The Mankato free press., 1888-08-10
FREE TRADE IS UNJUST TO THE
FARMER.

CContribus zpy the Home Market Club Of Ill)
The al htes of free trade are espec-
tally ear Isl in their. appeals to the
Western farmer, as the voter most like
ly to furnish aid in overturning the ex-
istlng fiscal policy of this country and
once more trying - of England. In
their efforts to this ID they are untir-
ing, ingenious, unscfupuloue. No pos
sible resort remains untriH mo llustra-
ton unused, no appeal lSg neglected.
They seek to infiame the WORT ambi-
ton TO better ones condition in life by
picturing a mythical market which is at
once both the cheapest for the buyer
and the dearest for the seller. They
seek to create sectional prejudice by
persistent repetitions in speeches and
writings of the antithesis WesteTn
farmers, -" Eastern manufacturers Just
as if the West had no manufactures,
the East no agriculture. They ignore
the common-sense inference that, If the
people of the United States paid the
duty on foreign competing articles sold
in this country, the foreigner would be
by no means so persistent for the re-
moval of our tariff. In view Of such
tactics it will be well for farmers to keep
in mind certain facts which with prac-
tical men are likely to outweigh all the
theories of British free traders and their
attorneys In the United States.
Money is necessary to the existence
of government. Under our fiscal sys-
tenn the main reliance Of states, counties
and municipalities is upon taxation Of
property-the exception being the sale
of licenses for carrying on certain lines
of business. Money raised by taxation
comes from owners of factories, machln-
ery and other personal property, as well
as from farms and farm equipments, and
is the price paid by the owners for de-
fence of their rights in property and
the peaceable pursuit of the business OF
their choice.
To exempt anv mans property from
taxation would be an injustice to all
compelled to pay taxes. Yet this is Just
what free trade proposes to do. Amer
ican owners of farms, houses, machinery,
ETC., are to be taxed, while the same
rights they enjoy are to be given free TO
others-to men who owe no allegiance
to our government and who seek profits
from trade here to be spent In other
countries.
HAY, barley, wheat, wool, etc., are
grown in large quantities by Canadian
farmers who never paid cent of taxes
toward the support of our government.
If these men prefer to send their prod
ucts here to be sold in our markets, why
should they not be taxed, at least as
much as our farmers are taxed, for the
privilege? But the tree trader says no,
let the foreigner have our markets with
out cost, although the American farm
er's taxes need TO oe increased in con-
sequence, and then complacently sug-
gests that if growing such articles under
this one-sided arrangement proves un-
profitable our farmers can turn their at
tention to some other production.
Protection insures for our own citi-
zens not only the first, but always the
best, chance in the markets ofthe coun-
try they have helped to build up. This
is both patriotism and good business
policy. Its opposite is the un.American
policy advocated by the president and
other free trade advocates, and for
which they have received the plaudits
of the Golden Club and every promi-
nent journal in Great Britain. 1t re-
mains to be seen if q majority of Ameri-
can farmers agree with them.