1883.J 



THE LANCASTER FARMER. 



55 



basing, \vlii!(! in i-i'alily they are sinkini; to a 

 mucli lower level nnder the inlluenee of idle- 

 ness. The mere Uiouglit of labor becomes a 

 terror to them, while to tiie inilnstrious labor 

 partakes of the nature of mere pastime. 

 Value of Agricultural Societies. 



As a means of advaiiuinj; ai^riuiiUuro, none 

 .stand hi^lier than the organization of agrieiil- 

 tural societies. Tliey afford an opiiortunity 

 not only of attaining; to the best metliods of 

 farming, but they also serve to develop its 

 pavlicipants both intelloutually and socially. 

 It is a fault that farmers are too. much dis- 

 posed to isolate. A county like Lancaster 

 should afford a score of flourishing societies, 

 and yet we are not sutliciently aroused even 

 to fill the accommodations allbrded by this 

 central organization. I would suggest a mis- 

 sionary spirit for the working members, by 

 which every one would feel it his duty to 

 bring some one along to our meetings. There 

 is no reason why, for our sakes and their own, 

 ladies should not meet with us and work with 

 us. I do not wish to be understood to say 

 that the past record of this society is an un- 

 worthy one — by no means. The efficiency of 

 the society were indeed underrated should we 

 measure it simply by what transpires witliin 

 these walls. The press (thanks to the pro- 

 prietors, the reporters and fellow members) 

 furnish the medium through which we speak, 

 not as we might suppose, to empty seats, but 

 into the ears of the entire agricultural com- 

 munity. It might be, perhaps, justly com- 

 plained that our attendance is not larger be- 

 cause too many are satisfied with the news- 

 paper reports of our proceedings. Many a 

 suggestion thrown out here has been pro- 

 fitably acted upon by persons not mem bers, 

 Manya debate, if it did not force conviction, 

 has at least led people to think — thinking 

 gives rise to intelligent movement, and in- 

 telligent movement to profitable results. 



For fear of trespa.ssing too much upon your 

 time, I will close my communication, offering 

 the apology that it was my object rather to 

 hint upon topics than to discuss them. 

 Pleading sincerely f(U' the hearty co-operation 

 of the membershii), I shall endeavor to prove 

 myself worthy of the honor conferred upon 

 me. 



t-ONTRIBUTIONS. 



For The Lanca.stek Fakmek. 

 THE BALANCE OF TRADE DELUSION. 



I notice that ^\\r irrepressible Delaware 

 correspondent returns to the charge in the 

 last number of Tiik F.moiek. He says he is 

 getting tired of the discussion, and he gives 

 the singular reason for continuing it, (not- 

 withstanding his fatigue) that my last article 

 leaves no doubt that he is "entirely risjht" 

 and I am "entirely wrong !" One would 

 think if 1 have done the work so elVectually 

 for him it would rather furnish a reasini for 

 excusing himself from fiu-ther labor, than for 

 going to work afresh to undertake a task that 

 he says was already aceomi)lished. AVIiere 

 plain figures are concerned, he says "there 

 should be no two opinions." Well, we will 

 see whether this loud shout of victory is any- 

 thing more than an idle boast. 



He opened the controversy in the Novem- 

 er number of The Farmer by asserting 



(without any spe('ial call that I can see to 

 meddle in llie matter) that the statement of 

 imports and exports for certain years, which 

 I had given in an article in The Farmer 

 four years ago, was "fal.se in statistics." 

 Nothing else could p.issibly be understood by 

 the ex|>ressi(in, taken along with the context, 

 liut that I had willfully falsified the figures 

 contained in the official document from which 

 I derived my statement, viz : the "Quarterly 

 Report of the Hureau of Statistics, issued by 

 the Treasury Department, at Washington, 

 for the quarter ending March ;{1, 187S." It 

 was ))((/ statistics that he said were wrong — 

 that I had the right figures, but had put them 

 on the wrong side of the account; ' thus con- 

 firming his assertion by a circumstance which, 

 if true, would seem to be conclusive. But in 

 his last essay he professes that he had no in- 

 tention or desire to charge me with inlentumal 

 deception in the matter. Small thanks for 

 the concession at this late day; for I affirm 

 that I used no deception, intentional or other- 

 wise. He now admits, what is the simple 

 truth, that I gave the figures correctly, ac- 

 cording to the official document from which I 

 stated at the time they were derived, and that 

 it was Mr. Young, Chief of the Bureau of 

 Statistics that made the error — my fault in 

 the case being that I relied upon and adopted 

 the statistics prepared and published by au- 

 thority of the U. S. Government, but which 

 S. P., relying on the authority of Mr. Nimmo, 

 Mr. Young's succe.ssor, pronounces "false 

 and worthless." For my part, I have not a 

 doubt, they were correctly stated exactly as 

 they ai>pear on the books of the Treasury 

 Department to this day, and I doubt if any- 

 body has ever pronounced them " false and 

 worthless," except S. P. If Mr. Nimmo 

 afterwards in preparing his statistics, gave an 

 efitiinutr (and it could only be an estimate) of 

 the specie value of our exports during the 

 period of specie suspension, that is all very 

 well, as an elucidation of the subject, but it is 

 a monstrous perversion of language ui)on that 

 account to charge Mr. Young or the U. S. 

