For Protection

Hon. J. Logan Chipman, Member of Congrcss for the First District of Michigan : Mï Deak Sir.- Your letter to the grangers of Michigan, addressed to Secretary Cobb and publlshed in the Detroit Free Press of March 5, has just been handed me, and as chairman of the executive committee of the state grange, which committee has in charire the business interests of the grange when the grange itself is not in session, I consider it my duty to review your letter in a marnier as public as you have made your charges against us. We are glad to know that you, a democrat, approve our financial policy nd our policy resardlng the public lands; and that you, a democrat, are not in.favor of free trade. So far we applaud your course, and sincerely hope that no party caucus will drive you from that position. And we hope that whenever a bilí is brought before congress for action, erabodying substantially the reforma we ask, you will be found in your place in the house of representativos, and will be its Btaunoh supporter; and that, when the Farwell bill or any other bill inimical to the relief we ask, comes before the huose, you will not only be found in your seat, but that you will register your vote against it, and not play " peek-a-boo" behiod the quorum curtaln. You teil us that we have been laggards in our financial views, but that we are substantially right now (thanks); and so far as we go, are in accord with "ancient democratie doctrine." If it is "democratie doctrine" It must be ancient - so ancient that political bistory has failed to record It. Modern democratie doctritie it can not be. Mr. Cleveland, who was not only the official head of the democratie party for four years, but who is still regarded as the oracle of the party, in his flrst annual message, planted himself and his party squarely on the " gold bug " platform, and occupied two and oue-half columns in the Congreasional Record in arguing against the colnage of silver. In his second annual message he says: "I have seen no reason to change the views expressed in my last annual message on the subject of this compulsory silver coinage, and I again urge its suspension on all the grounds contaiued in my former recommendation." Secretary Manning in his annual report for 188G, opposed the free coinage of silver, and also opposed the purchase of silver bullion and its coinage under the lilaiid law. He says: " The treasury silver purchase is defended by nobody and approved by nobody ;" and " to stop the purchase of silver is our only clioice, our duty and our interest.1' Ten pages of his annual report are devoted to an argument against silver coinage and silver purchase by the government. These views were fully endorsed by the president and by the entire democratie party when they renominated hiin for a second term. The grange has seen no official utterances, either from Mr. Cleveland or from the democratie party, on this subject, differlng from those expressed in iiis messages and Secretary Manning's report. Many of our order abandoned their party affiliations and supported Mr. Cleveland and the democratie party in 1S84, sincerely believing that he and his party were in full accord with them in their fluancial views. When they found that the president and his cabinet followed the line that Hayes and Arthur liad blazed upon these financial questions, they were sorely disappointed; and when thoy learned from Mr, Cleveland's message in 1887, and the St. Louis platform in 1888, that the " ancient democratie doctrine" of protection to American industry, as it was expounded by Jefferson, Madison, Van Buren, J ackson aud Hilas Wright, had also been abandoned by the democratie party, they lost all confidence in modern democracy, and sald as Achules said to Agamemnon: Once decelved, the fault was thlne, But twice betrayed the blanie is mine. and, llke Achille?, withdrew tlieir support. It is useless to hold up to the grangers of Miehlgau the aiicient liistory of either the democratie or repubücan party. We have buried the " dead past;" it is the "living present" that confronta u. It Is not what those parties or either of ttiem, have been or done in the past that concerns us at present; but what they propose to do now. So we are gratified to see by the public press that the linance committee of the present republican senate has reported a bill to that body which so far compiles with our requests as to provide for the unlimited purehase of the products of our gold mines and the purchase of $4,500,000 per month of the product of our silver mines, and the issuance thereon of treasury coin certifleatt-g at tlieir bullion value. The $5-1,000,000 of silver bullion value thus provided for, and the $8,000,000, coin value, used in the arts, will take tho entire present output of our mines. So far, then, we are pleas;d with the present attitude of the republican party, and now, since you inform us in your letter that you agree with us in our views on flnauce, and that those views are in accord with "ancient democratie doctrine," we shall not only expect to see you marcliing shoulüer to shoulder witli the republicans in this forward movement, but taking a step in advance and inslsting that certificares shall be issued to the full extent of the coin value of the bullion thus purchased, and that those certificateü shall be made a full legul tender for all demanda, public and private. And we hope that you will be able to bring the balance ot' your