The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1892-08-12

there is prosperity in the United States
alone.
When the tariff has been increased up
on a foreign article, and it does not in
crease the pnce to the American con-
sumner, how does the American consumer
suffer? He gets the commodity at as low
price as he got it under the old tariff,
notwithstanding the increase, so he loses
nothing; but labor in America gains
everything. Take the case of carpets
one of the most marked increases under
the new law. We advanced the tariff on
wool, which lies at the foundation of
carpet industry, to protect the wool
growers of the country. We advanced
the tariff on carpets, the finished product,
to compensate the manufacturer for the
increased duty on wool, and yet to-day
the prices are no higher than they were
before the enactment of the new law. 1t
is true prices went up on carpets imme-
diately after the passage of the law, but
these prices were speculative rather than
real. But to-day there is no line of car
pets that you cannot buy as cheaply as
you could prior to Oct. 9th, 1890; and as
to ingram and other lower grades of
carpets, there are even cheaper now than
then. So that the increased Protection
that we give to the wool grower, and
which he required as defense against
ruinous competition from abroad, has
cost the American consumer nothing,
and to The wool grower and farmer has
been a positive benefit.
REVENUE TARIFF.
What Protection will do and has done,
what Democratic revenue will do and
has done, is not left to speculation. Our
own history records the story of both.
From lS47 to 1861, under Free Trade
revenue tariff, the balance of trade
against us was more than S431, 000, 900;
and there were but two years of the
fifteen when the balance of trade was in
our favor; while from 1876 to 1891,
period of fifteen years, there were just
| two years when the balance of trade was
against us. We were then under Pro-
lection thirteen years when the balance
of trade was in our favor and that balance
aggregated 81, $40, AS, 246. What period
was the most profitable to the American
people?
1t is maintained by the Democratic
leaders, but rests wholly in assumption,
that the farmer would be benefited by a
revenue tariff, that his export trade in
agricultural products would be In
creased. Let us refer again to our own
history. From 46 to '6l, during the en-.
tire revenue tariff period, we exported
65, 40, 173 bushels of wheat We export
ed in single year under Protection, that
of 1878, 72,000,000 of wheat, or 100000
more than the aggregate of the entire 10
years under revenue tariff and in 80,
ISL, 1872, 'S5. 'S7, 81 we exported more
wheat in each of these several years,
than we sold abroad in all of these years
from '46 to 81 under the Walker Free
Trade tariff ofs1S46, We export now in
a single year more wheat than was ex-
ported from 1880 to 1861, period of
seventy-one years. More wheat in
single year than in all of the years from
Washington to Lincoln. Can the farmer
justly complain of this showing, and
does the tariff reformer extract any COM
fort from it?
Whether you consult the question of
domestic trade or foreign trade, PrOtec-
ton in our own country has given us the
best results. 1t has given us the largest
activity at home and the largest sale of
our products abroad. Protection not
only directly benefits the great industries
of the country by making it possible to
establish them-and thus furnishing en-
plOyment to labor-buJ it makes de-
mand for our raw materials of every kind
and character. which but for our manu-
featuring enterprises at home would be
practically useless and with value.
FARMERS AND PROTECTION.
Protection is positive benefit to the
farmers of this country. There is
no class of our fellow-citizens more
certainly advantaged by the pro-
tective tariff than the farmers of the
United States. 1t makes a home de-
mand for his products, and home con-
sumers are always better than foreign
consumers, because they are nearer the
field of production. They enable the
farmer to dispose of perishable products
at profit, which it would be impracti-
cable to ship abroad. 1t therefore in
creases to that extent the demand for the
products of agriculture, and widens the
uses of the farm. Millions of dollars an
nually of the products of the farm are
sold in our industrial towns which would
not be raised at all but for the demand
they make. What the farmers want are
consumers, and the more consumers and
fewer competitors he has the better will
be his profits, and he wants these con-
sumers steady and regular and at all
times reliable. He has such in the g.,
GOO, 600 consumers in this country, who
are JHe UeSJ anu lHOSI plOuIdOlO OOu-
sumers to be found anywhere on this
globe. He is sure of them while his
foreign market is fitful, far removed, less
certain, and dependent upon agricultural
conditions in the foreign countries,
whether there is a short crop or long
crop. There he has competition; here
he has practically the field, with little or
no competition except with his own fell
low-citizens.
AS illustrating the difference in value
between the domestic consumer and for
eign consumer, have but to state that
the workingman in the American shop
consumes more than 800 worth of agri-
cultural products ann ually of the Ameri-
can farmer, while the foreign working
man consumes less than So of American
agricultural products annually. The
American consumer is, therefore, worth
eighteen or nineteen times more, is
eighteen or nineteen times better Gus
toner of the farmer here than is the for
eign workingman. The Democratic
leader of to-day seems to think there is
some peculiar sancti ty about the for
Continued on page hree.)
1n1So-