The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1890-09-19

Hero Is q sample of tariff argument
from the Sioux City Journal;-sCorn is
selling at 30 cents q buslel in the Sioux
City corn country; but the organs Of Cob
den cl1bism and Calamity Janeism are
not publishing tho fact in bold faced
type" OF course the shortage Of the
corn crop has nothing to do with the big
price. IL tsa high protective tariff that
does 1t. The Journal must take it's
farmer readers to DO a pack OF fools
GRAPHIC.
Will the GRAPHIC kindly explain how a
shortage Of the corn crop i'll this country,
with q full crop in foreign countries,
would benefit tho p%rodueersi il there was
not a protective tariff, 1t has been re-
pentedly demonstrated that the American
producer cannot successfully nor profit
ably compete with the foreign producer
Dell Rapids Tmes,
The GRAPHIC will take pleasure in
making the explanation asked when its
contemporary, or any other high tariff
organ. will state when there ever was a
full crop of corn In foreign countries,
We supposed that our contemporary
knew that the corn cereal was almost
wholly peculiar to the United States.
Even was this not the case any foreign
country would find it uphill business
competing with the Illinois. Iowa, Ne
braska, Kansas and South Dakota corn
raiser, even il it could be laid down In
New York freight free as we'll as duty
free. The United States are not only Pc
culiarly corn producers but are also Pc
culiarly corn consumers. This is what
hurts, for could a foreign market be
found for our corn, as is the case with
wheat, there would never come a year
when growers Of the cereal would find it
more profitable to burn it than to sell it.
But under the present oTder Of things re-
lief OF this kind cant be expected. There
are too many McKinleys running the ma
chine. Even Brother Blaine says that it
(the Mckinley bilD "win not open a mar
ket for another barrel Of pork or another
bushel Of wheat"
With so per cent Of our exports agri-
cultural products it proves conclusiyoly
that the protective tariff, SO far as it ben
e1ts the farmer, is a humbug, a dslusion
and a snare, and is sufficient evidence
that no other country under the sun
could find a profitable market here for
their agricultural products. even we're
all duties on them removed. Even the
most Jealous advocates of a high tariff
must admit this, but a tariff is placed on
certain farm products to fool some Of the
farmers, and the 'shome market" cry is
relied upon to fix the balance. The tariff
on agricultural products only effects the
farmer when he wants to buy, and for a
score of years the high tariff organs have
been building up a "home market"-and
still the farmer is obliged to sell his pro-
duce in the free trade market Of the
world.
1T is repeatedly demonstrated that the
American producer cannot successfully
nor probably compete with the foreign
producer,
To the farmer, yes-eyerytime he COM
petes in the Liverpool market with the
serfs OF Russia and the slaves of India
I'M everytime he buys a manufactured
articlein this country to which a tax is
added to benefit the home producer. To
the farmer the tariff acts as a two-edged
sword. tcuts him everytime he buys
at home and cuts him everytime he sells
abroad. in that his products are shut out
o many foreign countries as a retalia-
tory policy for the high tariff imposed
upon that country's articles by the
United States.