who are in sympathy with them, for all offices within the gift of the people; and to do anything, in a legitimate manner, that may serve to benefit the producer."

It was intended, in the beginning, to have this organization operate openly, for it seemed wise, in the opinion of the originators, that all bodies which discuss public measures should be open to the people. That was afterward changed; and now this, like all the other branches of the farmers' movement, has its ritual and secret work. The membership of the National Farmers' Alliance is now little if at all short of 400,000, and is spreading. The "Farmers' Mutual Benefit Association" originated in southern Illinois, in 1887. Its membership increased rapidly, so that in the spring of 1888 it was able to establish or control separate business agencies. It is represented in Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas. It is included in the general call for a meeting of delegates from all the farmers' associations in the country, to be held at St. Louis, Mo., December 4, 1889, for the purpose of bringing them into one great body under a national head.

The object of all these separate associations of farmers, though stated differently, is substantially the same; and that is true of their methods and their principles. Among the conspicuous features of the movement in general, three are particularly worthy of notice: 1, the reasons assigned for the movement; 2, the national loyalty of the membership; 3, the moral tone of its official literature.

Among the things already done by the farmers through the agency of their union, is the establishment of local and State exchanges for the transaction of business without the use of the middle men. It is proposed, as soon as the final national union shall be perfected, to establish a national business exchange. The great object of bringing the producer and the consumer close together will then have been accomplished fully and finally. W. A. PEFFER.

The Forum.

JANUARY, 1890.

THE TARIFF AND THE FARMER.

No logical or consistent argument can be framed to show that the policy of protection encourages any industry in this country, except upon the hypothesis that free competition in the sale of the products of that industry would so reduce prices that our people could not profitably engage in it. If free competition tends to reduce prices, whatever materially interferes with such competition must tend to increase them; and, as the imposition of taxes upon articles imported from abroad necessarily prevents competition to a greater or less extent with similar commodities produced here, it is contended by protectionists that it is the duty of the government to levy such taxes whether it needs the reve

nue or not.

The whole argument, if it is consistent with the truth or with itself, admits that the effect of the protective policy is to increase the prices of protected articles produced in this country; for if this were not the case it is plain that it could not enable our people to produce them at a profit, and it would therefore be useless. If the importation of any article were absolutely prohibited, the domestic producers might charge for it any price they could agree upon among themselves; but under laws which should simply impose a tax upon the imported article, the domestic producers could not, for any great length of time, add more than the

Copyright, 1888, by the Forum Publishing Company.

amount of the tax to the price of their goods, because if they should endeavor to keep the price above that point, the importer could pay the tax and still compete with them.

It is evident that this policy can be beneficial only to the producers of those articles which would be imported to what the protectionists consider an injurious extent, if not wholly or partially excluded by the tax; and that as to all those articles which we produce in greater quantities than we need for our own consumption, as well as all those which we produce as cheaply as they can be produced in other parts of the world, the argument can have no application whatever, because they could not be imported and sold here even if there were no tax. The importation of all such articles is effectually prevented by the natural laws of trade, and no act of Congress is necessary to exclude them from our markets. Unless a commodity can be sold here for a higher price than it can be sold for in the country where it is produced; it will not be brought here; nor will an article be exported from this country for sale abroad unless the price there is higher than it is here. If the farmers of the United States would recognize the truth of these self-evident propositions, they would see at once that the protective system, whatever may be its effect upon other classes of producers, cannot possibly increase the prices of the articles they have to sell, because without it they could have no foreign competition in their home market, and with it they cannot escape the most severe competition in the foreign markets where they must sell their surplus.

And in this connection it must not be forgotten that the prices of all the principal agricultural products which the farmer sells at home, are fixed in the free markets abroad where he sells his surplus, while the prices of nearly all the things he has to buy are fixed in the protected markets here, and are largely increased by the total or partial exclusion of foreign competition and by reason of the unnecessary taxes imposed upon the materials used in their production. The fact that the home prices of such articles as we produce in excess of the home demand and therefore export to other countries, are fixed in the foreign ports where they are sold, is admitted by every intelligent protectionist; but if it were denied it could be easily established by a simple

reference to the daily market reports in the newspapers. This is a most important fact for the consideration of farmers, and yet the protectionists generally ignore it entirely when they undertake to show the great value of the home market which, they allege, their policy has furnished for agricultural products.

An examination of the official returns of our foreign trade shows that the products of agriculture constitute from 75 to 80 per cent. of our exports. Wheat, corn, rye, oats, cotton, tobacco, beef, and pork are the great staple agricultural products of this country; and every one of them, except certain fine and costly grades of tobacco used for special purposes, is produced here in greater quantities than we can consume, and is consequently exported and sold abroad. Wool is not included in this enumeration, for two reasons: first, because the value of the wool product is insignificant in comparison with the other products of the farm, not amounting to as much as the milk actually sold or sent to butter and cheese factories, every year, and not to one fourth as much as the butter produced, whether in factories or elsewhere; and, secondly, because the men who grow wool as a business are not farmers in any proper sense of the term, any more than are the men who keep vast herds of cattle on the western plains. The real farmer is the man who is engaged in tilling the soil. As a general rule he keeps but few sheep; and they are kept, not for the wool they produce, but for the mutton and for the benefits derived from their pasturage.

If the articles mentioned were not produced in excess, or, in other words, if we now had that home market which the protectionists have been promising for three quarters of a century, the balance of trade, which they deplore as a great calamity, would be largely against us every year for all time to come, because there are many articles of necessity which must be procured from other countries, and our manufactured products cannot be exported in sufficient quantities to pay for them. It must be admitted, however, that if the farmer had a sufficient home market for all his products-that is, a market in which the demand was equal to, or in excess of, the supply, so as to enable him to exercise some influence in fixing the prices-he would be in a far better condition than he is now; but it is certain that a century