The record-union., 1892-10-19


We also found that in many Of the
limited States, and especially in Caiifor-
MA, all the conditions were present to
make beet-sugar growing success. We
learned all about how Germany and
france made sugar The result was the
MCKINLEY bill took oft the S57 ,000, 600 duty
you had paid for sugar and offered a
bounty as an equivalent protection to the
grower, which is limited 10 the year 1905.
We now have in operation successfully
two factories in California; one in Phila-
delphia; one in Utah; one in Nebraska,
and it is conceded by all persons who
nave studied the question, that by the
time the bounty expires we shall be max
ing in the United States all the sugar we
consume and become large exporter.
This is what the Democratic platform
calls the eliminating atrocity of class
legislation. This is what Republicans call
craftsmanship.
FARMER BENEFITED.
Another charge made is that the pro-
tectiye laws and particularly the Nc
Kinley Act do not benefit the farmer.
1t is not easy to trace the benefit or in
jury of any law directly to the individual.
NJ farmer in the United States can lay
his finger upon an instance where he IS
injured by the protective legislation. He
Is helped or hurt as the whole country
prospers or suffers. We must search for
general effects and from these we con-
clude as to the wisdom or vice OF the
law.
The argument as it touches the farmer
directs itself to the general bearing OF our
laws upon his occupation, as it does to
the wage-earner.
To the wage-earner we say that protect
i've laws are not made always with the
effect of raising his wages, or that such
result follows. What we say Is that pro-
Cectiye legislation has established
saFru 81 .rtrr,-s 4 -
countries competing for our trade, and
we legislate TO keep that standard up.
Cur laws have done and are doing this.
To the farmer we say that the home
market is his best market, and that every
man who can be found employment in
the factories or in the trades or profes-
siOns, or any other way than in the field,
becomes a consumer of the fruits OF the
farmers toll and gives him a market
which otherwise he would have TO seek
abroad.
CORN.
Take the leading item of corn, that is
grown all over the Union:
In 1891 we grew 2,0G0,l54,000 bushels, of
the value OF SS56, ,439,2Zo. We export less
than five per cent. There is duty Of 10
cents per bushel of 80 pounds.
Practically all our corn-and the value
is enormous--is consumed at home.
Suppose you drive out 100000 wage
earners from the factories and put them
to raising corn with their families of four
members each, and increase the produc-
Uon Of corn proportionately. The result
IS Increased product without increasing
consumption. The per capita consump-
ton of corn in this country is an aver
age of thirty bushels per annum. These
900 people would consume 1900. 900
bushels and produce none if left in the
factory; otherwise they consume the
same, but would produce twenty times as
much besides.
HAY.
Take hay, of which we produced in 1888
46,643, ,024 tons, of the value of Si08, ,498, 565.
We place duty of a per ton on hay by
the Mckinley bill. 1t had been 81 per
ton under the old law.
We imported in 1889 hay of the value of
Sl,lS3, 1872 under the old duty. But under
the 81 duty only S45l SD worth came in.
Hay is grown along the Canada border,
and so also the wheat III large quantities.
Hay could be shipped from Victoria to
San Francisco. Our duty gives our farm
ers the hay market, and as we export
practically no hay we have home mar
ket for it all.
But here, as with corn, if you shut down
the factories and drive the wage-workers
to farming, you have increased produc-
ton with no more consumption.
WHEAT.
Wheat is another farm staple. Our av-
erage product in recent years has been
about 450,000,000 bushels, OF which we ex-
port in wheat and flour a per cent.
varying during the past ten years from
4O.2S per cent. in 1879, to as low as 1917
per cent. in 1888. Our exports depend
upon the amount of the crop and the de-
mand abroad. There seems to no fixed
relation between exports and production
here. In 1888 we produced 42l ,O00,090
bushels and exported only 1917 per cent.
In 1885 we produced 357 ,000, 900 bushels
and exported 26.29 per cent.
In 1883 we produced 4I5,000,0 600 bushels
and exported q. 80 Ger cent.
The duty on wheat is twenty-five cents
a bushel. 1t is purely protective, as it is
on corn. We don't need any wheat from
abroad, and don't want it. But Canada
Is a great wheat-grOwing country. They
would like to ship wheat to Minneapolis
and Buffalo and other milling centers. if
we would let them, but they can't climb
over that twenty-five cents barrier
The Democrats say this is unconstitu-
tional. We say it is right.
What we want IS home market for all
our wheat.
What the Democrats want is to let
everything in free. Except as duty is
needed for revenue, which we say is bad
policy.
BARLEY.
Barley furnishes another illustration.
We put duty of thirty cents on bushel
by the Mckinley Act; it was ten cents
before.
In 1889, before the Act, we imported
barley worth 81, ,25S, ,297.
In 1891, after the Act, we imported
only 81 .590,040.
The American farmer sold the barley
to the brewer instead of the foreign
farmer selling it.
we Kept about five million dollars at
home for the American farmer instead of
paying it to the Canadian farmer.
FLAXsEED.
Flaxseed furnishes a striking examnle
of the operation of the Mckinley Act and
protective legislation. The old law put a
duty of 20 cents a bushel, and in 1889 we
imported S4,I36, ,736 in value The Me-
kiniey Act put a duty OF 80 cents a
busheL The business OF raising fax was
stimulated and we supplied the market
ana lmportauOns fell Off over four and
half million dollars, which went to the
farmers. Linseed oil sold in 1883 for IS to 81
cents per gallon. After the Act OF 1891 il
sold for 81 cents and in 1892 sold down as
low as 81 cents.
And so we had the usual result-more
production at home; less importations.
and the manufactured article cheaper in
the lace OF higher tariff and showing that
the duty has but little influence on the
price of domestic products.
nave table on some farm products
on which increased duty was levied to
protect the farmer, showing decrease of
imports.
FARM PRODUCTS IMPORTED.
Articles. 1890. 1892
aallss....: fS55is. l.s454s5 fsl5445 az555535ssss
Eggs..........-.-.-. 2,054,912 522,24O
t'lax......... .......-.... 2,1eSso2l 1,964,163