THE CULTIVATOR. 
161 
fondly, though perhaps vainly indulged, that considerations like those 
we have suggested, would press upon the notice of our statesmen, and 
induce them to adopt such efficient measures for improving the arts of 
productive labor, as should command the generous applause of the age, 
and live in the grateful recollections of posterity. 
However apt we may be, in our fervor or frenzy to subserve the in¬ 
terests of self or party, to forget the obligation— ; we owe duties to our 
country—to our whole country—and to our God—for the performance 
of which we must be amenable-—which areparamount to all othersand 
the faithful performance of which, while it imparts to life its purest 
enjoyments, affords the only safe hope of a happy immortality. The 
evil we do, benefits but for a time; the good we do, 1 benefits for time 
and eternity. 
ON THE REPEAL OF THE DUTY ON PROVISIONS. 
The President has recommended a repeal of the duty on provisions 
coming from abroad, and several of our political journals have endors¬ 
ed his recommendation. We dissent from their opinions, and will brief- 
ly state our reasons. 
It is the conceded policy of all civilized nations to protect their home 
industry. Five-sixths of our home industry is employed in agriculture, 
and hence this branch of our labor deserves the special protection of 
the government. A small duty upon foreign provisions is the only pro¬ 
tection it receives, and this duty it is now proposed to take off. This 
principle of protecting home labor, which forms one of the great ele¬ 
ments of national prosperity and independence, led to the adoption of 
the tariff, which secures to our manufactures a fair compensation for 
their labor, by subjecting foreign fabrics to an import duty. Without 
this protecting duty they could not have survived, and but for it we 
should now have been dependant upon the workshops of Europe, for 
many of the indispensable necessaries of life. What are our manufac¬ 
tures, either in magnitude or importance, compared to our agriculture ? 
A drop in the bucket. And is it politic to jeopardize this great inte¬ 
rest, or to paralyze its onward course in improvement, by bringing it 
down to a level with the servile labor of Europe ? It is just to protect 
the labor of the minor classes, and to leave unprotected that of the great 
agricultural class? Because from a bad season, and a series of other 
casualties, the farmer has this season realized only half of an ordinary 
crop, is he therefore to be deprived of a fair profit upon this moiety ? 
Would the temporary high price of woollen goods justify a repeal of 
the duty upon foreign woollens? No. The manufacturer would not 
consent—the farmer would not consent, to see the great woollen busi¬ 
ness of our country prostrated by unrestricted foreign competition.— 
And yet woollens, as well as provisions, are among the indispensable 
comforts of life—and itis unsafe to rely upon those with whom we may 
be invaded in war for either. We must be clothed as well as fed. It 
is well known that labor is much higher in the United States than in 
Europe—that the European laborer lives poor, and works low—that 
his wages would neither hire nor support a freeman here—and that con¬ 
sequently the price of farm produce is ordinarily much lower on the 
European continent than it is with us. France, Germany, Italy, and 
even Russia, can undersell us in our own markets, in the products of 
our own soil, nnder existing uuties. The grain of these countries is 
constantly finding its way to our markets, with a fair profit to the im¬ 
porters. Take off the duty and we shall be flooded with it j and the 
consequences to our agriculture cannot but be extremely disastrous.— 
It is announced in a paper before us, that 10,000 bushels of wheat have 
just reached Georgetown, bought at Rotterdam, Holland, at $1.26 per 
bushel, thus affording an enormous profit to the importer, maugre the 
duties.—Live and let live. 
We cannot send our grain to Europe, when we have an excess, with¬ 
out paying heavy duties, which operate as a virtual prohibition. In 
Great Britain, these duties are mitigated when the average price of 
wheat is 80s. the quarter, which is about equivalent to $2.50 per bush¬ 
el. And why? Because there the interests of agriculture are deemed 
of primary importance, and the Englishman had rather pay dear for 
his bread than to see the agriculture of his country crippled by foreign 
rivalship. And yet, the agriculture of England employs but one-third 
of the population. In France agriculture gives employment to two-thirds 
of the population, and the same protection is thrown round it as we see 
in Great Britain. How much more forcibly do these considerations 
apply to the agriculture of the United States, where a very large pro¬ 
portion of the population subsist by its labors. While the farmer has 
quietly submitted to heavy protecting duties, to sustain other and mi- 
nor branches of labor, is it not just, and even consistent with the best 
interests of the nation, that he should in return be protected in his la¬ 
bor? Every political and moral consideration unite in the propriety, 
not only of sustaining, but of improving and elevating the condition 
and the character of our yoemenry. To borrow the words of a Rev. 
