Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1888-03-29
An Ia6Q.

EDIrORs ARGUs-In looking over the pro.
evenings If the late meeting II the wool
growers II Fergus county, I find in It "a
reitcratiOn Of the protest that has gone
up from certain Glasses ever since there has
lNcn an earnest effort put forth to reduce
our bur,lensonnc traiff duties.
~ course, the wool growers havea selfi~h
interest in this and are not to be blamed
Tor opposing tariff reform M for as the
duty ON wool is concerned. So with other
industries that ARE fostere,l by protection
They each want some other industry he.
side their own tO he scaled down by way
81 tariff reform, and to build up the country
by way of n home market to the producer.
Our flock masters even clamor for restOr.
alton of the high tariff OF 1867. by going
back that far they will find that the decline
in the sheep industry begin at that high.
tariff date, instead Of in 1SS3, as Mr..
Chamberlain and others undertake to
show. In Iowa, according to the state
auditors report in 1867, the sheep in.
duStry was well established. Their asscs-
scd value WIS $2,OSi.I7G; in 1853 their
assessed value WAS $277.ls9; having de-
creased year after year right along through
that period 81 high protection. When all
tarin asked Tor WIS granted it WAS claimed
thut manufacturing would he encouraged
and built up right in their midst. that the
factory and farm would go together to
develop and build M the great West, but
the result was different. The same report
IN v. that L., 1S-n thcro r,r. o;.,l,s % n 49,.
WOODEN mills employing loss hands; in
1850 there were thirty four, employing 400
hands. The same showing il true 81 all
the states east from Iowa as far M Ohio.
With all the protection asked Tor. with the
encouragement t., factory building by way
Of bonuses. private subscriptions. exemp.
ton from taxation, etc, one would have
supposed that they would have increased
in nun,lpcr and extended west ward, aud
that Montana to-day would be enjoying
some ii the rich bls~sings oi protection in
the way II wooden factories and u market
Tor wool right at home.
But let ms suppose that protection does
benefit the Montana wool grower to the
extent ii the duty levied. Who pays this
pcr cent added? Who pays this tax tn
keep up an otherwise Improbable in.
slustry? Who ioots up his los~es. through,
misma nagement, scal. blizzard. ETC., anl
enables him to use borrowed capital at
exOrlitant rates al interest? His neigh.
h,rs around him, engaged in unprotected
pursuits, contribute their share toward
swelling the enormous fund that IL filchesl
from the masses for the support 81 pro-
tected iavoritcs. But to compensate his
neighbor for this tariff tax he is PROMISED
home market for his product. Tho
m nchnan raises his grain and sells II whcr,
| he can and for what he eau get, and h
finds that his bushel II wheat in worth q:
cents lers in Chicago than in Liverpool
Eng. The cattle grower, although the bliz
Gard may strike him and sweep away n,ost
81 his band. il forced to take chances Or
the market with what he has left. and yet
no matter whether he gains Or leses. h.
must contribute to the support al his m"r'
fortunate protected neixhbOr in order u
make for him an established and payin,
price on an industry that all who are en-
gagged in admit would be u failure but ~,
u cont ribution from Others.
This il what protection or ~ protective
tariff means, an understand it.