The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1884-12-05

peated. Looking at the subject as farmers we
know that the iron man cares nothing for u.s.
The cheaper. our produce is sold the better for
him; What farmers want is to get what they
high as possible high protective tariff excludes
the products of England. for instance and She
retaliates by encouraging the production Of wheat
can do no better IL we had free trade she would
be glad to take our wheat IN exchange for goods.
protection in return.
A. T. snsel teAa.u ia protective tariff as more
oppressive to the farmer than to other classes,
and he could not see where it benefited the labor
err.
James Lee thought protective tariff of benefit
to farmers by protecting the manufacturer
increass the price of wages and the aborer is
more able to buy wheat that the farmer pr oduces.
Prices are EXCHANGED and the farmer is benefited
by them. Mr.. Lee thought the masses instead of
the few were benefited by high tariff.
trade would be Beneficial to the farming in ifee
eSts. HH --s-.". ..
population more than one-thrd ia directly de-
pendent on agriculture;a large proportion of the
wealth of the country is invested In lands and
Therefore farming is an important interest
and we have a right to consider the question
He did not pretend TO say that the interest of
farmers ought to control everything else, but it
ought to be considered.
Iu discussing the question we ought to have
some self-evident propositions to begin with
One proposition, said he, which seems to me
automatic, Is that al protection is based upon in
equality. Ii protection could be 80 adjusted as
toapply to all In precisely equal degree, 1t would
at that moment cease to protect.
Another self evident proposition is. that when
ever a country produces more of given article
than it can consume then the producers Of that
article cannot be protected by any tariff duty
upon imports
This is true in the absence of corners or gamb-
ling If all the wheat and corn raised in this
country were under the control of one man
tariff of one dollar bushel on wheat and fifty
power that he could we'll afford not only to pay
the interest on the national debt put In addition
years for the purpose of keeping in power the
party that would grant him such favor. In view
G 5ns aaat n be o sf of ss
dozen firms, it doesn't seem impossible that here
in lies the secret of the abundance of money
available for campaign purposes.
third ssli-evident proposition. take it, is that
whenever country produces more of a given
article than 1t consume the price of that arti
Gle is regulated by the price which the surplus
will bring in the markets of the world.
we have then. at least these three axioms. and
the conclusion of which contradicts them.
Judge Waters then read from protectionist
authority table of articles, showing the rate of
wages of labor in Belgium, Denmark Germany,
France, Italy. Great Britain and the United
wages paid in the United States are due to our
protective tariff, and said that whatever else such
fish the fact sought in this instance, for the rea
son that of all the counties named England is the
only one which does not have high tariff on i'm
ports, and the table shows that wages In England
are higher than IN any of the countries named
except the United States.
Judge Waters argued that the prosperity of
the United States during the last 20 years was
not on account of our high protective tariff but
because of several phen menally productive sea-
sons which were accompanied by an extraordi-
nary foreign demand which consumed our sur
plus products. In fact, during the past 20 years
we have prospered greatly and wages have been
correspondingly high. but there is no more logi-
cal reason for attrbuting our high wages to our
high protective tariff than there is for attrbuting
our favorable seasons to the same cause.
But we hear great deal said about the inciden-
prosperous SYSTEM Of manufacturer Now am
not disposed t, underrate thCse advantages but
wheatis 80 cents a bushel-when we are compel-
ed to compete with the pauper labor of the world,
those aincidentai advantages" don't seem to us
to be enormously large.
AS farmer talking to farmers. and discussing
this question solely from farmers standpoint,
we look across to Great Britain we see that she
consumes vastly more farm products than she
produces while she manufactures vastly more
than she can consume, so that in Great
farmer at the expense of the manufaoturer-bu
in Great Britain they have free trade. In this
country the conditions are reversed, our agricul-
tural products are greatly In excess of our power
TO consume them and duties on imports protect
manufacturers at the expense of the farmers
old story Of You lake the buzzsrd and Iii take
the turkey, or else I'll take the turkey and you
take the Guardian the farmer gets the bug
VIM. Munnikhuysen said that the maxim for
good government is, the greatest good to the
verse is the case. The few are protected at the
expense of the many. He favored a tariff for
revenue, but could not see how protective tariff
helps farmers.
r. Jno. Rogers had always supposed a protective
tariff proper, and IL free trade means destruction
of our manufacturers he would think it wrong.
X. L.. Wilson said that In o we'll ordered g overn-
ment the neress of the few should give way
tariff benefits a few at the expense of the many.
That is the reason grain is low. Few vessels are
nn1in hnr m Fab NUM- u nilr t,nnn nf
the high tariff on articles of foreign manufac-
W. W. Preston thought farmers were not bene-
fitted by the tariff because their surplus produce
is sold abroad. while they have to pay higher
price for imported articles. A tariff for revenue
would be much more beneficial than high pro-
J. P. Silver thought that If high tariff protects
manufacturers and gives labor employment, 1t s
benefit to the farmer who has these laborers to
feed. The point Is to have tariff that will pro-
tect and foster home manufactures but not 30
high as to create monopolies. The farmer s the
life.blood of the nation. If he produced nothing
business would entirely collapse. The farmer
may not be as much benefited as the manufac-
turer by protective tariff but he ia benefited
by getting higher rI prizes rs,ss for his grain;
Benz Silver, sr.. said he was in favor of reaso-
nable tariff that would encourage certain strug-
now not needed and it could be reduced and
equalized 80 as to be beneficial and not oppres-
sive.
B. H. Silver was in favor of low tariff. A
tariff is of no benefit at all TO the farmers. be-
cause they produce more than 10 consumed In this
country, and the price is regulated according to
the markets of Europe. Therefore, II we can get
our goods cheaper in Europe we should be allow.
s. B. Silver favored a reasonable tariff, but the
tariff on great many things don't protect Oh
no more for his grain by reason of the tariff, but
is Obliged to pay more for what he buys.
Farmers Rights He could not see in what way
the farmer interest 10 bound up in any tariff al
all. Anything that benefits farmers will benef
" "a fori ID no. Had prof aaff xa
and yet there are duties on hundreds of articles
not manufactured, mined or found In the United
cents pound on horse shoes and nails ia not nro
lection TO the farmer but to the iron man. Thirty
years ago we had Ave or six iron furnaces, Ave o.
Now about all Of our manufactures are confined
to one small tannery. All the rest have been
protected" out of existence by the high tariff
II is not even necessary. to have q tariff 70
revenue. We have all the machinery for col
ss s On naVe
pay to support the government they might b.
more careful to get honest men to expend thei
manufacturer, but he could see no reason VIII
farmer rs should be taxed more than their shar
for the benefit of manufacturers. .i5
David e. Wilson couldn't see what good pro
tective tariff is to farmers, IL was not intende'
M 9 0ny tr he
III 10 q benefit not only the manufacturer but ais
to the farmer He favored reasonable but no
Vim. H. Bayless regarded protection as wron
in principle. producing an unnatural and unhea
farmsr ' Why do we have protectionS Is It n.
toencourage the manufacture OF particular artis
les for the benefit Of the country When that
accomplished why should we keep on protectin
them? Protection ought to be abolished grad
ually so as not to disturb or uusettle business
was opposed to taxation by the general govern
ment. s. - F-w ft
differed in opinion with mostof he members
club. He would like to impress this upon then