The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1892-03-23
100 Questions and Answers.

1t does not. The tendency OF the age
is for men to combine where they see
their profit. The Standard Oil Trust is
a gigantic aggregation OF capital. Yet
what has that to do with the tariff! The
Western Union Telegraph monopoly,
the insurance combination, the trust
lately formed by the express COM
panies-how are they influenced by
protection The tariff, far from Great
ing the conditions favorable to the or
ganization Of trusts, has been the means
by which many of them have been de-
stroyed, and this will be clearer when
We consider the circumstances under
which it is most likely that trust will
be formed.
Under free trade the trust would be
supreme. For then We would be COM
pletely at the mercy of Great Britain
for our supply of many articles, and
this condition would be realized: Be-
fore a large supply of a commodity
could reach us, it would have to be col
lected in a few seaports, there to pass
through the hands of few exporters,
who find trust the most convenient
means of raising the export price TO
foreign consumers. And this is just
what has actually taken place again and
again, so that there is no country In the
world that contains more trusts, more
obnoxious monopolies, than Great
Britain, the home of the economic
heresy of free trade. The country is
really plastered over with trusts.
Protection offers no lnducement to
trusts, but if they are formed we can
control them. Free trade offers every
inducement to trusts, and when they
are formed, puts them beyond our
reach. Which system will the people
prefer?
Question No G. How does protection benefit the
Idrmerf Would he be better OF under free trade'
Protection was adopted by the found
ers Of the government for the special
purpose of benefting farmers. The
members of the first Congress were
nearly all either farmers themselves or
represented farming constituencies.
Agriculture was practically the only in
dustry of the people, and they saw their
produce rot on their hands year after
year for want of market for it. To
create a market for this produce was the
prime object of the early legislators.
There was not a Iobber baron among
them. Their policy was a farmers pol
icy, pure and simple. Later statesmen
down to Blaine and Mckinley based
their advocacy OF protection on the be-
lief that it benefited the farmer most of
all.
To-day, eleven million acres of the
best farm land in the world is lying
waste in England, 100000 persons an
nually leave the agricultural districts,
and the condition of agriculture is
simply deplorable. Free trade has all
but ruined the English farmer. So it
has dealt with agriculture in India. Ii
tact, our own experience and that of
the whole world is that revenue tariff
means death to the farmers prosperity.
For some years American agriculture
has been depressed, though in less de-
gree than agriculture in foreign coun-
tries, because of over-production. The
free trade demagogue took advantage
/ of the situation to urge his pet theories
upon farmers, who more steadfastly
than any other class of citizens have
turned deaf ear to the free trade
siren. and formed the main bulwark of
American protection from the time of
Washington down: The demagogue as
sures them that the remedy for their
fcr. their produce. 1t is exactly the
argument used to persuade them to
consent to revenue tariff in 1916.
But when that tariff had been voted
they discovered how they had been
fooled.
We are approaching very close to the
line where, under normal conditions,
our own people will consume all our
farmers produce. There are no more
such vast tracts of unoccupied wheat
lands as were brought under cultivation
during the last twenty years, and the
liberalization of industry resulting
from consistent protection for few
years more will place our farmers IN
hnr of hoir
will be regulated Independently of
Liverpool, Russia and India. When
that time comes, and it is close at hand,
farmers will be more than ever inter
ested in protection. These are the
teachings of common sense and ex-
perience. The only evidence that can
be produced against them is the insin-
cere, partisan vaporings of the free
trade demagogue.
Question No. :. II foreign Workmen arc en-
ploved here in our factories and machine shops Of
uhdt advantage is protection TO the American citi
tent
This is a novel question, one that in
wolves not merely discussion of the
tariff. but also of the ethics of restrict
ing immigration. "Is it desirable, !"
asks our correspondent in effect, "to in
crease the prosperity of our own peo-
pie if foreigners Immediately come in
and share IN that prosperity ana IL
can only be answered by dividing it into
two separate questions: l. Is it desir-
able to increase the prosperity OF our
country? =. Should we allow foreigners
to come in and share it?
The first question must be answered
in the affirmative. OF course we should
do everything to make our own country
prosperous, and we have done so. The
only reason foreigners have for coming
to the United States is to better their
condition, and statistics show that
whenever under free trade our
workingmen lacked employment and
our farmers were poor, then immigra-
ton declined. Now, shall we, in order
to give these foreigners no inducement
to come to this country, degrade our
people to their level? That would be
as foolish as the action Of the man who
in order to rid his house Of flies burnt
il down. No, il immigration is not de-
sirable. surely the way to stop it is not
by making ourselves poor. The argu-
ment is, like most free trade conten-
tons, absurd.
But should we allow foreigners to
come to this country and share our pros
perity ? This is an entirely different
cu.ot;on ono which has nothing IN do