The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1888-10-12
WHAT 1T MEANS FOR THE FARMER.
Tho Attitude of Democracy as Regards
the Agricniturist.

Tho Attitude of Democracy as Regards
the Agricultural.
There has been a good deal said about
the interest Of the farmer In securing the
repeal or reduction OF rates OF duty. says
The New York Mail and Express. The
farmer Is treated like baby and told
that rho Is tho under dog and that he has
been deceived and hoodwinked BIZ the
manufacturers. What will tho farmer
lose by the tariff? In the first place he
cannot grow wool proftably If the Mills
bill should become the law. He now
grows about 300, 100000 pounds of wool
ANNUALLY lie does not get much profit
out of II ut the present rate Of duty.
sSrious reduction having been made
in 1889 This will throw out of
use "a good deal of land that
Is chiefly valuable for sheep grazing
1t <will also throw out OF employ.
ment about 500000 flock masters. The
annual crop of wool Is worth $75, 000. 000
This will he serious loss to tho farmers
and is not met by the fippant explanation
of Mr. Scott that il the industry were
wiped out 1t would cost each farm in
Pennsylvania very small amount. be-
tween. So and So a year. &EFG
Other products OF the farm are attacked
III tne Mills Dill piaA puyS uuty VI
from SIS to 500; hemp, $40 and $25; jute
butts. S.; jpte. 20 per cent; Sisal grass,
$15; other vegetable substances, $40.
These are AL put upon the free list, and
the linen and bagging interests will DO
dependent upon foreign supply, while
tho range Of tho farmers crops is limited,
Hemp seed, rapo seed and garden vege.
tables are also put on the free list.
The farmer does not escape in the free
trade scheme to revise tho tariff. If no
raises anything which Mr.. Mills, acting
under the direction of President Cleve-
land, can consider raw material, it goes
on the free list 1t is the first step toward
ultimate free trade which, in the end, will
deprive Of protection everything that is
taken from the ground, including iron
ores and bituminous coal. Wo havo
shown the farmer that protection has en-
riched him and has given to him the homo
market, the existence of which is denied
by tho blind free traders. This should
stimulate him to support the protective
system; but if this is not enough surely
the direct attack upon the industry in
which he is engaged should be. The far
mer, we fancy, l., not simple minded
enough to rob himself for the sake of the
free trader.
This argument is continued by the San
Francisco Chronicle as follows:
There is no more absurd assertion than
that which charged that protection ia
vors ope class of the community ct the
expense of the other. If the protectionist
asks which class, the free trader will prob
ably answer the agricultural. But it is
notorious fact that the efforts of Mills
arc directed not so much to diminishing
the protection afforded to manufacturers
as to take away that now enjoyed by tho
farmer Tho articles placed on the free
list by Mills, and those OH which the
heaviest reductions are made, are products
of the soil, Tho object of tho free traders
is transparent, but their dodge would not
work, because the manufacturers of
the United States AFRO not fools. They
arc able to see length before their nose.
They would be donkeys, indeed, If allowed
by the cry Of cheap raw material to lend
themselves TO the removal Of the duty OIL
wool or any other American product.
What right would they have to demand
protection if they denied it to tho wool
growerS It is because they clearly realize
that the interests of all classes in tho
United. States are interdcpendent, that
tho manufacturers have given in their
adhesion to a policy which has for its OBJ
jcct the lettering of tho condition Of the
whole country. Experience has taught
them that profit flows from standing to-
gether, and therefore they heartily in
dorse the protectionist motto, Omitted
we stand, divided we fall" &HE