The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-09-12
WHERE THE FARMER LOSES.
As the TarifY Has Raised Ills Wealth Has
Decreased.

In 1880 and in 1890 under low tariff, over
half the wealth of the nation was in the hands
OF the farmer. In 1880 after twenty years ex.
perience under the present war tariff, the
farmers owned only $4,000, 600 900 OF the
$40 GO0, 100000, being less than one-third the
wealth OF the country. From 1860 20 1880,
twenty years of the present war tariff, the
farmers wealth increased $1,000 900. while
the other interests of the country increased
$4,000 900, 600, showing that other interests in
creased nearly six times as fast the farmers.
And yet we are told that the present war tariff
is a great blessing to the farmer les, tariff
that taxes common pine lumber now extern
sively used in the construction of the farmers
dwelling, barn and fences - per 1000 feet and
admits free of duty mahogany, rosewood, satin.
wood and other fine wood used TO decorate the
dwellings and furniture OF the rich, must be q
great blessing to the farmer.
Maj. Mckinley. one Of the leaders Of the pro-
tectionists in the house, and who. il is alleged,
wrote the Chicago platform, in his speech at
Atlanta said:
petition at home, the duty Is rarely paid by the
sumer. II IL paid from the profits Of the manuiac-
turer or divided between him and the merchant OF
extent
That is the old argument OF the extreme pro-
tectionst-an attempt to make the people be.
leve that the consumer does not pay the inn
port duty. In other words, that the tariff does
not make goods higher; that the importer and
manufacturer, out of their love for the dear
people, pay the import duty out of their
pockets and sell their goods for less than they
cost them. 1t belongs to the same class of argu-
ment that you often hear used by the high pro-
tectiOnst that the higher the tariff the cheap
err the goods. Ii the latter proposition be true,
why not make the tariff so high that the goods
will not cost anything. Why does not the pro-
tectionst say that the consumer does not pay
the cost OF transportation? 1t is a sufficient
answer to all such argument to say that there
never was an importer OF foreign product
that did not add the import tax and cost OF
transportation 10 ascertain the cost of his goods
and when the manufacturer buys foreign mate
rial. he pays the import tax and freight, and il
adds Just that amount To the cost of his ma
terial, and increases to that extent the cost of
his manufactured goods, which the merchant
pays when be buys OF the manufactures, and il
is all paid by the person who buys the goods
OF the merchants for consumption. This is
true of all goods manufactured in this country
out OF imported material upon which an inn
port duty has been paid, and also true to all
imported manufactured goods upon which
there is al import duty.
The exceptions are Grst as to goods manu-
featured wholly or in part out OF home ma
terial, and could be sold as cheap as the same
class Of foreign goods could be sold il admitted
free of duty, but the tariff duty, keeping out the
foreign goods. enables the manufacturer TO add
TO his prices a portion OF the import
duty, increasing his profits. TO that extent and
still be below what the foreign goods
could be sold at on account of the duty
that would have to be paid on
the foreign goods before they could enter our
market. In that case the consumer does not
pay the whole tax, only part of il, and such
tax paid by the consumer does not
go into the q. S. treasury, but into
the pockets of the manufacturer The other
exception happens when The manufacturers
have produced more goods than the market
a.
manufacturer and merchant being unable to
hold are forced to unload at reduced prices
The latter result is now largely guarded against
by the formation OF trusts, under the operation
of which factories close up. discharge their
employees and raise the price Of their product to
such an extent that Notwithstanding the fac
tories lie idle while the over-production Is be-
ing consumed. more money is made than when
the factories we're running.
Mr. Mckinley having but little faith in the
position after he had assumed it, virtually
abandons it by saying that duty or no duty
there is not in the long line of staple products
consumed by the people single one that has
not been cheapened by competition at home
made possible by protective duties"
That competition has cheapened prices to
some extent is true; it always does that but
developed resources, improved machinery, ex-
perience in manufacturing, cheapened trans
portation, and the wonderful enterprise and
activity OF our industrial classes Is what has
oheapened manufactured products, and not the
tariff. To argue that competition reduces
prices and then to argue that tariff that pro-
hibits competition reduces prices. Is to argue
contrariy.
The high protectionists are in the habit of
quoting the fathers OF the republic as favoring
protection. The debates in congress after the
adoption Of the constitution on the establish
ment OF a system OF tariff taxation clearly
show that the principle thing the fathers had
In view In enacting tariff was to raise revenue