The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1890-10-10
rs THE FARMER TAXED?
PRICES UNDER PROTECTION AND
UNDER FREE TRADE.
How the Farmer Is Benefited by Tariff
ON His Products-AgricuItural Dcpres-
sion Greater Abroad Than in the United
States


States.
The Free-trader's assumption that in
the absence of Protection goods could be
bonght at their present prices in foreign
markets is erroneous and unreasonable.
A most powerful factor in forcing down
prices of goods abroad has been the cur
tailment of their markets in the closing
of American ports against them. The
smallest demand for any article beyond
the normal supply always has the effect
of abnormally elevating prices. The
truth of this is continually experienced
in the business world. If now our
tariff laws were repealed, thereby open
ing up an immense new market for for
eign goods, would not prices rise abroad?
The question was asked of Thomas G.
Shearman, that Free-trader of Free
traders, who would, If he could, abolish
every tariff law instantly, and his
answer, publicly given before a large
audience, was that with the total aboli-
ton of the tariff prices would so advance
in other countries that domestic manu-
facturers would be enabled to dispose of
their output very nearly, if not quite, at
the old figures.
The London Financial Times of June
30 adds its testimony as to the effect of
American Protection in cheapening
prices abroad. 1t says:
1.-THE effect of Protection is to teach ma
tive makers to manufacture on the basis
of artifclally enhanced prices, while it
forces outside competitors to cut down
expenses to the BONE"
If it be true that domestic goods are en-
HANGED in price to the consumer by the
amount of the tariff paid by like articles
imported from abroad, provided impor-
tations actually take place, then, indeed,
the farmer is the most constituencies of
extortionists. For, by precisely the same
logic employed by the Free-trader in
proving that the farmers are upright
eously taxed to the amount of 1857, 000,-
600, it can be shown that the farmer is
other classes of his fellow citizens of
several times that sum. Compute the
duty on the whole of the wheat, corn,
oats, barley, beans, peas, potatoes, hay,
live stock, butter, cheese, poultry, eggs,
sugar, rice, molasses, and in fact all
farm products which are marketed with
in the boundary lines of the United
States upon which there is duty levied
when imported, and it will appear that
the vast sum of money which the agri-
culturists obtain by taxing the rest Of
the community will, by contrast, make
the paltry $457 .O0o, eco which, according
to the Free-traders, they pay seem like a
mere bagatelle.
Nor is this enhancement in price
which the farmer receives through the
operation of Protection pure creation
of fancy, but its explanation calls for
somewhat more reasonable line of argu
ment than that which was borrowed
from Free-trade.
AS small demand beyond the normal
supply largely increases prices so sup
ply only little beyond the ordinary de-
mand abnormally depresses prices. Now,
suppose that our farmers had to depend
upon the foreign market in which to
sell their products, and suppose that
million or so of men and their families
be driven out of manufacturing employ
ments, where they had been consumers
of farm products, into agriculture.
The consequence would be that the
amount which is now turned off on to
the foreign market would be so largely
increased as to drive prices down ruin
ously low. But by encouraging and pro-
tecting manufacturing and its concom-
liant host of bread and meat consumers,
thus keeping up a healthy and certain
home demand for the farmers products
and keeping the number of agriculturists
at its smallest, while rendering the farm
ing interests safe from the uncertainties
of the fuctuating foreign demand and of
Indian and Russian competition--by &C.
complishing this Protection enhances the
price of agricultural products,
But after all the vital question for the
farmer in determining prices is as to
how much his products will purchase of
the good things of life. Price Of articles
for consumption is high or low for the
individual in the last analysis only as
he can obtain them for less or greater
exertion-i. e., by fewer or more days
labor, or by the exchange of less or
greater qudHtiIy VI Ine CnlngS WHICH MS
labor produces. Notwithstanding the
grinding extortion to which, according
to Free traders, the farmer is obliged to
submit, he is much better off than he
was under the lowest tariff this country
has ever seen. Below is a table which
shows the purchasing power of farm
products during five years of Free trade,
ending in 1850, and five years of Protec-
ton, ending in 1880: