spnnisb-Amerlca more gold and mere ohandlse than we send. Foreign trade la an exchange of credits through banks In sealed tetters. Europe pays us lor *185,000,000 worth of our exports of farm products In SpantshAmericau bills of exchange, with which we pay tor our Spanlsh-American imports. Europe gets these Spanlsh-American bills In payment for European mill goods, with them : buys our farm produces, and we take them J to buy coffee, rubber and other tropical i products. 1 Mr. Blaine wishes to deprive our Amerlcah farmers of these Spanlsh-American bills. It our protected mill-owners send to Spanish. America tnelr mill goods In payment for ou imports, and Europe loses this spantshAmerlcan trade, Europe will not have the bills t<5 buy our farm products. Reciprocity simply transfers the payment1 tor our South American Imports from American farm labor to American mill labor.

I Two Picture**. In 1840 England bad been lor elgU centuries tbe strongest ol protection countries, and Parliament bad passed over three bun. dred McKinley bills. According to tbe legacy and succession returns ot tbat year tbe wealth olt be United Kingdom was distributed as lollows ■ CfBM. /amtIt**. Per /amity. Rich. 88,833 £38,830 Middle. 783,100 1,430 | Working.4.841.08T v 44 And here Is tbe almost Incredible diffusion | ot wealth tbat followed England's final adoption, in I860, ot tree trade, alter only seven- : teen years ot It, as shown by the same returns tor 1877 : I ClaM. yawin'**. Per /amity. • Rich. 33,500 £35.803 Middle.1,834,400 1,005 Working.4,839.100 86 —MmlkaWs nierfeaacy oj .Halt*tie*, pay* 473. Over one million families of tbe working class nad joined tbe middle class and tbe average wealth ot every working family bad doubled. Tbe wealth ot tbe rlcb families bad declined. Tbe rich were getting poorer and the ooor were getting Honor. Tli* Thieves’ Theory. The report ot tbe Bureau ot Statistics tor 1891 shows tbe following foreign trade and commerce: Inp'trU. Exports, Merohaadlw.<844,907.117 <884,471.745 Geldaad silver. 88.159,447 108,958,843 Total..<881,187,884 <998,438,887 This represents every dollar’s worth ot anything tbat oame Into or left the United States, and shows tbat tbe United States had lost in 1891 by this trade <119,368,898. Mo Individual Amerlo&ii bad lost one cent, but tbat amount of Amenoan wealth had been transierred to foreign countries for investment and to escape taxation here. It la time that iionest men everywhere should ]tunp upon this «thieves’ theory ” ot tbe balance of trade whenever and wherever It appears. It Is tbe most transparent bunco that ever tooled a farmer.

PROTECTION ASA FINE ART. Opposed Ony to Imports That Can Be Made Here. AS IP All OUR IMPORTS WERE NOT MADE HERE BT AMERICAN LABOR. Bat tin Product* of It May Bo Bxchanged, and tt(0 Mill Labor Object* to Competition with Farm Labor Producing a Surplut for Exchange— The Borplu* Farm Labor Matt Find Another Caatomor. Tiie am “ steer ” that the protection bunco men offer to the thick-headed roter ts that ** what we Import la the product ot lor eigu laborand that “ II we made here what we Import we should be better off and pro- ! vide more work lor American labor." • ‘ * I We import $800,000,000 yearly. Do we steal It ? The protectionist dare not say we , steal our Imports; nut be assumes that we do every time he says our Imports are the , product of foreign labor. It w uat we Import j as the foreign payment lor Amerloan labor, | done here lor foreigners, then It is the product ot American labor, the only product that 11,000,000 Americans, working lor foreign j markets, can have tor their labor. The protection bunco steerer says that be does not object to anv Imports (In payment lor Amerloan Labor) except “ such as oome Into competition with American labor.” He e bjects to and wishes to prevent one kind cl i American labfr (that on our tarms) competing with another kind (that In our mills). He objects to any American tarmer producing a surplus ot farm products beyond the needs of tile American market, lor whloh he must get lorelgu mill goods In payment, If any profit is to be made. The American farmer must not work for a foreigner unless he takes payment ■ In something not made here. The “ foreign competition “ to which he objects Is the foreign competition employing American labor, and when be talks about the V reign labor >» competing ’• with domestic labor, he Is hoodwinking deliberately and for a purpose, an every intelligent American should be able to see. It Is the foreign mill labor that employs the surplus American farm labor—and puys it. Ho other foreign labor can afford to | pity our surplus farm labor profitable wages, j

