Hot Springs weekly star. (Hot Springs, S.D.) 1892-1917, 1892-05-27

ing tlaIc, has tlourisned AID f1oulishes
to-day equally with our other protected
Industries.
Question No. Is. 1.-THE duty s not added 10
the cost, wherein does the tariff benefit the
farmer i'll the sale OF his productions:
BY creating n market 1or him 10 sell
his products in, and by restricting do
mestlc production and foreign imports.
while continually increasing the demand
for what he has to sell.
Question No. ~ Why the abandonment OF
Eastern farms with protected labor i'll the neigh.
boring factories:
Because there is so much better and
cheaper land out West. Eastern farm
ers prospered before Western farms
Eastern farmers found it to their advan-
tage to go West" where they could get
any quantity of the best land Tor the
asking. But, rs a matter of fact. the de-
serted New England farms are few.
For let it not be forgotten that MANY of
the rocky hills of New England are
more profitable to the cultivntor than
the fertile fields of the West. Why?
Because of those same factories with
their protected army of consumers with
IN easy reach.
to protect labor. could the tarsii be greatly re.
duced and still afford protcction?.
In some instances, yes. But what
benefit would he derived through such
reduction Take wire nails, for in
stance. The duty OF them is ? cents a
pound. 1t is obviously higher than
need be at present, because the nails are
actually selling for II cents a pound.
What harm does the duty do? Ii abol-
ished probably not a nail would be i'm
ported. Why not abolish it! Probably
because no one ever thought it worth
while to ask for Its abolition. Congress
did not act without a reason in framing
the present tariff. Every change of any
importance was made at the suggestion
of some person or persons, after argu.
ments pro and con had been heard. No
n asked for the removal of the duty
on wire nails, for the same reason, per-
haps, that no one asked for a law
against spots on the sun. No good
coald possibly result in either case.
Question NO. 81. Does not the rebate clause
In the Mckinley law allow our manufacturers
to sell cheaper 10 foreign customers thun
American, when the raw material is imported .
Yes; and thereby enables them some
times to find a market in a foreign coun-
try which they otherwise could NOT find.
That is to say, it is the means of bring
labor in making the goods to go abroad,
and brings back to the country the
money paid for them by the foreigner,
while not Il hair of anyone's head in
this country is harmed by the ~transac-
ton. 1t gives our manufacturers prac-
ticaliy all the benefits of free raw ma
%terials, and bids them capture the
worlds markets if they can, while it
Keeps the bars good and high around
our w markets in order to hold them
surely Cor IL W people anyhow.
Question No. 81. With II bounty of Q cents a
pound OIL sugar. which must be isaid out OF the
to the consumer come in through tree sugar?
1t comes in this way: The revenue
from the duty on sugar and molasses
amounted to about $50, 100000 IL year
which was all paid by the consumer.
The bounty paid on sugar amounts to
81 100000 a year. The difference, $751;
100000, is the saving to the consumer.
Question 10. So. Has the Mckinley tariff
caused the price OF cotton to be low:
No. No more than it has caused the
price of Shakespeare's autographs to be
high. There are very few of the auto
graphs of Shakespeare in existence;
hence they cost u great deal. There is
more cotton in the United States than
there is a demand for throughout the
whole world; consequently the price of
cotton is low. The Mckinley law had
no more TO do With That than 1t mad
with the color of the moon.
Question No. IS. What has been the direct
benefit to the American farmer by. the placing
of the duty on eggs? What would be the re.
snlt ii the duty were abolished:
In 1890 we imported II, 1862, 1852 dozen
eggs, valued at 81, 5S4, Os9; in 1891 we
imported 4,2263,a377o dozen eggs, valued
at $$53SS 497. The difference between the
amounts imported in these two years
= 200 W tho or.pov
market for eggs which has been fur.
nished to the American farmer; and
the difference between the values of.
eggs imported in these two years
SI,O5O, 592-measures roughly the value
Of that market to him. The direct re-.
suit of the Mckinley duty on eggs has
thus been to put Sl,O50,592 more into
the pockets of the farmer than he re.
ceived the preceding year. II the duty
were abolished, by that sum at least
would he be the loser.