The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-04-09

and the advocates of the whisky ring l do not
agree to the correctnesSof the rule. But will
argue this question on TIE suppositlon that they
do lay down the rule correctly, and we will see
the result that is reached
The rule must work both ways or II is not
good rule To illustrate the manufacturers
side of it, We will say that the tariff ON calico
is s0per cent ad valorem. The owner OF fac,
tory in Canada imports 1000 bolts of calico and
pays the tariff of 20 per cent. ON 1t. He adds
the tariff TO the price, and it is paid by the con
sumner. This, according to the rule, adds ~ per
cent. TO the price of all the calico manufactured
IN this country. and all purchasers OF calico pay
~ per cent. more than they would nave pald put
for the tariff on every yard OF calico manutac'
tured in the United States which is ~ per cent.
net the manufacturer gets as protection by the
tariff will admit for the argument, though
untrue, that the above rule is corr, ct, and that
the payment of 10 per cent tariff on imported
calico adds 20 per cent. TO the price of all the
calico manufactured in the United States, and
the manufacturers get the - per cent. protec-
ton.
THE FARMERS SIDE OF TARIFF PROFIT
Now we will test the rule by an illustration on
the farmers side. Suppose the tariff on wheat
to be 20 per cent ad valorem. A farmer in
Canada imports into the United States LOW
bushels of wheat, and pays tariff of 20 per
cent. He adds the tariff TO the price of the
wheat, and it is paid by the consumer. II fol-
lows, under the rule that this at once raises the
price of every bushel of wheat made in the
United States, and all purchasers of American
wheat must pay 20 per cent. more Tor 1t, and
the farmers, a protection under the tariff
get 20 per cent increase on the price or every
bushel of wheat raised by them. Ii the rule is
correct when applied to the manufacturer, IT
must be correct when applied to the farmer
They each make the 20 per cent. on articles TO
which the tariff Is equally applicable, or neither
makes it, In the case supposed, each produces
an article upon which there is 20 per cent. tariH,
and importation is made of each kind OF article,
one produced by the farmer and the other by
the manufacturer, and the same per cent. is
paid as tariff by each, and of course each gets
the same protection.
proceed now on the assumption that the
rule is correct This rule has been laid down
again and again in the discussions on this floor,
and if 1t is correct rule then no class OF our
cltlZenS have anything like the amount OF pro
lection under tariff laws that is given to the
planters and farmers of this country.
A PRoDIGIoUs SHOWING FOR THE FARMERS.
For instance, there is a tariff of 10 cents a
bushel on corn, and the official statistical re-
port puts down the whole quantity of corn pro-
duced in this country last year at 1886 900
bushels. There were imported last year 30,536i
bushels, which paid a tariff of 10 cents per
bushel. In other words, the tariff was added to,
the original price of the corn, and that raised
the price of all corn produced in this country
10 cents bushel. Now, what was the result?
Ten cents bushel on the quantity of corn
above mentioned, amounted to a net ieconle to
the farmers if the rule be correct, Of S1g3,6l7,
600 on account of corn alone for one year. This
was greater sum in net profits which the far
nlerS made by the tarlff tlan the sum made by
the whisky ring, the difference being, how
ever, that there were only 1853 whisky baronsN
among whom it was to be divided, while there
was a longer division among the farmers.
| have table here showing how much under
that rule the farmers made net on corn, wheat.
rye, oats, barley, potatoes, tobacco, cattle,
horses and sheep, and other articles, showing
the aggregate of net profit to the planters,
farmers, and stock raisers of this country under
the rule above mentioned of 81 200 OW,0O0 in
round numbers in a single year. Now, who will
say in the face of these figures, taken from
the official reports, that the farmers are not
well protected by the tariff If the rule laid
down by the tariff reformers is correct, then
there is no escape from the official figures, and
there is no question that the farmers made last
year by the tariff over 81 100000.