The Forrest City times., 1891-01-23
TARIFF LETTERS TO FARMER BROWN.
NO. 13.
Docs a Protective Tarid Restrict Exporta-
 ton.

DEAR FARMER BROWN: In discussing in my last letter the question whether the tariff restricts foreign trade, con fined myself entirely to ono side of this trade, that of importation According to promise, now take up tho other side, that of exportation--Does the tariff hinder us from selling our products abroad?
 Many protectionists profess to believe that we have no need for foreign mar ket, and contcmptuously ask, with ex- Gov Foraker of Ohio, "What have we to do with abroad?" Some seeker for protec- tion said before McKinley's committee last year that we ought to eat all our beef at home, instead of selling our surplus beef in Europe. The American Economist, the organ of the Protective Tariff League, prints an article to show what we are losing by selling the greater part of our cotton in Europe instead of manufacturing it our selves. This paper scouts the idea that we need foreign market at all; 1t ridicules the idea that we can compete in the worlds markets pretends that those markets are comparatively worthless anyway, and yet faces about and tries to show that our tariff does not in any measure prevent us from selling our products abroad
 Contempt for the foreign market, how ever, is rapidly passing away, even among stanch protectonists, as Is shown by the popularity of Blaine's tame reciprocity scheme. The great farming masses of the land are fully awake to the importance of a foreign market for another bushel of wheat and another barrel of pork"
 But to the main auestion-how does protection cut us off from the foreign market for our products? It does this in various ways.
 In the first place, if tariff wall was put up so high that no foreign goods at all could come into the country, all of our exports would have to be paid for in money. But 1t would be impossible for foreign countries to stand the dram upon their currency which this would cause. Our total sales in for eign countries for the fiscal year ending Juno 30, 1890. amounted to S1S9, oo0 900. If foreign nations should have to pay us this vast sum of money every year their money would soon be exhausted, and trade with us would ceas = But what is still worse for us, if this Enormous vol ume of money were added every year to
  come so plentiful as to lose it's present value; in other words, the price of every thing we have to buy would go up enor- mously.
 On this ground mainly the revenue re- formers lay down their proposition, that we must buy from foreign nations If we wish to sell to them.
 This proposition does not mean neces- sarlly that our purchases from any one country must balance our sales to it; for 1t IS n current custom in foreign trade that the merchants of one country ex- change bills with those of second coun- try to wipe out debts with those of third country. In this way our large purchases of coffee and rubber in Brazil are largely paid for by sending our farm products to England the English mer- chants, in turn, settling with the Brazil ians by shipping them manufactured goods of various kinds.
 Again, if We could realize the protection fists ideal of selling as much as possible to foreigners without buying anything from them, another serious difficulty would arise. If ships had to come empty across the ocean for our products, those products would haye to pay double freights to get into European markets. On the contrary, when we buy largely in foreign nations many ships come to our shores laden with goods, and these ships are anxious to get cargocs to take back. This was well illustrated during the first week of last October, tho last week of the old tariff law. An extraordinary number of ships were entered at tho port of New York. and the exports of American products were enormous. So a m Sb Ia vxav .,ntf e. cargoes that the charge for freight from New York to European ports reached a very low figure, there being some cases, indeed, where grain was taken freo as ballast
 Now it is clear that the cheaper ocean freights arc the cheaper will our prod ucts be put down in foreign markets, the greater will be their sales, and the more successful will be their competi- ton with the products of rival nations Hut grain which has to pay two freights is necessarily sold at higher price, and the consumers of grain will buy else where if possible.
 Considerations of this kind have al- ready found expression in England, which takes by far the largest part of our exported products, particularly farm products. When the Mckinley bill was passed the London Econon.ist comment ed upon that unwise measure by saving: "Many of tho staple commodities we now import from the United States VIC can buy elsewhere, and If the cost of produc- ton in the States is enhanced, as it must be under the new tariff, these other markets will become the cheapest for us to buy in."
 Even before the Mckinley bill was passed the English had begun to turn their attention to other sources of grain supply. The London correspondent of the New York Times, in cable dispatch to that paper early in September last year. said of the Mckinley bill:
 "For one thing, it has already made 1t certain that Europe will take no interest in the Chicago exhibition, and will prac- tically be unrepresented there Even more important is the impulse it has given here to consolidate capital in an energetic effort to immediately push rail ways throughout the Indian and Russian wheat belts, and thus render the Europe an market independent of American grain supplies.
 In this way natural retaliation will