Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1890-05-22
PROTECTION FOR TIE FARMER.


admitted on all sides that the farmers
complaint is well founded. Mr..
Mckinley, when reporting his tariff
bill, called attention to widespread de-
preston in agriculture, and Secretary
Rusk was besieged by farmers in all
parts Of the country, writing him tres
pecting the depressed condition of agri-
culture" He says: "Representive
farmers and farmers associations are
constantly calling my attention to their
urging the necessity of some
measure Of relief" There IS no question
about the existance of the depression
but as to its cause or causes there are
many different views, and there is
quite as much difference of opinion
remedies. Statesmen were
at first inclined to pooh pooh the whole
matter away as one of those oft recur-
ring misfortunes which come..upon the
people every few years, and did not
believe legislation could avail anything
as remedy. They go little further
now, some of them, and admit that
'unfriendly legislation has had some
thing to do with the situation, though
up to this time no particular legislation
of that character has been pointed out.
BY way of a remedy, there is substan-
tial agreement among leading members
of congress who are in sympathy with
hn n or
insist that about all the farmer needs
is protection against cheap products of
cheap labor on foreign farms. The
McKinly bill is framed so as to afford
this remedy. Secretary Rusk, in his
letter to farmers, lays much stress upon
this particular matter. He says that
lone of the gravest causes in my (his)
opinion, of the present agricultural
depression" is foreign competition,
and he is ''happy to state" that it ''can
be effectually and directly dealt with
through national legislation Then
he calls attention to figures showing
the extent of our agricultural exports
and imports. The imports he summar-
ICES as follows-igures for 1889:
Animals and their products except wool 4a,ses0l4
Miscellaneous, including breadstufis,
fruits, hay, hops, oil, rice, seed,
tobacco, vegetables, wines, etc. 1,453. 936
1Othl. .E$OosS to TOO
The secretary thinks that if d pro-
tective duty were put Oh all these
articles it would go far towards helping
our farmers out. He does not refer to
the fact that sugar has been protected
a full one hundred years, and we are not
now making as much sugar as we did
thirty-five years ago. Nor does he call
attention to the fact that flax has been
a long time subject to duty and that
our flax industry is not only not grow
ing, but that as to all finer grades of
linen, we have no manufactures at all.
Another fact which he overlooks is,
that the quantity of wheat, corn, rye,
and oats imported into the United
States is not worth talking about. Here
are the figures for 1889: 130, $40 bushels;
wheat flour, 1855 barrels; corn, ,4O1
bushels; oats, % $40 bushels, rye, 5000
bushels. A large quantity of barley
comes in from Canada every year, the
quantity last year was II 1866, ,414 BUSH
els. Raising duties on any of these
articles, except barley, can have no
appreciable effect on prices. Our own
wheat crop last year was nearly
500 ,OOO, 900 bushels, and the corn crop
amounted to over 1900, ,OO0, 600 bushels.
AS to meat and dairy products, the
entire importation in 1889 was 81 ,774.-
302 while the value of the home pro-
ducts was more than hundred times as
much. A duty of 5 cents a dozen on
eggs (now free) will raise the price of
eggs little in the large seaport cities,
and the farmers near them will be bene-
fited, but it will do the western farmer
no good. Whatever gain comes to the
interior aud western egg trade will be
enjoyed by the merchant and carrier
exclusively. And this may be said
of about all farm products.
The secretary does call attention to
important fact in this connection. He
says: 1.-The region of the United
States where this competition is doubt
less most severely felt is in is New Eng
land the seat of manufacturing enter
prises which owe their existance to the
fostering care of protective tariff laws y
And then he asks-'swith what result?''
The question he answers thus: ''That
year after year farms in the New Eng
land states are abandoned and allowed
to run to waste, while in some of them
so startling has this evil become that
legislators are cudgeling their brains to
devise some method of repopulating
their abandoned agricultural lands.''
We wond er it the secretary of agricul-
ture ever heard any complaint from
New England farmers about foreign
competition. We have heard a good
many explanations of the New England
agriculture land situation, but never
before heard it charged to the account