The payment objected to by tbe protection 1 buuco-steerer Is to" that which might be male here.” Why Is It not made here ? Be-1 cause with larm labor we can earn more ot It than we can make ot It, with the same worn. 1 it pays labor better to take tea In payment tor surplus cotton than to raise tea instead ot cotton ; It pays I&rrn labor better—or; would but for protection—to "take manufactures In paymont tor farm products than to put tbe same labor In tbe mills. The American mill owner cannot offer tbe same wages to tbe American for tbe mill, work that tbe foreign mill owner offers fclm for farm labor and tbe American mill owners naturally object to bis surplustarm labor for foreigners that produces manufactures In payment lor It as its final result. When tbe protection bunco-steerer says that be objects only to American labor competing with foreign labor, tbe man who believes him must be a fool. Every protected Industry In tbe United States was established for tbe open and avowed purpose of baring every workman engaged in It enter into direct and active competition with cheaper foreign labor. Is not the workman In a protected Industry maklDg tbe same article that foreign labor makes 1 Is be not making tbe same article for tbe same market? Can It be disposed of except In competition witb tbe foreign produot, and by offerlng.lt at a less price? Tbe only Americans In tbe United States who are working In direct competition with foreign ' labor are those in our protected mills. Tbe employer Is protected because be Is competing with foreign labor. That la tbe only excuse tbe protected mill-owner baa tor bis protection. It Is tbe only one he offers. It be Old not have to compete with foreigners, be lells congress, he would not ask lor protection. , . . When American farm labor is hired by foreign mill labor to produce sometblug dtf-' ferent from what tbe foreign labor la producing, there Is no “ competition ” between tbe two. competition is impossible. Tbe foreign mill products with which tbe American i farm labor la paid and wblcb by exchange becomes tbe final produot of American mill labor, cannot enter Into competition wttn farm labor. They enter only into competition bere with protected mill labor. The on4 way that a foreign mill-ovmer can enter into competition with an American mill #\ener Uto hire an American farmer to y.vx luce/arm products and accept mill products in payment. In what other way Is It possible for tbe mill-owner to get bis products into tbe bands of an American except by employing him and paying btm in them ? 1 Has any protectionist ever explained bow the miracle can be performed by wblob an American can lawfully get possession of any produot ot foreign labor except by gift or in payment lor bis labor ?

Some brains hare been so addled that there ! are men who will ask, '■ can we not buy the products ot lorelgn labor ?” With what ? Can you tet money without work r Is not the *10 bill merely awarehouse receipt lor your share ot tie product ot your labor? Must you uot produce something to get it? is there any difference between exchanging your product dlreotly with the torelgner or excUangI mg your product with the middleman tor | a bill, and then exchanging the bill tor the foreign product I " But the rich buy." The rich have no money. Astor, Vanderbilt or Gould have, use and handle less money than I a country school teacher. They are rich In labor products, not money.; In good debts, not cash. They have oredlt. They pay by transferring credits (tor labor products) from one no another, by means ot notes or checks. Millionaires do not carry wads ot hills. They carry check-books to transfer property. Even tithe rloh did boy, what value would their notes and mils have to the torelgner unti 1 he had paid them back to the American lor labor produots ? When the Protection banco steeror tells his dupes that the Importation ot foreign mill goods which enter into competition (alter they have become the product ot as Amencan lArmor In payment tor his work) with our own mill goods drains us ol our gold, he Is banking on their credulity. He does not pretend that the Importation ot tea, or coffee, or anything on the tree list, drains us of our gold, It Is only the payment ot mill products to our tamers, he says, that drains us ot our i gold. Forbid tbo American farmer, he says, ■ from receiving anything in payment tor his ! surplus labor that competes with the prodI nets door mill machines, and we will keep i all our gold at home. - lit wos a lie, of oouree," said the Yankee I at Blag Arthur A court, “ bat 1 let It go at

