The San Francisco call., 1896-05-06
THE FARMER AND PROTECTION.

The esteemed Stockton Nail declines to
accept THE Calls reason why protection
is better than free trade for the American
farmer, but that is because the Mail looks
at economic questions as through glass,
aarkly. It's political bias obscures for
time its mental vision, and hence it drifts
from point to point in the ocean of politi-
cal economy without knowing where 1t
is "at."
A quarter of century ago the grain
consuming countries of the world were
obliged to look to the United States to
make up their deficit in breadstuffs, but
since then quite or nearly 15,0 COO miles of
railway have been constructed between
the coast and the wheat lands in India.
The wheat lands of Argentina have been
put under cultivation and transportation
facilities to ocean shipping provided.
Russia has already become large wheat
producing country, and will be still larger
as the Siberian railway is extended-over
6.0OO,0 900 bushels having been marketed
last year from regions hitherto ina ccessi-
BILE to markets. These countries have
driven America out of the markets of
Europe as the chief source of breadstuff
supplies. Not only so, but wheat is pro-
duced cheaper in those countries than in
this.
Now, the consequence of all this is, the
American farmer is drawn upon by Europe
for wheat only when the countries named
fail to supply the demand, but the demand
is not now urgent enough upon the
country to set aside prices that are fixed
upon the basis of the cost of production in
Russia, India and South America. Hence
it is that while our farmers may continue
to find a market IN Europe for their sur
plus produce, they are obliged to accept
prices that are satisfying to their cheap
labor competitors, or not sell at all. Such
are the conditions under which American
farmers must seek buyers in the produce
markets of Europe.
If the Mail is aware of the fact that these
new grain-producing countries have not
only made our farmers last but not abso-
lutely necessary suppliers of breadstuff
for European consumers, it should frankly
admit that it is the duty of our Govern
ment to come to their relief. But how
can the Government create home market
other than by encouraging the erection OF
individual establishments which would
employ enough consumers of farm prod
ucts to make permanent home market2
And, again, how could the building of
mills and factories be encouraged unless
they are protected against the same kind
OF foreign competition, cheap labor, that
is driving our farmers to the wall?
1t has already been demonstrated suffi-
GENTLY clear, one would think, for the
Mail to understand that the salvation of
the American farmer is to be found only
in increasing the consumption of his
products at home in. a way that will at
once protect the consumer and himself
against competitor with whom neither
could successfully compete. except by
adopting his methods and manner of liv-
ing. In other words. our farmer cannot
be successfully protected against the pau
per farm labor grain-raisers of Russia,
India and South America in any other
way than by such an economic policy by
the General Government that will beyond
peradventure increase as we'll as protect
buyers at their own door. This is the
rational, the logical and sensible solution
of the whole matter. 1t is certain that
upon careful reconsideration of the sub
ject the Mail will see that the producer
and consumer must stand together upon
the solid ground of mutual protection
against a common enemy or both must
fall and perish.