Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1890-10-15
THE TARIFF QUESTION.

THE TARIFF QUESTION.
The Home Market Argument for Protec
ton in Light OF the Decline In Farm
Values
BERKELEY, w. VA, March Is.
To he Editor Of The Rsqisier.
you give us a high tariff for oul
products, and we will give you 4 home
market for yours" is the way the advo-
Gates Of Protection approach the farmer
Amplitied it runs thuS-'Give US Pro
lection and this will cause manufactures
to spring up, this in turn will increase
the population, and this increased pop
ulation again will make a demand right
here at home for the products of your
farm" This is the home market argu-
ment with which they appeal to the
| farmer. II it means anything, this
argument means that it will give added
prosperity To his business, seen in in
creased rewards of his toll in large
prices for his produce, in constant de-
mand for il, in the many pressing into
his business to share its profits, and
above all in the increased value Of the
investments which, In fortunate day,
may be made in his lands.
Well, for thirty years we have had a
trial of the policy of which this home
market argument is a corner stone, and
what is the result? The cry of distress
that from all over the land is heard com
/ lug up from the farming interests re-
vealS it Continued depression, prices
ruling low year after year, the patient,
hard-worked tillers OF the soil getting
more and more IN debt, landholderS
compelled To sell and become tenants or
move away and seek cheaper homes,
tenants becoming hirelingS, young men
! leaving the farm and ilocking TO the
IcitieS-the honorable and Independent
vocation of the fathers having become
| less desirable than an underling'S place
in store or shop or Office, farms over
extended regions OF country, we might
almost say whole States, lying under
mortgage, the brave farmers fighting in
la losing battle. hoping by pawning their
Ic cherished acres 10 weather it out till a
change for the better shall come, values
Of farms declining till in every quarter
of the land owners cannot get by a third
or a half what they would have brought
in 1850.
Such is the state of things in our great
agricultural industry to-day. Who
dares deny it? But where is the home
market argument for protection in the
/ light OF these things? The statements
first made are not overdrawn. Just the
other day petition from the farmers OF
| Nebraska. heavily signed, went up u
the United States Senate rcciting their
distressed condition. This young conf
monwealth, one of the most prosperous
Of the great grain growing States OF
/ the Northwest, her prosperous agrlcul'
ture alleged to be rnining that in the
East by competition, with a fertile soil
SalubriOuS climate and brave people
yet the statement is that at the lowest
estimate her farms are mOrtgaged Al
| $50. 900, 600. But where is the home
market argument as seen by the light
Of the condition Of this young State
The logic Of this question is irreSiSt
able. Its conclusion needs not TO be
stated in order TO be seen. More
over this method OF looking at thi:
thing is that which is used by
the advocates of Protection themselves
its logic is borrowed from them. They
are constantly appealing TO the effects
OF their policy, alleging the bad effects
of low tariff in our history, and point
ing 10 the prosperity attending Protec
ton. and boaStiug of it As seen TO-DAY
i'm the land. Very well, the farmer ear
well ask whore is his share of this pros
perity? By the operation OF this policl
| immense fortunes, reaching into mil
Hons of dollars; have in the last ten o.
twenty years been made by men, who
lStarting from nothing have stuck TO
given line Of industry protected by 1t
But where is the farmer who, Startin.
from nothing, has in these years become
= millionaire by sticking 70 his business
raising wheat and corn.
| What is this home market argumen
costing the farmer? Competent au
liberties estimate It at $3.50, 0O0,O 900 an
lnually. The upwards OF 100000, 900
year which goes into the Treasury !
but fragment OF the cost OF the tarii
system. That sum IS only the revenue
But our tariff is not tariff for revenue
IL is for protection. This its advocate
perSiStently proclaim. They ScOrn tn
idea of a tariff for revenue. So tina
this 5000. 900. OOOand more i year is onl
incidental. IL is not what they are after
Their object is to give profit to protecte
industries In attaining this end TN
lestimatc that every dollar that goe
into the Treasury s. goes to those VIII
are protected by the character can b
seen To be reasonable. Hence the est
l Il. This
: lSl 200, OOO 900 and more year. Ihls
the increased cost OF the neceSSarieS
| life to the people. As our agriculture
population by the, last census const
tutes "A per cent. OF the people 1t
Z, readily seen how II is that tn
farmers share OF this sum IS the allege
$50. 900. 600. Think OF that. An
from the condition OF his affairs to-da
the strongest preSumptive evidence
the truth OF this is seen. Somethln
has been costing the farmer might
heavily. Wheu.iS the prosperous COZ
ldition OF his affairs when this policy b.
gan i'm 1860? 1t only aggravateS n
down condition TO be told that III
lcountry is in 4 most remarkably pro
perous condition, enjoying 4 proSperli
y that is without a parallel In the anna
: lof our race, that this prosperity an
, protection are twin sisters, going han
: i'm hand. II this be true, then Il
farmer. we repeat, has right to arr
> and ask. 'Wherc IS my share OF tn
nrosperity?" III it be true, the farmir
interests throughout the land should
far i'm advance Of what they were wht
this utheorv became the law OF Il
IS land, thirty years ago. For example,
< man who bought his farm OF 200 acre
i'm go at $50 an acre, amounting
- SO. 900. since there has been such
h great advance in values, with such
v Increase in the riches Of the land, shou
IS be able to tell to-day OF the increase
J. the value Of his investment correSpon
n ing with that I'm others. In thirty yea
= of increase i'm values, such as the wor
never saw, an increase In his case
from 30 10 80 per cent. would not
out of place TO look for; so that his >
farm in 1860 should be worth from :
to SIS to-day, and his investment
4" $40. 600 would amount To from Sl5,O'
10 $4,000. Instead of this, what Is u
10 fact? 1t is that such farm Is Seilin
to-day In many parts OF this lana Il
from s., 900 to 1000.
And this is prosperity And this
, the outcome Of the home market arg'
ment to the farmer. He might haN
q. 49,, i,, r,l-fn n tiQQo