(S. 
 
 £-39 
 
Cornell University Library 
 
 HF 1755.E39 
 
 The American farmer's niarkets at home an 
 
 3 1924 013 819 861 
 
 1081 'U m IH 
 •ani '-sojg pjoiXer) 
 
 jepuig 
 
 •oni '-sojg pmi^eQ 
 
THE 
 
 iERlCAN >:FARMER'S MARKETS 
 
 y!^7i^'5' 
 
 
 AT HOME AND ABROAD; 
 
 SUPPLEMENT, 
 
 WING HOW PROTECTION, UNDER THE PRESENT TARIFF, 
 
 IS DISTRIBUTED 
 
 BETWEEN AGRICULTURE AND MANUFACTURES. ^ 
 
 ,1 I M 
 
 ill' 
 
 BY WILLIAM ELDER. 
 
 JA?^ 10 1936 
 
 A6RIC. CCOv' 
 
 &. FAR?';; : ':. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 EiNGWAi/T & Ekown, Steam-Powee Book and Job PeintbeS, 
 
 "Press" Building, 7th below Chestuwt. 
 
 1870. 
 
!>tate College of itgriculture 
 m Cornell 1Hnibers(itp 
 Stfjaca, ^. g. 
 
 ILibrarp 
 
THE 
 
 American Farmer's Markets, at Home and Abroad. 
 
 Philadelphia, Dec. 28, 1869. 
 Db. William Eldee— Dear Sir : As the 
 snlaject of a change in the tariff is now ex- 
 citing a good deal of interest, and as it is de- 
 sirable that the whole community should be 
 well informed upon the effect of protection 
 upon agriculture, manufactures, commerce, 
 and the general prosperity of the country, I 
 have ventured to ask you to give me your 
 views upon these matters, knowing that your 
 intimate knowledge upon all these subjects 
 well qualifies you to spea'k intelligently and 
 with authority, based upon facts. 
 
 Yours truly, S. M. Felion. 
 
 Januaet 12, 1870. 
 
 S. M. Fblton, Esq.— Dear Sir : Since the 
 receipt of your note of the 28th ult. , I have been 
 engaged upon the inquiries which it invites. 
 
 The true interests of agriculture being, as 
 I think, less generally understood than those 
 of the other grand but dependent branches of 
 our national industry, I have limited my re- 
 ply almost exclusively to the "effect of Pro- 
 tection" upon them ; and, apprehending some 
 surprise, and even incredulity, as to the re- 
 sults of the investigation, I have carefully 
 given the authorities for the data employed, 
 and have now only to submit their array, 
 with the most obvious and direct inferences 
 from them, to the candid consideration of 
 those in whose service the work has been 
 performed. Very respectfully, 
 
 William Eldeb. 
 
 1824 Mt. Vernon street, Philadelphia. 
 
 Marlcet for the Agricultural Pro^ 
 ducts of the U. S. in tho Manu 
 facturing Countries of Europe. 
 
 By manufacturing countries of Europe 
 are intended those from which the United 
 States import foreign manufactures for con- 
 sumption. They are : the United Kingdom 
 of Great Britain and Ireland, France, Spain, 
 Portugal, Sweden and Norway, Denmark, 
 Hamburg, Bremen, Holland, Belgium, Italy 
 and Sicily. These are also the only coun- 
 tries in Europe which purchase our agricul- 
 tui-al exports. 
 
 These exports consist of Indian corn and 
 meal ; wheat and wheat flour ; rye and rye 
 flour ; small grain, pulse and seeds ; lard 
 and tallow ; bacon, hams, pork and beef ; 
 butter and cheese. Small quantities of other 
 provisions are also exported to Europe, such 
 as bread and biscuit, rice and hops ; but 
 much larger quantities of these are imported, 
 and, in themselves, they are not worthy of 
 notice here. 
 
 Wool belongs to the class, but it never 
 yet has made a market in Europe, nor has 
 ever been exported in quantities equal to 
 the value of the toys and doUs, or even to 
 that of the playing cards, usually imported 
 thence. Tobacco and cotton are not usually 
 classed aa "agrieultural" products, being j 
 
 more conveniently considered, and, owing 
 to their commercial relations, treated sepa- 
 rately and distinctively. 
 
 Our exports of hides to Europe are so tri- 
 vial that they need not be noticed. Our 
 farmers do not look for a foreign marketfor 
 them ; they do not supply the home de- 
 mand; andour lumber market in Europe is 
 quite as inconsiderable. 
 
 An accurate analysis of our foreign mar- 
 ket for farm products shows that the manu- 
 facturing nations of Europe took, in the 
 average of the last nine years, flfty-three 
 (53) per cent, of the exports of aU our agri- 
 cultural products to foreign countries, ex- 
 cept of tobacco, cotton and lumber; and 
 that the remainder go to Africa, Asia and 
 America, north and south of us ; that is, a 
 fraction over one-half to the countries from 
 which we receive manufactured goods, and 
 the other half to those from whom we re- 
 ceive products such as our climate and soil 
 do not yield, either in kind or quality. 
 Tea and coffee represent the kind, and the 
 coarse wool of South America and the to- 
 bacco of Cuba the quality of articles for 
 which we must depend upon foreign coun- 
 tries for our necessary supplies. 
 
 For this latter statement we refer to our 
 ofilcial reports of commerce and navigation, 
 which give the data here used as the report 
 of our own direct trade vnth the foreign 
 countries compared. But it should be re- 
 membered that a very large portion of our 
 exports to these European countries are 
 either re-exported in form, or, after conver- 
 sion, are carried to the countries which are 
 not in the manufacturing class, for con- 
 sumption there, and to such extent displace 
 us in the carrying trade and commerce 
 which our products supply. K this portion 
 of our natural commerce were reclaimed, it 
 would not be too much to say that full 
 three-fom'ths of our foreign trade in home 
 products (cotton and tobacco excepted) 
 would be with the non-manufacturing coun- 
 tries which consume them. 
 
 These general facts must be carried along 
 with us in the examination which we give 
 to the details of our foreign commerce. 
 Their statement, as preliminaries, indicates 
 the drift of the present inquiry, and will 
 serve to make its details clear and exact 
 enough for its purposes. 
 
 WJieat and Flowr, 
 
 Our foreign market for wheat and flour 
 stands first in rank and value, and serves, 
 besides, as an index of our commerce in the 
 other exports of agricidtural commodities. 
 We give it, therefore, the chief place in 
 considering the general subject. 
 
 First, with re&peet to these, is the striking 
 
fact that the British islands are nearly oiir 
 entire European market for them. In 
 1867-8; the exports to the United Kingdom 
 amounted to ninety-five per cent, of the 
 total to Europe ; and this may be taken for 
 the average proportion. 
 
