The record-union., 1895-07-02


| its own satisfaction. At least, that be-
cause there was duty on agr. cultural
staples they must. therefore. be pro-
tectsd, actually closing the alleged proof
| by saying: .The farmer surely cannot
claim that he is not protected" Perhaps
| the Marine Journal was in earnest, but It
evidently did not know 1t was in error.
| Stranger yet, there were hundreds of
thousands of farmers who, until re-
Gently, knew no more about protection
OF agricultural staples than the Marine
Journni. The issuance and distribution
of over one million pieces of literature"
on this subject has had the tendency OF
opening the eyes of several hundred
| thousand voting farmers, and many more
eyes will be opened as this work pro-
| crosses.
Granting that the staples of agriculture.
being exports cannot be protected by
| tariff on imports. the question remains:
What ratio to the volume OF total produc-
ton are these staples? The answer Is:
ural products and manufactures COM
bined; because. in our country, both
these latter are chiefly sold at home, and
are. paid for with agricultural staples.
More than that, the latter industry ex-
ceed the two former combined In volume.
in proportion, as we export the staples OF
agriculture almost entirely in payment
Of our imports.
Now, what happens ii, in a country
there be two industries equal in volume.
and one is protected and the other un-
protected? Would it not follow that the
unprotected industry would pay for the
protection of the protected industry?
Will the Marine Journal please answer?
Should the Marine Journal dispute
this, then in that event it destroys its
own argument in support of bounty on
shipping.
It cannot, however, dispute it, because
it is fact. Being TACT. let us sum up
the case. We find that shipping in the
foreign trade, agricultural staples. work
ingmen out of job and foreigners tenn
porarily residing in our country living
on foreign incomes. are all unprotected;
therefore paying for the cost Of protection
of the protected Industries.
We may now inquire. What is the cost
of protection? The protective tariff rev.
enue averages about son, ,000. 900 a year;
add 10 this 15 per cent, 20 per cent, %
per cent, respectively, for the importers.
jobber's and retailers profits on the out
lay of this protective tariff and we have
S345, ,00U,00O. How much the enhance
ments loot up on home manufactures by
reason Of the protective tariff is not
known. but the difference in the wage
| rate and in the enhancement on home
| manufactures which the high protective
| tariff permits would justify doubling or
trebling the $345. 100000.
| Who is it, then, that foots the bulk of
this enormous enhancement? Can the
Marine Journal tell us? Perhaps it is
inclined to say American ships in the
| foreign carrying trade. If it does, it is
greatly mistaken.
| The producers of agricultural staples
| foot almost the entire costs of the protec-
tive system. because all other unprotected
interests are collectively Insignificant in
| volume when compared to it.
| But the Murine Journal tries to hop out
of the difficulty by broad claim that the
home manufacturer, by protection, can
produce his tthe producer OF agricultu-
| raj staples) implements and clothes so
cheaply and eXcellently that foreign COM
petion is out of the question" Ii this is
fact, what need is there of a 80, 40. 80 or
90 per cent. protective duty? Is this high
duty placed there just for fun?
! Why, then, is not the cost of transpor-
tation and 2, or per cent. duty
enough? Again, if our home manufact-
urss are 80 cheaply and excellently
made that foreign competition is out of
the question" why is it that foreign ma
tions export so much of them and we SO
| little? Why is il that our total exports OF
mining, forestry, manufactures. fisheries
| and miscellaneous amount to only 26 per
cent, whereas staple agriculture makes
| up the remaining "a per cent?
But, above all, the assertion of the Ma
| 7i1le journal was an unfortunate admis-
sion for it to have made. If home manu-
factures, in spite of the protective tariff,
can be 80 cheaply and excellently made
| that foreign competition is out of the
question:" then on what ground can that
! journal ask for bounty on American
ships? But will we mot presently lind
shipping men asking Congress to protect
them against foreign ships, foreign labor
aud foreign interest, on the ground that
these are from one-quarter to one-half
cheaper in foreign countries? Surely;
and let US observe that the shipping men
will be nearer the truth than the Marine
| journal.
| That there is seeming lack of con-
gruity in the statements and arguments
| by this journal is evident. 1t makes the
claim that ut is matter Of evidence
that the American shipping industry re-
quires Governmental encouragement"
On what ground. pray? us it on the
ground that home manufactures are so
cheaply and excellently made that for
eign competition is out of the question 2"
Is it not, and will it not be claimed that
the ships in the foreign trade built and
manned in the United States, cost from
one-Quarter to one-half more in labor,
material and interest? Surely. Nor will
the advocates OF protection to shipping
make such damaging admissions before
Congressional committee as have been
made by this editor.
Further on, and in reference to the oppo-
sition Of the farmers to the protection of
shipping, the editor says: ut is a matter
of evidence that our agricultural popula-
ton are deeply interested in the success
of our shipping industry, but are largely
in ignorance of it, and through their
ignorance have baked. by the adverse
votes of their representatives in Con-
gress, several excellent measures for the
benefit of American shipping"
The Marine journal is mistaken. The
'balking" was not done through ignor-
ance, but through self-interest. Any ad-
ditional protection must fall on the un.
protected industry. This was the reason
OF the baking. If there was baking in
the past. there will be more in the future,
for the producers of agricultural staples
are being better informed as to their best
interests. Thousands of copies of this
very article will be printed and circulated
among farmers, who will read and pass
them on to their neighbors, and when
"balking" time comes they-lf the occa-
sion offers-wiil balk.
The chances are they will not alone
"balk" against protection TO shipping in
the foreign trade, but that they will begin
to "DaikO at protection to shipping on
the coastwise and interior trade. In fact,
they will soon learn to "balk" at any and
all kind of protection, unless they, too,
will receive an equal measure of i: as
long as a protection system shall be in
operation.
Now mark: Whenever the stump
speaker will next talk TO the farmer, say
| ing, "Our party stands for protection. for