The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1890-02-11
TARIFF VERSUS PRorEcrroN.
Talk to Pennsylvania Farmers.

Some weeks ago I referred to the
fact that for fifteen years prior to 1850
farmers increased in wealth, and that
during the last twenty years we had
only made a living without adding to
our wealth.
The contrast between these periods
was equally great in other respects.
During the first period there was a
steady increase in the value Of roper-
ty and the price of labor. Strikes
and tramps were unknown and capt.
| alists had to hunt for l4borers. During
the latter period all this changed,
property and the price Of labor have
steadily declined, tramps are a nuisance
in every neighborhood, strikes are the
order of the day and laborers are
compelled to hunt work or go idle.
The cause of this contrast is ex-
planned by the fact that all laws relat-
ing to business passed since 1850 are
designed to favor the capitalist and
Cypress the laborer.
Unjust taxation, an absolute refusal
to to producers from the avarice of
transportation companies, and our
system of finance r the principal
causes Of complaint.
l will say but little on the subject
of State or local taxation, because this
subject has been often discussed.
Farmers generally know that in pro
portion to their wealth they pay nine
dollars tax while the capitalist pays
one. National taxation is based on
the principle that the consumer pays
the tax. Between 1850 and 1860 we
had a low evenue tariff with the
heaviesi duties on luxuries. This has
been changed to the highest tariff
known in our history, with the heav-
lest duties on the necessaries Of life.
Foreign trade is simply an exchange
of surplus products; no coin is used in
this trade.
The average tariff on imports is
80 per cent. of their value. Our agri-
cultural exports for 1888 were valued
at $5OO,8 $40, O86, this was one years
labor for 1000, 600 farmers or over
three months labor for every person
engaged in agriculture. For this
labor, through middlemen, they re
ceived letters of credit on foreign
nations for goods to that amount.
When we brought in the payment we
were taxed $3.50, 289, ia.
Statistics show that our increase in
wealth between 1850 and 1860 was
1926 per capita. During the first
decade of high protection the increase
was only $35. But this unjust taxa
ton, although it brings millions to the
mill owners and robs the farmers, we
suffer from this cause less than from
either of the other causes mentioned.
l will close this part of the subject by
answering few protection sOphistries.
To break the force of the statement
that the tariff is simply a tax on the
consumer, the protectionist says, "the
tariff is not a tax, it is only a bounty
paid by the foreigner for the purpose
of getting into the best market in the
world"
Let us see, the tariff on sugar is 3
cents per pound; on refined, %, a diff
ference of II cents. The government
allows the manufacturer a rebate of
80 per cent. on the amount paid for
raw material when the manufactured
article is sold for foreign consumption.
Last year our refneries imported the
raw sugar, refined it and sold millions
of pounds to foreigners for 44 cents
per pound, but home merchants had
to pay eight cents per pound for the
same grade of sugar.
Does the foreigner pay the bounty
or tax in this case and still get his
sugar for 81 cents per pound less than
the citizen?
During the last tariff campaign !
listened to the best orator in this
country pleading for protection. To.
ward the close of his remarks he drew
a vivid picture of the desolation that
would follow free trade. The furnace
fires would die, the ponderous ma.
chinery stand idle and useless, millions
, of dollars invested in manufacturing
would be a total loss, thousands Of
laborers turned out of employment,
and we soon simply become a nation
, of agriculturists. At the close of this
, peroriatiOn, some n in the crowd
t who evidently was not a protection
saint, requested an opportunity to ask
a question, but the request was not
granted. Two facts prove these asser.
tons to be false, viz: When we were
) yet colonies of Great Britain, with
} population of less than three millions,
all in a narrow strip along the Sea
t board, the people of Massachusetts, en-
gagged in manufacturing and the
mother country could only stop it by
/ the strong arm of the law.
We now number over sixty millions
> of people, extending from ocean tc
= .-eL