 Let us now look at this nearly exclusive 
 European market for our vrheat and flour in 
 relation ■ to the quantity taken, and the 
 steadiness or unsteadiness of the demand ; 
 the general character of the trade as a re- 
 liance for our farmers, and the competition 
 which our wheat meets in the British mar- 
 ket. Quoting from the British official rec- 
 ords, we givej first, the total quantities of 
 American wheat and' flour imported into 
 Great Britain in the twelve years from 1857 
 to 1868 — ^the wheat flour being reduced to 
 its equivalent in wheat, and given in hun- 
 dred weights, (cwts.) From the Uiuted 
 States, ninety-five million cwts. ; from other 
 countries, two hundred and sixty-one and 
 one-third millions cwts., the proportion of 
 the United States being twenty-six and two- 
 thirds per cent, of the total import. Our 
 share of this quantity amoimted in wheat 
 to one hundred and seventy-seven millions 
 of bushels ; or an average of fourteen and 
 three-quarters millions of bushels per an- 
 num, while other nations supplied an aver- 
 age of forty and three-quarters miUions per 
 annum. Thus, in the period we furnished but 
 a fraction over one-fourth of the British 
 consumption of foreign wheat. But this is 
 an average, and so it covers and conceals the 
 other most important feature of the trade, 
 its fluctuatioiis. 
 
 Grouping, for brevity of statement, the 
 whole period into terms of four years each, 
 which arrangement conforms fairly enough 
 to the general range of the fluctuations of 
 quantity, we find them strikingly exhibited 
 in the following tabular statement : 
 
 Years. 
 
 1857-«0 
 1861-64 
 1866-68 
 
 From the 
 tr. S. 
 cwt. 
 
 19,179,442 
 59,322,169 
 16,551,607 
 
 Total, 12 y'ls.. 96,053,118 261,353,008 
 
 Other 
 
 countries. 
 
 cwt. 
 
 73,500,165 
 74,655,294 
 113,297,649 
 
 U. S. 
 
 per cent, 
 of total. 
 
 26.66 
 
 Here we have about three times more of 
 our wheat taken in the second group of 
 years than in the first ; and in the third 
 group more than three and a-half times less 
 than in the second. But even this statement 
 does not show the great inconstancy of the 
 import. In the calendar year 1863 it rose to 
 40,638,162 bushels; in 1859 it was but 803,- 
 607 bushels; and again, in 1865, it was down 
 to 3,784,014 bushels— the market increasing 
 in three years more than fifty fold, and fall- 
 ing in three more years to one-fourteenth of 
 the highest year. How does such incon- 
 stancy as this suit for the market of a pro- 
 duct that must be provided a year in ad- 
 vance of its fate? 
 
 But if the demand as to quantity runs 
 wild in this way, what of the price in the 
 English market, and its relation to quantity 
 taken? The quantities and rates given by 
 the British authority answer this question 
 conclusively. In the four years 1854-5-6-7, 
 the aggregate imports of American wheat 
 and flour were the equivalent of 38,764,581 
 bushels of wheat. The prices ranged thus 
 in these four years : 71s. 3d., 88s. 9d., 70s., 
 and 58s. 9d. per imperial quarter. The ag- 
 gregate value at these several prices amount- 
 ed to £16,063,317, putting the bushel at an 
 average of $3 01. The prices in the years 
 1858, '59 and '60 were moderate, and the 
 quantity taken a little less, in the per an- 
 num average, than in the four preceding 
 years, which, (1854-7,) it wiU be recollected, 
 embraced the Crimean war period, which 
 must account for the somewhat laa'ger im- 
 port at the higher rate. 
 
 Now, compare the four year period, 1861- 
 3-3^ in which the imports rose in the ag- 
 gregate to 110,734,715 bushels, and the ag- 
 gregate value to £31,773,171, which puts 
 the price per bushel down to $1 39. Thus 
 we find that when the imports average $3 01 
 per bushel, the average quantity taken was 
 9,691,145 bushels per annum. When the 
 price fell below $1 40, the annual import 
 was 37,683,679 bushels, or almost three 
 times the quantity for four years together, 
 as against the other four years of the neces- 
 sarily greater demand occasioned by the 
 Crimean war then proceeding. Here the 
 price, not the exigency, determined the 
 quantity. As to the third period of our 
 tabular statement, in which the American 
 wheat and flour in the British market fell to 
 only one-eighth of the whole foreign supply 
 in quantity — from flfty-nine to sixteen mil- 
 lions cwts. — ^the price had not risen so as to 
 account for the prodigious reduction of 
 quantity, for it averaged no more than $1 35 
 per bushel during this period, which is even 
 five cents less than the price which we are 
 assuming as the cause of the former inordi- 
 nate consumption. 
 
 Another cause, more effectual and more 
 perilous to the American farmer's interest, 
 in his only European Market, had begun to 
 display its force. The sign and proof of its 
 action, and of its threatened continuance 
 and iQcreasing effect, are found in the fol- 
 lowing facts : In the ten years previous 
 to 1861, however much the imports of 
 American wheat varied, they stiU averaged 
 about ten miUions of bushels per annum ;' 
 in the four years 1861-4> as ah-eady stated, 
 they rose to nearly twenty-eight miUions 
 per annum, but in the four subsequent 
 years, 1865-8, they fell, notwithstanding the 
 tempting reduction of price, wliich always 
 before commanded a comparatively large 
 market in England, to the lowest figure 
 ever touched previous to that time —to seven 
 and three-quarter miUions of bushels ! 
 
Ewropean Competition in the Eng- 
 lish Provision Market. 
 
 The explanation of this extraordinary 
 turn in the fortunes of our wheat in the Eng- 
 lish market is found in a plain but pregnant 
 sentence of President Grant, at the opening 
 of the present session of Congress. He 
 says : "The extension of railroads in Europe 
 and the Mast is bringing into competition with 
 our agricultural products like products of 
 ■other countries." The inference which the 
 President draws from this imminent destruc- 
 tion of our market in Europe for the surplus 
 of our agricultural staples is in these words: 
 ^' Self-interest, if not self-preservation, there- 
 fore, dictates caution against disturbing any 
 industrial interest of the country. It teaches 
 us, also, the necessity of looking to other 
 
 MABKBTS FOR THE BALE OF OTJK StrRPLTTS." 
 
 We have seen where the competition 
 which he mentions lies. It is in the 87 J per 
 cent, of the total supply of England fur- 
 nished by our European rivals in the years 
 1865-6-7-8, as shown in our table. The 
 "other countries" — ^those mentioned or in- 
 tended — are Russia, Prussia, Prance, the 
 Turkish dominions in Europe, Spaiu and 
 Egypt. The priacipal wheat-growing regions 
 of these countries have now fairly entered 
 upon such improved communications with 
 Great Britain as well accounts for the decline 
 of our market for breadstuffs and provisions 
 there, and for the apprehension expressed 
 in the message that we must look about for 
 better and surer customers elsewhere. 
 Where? The President names "Our neigh- 
 bors south of the United States and CMna 
 and Japan." What hope there is in these 
 quarters is indicated plainly by the fact that 
 of our wheat and wheat flour exported in 
 the fiscal year 1867-8, amounting in custom- 
 house values, currency prices, to$51,135,480, 
 all the manufacturing countries of Europe 
 took to the value of $39,871,000, while those 
 other countries to which: the President re- 
 fers took and consumed the balance, $21,- 
 264,330 worth ; to England and all the rest 
 of Europe 58 per centi ; to the countries 
 south of lis and China and Japan 42 per cent. 
 
