Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1889-10-03
PROTECTION AND THE FARMER.

PROTECTION AND THE FARMER.
The following article in a recent
number of the Kansas Farmer, from a
farmer near Usage City, Kansas, con-
tains matter that should set farmers to
thinking:
SIN the issue of the Former of May %,
you say why short crops has nothing to
do with the farmers situation is not
clear, especially when the effects of the
tariff is to be considered, from which
I take it that you believe that protec-
ton benefits the farmer. The only
way in which the tariff would affect
the farmer would be if we had such
short crops that we would have to i'm
port about all our grain which we
would use. In such case suppose the
tariff would protect the farmer,
wouldn't it? For the tariff is no tax
on the farmer, but is paid by the foreign
producer, so that the more goods are
shipped in the less will be the amount
that the people of this country will
pay in taxes, so it is benefit to have
imports as well as exports. But in
such state of affairs if we had bad
crops protectionists would be in favor
of abolishing the tariff on wheat, corn,
oats, rye, ETC., as we'll as free traders.
At present the farmer pays a tax on
everything he buys. He finds despite
the great inventions in farming
machinery, by which the cost of pro-
duct1on has been greatly lowered, that
he does not make as much as he did
eight or even five years ago. Not only
that, but he makes less year by year.
A writer says we have the priceless
boon of liberty. Is it liberty to pay
big prices for all he wants and to sell
his crops for less and less every year?
Liberty to pay high prices for machin-
cry, help, clothing, and everything else,
and then to ride ten miles to town on
a cold day with the remains of an
assassinated hog, and then to be told
that pork had gone down to cents.
Oh, Liberty! Oh, Projections! 1 have
before me document issued by the
republican committee last fall which
contains the startling headlines, "a
stuppendous aggretate, or prodigious
showing for the farmers. Farmers
made last year by the tariff 81 ,203, 1854, y
994." Oh. Lordl Do any of you farm
ers believe it? This would be about
333 per cent, as the products of the
farm are valued at about So, 800 900 ,OeO
annually. Instead of crops bringing a
better price, they are all the way from
20 to 100 per cent. lower than they
were five years ago. Farmers are told
that these low prices result from over
production. don't believe it. don't
believe that the Creator would ever
allow overproduction, was it possible.
1t is because we have shut our markets
up to European goods and they to ours,
under the insane idea that they were
protecting themselves. There are
plenty of persons in foreign countries
in need of our crops and would be glad
to get our surplus.
that there is not money enough i'll cir
culation There is now only about 81
per capita to $3S OF $40 twenty or
twenty-five years ago. In 1885, Com
missioner of Labor F. H. Betton said
in letter: 81 am satisfied that 622
per cent. is under rather than above
the average rates of interest. How
can farmers thrive in such state of
affairs? The farmer is told that if
the tariff on cereals is not maintained
foreign nations will step in and take
away his home market, as they pay a
lower rate of wages and consequently
there is lower cost of production, con-
veying the impression that it is neces-
sary to have low rate of wages to have
a low cost of production. In 1886, $4S3,-
sS4, ,12s of agricultural products were
exported, or 73 per cent. of the total
amount of exports; in 1887, $500, ,82O, ,758,
or "a per cent; in 1888, $500 $40 ,O86, OF
1928 per cent. Our imports of the
same articles amounted to only about
$50, ,OOO,O 900. How, then could foreign
ers come in and take our markets when
we produce much more than We con-
sumo and ship this stupendous amount
abroad every year to lower wage pay
ing countries? Is there 900 of you
farmers who made as much clear profit
as protected Andrew Carnegie did last
year-$1 900, 900? Protectionist, who
gets monOplies, trusts and bond-hold-
ers? In 1880, 1870, ,493. OF A per cent, !,
were engaged in agriculture to 1871 in
manufacturing. Between 1850 and
1850, with a low revenue tariff, the
gain in farming lands and personal
property of the same was so to 66 per
cent; from 1860 to 10, high protective
tariff, 11.52 per cent; 1870 to 80, pro-
tective tariff, SO per cent.
Through all protectionst argu-
ments runs the assumption that
pauperism Is the natural condition of
labor to which it must every where fall
unless benevOlently upheld by pro-