that.” Let this. How floes this buncosteerer propose to keep ov r gold at home except by making it worth more ana labor worthless? “ If the Americans now worsting lor lorsigners and receiving profltabte foreign payment can have their foreign wages cut flown tnen they wiu be willing to work here for less money, and 25.8 grains of gold will be worth so much more to us, because It will buy more labor. It now buys two days' labor lu Germany ana only one day’s labor here, so Germany wants It, If we make it buy two flays’ labor here then we will want It as much as Germany does now.” Even this Is a bunco. It It were true, then gold would Bow to the countries where labor Is cheapest. But It does not. AU the gold of the kiprld Is In the three countries where It Is worth the least as money—where labor Is paid the highest wages—the United States, Great Britain and France. The explanation of this Is that Its value Is not in Us use as money, but as a standard for money. Its old use as money has passed away and become obsolete. But the answer to the bunco will occur to every man with brains: tt by, then, have we imported during the last fourteen years •108,064.183 north of gold more : than we have exported ? On page 30 Of tho last report (1891) of the Bureau of Statistics ot the Treasury Department the victim of this bunco-steerer wtu flnd a statement ot our total exports and imports of gold coin and bullion,-by years, for fourteen years lest past—1878 to 1891, both inclusive—and while some years show an excess on one side and some on the other the total shows that we have not only kept In this country every : grain of gold mined, but that we have i drained from foreign countries and added to I < our stook •loss,064,183 from foreign countries—despite the tact that the McKinley bill : drove •08.130,081 out ot tho country lu,1 1891.

TIN-PLATE AND THE FABMEE. Bor 100.000 Fruit Farmer* Were Sacrificed to the TiDeflate Trust. To tkr Editor ofThr World: d Tin-plates, since the tariff discussion con- i cernlng them, have become an Item ot public 1 interest. Thera seems to be a surprising : Ignorance on the part of the people concern- ! lug tlujlr manuiaoture, the diversified uses to ■ which they are applied, as well as the quail- < ties which make them Important In the . economy ot living. i Briefly stated, tin-plates are iron or steel 1 sheets out to a convenient size plated with tin; in other words, Iron or steel plates painted on both sides with a tin coating. 1 ninety per cent, of all the tin-plates con- 1 sumed In the world are made In Wales. For ] 170 years that little country has defied all : competition In their manufacture. Added to - a thorough knowledge of the practloal 1 features ol the trade, the Welch manuracturers hare proved great Inventors in bring- 1 lng into use labor-saving and material-saving 1 machinery. As iron and tin constitute the entire bulk I ot and DO per cent, of the entire cost ot tin- : plates, their price and fluctuation are the ' history ot the tin production ot the world and : the sheet steel Industry. Owing to the! scarcity ot tin- prices advanced from 1804, when It was £87 per ton, to £159 In 1899. There was nearly as marked an advance In Iron during the same period. This sent the price or tin-plates up 90s. per box. In 1878 1 tin rescued the exceeding low price of £58 10$. per ton. Iron reaohed a correspondingly j low price, Philadelphia pig being quoted In! 1870 at 810.50, as against $53 In 1879. The cheapness ot these Ingredients lowered the price of tin-plates to 19$. 1H<1. since that date the decline In tin-plates has been In strict keeping with the price ot Iron and Un down to June, 1890, when speculation Incident to the McKinley tariff on tin-plates set In. The cheapness of tin-plates, together with their uurabutty tor certain uses and their adaptability as wrappers tor hermetically sealed canned food, has greatly stimulated their Importation,,. In 1800 the Importation was only 500,000 boxes. Now it has reached over 0,000,000 boxes. Our natural Increase in consumption ot plates since 1887 amounts to 500,000 boxes each year. This Increase Is directly traceable to the development ot the canning Industry, which now consumes more than 5,500,000 yearly. The properties which fit tin-plates tor this purpose are Its lightness, Its cleanliness, Its non-corroslveness. Its cheapness and the laclllty with which It may be transported without breakage.

