Mexico weekly ledger., 1888-06-07
Tariff.

Tariff.
To the Editor OF the Ledger.
MKxIco, Mo. June 2.-Allow me
to thank Mr.. Hathaway for holding
me to facts. The solid truth is
what is wanted and it may be de-
sirable to contradict him hereafter
on the ground of accuracy-not at
all to question his veracity; and by
clearing the matter Of any other is
sue it is hoped that he may be
brought to see the error ofhis ways
and induced to abandon cause SO
detrimental to his own interest
along with his fellow farmers. =,
It is part of the game of such pro-
tectionists sprofit by the result, like
the monte sharpers to persuade
their victims that they are about to
beat the other fellow; and when the
wool-growers see that it won't work
that will end the game.
The cold facts now offered are
culled from the official tables print
ed by the government and should
satisfy any real enquirer:
In 1S7S-latest report--accessi-
BILE duties collected were as follows:
On barley, used for beer and not a
general American crop, 1852, 169. 10;
on corn, including meal, 81, 1874.
Census of 1880 shows 1854 ,591 ,676
bushels as yielded; it will take a
powerful microscope to see the pro-
lection there. Oats got rather more
protection, $9,568.06; peas and
beans, (who raises them?) $17,-
7S2.42; rye, s27.96; wheat and
-four, ,s15, ,6SS.33. Pages 10, 9, 6 and
Z of report of tariff commission for
1882 shows that drawback is
granted to millers' shipping in
wheat, thereby putting them into
a position to say to farmers, we can
| get plenty of wheat on the other
side and will use it until you take
our price 1 quote the exact
words of report. Hay produced
revenue to amount of $34, 723. IL;
potatoes. $40, ,294.1S; bacon aud
hams, s1,a59,74; beef, s1,621. so;
pork, s317.71; butter, $36, ,625, !, "a;
cheese, SS7, ,s67.64; 5000, 600 dozen
eggs came in free and a farmers wife
has to save great many to pay for
protected calico dress. On lard
the duty was s45. "a; milk, s2O6. .6s;
mutton, s42.37; poultry, pro-
tected to amount of $.24. They
evidently think the women are toe
industrious tc iced protection.
The grand sum total of these
duties for protection ofagricultural
interests is 81, ,219 600 less than one
per cent. of the total revenue $127 ):
Obs, 185, 80 collected, at an expense
of SIS, ,S26, ,974 80. So the farmer gets
back one-fifth of expense of con.
Quoting the steal? I meant col.
lecting the revenue) and the infant
industries get all the profits. DONE
it look little like having a fellow
to rob you? This question is certain.
ly worth, farmers while to under
stand. The speeches now being made
on the Mills bill are easily gotten
at and the farmer who don't read
them is too stupid to go in when it
rains.
As for the low price of cattle,
Senator Vest good enough author
| Iity among us Democrats and Of
Mr.. Hathaway's own choosing, Sc
far as this discussion is concerned,
lays the blame on the shoulders ol
trusts, an ev.l that could not exist
with freer trade.
The advice to farm trusts and com
bines to initiate the Standard Oil
Company contains very bittel
Irony. tits like the French Queen
who wondered that the poor die
not eat cake when bread was
scarce.
| Such organizations are made by
putting up big profits or pledges
that the members will adhere te
conditions agreed upon. They are
generally thought to be enemies te
lpublic welfare and even if this is
not fact, farmers must stay out
for the same reason that Jack did
mot eat his supper.
| w. LLEwELLYN.
1