The Forrest City times., 1891-02-20
TARIFF LETTERS TO FARMER
 BROWN.
NO. If.
Does the Tariff Develop Our Industries
 Symmetrically


 tionists deal ip much spacious talk about promoting the symmetrical development of our industries" and "an equilibrium of all industries" In his speech in the Senate on September 10, last year, Son ator Jones, of Nevada, gave expression to this idea by saying: "I believe, in or der to have a perfect system of indus tries, there must be an equilibrium of all industries, and that this country must produce everything which by nature it is capable of producing"
 What the protectionists mean by this equilibrium of industries" and sym metry of industries" seems to be a com bination of two ideas: First, that all possible industries must be carried on in this country; and, secondly, that the rate of profits must be kept at about the same level in all industries One industry, they argue, or think they argue, must not be favored at the expense of another; must not be allowed to outstrip another in gaining wealth.
 Talk of this kind, be it remembered, is induged in by protectionsts in defense l of protection; and it is in favor of the manufacturing classes that such talk is uttered. But what an absurd position l these men take here! Who is it that would make unfair and disproportionate gains if there were no protective tariff? i They mean, of course, that the farmer i would; for when they say there must be l an equilibrium" of profits in all indus i tries, and when they say this in support 1 of protective tariff in manufactured l goods, they necessarily imply that with l out protection the farmer would make | much greater profits and the manufact- urer much smaller profits. But do you think that the farmer is getting his 1 share now in this equilibrium" of prof. 1 it's? Gov. Boies of Iowa stated in his noted speech at the dinner of the New l York Reform Club that farming had l been done at a loss during the past few ] years in the great State of Iowa. Iowa i is one of the greatest of our agricultural 1 States, and when farming is done at a l loss there, how must the condition of 1 agriculture be in less favored States? It is well-known fact that the farmers are now, as is confessed by that arch protcc- tionist Robert r. Porter, passing | through the gloomy valley of hard times It is not to be wondered at that the 1 conviction is settling down in the minds l of the farmers that they are not getting ] all that justly belongs to them, and that 1 far from having an equilibrium" of ] profits. they are toiing and other men arc reapiug the profits of that toi
 l Indeed, there are indisputabe facts ! to show that, while the farmers are | either laying up nothing or else actually 1 going in debt, many others in the pro i tected classes are making enormous l fortunes every year. Andrew Carnegie 1 has become millionaire, worth, 1t is | said, some $50, 900, GOO, and all this made 1 in the manufacture of steel rails and 1 other steel products, made at time when there was duty of ST ton on l steel rails, and when the country was ] paying every year, by comparison Of actual prices, S56, 900, coo for iron and steel products, over and above the price 1 in England. The figure given officially 1 by United States Labor Commissioner 1 Carroll D. Wright, as the total cost of pro ducing ton of steel rails, is S25. IT. The steel rail manufacture of this coun- try was in the hands of eleven com ! panies ten years ago, but consultations 1 have reduced the number to six, and | these have 8 combine" to regulate l prices. This combine has just put up the prices of steel rails S2 to S3 ton, making the price S3o. This makes net profit of S4.23 ton The New York Engineering aud Ns.aing Journal esti- mates the annual output of Carnegie's l two rail mills at GOO, GOO tons. This amount at a net profit of S4, 9 ton would yield g., 53S, ,0oo. One of Carnegie's IS mills recently turned out 1,441 tons of rails in & single day. This amount would yield net profit of S6 o95-and all this in a single day
 But this is only one case. We hear of a plate-glass company that makes 34 per cent. a year on it's capital; of a lampware factory that declares a div- dend ot 20 per cent, year, and puts more than that into it's surplus fund besides; of cotton mill that earns dividends of from 20 to 37 per eent of a copper mining company with a capital of Sl,250,0 GOO which has paid dividends of S34, 350, 900 during it's brief existence
 Yet all the prosperous concerns here named are highly protected under the humbus plea of developing our indus tries "symmetrically.
 Is this what is meant by a symmetry of industries? How does Carnegie s profits for single day compare with the profits of all the farmers ia your county for a whole month?
 Can protection, then, give us an equal ization of industries? Have I not sue ceeded in showing in previous letters that it is of the very essence and nature of protection to take away from one in- dustry in order to give to another? As farming is the only industry which can be preyed upon by nearly all others in | order to meet the expenses Of this "equilibrum," and as there is abso- lutely no way in which the farmers can even up accounts with those who get the equilibrium, is it not a clear case that this most important industry gets no good at all, but only harm and dis aster, from system of protected "equi- librium?"
 These principles can be laid down as the ped rock underneath all this tariff con- troversy: That no man will permanently engage in an industry which cannot be conducted on paying basis; that if an industry cannot be profitably conducted without a tariff 1t is run at loss to the consumer with Q tariff; that such an industry cannot add to the sym
 metry" of our industrial life, for it withdraws men from work which can be profitably done and sets them to do ing what is, under natural conditions, unprofitabe; that in many protected in dustries an undue number of seekers after wealth rush in with the expecta- ton of gain, build factories far in excess of the home market, and these factories are therefore compelled either to go out of business altogether or to shut down for part of the year: and that the products of these factories arc in most cases shut out of the foreign market by reason of the high price of tariff taxed raw materials.