Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1890-02-28
FACTS FOR FARMERS.
Read, Digest and Pass on to Your Re
publican Neighbor.

cafes tarli1 1Or protection or hlgh
tariff. The Democratic party advo-
Gates tariff for revenue, or low tariff.
Tariff legislation in the United States
since 1924 has been as follows, viz:
1924 to 1882 Protective tariff.
1882 to 1912 Revenue tariff.
1912 to 1916 a Protective tariff.
1916 to 1860 Revenue tariff.
1860 to 1883 Protective tariff.
The average price of American farm
products in the New York market un-
der the different systems is as follows
Average price of wheat for five years
lS25-lS29, protective tariff, Sill {;
1S3I-lS3S, revenue tariff, $15l; 1926
1S4G. protective tariff, $lO5; 1850
1860, revenue tariff, $l5S; 1S70-1SS0,
protective tariff, $13S; in 1886, pro-
tective tariff, SO cents.
Average price of corn for five years
-lS25lS29, protective tariff, G1
cents; 1S34-1S3S, revenue tariff, SO
cents; 1S42-lS46, protective tariff, SO
cents; 1S50-1S60, revenue tariff, y
cents; lS70-lSS0, protective tariff, SO
cents; 1SS0-lSS6, protective tariff, 40
cents.
Average price of oats for five years
-lS25-1S29, protective tariff, 80 cents !;
1S34-lS3S, revenue tariff, 40 cents !;
lS42-1S46, protective tariff, 3G cents;
1850-1SG0, revenue tariff, 81 cents !;
1S70-lSS0, protective tariff, 43 cents; !;
in 1886, protective tariff, 81 cents.
The 17,3S2,OOO people engaged in
gainful pursuits in the United States
in 1880 were divided as follows:
Seven million, six hundred and sew
enty thousand were engaged in agri-
culture, 4,O75,OOO in professional and
personal services, 3,S37 600, manufac-
turers, mechanics and mining; $780,
600 in trade and transportation.
About one million of the above are
engaged in what is termed the protec-
tive industries; the remaining 16.OCO,-
600 are unprotected. The theory of a
protective tariffs to so levy the govern
ment duties as to benefit the American
manufacturer by giving him an ad-
vantage over the foreign manufacturer
in the American market.
This is done by placing the duties
on imports SO high that we cannot buy
abroad, and must buy from our own
manufacturers.
That this system is OF great benefit
to and cOnfers an immense advantage
upon the American manufacturer none
will deny; but it is well known fact
that law which confers advantages
on one class necessarily does it at the
expense OF others.
The following facts show how this
system has effected the great interest
in which nearly one half the American
people are engaged, agriculture.
In 1850, after ten years OF revenue
tariff, the total wealth had increased
to SIG, 200, 100000. The farmers was
SIS, ,OOO, ,OOO, 600, still one-half.
In 1880, after twenty years of pro-
tective tariff, the total wealth had in
creased to $43,GOO,OOO,OOO, but the
farmers share was only $12.OOO,OOO,-
600, or little over one-fourth.
This shows an equal degree of pres
perity for the farmer from 1850 to 1860
under the revenue tariff, but it is a
damaging showing for the agricultural
interest from 1860 to 1880 during
twenty years of protective tariff; an
increase of 81 ,OOO 600 900 for the half
of the people engaged i'll agricultural
pursuits, and $4,000 600, 900 for the
other half during twenty years of pro-
lection. What does this show?
Our manufacturing industries have
prospered at the expense of agricultu-
raj interests.
The farmer has paid the bill and the
mortgage on his farm is the receipt for
his money!
1t is significant fact that the rails
ing o. wheat, corn and oats has always
proved profitable pursuit in the alb
sence of discrimining tariff laws.
1t is also true that our manufac-
turers did thriving business, without
the aid of protective tariff, during the
fourteen years between 1916 and 1860.
We consumed ninety-eight per cent.
of their products, and they exported
the remaining two per cent. Their
total product amounted to ninety per
cent. of the amount necessary to salts
fy our wants, and We imported only
the remaining twenty per cent.
Our factories were not protected in
those days, only to the extent that a
tariff for revenue necessarily protects
them-nor do they need to be to-day.
Nor was the present high tariff lev
led for the purpose OF protecting them.
1t was levied for the purpose of rails
ing the necessary revenues to carry on
the war.
1t was temporary measure, not IN
tended to be permanent, as was stated
by its author, Morrill,. of Vermont, in
his speech advocating its adoption.
Once in force, however, its advant-
ages were so keenly appreciated by
our home manufacturer, that he has,
during the twenty-four years of peace
that has followed the war, successfully
resisted all efforts to remove it.
An important question presents it.
self: How much longer can the Amer
lean farmer stand this system?
The Democrats are trying to reduce
the tariff to a revenue basis.
The Republicans declare in Their
National platform that they are sop
posed to the surrender OF any part o1
our protective system"