Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1890-06-20
A FARMER SEES LIGHT.

au 4OWa armer. showing up the
Fallacies Of a Recent Communica-
ton in Chicago Protectionist Or
gan-Free Trade and High Tariff
Results Placed Side by Side.
An Iowa farmer under date of Fer
tile, May Goth, addresses the following
communication to the Chicago Herald:
Editor of the Herald: | read an
article in the Chicago Inter- Ocean in
reference to the earnings and expenses
of an English mechanic. l did not
give the article much attention at the
time, but the occurrence of u circum-
stance the other day brought it to my
mind and induced me to look the pa
per up and better acquaint myself
with the contents of the article men,
toned. The article is entitled can
English Workingman: His Record
Under Free Trade for Thirty-seven
years." 1t seems TO have been written
and published for the purpose of prov
ing that the workingman would have
done better under English protective
tariff than he did under English free
trade, and that the American work.
man would do no better under free
trade than the Englishman did. But
in my mind it defeats its own object.
The record begins in 1850. when the
man received 1915 a week. In 1853
his wages were increased, but the
writer does not say how much. In
1854 he got married and went to
housekeeping. The following year a
child was born; then, it says, trouble
began. / have noticed that it gener-
ally does to poor young beginners,
even in protected America. The rec
ord says that the services OF the doctor
and midwife cost him $50. l guess
that is about correct, at least accord
ing to my own experience. / and my
wife commenced housekeeping in two
rooms in the city of Brooklyn, with
$1.5O a day, and the protective tariff
did not pay my doctors bills, nor do
think that it made it any easier to
walk the floor all night with peetish
baby. In 1856 the mans child was
taken ill and died, and the expense
for doctor and burial was $3.50, for
which / can't see how free trade was
responsible. In 1858 a second child
was born, and ! presume that it was
attended with more expenses, though
we are not told. In 1860 the man
was .$35 in debt, after having worked
hard, it says, for more than ten years
of married life. At this time the
workman was receiving $500 a year
and his total earnings for the ten
years s6GO Cs3,33O) Divided by ten
this averaged him $3.50 year, which
is a good deal more than thousands Of
Americans are getting to-day in pro.
tected America. But the article fur.
ther states that in 1864 this hard
working family was at the height oI
its prosperity.
There were three Children to edu-
cate, but the father was earning $500
a year and was out OF debt, but he had
never been able to lay by the smallest
sum for future needs, though he had
INDUCED in the luxury of a Swiss
watch. / carry to-day Waterbury,
price $3.50; can't afford better. In
1871 the family, altogether, is earning
$3.50 year, but in consequence of the
support of an aged mother and another
aged relative-a very cOmmendable
act, though l can't see how free trade
was responsible for it-lSSO finds him
500 in debt. Now up to this time he
has worked thirty years and has earned
in all $12, ITO, averaging $43l year,
or $1.374 for every working day for the
thirty years. Now, did the writer
wish to prove that tina. cabinet maker
would have get bigger wages in Eng
land under protective tariff than he
did in England under free trade e? The
facts disprove it. He commenced in
1850, either before or soon after the
adoption of free trade by England,
and the further the government got
away from its protective policy the
better pay the mechanic got. And
again, would he have been able to save
more money if he had been compelled
to pay 80 per cent. duty or tariff tax
on all the food he and his family con-
sumed during the thirty years? There
are thousands of sober, industrious
workingmen in this protected country
who have not received for their labor
an average of $431 year during the
last thirty years, and they have not
applied to the government for pen
sion to keep them out of the poor
house. Please give us some more
Il IL -
Now we have seen "a sample of free
trade misery. Let me give sample
Of American protective tariff pros
perity. The case in point is a young
married man, a near neighbor to me.
He is working rented farm. He and
a hired man, who is good man and
whom he had the good fortune to get
for SIS a month, when the average
wages is about 500, cultivated last
year 16O acres. He had eighty acres
to oats and eighty acres to corn. His
oats yielded forty-two bushels per acre
he gave fourteen bushels of that for
rent, which left him twenty-eight
bushels per acre; that multiplied 10y
eighty gave him 2,240 bushels, out Of
which must come all the expenses
He sold them for Is cents a bushel
which amounted to 1886. His corn
yielded thirty-six bushels per acre, and
he gave twelve bushels for rent, leav'
ing him twenty-four bushels for hi.
share. That multiplied by eighty