The Farmer's Exports

The extent and value of the farmer's foreigii market is forcibly shown by the treasnry department figures of exporta for the calendar year 1890. The total exporte of agricultural producís amonnted to $828,772.022, or 74.33 per cent. of the total exporte. In 1889 agricultnral exporte were $599,524,256, or 73.64 per cent. of all exports. For the two years the average of manufactured exports was only 18i per cent. of the whole. The remaining exports, about 8 per cent., consisted of the products of forests. mines and fisheries. The details of the exports of farm produce are very striking as au exhibition of what the farmer's f oreign market means. Exports of animáis were $35,665,000, of which cattle were the principal item, reaching $33,297.000, against $25,673,000 in 1889. Exports of hogs were $970,000; horses, $808,000; mnles, $358,000; shcep, $199,000. One of the heaviest items of exports was breadstuffs, the totals reaching$141,602,000. The principal items are as follows: Corn, f37,603,000; wheat, $42,348,000; wheat flonr, $52,709,000; oats, $4,141,000; rye, $1,025,000; cornmeal, $917,000; oatmeal, $579,000; barley, $463,000. JSxports of raw cotton were the heaviest single item reported, reaching $254,275,000, or about 40 per cent. of all agricnltoral exports, and about 30 per cent. of all exports of every kind. Exports of cotton in 1889 were still larger, being $266,649,000. Provisions exported last year show a very large iucrease. The figures for three years are as follows: The provisions exported in 1890 were the following: Beef producís- Canned beef, $8,610,000; fresh, $13,837.000: salted or pickled, $6,039,000; tallow, $5,738,000. Hog producto - Bacon, $37,855,000; hams, 18,495,000; pork, fresh and pickled, $4,704,000. Dairy producís- Butter, 3,238,000; cheese, $8,130,000. Miscellaneous agricultural producís were exported as follows: Bones, hoofs, horns, eic., $400,000; fruits, $2,845,000; hay, $577,000; hides and skins, $1,488,000; hops, $3,172,000; seeds, $2,945,000; leaf tobáceo, $21,155,000: vegetables, $1,370,000. Exporta of manufactures made from agricultura! producís were as follows: Cotton goods, $11,113,000; leather and manufactures of leaiher, $12,275.000; lard oil, $646,000; cottonseed oil, $5,400,XK); oilcake, $7,762,000; manufactured tobáceo, $4,018,000. When our farmers consider ihe large aggregate of these figures they will %e slow to indorse the contemptuous expressions which Ihe protectionists indulge in when they speak of the foreign market. They will agree that this foreign market is much too valuable to them to be made a derision and jest by the high tariff crowd. They will rexaember that if it were not for this same foreign market all their vast surplus producís would have to fiad sale at home in a glutted market at reduced prices. It is this njuch maligned foreign market which keeps up the prices of farm produc at home; for just so soon as the protected home market refuses to bny our farm produce the foreigner steps in, outbids the domestic buyer, carries away our produce to Europe and thus buoys up prices in the home market. In view cf the above figures, which demónstrate so clearly the ability of onr farmers to sell their producís in the world's market, it is curious to recall certain expressions of McKinley less than a year ago. In his report accompanying the tariff bül, he said: "The 'world's market,' to which the advocates of tariff fcr revenue only invite the farmers of this country, is today crowded with the products of the cheapest human labr the earth affords. All over the Old World there is a rush of their surplus to that market, and it is to such a contest as this that free trade wouid allure American agricnlture." The answer to all this rot is that our farmers do compete and have competed for years in the world's markets with the poorly paid labor of Europe, and the cheap labor of Egy-t and India. Notwiths' rding this well known f act, and notwithtanding the large figures of exporta alroly quoted, McKinley had the silliness vo speak in the same report of "foreign apricnliural products crowding our home market." In order to save us from that imaginar y flood he said that his commitiee "recommended an increase of rates upon agriculiural products." The treasusy figures show another important fact, the enormous proportion of our agricultural exports taken by England. Let the farmer consifler these figures: ToW exports of cattle, $33,297,000, of which England took $51,364,000; canned beef, $8,610,000, to England, $6,356,000; fresh beef, $13,837,000, to England, $13,654,000; salted beef, $6,125,000, to England, $3,952,000; tallow, $5,738,000, to England, $2,643,000; bacon, $37,855,000, to England, $30,966,000; hams, $8,495,000, to Englaad, $8,857,000; lard, 36.062,000, to England, 000; b'utter, f3,228,000, to England, $1,355,000; créese, $8,130,000, to England, $7,080,00". Our exporte of breadstufts were also pr ncipally taken by England. The leading items were: Corn, $37,603,000, to EugUnd, $19,474,000; wheat, $43,348,000, to England, $28.810,000; flour, $52,709,0d0, to England, $32,356,000. Exports of raw cotton amouated to $254,000,000, (.f which England took $148,000,000. Hoi, to the value of $2,172,000 wera exported, of which all except about $65,000 went to England. Of $21,155,000 of leaf tobáceo England took $6,191,000. The farmer will see at a glance that England is hi principal foreigii market. Yet it is Er-landabovjnll that our high protectionis. . taire a delight in trymg to cripple by t„riff legislation. When English trade is objtructed or when an J ■ glish factory doses its doors by reasort of oiir McKinleyism the high tariff organs print the news with ül conceal ' glee, claiming that "England"s loss isc'T gam." When it is considered that we sell England every year about $200,000,000 worth of goods over and above what we buy from her, is it not a piece of very bad manners to prevent England from selling to us, and to rejoice when we sneceed in injnring her trade? While we are moving heaven and earth to get reciprocity with Brazal, with a popnlation of only about 12,000,000, would itnot be a good th.ng to accept the reciprocity freely accorded to us for the past fifty years by England, which now has a population of about 38,000,000?