The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1893-09-20

A leading politician who is supposed to
show marked ability in the presentation
of the claims of a high protective tariff
journeyed West some time ago to en-
tighten the farmers on the question.
He takes the very broad ground that a
protective tariff is not tax. The bur-
den Of proof he offers in substantiation
of his view is that OF comparison of
prices. He quotes the prices of articles
thirty years ago and the present price.
and proves % by the reduction that the
tariff is not tax.
The farmers in this country have not
had their lines cast in prosperous places
for series Of years. They need to know
what legislation is beneficial and what
is injurious. 1t is a matter of vital
importance that their votes be east for
measures that will at least not burden
them. If tariff for protection is not a
tax. then should every one of us vote for
it. as revenue must be had, and the get
ting Of it without a tax is an item Of
the greatest interest to every one. On
the stump the reduction in prices Of
most protected articles is offered in
proof of the benefcent and logical result
of any protective tariff by other cam
paigners as well as the one under no.
tice. No account is taken Of the fact
that the inventive genius of the age and
the progress Of civilization, found alike
in free trade and protective countries,
has had aught to do with the cheaper
ing of production.
The fact is ignored that all articles,
protected and unprotected, have had
their production cheapened, and some Of
them wonderfully. by the discoveries of
science. Especially is the fact unno-
ticed that the increased purchasing
value of a dollar. caused by the scarcity
of the metal that is coined in the single
standard medium of exchange, must Of
necessity make the price apparently less.
The impression is left upon the I'M
thinking that the nominal lower price
is due solely and wholly to the benign in
fluences Of legislation that is dictated by
classes.
The ability Of these orators, who ex-
press desire to improve the condition
of the farmer. is unquestioned. Their
honesty Of purpose should be admitted
when possible. as any man who would
try to lead farmers astray when their
occupation is as unremunerative as it
now is, would be an absolute traitor to
this republic.
Now, granting that his gentleman be-
lieves a protective tariff is not a tax
and that it lessons the price, the ques-
ton arises:
Why was it that the Mckinley con-
gresS put a tariff duty on wheat? Did
not a 75-cent wheat price seem low
enough for any one? What has the
farmer done that a representative con-
gress should deliberately take steps to
lessen the price of grain still lower?
1t may be answered that, as we export
large surplus of wheat, tariff cannot
affect the price, and. therefore, that
the tariff tax on wheat does not injure
the farmer. Then it was a case Of bum
combe, conceived with intent TO deceive
and is an insult to the intelligence Of
farmers, whose vote they now court
Either tariff on wheat was imposed
with ar intent to deceive, or ii was i'm
posed to cheaper the price still more
or the claim of those who say that
a protective tariff does not enhance
prices, but cheapens, is false. If a pro-
| tectlye tariff is a good thing for the
farmer, he should know it, but how can
| he learn from men who base hours of
J talk upon glazing absurdities and insin-
cerities?