The free press. (Poplarville, Miss.) 1890-19??, 1892-10-20
The Tariff and the Farmer.

A Pennsylvania Democrat writes the
Courier Journal for information upon
the following points
81. How does the tariff affect the
grain farmers as compared with the cot
ton growerss
"2. How are tariff rebates regu-
lated2
"3. What articles of trade, either
produced on the farm or manufactured,
can be sold in the Engish market
cheaper than in the American marketa /
mean American goods"
l.. The tariff affects grain farmers
and cotton growers alike in this, that it
robs both. 1t is true that there is
tariff on corn, wheat and oats, on the
pretense of protecting them, but they
need no protection, because they are
exported in large quantities and sod in
competition with the grain of other
countries. Whenever commodity can
be exported ia large quantities, II is be-
cause it is produced more cheaply here
than it is abroad. In the last fiscal
year we exported 157 900, 900 bushels of
wheat, worth $16l,000, 600, bes,des
1000, 900 barrels ofsflour, worth $780,
COO, 900; also 75,000,000 bushels OF
corn, worth S41, 500, 900, and nearly
5000, 600, 900 pounds of cotton, worth
$25S, 900, 900. We were enabled to do
this because these commodities were
cheaper in the United States than in the
countries to which they were sent; the
price abroad, less freight, commission
and other charges. being the price re-
allied for them here. 1t is nonsense to
talk of protecting cheap goods against
those that are dearer; by the natural
laws of trade commodities seek the mar
kets where prices are best. Cotton is
on the free list, while wheat is nomi-
nally protected by duty of twenty-five
cents bushel; but cotton is as effectu-
ally protected by its cheapness as wheat,
and neither is protected by the tariff.
Where the robbery comes in is in the
tax on the goods which farmers receive
for their grain and cotton. We sent
abroad last year, in round numbers,
$500, 900, 600 worth OF products OF agri-
culture of all kinds. What did we get
in return9 Did we get our pay in gold7
No; we exported more gold and silver
than we imported. We had to take
foreign merchandise in exchange, and
ON all dutiable goods the tariff exacted
a duty of nearly fifty per ceat. Thus.
of the Sl6l, 600, 900 worth OF wheat ex-
ported, the farmers, if paid in dutiable
goods, would get back only ABOUT S110,.
900, 900 wortn, the remainder being
necessary to pay the duties. 1t is true
that all imports are not dutiable; but it
is also true that the farmers pay to do
mestic manufacturers mucn higher prices
tor goods obtained from the II than
similar goods would cost abroad; SO
that a reduction of one third from the
purchasing power of our agricultural ex-
ports does not by any means represent
the exaction which the tariff makes OF
the farmers.
2. When imported material is used
In the manufacture of an article, ninety
nine per cent. of the duties paid on such
material Is refuni led when the article is
exported.
3. Many agricultural implements, sew
ing machines, and many other articles,
are sold abroad at lower prices thau at
home. This has been denied, but it has
been proved beyond question; and some
protectionists admit AMI defend it rs
proper. The rebate OF duties on import
ed material contributes to render this
possible; but it also happens in the case
of articles on which no rebate is paid,
because high tariffs enable the manufac.
turer to exacs excessive profits at home,
while abroad, where the tariff gives him
no advantage, he IS compelled to take
reasonable profit. - Courier-J Journal.