Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1888-09-22

let Us take it for granted that the cloth
| ing man was right.
THE TARIFF on WOOL
is Just ten cents per pound, and for the SIX
| pounds, it would be sixty cents, and II the
| tariff is tax. and yoa paid all OF it on
that suit OF clothes, you only paid sixty
cents. That is only one cent bushel on
sixty bushel load of corn: and you know,
market price on all the corn |
bought of you, because it would
| have cost me more than that to have gone
to town and bought it and hauled it to my
place :"
| Well" says Farmer A. sit does look a
little as though those free trade fellows
were playing me for sucker. / wonder
If that Union Labor fellow was playing
me when he told me how his party in
| tended to loan to the farmers the surplus
money in the United States treasury at 3
per cent? l told him how | had to pay II
per cent at the bank, and he said that
was awful robbery and that the govern
ment had large surplus OF idle money in
the treasury and that his party proposed,
! when they got IN power, to divide TINS up
| among the farmers and only charge 5 per
cent for it, That captured me, for If can
/ get money at per cent can pay Oil my
| note at the bank and save per cent.
Aside from this, believe l would mort
gage my whole section and with the
money buy more land, because l could
easily afford to pay per cent.
Well says Farmer c. 'he was fooling
you again. He was only trying to catch
| sucker until after election"
'Oh, l can't hardly think So" says
Farmer A, ''he was so in earnest and
| he seemed to sympathize with us farmers
so much that | really thought lie was
| sincere"
Well" says Farmer G.. elf he was sin
cere he was terribly ignorant, as | can
show you in just two minutes. If MS
party could do what he promises il would
not amount to anything, because there are
In the United States over .225, 945 farmers,
and, of course each one would want his
share. and if the surplus in the treasury of
the United States was 500, 900, OO0 it would
only amount to S47 32 to each one. This
small sum would furnish some relief, but
the trouble is that the Democratic admin
istration has been so extravaganza that
after paying off the debts the government
owes which fall due this year. and meet
| ing the extravaganza appropriations for the
next fiscal year, there will not be more
than S20,000,000 OF Il surplus left to divide
up, and that would only amount TO S4.73
TO each farmer and by the time he would
pay for making the mortgage and having
it recorded, he would not have enough left
to pay his fine for assault and battery, us
you know that every farmer fooled in that
way would hunt up the man who had
deceived him and give him "a good sound
trouncing."
''Well.' says Farmer A, "sold again.
Those fellows fooled me on the wool, and
deceived me on the loan business, and
guess they are not to be trusted on any
thing"
The illustration of these three farmers
engaged in different branches of the same
industry, proves two things; first, that it
would be Just to protect the product of
one farm and not the other
2nd. That it is to the interest of all of
them, to have protection, because it
diyersities the industry and makes each of
them, patrons and customers of the other,
and not competitors of each othOr. Ii the
doctrine OF protection be applied at all,
then, to be fair, ii must be applied to all
products Of the same general class. If
you apply 1t one class OF farm products in
one section OF the country, then you must
apply it to all products of the farm, raised
in our country. 1t will not do to say, we
will protect rice and tobacco, but we will
not protect fax and hemp and wool.
Wool and flax are just as generally used
as rice and tobacco. All of these products
are raised outside of the United States. If
they were not, then there would be no
need of protecting them. | have said that
the Almighty protected cotton. How? By
combining certain elements of soil and
climatic conditions necessary to its
culture, In our own country, SO that
most of the cotton of the civilized
world is raised in the southern states. Cot
ton, Therefore, does not need the protec-
ton of human law. Suppose however,
that large portion of the cotton of
the world was grown outside of the United
states, how soon the representatives of the
southern cotton gelds would demand pro-
II n
rice and tobacco 1t will not do to say
that the masses all use wool and therefore
IL should be free. 1t is also unjust to ask
protection for certain products which your
section produces but refuse it to products
which are produced in other sections OF
our common country which constitute the
chief industries of those sections.
In the mountain sections farming cannot
be carried on. but there is hidden the
rough but valuable mineral. 1t is of no
use until it is mined and fashioned into
some useful form by
THE HAND OF LABOR
This calls for tools and FORCES and furnaces
and manufacturing establishments The
labOrers in these manufactures must be
fed and clothed and sheltered. The far
mer furnishes the food product, the
merchant furnishes the clothing and
the lumberman and carpenter furnish
plows and wagons and mowers. He must
have harness for his horses and shoes for
their feet. This demands q harnessmaker
and blacksmith. somebody must make
the clothing before the merchant can place
it upon his shelves for sale. Somebody
must cut down the trees and manufacture
them into boarks and shingles before the
carpenter eau use them to make the houses.
Now, fortunately the timber used to
shelter Us does not grow on farming land,
and this demands transportation compan-
les to transfer the lumber from the mills
to the farms: and these companies employ
engineers and traInmen aud agents, and
all OF them are customers OF the farmer
We have political theorists in Kansas
whe say that because we have no timber
we ought not to protect that industry.
Like Farmer A., In the illustration we
baye given, they only wish to product
their own products, ond hence they glorify
the Mills bill, because it puts lumber on
the free list. They are ike The man who
was asked where was the best place TO
have boil, and he replied. that the best
place TO nave IL boil was on some other
fellow" So in regard 10 free trade. They
say il is wholesome, but the best place To
have ii is on some other industry. That
is just what the farmers OF the Mills bill
thought.
They said, Free trade is grand thing;
ii is the correct theory OF political econ
omy but we don t want it on our rice, on
our tobacco, or our sugar, or our whisky.
We want il on the other fellows indus
try" They want to try 1t on your fax,
and your hemp, and your wool. and your
lumber.
Let US look at this lumber question a
few moments. ! am charged with having
voted against putting lumber OF ths free
Yes / voted against the Mills bill and the
49,