Wichita eagle., 1888-04-17
THE RESULTS TO FARMERS OF Z
PROTECTIVE TARIFF.


PROTECTIVE TARIFF.
Il. L. Thurber in Dry Goods Chronicle
Naumkeck, the free trade writer for
the Star, is a good natared fellow, and
tries his best TO make sound arguments
for free trade and the only trouble
with him Is, that he is on the wrong
side OF the facts. He says: In the first
place the number of farmers keeps on
increasing, ard foreign operatives are
not imported in sufficient numbers to
supply the mouths for the consumption
OF the home product Well, my dear
sir, that is precisely what a protective
tariff is designed to remedy. II we man
ufactured in this country the $4,000,
600 worth of manufactured goods that
we imported in 1856, it would have fur
nished 600, 600 or 200, 600 more mouths 10
feed in this country. They would have
consumed quite a large percentage of the
81, 900. 600 of bushels of grain that
we exported in 1856. OF that large per
centage of grain exported, had IL been
consumed in this country, 1t would have
saved 10 the farmer. first, the freight
paid TO foreign ship owners fer ocean
freight; second, the terminal port
charges: third, the labor employed in
distributing that grain. The miller who
milled it, the baker who baked it. the in
Vulnerable hands employed in distribut-
ing it TO the consumer, would have been
in this country. All these would have
furnished more mouths TO feed III our
own country, and surely that would have
benefited the farmer. as even ''Naum-
keck, l presume, will not deny that q
home market for the producer as a rule
gives better net return than u foreign
one.
''Naumkeck" goes on to show the great
increase of the imports of breadStuffs in
Great Britain. He saws: ''In 1870 her
imports of wheat and -four were 10, 800
290 cwts; in 1861 they were 81, ,646, 105
cwts. and that in 1856 this country sent
to Great Britain more than sc. .000, 900
cwts. Well, my dear sir, what is the
reason of this great increase of consump-
ton of breadstuffs in Great Britain: The
answer is, simply, that she has more
mouths to feed, and that the wage-earn-
ers are more able to buy. because of the
great preponderence of their transporta-
ton facilities that have arisen. Solely
by reason of the ample protection" that
England has always given to her com
mercial marine. she is enabled to manu-
facture and distribute goods all over the
world zone of her best markets being the
United States. Her population increased
IN the manufacturing districts largely
because of the advantage that tariffs
gave them that We're not protective
enabled her tp import in her own vessels
raw products, to convert them into
manufactured product. export them
again in her own vessels to other coun-
tries, and thus give employment to hun
dreds Of thousands of operatives crowded
together on the tight little island"
Why, "Naumkeck." " if | were an Eng
lishman | would be rabid free trader.
would want every nation on the face OF
the earth to do away with all protective
tariff laws; | would want them to raise
raw products for my beloved country
(fOr it would be if | were English born
and raised); | would want to import in
our own protected" vessels (Which
England does do and that thor
oughly: manufacture those raw products
by English labor, and then export those
goods again in English !
vessels to foreign shores. and there have /
them pay no duties, and | would want |
to go on repeating this until such time /
as we had doubled, quadruDled and /
qulntupled our population, and when we /
had gotten control of the markets of the .
markets of the world, had driven manu- /
facturers in the United States and other F..
countries out of existence then we /
would put up our prices the same as
''trusts" and combines" do now in our
own United States of America
My dear sir, because | am an Ameri-
can heart and soul is just the reason
| favor an entirely different policy
from what | would as an English |
man. You are apparently so fair that
truly hope you amt English, YOU
know" and that you are one of those
honest theoretical Americans that in time
viii see the "error of his ways" and
come 70 the conclusion that a nation that
is large producer Of raw products, and
1T the same time Is a large consumer Of
products as the United
States, is on an entirely different plane
and should have an entirely different
policy in regard to protection than a
nation hike England who is a very small
of raw products, with large
surplus of labor and a dominant com
nercial marine