The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1883-07-20
VOL. XIV.-NEw SERIES.
OPPRESSIVE PROTECTION.
Hoao the High Tariff System Damages
Agricultural Implements.

Aho ioho"ine, ietter, th"uSu Writttu SeS-
eral months ago, is just as pertinent now as
then. B. D. Buford of Rock Island, the
writer is tue head Of one OF the largest
plough factories in the world. The letter is
an answer to an inquiry by the Davenport
Free Trade League as to how free trade
would affect American manufacturers of
agricultural implements. 1t will be found
interesting reading to all classes of readers
farmers, merchants, mechanics, laborers
and professional men:
Rock ISLAND, ILL, Feb. IL, 1888.
George G. Preston, Esq, Davenport, Iopa:
Yours of the 18th recsived. As have
about as much time now as ever, 4 vi IlrsRAIas
brief reply to your inquiry as to how fee,
trade would affect plough factories. IL is
charitable to suppose that the party in Mo-
line who wrote that "free trade would wipe
from the land every plough factory" is not
plough manufacturer, for they are better
Informed. The plough factories, and in fact
the manufacturers of all kinds Of implements,
ship abroad in value 500 for every dollars
worth that is imported. They receive no
protection and desire none. But everything
they export has cost them an extra price to
manufacture by reason of the high tariff
on tho raw material used.
Take our factory for example. We have
now in transit to Leeds, England, siip>
mont of plough bottoms consigned to
manufacturer of steam ploughs. We-have
also lot of chilled ploughs and cultivators
in transit via New York for Mexico and
South America, and we sell implements to
Australia and New Zealand. Now upon all
these goods We have paid protective duties
the freight in New York we have to COM
plete with manufacturers of other countries
who are not handicapped with protective
duties We also sell large quantities Of our
ploughs to Manitoba, and, it SO happens, to
plough manufacturer of Canada, who runs
branch house at Winnipeg, and who also
prefers our goods for their superior quail
ity, though he has to pay on them duty
of 80 per cent. to the Canada tariff colec.
tor. We thank our friends for this (by
their abolishing reciprocity with Canada)
think have shown above that tariff
hurts us as exporters and that we get no
benefit from it either directly or indirectly.
Now as to home trade. Our customers
and those who support us entirely are far
mcrs. They arc our only prop aud sup
port and must be our friends. What helps
them helps US, and what hurts them hurts
US. 1t is to our interest that everything
they buy they should get at the lowest price,
and that everything they have to sell they
should get to market at the lowest rate and
get the highest possible price for it. Now
how does the tariff affect them We have
shown that We are forced to sell them and
verybody our ploughs and cultivators at
an advanced price, by reason of our having
topay higher prices for the raw material out
of which they arc made, which is caused by
protective duties Oh these materials. They
pay an average Of about so per cent. in.
creased price on everything they use and
everything they wear, even when these
things are staples, such as trace chains all
kinds Of hardware and wood screens blan-
kets, clothing, hats and caps, boots aud
shoes. When these same farmers come to
sell their oats, corn, wheat. their hogs, cattle
and sheep, do theseprotected manufacturers
pay these farmers any more for their pro.
ducc than the markets Of the world quote
them at? They do not. The only pretense
protected monopolies have for making the
farmers pay this enormous tribute Is, that
they consume the farmers produce and pay
ahem far better price than the farmers
would otherwise get. To show the utter
fallacy Of this argument I will mention the
fact that the protected industries Of this
country employ less than z per cent. of the
Sopui.ton employed in manufacturing that
the employees of protected industries do
not constitute per cent Of the population
ofthe country, including and counting their
families. The farmer can sell the produce
and meat that these 2 per cent. would con-
sumo anywhere out Of this country at as
good price or, il they had to burn it, or
even one-tcnth Of their produce, they
would be letter off, if by SO doing they
could buy what they required at about half
price, or even one-quarter less.
Congress has no right to tax one section