 But these figures do not represent the 
 usual proportion of our farmers' interest in 
 the markets of Europe. For instance, of 
 all our agricultural exports in the fiscal year 
 1859-60, tobacco and cotton excepted, the 
 total value was, in round numbers $40,000,- 
 000, and of this total the manufacturing 
 countries of Europe took less than fifteen 
 millions, or only 37|^ per cent., while the 
 "other countries" gave us a market for 63| 
 per cent., and consumed what they took. 
 
 There is not another subject within the 
 whole range of conmiercial statistics to which 
 the measure of averages applies so delusively 
 as to our foreign trade in farm products. An 
 honest and clear view of them compels a 
 constant resort to details, and to the circum- 
 stances which rule their extravagant fluc- 
 tuati(ws. Theprestidigitaiev^S! of statistics. 
 
 by a dexterous use of averages and percent- 
 ages, can make the records of our foreign 
 trade prove almost anything they please. 
 This must justify jne in involving the data 
 employed with their necessary explanations. 
 
 Tn the matter just now considered, the 
 comparative amount and the economic value 
 of our trade with manufacturing and with 
 non-manufacturing nations, respectively, are 
 properly thus explained : In the year 1860, 
 when these exports were so trifling in quan- 
 tity, our wheat was at $1 75 per bushel in 
 England. In 1868, when the much larger 
 per centage of our products was taken in 
 Europe, the price was down to $1 85, leav- 
 ing to the Western farmer about $1 06 in 
 the year of the smaller demand, and only 66 
 cents when the larger quantity was taken. 
 The rule being, that, when rates are any- 
 thing Uke Tcmunerative, Europe buys but 
 little of our farm products, say three-eighths 
 of the total exports; when the rates are 
 ruinous to the cultivator, they rise, to some- 
 thing approaching three-fifths. 
 
 The condition of the English. market for 
 several months past, and its prospects in the 
 immediate future, are a decisive and a se- 
 vere confirmation of this rule. Since the 
 last of September,. 1869, our whea,t has 
 fallen in London audi Liverpool twenty-five 
 cents in gold per bushel. Bed. winter is re- 
 ported on the ipth of Januaryr IS'J'O, at 
 $1 25; red western. at $1 16. During the 
 time of this ruinous decline of price the iip- 
 ports have been immense. The telegraphic 
 reports read, thus : " 30th December, tjie 
 receipts of American wheat stiU very large ; 
 ar great accumulation of wheat both here 
 (London) and at Liyerpool ; seventy-four 
 more cargoes of wheat afloat bound for Eng- 
 land than at the corresponding period last 
 '^ear." "31st December,received at Liverpool 
 wheat in last three days, 100, 000 bushes, all 
 American." "January 10th, receipts at Liv- 
 erpool for three days, 240,000 bushels, of 
 which 216,000 from Ainerioa." 
 
 How strongly the history" of our trade 
 supports the President's warning, and how 
 absolutely w;orthless and, hopeless the mar- 
 kets of Europe are in comparispi^wtb those 
 of the other countries he names, I need not 
 help any intelligent student of the facts to see. 
 Borne Market. 
 
 But there is still another market to be 
 provided and secured, by means plainly in- 
 dicated in the President's allusion to the 
 manufacturing interests of the country, and 
 which he cautions us against disturbing. 
 This is the home market, the best of e3i 
 markets; the great market which General 
 Jackson names in his letter to Dr. Coleman, 
 where he says: "Take from agriculture in 
 the United States six hundred thousand 
 men, women and children, and you wiU at 
 once give a home market for more bread- 
 stuffs than aU Europe now furnishes iis." 
 In 1834, when this letter was written, the 
 exigency of the fanning interests of the 
 
country was expressed by Creneral Jackson 
 in striking harmony with General Grant's 
 apprehensions of the like peril now. Jack- 
 son says: "Except for cotton the American 
 farmer has no market, either at home or 
 abroad." General Grant sees just as clearly 
 that we are losing that particular foreign 
 market which we have been accustomed to 
 regard with hope, and to bend all our pohcy 
 to secure. The difference of conditions con- 
 sists in this; that forty-five years ago nothing 
 was done by Congressional legislation to 
 promote that kind of domestic industry 
 which withdraws the injurious surplus of 
 labor and capital from agriculture, and at 
 the same time invites that immigration 
 which alone can build up a home market ; 
 while now, our statesman at the hehn 
 of national affairs has only to caution us 
 against "disturbing those industrial inter- 
 ests of the country" — ^meaning our manu- 
 factures — "which are increasing vrith won- 
 derful rapidity, under the encouragement 
 which they now receive," and thus are 
 doing exactly what General Jackson so 
 strongly urged upon the national legislature. 
 Producer's Share of the Price in 
 Europe. 
 
 Hitherto we have been examining our 
 European trade in breadstuffs and provi- 
 sions, as it is usually measured by quantity 
 and commercial Yalus; but the exposure of 
 the faets in this form does not reach the 
 heart of the question; and we must give a 
 moment's attention to the farrmer'a interest 
 in it. The question of quantity or amount 
 of demand for his products is solved when 
 we see that of the two hundred mUhons of 
 bushels of wheat which the country pro- 
 duces, Europe affords in the long run a 
 market for something less than ten miUions, 
 or five per cent, of the whole; but the price 
 it brings in _^rs< han,da needs some explana- 
 tion. We here give the particulars upon 
 which the calculation depends, on the best 
 authorities which we can command. 
 
 Putting a bushel of red winter wheat at 
 $1.30, (nine shillings per one himdred pounds. ) 
 its price in Liverpool on Christmas eve, 1869, 
 we find its value in gold to the Western 
 farmer by the following deduction: 
 Carriage from Chicago to New York, $0.30 
 
 •Marine freight 16 
 
 Marine insurance 02}^ 
 
 Commission 03 
 
 Handling 02 
 
 Charges from Chicago to Liverpool... |0.63J^ 
 
 * Marine freight ranges all the way from 
 
 4d. to lOd. by steamers: by sail vessels from 
 6d. to lOd. 
 
 To this must be added the expense of 
 placmg it in Chicago : Currency. 
 
 Storage and commission $0.05 
 
 Insurance and loss OOJ^ 
 
 Carriage to Chicago 10 
 
 Handling , 03 
 
 Equal in gold to f 0.18>^. 
 
 $0.18K 
 
 Total deduction from price in Liverpool, 
 f 69, leaving to the farmer $0 61 in gold — 
 73 cents currency — per bushel. 
 
 It is obvious that the expense here given 
 must vary with locaUties, and other condi- 
 tions affecting the cost of dehvery at the 
 Atlantic port of export, reducing or increas- 
 ing the total expense as may be ; and it is 
 also obvious that there are or may be other 
 circumstances — such as intermediate profits 
 and charges — not here estimated, which will 
 stiU further diminish the value of wheat in 
 first hands. 
 
 This price is ruinous to the farmer, who 
 has encountered our home rate of wages, 
 interest upon the capital, and all the other 
 incidents of production, in the year in which 
 his wheat was grown. 
 
