The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-21


The Home Market Bulletin must have had
| some misgivings as to its statement that high
| protective wages and full running factories
| were sufficient to maintain high prices for
| agricultural staples
1t would seem that the question of surplus
| was disturbing element to overcome; hence
| IT properly quotes some remarks made at a
| New York fair in 1892 by DR.. Peter Collier of
| which the following is an excerpt
| ut scarcely appears as hazardous prediction
that within FIVE years, and perhaps even soon
| er, the home demand may fully equal the sup
| ply of our agricultural products, and then, if
| they are wise, the farmers of our country will
be the masters OF the situation. and those words
| OF Napoleon that Agriculture is the basis and
| strength of all national prosperity will be
| recognized as sober truth"
The above is evidently Endorsed by the Home
| Market Bulletin when 1t says, "Since there is
| likely to be no exportable surplus soon, is it
| worth while to grant bounty"
So then, as soon as we no longer have a sur
plus we will begin to recognize as sober
| truth that agriculture is the basis and
| strength of our National prosperity"
What prevents this necessary recognition
| now? The surplus, of course. and according to
| DR.. Peter Collier, whom the Home Market Bull
| letin so approvingly quotes when there will
| be no surplus, "if they are wise the farm
| ers of our country will be masters of the situa-
| tion.'
In other words, having no surplus the staples
| OF agriculture can then be protected by tariff
| we have surplus, 1.-THE farmers OF our eoun-
| try cannot abe wise" nor can we 'trecognize
| as sober truth" that agriculture is the basis
| and strength of our National prosperity"
| This may have been true in 1892, when the
| doctor delivered his speech, but since that
| time the farmers of our country have fbecome
WISE" for over million pieces OF literature on
| this very subject in very plain language have
| been scattered among them, and this PROPOSE
| ton has been q serious matter of study and de-
! bate in the grange, in the alliance, at home
and in the papers of the country.
They now fully agree with DR.. Peter Collier
and the Home Market Bulletin that as long as
there is surplus the staples OF agriculture can
not be directly or indirectly protected by
| tariff on imports.
Let us now see what would happen If DR..
| Golfers prediction" was realized.
The United States statistics show that on an
| average we pay for our imports in export COM
modities, of which about rs per cent is in the
| staples of agriculture and the remaining 25
! per cent is in mining, fisheries, manufactures,
! forestry and miscellaneous.
Now, can DR.. Collier, or the Home Market
| Bulletin, tell us with what other commodity
| we would pay for our imports should we no
| longer have a surplus of agricultural staples
| Will foreign nations accept our highly pro-
tected manufactures? Is it not safe to say
! that they will not take them any more readily
| in the future than in the past =?
If they will not accept highly protected
manufactures, and should we no longer have a
| surplus of agricultural staples, we would have
| to pay for our imports with bullion or in in
| terest-bearing bonds, and this kind of payment
must ultimately lead to National bankruptcy.
There is, therefore, but one way out OF the
| dilemma. If we are to have no surplus OF
| agricultural staples we must have absolute
| and unrestricted tree trade in order that we
4 may be able to produce manufactures cheap
| enough to make them generally acceptable to
| the foreign nations in payment for our i'm
| ports. Ii we are not to have free trade we
| must produce q surplus of agricultural staples
| for export, and sell this at free-trade prices.
AS soon as we do we are likewise compelled TO
! accept the same free-trade prices for these
! staples for the much greater quantity con-
| sumed at home, because the exporter and
buyer for home use buys at the same time,
| place and price.
When this is done we find that the producers
| of agricultural staples must foot the costs OF
| the protection system, which, at conservative
estimate, must foot up to $1,000, 100000 a
| year. Or, they must have protection by an
| artificial enhancement OF the price of their
product in our country to Offset the artifcially
| enhanced prices which these producers pay by
reason of protection to manufactures. Such
| protection, it is now evident, cannot be had
by tsriff on imports, but by bounty on ex-
ports,
Continuing further, the Home Market Bull
| letin says:
features in certain lines; will they be entitled
! to bounty under the theory and arguments Of Mr..
| Lubin and Mr. Smith? The surplus must be sold
in foreign markets in competition with the products
of the cheapest labor in the world, therefore, if
| these gentlemen's theory is right the manufac-
| turers must be sustained in that competition.
The answer to the above is evident and clear
| The purpose of protection is to preserve the
| home market against the competition of
| cheaper labor. To protect an industry in the
foreign market is outside the scope of the
| theory OF protection and as practiced by pro-
| lection nations.
| The home market of manufacturers can be
| and is protected by tariff on imports, and the
| fact that "we already have an exportable sur
| plus of manufactures cuts no figure in the
| matter at all as the following will show.
! Manufactures are sold at private sale; mer-
| chants in various countries, or cities, or those
| on the same street in city, pay various prices
| for the same article; therefore the quantity of
| manufactures sold in the United States may
| readily find market a. protected prices. and
| the surplus exported to foreign countries can
! also find q market at free-trade prices without
| interference,
Should the Home Market Bulletin conclude
| that an export bounty agricultural staples
would be q measure for the protection of these
staples in the foreign market it will then be in
error, and for the following reason.
| The enhancement on that portion of the
product which is exported and on which the
| expert bounty is paid through enhancing the
! price to the producer to the extent OF the ex-
these unprotected producers portion of their
| own indirect contribution into the United
States treasury. For, being the only great I'M
| protected body of producers in the United
States, they necessarily and indirectly con-
| tribute all the tariff funds.
The profitable portion of protection to the
producers OF agricultural staples under the ex-
| port bounty plan will be in the higher prices
| they will receive for the much greater guam
| tlty sold for home USE and on which the Gov
eminent will pay nothing; or, in other words,
| they will be protected in the home market.
! From what has been said above let us hope
that the Home Market Bulletin is now con-
WINGED that zone grand, assumption upon
| which this theory rests" has been proven,
which is 'that staple agricultural products are
not and cannot be protected, directly or indi-
rectly, by duties on imports when there is a
| surplus for export"
Continuing further, the Home Market Bulle-
! tin says:
AS for the second 'postulate" upon which the
Lubin theory is based, namely, that protection to
manufactures increases their cost and thus
operates inequitably farmers, little investi
cation will show that it is only partially true, if
Here is partial list of such articles taken from
| the Home Market Clubs pamphlet, entitled
prices, Wages and Duties"
A portion of the list is given below:
PRICES THAT ARE LOWER THAN THE DUTIES.
ARTICLE Duty. Price.
Ladies' wool dress
| goods. ...........$ ZO.53 1856
| calico aprons. % per va 412 per yd
| Workingmens shirts. 05 per yd 05 per yd
| Flannel shirts 80 each 80 each
| Cotton ana DOL dresses 70 each j 80 each
| Boys pants ............ As each 81 each
| {php zach oapE