 Treasury Department with falsification be- 

 cause he or they gave the figures exactly as 

 they apppcared on the Treasury books, made 

 up from the returns from all the cu^om 

 houses in the United States. Furthermore, 

 Nimmo's statement or correction, I believe, 

 was not published till long after the publica- 

 tion of my article so fiercely attacked ; and I 

 never heard of his statement till told of it by 

 S. P., and only know it now upon bis author- 

 ity. 



As he now acknowledges, however, that it 

 was the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, that 

 was guilty of what he calls falsifying statistics, 

 why did he not make his attack upon that offi- 

 cer, instead of u [ion one who.se only faidl,if fault 

 there was, was in depending upon official 

 government statistics V Evidently his inor- 

 dinate love of personal controversy and dis- 

 putation led him to' attack the wrong party. 



In the February number I (pioted him as 

 ifciving said : " J. P. has made the astounding 

 discovery that consumption is gain, and pro- 

 du(;tion is loss." In reply to this he now 

 says : " By referring to my article you will see 

 just what I did say, which is quite different." 

 Now, referring to his .fanuary article, it will 

 be found he did use those exact words ; and if 



he claims that the meaning was qualified by 

 the words that followed, and that he does not 

 mean what his words imply, then turn to his 

 November article in which he declared with- 

 out (pialification that "all consumption is 

 loss." If he is now convinced that he was 

 mistaken and desires to retract, that is well, 

 but be should not do it by intimating that I 

 misrei)re!-ented the position he so strenuously 

 maintained previously to his last essay. 



He says " If a boy lo.ses his knife I call it 

 loss, though in looking for it he finds another 

 of grcatei' value." If your Dclawr.re econo- 

 mist really thiiUis that when a boy wxAdfnlbj 

 loses his knife, and accidenlh/ finds another of 

 greater value, his gain is of the same economic 

 nature as that of the farmer, who purposely 

 feeds his corn to his hogs and thereby pro- 

 duces pork of greater value than the corn, as 

 he intended, I can only say that one or the 

 other of us mu.st be hopelessly bewildered. 

 Which one it is, I leave. If the boy had 

 traded his knife for another of greater value, 

 the comparison would hold exactly. But in 

 that case, no one in Penn.sylvania would say 

 he lost the fir.st. knife. 



He correctly quotes me as saying : " I 

 said nothing about production being loss," 

 and thinks I contradict myself by alleging 

 afterwards that "all productions of the earth 

 will be lost if they are not consumed." To 

 me the contradiction is not very obvious. 

 There is an if in the case ; but it is lujt worth 

 arguing over. 



It is rather amusing to notice his references 

 to Daniel Webster's speech being apparently 

 at a loss whether to claim him as a 

 supporter of his own views, or to 

 discredit him as of no account by 

 talking about "the eternal disgrace" of 

 "his 7th of March speech." But he says 

 Webster "does not say in the speech quoted 

 that the large importation and consumption 

 of extravagant luxuries will advance the 

 material wealth of our country, as J. P. does ! " 

 Wrong again, both ways. I never said that, 

 or anything like it, while in a part of that 

 same speech that was not quoted by rae. 

 Webster speaks of the advantage of our trade 

 with the Island of Madeira; and S. P. knows 

 as well as anybody whether it is the neces- 

 saries ot life or luxuries that are exported from 

 that island. Webster evidently thought that 

 the advantage of foreign trade, and all trade, 

 is to enable us to supply our wants in the 

 easiest and cheapest manner, and did not 

 think himself wise enough to decide for the 

 rest of mankind what they ought to buy and 

 consunu' so long at least as their wants were 

 not injurious to the health of the com- 

 munity, and the consumers were able to pay 

 for them. 



For the rest of his last comniunication, as 

 he seems to think it hard if he cannot have 

 "the last word" (though I don't see why he 

 is entitled to it) I freely allow him to have it. 

 If what I said in former articles does not suf- 

 ficiently answer what he now argues about 

 the "Balance of Tiade," I am content to let 

 him have the advantage he desires. But I 

 am reminded of a couplet of Pope, the poet, 

 in answer to an opponent who declared he 

 would have tlu' last word : 



Poor Colly, tliy rcasonin<r is none of tlie strongest, 

 For know the lust word is tlie word lliat lasts 

 longest. J. P. 



