Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-07-06
OPPRESSIVE PROTECTION.
How the High Tariff system Damage
Agricultural Implements


The following letter, though written
several months ago, is just as pertinent
now as then. b. D. Buford. of Rock
Island, the writer, is the head of one of the
largest plow 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 manu-
facturers of agricultural implements. l.
will be found interesting reading to all
classes of readers-farmers mechanics.
laborers, and professional men:
Rock ISLAND, ILL, Feb. IA, 1888.
George G. Preston, Esq, DdreRp0rt. la.
Yours of the 18th received. As / have
about as much time now as ever. | will
make brief reply to your inquiry as to
how free trade would affect pillow facto-
ries. 1t is charitable to suppose that the
party in Moline who wrote that ''free
trade would wipe from the land every
pillow factory" is not a pillow manufac-
turer, for they are better informed. The
pillow factories, and in fact the manufac-
turers of all kinds of implements. ship
abroad 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 the raw material used.
Take our factory for example. We
have now in transit to Leeds, England
a shipment of pillow bottoms CONSIGNED to
manufacturer Of steam plOwS. We
have also lot of chilled plOws and cult
vatOrs in transit via New York for Mex
leo and South America, and we sell our
implements to Australia and New Zea-
land. Now, upon all these goods we have
paid protective duties on the raw materials
III them, and besides the freight in New
Ork we have to compete with manufacture
erS of other countries who are not
handicapped with protective duties. We
also sell large quantities of our plOws to
Manitoba, ana, it so happens, to pillow
manufactures of Canada, who runs a
/ branch house at Winnipeg, and who also
prefers our goods for their superior quail
Z ~, though he has to pay on them a duty
of 30 per cent. to the Canada tariff col
| lectOr, 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 Indirect
ly. Now as to home trade. Our custO-
mers and those who support US entirely
are farmers. They are our only prep and
support and must be our friends. What
helps them helps us, and what hurts them
hurts us. 1t is TO our interest that every
thing 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 pOssi-
bic price for 1t. Now. how does the tariff
affect them? We have shown
that we are forced to sell
them and everybody our blows
and cultivators at an advanced price by
reason of our having to- pay higher prices
for raw material out Of which they are
made, which is caused by protective
duties on these materials. They pay an
average of about 30 per cent increased
price on everything they use and every
thing they wear, even when these things
are staples such as trace-chains. all kinds
OF hardware and wood, screens, blankets,
clothing, hats and caps. and boots and
shoes. When these same farmers come to
sell their oats, corn and wheat, their
hogs, cattle and sheep, do these protected
manufacturers pay these farmers
any more for their produce than
the markets of the world quote
them at? They do not. The only
pretense protected menOpOlies have for
making the farmers pay the enormous
tribute is, that they consume the farmers
produce and pay them a far better price
than the farmers would otherwise get. To
show the utter fallacy of this argument |
will mention the tact that the protected
industries of this country employ less
plOyed in manufacturing: that the en-
ployes of protected industries do not con-
stitute per cent. of the population of the
country, including and counting their
families. The farmers can sell the pro-
duce and meat that these per cent.
would consume anywhere out of this
country at as good price or, if they had
to burn it, or even One-tenth of their pro-
duce, they would be better off, if by so do
ing they could buy what they required at
about half price, or even One-quarter less.
Congress has no right to tax one sec
ton of the country to support another. If
the farmers can raise more than they can
sell, they have to hold it or sell it for fuel.
If the crop does not bring enough to pay
the cost of raising, Congress never comes
to the aid of the farmer with a subsidy
Those who run protected industries are
constantly at strife with their operatives.
and the latter are demanding some por-
ton Of the "bOnuses" granted them. but
rarely get 1t, except temporarily. They
are generally in a destitute condition.
This matter of protection has so grown
and fattened off the customers, that
the duties are demanded as
mOnOpOlists. The farmers are a great
source of wealth to this country. They
should see that they are no longer robbed
as they have been. If they choose to pay
Pennsylvania or Massachusetts largely
increased prices for their protected goods
and they have to pay for their goods lust
as if they imported them J, let them under
stand that they pay those extra prices
simply as a charity and not to help them
selves. If the farmers would vote against
every protectiOnist, no matter what his
politics, they would soon see their rights
recognized. With my best wishes for the
Free Trade League, remain, yours truly,
X. ID. BUFORD.