Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1891-09-24

NO. %
while in England it is $11 80. That is
to say the labor in this country costs
just 20 cents more in the United States
than it does in England. etfor years
the manufacturers have been protected
to the amount of SIT per ton, and the
republicans will take credit that the
Mckinley bill has reduced this protec-
tion to $l3.44 per ton. 1t seems to me
that if he had thrown off the S13 and
kept the A cents, the manufacturer
would still have enough projection to
cover the difference in the cost of the
labor that produce that ton of steel
rails.
Now the republican party processes
to protect the farmer upon his wool pro-
duct, and yet the price keeps going
down. We consume 800, 100000 pounds
of wool every year, yet we only produce
240, ,O00, 900 pounds.
There is not a product of fine wooden
goods made in the United States from
American wool, because we cannot
produce the kind that is needed. In
1868 they put higl, tariff on wool, and
the price Went down. The price of wool
was 80 cents before the Mckinley bill
was passed, and now the same wool is
only worth 20 cents. But as the man
said, "Since the tariff was put on it is
true that the price has gone down, but
then the tleeces are twice as heavy"
Australia formerly bought American
flour, but the result Of the high tariff is
that they cannot any longer exchange
their wool for the American farmers
wheat, and have turned their pastures
into wheat fields. Another, result is
that the increased cost Of this foreign
wool, which We must have to make our
clothes, has caused an immense de-
crease in the amount of wool used, be-
cause of the increased amount of sub
stitutes used. Why, the amount of
shoddy has increased from 19,O0O,0 900
pounds to 100000 pounds. have
been told that there is not woolen
mill in the east that does not have a
shoddy mill attached, where the old
rags are torn up and used over and over
again.
Now, if any of you should ask re-
publican what was the greatest benefit
of the Mckinley bill, you know as well
as do that every republican will at
once answer, Stree sugar." Now I
claim that that proves the truth Of the
democratic argument, that the tariff is,
tax and that the consumer pays it,
and as said just now, if it is a good
thing to benefit the people by the re-
moyal of the tax on sugar, and if the
repeal of the tariff on that article has
rendered it vastly cheaper, why would
it not be an equally good thing to re-
duce the tariff on other articles and SO
make them cheaper also. There is one
thing, though, that you farmers Of the
Northwest should recollect, and that is
that the big bounty which the republic
can party has said shall be paid to the
sugar producers if they will be so kind
as to engage in the busines. This boun-
ty of $40, ,000,0 900 per year, means that
they are paid S12O per acre, as it is not
an unusual thing for the Louisiana
plantations to produce 5000 pounds of
sugar to the acre, for which they are
paid out Of your taxes bounty of two
cents per pound.
would like to speak more fully of
this reciprocity of which we hear SO
much and explain how it will really IN
t. jure instead of benefit the farmers of
the northwest, but my time limit has
expired and must close with the hope
that you will give the questions careful
attention, and vote for lower tariff and
lower taxation
The weekly papers of the state
that threw cold water on the plan of
home inspection of grain, are unwit-
tingly discouraging the most benefi-
i E. 7 I q E ID -
cial legislation ever pnt on a statute
book. The difficulties in the way of
the inspection this year may be In.
surmountable, but the principle is
all right, and the farmers believe it
will prevent what has been the cause
of heavy losses in the past, and viii
be heavier this year on account Of
! the frost. The weekly press isonly
playing into the. hands of the enem-
les of the men who raise the wheat,
in carelessly repeating arguments
and sophistries against the inspect
ion laws started by outside specula-
fors and elevator rmanaUars James-