 When all the facts of this commerce are 
 well considered, the conclusion seems in- 
 evitable that they should, in the language 
 of the President, "teach us the necessity 
 of looking to other markets for the sale of 
 our surplus." 
 
 Our inquiry shows that, in the past, Eu- 
 rope has given us at best a ruinously incon- 
 stant market for these products ; that the 
 fluctuations of quantity and price have been 
 ahke injurious ; that the reflected effect 
 upon home prices covers nineteen-twentieths 
 of the annual crop with the mischiefs which 
 the other twentieth encoimters abroad ; and 
 that, finally, the accustomed reliance is 
 about to be wholly destroyed by the grow- 
 ing competition for Europe-grown wheat in 
 our only European market. 
 
 Some one will answer, perhaps, that the 
 disposal of any portion of our surplus, at 
 any price, covering the bare cost of trans- 
 portation, reheves the home market to that 
 extent ; which might be true, if we had no 
 other choice. But how is it if a clear view 
 of the worthlessness of this commerce shoiild 
 have the effect of turning our attention and 
 our policy toward the substitution and cul- 
 tivation of a better trade ? 
 
 This is the purpose of the demonstration 
 here made; and to this the plea just noticed 
 has no appUcation or force. The remedy, 
 effective, assured and final, is to throw Eu- 
 rope out of the aims and efforts of our poli- 
 cy in the commerce of our agricultural sur- 
 pluses, and to direct all our efforts to the es- 
 tablishment and extension of the other, and 
 better and more reUable and remunerative 
 markets, which are and must be so, because 
 they are the natural outlets for our products 
 of this kind. Whatever turn thi s trade may 
 take, let it be remembered that for a bushel 
 of wheat sold at $1 40 in Liverpool the far- 
 mer receives just one-half of that sum, and 
 that this is really from five to ten cents above 
 the average price during the last nine years. 
 For the seven immediately preceding years 
 the average was $1 80 per bushel. Then 
 the farmer got, or, without counting against 
 him the intermediate profits of dealers and 
 transporters, might have got $1 11 for his 
 
■wbeat, and a market for only nine million 
 bushels per annum. In tlie later period of 
 nine years he has been receiving but sixty- 
 six cents gold, and has had a market for an 
 average of less than eighteen miUions, fluc- 
 tuating from fifty millions in the calendar 
 year 1862 to two miUions in 1866. 
 
 But our home market is now terribly de- 
 pressed. WTieat is below 80 cents in Chi- 
 cago, notwithstanding the tariff upon for- 
 eign imports averages nearly 50 per cent. 
 And where, in tliis state of things, shall the 
 blame be thrown? Surely not upon the 
 tariff because of its rates of duties. The 
 only effect which high duties can have — ^the 
 only effect charged against them by the op- 
 ponents — ^is that they must depress exports 
 by restricting or reducing imports. Let us 
 see. In the ten years, 1851-1860, the aver- 
 age annual imports of foreign goods amount- 
 ed to two himdred and eighty milUons ; the 
 highest year of the period, 1860, to three 
 hundred and sixty-two miUions, which, but 
 for the outbreak of the rebellion, would 
 have produced a general financial crash. 
 But now, in the fiscal year 1868-9, the im- 
 ports rose to four hundred and thirty-seven 
 miUions, and have continued at an equal 
 rate of increase up to December 31, 1869 — 
 no less than one hundred and fifty-seven 
 miUions, or 58 per cent, above the period be- 
 fore the rebeUion. The mischief is in this 
 excess, which the present tariff has not been 
 high enough to repress or prevent. This is 
 the only valid charge against it. 
 
 Free-Trade Theory of Interna- 
 tional Trade. 
 
 Underlying the error of poUcy which has 
 so long blinded us to the worthlessness of 
 our European trade in farm products, is a 
 miscalled principle of international com- 
 merce, which ought to be disposed of for 
 the security of the conclusions to which the 
 facts and figures of the analysis of this trade 
 have led us. It is usually put in the form 
 of a self-proving aphorism, self-proving, and 
 refusing proof, for the simple reason that it 
 is incapable of any other method of sup- 
 port. We are told that " to sell our surplus 
 
 we must buy that of the nations we would 
 deal with." This abstract proposition may 
 be very safely and justly confessed and 
 avoided — confessed as to whatever of truth 
 it contains, and avoided as to the appUca- 
 tion made of it. The questions : What na- 
 tions must we buy from ? and, What com- 
 modities must we buy from them ? in order 
 to secure good customers for our products, 
 and a profitable distribution of our own la^ 
 bor ;',nd capital power, ai-e the real points 
 at issue. Must we purchase the products 
 of skUled labor from Europe to find cus- 
 tomers for our crude commodities ? 
 
 This is not the teaching of any general 
 law of international trade. England im- 
 ports no manufactures ; yet her foreign 
 trade grows beyond all precedent. It grew 
 under her protective system proportionally 
 as fast as it has done since 1846, because 
 that protection was virtually exclusion of 
 all rival industries, just as her present su- 
 periority in production is effectual prohibi- 
 tion. Her imports increased two hundred 
 and seventy-five per cent, in twenty years, 
 from 1846 to 1866 ; although. If even flour 
 be classed as a manufacture, the total did 
 not exceed five per cent, of these immense 
 imports, which were valued in the last year 
 of the period at thirteen hundred and 
 thirty-four millions of dollars. France, also, 
 whose system was nearly prohibitory of all 
 imports which could in anywise compete for 
 her home market with her own industry, in 
 twenty years, from 1836 to 1856, increased 
 her aggregate imports and exports one hun- 
 dred and twenty two per cent. 
 Our Foreign Trade Largest under 
 our Sigliest Tariffs, 
 
 The same thing is true of our own for- 
 eign trade. It increased faster forty years 
 ago, under the very high tariff of 1838, than 
 uncter the low one which succeeded it and 
 was abandoned in 1843 for its destructive 
 effects upon both our domestic industry and 
 foreign trade. The following table gives 
 the facts of these contrasted periods under 
 their respectively opposite systems of com- 
 mercial policy : 
 
 Total Exports in 1827, |S7,878,H7. 
 
 " " "1834, 80,623,662, Increase in 7 years, 39X per cent. 
 
 ' 1841, 103,636,236, " " 7 " 28% " " 
 
 Aggregate of duty-paying imports of 7 years, 1828-34, $507,200,000, Duties, $166,750, 
 
 ^* .1^ <i ^ <i ■' « << 7 « 1835-41, 492,000,000, " 121,250, 
 
 Average of duties on aggregate imports, 1828-34, 32.67 per cent. 
 " " " " " " 183&-41, 24.64 " " 
 
 000. 
 000. 
 
 The total exports include cotton, to- 
 bacco, all agricultural products and domes- 
 tic mannfectures, but exclude the specie 
 account, and so represent our entire indus- 
 trial interest in trade with foreign nations ; 
 and the results which we give totally dis- 
 prove the alleged repressive influence of high 
 customs duties upon commerce, alike in 
 domestic exports and foreign imports. Ex- 
 ports, which should have grown with the 
 
 growth of wealth, population and industrial 
 enterprise, are seen to have declined under 
 the free trade rule, and duty-paying imports, 
 which were expected to increase under a 
 greatly lessened tariff, as well as from all other 
 causes, also dechned in a decided degree. 
 
