Tama County Republican. (Toledo, Tama County, Iowa) 1867-1872, 1871-06-15
The Farmer and the Tariff.

The Farmer and the Tariff.
We find the following paragraph
from the recent speech of Congress
man Marshall, on protection, going
the rounds of the free trade press:
"I'he farmer starting to his work
has shoe on his horse with nails
taxed 67 per cent, driven l'y ham
mer taxed 81 per cent, cuts a stick
with knife taxed 30 per cent; hitch
cs his horse to plow taxed 80 per
cent. with chains taxed 80 per cent.
He retnrnes to his home at night
and lays his wearicd linlbs on sheet
taxed So per cent, and covers him
self with blanket that has paid $50
per cent. He rises in the morning,
puts on his humble flannel shirt taxed
so per cent, his coat taxed so per
cent, and his hat 20 per cent; opens
family worship by chapter from his
Bible taxed 50 per cent, and kncels
to his God on an humble carpet
taxed $50 per cent. He sits down
to his plain meal from a plate taxed
40 per cent, with knife and fork 35
per cent, drinks his cup of coffee
txaed AZ per cent, or tea 7s per cent,
with sugar taxed 20 per cent, se..
sons his food with salt taxed at i00
per cent, pepper 297 per cent, or
spice $40 per cent. lie looks around
upon his wife and children all taxed
in the same way, and then thanks
his stars that he lives in the trcest
and best Government under heaven
This Is very plausibly put; but as
a matter o. tact it is f..tly false. It
assumes as a self evident proposition
| the very reverse of what has been
proven by actual test. Marshall's
assumption is that the tariff imposed
tor protection adds just that much 20
the price the consumer has to pay
for the articles taxed, whereas the
unvarying history IS that prctec-
tive tariff lessons the cost Of living.
Take for example cotton. In 1917
the first protective tariff of this cour-
try was adopted. Prior!to that time
cotton cloth had been admitted duty
free, and the jobbing pr,ce was from
forty to fifty cents per yard. After
the tariff had been imposed it began
gradually the decline, until in 1882
sheeting had gone down to from SIX
to seven per cent a yard, at which
price the tax amounted to about one
hundred per cent So much tor
Marshall'S farmer returning home at
to '.lay his weary limbs on 4 sheet
taxed 5S per cent
AS another illustration showing
that what the free traders calls 'the
burden of taxation" is really relief
from the burden of impoverishing
dependence upon foreign monopo
w, take the farmers AK. Until 1880,
we had absolute free trade in axes.
Up to that time we PAID England
from SIS to SIG per dozen Tor them,
but with the adoption OF the protec-
tive policy the price began to tall,
and continued to by steady gradua-
tions until 1e49, a better American
article could bought for SIS dozen.
Again the free trade price OF hoes
was from 81 to s. per dozen, but
under protection hoes, as we'll as
axes, were cheapened 100 per cent.
We might 60 on with the entire
list Of manufactured articles used by
the farmer, showing substantially the
same result in reg rd to them all;
but these examples are abundant for
the purpose OF exposing the utter
talsity of the free trade position.
| The whole argument of Marshall
and his coadiutors is based on the
false postulate we have exposed
The fact is that the tax imposed for
protection is paid by the foreign man
ufacturer, except such portion of it
as he may be able to get ont Of the
| importer.
Tie actual reduction in the cost of
living under the protective system
is not only an incontestable fact, but
one that admits of ready explana-
ton. Protection stimulates compe-
tition, and competition is the great
safeguard of the consumer against
the exhorbitance of the manutactur.
err.
J. Stuart Mill goes into the phil
osophy Of the fact and truth we have
just stated. Mr. Mill IS claimed by
the free traders not only Of his own
native England but of this country as
the ab!est political economist of the
period. Although stoutly maintain
ing the general doctrine OF free trade
he has the candor to say: "a coun-
try gets its imports cheaper, the less
the extent and intensity of its own
demand for them. The market is
cheapest to those whose demand is
small" We have shown that such
has proved the case in the United
States. The tariff history of Great
Britain proved the same for that
country. We have before us table
showing the exact facts in the case
/ OF bar iron from 1882 to 1913, also
of white lead from 1s09-to 1916, and
in both cases the tariff decreased,
instead of increased, the price.
In view Of all this every intelligent
farmer must be convinced that self
interest, rs well as consideration tor
the general welfare, demand, that he
| should support the prot, ctiye svs-