The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1892-10-15
What the Tariff Is.
RHODE ISLAND AND KANSAS.

RHODE ISLAND AND KANSAS.
A. Let us see. Take Rhode leland
and Kansas-one an Eastern manu-
featuring state; the other Western
farming state. In 1880 Rhode Is
land had population of 276,000;
$4,000 persons employed, aud $75,-
600, 900 capital invested in manufae-
turing; while. Kansas with pop4la.
ton of l, 100000, had 206, 1000 persons
employed in farming, and S312,000,-
600 invested in farming. You will
observe that Kansas had nearly four
times as great population as Rhode
Island, four times as much capital
invested, and three times as many
persons employed in farming, as
Rhode Island had in manufacturing
1t might reasonably be inferred,
therefore, that it would show three
or four times as valuable product
or, to state the case differently.
that the 100000 workers in Kansas
would make, altogether, three times
as much money as the 62,900 work
ers in Rhode Island. But they do
not, The value of the farm products
in Kansas was $50, 240, 900; and the
value of all manufacturing products
in Rhode Island, after deducting the
cost of materials used, was SAC, 1853,
900; so that $4,000 manufacturing
workers in Rhode Island made near.
y as much money as 100000 farm
workers in Kansas. The gross earn
ings, in Rhode Island, were $3.50
hand, per annum; and in Kansas, on.
ly $3.50; so that it took about three
farm workers in the Western state to
earn as much money as one factory
worker earned in the Eastern state
G. The figures certainly make it
appear that manufacturing is bet
ter paying business in Massachusetts
and Rhode Island than farming is in
Missouri and Kansas. But ought
we to envy their prosperity? Ought
we not rather to rejoice in it?
A. We ought to rejoice at the
fairly earned prosperity of any state
in the Union. But that is not the
question. The real question is wheth.
er that can be wise and fair policy
which, for twenty seven years, has
made the unprosperous farmers of
Missouri and Kansas pay tribute to
the prosperous manufacturers of
Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
and which makes the nine industrial
states in the Northeast rich at the
cost of the others.
@. Does the protective tariff make
Massachusetts and Rhode Island
manufacturers rich at the expense of
Missouri farmers?
A. 1t does.
@. How?
A. BY compelling Missouri and
Kansas farmers to pay Massacbu-
sets and Rhode Island manufactur.
ers 1.50 for every dollars worth of
goods they buy from them.
Q. But why not buy the goods
they want in other states2
A. 1t would be all the same.
Wherever, in this country, protec
ted goods are bought, you must pay
at the rate of $3.50 for dollars
worth.
@. Then, why not send abroad for
them?
A. The government will not al
low you to-at least ii will make YOU
pay penalty of fifty cents on the
dollars worth, for bringing them in
to the country.
Q. Does the government really
ihfiict penalty on citizen who
buys foreign made goods because he
can get them cheaper abroad than
he can at homer
A. You may call it what you will.
The extra fifty cents is tenderly de-
scribed as protective duty" but
it possesses much of the nature of
penalty
THE FAVORED STATES EXTENDING THEIR
OWNERSHIP OVER THE WEST
G. Has not the country increased
in wealth under the protective policy,
and have not the Western farming
states shared in this increase as well
as the Eastern manufacturing states?
A. Yes; but the ownership of the
eountry's wealth has become, and is
becoming more and more, concentra.
ted in the favored manufacturing
states. Railroads, farms, cities,
towns, telegraphs, banks, insurance
companies and other forms OF wealth
have certainly multiplied in the
West, in the last twenty seven years,
and are multiplying still; but very
large part of the increase belongs to
the Eastern states. 1t represents
wealth first drained from the people
of the West, and then re-invested in
the West. How could it be other
wise? Protection means enriching
the favored manufacturer at the cost
of the farmer-enriching the mann
featuring section of the Union at the
cost of the agricultural sections
and the enormous amount of Eastern
capital invested in the agricultural
West land all drawing interest and
diyidends) only proves how effective
the inequitable policy has been in
transferring wealth and power from
the agricultural sections to the
Northeast.
DEPRESSION OF THE FARMING INTEREST.
@. If the agricultural interest has
been depleted, and is being depleted,
to enrich the protected manufactur-
ing interests, there ought to be some
general symptoms of it--some general
indications of decline in the farming
interest.
A. Yes, and these symptoms are
abundant enough. You may see them
in the falling into disuse of agricul-
tural fairs all over the country; in
81 n H., A. olJ a.