The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-08-08
HIGH TARIFF AND THE FARMERS.
How the Agricultural Interest is PIundered
by the Spoilation System.

by the Spoilation System.
To THE EDIToR-Sir: Inasmuch as the far
mers are the most law. abiding element of our
population, their interests should be of pri-
mary consideration in the politics of the eoun-
try. As they are the last to complain, however,
they are likely to be the last served. They are
the recognized ballast of the state-a bulwark
of protection against discord and anarchy-the
chief social factor of morality, order and good
government.
In the construction of society and govern
ment, all other industries are necessarily sub
sdiary to that of farming; and should be to
considered at each step of advance towards
stronger and better Institutions in every COM
monwealth.N
The farmers success means the success of
all other persons of whatsoever avocatiOn,
who like the farmefa, get their
living by honest competitive labor
1t will not be amiss, therefore, to take glance
at some of the more prominent effects OF high
protection upon the agricultural industry. To
the western farmer the only special argument
adduced in favor of protection consists in
portrayal OF the advantages OF home market
and the liberal protection on wool. 1t is not
claimed that other material benefit to the
farmer can issue from the protective tariff.
The object of good government is to afford
its industries, as well as its citizens, equal facil
tiles and projections Protective tariff must
discriminate against one class of citizens to
favor another class All cannot be benefited
by tariff duty II BE expense OF protection is
met at home and not from any intrinsic
source, or by any other country than own
The emoluments that flow into the pockets of
one class OF citizens from protection must
therefore be paid from the earnings in other
industrial departments of the country. The
manufacturing industries in whose interest the
protective tariff of this country was established
many years ago are yet the favored class OF this
system. Under it, as the last census shows, the
manufacturers of the United States yielded on
the investments exclusive of interest and all
legitimate expense, about 5000, 000,0
The duties levied under the present system
of revenue are said by Prof. Newcomb to afford
protection to only S27, 1S4 of the II 1892 099 per-
sons engaged in gainful occupations in the
United States; extending protection, therefore,
to about per cent of our industrial population
leaving 90 per cent unprotected and subject to
the demands of an unjust and unequal revenue
system.
Under the operation of high protection it is
said upon the authority of Mr.. Hurd, who
challenges contradiction, that the farmers
alone, of the United States, pay, in exorbitant
prices, 5000 100000 annually.
This entails yearly tribute upon each
farmer and form laborer In the United States
of about $7S.16, and costs the farmers of In
diana-S31, 240 in number-S24, $50, 40 every
year.
The per cent of consumers protected by
the tariff require only one-twenteth g per
cent? OF the agricultural product OF the United
States. This per cent of farm product an
swers the full demand of the home market.
The home market is based strictly on London
prices, where 80 per cent OF our agricultural
product is sold in competition with similar
articles produced by labor, at six cents day.
Therefore the American farmer completes
less with the cheap labor of India, when he
sells per cent. of his produce in the home
market, than he does when he sells 80 per cent
in the markets Of London. Thus the home
market is almost mil in its demands on farm
products and quite in its effect upon prices.
Practically it is profitless; theoretically, mith,
and the farmer who is induced to pay a tribute
to support it will realize the delusion sooner or
later.
The total annual revenue to the government
on wool is $6,390,000. Admitting that the tariff
on wool adds a like amount to the price each
year. which is by no means necessarily com
monty the case the Indiana farmers would be
benefited to the amount of Sl52,S5O, or %
cents per capita. Whereas, the aggregate cost
of protection to the farmers of Indiana is $24,-
1886, 720, or S7S.16 per capita.
The possible advantage arising from the pro-
lection on wool TO the farmers of other states
will vary according to the amount produced in
each, but the average will not much exceed
that of Indiana the United States over
The tariff on wool plus the home market
may realize 10 the Indiana farmers 81 cents per
head, or Sl52650 annually; but the protective
system OIL costs tneIn %Z4Ooo,ofO, or oh
per head, more. The farmers are already
taxed directly, in many localities to the extent
OF one-third the gross earnings Of their realty.
Husbandry is further Handicapped by this
enormous indirect tax imposed that other in
dustries in which the farmer is but remotely
interested, may prosper-imposed TO protect in
dustries which should now be equally as indie
pendent as that of farming. Redress may be
partially effected, at least by curtailing the ex-
| pepses incurred by the indirect tax. Certainly
| any reasonable solution of the question of on
erons taxation should be earnestly and jealous
ly sought by the patient long suffering farmers.
| The rePose of party feeling, together with
| impartial consideration OF the subject, must
| conspire to bring about the desired relief.
| Demagogueical arguments offered 10 convince
| the farmers that the protective tariff was in
augurated for their benefit, and continues to
work in their interests should be of no avail
| Our agricultural products must, and do, sell as
| cheap as the prices of such articles in the mar
kets of the world Our vast surplus makes
this necessity and no amount of legislation
| can prevent il. Our farmers must buy at the
same rates at which they sell, and buy in the
same markets in which they are compelled to
SELL or they will ever labor at disadvantage
a disadvantage under which Except in case of
war or other unnatural event TO make increased
| demaud) their noble industry will cease to be
/ profitable. The farmer must be allowed TO buy
as cheaply as they sell. L. n. DAVIS.
Mainland Ind AuO