The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1891-09-30
TARIFF PROBLEM.
low 1t Enriches the Few at the Expeni
uf the Manv

'obber tariff.
Suppose we admit the truth of this
lor the sake of the argument If it ere
tied the wealth it also distributed it.
Wealth, population and social condi
ions go together, the latter depending
apon the manner in which the former
distributed among the people. Here
ire three incontrovertible propositions
1. If wealth does not increase with
ihe increase of population, or retro
,rades while population increases, pau
oerism and crime increases at a greater
alto than population increases.
q If wealth increases normally, and
S unequally distributed, favored few
yetting the great bulk of it, pauperism
ind crime increase at a greater ratio
han the increase of population.
8. If wealth increases and the N
:rease is evenly and equitably distrib-
lted among all classes, pauperism and
sri1ne increase in proportion to the in
crease in population, or at less ratio
aever in excess of it.
The absolute truth of these PROPOSE
ions is demonstrated by the statistics
pf all governments at all periods of his
;ory.
Let us consider the wealth represent
ID by real estate, agricultural and city.
Tor the past thirty years in the light of
these facts.
We will first apply the analysis
Franklin county, as it will serve as a.
lair example for the whole state, and
lfterward analyze the figures for the
entire state of Ohio.
Franklin county is centrally located
in the finest agricultural district in the
state, and is well situated as to mar
kets and has fifteen competing lines of
transportation. Here agriculture should
flourish if anywhere.
Columbus is a manufacturing center,
where tariff can get in its protecting
work, if anywhere.
With that view let us analyze the
figures to be found in the official rec
ords in the offices of secretary and aud
ttor of state.
Here they are, and, assuming that
the robber tariff had something to do
with producing the increased wealth,
they show how it distributes it and
how it affects the social conditions:
1. In 1860 the farm lands of Franklin
county were valued at $12 712, 663; in
1870, $12, 627, ,2s3; in 1880, $16, $50, $50; in
1890, SIC, 525, $40; increase in thirty years,
R3, S13, ,087; increase per cent. 80, or an
increase of one cent. per annum.
2. In 1860 the city property in the
county was valued at So, 87S, 1872; in 1870,
50, 651, ,315; in 1880, $22, 654. $50; in 1890,
Bs2. s36, 100; increase in thirty years $780,
961, 4S8; increase per cent $50, or nine
and six-tenths per cent. per annum.
8. The number of paupers supported
IN the county at public expense, in the
infirmary or by out door relief, in 1860,
l,283; in 1870, 2,304; in 1880, 5, ,804; in
$780, $3.50; increase in thirty years,
1905; increase per cent. 900, or 20 per
cent. per annum-
4 The number of persons confined in
the county jail in 1860 was 1856; in 1870,
216; in 1880, 52e; in 1890, 682; increase in
thirty years, 526; increase per cent. 337,
or ten and three-tenths per cent. per
annum.
s The population of the county in
1860 was so, 361, in 1875, 63, 019; in 1880,
Sc, 797; in 1890, 124, Os7; increase in thirty
years, 73, 1875; increase per cent. 156 OF
five and six-tenths per cent. per an
mum.
The following facts are made indis-
putably clear:
l. Farm values increased per cent
per annum.
2. City values increased 9.6 per cent
per annum.
8. Pauperism 20 per cent. per an
mum.
4. Crime increased 1913 per cent. per
annum.
S. Population increased Sc per cent.
per annum.
Are not these figures somewhat star
Ting TO contemplate?
The increase of $29, ,s74, 1876 in real es-
tated values in thirty years has been
distributed in the proportion of 81 to
the farming district to $9.6 to the pro-
tected district
The $12, 712, 663 valuation of property
in the farming district in 1860 had only
Increased to SIG, 525, $40 in 1890.
At the same time the Sc, 87S, 1872 valua-
4ion of city property in the protected
district in 1860 had increased to $32, $50,
$40 in 1890.
Can not the farmer see the inevitable
result of the robber tariff system?
Taking the comparative values Ia the
farming and protected districts in 1850.
the values would have stood thus upon
an equal division: Farm values, $S9,'
695, 393; city values, $16, 1854, ,4S7.
But the robber tariff exactly reverses
this, as will be seen by the figures Civ
ing the farmer but 81 increase while
the man in the protected district gets
$500.
Can even the republican farmer long
er afford to uphold such an outrageous
ly one sided system?
As we have already said. an unjust
and inequitable distribution of increas'
ed wealth, shows a proportionate In
crease in pauperism and crime.
Is not this borne out by the fguresi
The increase of the population in the
country for thirty years was So pei
cent. annually.
Had there been as just and equitable
a distribution of the wealth in 1890 as
there was in 1860, the increase in pau
perism and crime would have been in
proportion to the increase in popula'
tion, standing thus:
Paupers 3,1S4 and not 9, $50.
Criminals 800 and not 6S2.
Now let us apply the analysis to the
entire state:
1. In 1860 the value of farm lands il
the state was 1886, 06s, 529; in 1870, 1884,
sss, o5s; in 1880, $e4s. s26, 51e; In 1890
S725, ,642, 254; increase in thirty years
$3.50, 573, 726; increase per cent for thir
ty years, As per cent, or 1.5 per cent
per annum.
2. City real estate in 1860, $147, 147,'
1913: in 1870, $685. 1o6, 44s; tp 1880, $412,
6ss, ,s14; in 1890, $500, ees, ,o5sJ increase II