The Bottineau pioneer. (Bottineau, N.D.) 1885-1895, 1890-01-04
The Proteotiontst Catechism.
CHAPTER 2.

The Proteotionist Catechism.
cHAPrEk2.
@. For what purpose is the United States
tar Il levied? A. For Prot ction.
@. Wo we not raise revenue by it? A.
Yes, but fhe rev. nue. is only incidental. l,
wac formerly tariff fol- revenue with Incl
dental Protection. and gradually changed l."
y tariff or Protection with incidental rev.
enue.
O. When were there changes made? A.
Chi fly between 1861 and 1867, but ali
changes made siuce ,heL have beer for
Protection.
Q. We're we not prosperous under a rev
enue tariff? A. Our prosperity was the
envy Of all natl ons.
@. What was our increase in wealth,
during th' ten years proceeding the change!
\. Toe increase was $3.50 per capita Oc-
tween 1860 Ill. 1860.
O. What h 4s- teen our ir crease uut sr
Projection! Our Increase between 1850 and
1860 was $50.
Q. H,w much of this was by cur chance
discovery Of gold aud silver? A. 1t was
under Protection.
@. Our increase in wealth by industry
YVES what? 1t MAS o2l7 from 1000 to lo6v
under revenue tariff aud $50 fir In 1870 to
1880 under Protection.
Q. Was this increase in inc ividual
wealth uniform unier revenue tariff? A.
1t was Every State in the Union enjoyed
it, although some plottcd III IRE than others.
Q. Which States prospeled most under
revenue tariff? A. The purely usricuiturai
States the South and West The wealth Of
Illinois increase, slxtold, of Iowa, tentold:
OF Missouri, tourfold In brief, the w Wes,ern
States trebled md the Southern States
doubled
Q Where do the figures come from! A.
From Mulhalrs "Dic,lonary Of Statistics
and the chapter on Wealth of Nations"
Q. Has our increase IN wealth per capita
u, der Protection been uniform? A. No
| Between 1870 and 1850 our wealth per
capita decreased in onnecticut, Massach.-
setts, New Jersey, Delewa.e, Virginia, South
Carolina, Flori. a. Mississippi. Louisians.
Al kansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri,
indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado. Ore
gou aud Nevada--a majority OF the States
in the Union.
Q. But all these States increased in
wealth, cid they not? A. No. Five Statee
actually declined in their total eAith-Co l.
nectlcut, New Jersey. South Carolina. Mis-.
sissippi and Louisiana. Several others
III srely held their own. In every one the
individual citizen was poo: er-his share
worth less in 1850 than il 1870.
@. How did these fve St ties prosper
under revenue ta itfl A. Between 1861
and 1850 Connecticut increased her wealth
3oO per cent; New Jersey, l25 per cent;
South Carolina, W per sent; Missouri, 2ov
per eapt; Louisauia, $50 per cent.
Q. Then Protect, has not only decreas-
Ell the per capita wealth Of twenty States.
but the aggregate wealth of five States? a.
Yes. 1t has destroyed, utterly and complete
IIy, in the FIRST tn yeirs, the former pros
,erity ofover oue-half Of the States il thi.
Union.
In what States was the increase in wealth
per capita under Protection2 Only in
the greut manufacturing States OF New York
Pennsylvania, Rhode lsian1 Maine, New
hampshire, Vermont, California, Ohio, lii
nois. Michigan, Wisconsin al d Minr esots
The other States merely held their own o.
declined.
Q. How great as this increase? A. L,
Michigan, $3.50 per hsad; in Rhode Island
$3.50; iu Cali ori III. $445; in Vermont, s345
in New Hampshire. 1926; in Pen asylvanis
$27O; in Minnesota, $275 in New York, 81.
70; iu Maine, $l65; in Ohio, sl6O.
Q. Are the working ella ,ses in those
States much better of7 No. They are
worse off. All the increased wealth wen
to the mill owners.
How about Iowa, which increased tenfolG
under tariff for revenue? A. It increased
only fr ,m $6lO to $6l5 in ten years OF Pro
tectionmerely holding its own.
@. How about Indiana? A. It wa
wo, til $500 per capita in 1870 and onl!
$765 in 1850.
Q. How abt ut Missouri? A. Its wealtl
declined from $775 to $64O.
@. Can you name any other States? A
The wealth Of Kansas under ten FEARS Q
, Protection has declined from $3.50 to $685.
Of Ne ,raska, from $575 to 1856; of Oregon
from $6lO to $525; of the twelve Souther
States in bulk, from 1926 to $3.50; Of Cou
necticu,, from 81. .490 to $1,000; Of Massu
, lusetts. from III ,5l5 to 81 300.
. @. Then the agricultural States, whic
dor bled and qua rupled their wealth in ,e
, years Of revenue tariff, are decreasing il
per capita wealth under Protection? A
Yes.
@. How has this decrease been mer?
By nlortgas ing the farms.
@, Protection has generally Lene6te
eleven manufacturing States has it not?
1t b IS made about twenty thousand men 1
those States milli laires, tut it has nc
benefited the working classes.
Q. Why, not? Because tho incres<e j
solely from the profits Of capital invested j
mills, these profits going into the owne,
pocke ond not being divided among hi
workmen.
Q. How, was it under a revenua tariff
/ Then the increase in wealth came mainl
, from agriculture, and vas the p, ofits of in
: dividu Il inLustry--rot OF the profits Of capita
). All incre .se in wealth vas distributed anon
: til, workers. and the aggregate was the su;
total of indivi iual effort Each man work
for himself and the p offs belongs to him
, not to al cmple yer. .%#
: Is Protection, then, the enemy Of agricu
ture? tits the deadly eI emy Of all indlv
, dual industry. Tt'hAs stepped nil incress
Q in wealth in our as n, iltlral States and
. rapidly stripping the fnrmer Of the wealt
: he acquired under I revel ue tariff. T.E.
l U - sa .- b.