Divine, “ Human society maybe compared to a stupendous column, ag¬ 
riculture forming the broad and noble base, manufactures the shaft, 
commerce the capital, while the learned professions, and the fine arts, 
constitute its rich and beautiful ornaments.” We must guard the no¬ 
ble base, if we would preserve the unity and beauty of the structure, 
for if that fails, neither the shaft, the capital, nor the ornaments can 
long escape ruin. 
We cannot but indulge the hope, that the duty upon foreign provi¬ 
sions, will be retained. The importations from abroad are very large, 
and are likely to increase, with the prospect of liberal profits, notwith¬ 
standing existing duties'. They are so large as to allay all fears of fa¬ 
mine ; and before the repeal could have much effect upon prices, we 
shall be gathering the fruits of another harvest, which will probably be 
adequate to all our wants. 
THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE LABORING CLASSES. 
No man entertained a more ardent desire to improve the condition of 
the laboring classes of our population, or evinced a more liberal feel¬ 
ing towards the accomplishment of his wish, than the late John B. 
Yates. His zeal was manifested, during many of the last years of his 
life, in devising plans to improve their condition, and to enlarge their 
influence in society. His liberality is placed beyond doubt by the tenor 
of his will. He was among the first to perceive and to advocate the 
advantages of associating physical with intellectual improvement—of 
combining theory and practice—science and art—labor and study—in 
the business of education—and of instructing the head and hands, si¬ 
multaneously, in the duties of social life. And had he not been deter¬ 
red, by unforseen difficulties, from-executing his plans,—or had his life 
been prolonged, it seems probable that he would have seen realized 
some of the brightest hopes of his beneficence and patriotism. Mr. 
Yates was a warm advocate for an agricultural school, as constituting 
a corner stone—a sure foundation—for the intellectual and moral im- 
| provement of his countrymen. He was in a measure the father of the 
j law of the last session for establishing a school of this kind ; and he had 
made an appointment, with a highly esteemed friend whose zeal in the 
matter has been paralyzed by sickness, to make a summer tour through 
the more populous counties, with the view of explaining the objects and 
public advantages of the association, and of soliciting subscriptions to 
its stock. Satisfied himself of its highly beneficial tendencies, he was 
anxious to unfold the plan of the school to others, from the noble de¬ 
sire of enabling others to share in the high feelings of pleasure which 
-ever flow from the exercise of a patriotic munificence. 
To make more generally known the elevated views which Mr. Yates 
held on the subject of this article, and to hold up his example for the 
imitation of others, we publish below a letter addressed by him to the 
conductor some twelve months ago, while laboring under indisposition, 
of which he was never after wholly free. 
“Albany, January 16, 1835. 
“ My dear sir, —I regret exceedingly to be so situated as to put it 
wholly out of my power to attend the annual meeting of the State Agri¬ 
cultural Society in February. I had hoped to have been present, and 
lent my aid to the revival of your project of a state agricultural school. 
I trust it will not be abandoned. Having for ihany years thought the 
establishment of schools, combining literary and scientific pursuits 
with mechanical, agricultural and other useful active physical employ¬ 
ment, absolutely necessary to the hope of preserving our social insti¬ 
tutions, I have looked with intense interest upon every effort to engage 
public attention in their favor. 
“ The fate of the petition of the society over which you preside, pre¬ 
sented to the legislature last winter, is evidence only of an unwilling¬ 
ness to examine this suiject, and the probable beneficial effects of such 
a plan of instruction, with that attention its great importance demands. 
“We must adopt a different system of operations. Let us unite and 
form combinations of individuals throughout the state. Every farmer, 
every mechanic, every laboring man, in truth every citizen, whatever 
may be his station in society, will soon see his interest in promoting 
the success of the project. To your thoughts this subject is familiar; 
you have been zealously engaged in pressing its importance upon pub¬ 
lic attention so long and with such ability, that I feel almost guilty of 
arrogance while making suggestions to you, in a formal manner, for 
future action upon it. You will pardon me, however, for soliciting 
the earnest attention of the society to this subject again, at the meeting 
in February next. Every day of procrastination I consider a day of in¬ 
jury to the vital interests of the community. That in a democratic 
country, a project so essentially affecting the permanence of its politi¬ 
cal institutions, and so immediately connected with the interests of all 
classes, should have been so long neglected, is of itself sufficiently sur¬ 
prising ; but when connected with the fact, that experiments have been 
made in less favored countries, which have been eminently successful; 
that in this state the limited experience we have had has fully proved 
their efficacy; that committees of the legislature have always reported 
strongly in favor of a public experiment; and that the legislature has 
ever had assurance against hazard of pecuniary loss in the experiment; 
if public patronage should be given to it,—our surprise is transformed 
to poignant regret. When we are also informed that nothing further 
has been done, that private attempts have been suffered to languish, 
and ultimately fail, for the want of public countenance merely, the apa 
