The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1889-12-27
PROTECT OUR HOME INDUSTRIES.

just now as our representatives at the
National Capital are commencing to
wrangle with the above beautiful and
patriotic theme, perhaps it would not
come amiss to inquire which and what
are our most important Industries?
One hall OF the working population OF
the United States is engaged in farming.
Such being the case, it occurs to the writ
err that agriculture is our chief industry.
How do our representatives propose to
protect us? AS we have been protected
in the last thirty years, only a little
more SO! How have we been protected?
In 1860, before a protective tariff for
the benefit OF our infant industries went
in effect, the farmers owned 81 per cent
OF the wealth OF the United States. In
1880 after twenty years Of protection,
the farmers owned Is per cent; since
1880 the farmers have paid q fine for
raising more produce than could be con-
sumed at home OF 81, 1888, SO6,171. An
annual tax OF S167,35O,771 or at the
average rate OF 30 cents on every dol
lars worth OF produce raised in this
country. In other words. our chief IN
dustry, pays an average yearly fine Of
$3.50 to every farmer, farm hand and
dairy maid employed. Is it any wonder
that the other fellows own IS per cent
Of the nations wealth?
The last republican convention in
Dakota pledged themselves to "foster
and protect our agricultural popula-
ton" On the strength thereof, they
won the day. Consequently there is no
question but that we will be fostered
and protected-in theory at least.
But how about practice? How do we
interpret "protect our home industries?"
Do we protect our home industries
when we send to Florida, Georgia and
the West Indias for our vegetables, be-
fore the home industry is fairly started?
Perhaps that is only done to encourage
home producers to work for nothing?
Do we protect our home industry when
we send to Minnesota for flour, while we
have wheat enough at home to supply
all demands? Hardly. That is prob
ably done to prevent the home producer
getting the "cinch."
Do We encourage home industry when
it is impossible for the farmer to sell his
cheese, butter, eggs, oats or potatoes
for cash. to any dealer i'll the market
towns. Il might here suggest to the
boards OF trade in the various Dakota
towns, That they tackle this question:
"How is the farmer able to pay notes, in
terest etc, hardware, clothing, drygoods,
boots and shoes and blacksmith bills,
with trade in a grocery store?" The
solution will he anxiously awaited by
all interested.) We probably encourage
~frugality in our home producers, when
sending cash Tor the same kind Of pro.
duce to aneighboring state and cash to
the railroad company for hauling it in.
Now every farmer knows that this is done
just as soon, a sthe home produce ceases
to be offered below the cost OF home
production. Farmers, do you see how
you in reality are fostered and pro.
tected? The writer does not mean to
either condemn or critisize any man or
community's way OF doing business.
Neither does he expect to make demo,
Gratis out Of old republicans, but he
desires and expects to set the producer
to thinking and studying about this
protection question.
The farmer has got to work out his
own salvation. He will never do it n
long as he let's a monopolistic press pro.
mulgate his political creed; or a lot Of
professional politicians continue TO be his
mouth piece. Suppose we try free trade
a while; and suppose the farmers were to
drop the traces OF the protectionist
band wagon and pick up those OF this
free trade hearse. Howlong would the
occupants Of that band wagon stay in
,,it after the farmers refused to draw it7
4 ~ 81 = 1ZrFEaiag . ssHAaEv ~, ~