Tuese cans or wrappers ror eannea produce are made up with a large percentage ot tin lor soldering, as the solder needs to ne strong and non-corrosive. From fifteen tnousand to eighteen thousand tons ot pig Iron are re- , qulred tor this purpose annually. t The canning Industry would never have . developed to Its present status had It not had the advantage ot cheap tin-plates, mass was' found to be too expensive and the matter ot breakage too extensive to prove economical as a wrapper tor a food product- Tin cans were found to he as wholesome as glass, proof against, breakage and less than one-third the ; cost ol the glass Jars. .« Under the stimulus ot these cheap wrap-! pers made from tin-plates the canning Industry has made wonderful development, and being a direct evolution ot agriculture, has . stimulated a class ot Intensive tarmlng In the older settled portions ot the country which has not only rescued farmers from an actual retrogression, but has made their farms remunerative. One million acres ot land are now under exclusive cultivation tor these canneries. As a farmer, on an average, devotes trom eight to ten acres ot his farm to this class ot culture, it is shown that 100,000 farmers, or 600,000 people, are interested in the cultivation, growing and picking ot these trults and vegetables, which these can-; wrappers convey to the consumers ot the 1 country. It was under these encouraging conditions ot the canning industry, and the advantages thus created by a home market tor the farmers* produce, that the supposed prohibition duty of 1880 on tin-plates was Inflicted. Put forth as a protection pure and simple to a few sheet-roofing men In order to drive out a competing article, the law utterly Ignored the canning Industry, which was unable to substitute galvanized iron or sheet steel tor tin-plates In Its manufacture of hermetically sealed food products; hence had no alternative but to pay the enhanced price or, go out ot the business. Reports trom all sections ot the country In- 1 dlcate clearly the effects ot this arbitrary In- 1 terterenoe on the part of the Government with an established industry. Letters received trom over one hundred oonoerns, both canners and manufacturers ot tinware, and ot all political shades, and scattered trom. Maine to California, set forth in most emphatic terms the injury ot the increased duty on tin-plates to their business. The policy oi spoliation, however, has been perfectly vindicated. The sheet-iron mills have been able to advance the prloes of their produets according to programme, and American consumers of Un-plates have been taxed •81,000,000 to create an Industry wbloh up to date has supplied us with leas than twen-ty-two hours’ eonsumpUon of American plates made ot 00 per cent, imputed material and by Imputed mechanics. Tuonan L. Bernina, Pvttfctent national Ct&Atd tioofli I Tula

PROTECTION’S LAST DITCH. Reciprocity Fools the Farmer Oat of Big Last Chance for Liffc BLAINE COMPLETES M’KEtLETS WORE BY CHANGING TRADE TO BASTES. Products of Protected Mackinac Hereafter to Be Sent to South America la Payment for Tropical PTOdnctc Now Settled with Sooth American Bills Paid to Va by Europe for Onr Surplus Farm Products — The South American Bills to Come Directly to the American MlU-Owner and the Farmer Left Out In the Cold.

Our exports are farm products—so per tent. We exchange them abroad yearly for t3o0.Q0Q.000 in mill products and $300,100,000 o: raw material. These, landing on rar shores, become the product ot American abor cn our farms. It to what over two Haitian farmers (the excess ot the number retailed to supply the home market) hare to ihow, and all they can have, a* the result or hetr petit*} w.rk. Thdr cotton has been eplaced with silk and their oorn with nelada; but the manufactured silk and the ■aw sugar have, tip “trading," become the ; iroducts ot their American {arm labor..,, Thti jicMd&y bill stops at once this conrerslon ot our surplus farm products Into leeded mill products, through trade. The :onversion puts our surplus American farm anor Into direct competition with our Hrlortod mill labor. For the Illinois farmer. »ho trades 10,000 bushels ot surplus corn In j 'ranee lor 10,000 yards ot silk, dumps the ill^ lnto t$e home market tor sale In place of ug^i^^.wauted here. The silk Is wanted iere, put 'Illinois tarm-labor exchange silk mterjdnto direct competition with the silk bade'In a Paterson mill; his American labor | in his Illinois farm competes with the lmlorted weaver’s labor at the New Jersey oom. For twenty years our Imported mill abor has been” protected” against this exchange of unsalable American farm products 'or salable mill produc's by a system ot Ones anglng from 40 to 400 per cent, on each raliskcilttSt ■ THE CRT OF TUB HORSE LEXCH. But these mill-owners are not content with ebbing the American farmer ot his foreign ixcbange market tor mill products. They tow demand his foreign market for raw naterial and the privilege ot supplying this hakket with raw material In exchange tor heir exported mill products. The McKinley >111 makes their protection lrom farm oompeltlon In mill goods perfect and complete; rat their cormorant greed Is notsatlsded vlth all protection can give them. THEY rVANT ALL THE FARMER HAS, and Mr. Ualne proposes to give to them, by and hrough reciprocity, the home market lor raw naterlaL

