Daily Republican., 1882-09-02
How q Tariff for Revenue Only
Affects our Farmers.

tregal part Of q nation, and compre-
hends the interests Of the individual.
equally with the masses. The true
IpOlitician will never seek to secure leg
islation that will tend TO the advantage
of one class at the expense of another.
In all the processes Of Tariff manipula-
ton, 1t Is necessary to remember that
the farmer has the same inherent right
to protection as the manufacturer or
mechanic, nothing can be more false
than the declaration "that the farmer
neither receives nor seeks protection.
1t is as useless as base, to assert that
there Is no relative connection between
these branches Of labor. At the time
that slave labor existed In the South, 1t
was more advantageous 10 the slave
holder, 20 exchange his cotton for the
cheaper shoddy material produced from
foreign looms, but there Is no such class
to awaken spirit of contention, under
protection, and the farmer has the same
claim and reason for demanding that
be shall receive consideration as any
other branch of industry.
If there was no other ground upon
which he could rest his claim, the dis
IPnAAby pOU"OOh bhO oLAOuhb Va PhOAuSlo
from manufactures and agriculture
would be sufficient, inasmuch as it re-
veaTs the fact, that the latter has the
greater sum invested. Manufactures
In 1880 produced Ave billions of dollars,
agriculture nine billions, or an excess
of eighty per cent. At the same time
we should not lose sight of the fact
that the farmer is both producer and
consumer.
In order to carry on the vast work In
volved, In the thousands If millions in
vested in lands, he must use machinery
to gather his harvest, thus releasing to
manufacturers surplus labor that would
be absolutely necessary were 1t not for
suoh appliances. For this he pays the
difference between pauper and ade.
quately compensated labor. To leave
this class without protection, would be
an act of consumate injustice, and yet
the freq trader sayF, 'that this Is a class
who neither receives nor seeks protec-
tion."
1t is now we'll understood that tn
Idea of foreign market for products
ouris delusion. X everv farmer in our
land, was equally near the seabOard,
and possessed the same facilities for
expectation, the situation would be
materially changed; even then our
farming communities have learned,
that there is no dependence to he put
In European Markets, and that it is
useless TO foster the hope that there
ever will be steady demand for their
surplus supplies. The idea of building
up demand for grain, resting upon
the sufferings of humanity whether
from famine, pestilence or war, pos
sesses no element of charity to recon-
mend 1t to legislative enactments.
What the farmer wants is a market
near his own doore, and this only can
be secured by fostering successful
manufactures, in every part of the
States. Our farmers are intelligent
readers, and have long since reached
the ability to count the cost of gather
ing crop and the expense of shipping
by rail or canal, to understand the diff
ference in receipts after expenses have
been paid, etc., and he that reads knows
that during the recent period of PROS
perity the home market has consumed
ninety two per cent. Of all the farm
products.
The time is too recent for the farmer
to forget the relative difference between
tariff for revenue and tariff for protec-
tion. He cannot forget that his corn
was used for fuel, because he had neither
home or foreign market during the pc.
riod of "tariff for revenue only" The
cry has been, encourage imports and
you expedite exports" "Buy English
manufactures, and he will buy your
grain !" but has this ever been realized ?
For ten years from 1850 to 1860 the diff |
ference between imports and exports
was 1898, 579, 625 in favor of imports, and |
to meet these, vast sums Of our Ameri-
can gold we're sent, and not our cereals
or manufactures to Europe.
During this decade California pro-
duced one billion one hundred million
dollars in gold, anG yet the nation was
financially wrecked. On the other hand
during the ten years from 1860 to 1870
the difference between imports and ex.
ports was $737, ,328,4S4 in favor Of ex-
ports. These are facts that should |
cause the former to watch with deep |
interest the exercise of his suffrage, that
this subject of TARIFFS conided to the
party that has made it one of its funda-
mental principles. The business inter
ests of the American farmer are as
closely welded to the Republican party
as are those of the manufacturer and
lakOrinR man.