The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1870-04-16
MiSrellanp.
THE TARIFF AND THE FAR.
MERS.
speech Of Hon. II. &. Cook.

A few weeks ago the west was encouraged by
avote in congress on the tariff question that look.
ed as if there was an honest disposition manifest
ing itself there to remove some of the more
grievous burdens under which the agricultural
interests of the west are now SO severely suffer-
ing. But this vote occurred before the April
elections. Since then the disguise the monopo-
lists had put on for few weeks has been uncere.
moniousiy laid aside; and the votes in the House
on Thursday and Friday of last week show that
the radical party intend TO defeat all attempts
to lessen the burdens of the people, and
especially of the farming interests, in order to
enrich the select aristocracy of the iron masters,
sugar refners, &c, of the east.
How heavily and unjustly the present tariff
discriminates against the farmer is admirably
shown up in a speech delivered in congress on
the Esd ult. by the Hon. B. G. Cook, the radical
member from this district. We copy only
portion of the speech, referring more directly to
the farming interests, although the other por-
tions in relation to the salt and lumber tariff,
show how, in regard to these articles, the farmers
are still further and most previously plundered.
HowMr Cook, after making such speech, and
after all he has here ably contended for has
been repudiated by his own party, as " party,
can still conscientiously act with the radical
party and call himself Republican, is mys-
terry. There is no way in which he can vindicate
his consistency save by coming out boldly and
denouncing the body of the radical party i'll
gress as corrupt ring, owned and controlled ia
the interests of the sugar iron, salt, and lumber
monopolists.
believe that the best interest of the country
demands a large reduction of the amount of tax
alton. 1t is now our duty to do again what was
done with such beneficial results in the Thirty
Ninth Congress, to reduce taxation: and while
perhaps there will be little or no difference of
opinion upon this proposition, I imagine that
there will be a great deal more difficulty in
arriving at an agreement upon the question what
taxes shall be removed or reduced Upon this
question state certain propositions which seem
to me incontrovertible:
First, If there be any large interest in the
country, the prosperity OF which would be the
prosperity of the country itself, which has been
burdened more heavily than any other, that in
terest should be relieved.
Second, Taxes which hinder and lessen pro.
duction should. as far us possible, be removed.
| come from IA state whose great interest is
agriculture, and it seems to ME susceptible of the
clearest demonstration that the agricultural in
terest- has been more heavily burdened by the
present tariff than any other, and that IL has de-
rived from it the smallest compensation. If this
is SO we have before us the fact that the leading
producing interest of the country, the annual
value of whose product is about $500, 100000 is
subject to burdens greatly disproportonate to
those borne 10y other interests Let us examine
this question. 1t is indisputable fact, which
have myself verified by my own observation,
that the price of grain in Chicago to-day is fixed
by the price in Liverpool yesterday. Buyers
look not TO the cost of produce here, but to the
latest despatch by the Atlantic cable when
their bids are made; and the price of wheat, the
great agricultural staple, is controlled by the
price in European markets. The price of the
surplus grain Of the country regulates the price
of the whole crop. 1t is impossible that there
should be higher price paid here than is paid
abroad if we must sell portion of our crop in
the foreign market Of course no amount of
grain will ever 90 abroad at all while the price
Is better or as good at home
IT, therefore, we have surplus which we must
sell abroad, no matter how small that surplus is,
the price in the forei On market regulates the
price at home. Livery man who will look at
the prices paid for grain in Chicago for instance,
for the past year, will see that the price in Chi
cago on any given day has been regulated by the
price in Liverpool or London of the day before,
ceeded for few days or hours in setting aside
the laws of trade by creating corner upon any
given article. We have been told many times
i'll this debate tina. this state of things will be
remedied by the tariff, which will make home
market Tor our produce. | propose to discuss
that question presently, but the point which l
wish ust here to present plainly is this that
wheat grown in this country is grown under
conditions of absolute free trade so tar as that ar.
tice is consumed: this is, the farmer gets no
more for his wheat than he would if there was
absolutely no tariff We hear much said abont
competing with the pauper labor of Europe
insist that while the mechanic, the artisan and
the miner may be protected 10y the tariff. the
farmer does absolutely grow his grain in compe-
tition with the pauper labor of Europe. In
dealing fairly with this question we must con-
slider this TACT and give it the prominence that it
deserves.
Ana while the farmer raises his grain thus
wholly without protection, and in competition
with the cheap labor of Europe, how is the cost
Of raising grain affected by tina tariff or in 9th.
er words, if the tariff does not help him. does it
harm him !! Does " make it more expensive and
difficult tor the farmer to meet the competition
which he must meet III the markets OF the world !.
Let us examine this question II moment. In tn,
first place the price Of every implement Of his
industry is increased, first, by the tariff second
by the depreciation Of the currency. All the NJ.
ticles which he does not himself produce, but
which are consumed in his family are enhanced
price by the two causes or ia other words he
sells without protection, and upon gold basis II.
buys protected articles for price fixed upon n
currency basis. The cost OF that which he buys