The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1886-10-30
The Tariff and the Farmer.
written for the Democratic Advocated

Written for the Democratic Adyocate.l
One occasionally hears farmer advocating
the policy of protection. There IS a vague
idea in the minds of some farmers, fostered
bv the sophistry and partisan appeals of self
interested politicians, who have grown rich
by the opportunities afforded by the polIcy OF
protection, that this policy is especially favor
able to farmers, aud that it enables them 10
make more money, and to live more COM
fortably than would be possible under sys-
fem of free trade Now there was never
greater delusion than this; and it seems to US
that, if farmers who entertain this idea could
but for five minutes forget that they are he
publicans, they might be undeceived.
How does protection benefit the farmer!
Is it any benefit to him that he pays forty per
cent. more for his clothes, his shoes, his hats,
his household furniture, his kitchen utensils
and his farm implements than he would be
reouired to nav in the absence of protection!
What pro6t is there to him in thisY ~.
Init saws some one, "protection also IN
creases the price of farm products, and there
is the benefit which it confers upon the farm
err We'll, now, let us see whetherlt does tnls
We hardly suppose that there are any iar-
mers in Carroll county so ignorant as 70 lm
agine that the price of their grain is anectee
directly by the existence OF a protective arm
There is, for instance, no tariff ON wheat
advancing its price forty per cent, as there is
on manufactured wooden and cotton goods;
and, even if there were, what good would II
do? Farm products are not imported INTO
This country, but exported. There is more
wheat raised in this country than can be con-
sumed here, and the same is true OF corn, rye,
barley, fruit, beef, and almost all other pro
ducts of the farm. What the farmer wants IS
not protective tariff on the products OF MS
soil. but q good market, both foreign and
Il. of.xr orftf
secure to him. Suppose Congress were TO
impose duty of forty or fifty per cent. on
wheat. What an immense joke that would
bel We do not suppose that any farmer
reading this would imagine for moment that
nv such legislation the price OF wheat conld
be increased one cent, for there is not bushel
of wheat now imported into this country, but
there are millions of bushels waiting 10 De
shipped to foreign markets.
Let the farmer, then, get the idea wen into
his mind that, whatever else protection may
do. it does not directly increase the value OF
the products of his industry. While the iron
manufacturer, the tanner, the cotton weaver,
etc. are protected against foreign competl-
ton. there is no protection on the farmer
wheat, and corn, and potatoes, ana there
neuer can be.
But if the tariff does not directly increase
the nrice of the products of the soil, does 1t
perhaps do so iadirectly7 This is what Is
claimed by the advocates of protection. 1t is
admitted, indeed, that in large measure 1t
destroys the foreign market for American
grain. England, France and other countries
of the old world retaliate upon US for the
duties which we impose upon their mannfac-
tured goods by refusing to import our grain.
They buy their wheat in those countries in
which they sell the greater part of their man
ufactured goods. India and Egypt are now
supplying England with the wheat which the
United States used to furnish in anti-protec-
ton times. Thus the foreign market for
American grain is not improved, but IN a
great measure destroyed, by the policy of pro-
lection.
But while this is admitted, tbs claimed that
the home market is greatly improved, Pro-
lection, it is said. improves the market for
farm products by encouraging manufactures
and creating manufacturing populations. a
manufacturing town in the midst of fertile
section of country is benefit to the country,
as it affords a ready market for agricultural
produce In this way, it is maintained, pro-
lection blesses the farmer and secures his
prosperity.
And yet, after having enjoyed twenty years
of protection, the farmers DECLARE with one
voice that they are not in a prosperous con-
dition. Farming, they say, does not pay any
longer as it once did. There was time,
within the recollection of many living farmers,
when man, if he had but few hundred dol
lars, could buy a farm and pay for it; now a
man must have in hand at least two-thirds OF
the purchase money, and even then he is in
danger of failing. 1t would seem, then, that
the policy of protection has not resulted to
the advantage of agricultural industry.
The theory of creating profitable home
markets for agricultural produce by the arti-
fetal stimulation of manufacturing industry is
plausible but fallacious. For, in the first
place, the manufacturing populations are not
scattered throughout the country, so as to
afford convenient markets to the agrlculturist;
but, on the contrary, in consequence of the
competition occasioned by protection, the
tendency of manufacturing activity has been
to concentrate in a few great centres, and
Withdraw all enterprise from the country.
The farmer, therefore, instead OF hndlng Q
convenient home market for his produce, is
compelled to transport it through great dis.
tances to the manufacturing populations, and
the railroads get the lion's share OF the profits
of agriculture.
But, in the second place, the manufacturing
populations created by the policy of protection
do not form a safe or profitable market for
the farmer. For these populations, as we
have already seen, are not generally in pros.
porous condition, and are not, therefore, good
BUYERS We have seen that protection does
not benefit the laboripg classes, but that, on
| the contrary, these classes are almost in a
chronic state ofpanperism. But community
of paupers does not afford profitable market
for anybody. The low wages and the frequent
disturbances and suspensions of industry are
the causes which keep manufacturing popula-
tons always poor, and make them Improbable
purchasers.
Let the farmer, then, understand that he is
not benefited by protection any more than the
laborer in the mine or factory. The only
people who derive any benefit from this policy
arc the rich capitalists and manufacturers,
who fatten upon the industry and toll of the
poor, and the politicians, who fatten Upon the
wealth of capitalists and manufacturers. LUX.