Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1892-10-13
PUBLIC OPINION.
PROTECTION AND THE FARMERS.

PROTECTION AND TIE FARMERS.
Cleveland Leader.
The free trade organs endeavor to
excite the sympathy of the farming
community by declaring that agriculture
has been neglected; "forced to pay
tribute to manufacturers who pile up
colossal fortunes by the attempt of pro-
tective legislation to build up one in
dustry at the expense of another" The
fact is that the farmers are now pro-
tected and have always been regarded as
entitled to the benefits of protection.
They have suffered whenever this shield
has not been thrown over their interests.
Lord Salisbury, as reported in several
cable dispatches during the past year,
is on record as saying that free trade
had rendered profitable farming impos-
sible in England, or words to that effect.
In the early discussions of the subject
in this country both sides met on the
doctrine that protection favored agri-
culture. General McDuffie, one of the
most prominent of Southern statesmen
before the war, maintained that "What-
ever increases the prosperity and profits
of the great and leading employments
of capital in any community, has always
been found to increase the prosperity
and profits of all subordinate employ
ments as well as the wages of labor.
| oh ,ta
tariff history of the country that agricul
ture should be protected as well as othel
interests.
The doctrine that the tariff is op
pressive to the farmers is English. They
Eneyer felt the oppression and never com
plained of it. The Golden Club prizt
ESSAY, showing how the Western farmer
was being ruined by protection wa;
circulated in the West by the hundreds
of thousands, utterly failing, however
to reyolutionize sentiment. The Western
States continued to roll up majoritie:
for Republicanism and protection. Th'
farmers had enjoyed the protective policy
fifty years ago. The Wings, under th'
leadership of Henry Clay, imposed
protective duty of 50 per cent. on cotton
wool, beef, pork, bacon, lard, cheese
butter, potatoes, flour, wheat, oats, ant
hemp. These duties were imposed II
IS42, the average annual importation;
of those articles for the five previous
wears having been S2,34l 500, the pOta
toes imported into Boston in one yea
having been $4,000. Colton's life o.
Henry Clay, vol. IL, page 2l3, says tha
for thirty years previous to the passage
of this law, "the cheaper labor of Europ'
and other foreign parts began to sent
its surplus agricultural products to th'
United States, thereby showing that the!
required little or no fupply from this
quarter, and it has been found necessary
to throw the shield of the protective
policy over the interests of agriculture
in the United States" While we were
importing $2,341, 900 of agriculture
products, we exported, other than cotton
only 81, ,474,719. Wages were then low
in this country, but they were lowel
across the water, and Europeans coulC
undersell us then in everything, as they
could now under free trade. After 1S4l
we imported less of farm products, sole
the same amount abroad, and at better
prices. The Mckinley law follows, il
this respect, the act of 1912. 1t very
properly protects agricultural products
The farmer is protected for the same
reason that protection is given to the
manufacturer. He has an equal right
to it. Protection, if it stands at all
must cover all interests that find pros
perity through its influence.