RKCIFROCITY IS PROTECTIONS "I.AST PITCH." ,Vo pay for Brazilian coffee ana Cuban sugar rltb Western wheat ana Southern cotton.! rhe south American market Is now held by he A'merlcau farmer. Every dollar’s worth >t South American products Imported Into his country Is In payment for American term prod nets, for which we receive Sooth j American bills of exchange paid to EngItahmea for British manufactures. Bed* j proposes that these hills of exchange >n Wo, paid tor British manufactures, shall W discontinued, and that there shall do nothing In Europe to pay tor >ur exported farm surplus. In 1861 we exported to Great Britain products of American labor valued at $441,566,SOT. We took In exchange products of British labor valued at $164,783,363, and for !A« remainder, **4«,S7S,J4S, toe received bills if exchange—debts dpi British merchants IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR BRITISH MANVFAO-. rcRss. With those bills of exchange tor our farm products, we boueht not only $85,038,338 worth of coffee, rubber and sugar in South America, but $66,676,850 worth of manufactures In North America, and $53,718,947 worth of manufactures and raw material in Asia and Oceanlea. tOBBINO TBH FARMER TO 0IT1 THE XIL*.OWNER. , Mr. Bmine. desires to divert these bills of kxMEnfie trail these British manufacturers, who use them to : ay for our farm produce, tnd have them sent to our 18,500 mill-owners or the exported products of their mills, in n-der that the latter may purchase with them he same eofee and sugar now bought with ,he.exported products of our farms. The Imerloan farmer Is to he robbed of his foreign narket to give It to the American mill-owner. rHI3 18 ALL RECIPROCITY CAN DO; this s all it is expected to do. The Congress has Imposed upon the foreign ;rade of our farm surplus the most burdentome taxation ever known, whenever that exchange is made for anything that enters into competition here with a mill-owner. 11 r. Blaine proposes to go far beyond the petobt ‘protection of the mill-owner, to iv tilth thirl armor Is objecting by taking this foreign exchange market entirely from the American farmer and giving it to the American mitt-owner. The farmer believed for twenty years In the bunoo game of Protection. Now he Is offered the green-goods fame of Reciprocity lor another twenty years it robbery. 1 ARK WE SAVAGES? JMQpWGUV is barter. It .to unknown in trade or commerce, The savage uses It, but the first step in civilization requires him to discard It. Trade Is an exohange of general credits—obi of specific things. It Is not a trade Id its commercial sense If we exchange a cargo of flour for a cargo of coffee; nor Is It It we exchange the checks for them. “Direct trade ” is barter, and It remains barter, however much It may be disguised, twisted and painted. civilization demands of all who enter it the surrender of Individual Independence, the division of labor and the general (net special) exchange of products. It abolishes “direct trading.” The baker Is not to pay hie rent directly In loaves of bread; he must do It indirectly—la the general exohange of general credits. Each man In a civilized community makes kll the surplus he can. Be takes It to the general exchange market, dumps It, and receives credit tor its market value. He is then entitled to help himself from the general stock to the amount of his credit. Thereto no reciprocity, because he to a civilized man exchanging general credits, not n savage bartering one thing tor another. civilisation requires of every nation that enters It the surrender of commercial Independence, the division of production, and the general, not speoleL exchange with other countries of surplus products not required by Its own people. A nation which will not agree to this to not elmued. Its people may bet but Its government to nbi, The elvlltoatlon of the Individual rests on the solidarity at mankind; of nations on the solidarity of governments. The common brotherhood of man Within political divisions is without roroo snleoa than la also a common sisterhood el Statee. . v,.:HoniMRTXHu«m Aegtpentity <e amprwUsMa Barter, Mke trade, requires profit tor both Mdea. Without

| NEBRASKA V

PtieNvm/AKiiA'.

f FROTKCTI ON PRICES.