 Our more recent experience repeats the 
 same lesson, and is another conclusive an- 
 swer to the plausible complaint made by the 
 opnouents of the protective poUcy. The 
 
6 
 
 statement is addressed specially to the con- 
 sideration of our farmers: cotton, tobacco 
 and home manufactures, embraced in the 
 former statement, being excluded from this 
 one. The trade of 1868 is here reduced to 
 gold values, for the sake of easy comparison 
 with that of 1860. 
 
 Fiscal 
 Year. 
 
 Duty 
 paying 
 imports. 
 
 1859-60.... $279,874,640 
 1867-68.... 342,245,659 
 
 Average 
 
 duties. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 19.03 
 48.05 
 
 Agricul- 
 tural 
 exports. 
 
 $48,451,874 
 72,757,066 
 
 Here we have, under a tariff of duties two 
 and a half times higher in 1868 than in 1860, 
 the farm products exported to foreign coun- 
 tries increased fifty per cent., and the duty- 
 paying imports which, according to free- 
 trade theorists, ought to have been greatly 
 checked, if not almost annihilated, increased 
 above twenty-two per cent. And, to show 
 the more than fairness of the period or year 
 chosen to represent low tariff effects, it 
 should be noted that 1860 exceeded in total 
 domestic exports the highest preceding year 
 by thirty-eight millions of dollars. To agri- 
 culture, exclusive of tobacco and cotton, it 
 was less favorable, falling in value of ex- 
 ports tmder the free-trade tariff of 1857 
 about five millions below the usual range of 
 the higher tariff of 1846. 
 
 In view of such facts as these, what be- 
 comes of the theory that we must encour^ 
 age the importation of foreign manufactures 
 if we would secure a market for the raw 
 products of our farms ? The tariff in oper- 
 ation in the fiscal year 1860 was not only as 
 near free trade as it could be made, but it, 
 in fact, fell eleven millions below the revenue 
 required for the current expenses of that 
 year, and so did not amount, in its rates and 
 product, to a simple revenue tariff. Yet 
 the exports of breadstuffs and provisions 
 that year were twenty-two millions in value 
 less than in 1856, under the greatly higher 
 tariff of 1846 — a decline of fifty per cent, ; 
 just as they were fifty per cent, less than in 
 1868, when the rates of duty upon foreign 
 fabrics were, as we have seen, nearly fifty 
 per cent, ad valorem in the average, and 
 upon some of them very much higher. 
 
 Verily, the smart little apophthegms in 
 which the doctrines of free trade are com- 
 mended to the unskilled in statistics, need 
 a thorough sifting before, the farming in- 
 terest of the country can be wisely cared for, 
 or at ah understood. 
 
 Legitimate Foreign Tvmde. 
 
 There is a foreign trade, possible and 
 practicable, entirely consistent withj and 
 highly promotive of, our national prosperity, 
 but it is such an one as shall duly and 
 profitably distribute the labor and enter- 
 prise of the people ; such as tends to make 
 U3 independent in our markets, primarily, 
 by providing a home consumption for our 
 raw products, by means of such encourage- 
 
 ment to the skilled industries of the coun- 
 try as shall invite the consuming masses of 
 Europe to immigrate, and purchase on the 
 spot a hundred fold more of our products 
 than they do abroad ;* and secondarily, 
 by shaping aU our efforts to the extension 
 of trade to those regions vrith which we 
 have natural reciprocities of exchange, and 
 which we might have by pursuing such a 
 course of foreign commerce as would sink 
 our European trade in agricultural pro- 
 ducts to the rank, in estimation and en- 
 deavor, which its uncertainties and inherent 
 mischiefs bring along with it. 
 
 The system of commercial exchanges 
 which consigns our labor to the least re- 
 munerative returns, and prevents its edu- 
 cation in the higher ranges of skilled indus- 
 try, must be repudiated, if we would achieve 
 an industrial, answering to our political, in- 
 dependence of foreign domination. As a 
 poUcy of trade ruled simply by the princi- 
 ples of profit and loss, we have seen how 
 injurious it has been in the past ; and but 
 httle refiection is required to foresee its in- 
 evitable tendency to worse and worse in the 
 immediate future. 
 
 Tobacco. 
 
 Thus far, in general, we have treated the 
 staples tobacco and cotton as exceptional in 
 the list of our foreign exports, nor can these 
 two commodities be regarded as in one class, 
 in certain important aspects of their status in 
 the question of production and international 
 trade. Tobacco,, until recently, has been 
 mainly a product of those of our agricul- 
 turists distinctively called pJoTiiers, but now, 
 by the extension of its culture,, it in a con- 
 siderable degree concerns the class whom we 
 more usually style farmers. As early as 
 1860, according to the census of that year, 
 the States in the valley of the Mississippi, 
 lying above the 36th parallel of latitude, 
 and having a soil and climate fitted and gen- 
 erally used for the varied and miscellaneous 
 products of the north temperate portion of 
 the Union, produced forty per cent, of that 
 year's crop. The middle States north of 
 Virginia, and even the northeastern States, 
 were then, and have been still more largely 
 since, engaged in its cultivation ; so that 
 as a product, it fairly concerns the general 
 farming interest of the whole Union ; while 
 as an export it goes, for other reasons, into 
 the class of which cotton is the only other 
 commodity . In the European markets they 
 hold the position of American monopolies 
 in, perhaps, a like degree — our tobacco on 
 
 * The thirty millions of Great Britain and 
 Ireland took fifty cents' worth per head of 
 aU our agricultural exports in 1860. In 1868, 
 $1 36 worth. In the last named year, the 
 other one hundred and fifty millions of our 
 European customers took five millions,' worth, 
 or about four cents' worth per head ; or all 
 Europe, without Bussia, gave our farmers a 
 market to the amount of twenty-five cents in 
 the year for each customer. 
 
account of its cheapness^ our cotton more 
 in virtue of its quality. 
 
 In the annual report of the Lords Com- 
 missioners of the .British customs for 1866, 
 we find the following facts and statements : 
 The imports for 1865 were 64,398,863 
 pounds; of this. quantity, from the United 
 States, 44,863,769 pounds; nearly 70 per 
 cent, of the supply of that year. To wMch 
 the Commissioners append this remark : 
 " We have so far benefitted by the war, as 
 regards our tobacco supply, that owing to 
 the stimulus applied to the production of 
 other countries, we are by their means now 
 able to add to the above amount received 
 from the United States a supply from other 
 som-ces of 19,435,093 pounds, instead of, (as 
 in I860,) 8,453,066 pounds only. 
 