party back to those "ancient democratie doctrines." If you will do so you will not only deserve, but you will receive, the plaudlts of the grange. You teil us you are not a free trader and that the democratie party does not teach free trade. With this we are highly gratified, and hope you are uot mistaken. But when we read the democratie press of Michigan from the highest to the lo west- that ie, f rom the Detroit Free Press to the Traverse Bay Eagle - we find free trade and only free trade advocated as the doctrine of the democartic party. We have been taught to believe that the party press was a correct exponent of party doctrines, and if this be correct, you are certainly mistaken as to the teachings of the democratie party of Michigan. So far, you are touching elbows with the state grange of Michigan, and we can march in line still further. That the present tarifflaws need a thorough revisión we all agree. We recognize the fact that no tariff or other revenue law can be framed by even the wisest statesmanBhip, that can forsee and ad just itself to all the tconoiaic changes which the rapid progress in inyention and applied science to production creates; and that, no matter how wise its provisions or how equal lts benefits or its burdens when adopted, changes in economie conditioas roay require a change in its provisions at every session of congress. But here we must part company. You assume that it is the protective tariff that has caused the decline in farm values and the price of farm products, and that the farmers themselves are to blame. While we differ from you in this respect, and will give our reasons f urtlier on, even were it so,aud the farmers were to blame, it was an error of judgment induced by promises of reform made to them by both the great political parties. In 1874 the farmers, not satiefied with the tariff revisión of the republican party, made in 1871-72, placed the democratie party in charge of the house of representatives, where bilis of this nature must orlginate. They got no relief. Stil! in hope, in faith, and in charity, they kept that party in charge of the house of representatives for eight long years, and nothing was done. Losing faith in the ante election promises of the democrati, they reinstated the republicans in 1882. The republicans procecded s.t once to revise the tariff laws; butin that revisión tlicy lowered the duty on woel, a product sold by a million farmers, and retained the high and burdensome duty on silgar, a product consumed by all. The farmer?, not satisfied with tliis revisión, turned again to tlie democratie party and reinstated tliem In tbc house in 1884, and reinl'orced tliem with the president of tlielr choicc. Anotlier session passed, and no revisión of the tariff laws. Still the patience of the farmers was not exhausted. They retained the democrats in charge another term, and tlisn that monstrosity the Mills bilt was brought forth. That bill, wbllo levying high protective duties on southeru products, aimed a deadly blow at northern iudustries. Kice, grown ,by less than 3,000 planters in the south, was protected by a duty of 100 per cent.; and sugar, a product of universal consumption, grown in tuis country and controlled by less than 300 planters, was protected by a duty of 68 per cent., while wool, grown by a million farmers at the north, was made duty free. The whole character of the bill was Jso intensely partisan and sectional that the farmers of the north, and especially of Michigan, were disgusted with the democratie policy and voteil for a change. Can you blame Uiem ? When you assume that the farmers of Michigan, and especially that portion of them that belong to the grange, are ignorant of the true causes that depress agriculture in this and other hiatos, you make a great error ; and when you tull us that the tariff, Imperfect as it is, is the cause of the depression, you make an unpardonable blunder for one of your intelllgence and position. Practical political economy is taught In our halls and discussed In our gatlierings, and we learn from this that the l.iw of supply and demand governs prices; that a perfect economie condltion of saciety would be where the supply of everything to bo used or consumed would bc just ii Hial to the demand: that the price produce would then bring would be in proportlon ,to the amount of money in the country compared with the amount of products to beexchanged- high if money was plenty and low if money was scarce. If the quantity of money was kept at a üxed ratio to the amount exchanged, then the price would be the same so long as the supply and demand were cqual: but if, as was demonstrated by Gregory King and Thomos Took, the supply was increased above the demand one-tenth, the price would fall three-tenths; and if increased twotenths above the demand, the price would fall eight-tenths. Applying this economie law to present conditions, we find - 1. That there bas been too grcat a contraction of the currency as compared with the volume of business, and you agree with us. We ask to have the f quilibrium restored, and you say our request should be granted. 