The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1890-02-22

a helping hand to correct these conditions.
further note that professors and theorists
are chiefly tree traders. Ant-protectionists
claim that our protective system is unfa-
vorable to our agricultural interests and
recommend free trade or tariff reform as "a
remedy q think equal protection would Do
more proper. The former is MIR. Carlisle $
theory and also that protection has origl-
mated trusts and combinations.
This is hardly possible for we find free
trade EngIand's agricultural interests in a
lower condition than here, her lands being
given up by her tenantry coming to this
country to engage in farming for the reason
that her farmers are not protected but their
interests antagoniz-d by the cheap labor OF
India and other countries, and also ma
that trusts and combinations exist there as
hire, this is free trade England. Her policy
is to sacrifice all farming interests to build
up her manufactures at home.
| In MARYLAND our interests are antagonized
by the cheap labor of foreign countries and
cheap way of producing in the West aided
by railroad Determinations. Give Maryla
farmers equal protection, equal taxation,
equal considerations at home and we have
the remedy. Continue present conditions
and other iuterests'sutfer, for agriculture If
paramount.
In summing up the Tariff question the
conclusion is as | see it, that the Tariff has
very little to do with the price OF our pro-
ductions abroad AZ the present time The
| hrp. "a is adj nv
mand, the demand abroad for the products
of our farms is gradually growing less on
much that we raise. Ii we should adopt
the Gladstone system Gree trade) it would
not increase the demand or advance prices
unless il drew our people there to manufac-
| ture and that would lesson the demand
here. As !. see it the true system is to have
home market, with a well paid class of la
borers to consume our productions. Equal
| protection for the farmer and a subsidized
| commerce.
Gentlemen We may differ on the Tariff
but such systems and conditions which an
tagonize our interests should he viewed
from the same standpoint and no other.
Uusc-upulous partizans and demagogues
delight To see farmers divided for in it is
their strength. Ii farmers were more rep
resented in Congress and Legislatures their
avocation and living would be- gone Then
unequa! and unjust conditions would be re
moved. Now there are conditions which
are unequal and UNJUST bearing heavily
upon the farmer particularly, which should
be removed or the farming interest elevated
to meet these conditions.
1t is not my 9iesire to lower the stand
ard of the laborer, nor detract from his pay,
neither interfere with systems and condi
tions tavoring our professional classes, but
few calculations and comparisons will
show that the farmer is antagoniZed by in
CAPABILITIES which will have to be removed or
the condition of the farmers elevated to
meet them.
All classes stood on the same business |
footing at the clio Of the war. Prices we're |
established at time on an inf ted money |
basis, it was const quence of the war. |
Then hushel of wheat or ~ bushels of |
corn paid for days work in the harvest |
field. Now it takes "a bushels of wheat or |
bushels of corn.
A doctors bill was paid with 4 bushels of |
wheat or 6 of 0orn. Now it taxes II BUSH
els of wheat OF % of corn. A lawyer then
might be tempted with bushel of wheat |
retaining fee or bushels of corn. Now it |
takes u OF wheat or % Of corn. l might |
apply this computation to other avocations |
more unfavOrabe to the farming interests
but any intelligent farmer can continue the |
application and he will not find an instance |
where the farmer is, not antagonized by the |
war dollar of other classes aud his conclu
sion will be that, professional services of
all kinds, labor included, cannot be paid for |
By the farmer at the prices now received |
from the general productions of the farm.
These conditions are of a cumulative ma !
ture as we'll as other combinations and are |
unjust because they were made on the basis
of the inf .ted dollar which will purchase |
now double rs much as during and before the
time of the war of farmers productions and |
manufactured goods, with few exceptions.
This is no theory with me, it Is an expert |
euce. a reality de .rly purchased The green
b,ck which we accepted as pay in the time
mostly if not entirely in deprecated lands |
and productions, our receipts if any are |
used to meet unequal conditions.
We are not favored by equal protection. |
Transportation over railroads paying 6 per |
cent. on valued stocks eXhausts our sub |
st .nce. We have to contend with the ele |
ments and meet disaster in that way. Can |
10
Comment on the essay being IN order |
Mr.. Mccullough disclaimed any desire to |
discuss the Tariff question, but in the
main agreed with the views and opinions |
expressed by the essayist.
Mr.. Squier stated his opinion as being, |
that the policy of any government to |
subsidize one industry at the expense of
another could not be defended either in |
justice or reason. He expressed himself |
as opposed to W hat is known as "A Protec |
tive Tariff, because it did subsi1ize one |
industry at the expense of another, be- |
cause under protective system the cost |
of every commodity to the farmer was
price or market value of his products |
was not correspondingly increased. Mr.. |
Squier followed the general proposition |
laid down by him with argument and H. |
lustration stated with his usual force.
Mr.. Kitchener expressed himself as
pleased with the essay ard generally |
ha vic he'll nv Mr. Nnvps
Mr.. Wilson thought that the true pol
ICY of all government should be the great
est good to the greatest number. He
did not think that the protective system
agricultural Industries of this country as
important as they are did not derive equal
advantages under this system, which the
manufacturers and other Industries de-
under the Tariff, was with him the great
est objection to the protective system,
since it, in his opinion, benefited the
few at the expense of the many.
Mr.. Bond said that he held very pro.
nounced views upon the Tariff being a
protectlonist, and believing in the prin
cple of protection, but did not feel that
he could do either the subject or himself
| justice in undertaking to discuss it.
Mr.. Carson thought that never in the
history of this country, could the general
necessaries of the farmer be purchased as
cheaply as now, and cited the case of
| farmers tools and implements as illus