The Globe-republican., 1892-03-24

Most assuredly not. Protection was
adopted by the founders Of the govern
ment for the special purpose of benefit
ting the farmer. The members of the
first continental congress were nearly
all either farmers themselves or repre-
sented farming constituencies. Agri-
culture was practically the only indus
try OF the people. and they saw their
products rot on their hands year after
year for want OF market for it.. To
create market for the surplus produce
OF the farmer was the prime object of
the early legislators. There was not a
robber baron among them. The policy
was farmers policy, pure and simple.
Andrew Jackson-good democratic
authority, by the way-said in advocacy
of the tariff of 1924: II will ask what
Is the real situation Of tho agriculturist ?
Where has the American farmer q mar
ket for bus surplus produce? Take from
agriculture in the United States 60O, 900
men, women and children and you will
at once give market for more bread
stuffs than all Europe now furnishes
u.s." John G. Calhoun, another good
democratic authority, speaking of the
results Of protection, said: 1.-The farmer
will find ready market for his surplus
produce, and what is almost of equal
consequence, certain and cheap sup
ply of all his wants" Jackson and Cal
houn evidently saw how protection ben
Gifted the farmer. Notwithstanding the
teachings of all the great statesmen of
early times, our country has on several
occasions experimental with low tariffs.
Senator Ewing, of Ohio. speaking of the
low tariff period Immediately preceding
the tariff of 1924, said:
I'm short, every portion of the world
was searched by our intelligent mer-
chants, and all combined did not fur
nish market adequate to our surplus
productions. Every farmer in Ohio long
knew and felt the pressure consequent
on this state of things. Year after year
their stacks of wheat stood unthreshed,
scarcely worth the manual labor of sep
arating the grain from the straw. So
low was it reduced in comparison with
articles that 1 have known
forty bushels of wheat given for a pair
of boots.''
Free trade has ruined the English
farmer. Before the adoption of free
trade in that country agriculture was
the main source of England's strength
and wealth. To-day 100000 acres
of the best farm land in the world are
lying waste in England, and 100000
persons annually leave the agricultural
for the cities and towns, or for
newer countries. The same policy has
also destroyed agriculture in Ireland and
greatly injured it in India.
We are approaching in this country
to the line where, under normal condi-
tons, our own people will consume at
home all our farmers produce. There
are no longer such vast tracts of unoc-
cupied grain lands as were brought |
under cultivation during the last twenty |
years, and the Investigation of industry |
from consistent protection for
4 few years more'will place our farmers
n position where prices of their prod
acts will be regulated Independently of
Liverpool, Russia and India. When
hat time comes, and it is not far dis
ant, farmers will have very edifying
conviction of the value of protection.
Let them theorize as they may, tariff |
'eformers cannot gainsay the fact that |
American farmers and workingmen,
lnder our wholesome protective policy, |
Ire in far better condition than the same |
classes of people in any free trade cour
ry on the globe.