Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1891-09-24

estimate may be accepted with no little
confidence.
1t is not to be supposed, however, that
Mr.. Mills intended to say that the
manufacturers of the country are en-
riched to this enormous extent every
year by the operation of the tariff.
They are, no doubt, greatly enriched
by exacting $4,000, 100000 year more
for their product than they are worth,
but they do not by any means gain all
that consumers lose. Much the greater
part of the total is dead loss to the
country because it goes to pay for un-
economical production and waste. This
is worse than if the manufacturers
were enriched TO the full extent of the
81, 900, ,OOO, 900, for total loss is worse
than maldistribution.
To the question:: Why not protect
agriculture to the same extent? Mr..
Mills gave the true answer, as The
Herald has done, that no industry which
regularly produces a surplus for export
can be protected by the tariff, because
prices are determined in foreign mar
kets where worldwide competition pre-
walls. The wheat of the American
farmer has to meet the wheat of Russia,
Egypt, India, South America and Aus
tralasia upon equal terms in the Liver
pool market No American tariff can
help the American farmer there in the
least Therefore no American tariff
can help him in the least at home, since
the price at home is governed by the
price there.
Mr.. Mills was able to support this
position before the Iowa audience on
the authority of Senator Allison, who
had so much to do with the construc-
ton of the Mckinley tariff, but who
was willing to admit a number of years
ago that the tariff could not protect
the western farmer for the reason just
stated Mr.. Allison made that admis-
sion in 1872 when there was an attempt
to reform the war tariff. His excuse at
that time for continuing the tariff
policy was that the farmer was losing
the European market and it was neces-
sary to protect home manufacturers in
order to create home market for the
farmer to take the place of the foreign
|
Mr.. Mills may or may not have point
ed out to his Iowa audience the fact
that Mr. Allison's home market has not
been created. He made his promise of
home market at time when the ex-
ports of wheat for six years had aver
aged only about 36,000 900 bushels
year. That was more than it had aver
aged before, so that it was not quite
true that the American farmer was los
ing his foreign market. WE'LL his pol
icy was steadily pursued, with only a
trihing relaxation from 1879 to 1875, and
yet we find that for the six years end
ing with 1883 the exports of wheat av-
eraged almost exactly $50, 900, 600 bush
els year, or more than four times the
average for the six years before Mr..
Allison promised the farmers of the
West home market if they would sub
NIT to the payment of tribute to the
protected manufacturing interests a
few years longer. Mr. Mills might
have asked his Iowa audience land per-
haps he did ask how long it would
take at this rate to create home mar
ket for farm products by the tariff
method as proposed by their senator,
Mr.. Allison.
With such facts as these before them
the farmers of Iowa must see that the
pretense of protecting their interests in
the Mckinley act is an utterly false
pretense, and they can hardly fail to
suspect that it was made for no other
purpose than to deceive them-to make
them think they were protected when
they were not, and hold them in the
ranks of the republican party, and keep
them voting for a system under which
not only they but three-fourths of the
people of the country are mercilessly
heeced, while not more than one man
in ten derives any benefit whatever
from the fleeing.
The farmers of Iowa ought to be able
to see by this time that the tariff for
protection is system of false pre-.
lenses, as Samuel j. Tilden said it was
in 1876. They ought to be able to see
that whoever else may be benefited
they are always the victims of the sys-
tenn. The extent to which they in
Iowa are victimized they may roughly
estimate from the statement of Mr..
Mills that the tariff costs the country
so, 900, 600, 900 a year. Assuming that
; the agricultural state of Iowa is bled
only in proportion to population, It's
contribution to the annual plunder is
not far from 1854, 900, 900, or about $S9 on
the average for every man, woman and
child in the state. And yet until re.
Gently the farmers of Iowa have gone
right on voting the republican ticket
, and laying their misfortunes, or thei,
bad fortunes and their debts, to every
cause rather than the right one. They
seem to have begun to see some things
in their true light.
A Snide Hide in the McKinIev Bill.