The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-10-17
INDIANA AND THE TARIFF.
exPERIENcEoF oNEHuNDRED YEARS.
The Test Applied to the Home Market Hum
bug-fts Fallacies Exposed by the
Daily Business transactions
of the People.

dSTICuIIufdi SIdleS TOT the dement, OF eastern
manufacturers and capitalists is obviously
in conflict with the doctrines OF the high
protectionists, for they claim that protection
is benefit to everyone. On their theory
the manufacturer makes more money, the
laborer receives higher wages and the
farmer gets better prices tor his product.
To this the tariff reformer answers that
such a condition is impossible, and ii it
were possible it would benefit no one, for
it would be an equal increase of all values,
all profits and all expenses. 1t would be
the same as the effect of a law (if such a
law could be made)t that would make adollar
worth two dollars and increase the value
everything else in proportion. 1t would
be the same as a man lifting himself by
his boot-straps. II one class is benefited,
another class must be burdened. The
principle is that of the lottery, where a
man gets prizes and many men contribute
without compensation.
If our conclusion is correct, there must
be some fallacy in the argument OF the
protectionist and our century of expert
ence ought to enable us to detect it. This
is imposing on ourselves a rather large
there is evidently something wrong some
where, and it is important to know just
what it is. Let US proceed then to con-
slider one condition. BY the last census
Indiana had n population OF 1,97S,3Ol, OF
whom 1,46S,095 were over ten years of
age. OF these 635,0 $50 were engaged in
occupations of various kinds, 33l ,240 OF
them in agriculture. As the proportional
number of persons not engaged in occu-
pati0nS, l. e. women, children, aged
and helpless persons, ETC., is as great
among farmers as it is among other
classes, we see that over one-half OF the
people of Indiana derive their support
from agriculture. One worker, according
to the census, on an average supports him
self and two other persons and fraction
over. The actual number supported by
agriculture in this state, at the taking of
the census, did not vary far from 100000.
The question first in importance then is:
What does the tariff do for the farmer?
That il increases the cost of his clothing,
his tools and implements, his sugar, his
medicines, his carpets, his furniture, and
in brief everything that he uses which he
does not produce, is apparent. The pro-
tectionist tells him that as an offset to this
he has two advantages from the tariff.
ID A home market for his product. (2)
Increased wages for farm labor; and (3)
protection from foreign competition on
the articles he produces. As to the home
market, he declares that the United States
consumes 80 or - or 81 per cent. of all she
produces, and this is the measure of the
home market which protection has given
TO America. Let us see about
this. Mr.. Farmer, did protection
give you your mouth and
your digestive apparatus? You think
not. Very well, then, as you and your
family eat and drink as much as other
people, and as the agricultural population
of the whole country is about one-half of
the total population, we will have to cut
off half of this home market produced by
protection. But stop, says the protection
ist; this product is not consumed by
the people alone; a great deal
of it is fed to horses and
cattle and hogs. Very true, soft is; but
who own most of these animals? The
farmers. Then we shall have to cut your
home market down still more.
But hold, again; a great deal of farm
produce is not consumed by either people
or animals, but is used as seed for subse-
quent crops. Exactly so, and the farmers
are the men that use the seed; so we will
have TO cut down your home market again.
But, my dear Sill" says the protection
ist, 'the home market is not for agricultural
products alone; it represents the domestic
consumption OF products OF all kinds"
Aha! you rascal, L have you therel Why
did you not say so to the farmer at first
Why did you leave him with the impress
sion that nine-tenths or more of his product
was consumed at homer You know very
well that the per centage of his product
,eaH her iS nd haf ha
total per centage is raised by mined and
manufactured commodities, half of which
are consumed by the farmer himself.
You know, also, that this large per cent
age of home consumption OF lumber, coal,
iron, lead, copper, etc, is largely due to
the action of the trusts controlling thee
articles, which suspend production and
force an increase in their home price
rather than export at less profit sell here
for a less profit, and give continuous en-
ployment 10 labor.
You start out to show that protection
furnishes home market to an agricul-
tural people for their produce, and you
undertake to prove it by adding what they
consume to what is consumed by the peo-
pie who are supposed to be brought here
and kept here by protection. That will
never do. The farmer was here to begin
with. You broughtin your infant industry
and the farmer paid for raising him.
You must not turn around now and pro-
Tess that you brought the farmer here and
furnished him to the infant industry.
Moreover, If there were no manufacturing
in the country at all there would be very
considerable number OF people besides
agriculturists-such as doctors, lawyers,
clergymen, merchants, men engaged in
TRANSFORMATION, and numerous other in
dustries Still further, there would be
large amount of manufacturing done here
ii there had never been any protection at
all, for this is the universal experience in
all countries ancient and modern, no mat
ter what the tax laws were. Your "home
market made by protection" is therefore
comparatively small thing If we should
concede that all manufacturing were
brought here by the protective system,
you could not by any legitimate process of
calculation show that it was the cause of
the consumption of one-tenth of what is
consumed in this country.
The fallacy involved in the "home
market" argument therefore, is that
''home market is confounded with "home
consumption, which is a very different
thing If boy has five apples, and eats
four and sells one, you would not say he
had market for apples, would your The
market. and ii he does not guard it the
pauper apple boys will come in and make
him eat their apples instead of his own,
because they get them cheaper than he
| does.
But supposing, for the sake of argument,
that protection has furnished the farmer
/ Ok nor can't NJ hic boOa rnorkaf what