 Of the total import of 1865, it appears, 
 from the "statistical abstract" of 1866, the 
 United Kingdom retained for consumption 
 of unmanufactured tobacco 38,073,281 
 pounds, or 60 per cent, of the import. As- 
 suming that our American tobacco, to the 
 amount of 40 per cent, of its quantity, went 
 through British hands to the proper con- 
 sumers ; and further assuming that the 
 competition of other countries is growing, 
 we may be allowed to say that the half of our 
 exported raw tobacco is hereafter to be di- 
 verted from its direct route to the ultimate 
 customer ; and that thus the British trade 
 is worth but half its apparent value to us, 
 and still less, if we charge the loss of its 
 manufacture for such idtimate markets by 
 our own labor ; and stOl further, by all the 
 loss of transportation and profits upon all 
 that England thus carries in our stead — an- 
 other, and not the least, important incident 
 of a policy of trade which makes England 
 our intermediate and obstacle in our natural 
 commerce with other foreign nations. i|^ 
 
 But the point to which these facts are 
 cited has stai another bearing. The real 
 value of American unstemmed tobacco, ex- 
 clusive of duties, is put by the same au- 
 thority at 8^. for the year 1865, or a frac- 
 tion under 16J cents per pound. Upon the 
 total value of all kinds retained for con- 
 sumption, amounting to 88,897,589 pounds, 
 duties to the amount of £6,245,489 sterUng 
 were collected, clear of all. drawbacks and 
 deductions. Charging this whole sum upon 
 the whole retained import, it gives the rate 
 of duties 3s. ^d., or 77 cents per pound, 
 which is a small trifle too high for the un- 
 manufactured, but only a trifle. 
 
 The point we would make from these 
 facts is, that an article of which we suppUed 
 the British market to the extent of 70 per 
 cent, of the total import in 1865, and a still 
 larger proportion previous to the year 1860, 
 and which is consumed ia so large quantity 
 in the United Kmgdom, under a duty and 
 other charges of nearly seventy-seven cents 
 per pound, must have an assured market 
 there independently of the conditions of in- 
 ternational trade, and, to a great extent, in- 
 
 i'iVe 
 sqrarte 
 
 dependent of price, also ; for it *43 ti 
 noted that the EngUsh duty upon it is (Jfene 
 five times the amoimt of the export price 
 received for it at our ports. 
 
 A trade standing in these conditions is se- 
 cure enough, without the sacrifice of any 
 other interest to maintain or promote it. In 
 the year 1867-8, we exported two hundred 
 and six million pounds unmanufactured, 
 and ten and a half millions manufactured, 
 besides snuff and segars, when our rate of 
 duties upon foreign manufactures imported 
 were, as already stated, at an average of 48 
 per cent.; and we learn from the British 
 Commissioner's report, before quoted, that 
 "the quantity sent us in 1865 exceeds^ the 
 import of 1860, the year before the war be- 
 gan, by 4,379,364 pounds," at which former 
 date our tariff averaged but 19 per cent, 
 upon our dutiable imports. 
 
 As to tobacco, then, it is plain that the 
 highest protective tariff we have ever had, 
 so far from repressing, has actually allowed 
 a remarkable increase of its export ; for be- 
 sides the increase to Great Britain, the gold 
 value of our exports to Bremen, Hamburg, 
 Belgium, Italy, Prance and Spain, in 1868, 
 exceeded that of 1860 by 14 per cent. 
 
 Cotton. 
 
 Of the command that American cotton 
 held in the markets of Europe before the 
 war, the price which it obtained during the 
 cotton famine, and that which it holds now, 
 the product having reached three-fourths of 
 its highest figure, and attained to an amount 
 which pays as well or better than any 
 greater yield would do, we need say nothing 
 to prove its claims to what may be called a 
 commercial monopoly, and its independence 
 of tariffs upon foreign imports. It held the 
 European market at nearly double the price 
 of India cotton before and during the war, 
 equally well, and it holds it now, and will 
 hereafter, just as certainly. The encourage- 
 ment of skilled and diversified industry at 
 home, to whatever extent we can make our- 
 selves self-supplying m the kinds of com- 
 modities which we still import from Europe, 
 vriU not at all affect the market for our cot- 
 ton there. The substitution of the Ameri- 
 can for the transatlantic looms cannot di- 
 minish the demand for the raw article. The 
 presence of the consmners brought here by 
 encouragement of this and of all other 
 branches of manufacture wiU increase their 
 consumption by their greater ability, at 
 American rates of wages, to purchase its 
 fabrics ; and a general prosperity among the 
 free-living people of the United States would 
 increase demand and profits more than all 
 the outside world has to promise and confer. 
 
 AgricuUv/ral Products No Ex- 
 portable. 
 
 There is stiU another aspect of the ques- 
 tion of a home, as against a foreign market 
 for agricultural products, of the gravest im- 
 
8 
 
 pcbemce^jko our fanning interest. So far as 
 ouJtiCiUropean market is concerned, the ex- 
 ports are substantially limited to the arti- 
 cles of wheat, wheat flour, Indian com and 
 meal, and beef and pork. The money value 
 of these, and the economic value of the 
 European trade in them, have been already 
 sufficiently considered and exposed. Now 
 let^us glance at those products which can- 
 not be transported beyond seas, and must 
 have a home market or none. These in- 
 clude potatoes, beets, turnips, cabbages, aU 
 green vegetables and fruits, poultry, veal, 
 mutton, and in the main butter and milk. 
 Every one knows that a neighborhood mar- 
 ket for all these articles makes the difference 
 between the price of land in the vicinity of 
 a city and that of the remote districts of the 
 West. Land yields roots by the ton — wheat 
 and com by the bushel. Soil devoted to the 
 former, and to the production of milk and 
 butter, ranges from one hundred to three 
 hundred dollars per acre when the cohsumers 
 are at hand ; that which is restricted to the 
 production of grain and the animal food 
 grown upon it, for distant consumption, 
 stands in the scale of prices fi-om ten to fifty 
 dollars per acre. The most valuable and 
 remunerative of all agricultural products 
 must be consumed on the spot, and be con- 
 verted into iron, steel, hardware, hnen, 
 woolen or cotton goods, if they are to be 
 carried in effect to a foreign market.* 
 
 Thus the policy of trade requires an elec- 
 tion in the kind of commodities to be pro- 
 duced for export, as it does in the kind of 
 articles to be imported for consumption. 
 Mere quantities and money values — ^in other 
 words, nominal prices and sums total — ^have 
 no proper place in determining what goods 
 shall be bought or sold. If the farmer can 
 get a better and steadier market for his pro- 
 ducts converted into manufactures at home, 
 than they command abroad, he should look 
 to it. If a better distribution of labor can 
 be effected by diversifying it to the greatest 
 possible extent, then let him see to the 
 maintenance of the due equilibritim. If by 
 one poUcy rather than another he can bring 
 customers from abroad who there consume 
 only the cheapest and coarsest of his pro- 
 ducts, and in the smallest quantities, and 
 can multiply that consimiption a hundred 
 fold, let him earnestly favor it. If a pre- 
 carious and inadequate foreign market can 
 be exchanged for a stable and ample one, by 
 an economic system that is governed by the 
 chmatic laws of the division of labor and 
 
 ■*Iu the two hundred millions' worth of 
 duty-paying goods which we now import 
 from Europe, we, in effect, import more food 
 in the form of fabrics than we export to the 
 same countries. The balance is so largely 
 against us that we are really, in respect to 
 Europe, importers instead of exporters of 
 ■breadstuffs and provisions. The food con- 
 sumed in manufactures is something more 
 than one-fourth of the value of the products. 
 
 reciprocity of production, nature's con- 
 stancy of working is the true guide to the 
 course and kind of international trade. It 
 is across the climates, not along them ; it is 
 with a difference of conditions, races, capa- 
 biUties, and of genius, that trade must be 
 permanently and profitably estabhshed. 
 
