South Branch intelligencer. [volume] (Romney, Va. [W. Va.]) 1830-1896, 1892-09-23
Farmers Read This I
TARIFF PRIMER.
THE SUBJECT MADE PLAIN.
WHAT THE TARIFF is.


/ O. But the two co-exist togeth-
err. Our farmers have this home
market for nine-tenths of their
produce, under the protective pol
icy; and the protectionists claim
one as the result of the other.
a. The claim is not reasonable.
Our farmers would have the home
market under any policy, protec-
ton or free trade. Ifall protective
duties were abolished entirely, it
would not impair the home market
for farm produce particle. Farm
ers would continue to sell as much
of their produce here, as they sell
now. The population of the coun-
try, some 64,00o,000, must be fed,
protection or no protection, and
our unprotected farmers supply it
with food, simply because they can
do it cheaper than the farmers of
any other country could. The Diff
ference between our unprotected
farmers and our well protected
manufacturers in the home market
business is this, the farmers monop-
ol.ze the home market for farm
produce by underselling the rest of
the world-the latter secure a home
market for their manufactures at
81 so for 81 worth, through tar
if which levies so cents on every
81 worth of foreign manufactures
4 brought here for SAFE. The pro-
tected manufacturer has the aid of
the government in forcing the peo-
pie to pay for his goods one half
more than they are worth while
the unprotected farmer has no such
aid from the government, and must
sell his produce for what it will
bring.
Q. Does not protection benefit
the farmer by drawing persons
away from agriculture, and encour-
aging them to go into manufactur-
ing?
A. No: and even if it did have
this effect, the farmer would be
paying ten prices for it. The pro-
tectlye policy costs every farmers
family in the country $50 year
and this is pretty high price for
him to give to induce some person
to embark in manufacturing in
stead of farming
Q. Would not cheap goods bring
cheap wages, and thereby degrade
our laboring classes?
A. They would not.
Q. The protectionists assert that
they would.
A. Yes: bat one OF the most
conspicuous protectionists in the
country, Hon. VIM. Mckinley, of
Ohio, author of the new tariff bill,
conclusively answers the argument.
without intending to, in his speech
in the House IN support of his bill,
on the 9TH day of May, 1890. He
shows that the prices of American
carpets haYe chespened more than
one-half in the last eighteen years
body Brussels from 80 O yard to
90 cents; tapestry Brussels FROM
STAG yard to 65 cents; and in
grain from $1.20 a yard to 45 cents;
and other manufactures have been
cheapened similarly-and yet wages,
instead Of declining, have been ad-
vanced.
Q. How, then are goods cheaper,
il wages have not declined?
A. Through inventions, labor
saving machinery, improved manu-
featuring processes, and increased
consumption.
THE POLICY IN MINIATURE.
Q. Does a protective tariff pro-
tect all manufactured
A. Oh, no. That would defeat
its purpose. 1t aims only to bene-
fit certain favored ones at the ex-
pense Of the others.
q. But why not benefit all, while
we arc about itS
A. Take an illustration, for the
answer to your question. Suppose
ten men living near one another,
and engaged in different industries,
agree to encourage one another by
paying, each weekly tax Of 81 to
each Of the other nine. Then, at
the end Of the first week each would
have paid the others, 81 apiece
or 80 in ALT and each would have
received from the others 81 apiece
or 80 in all. Each man therefore,
would have paid out 80 for protec-
ton, and received 90 for protec-
tiou--and the whole party would
be at the point they started from.
But suppose one man persuades the
others that his particular vocation,
only, ought 10 be encouraged, ard
they consent TO pay him, each, 81
q week This makes q very differ
ent showing, for, at the end Of the
FIRST week, he has received 81 from
each Of the 0thersAs9 In all, and
has paid out nothing to the others.
lie is, therefore, 81 better of, and
the others are each 81 worse of.
At the end Of che second week he
is alS better of, and at She end Of
the third week s27. lie Is grow
ing rich 81 Che rate Of SO q week,
and perhaps be points TO his mani-