Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1890-10-11
EQUAL BURDENS FOR ALL.

EQUAL BURDENS FOR ALL.
The Demand That Protection Should BE
For the Average Interest of All How
This Is Impossible and How the Farmer
Is Left to Foot Other Peoples Bills.
Among the pretectionists one some.
times hears fair-sounding words about
revising the tariff in such way that its
burdens will rest on all alike. They
want what Mckinley calls "a just and
equitable revision of the tariff" Some
demand tariff that will be as much in
the interest of the consumer as Of the
produce. Senator Plumb, in his speech
attacking the Mckinley bill, said that
whatever is done should be for the
average interest of ALL"
This iOone of the dreams Of the pro-
tectfonists, fro which 1t seems that they
will never awake-a tariff that will do
everybody good in an equal measure.
But how will the protectionists set
about making such tariff?
In order to protect the manufacturer
the tart must of necessity enable him
to sell at higher prices-otherwise there
is no protection.
Very well, then; you have put up
prices for one man; the only fair thing
to do is to put them up for others-for
all others You are bound to put up
prices for all consumers on the goods
which they sell, in order to make good
the loss which they have suffered by
paying the higher price created by the
manufacturers protection. 1t is abso-
lutely clear that unless the consumer
pays higher prices for the articles he
buys the maker Of them gets no pro-
lection. Is it not equally clear that the
consumer can not make up his loss ex
cept by selling something to somebody
at a price raised high enough to cover
that loss?
The protectonists feel the force of all
this themselves-hence their doctrine
of the home Market that the protected
manufacturers make up to the farmer
for the increased cost of the things he
buys by giving him a market for his
farm products. Then they labor to
show the farmer that this home market
is the best for him, is closer to him, is
steadier, has no pauper-grown Hindoo
wheat in it, as Europe has; and yet the
farmer knows all the time that he gets
precisely the same price for his products,
sold in the home market, as IL. the for
eign market
The farmer knows this and yet he
feels that the Government ought to do
something for hm-ought to do just as
much for him as for others In this
feeling he is entirely right. He has
the same rights before the law and
merits precisely the same consideration
as the manufacturer. The farmer is
feel ng this and saying it more earnestly
than ever Hence the great farmers
organ zations of various kinds, and the
| plan to build Government warehouses,
which has found favor in some quar-
ters.
In the face of the farmers demand
| that something should be done for
him, Mckinley raises the duty on
agricultural products in order to deceive
| him into thinking that now at last he is
going to get some benefit from the tar
| IT, But what about these so-called
agricultural products and provisions?'
Senator Allison sized them up very
justly in a speech in the Senate in 1879
as follows: 1t is true that under Gus.
toms laws there is a small duty on
wheat, barley oats and other agricula
ural products, but it does not afford any
] 70 ha urb nd tn
producing regions of the country"
The only two ways, then, in which
protection can benefit the farmer-frst
| by giving him a home market which
will pay him higher price for his prod
ucts than the foreign market will pay;
and second by placing duties on his
products which will enable him to sell
at higher prices-are both seen to offer
him absolutely nothing to make up for
the increased cost which the manufact.
urer's protection has laid upon him.
But even if some way could be found
for giving the farmer an advantage
equal to the burden that protection has
laid upon him, is it not clear that the
two advantages-his own and the manu-
| facturer's-would precisely balance each
other. Equal protection to both sides
means no protection to either, and pro-
lection to only one side means loss tc
the other; for protection has money
value, and if it is to enrich some it can
only do so by making others poorer.
Protection is not a thing that can SIM
ply be voted by Congress without any
one feeling it. The increased price has
to be paid by the consumer; and in this
way the farmer not only fails to reap
benefit from protection, but he has to
make up for the protection gains Of
others, all the time and everywhere.
Is he willing to stand that? II he is
willing how long can he afford it? Will
the time not come sooner or later when
he will see that he is playing losing
game? Has not that time come when
the farmer sees his land values declining
enormously, when he finds the mortgage
on his farm about to be foreclosed? Is
it not all the more clear when he sees
the protected classes thriving and mul.
tiplying as never before; when he sees
trusts crowding upon trusts as never be-
fore in the mad struggle for riches?
What is the farmer doing to shake of
this false system in which he is strug-
Cling for existence merely? What will
he do?