 The fallacious commonplace of "buy in 
 the cheapest market (in money price) and 
 sell in the dearest," is the doctrine of the 
 tyrant traders of the earth ; of those who 
 would be at once the workshop of the na- 
 tions and the common carrier of the seas. 
 A cosmopoUtan philosophy is the necessary 
 creed of a universal dominion in trade. In 
 time past industrial domination was main- 
 tained by military and poUtical force. The 
 same thing is now aimed at by supremacy 
 of skiU and capital. Under the change 
 from force to fraud — from compulsion to 
 persuasion — for securing the same result, 
 the remedy is also the same ; independence 
 in industry as before, independence in gov- 
 ernment. The old enemy is stiU in the field, 
 making paupers at home that she may hold 
 her dependants abroad, as, under the old 
 regime, she conscripted her hapless and 
 helpless masses to force her foreign subjects 
 into bondage. The cost of a war of inde- 
 pendence is always something, but the 
 strength that follows it is a gain forever. 
 
 The United States must no longer ac- 
 knowledge inferiority to the races sprung 
 from the same root. We have fairly come of 
 age, when, in numbers, wealth, and weight 
 in the scale of nations, we are inferior to 
 none, and in position to bid defiance to all, 
 however combined and for whatever pur- 
 pose. Europe holds our bonds to what they 
 think an amazing amount, and they discount 
 our solvency in proportion. Habitual defer- 
 ence to transatlantic opinion tells shame- 
 fully upon our own estimation of ourfinancial 
 abUity and honor ; but, once set our hands 
 free ; give us our own soil cleared of the in- 
 vaders of our own proper fields of industry, 
 and our financial strength will be as prompt- 
 ly demonstrated as ever our military power 
 was asserted in the other kind of war to 
 which we have been compelled. The parallel 
 holds curiously but clearly ; whatever the 
 form of the question that makes the test of 
 our power. In a conflict of force with the 
 outside world, I need not say what would 
 result, for there is now no chance that it 
 win be tried ; and as we have shown in do- 
 mestic strife that no earthly power could 
 conquer an American army except another 
 of the same breed, so nothing aUen to our 
 common welfare has terror for us except 
 through division among ourselves. Let us, 
 then, adopt and maintain, in every sphere 
 of our interests an American system dis- 
 tinctively our own ; in the language of Alex- 
 ander Hamilton, "superior to the control of 
 all transatlantic force or influence, and able 
 to dictate the terms of the connection be- 
 tween the old and the new world." 
 
Protection under our Present Tariff. 
 
 HOW DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN AGEICULTUKE AND MANXJEACTinffll 
 
 Several grounds of opposition are taken 
 against the principle of protection in cus- 
 toms tariffs, but they all resolve themselves 
 at last into the one grand charge of class 
 legislation — ^burdens laid upon imports for 
 the benefit of one class of producers, to the 
 injury of all other industrial interests, and, 
 ni general, of all consumers. The higher 
 the range or rates of duties imposed, the 
 more grievous the complaint is made. Op- 
 ponents are never done exposing the enor- 
 mity of the oppressiveness by showing the 
 amounts added to the cost of imports, which 
 they assert measure the evil arithmetically, 
 and assume to be strictly chargeable as so 
 much unmitigated taxation paid to the fa^ 
 vored classes. 
 
 Now, let us try this charge of class legis- 
 lation made against our existing tariff, by 
 figures which will more .justly and truly 
 settle the question than those usually ap- 
 pealed to. 
 
 Fu'st. Of the average rate of duties tipon 
 our aggregate foreign imports : — This is 
 usually stated for the year 1867-8 at over 49 
 per cent., a iigiu-e obtained by dividing the 
 total value of duty-paying imports into the 
 total duties stated in the official report. But 
 this average rate is greatly exaggerated as 
 a charge against our manufacturers, by in- 
 cluding the imports of sugar, tobacco and 
 spirits, none of which should be posted to 
 their account, unless distillation of spirits, 
 the mere crystallization of sugar, and curmg 
 of tobacco and its preparation for transpor- 
 tation to market, are in a proper sense 
 manufactures, and the very high duties im- 
 posed upon them are upon such manufao- 
 ture; which they manifestly are not ; the 
 very high rates being in fact countervailing 
 duties, intended to cover the excise duties 
 upon the home-made articles. To get the 
 average rate, therefore, we must first strike 
 these off, thus : 
 
 Dtjtt-paying impoets. 
 
 Total vahie 1343,605,301 
 
 Sugar, spirits, 
 tobacco 64,771,837 
 
 $278,833,464 
 
 Duties. 
 
 $164,464,599 
 44,454,634 
 
 .$120,009,965 
 
 Av. 
 p. c. 
 
 47.74 
 68.60 
 
 43.04 
 
 This is the fair statement ; and it shows 
 a very great reduction of the average rate 
 charged upon manufactured imports, prop- 
 erly so called, as regards the question in 
 hand. 
 
 Next. Is nothing protected but manufac- 
 tures? We answer that among the duty- 
 paying imports of 1867-8 were butter, 
 cheese, Uving animals, feathers, flax and 
 tow, hemp and tow, hides and skins, hops. 
 
 honey, beef, pork, hams, bacon, flax seed,! 
 potatoes, tallow, lard, corn, wheat, wheat 
 flour, rye, oats, barley, wool, and unmanu- 
 factured tobacco ; amounting in gold value 
 to $85,331,163, on which were charged ag- 
 gregate duties amounting to $7,451,383, 
 equal to an average rate of 21.1 per cent. 
 
 The next thing to be considered is the 
 sugar account. Sixty-one and a half mil- 
 lions worth of sugar and molasses were im- 
 ported, under an average duty of 62J per 
 cent. What interest was protected by this 
 heavy rate ? At least thirty-five millions' 
 worth of the like articles were produced in 
 the United States (estimated by the prices 
 of the imported articles), and had the ad- 
 vantage of the protective duty as certainly 
 as iron, woolens, cottons, hneus and glass 
 had theirs of an average rate imposed upon 
 their rivals. We can see no reason why 
 the duties on these unmanufactured goods 
 should not be charged to the protection ac- 
 count of the domestic producers of the rival 
 commodity, by the same rules of reasoning 
 that charge the manufacturers with the du- 
 ties imposed upon products similar to theirs. 
 
 Again : If the duty upon manufactured 
 tobacco and spirits is really a countervailing 
 charge, it must be posted, mainly at least, 
 to the farmers' account, and they may make 
 the set-off of the excise tax in their own 
 defense. The manufacturers are cei-tainly 
 not responsible. 
 
