Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1886-07-23

Inc Farmer
Those who resort to misrepreSenta-
ton and falsehOod in the advocacy of
measure, either have a bad cause, or
else lack confidence in their ability to
defend it. The advocates of protective
tariff, for instance, should offer argu-
mentS to prove that such a measure is
needed, III order to make manufactur-
ing in this country sufficiently profit
able to induce capitalists to invest in
that line of industry. But, instead of
doing this, they spend their breath in
denouncing the theory of free trade
and direct taxation" They pretend
to think that all who oppose the pro-
tective principle must favor absolute
free trade; and, therefore, turn their
guns against that doctrine Now, the
question prominently before this
country to-day, does not at all involve
free trade. What the people ask is:
DO our factories need the protection of
a tariff? Would manufacturing in
this country be Improbable, We're the
tariff framed with Il view wholly to
raising sufficient revenue to pay gov
ernmental expenses! If protection is
necessary, to what should it be limited?
Need it be carried so far as il now
is, and made to impose burdens on
other industries?
These are plain business problems,
respecting which it is folly to allow
prejudice or passion to influence the
Judgment. The census returns give
us figures, by comparing which we
may readily reach satisfactory con
illusions. We learn that in 1880. 81.
100 COG We're invested in manu-
features in the United States: the
materials worked up and consumed
cost 1896, S25,5l9, and the sum of
1917 ,953,795 was paid out in wages to
employers. The value of manufact-
ured commodities produced was So,
$50, l9l. Now. by deducting the
cost of material and wage (Which items
include all the expenses from the
value of products, we have the sum
of Sl,024, 79l,S47 for net profits. This
is almost 369 per cent on the capital
invested. The agriculturists of the
country, with Il total investment of
$l2,2lO, 43l $40, realized. the same
year, in products sold, consumed and
on hand, the sum of S2,2l3,402 SOL. or
about Is per cent on their capital. of
which, after the wages and board of
hired help We're deducted, a balance of
not more that ID per cent was left for
the farmer himself.
And 1880 was not a phenomenallv
profitable year, either of our manu-
tacturerS. On the contrary. their pro
fits in 1870 were 40 per cent: in
1860, they We're AS. and in 1850. 42.6
per cent. Notwithstanding their real
ization of these large percentages of
gain, it may be that they do still need
protection; but if such is the ease. the
advocates of that policy ought to give
the people some very good reasons for
insisting upon il. II is surely not
equitable to ask that upward of four
million farmers shall be content to
work hard and undergo exposure for
a profit of - per cent on their invest
ment, in order that about 255. 200 man
utacturers may average gains of 300
per cent. or more? But let it be borne
in mind the The Farmer does not ady0-
cate free trade. by any means. 1t
favorS Il tariff, but would limit it
wholly to the production of sufficient
revenue to meet the expenses of gov
eminent. which is as far rs such legis-
lation has legitimate right to extend.