2. In examining the economie history of the world for the past twenty years, we iind that in all tliose farm products the price of which is fixed by the world's supply and the world's demand such as wheat, flour, corn, cotton, meat and wool- the export supply of the world has vastly increased, while the import demand has remained nearly stationary. In studying these conditions we find that the foreign demand for grain, meat and other farm products grown and raised In tlie northern states is confined to the united kingdom of Great Britain and the smaller states of western Europe. All other atates are self-supplied in this respect, and most of them have a surplus for exportation. We find that the population of these importing countries is nearly statiouary by reason of the emigration of their people to the newer exporting countries, thus still further increasing the surplus productions of tliO8e countries for export. The annual demand remaining about the same, and the annual supply constantly increasing, tlie price in foreign markets must necessarily fall and continue to fall, so long as peace prevails and the relativo proportion of supply todemand increases. 3. While these importing countries were wholly supplied by eastern Europe, northern África and North America, the demand and supply were falrly balancee], in comparison with the demand and supply of other products of industry, and the profits of farm capital and farm labor were fairly proportioned to the protits ot capital and labor in other imluu les. But when the Suez canal was opened to commerce in 1870, and the compound steam engine was applied to ocean navigation, and steel rails to railroad transportation, conditions were changed. Lines of ocean steamers, each carrying thousands of tons in a cargo, now connect by cheap and rapid freight transportation, every exporting country of tlie world with western Europe, and all are competlng for its market. Iiailroads in India, Australia, the United States, and Canada, have within the past twenty years opened vast areas to agriculture, and ii mucli greater area to grazing. In the United States and Canada over 200,000,000 bushels of wheat are now annually grown, and millions of cattle and sheep are raised where twenty years ugo the ludían and buflalo reigned supreme. India, which bufore the opening of the Soez canal exported but little wheat, poured 44,000,000 bushels through that thoroughtare into western Europe in 1887 - one-sixth of the entire imports of those countries. Wheat is transponed for 11} cents por bu-ihel from Bonibay to Loudon. Tliree hundred niilllon bushels of w':eat, and a proportionate amount of other breadstutld and pi o visions comprise tlie entire annual demand of these countri.'s, for which the whole agricultural world is compi ting. You sneer at our home markets, which now take more than 90 per cent. of all our products, and ask us to ignore it and depend upon the insulBcient demaud oí western Europe for our market. 4. When you sneer at the home market, I fear you forget your early rending in politica! economy, when Sniitli's "Wealth of Nations" was our text-book; and I would rocall to your reonlleOtioD the following, whieh you will Iind on pages 05 and iö, vol. 3, Lnndou edition of 1811: 'VVhatever, besides, tends to diminish in any country the number of artificers aiul manufacturero, tends to diminish the home market - the most important of all markets for the rude produce of land - and tliereby still further to discourage agriculture." We are anxious to preserve this "most important of all markets for the rude produce of land." Hut you would deprive usof this as worthless, and send us "rainbow chasing" to western Europe for a markot for the produce of our farm?, where 8 per cent. of the erops of the northern states, added to the export production of otlier countries, has been suffleient to glut the market and yield no prolit to the American farmer. You would have the artificer and the manufacturar located in a foreign land, wliere we would hare to compete with the cheap labor of the Hungarian and Hussian peasautry - with the ryat of India, whom a yard of cotton will clothe for a year, a pound of rice will feed for a day, and one rupee will pay for the labor of a week ; and you would have us compete with the cheap lands of South África, South America and Australia, in furuishing the table supples and the raw material for his craft. We would have the artificer and the manufacturer in our own country, where we could furiii8h them, free from this worldwlde competltion of cheap labor and cheap lands, not only their bread and meat and the raw material for their craft, but with all their table supplies that our farms will produce, Including fruit and vegetable?, and all other nonexportable products which we cannot supply to a foreign market. You ask us to aid the democratie party in removí ng all protection from American manufacturera, and let foreign goods in free. We are afraid to do this, lest the luöow of foreign merchandise shall so flood our markets as to close our iron mines and our faetones, and turn the millions of people now employed In them from belng the consumera of our products into our rinda in their production. And then - when our mines are abandoned, our furnaces banked, our factories closed, and our streams, unvexed by a turnlng wheel, run idly to the sea, and the 5,000,000 ployed i ii Mióse productiva Industries, wilh thoir families, ure driveu to tbc soil for support, to become ourcompetitors in producción, or drivuii to the alms-houscs iis panpere, or to the road as tramps, for the farmer to support - we greatly fear tliat the importen, havinr brokcn down all homo competltlon, will make our necessitk's determine ttie price of tlieir goode. [To bc coneluOed next week.J