The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1881-09-03

The protective system has relation to
agriculture which it has to few other in
terests. Agriculture is the great unpro-
tected industry. The growers of wheat
and beef, OF cotton and tobacco, get none
Of the fostering" they help pay for.
They are not shielded under the wing of
Projections" wherefore should they rem
der tribute Surely not for gratitude on
their escape What then is the reason +?
1t is this The very essence of protection
is the support of weak industries by a tax
on the lusty industries. Agriculture is a
lusty industry.
Agriculture is strong; it can walk with
out baby jumpers 1t needs no protec-
ton; it cannot be protected. Therefore, it
must defray the cost of protecting other
industries.
Is it not so? Manufactures, says the
Protectionist, cannot live in this country
without the tariff. We do not believe it.
1t is an assertion utterly without founda
ton But it is, nevertheless, the Protec-
tionist's position. Manufactures cannot
they are naturally improbable in this
country. I'VE could not sell our goods in
the competition of an open market. But
put duty on foreign importatiohs, so
that we can raise our prices twenty
per cent. higher than those Of the open
market, and we shall flourish bravely."
It is done Whence comes the twenty-five
per cent? Whence comes the bonus to
make good the constant loss on unprofit-
able business? 1t does not come from the
protected manufacturers, since to them it
is paid. 1t does not come from the for
eigner, since the duties collected from him
are turned over to the government. Whence
then, does it come? 1t comes from the
unprotected industries. What other source
is there? None. obviously: And if, as
the protectionists say, agriculture is the
sole naturally profitable business in the
United States. then it is agriculture which
toots the bills for the petty experiments OF
the enterprlsing manufacturer. But the
protectionist will tell you differently. He
says the tax in support of one industry is
levied upon all alike. The tax to support
the shoe mandatory is paid by all who
wear shoes. Let us see To simplify let
US suppose a community composed of a
shoemaker, a halter, and farmer, The
shoemaker and the halter are each pro
tected to the extent of fifty dollars. 1t
would be too big steal to make the far
mer nav this all alone
They will not do that. Avoiding the
appearance of unjust discrimination, they
will put tax on all consumers ct hats
and shoes: they win make all purchasers Of
hats and shoes contribute alike to the pro
lection fund. Very fair, this looks; bat
mark the singular result
The halter pays $50 year to foster the |
shoe industry, The shoemaker pays $50
year to foster the hat industry.
These two transactions balance each /
other. Neither the halter nor the shoe
maker are out of pocket penny.
But the farmer? He pays $50 year to
foster the hat industry, and $50 year to /
foster the shoe industry. Total 800. He
receives nothing. His industry is not ''fos-
tered"
There it is in a nutshell The protec
ton tax is laid on all alike. But when the
books are balanced the halter and the
shoemaker are in $50 each, and the far
mer is out 500. Who is it that pays for
protection?