The record-union., 1894-08-11

not be the case by the adoption of this
proposition, for, as the net return to the
producers of agricultural products are
HOW SO meager as TO seriously impair his
purchasing power, the diminished pur-
chasing power must cause diminished
demand for manufactures. and which III
turn must decrease the demand Tor labor
and the rate OF wages, which nothing can
overcome unless it be an increase IN the
net return TO the producer of agricultural
staples.
Those who reason that increased wages
to workingmen will inure to the benefit
OF the producer of agricultural staples.
reason falsely, for no matter how high
the wage rate may be the worklngman
will never las long as there is a surplus)
pay more than the Liverpool price, with
cost for transportation deducted from
place OF production to Liverpool, even
though the workingman consume the
product on the very ranch where the pro-
duct was raised.
An enhanced price under protectIon)
to the producer of agricultural staples,
however, would benefit the workingman,
for it would increase the demand for
American manufactures, hence tend TO
maintain high rate Of wages.
The intimacy of communication between
pOrtation nom the most distant point of pro-
duction TO the European market which con-
trols the quotation, make all OF the conditions
under which any staple product IS produced
present in its final market.
That is true, and there is no leverage
that we can at present exert, that will
enhance our agricultural products in the
final markets of Europe above the price
that others can obtain there. Now bats,
cloaks or millinery find final market in
our country, but not at the final price at
which they could be obtained, but at ar
tificially enhanced prices by protection.
Now what the protective tariff does for
manufactures this proposition will do for
staple agriculture, that is-advance the
price IN the home market.
The cheap labor of India accompanies the
wheat Of that country 10 the market OF Liver
pool. No tariff device ever invented can keep
out Of this country the effect of cheap labor in
all other countries.
AS far as manufactures are concerned
the protective tariff, if high enough, can
and does keep them out. Agricultural
staples being exports cannot, of course,
be enhanced in the United States by
tariff. a reduction in cost Of transporIa-
ton from American seaports to foreign
seaports can enhance the home price to
the extent OF the cost per unit of the re-
duction of the export.
For little while only economy in produc-
ton inures TO the benefit OF the producer.
This is the unm1stakable testimony OF his
tory.
The term "a little while" is indefinite.
It is certainly true that as long as labor
saving agricultural machinery was al
most exclusively employed in the United
States the advantage was In our favor,
but now that these machines are en-
ployed by the cheapest labor countries i'll
the world our advantage IS gone. To lose
the advantage is to place the producers oil
our country on a level with the cheapest
LABOR IN the world. There is no escape
from this other than in the artificial en-
hancement of these products in our own
country or IN absolute free trade.
If the wheat of the world could be produced
for one-half its present cost, one-half its pres
ent average price would be the result
And this is precisely what has hap
pened. The worlds price of cotton has
fallen to three-Quarters and wheat TO half
its former price, and if we must accept
this reduced worlds price for the guam
tity exported, why must the producer
also accept this reduced price at home?
Can he afford to do this and also pay for
protection?
The payment by the Government of part
OF the cost OF transporting American pro-
ducts to foreign markets would give the
transporter an advantage in these markets.
The American product would come into the
market at a lower price.
Ii would as long as single buyer or
ring OF buyers could obtain the eXclu-
sive monopoly Of buying. AS soon, how
ever, as buying would be done as now
the entire amount of reduction by the
Government would go to the producer or
seller In the competition of an open
market there will be no more tendency
to ignore the Government reduction than
there would be any other well known
and staple factor. The advantage would
only 60 to The buyer whenever he alone
could bid, or from producers who were
not sufficiently informed of the factors
that go to make the ruling price.
In conclusion, permit me to add that
the time has come when we must arti-
ticislly enhance in our county staple
agricultural products, or we must permit
the producer of these products TO buy
their necessities in the cheapest markets
of the world. Ifprotection is TO prevail,
it must enhance the price in our country,
not only OF manufactures, but of staple
agricultural products as well. This or
free trade is the alternative. d. LUBIN.