The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-03-07
Is 1T A TAX E?

The Tribune is again abroad explaining
that the tariff is not tax, or that it is
barely perceptible ones
The farmers were prosperous thirty years
and twenty years ago, and the tariff was much
higher then than it is now. The extra cost i'm
posed by the tariff does not, one year with an
other, amount to 81 per capita per annum for the
farmers family.
The farmers Oere prosperous thirty years
ago, after low tariff from 1S47 to 1862, the
rate at the latter date being 1856 per cent.
From 1862 to 1884 the average rate was
"a. 16 per cent. from 1884 to 1890 the aver
age rate was about AZ per cent, and by the
MCKINLEY tariff law the average rate is 60
per cent.
The reader is invited to decide whether
or not the tariff rate was 'much higher'
twenty and thirty years ago than it is
today.
1t is true that the farmers were prosper
Gus thirty years ago, but they were less,
prosperous twenty years ago, while during
the last ten years, up to 1890, the farming
population has actually remained station
airy, while the other Industries have enor-
mously increased in population. Notice
the following facts:
Thirty years ago was 1850. There had
been low tariff during the preceding de-
cade covered by census returns. How well
the farmers prospered during ten years of
low tariff may be learned from the compen-
dunn of the Tenth Census, page $50.
The value of farm land in 1850 was
s., 81 ,515, 421. In 1860, after ten years of
low tariff, the value was s6,645, 045, OO7
The value of farms, then, doubled in ten
years of low tariff, or, more exactly, in
creased at the rate of 1917 per cent yearly
In 1880, after twenty years of protection,
the value of farm lands had increased to
$40, 49,, 096, 766. The value of farms had
not doubled in twenty years Of protection,
but had increased at the beggarly rate of
2119 per cent. yearly.
These census facts convict the Tribune upon
every statement it makes; but it affects to
wriggle out Of its embarrassment by aller-
ing that the rapid increase of wealth dur
ing the low tariff decade was due to our
chance discovery of gold and silver. The
| census shows, however, that the yield per
head of these metals was SIS during the
low tariff decade and sl5 during the protec-
ton decades; while the increase per head
in total wealth was s235 during low tariff
and only S35 during protection from 1870 to
1880 (MULHALL).' A difference of So in gold
and silver production fails to explain.
Now notice the assertion that "the extra
cost imposed by the tariff does not amount
to 81 per capita per annum for the farmers
family" 1t is so seldom that the Tribune
dares to make definite statement, that we
direct special attention to this one. To
answer it, we shall not argue with the pro-
tectionist, nor banter theories with him.
but shall simply copy the facts on the ques-
ton. Open the Statistical Abstract of the
United States for 1889. 1t can generally be
found at the public libraries. Turn to page
167, where the exports of agriculture.
manufacture, ETC., are gwen from 1860 to
1889 inclusive.
In 1881, the value of agricultural exports
was $3.50, 1874, 943, or 80 per cent. of the total
exports from this country. In 1889.
the value OF the AGRICULTURAL
exports was only 1892, IA, 490, or
q per cent. of the total exports. The nav
for these agricultural exports was the same
value of imports, and always is. The tax
collected on the pay for these exports of
agriculture was in 1881, exactly sIS9, 9O2. Csc.
or 26 per cent. of their total value, and in
1889 it was sl5s, sos, 432, or 30 per cent. of
their total value page 14).
"Not 81 per capita" heys Just divide
the figures of tax collected in 1881 by
%, 100000. the number Of men women and
children on farms at that time, and see if it
is not 81 per capita. 1t is over 81 per CAP
ita for the farmers family; and it is s27
per capita for every farmer, farm hand and
dairy maid in this country; and it is $50 per
capita for every farmer, farm hand and
dairy maid engaged in producing the sur
plus that is thus exported.
Oh, no it is no tax on the farmer. It has
reduced his export of agricultural products
5000, 100000 in eight years. It has made
him pay in that eight years $500, 900, 900
more than the war indemnity paid by
France to Germany. It has made him pay