pront to all parties there can be neither barter nor trade. But barter la limited to direct trade between two persons or two countries. Unless the baker want* boots be cannot barter with the cobbler; unless tne cobbler wants a coat be cannot barter with tbe tailor. When tbe tailor wants shoes tbe cobbler wants bread and tbe baker wants a coat there is a deadlock. Reciprocity cannot supply either. Trade abolishes barter, or «• direct trade," by providing those who need anything with what they need, to the extent ot their ability to pay, without reference to reciprocity. It substitutes Indirect tor direct trade. Commerce does tbe same with nations. France produces surplus silk and wants cotton, Brazil produces surplus coffee and wants silk, the United States has surplus cotton and wants coffeo. There can be no “direct trade;" reciprocity Is not possible. But trade is. This Is the very problem that civilization first solved lor Individuals and communities. It was the solution In commerce that made governments civilized. Bach country sends what It has to disposed whero It is wanted (11 there is something ot equal value to be traded with some one else), exchanges the credits and pockets the profits. We send cotton to France, France sends silk j to Brazil, Brazil sends coffee to us. We make a profit on our c'tton, France on her silk, j Brazil on her coffee. All accounts are bal-i anced. Mr. Blaine weeps because there Is no reciprocity. Why t Btcauee the fat goea to the American fanner and not to the American mill-owner. LIMITED TO OKS MARKET. But It was not alone to solve such problems that man beaqtfMUvlllzed. it was that he might sell wher^he could get the most and i buy where ho could get tip most; that he i might se^ln the dearest' and buy in the cheapest market/ Reciprocity limits him to two countries t6 barter. It prevents us Horn selling m France and buying in Brazil. Where we sell there we must buy, and where we buy there we must sell. Jones sends his wheat to Liverpool because he can get more tor it in Liverpool than in Rto, Capetown or Sydney. He sends It where he can get the highest price. With his bill ot exchange he trades anywhere wherever he can trade the cheapest. It he can buy his coffee cheaper in La Guayra than in Rto ne buys It there. It he can buy his tea cheaper In Colombo than In phlngklang he buys It

per cent, of all ire Import 13 Imported by our farmers, tor SO per cent, of our Imports Is In exchange for their exported farm products. Because the farmer does net do the work himself. but hires an agent to do it for him, does not affect the principle Involves The agent may advance the farmer monjp, or he may discount the result and pay“*he farmer In full; he may employ a dozen sub-agents or pass the product from hand to hand; but no possible juggling can hide the fact that thej American farmers comprise 80 per cent, of1 our Importers, and that 80 per cent, of the » merchandise " passing through our customhouses Is Imported by them In payment for their exported farm surplus. They export to Europe; they import from South America or India to the value of their exports. The banks exchange the credits and settle the accounts. There is no reciprocity anywhere. BECiruocitr sot fresh trade. Beciaroeity is restriction. It Is not a step towards lree trade or freer trade. Atone blow it chops off all Indirect trade. It destroys the market for *200,000,000 of our farm surplus lu Great Britain alone for which we are paid In bills of exchange on other countries Turn to page xevi, ol the Report of the Bureau of Statistics for 1891. Our Imports from thlriy-stx countries exceeded our exports to them by $278.1107,498, and of course our exports to the other thlrtyBlx countries exceeded our Imports from them by about the same amount. The next page shows it In detail 8316,172,112. The bills of exchange from the one cancelled the bills of exchange to the other until last year, when the McKinley bill loaded our farmere up with bills of exchange they cannot use at a profit, and must keep until better times or Invest abroad. Reciprocity wipes out this payment for over one-halt our surplus (arm products while the McKinley bill prevents any payment for wbat Is left coming Into competition with our pro-, tected mill products The Democratic editors who have supposed ' Mr. Blaine, “the Apostle ul Protection." as In favor of freer trade are in grievous error. He Is the far-seeing, subtle leader of tbe millowners In their tight with the larmers. He has won lor them the greet oat(19 for their protection from t he exchange of our farm surplus tor foreign mill goods His object now Is fo restrict oor foreign treiae scrtely to the foreign exchange cf prottnet* of cur /d efected

v

there. HU WU ol exchange tor his hirer pool wheat U good anywhere the world over. The commercial civilization permits him to eeU In the dearest ot seventy-two markets and to boy in the cheapest ot seventy-two markets—to survey the world and make the highest possible protlt. Reciprocity compels him to buy and sell in the tame market. It reduces his profit and his chanoes ot profit. It generally adopted It would reduce the total commeroe ot the world to that ot the Mediterranean Sea two thousand years ago. van world s exchanges balance. Commerce dumps the surplus ot each nation Into the general exchange market ot the world, crediting each with the market value ot Its contributions. That credit may be taken up with anything desired that has been dumped by any country. The exchanges are not limited. A cargo ot American cotton goes to Belgium, which has nothing we want. Who cares T Belgium has Bent something, somewhere, that somebody wanted, and her credit tor that is cancelled and given us. She has had her return. We ouy anything, anywhere, from anybody, and our credit U cancelled. We have had our return. This Is modern commerce. This Is civilization as opposed to savagery; treetrade as opposed to reciprocity. Tot np both sides ot the total exchanges and they must balance to the penny. Follow a simple transaction. Jones sends 10,000 bushels ot wheat to Liver pool a letter ot credit, called a bill ot exchange, comes back by cable or mall Jones then orders 10,000 pounds ot sugar from Cuba, 10,000 pounds ot coffee from Rio and Singapore, 10,000 pounds ot wool from Sydney and Cape Town, and 10,000 pounds ot tea from Chins, Japan and Ceylon. A bank splits his one hill ot exchange Into eight and cancels all his Indebtedness. Jones has exchanged his wheat all over the world tor what he wanted, and where he could get It cheapest, by the International exchange ot general credits i which civilization demands. He has dumped his wheat in the general market ot the world, and taken anything In the world’s market that he wanted to its value. THE FABUSE » THE IXTOBTSE. What Jones does every farmer does. Onetourth (or mere) ot the product ot every American farm Is exported tor general exchange, not In the Liverpool market, but In every country ot the world. Every farmer is nn exporter, and every farmer Is an importer. So ths value ot one-fourth ot hi* erop. Xlghty

