Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 35, Number 16, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 October 1902 — REAL PROSPERITY [ARTICLE]

REAL PROSPERITY

Indiana Farmers. Are Now Enjoying It. v SOME STATISTICS ON PRICES Show That the Purchasing Power of an Average Crop Is Far Greater Today Than It Has Ever Been Before. Indiana Democratic newspapers are engaged in trying to make the Indiana farmer believe that while he may be enjoying some “fictitious prosperity” in the selling price of his products, he is paying for it in increased prices for the articles he consumes. It is alleged that agricultural implements are being sold at a greater price abroad than at home. That argument was industriously used from 1888 to 1892, and then came an administration Democratic in every branch, with a Democratic tariff law. While the farmer failed to secure agricultural implements at the “export price” so industriously exploited in Democratic campaign documents of the early ’9o’s, he did get a taste of tariff reform prices when he came to sell the products of his farm. Inquiry of one of the leading hardware merchants of Indianapolis reveal B facts which form the basis for the following table of comparative prices on Standard agricultural implements: lo9ri. 1902. Buckeye Reaper 8100 to 8125. 8100 to 125. Buckeye Mower 40 40 Moline Farm Wagon ... bi 62 Oliver Chilled Plow ... 13 U

Corn Cultivator. . 25 2s . Hoosier W heal Drill.. . lu to 10 50 to 55. In other words, this total bill of implements would have cost an Indiana farmer in 1896, $277; in 1902, $290. In 1896 it would have cost him 500 bushels of wheat, in 1902, with more wheat to pay with, he can buy the lot for 382 bushels; in 1890 it would have taken 1,385 bushels of corn in an even trade for the outfit, in 1902, 518 bushels buy it, and the farmers of Indiana have the corn. In 1896 the purchase price, expressed in oats, was 2,308 bushels, in 1902 it is 764 bushels. In 1896 it would have taken four horses and $37 besides to buy the lot, in 1902 three horses of equal quality would buy the implements and the farmer would have $lO coming to him. In 1896 the Indiana farmer would have had to sell eleven steers of average weight, and borrow two dollars, in order to secure the implements; in 1902 the farmer would have to dispose of only eight steers of equal weight and quality, and then would get S3O “to boot.” In 189 S the farmer who wanted the outfit would have had to drive forty-six hogs of average weight to the scales, and then would have owed one dollar; now twenty-three bogs of the same weight and quality would not only represent the value of-the outfit, but the farmer would have $9 coming to him. One of the leading clothing merchants of Indianapolis says: “You may safely make the statement that clothing today is cheaper, quality considered, than it has ever bedh.” A leading shoe merchant says; “If anything, shoes are a shade lower in price than they were in 1896.” Dry goods are a shade higher, the average increase in price being, however, less than 10 per cent. General hardware is no higher than in 1896; nails and wire are about the same; stoves^have increased about 10 per cent in price. When it is remembered that where prices have been increased they represent, in very few cases, more than the increase in wages paid to operatives, neither the operatives or the farmers whose products they .buy are likely ti find in this cause of complaint.