Hopkinsville Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1889-1918, 1890-10-10


OF the home market that the protected
manufacturers mako up to the farmer
for tho increased cost Of the Ihin,s he
i buys bv CIV nI Inn a market for b s
farm product'. racn they labor to
show the farmer that thls home market
Is the best for hni. Is closer To him, is
steadier, has no paupcr-grown ilindoo
wheat in IT. as Europe has; and yet tho
farmer knows all Che me that be gets
precisely the same pr.ce for h sproducts,
sold in the home market, as in the for
eign market
The farmer knows tn s. and yet hc
fools that tho Government ought to do
something for him-ought to do just as
much for him as Tor others In this
feeling no is entirely right lie has
the same rights before tho law and
merits precisely the same consideration
as the manufacturer. Tho farmer Is
feeling this and saying It moro earnestly
than ever. Hence the great farmers
organ z,tons OF various kinds and the
plan to build Government warehouses,
VIII Oh has found favor in some quar-
tcrs
In the face OF the farmers demand
that something should DO done for
HIM. Mckinley raiscs the duty on
agricultural products in order TO deceive
him into thinning that now at last he is
going to get some bsneat from tho tar
ill., hut what about these so-callcd
'agr cultural products and provisIons?''
Senator Allison sized thcm up worry
justly in a speech in the Senate in 1879
as follows; 1T Is truo that under Gus
toms laws there Is small duty on
wheat, barley. oats and other agricult-
ural products, but t does not Afford any
protection to the great wheat and grain
producing regions OF the country"
Tho only two ways. thcn, in which
protect on can benefit the inrmer-nrst,
by giving him home market which
will pay him higher prico forh's prod
ucts than the foreign market will puy;
and second, by placing duties on his
products which will enable him to sell
at higher priccs-are both seen TO offer
him absolutely nothing to mako up for
tho increased cost which the manufact-
urer's protection has laid upon him.
But even II somo way could be found
for giving the farmer an advantage
equal to the burden that protection has
laid upon him, is it not clcar that the
two advantayes-his own AMI tho manu-
facturor's-would precisely balance each
other. Equal protect on to both SIDES
means no protection to oither, AMI pro-
faction TO only one sido means loss to
tho other; for protection has money
value, and IL 1t is to enrich some 1t can
only do 80 by making othcrs poorer
Protect on 8 not thing that can sim
ply DO voted by Congress- without any
ono feel ns 1t Tho increased pr.ce has
to be paid by tho con 'umer; and In this
way tho farmer not only-> fails to reap n
benefit from protection, but ho has to
mako up for the projection gains OF
others, NIL tho timo and everywhere.
Is he willing to stand that? II he is
willing how long can ho afford II? VIII
the time not como sooner or latS whom
ho will SEQ that he is playing losing
game? Has not that I ME come whom
the farmer secs his land values declining
enormously. when he finds the mortgage
on his farm about to be forcclosed? Is
| IL not nil tho more clear wh.n he secs
the protected classes thriving and mu.-
tiplylng as never before; when he sees
trusts crowding upon trusts as mover be-
fore In the ma struggle for riches?
What is the farmer doing to shake OF
this false system In which he is strug-
gl n- Tor ex x.stcnco mercy? What will
he do?