Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1888-08-09
MISLEADING WESTERN FARMERS.

and other unprotected people of Iowa
and Minnesota how the republican
tariff robs them, spoke of the tariff as
d tax. To our amazement the Chicago
Inter Ocean replies that it is not tax:
There is no tax for protective pur-
poses. Not cent of tax for any such
purpose. The Herald juggles with the
werd tax as if it were the equivalent
of duty"
We have only to warn our western
unprotected friends-the great mass of
the farmers, mechanics and laborers in
the great west, as well as in other
parts-not to be deluded. A tariff
duty is tax. By levying it the gov
ernment gets revenue. 1t does not get
this out of the mOon-it gets it out of
the peoples pocket. There is no other
place to get it from. The tariff duties
brought into the treasury for the year
1887 is S217 ,2S9, 1893. This vast sum
was paid by American citizens out of
their earnings. If it was not tax,
pray, what was it?
But the Inter Ocean adds that blank
cts, for instance, can be made as cheap
ly here as they can be brought in from
abroad, paying freight, insurance and
other charges, and without duty. In
that case it is clear that no protective
duties on blankets are required.
What the farmers, mechanics and
workingmen generally of Iowa and all
other states have right to complain
of is that the republican tariff lays
higher tariff taxes on the poor mans
blanket than on the rich mans, and on
the poor mans clothing than the rich
mans. The workingman's blanket is
made by the republican high tariff to
pay duty or tax equal to "A per cent;
the rich mans fine blanket pays only
20 per cent, and the same and greater
differences in favor of the costly goods
used by the rich and against the less
costly used by workIngmen and their
families, run all through this republi-
can tariff. So far from being willing
to modify this, Mr.. Mckinley and other
republican leaders are committed to
new woolen tariff-a higher one, rec
commended to them by the ''Manufac-
turer's Club" of Philadelphia. This
new scheme which was introduced in
the house of representatives by Mr..
Mckinley, takes care of the rich in
way which every Iowa farmer and
workingman ought to read and ponder.
The poor mans blanket, costing SO
cents a pound, now pays duty equal
to "A per cent. ThatOught to be enough
but they put the rate up to 129 per
cent. The rich mans fine blanket,
costing 95 cents, however, has no such
raise. 1t pays 20 per cent. now, and is
put at 80 per cent. The poor mans
cloth, costing "a cents per pound and
now paying 80 per cent. surely that
is high enough-is put up to 12s per
cent. But the rich mans cloth, costing
$1.25, is to pay only 81 per cent.
The poor mans flannel, which he and
his wife and children use for under
shirts, skirts, ETC., costing 40 cents per
pound and now paying 6S per cent, is
raised to 123 per cent.-nearly double,
that is to say. But the fine flannel
worn by the rich and costing 80 cents
is to pay only 10s per cent. The poor
mans stockings and knit underwear,
costing 81 cents pound and now pay
ing 6S per cent, are raised to 126 per
cent. But the rich mans fine knit
goods, costing $1.12 a pound, or nearly
three times as much as the poor mans,
are to pay only S3 per cent.
The poor woman's shawl, costing IS
cents per pound, is to pay 126 per cent,
while her rich neighbor's shawl costing
s1.50 per pound, is to pay only S4 per
cent. The poor mans hat, costing "a
cents per pound and now paying 73 per
cent, is to pay 135 per cent, while the
rich mans hat, costing s1.S5 per pound
is to pay only 30 per cent.
This is fair example of the whole
schedule. In every case practically it
discriminates heavily in the duties it
proposes against the lower priced goods
worn by the mass of the people and IA
vors heavily the wealthy.
The Iowa farmer should not suffer
himself to be misled by the sophistries
of our Chicago contemporary. He may
much more safely trust a republican
senator, Mr.. Plumb, of Kansas, who
said in 1888, when the republicans were
trying to raise duties, speaking in the
name of the farmers and workingmer
of Kansas:
mo one raising anything within the
state of Kansas and no manufacturer