Orange County observer. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1880-1918, 1892-10-29
The Tariff and thu Farm er

1uc 1dFiu anu tH1 FARMER.
A Pennsylvania Democrat writes the
Courier ournal for information upon
the following points
u How does ths tariff affect the
grain farmers as compared with the cot !.
ton growers!
"2. How are tariff rebates reyu-
lated?
"3. What articles of trade, either
produced on the farm or manufactured,
can be sold in the English market
cheaper than in the American marketi I
mean American goods
/. The tariff affects grain farmers
and cotton growers alike in this, that it
roDs both It is true that there is
tariff on corn, wheat and oats, on the
pretense of protecting them, but they
reed no protection, because they are
exported in large quantities and sod in
competition with the grain of other
countries Whenever commodity can
be exported in large quantities, it is be-
cause it is produced more cheaplv here
than it is abroad In toe last fiscal
year we exported 157 ,O0c, 900 bushels Of
wheat, worth S161 900, 900, besides
$1,000, 900 barrels Of flour, worth So5,-
coo, 900; also 100000 bushels of
corn, worth Sal 500, 900, and nearly
5000, 900, 900 pounds of cotton, worth
$3.50, 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-
nalIy protected by duty of twenty-five
cents bushel, bat cotton is as eftectu
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, 900 worth of products of agri-
culture of all kinds. What did we get
in returnl Did VIC get our pay in goldl
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
duty CT nearly fifty per cent. Thus,
of the S161 ,UOC, 900 worth of wheat ex-
ported, the farmers. if paid in dutiable
goods, would get 1acS only about $11O,,'
900, 900 worth, f1e 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 much higher prices
tor goods obtained from them than
similar goods would cost abroad; SO
that reduction of one~thrd 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
III the manufacture Of an article, ninety
nine per cent. OF the dutie, paid on such
material is refunded when the article is
exported.
j. Many agricultural implements. sew
ing machines, and many other articles,
are sold abroad at lower prices than at
home This has been denied, bu. 1t has
been proved beyond question, aud some
pro,ectionis,s admit aud defend it a.
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 manusac-
turer 70 exac. exec ssive profits at home
while abroad, wherc the tariff gives hiu
+ no advantage, he is compelled to take Z
reasonable profit. -Couri er-Journai.