New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-03-20
ppTCFS AND THE FARMERS.

III
Getting good prices for his products. But when
tho Free Traders rejoice at that fact they are
careful not to remember that any part OF the
benefit is due to a protective taiiil. Ihus " Inc
Chicago Tribune" jubantly cries " the farmer
is on topr and shows that he is paying ohiy
moderate prices for things which he consumes
while getting better prices than usual for things
he has to sell. This is true, but how much OF
that gain is due to the Mckinley bill? II none
then il was fasehood to say that the Mckinney
bill would enhance prices OF potatoes and vege-
tables. barley, eggs, hops, wheat and ANIMALS
Blu. if part of the gain is due to the tariff then
it was falschood to say that the Mckinley bill
would not benefit the farmer
What the result actually is for the farmers
nav be judged from comparison OF wholesale
nricos at New-Yori. The tables of prices with
propcr allowance for the relative importance OF
each article quoted show that the aggregate
cost OF hundreds of articles which was 500
Nav I. 1860. is now only SIS Il, so that the
general level Of all prices is nearly T. per cent
lower than in the last year OF Democratic
revenue tariff But part of the present cost Is
due to taxes on tobacco, whlskey and beer
which were not taxed before Frec-Trado Re
bcllion created National debt. Omlttlng these
taxes the decline in the general level OF all
prices would be 1871 per cent But how do the
different classes of products compare, those OF
the farms and those which the farmers have TO
buy?
The aggregate of all farm products which cos'
500 in 1860 would cost at this time IN the
same market 800 70. showing decline OF only
\ fifth of one per cent. But the aggregate oil
all other products. less the internal taxes above
spcci6cd. which would have cost 500 in 1860
,yould cost now only $40 AZ for the same
articles in the same market, decline OF SOB %
ON every 500. On what the farmer sells, there
fore he is getting about as much in Ncw-Iolk
wholesale markets as he received thlrty-one
wears aco but on all the products that he buys,
taken together he is paying - IL per cent
less than he paid in 1860. Il ought to be OBJ
served that the gain for tho farmers IN nearly
all parts Of the country Is much greater IMAM
those figure, indicate, because the cost OF Trans
uortation has also been greatly reduced, thus
giving TO him a larger share OF the price OBJ
,ainabIe in the Scab0ard markets for his prod
ucts and also giving to him imported and man
ufacturcd products AZ less advance above their
cost at the scab0ard. But if such has been tho
general result of a Protective policy. extended
over a period of thirty years. have not the Pro-
tccion,ts some right to gratitude if - the farmer
/, on top: For it is their policy which has
opcncd mills and mines. factories and shops. en-
blowing millions OF workers, and thus has cnor-
mousIv increased the home demand for farm
products.
The comparison can be pushed much further
II is not vet four years since the relative decline
in farm and other products was nearly the same
though even then the farmers had some advan-
tacc. In May. 1887, the decline in farm prod
uctS had been 1G.s2 per cent since 1860. ana
in all other products "a per cent But after
the election in 1855 some farm products stead
ily improved, especially wool, and during the
last nine months the gain has been general but
the greater part OF the recent increase is un-
doubtcdy due to the ShOrtnc>S of crops. How
large part II is of course impossible 70 say. but
no candid or honest statement ignores the Tact
that the large proportion OF the recent advance
in prices has been from that cause. Neyerthe-
less. the Free Traders are constantly claiming
that the cost OF eggs and barley, potatoes but
ter and other farm products is greatly enhanced
in Eastern markets in consequence 81 the Me-
Kinlcv bill If that is true, the farmers realize
their share of the benefits. But the general
level Of other prices, Is was shown not long
ago. is actually lower than it was before the
Mckinley bill was passed SO that the farmer
paws less in the aggregate for what he buys.