 But there is stiU another item to be placed 
 to the credit of the manufacturers and deb- 
 ited to the farmers. There were imported 
 manufactures, other than tobacco, spirits 
 and sugar, in round numbers, two hundred 
 and seventy-nine millions' worth. On ex- 
 amining these goods carefuUy, we find about 
 one hundred and three millions' worth, the 
 raw materials of which were such products 
 of mines and agriculture generally as abound 
 among us, and compete, when imported, 
 with the Uke commodities of domestic pro- 
 duction. The American manufacturers are 
 not to be charged with these constituents of 
 the dutiable imports. According to our last 
 census report, 54| per cent, of our jwoducts 
 of manufactures are in the raw materials 
 used. For good reasons, therefore, we must 
 charge $56,390,000 of these imports to our 
 farmers at 43 per cent.; moreover, the 
 wages in these imports were one-half food, 
 none the less imported because converted 
 into cloth and iron ; and wages are 20 per 
 cent, of the value of the foreign products ; 
 therefore, we have another item of 10 per 
 cent, upon the value to add. Together these 
 items, (raw material and food imported in 
 converted forms,) amount to 66 J mUlious of 
 dollars. 
 
 (9) 
 
10 
 
 oni'ijurope 
 
 ports'^- iToducts.....^. 
 ^y jpirits, cigars, snim. 
 
 .3 sum up : 
 
 ted and duties {in millions of dollars.) 
 
 Ea,w mat'l in imp'ts. 
 Pood in wages 
 
 S35.32 
 
 1.86 
 
 61..59 
 
 56.39 
 
 10.30 
 
 BUTIES. 
 
 ^S7.T5 
 
 4.29 
 
 38.64 
 
 24.24 
 
 4.43 
 
 165.46 79.05 47.78 
 
 Per ct. 
 
 TiTog 
 
 230.43 
 62.74 
 43.00 
 43.00 
 
 The figures extended are : Value of im- 
 ports, in gold, $165,472,000 ; the aggregate 
 duties levied, $79,067,000; average rate of 
 duties, 47.78 per cent.; which would- leave 
 the manufacturers' share thus : Value of 
 imports, $178,135,464; aggregate duties, 
 $85,395,598; equal to average duties of 
 47.94 per cent., or one-sixth of one per cent, 
 heavier or higher protection than this state- 
 ment gives to the agricultural interests of 
 the country. This, however, is nearly five 
 per cent, higher than the manufacturers 
 .should be charged, for this reason : wines, 
 drugs, medicines, and the like articles, 
 charged with very high rates (the wines at 
 77 per cent., and the other articles equally 
 high), are here set to their protection ac- 
 count, but in which they have no interest. 
 In like manner they are surcharged with 
 the very high duty upon woolens, which 
 averages 67 per cent., while a large part of 
 this rate is really a countervailing duty, 
 levied in behalf of the wool-growers. If all 
 that is thus unduly set to their account were 
 deducted, instead of 47 or even 43 percent., 
 very probably they are not really protected 
 by an average of 40 per cent. It would be 
 a lengthy and laborious task to fix the exact 
 amount ; and we therefore content our- 
 selves with an estimate which we are cer- 
 tain is quite within the mark. 
 
 Looking now at th«se figures, and closely 
 scrutinizing the grounds upon which they 
 are given, will any candid and capable 
 statistician teU us what class of our indus- 
 trials Is best protected, basing his estimates 
 upon the actual imports and the duties 
 levied upon them ? Whatever exceptions may 
 be taken to the particulars here given, it will 
 clearly appear that protection is well distrib- 
 uted and equalized between our agricultural 
 and manufacturing classes, if not decidedly 
 ill favor of the former, as we think it is. 
 
 If any one objects to our charge of the 
 entire duty to the farmers, which is paid 
 upon cigars, snuff and spirits, as if it were 
 all assessed upon the raw material, we an- 
 swer that the total amount is but four and 
 a quarter mUhons, and if one-fourth of the 
 sum is due to the manufacture, it will make 
 but oue million and a fraction of difference 
 upon the total, and two-thirds of one per 
 cent, upon the average rate, which we think 
 due to the agriculturists' account. We can 
 spare this f racti on, though entitled to a great 
 deal more not here claimed ; and so we 
 leave the examination of the que.stion to 
 those who must examine it thoroughly for 
 
 themselves before they can wisely ( 
 settle it upon its real merits. 
 
 The points here made arc vahd uij 
 rule of calculating the charge of 
 duties by the amount of revenue wh 
 yield. But there hes back of aU 
 fact that the one hundred and si;j 
 millions collected upon foreign good 
 in relief of domestic taxation, wliicj 
 wise all classes of producers must ha 
 iu some other way — a burden, as faj 
 a burden, which falls unreheved ou| 
 those who produce nothing that is 
 ed, and they are those alone who H^ 
 salaries and the interest or principal j 
 fortunes. They might talk of classj 
 tion, but their complaint would 
 force in equity, for the busy worll 
 bound to take care of its idlers ; ail 
 moditiesfa,nd labor cannot be kept ( 
 the sleeping partners in the comitry'd 
 
 When peoi>le who avoid the trc 
 thinking before they speak, say tlJ 
 hundred and sixty-four millions wcj 
 the pockets of the factory monopolisl 
 are simply ignorant of the fact that \ 
 of it .was levied roaUy in protection' 
 farmers of the coimtry, and that thi 
 of it went into the vaults of the 
 treasury. Moreover, they don't se6 
 aware that the manufacturers' shar 
 the commodities in the market is n(| 
 than one-sixth of the values consij 
 the year ; and that the other five-sii 
 to the farmer and the laborer, and t| 
 this reason, the effects of protect!^ 
 upon foreign imports cannot be 
 upon more than their respective slj 
 the products annually consumed. 
 
 We question, besides, whether 
 the wit of man to legislate for an inl 
 or producing class against the intel 
 any or aU other classes, by any genet 
 It would be about as easy to pile up I 
 water above their level. There is a I 
 uting force at work in business affaii 
 equalizes all advantages, so that 
 member be honored, aU the other nl 
 rejoice with it." But this is not tlij 
 which we now desire to press, thoug 
 the strongest one in the whole quesi 
 
 Note. — The following statements 
 how unequal were tlie rates of duty i 
 levied upon several classes of importl 
 yea,rs 1867-R, and how unjustly mamrfa 
 iu general ,ire cha.rged with the generr 
 age upou the total duty-paying impoj 
 
 Sugar and molasses paid 63.74 pff 
 unmanufactured tobacco, 113.34 ; oigj 
 ued at S45 and over, IS'-.S ; brandy amf 
 303.0; wines, 77.0; woolens, 66.88; glafi 
 linens, 35.34; cottons, 41. r,l; iron and st| 
 manufactures of, 47.03 ; average on r| 
 cultural products, not embodied inl 
 fabrics, 21.1 per cent. — aU in gold vail 
 average premium for the year bein^ 
 cent., which would raise tlie dutlesj 
 rency on sugar, for instance, to 83 
 cent., and on the other ola'ises of imp 
 the like proportion. 
 
;■:;:■: