4 



is any robbery it is alike the capitalist and the craftsman. A.nd I shall 

 not attempt to discuss those questions of political economy upon which 

 so much has been said and written by political demagogues and states- 

 men; they are only bewildering and unsatisfactory. 



We have so long maintained the protective system that it can be 

 fairly judged by its results to all classes, both to the mechanic and to 

 the agriculturist, both to the American producer and the American con- 

 sumer; and if I fail of demonstrating the policy has been of equal advan- 

 tage to the agriculturists and to capital invested in and workers engaged 

 in the manufacturing industries I will gladly join with my free- 

 trade friends. I do not believe any more than they that one industry 

 should be supported at the expense of another. The argument is con- 

 stantly made, in fact it is the only one upon which the "revenue re- 

 formers " rely, that the tax collected upon all those articles in common 

 use among the farmers to that extent enhances their price, and is a di- 

 rect tax upon the farmers and for which the farmer receives no corre- 

 sponding benefit. And, sir, I shall undertake to establish that those 

 taxes do not so increase the price, but that they do increase the value of 

 every known agricultural product, and that while they increase the 

 wages of labor of the farmworker they more than compensate the 

 farmer in the increased value of his products. 



We have passed out of the period for speculation upon this great 

 question, or for assertion. The year 1860 substantially closed, as com- 

 pared with our present system, the period of free trade or of a tariff lor 

 revenue only; and soon thereafter commenced our present protective 

 policy, and we have tested it for more than twenty years and can now 

 fairly compare the present condition as its results with what we find 

 existed in 1860 the close, as I have said, of the free-trade era. I think, 

 sir, I have heard some one here in this discussion assert it was impracti- 

 cable to make such a comparison; others I have heard maintain that such 

 a comparison demonstrated that agriculture was not as flourishing or 

 profitable now as then. To all these gentlemen I reply, you have gone 

 to the discussion of this matter without investigation ; you have de- 

 pended, like the gentleman from Texas, who asserted the agricultural 

 products of 1860 were greater in value than those of 1880, upon second- 

 ary evidence when a little more labor, a little research, would have shown 

 you all such assertions are untrue. 



Census returns have been appealed to and their tabulations paraded. 

 Well, sir, I propose to examine them for a little while and draw some 

 comparisons between what they exhibit for 1860 and 1880, the close of 

 the two periods. I propose to contrast 



PBODUCTION OF 1860 WITH 1880. 



Statistics, sir, are edged-tools in the hands of the inexpert or the in- 

 dolent, and these absurd statements have been made on the authority 

 of census tabulations, from no fault of the census results, but from 

 ignorance of what they are intended to mean. In the first place, the 

 main tables include only the productions of farms, without any reference 

 to ranches on public lands or the products of lots in towns or villages. 

 Further, they exclude all pasturage and the dry forage of all the 

 cereals, which now aggregate 127, 000, 000 acres. They exclude a variety 

 of minor products of agriculture, which have never been embraced in 

 the schedules. They therefore exclude all that goes into the produc- 

 tion of meat excejrt about half the corn crop and a small portion of the 

 hay. None of the cereals except corn are to be considered in meat 

 production. 



