Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1888-08-09
THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF.

Home-Marlst Theory shown Up In It's
True Light-Facts That Must Appeal
TO Every Person OF Ordinary Intelligence.
It must be evident to the most su-
perficial observer that the protective
tariff is not profitable to the unpro-
ected. There Is nothing that protec-
ton offers to the majority of the COM
munity but home market for their
products. What this means precisely
has not been often explained, and it is
therefore far from being generally
understood. The promise of home
market means that those who tax
themselves for the support of manu-
facturers by cOnsenting to pay an in
crease for the latter's products, and
for competing foreign products, shall
be compensated by exclusive market
and, consequently. higher prices for
their goods. The farmer. for ex-
ample, the duties ON whose products
are mere show and semblance, has
been told that his crops would find
purchasers in this country. and pur-
chasers whose tariff-bred prosperity
would enable them to pay to him high
prices for what they consumed; that
he would not be obliged to COM
pete with any but the other
farmers of his own country, and
that he would never be forced to accept
prices that compensated the peasants
of Russia and the ryots of India.
Every intelligent person knows that
q this promise has been broken. Dur
ing the fiscal year ending June 80,
1887, the farmers sent abroad $685.
O73, 1913 of the products of agriculture.
The price of wheat was fixed in Lon
don, and the American farmer, taxed
as he is for the sustenance of manu-
facturers, sold his grain in compe-
tition with the products of the pauper
labor of Russia and India. In hun
dred years protection has not made a
home market for the farmer. On the
contrary, the outlook is more and more
unpromising as the years go ON. We
have not been able to prevent ex-
changes of manufactures, for. we both
export and import them. We have
simply burdened the business of max
ing exchanges by our impertinent in
terference with the laws of nature. and
we have driven the farmer into the
clutches of the usurious money-lender.
The home-market theory was invented
by selfish seekers of the peoples
bounty. and now appeals only to per-
sons Of little information and weak
imagination.
1t is not only the unprotected who
are interested in revision of the pres
ent tariff law. The wage-earners in
protected industries are equally con-
~cerned in securing q readjustment and
reduction of tariff taxes. There were
in New York in 1880 certainly not more
than 400, 900 wage-earners who could
be said to be directly benefited by the
tariff. The average yearly income of
each person thus employed in manu-
featuring was about 1914. In this cal
culation are included the low wages
paid to women and children, but to bal
ance that the higher wages paid to the
heads of families go to the support of
several persons. According to the CEN
sus tables the earnings of one person
m this State support nearly four.
Counting two children as one adult
three are sustained by the wages of
the head of an average New York fam
individuals ration amounts to from 20
to % cents day, depending good
deal upon the economy and judgment
used in buying the food. We will sup
pose that the average family is sup
piled with food to the best advantage,
and that the ration is 20 cents day
for each individual. This is q violent
assumption, but the advocates of
protective tariff can not complain of it.
On this basis each person would con-
sumo $73 of food, and the cost Of food
to the family would be $2l9. This
would leave $155 year for rent, cloth
ing, fuel, medical attendance and all
the necessaries of life other than food.
This is the prosperity which the pro-
:tective tariff has brought to the wage
Garner of New York. 1t is, however,
by deluding the working people that
the protectionists hope to maintain the
existing law, and to persuade them to
consent to continue to pay out of the
earnings which are barely sufficient
for their support a tax on what few
imported articles they use, and a boun-
ty on nearly every domestic product
that enters into the consumption of the
household.
One delusion under which the vic
Tins of the prOtectionists are at pres
ent laboring is that the Mills bill is
free-trade bill. 1t is incredible that
the active opponents of this measure
should really believe what they say.
The average rate of duty on imported
articles entered for consumption in
1887 was AZ. 10 per cent. This is not
Dnly an enormous charge upon the
commerce and the consumers of the
country, but the protectionists them
selves have admitted that it is ex-
cessive. The fact, however. that the