Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1890-01-30

WHAt PRoTECJl cos
H-sps.ksr ce<s,s5e' ~ 49, =.
He = Cruel Tax - Hts1l1 - 80
Ex-6peaker Car11sle CO ri - no
January number Of the lea article
entitled 1.-The Tariff and hrmer."
1t is marked by the clbek Qf state-
ment and accuracy which chAracterizes
all the productions of its author.
The subject is an old one. and there
may be those who think that it has al
ready been sufficiently discussed. If
such there be, let them remember that
within the past few months we have
had political conventions in agricultural
States and assemblies of farmers who
have demanded that the tariff be 80
framed as to protect farmers as well as
manufacturers. Scarcely . month has
elapsed since the head of the new De-
partment of Agriculture, after an allu-
sion to the fact that agriculture is SUI
fering from depression, announced that
ITO all the protection that wise tariff
laws can afford - the farming
industry justly claims its inalienable
right" While views SO crude and base
less as these prevail, it can not be con-
sidered work of supererogation to
show that the farmer Of the United
States has not, and. by reason of the
immutable laws of trade, can not have
part or lot in this matter of protection.
The reason why is stated by Mr.. Car
Isle with admirable clearness and pre-
cision.
After promising that If tariff taxation
protects any domestic industry it must
be by preventing free competition from
depressing prices below the rates at
which goods can be profitably produced,
he states the principle applicable to
such cases in these words:
Unless a commodity can be sold here for
higher price than it can be sold for in the coun-
try where it is produced it will not be brought
here; nor will an article be exported from this
country for sale abroad unless the price there is
higher that it is here.
This is very elementary, but it COW
ers the whole ground. Agricultural
products will not be brought here,
whether subject to tariff tax or not,
because they can not be sold here for a
higher price than they command abroad.
Our agricultural products command a
higher price abroad than they do here,
and, therefore, are exported The laws
which pretend to protect them are, in
effect, laws forbidding foreigners to sell
their wheat and corn to the lowest bid
der. No laws are needed for such a
purpose, and they are intended only to
deceive our farmers.
The products of agriculture constitute
from rs to so per cent of our exports.
In this connection Mr.. Carlisle makes
the point that if the farmer had obtained
the home market which protection prom
ised him, the balance of trade which pro-
tectionists consider such an overwhelm-
ing misfortune would be hopelessly
against us every year for all time to
come. Such a home market would, in
deed, be beneficial to the farmer, since
it would give him some influence in fix
ing prices. In the hope of acquiring
such a market he has borne extraordi-
nary burdens for hundred years. What
| has been the result? At the end of a
century of protection to others he is
compelled to export a larger percentage
| of his products than at the beginning.
| Under these circumstances the farmer
| may we'll inquire how much longer he
| should follow the ignis fatuus of home
l
| market.
Mr.. Carlisle also pays his respects to
! Senator CullOm, who had an article in
| the Forum for October in which he rea-
soned himself into the belief that what
ever may be the condition of other in
| dustries, that of agriculture rs absolute
| ly dependent upon the protective tariff.
| One OF the arguments employed by the
Senator was that without protection we
should have to look abroad for at least
half of our 81, 600, 600, 900 worth of prod
ucts ''other than AGRICULTURAL" and that
as we should not be able to pay for them
| we should have to do without them. Mr..
Carlisle points out first that this argu-
ment destroys itself; for if we could not
| get these goods abroad, we should, Ct
course, make them at home, protection
or no protection. He then proceeds to
show that the argument is based on as
| sumption and exaggeratiOns.
From the figures of the census of 1880
Mr.. Carlisle shows that the number OF
persons engaged in protected industries
| does not exceed 1, 100, 600, of whom not
more than half are heads of families, SC
that the whole number of persons in
| terested in the earnings of these people
| is not above 5000, 600. Mr.. Atkinson es
| Inmates that the working people of this
country consume s73 per head of the
food products of all kinds, so that the
total consumption of the 5000. 00C
would aggregate S2I9, 600, 600, including
tea, coffee, fish, oysters and many other
articles not the product of American
| agriculture. OF purely agricultural prod
ucts these classes will not consume
more than $3.50, 00O, 600, estimated at the
price paid for them by the consumers,
which includes all charges of transpor.
| tation and profits. For these products
the farmers receive not more than $50,
O0O. 600, which is but a triie over
| per cent. of the annual products of ag
ricultural industry. This is the whole
value of the home market which pro
| lection gives to the farmer, in exchange
for which he pays Al per cent profit on
all protected products which he is co M
PEELED to buy.