172 STATE BOARD OP AGRICULTURE. 



lias been made of a radical change in land legislation — it will spread, in some 

 form to England, leading, probably, to smaller holdings in fee, the abolition 

 of entails and settlements, and, perhaps, to the doing away witli the custom 

 of primogeniture. On the other hand, English farming capital will continue 

 to be directed away from the culture of wheat and into channels where, in the 

 nature of things, foreign competition cannot be so effective. It is estimated 

 by Mr. Fawcett that England imports more than half of her wheat supply, 

 and more than one-fifth of her fresh meat. These proportions will increase. 

 Our own contribution to her total foreign food supply, even including those 

 articles in which we do not compete with other sellei's, is not far from one-half. 



While there has been little difference of opinion among Englishmen as to 

 the great advantage of cheap supplies of food, the two next largest consumers 

 of our products, France and Germany, in the action of the governments of the 

 two countries, have put barriers in the way of importation. I refer to the 

 charge of unhealthfulness brought against American pork products, and the 

 attempt to restrict or prohibit trade in them. For many months all merchan- 

 dise of this description was shut out from France, and while there has been 

 recently some relaxation in this matter, the regulations at French ports 

 regarding inspection arc so vexatious and so harshly applied as to amount, in 

 a large measure, to a virtual prohibition. The German government, by duties 

 and absurd classification, sought the same end. American hams, in their 

 familiar yellow muslin coverings, were subjected to high duties as cotton 

 manufactures, and in a similar spirit canned goods have been taxed as tin- 

 ware. Finally, the importation of American meats was absolutely prohibited, 

 and a recent consular report to the Secretary of State says that by order of 

 that government it is even forbidden to ship these goods through German ter- 

 ritory, though consigned to foreign dealers. The same report states that 

 England, Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland were, at the time of 

 writing, the only European countries open to American meats. 



The alleged ground of this action on the part of foreign governments, the 

 unwholesomeness of American meats, has been abundantly shown not to 

 exist in fact, and it is not likely that those wlio made the charge ever believed 

 in it. It was simply a convenient pretext. What was the real object in view? 

 Simply this, to relieve their domestic producers from the pressure of competi- 

 tion, and so to sustain prices. Americans can have no difficulty in appreciat- 

 ing the situation. The same purpose underlies our tariff legislation, only 

 instead of pretending that foreign manufactures are dangerous to health, we 

 pretend that we can make wages high and goods cheap by heaping taxes upon 

 production. The French and German governments have effected their real 

 purpose. Food has been dearer. The landed aristocracy have sought to pre- 

 serve their incomes from rents at the expense of the mass of consumers, who 

 in consequence have found it harder to supply their tables with wholesome 

 meats. When the facts become generally known throughout Germany an 

 enormous pressure will be brought to bear upon the. government to rescind 

 this legislation. But if this is done, it will seriously mar the symmetry of 

 the protective system that Bismarck is trying to foist upon Germany, and may 

 lead to a more reasonable national policy. 



"It was asserted last year," says the New York Tribune, ''that certain 

 French provision dealers had brought pressure to bear upon their government 

 to secure the exclusion of American pork products." It is now said that 

 French "statistics show that the prohibition of the importation of pork from 