milts- To do this he proposes to destroy our tarmers and our farming Industry, compelling us to buy even our rood abroad In exchange tor mill products. Reciprocity U a eottfiaence some. It offers a new stock ot Res with which to tool the, farmer, to replace the Protection Ues that no j longer tool him. The victory of the MeElnley blU is to be pushed. There Is no conflict between the leaders. Mr. Blaine Is tar In advance ot McKinley and Reed, having left them to win the flght he planued. while he maps out the nextbattle-fleld. It Is on the new Bne of Reciprocity that the great Protection leader will flght the last great battle tor the Tariff Trusts ot 14,500 banded mill-owners. In the flnal conflict between wage-labor In the mills and free labor on the farms. The Chinese wall may he pierced by many gates, but only to let Arne: lean mill goods out and foreign farm products in. Instead ot exchanging American farm products tor foreign mill goods we shall exchange American mill goods tor torelgn rarm products. t ; The McKinley bill destroys tho competition In this country between the farmer and millowner to supply our people with mill products Reciprocity Is intended to drive tho last man ot the two million male tillers ot the soil. In excess of the number needed to teed the people, either Into the poor-house or Into a protected mill, there to work as a wage alave for some mill lord, that the lord may make "protected” products In competition with the pauper labor of Europe and Asia, and supply by “ direct trade” manulaotured goods to the countries now supplied by the labor ot European and Asiatic paupers. TUB QUESTION Or WA9XS. There are now 905,000 of these wage Slaves in the 14,500 "protected” mills. While not one ot them receives one cent more wages than the market demand calls for, their day’s wages are greater, while their Cluot wages are less than are paid abroad. example. It costs ir. wages 14 cents per , ioo pounds tor reflnlng sugar here and double ! that abroad, although we pay more per day. j But when 1.000,000 fanners with their 1 wives and daughters apply to tne mtllownera tor work to keep from starving what wages will then be paid? Will the mlU- , owners pay more than they must t And how much must they pay when tnere are two ap- | plioants for every puce f __. _ I To supply Braril (or any other country) by i direct trade with the manufactures it now obtains from European pauper labor our millowners must compete with those of Europe. They must have cheap labor, and Reciprocity is intended «o giro It to them. They propose to offer American silk, glassware, tinware, iron and steel to Brazil (or its coffee and rubber, at a less price than England. France, Germany, Spain and Austria now offer them. Our 14,500 mill lords propose to enter their wage-la! ir In open competition in the markets of the world with the pauper-labor ot tne world, eomuelUug It to make the same products the foreign pauper now makes for Bale in the same markets. •Reciprocity will deliver the workmen over to them. It win take them from farms rendered unprofitable by Protection. T. & W.

