The Forrest City times., 1891-02-20
NOT M'KINLE YED.
THE FAILURE OF THE FARMERS s
 TARIFF EXPOSED,


 tho "Farmer's Tariff"
 The protection papers can be depended upon to make admissions which damage their case and confirm the positions of the tariff reformers. The opponents of our present tariff system have at all times contended that protective duties on general farm products could not pos sibly result in any advantage to the farmers, since we are exporters of such products to an enormous extent, and since we import almost nothing in those lines. For these reasons tariff reformers predicted that Mckinley's so-called farmers tariff" would prove failure, since his duties on farm products could not raise the prices on such commodities. A prominent Republican journal now undertakes to show in detail that this prediction is fulfilled, that the prices of farm products have not advanced. This journal is the New York Press, of which Robert r. Porter was editor before he became Superintendent of the Census. The Press was founded and has been kept alive by wealthy protectionists for the purpose of propagating the protec- tion heresy. This protectionist mission ary journal undertakes in two-column news article, entitled "Not 'McKin- leyed, to show that the Mckinley law has not increased the price of the neces- sares of fife.
 The Press goes about it's task in a very light-hearted way "There has been a great deal of talk" it says, "anent the new tariff law, that the measure was bound to raise the price of necessaTies, would raise the price anyway, and great endeavors have been made by free-trad- rS tn nf bill introduced by Major Mckinley has enhanced the price of necessaries to the poor, to employ an English common-law idiom. The law has now been i'll effect three months, and the Press has been looking around little in this city and its suburbs to ascertain in quiet way for itself what real y has been the eff feet of the Mckinley law in it's bearings upon the necesSares of the table. The result in this city is that the free-trade ontcry appears to have all the well-de- fined symptoms of bugaboo"
 With this jaunty introduction the Press proceeds to give brief interviews with grocers and butchers, and to print the price lists of some of these. Look ing over these price lists, one sees that they are made up entirely of the prod- ucts of our farms, dairies and orchards. The prices of beef, mutton, pork and poultry, vegetables, green and canned fruits, canned meats, etc, are given in these lists and we are assured by the merchants that these things arc as cheap now as in October.
 This is precisely what any man could have foreto d; but it was not to be ex- pected that one of the chief protection organs in the country would undertake to demonstrate to the farmers that McKinley's tariff on farm products does them no possible good.
 One wholesale dealer in meats assured the Press reporter that ~prices have been high right along for five months, and the Mckinley bill has had no effect on them whatever The fact is that the prices average two cents a pound lower than they did Nov. A fruit dealer .declared that prices now remain steadily as they were Oct. l." and a dealer in butter and cheese made precisely the same report for those articles A firm of large pork dealers asserted that their prices were the same as Oct l. The head of this firm went on: "The fact is, we are pur- chasing little cheaper than we were Oct l, but as we were selling very close then, the prices have not dropped. Hogs have not been so cheap in ten yeas as they are this year. They are two cents more pound than they were Nov l., but that is due solely to the fact that feed is so high. It has nothing whatever to do with any tariff measure"
 This article in the Press, as the farmer will sec, was written for city readers, and was intended to show them that the Mckinley law has not hurt them by raising the prices of farm produce. It was not intended for farmers, for the farmers must be made to believe that McIlinley's farmers tariff" really does them some good.
 But how could the Mckinley duties be expected to raise the prices of these things? Let the farmers reflect on few figures of duties under the old law and under the Mckinley law, together with our imports and exports of few articles for the fiscal year 1890:
 BUTTER. duty, cents per pound; Mckinley duty, $ cents; imports, 75, pounds; exports, go, 74s, 042 pounds.
 CHEESE --Old duty cents, Mckinley duty cents; imports, 9,263,5 573 pounds; exports, 95, 376,o o53 pounds
 BAcoN.-Old duty 9 cents, Mckinley dutys5 cents. imports too insignificant to get into the Treasury reports, but all
  worth); exports, 531, s99, GOO pounds.
 HAMs.-Old duty ? cents. Mckinley duty cents; imports (none reported) exports, 76, 59l, 900 pounds.
 BEEF.-Old duty l cent, Mckinley duty ? cents; imports (none reported) exports, 353, soc. 000 pounds.
 MUTToN.-Same duties as beef; i'm. ports (none reported); exports, 256, COG pounds.
 PoRK.-(Fresh and pickled.) Same duties as beef; imports (none reported); exports, 5000, GOO pounds
 LARD.-Old duty ? cents, Mckinley duty cents; imports (none reported) exports, All .0O0, GOO pounds.
 APPLEs.-Old duty (none), McKinl ey duty 25 cents per bushe; imports (none reported); exports 453, ,00O barrels.
 DRIED ApPLEs.--Old duty (none), Me Kinley duty cents q pound imports (none reported); exports, 0,s00. 0OG pounda
 BARLEY. --Old duty 10 cents bushel. Mckinley duty 30 cents; imports. II, 33o,- 00o; exports, l,400,000 bushels.
 CoRN.-Old duty 10 cents, Mckinley duty 15 cents; imports, 1,626 bushels; exports, 10l, ,9Oo,000 bushels.
 OArs.--Old duty 10 cents, Mckinley duty 15 cents; imports, 21,000 bushels exports, l3,690, GOO bushels.
 UAT MEAL, --Old duty half cent per pound, Mckinley duty one cent; i'm ports; 2,360,oo pounds; exports, a5, AGO. too pounds.
 WuEAT.--Old duty 20 cents bushel Mckinley duty 35 cents; imports. 157, COG