The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1890-02-05
COST OF PROTECTION.
EJ-Speakcr Carlisle Proves the Tariff to
Re Cruel Tax on Farmers.

|
Ex-Spcaker Carlisle contributes to the
January number of the Forum an article
entitled "The Tariff and the Farmer"
II is marked by the clearness of 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 SO
framed as to protect farmers as we'll 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 suf-
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 a work of supererogation to
show that the farmer of the United
States has not, and, by reason OF the
immutab BILE 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
nd INV, ,ct
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 a
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
dor. No laws are needed for such q
purpose, and they are intended only to
deceive our farmers.
The products of agriculture constitute
from Is to so per cent. of our exports.
In this connection Mr.. Carlisle makes
the point that ii 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 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 market he has borne extraordi-
|. nary burdens for hundred years. What
has been the result? At the end of
century of protection to others he is
compelled to export larger percentage
Of his products than at the beginning.
Under these circumstances the farmer
may well inquire how much longer he
should follow the ignis fatuus of a home
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 is absolute
~ 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 $1,000, 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, of
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 chat the number of
persons engaged in protected industries
does not exceed 1,100,0 900, of whom not
more than half are heads of families, so
that the whole number of persons in
terested in the earnings of these people
is not above 100000. Mr.. Atkinson es-
Inmates that the working people of this
country consume 1913 per head of the
food products of all kinds, so that the
total consumption of the 5000. 900
would aggregate $4,000, 900, 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 S160, 1000, 900, 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 $780,
100000, which is but trifle 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
ail protected products which he is COM
PEELED to buy.
Senator Cullom laid great stress on
the reduction in the price of steel rails
since 1867, and described it ''as typi-
cal case of the working of protection"
Mr.. Carlisle shows that the reduction is
due to improved processes and the ex-
piration of patents; that there has been
corresponding reduction in free-trade