How Bit Imported Cent—The Silver Inc Only An 80 Per Cent, of cllne—A Table Worth itderatlon by the American Parmer. Bow the tariff war waged by the millowners on the farmer—to capture the American market lor mill goods now supplied by the exchange ot our surplus farm products tor foreign mill goods—has affected his prosperity can be shown by a comparison of the prices received for his crops when there was no war and to-day. The annual report ot the Bureau ot statistics ot the Treasury Department furnishes the average export price of farm products tor each year from 1855. Product. 1855. 1880. 1889. Corn..... 80.802 $0,643 $0,474 Wh«»t. 1.663 1.245 .897 Floor.... . 9.946 6.878 4.832 Beef.. 088 Batter.181 Cheese...106 Cotton..£ .087 Tobacco.. — The farmer must work to-day twice as to pay a debt, he must raise twice as much corn, wheat or wheat flour as In 1855. It he had a mortgage In 1855 ot 52,000, and he has reduced It to $1,000, does he owe now only .055 one-halt? By no means. HE STILL OWES* H THE WHOLE AMOUNT. He must pay K la* the products ot his labor, must he not? Whether he hands his creditor corn or legal tenders does not legal tenders In The mortgage ot seated or could be paid corn; in 1S8S* the mortgage not be paid with less than 2,123 wheat, the *2,000 mortgage meant, 1,202 bushels; the $1,000 mortgage now 1,114 bushels. It we in 1888, when the t ariff war this table shows how much more he owes today, after paying off one-halt ot the mortgage; than he did when the mortgage was1 contracted: ■IB HOSTOAOB.

looo. 1SSS. *3,000 *1,000 vsprsssstsrf. ffOSNMd, Corn. bushels........ 1,702 3.113 Wheat, bushels. 1.05* 1,11* Flour, barrels. 200 207 Cotton, pounds................10,320 10,101 Bacon, pounds................. 10.000 11,633 Lard, pounds...13,700 11,623 Pork, pounds.......17,61* 13,513 Beef, poaods................... 16,807 18,181 Batter, pounds. 7.117 6,060 Cbeese, pounds.14,598 10,733 Tobacco, pounds.18,018 11.363 This is a table It wtll pap the farmer to study. It Is a lair and trustworthy table, it is not the price as fixed In any one locality or by any special causes. It la the export prioo paid for exported products, average for the year by the total amount exported. It Is the price the farmer received tor that which was sent to foreign markets, and It was the proportionate price for which he sold ft home^ Its accuracy Is certified to by the Secretary cl the Treasury. The dislocation of gold and silver ha* caused a decline In prices all over the world ranglDg from 10 to 23 per cent, and averaging about 2a But the decline In price of our farm exporta has been over FIFTY P5R CENT. Why* Because the man who buys them tor export must cut out of the farmer not only the TWENTY per cent, decline abroad, but also the TARIFF TAX Of THIRTY PER CENT, upon his imported payment for them. The AVERAGE TAX paid at our Custom-Housea for ALL PAYMENTS MADE TO D! BY FOREIGN NATIONS tor our surplus produeta exported has been as follows: 1877.. . 1378.. . 1879 1830. XXX OH ALL VOBSIOH .ir 103U,aM>s<ss«s> asusss • ..§1 .. ii 1884 188ft.. Per 44* K

Add tagether tit decline abroad and the tariff tax and we net the exact do. cline in the price ef farm predacte. Can any lamer beltere that the middleman who exports his surplus farm product can afford to pay this Custom-House tax at 80 percent, out of his own pocket? Does any tamer imagine that the United states ' Government can collect this tax or say tax from any but its own people t Ho foreign country, no human being, is under any necessity ot buying from ns to the amount of one cent It we bad a monopoly of tha tood products ot the world, 11 no one oonld eat unieaa they bought their Mod trom ua, then we might charge what we like, instead ot Belling cheaper or not telling at nil, as we must do now. The Government might then tax the farmer, and the farmer could add the tax when he sold. But the American must sell cheaper abroad than the foreigner, or he cannot sell at all. Does any tamer suppose that he gets one cent more tor his corn because bis Government PSML. tically levies upon him a tax ot 30 cents ft# every dollar's worth he sells to s foreigner » What difference can It make to the farmer whether this tax Is levied directly on bis goods exported or directly on the payment received tor them t Does he not have to psy It? Can he get it back In any way ? It he does not pay the tax himself dose he not have to sell at halt prloe to the man who does pay the tax, and is it notcut out of what hero. oelvee? U not the price at which the farmer meat sell Us surplus abroad decided by the competition ot 8,000,000 American farmers, r— does not this same competition " price at wUch he sells here ? Swede? If tore farmer unless he stopped forty-two States, combined, and made national selling prloe to his oountrymen? ho can be protected, if the products can be increased In except by this combination, why is nos entry ot foreign term products interdicted It Congress were to any importation would merely expose the present 20 per cent would be no Increase In luced tax u Irlves down the of all that i by 30 per cent, or more. The pay not only this tax ot 80 what he exports, hut he must km spending percentage «►-*