St. Paul daily globe., 1896-03-25

tribute these statements do not believe
| them themselves. That they should
| think any farmer would accept them is
| the greatest possible insult to his in
telligence.
An excellent example of the process
| of playing the farmer for sucker"
| is furnished by the Pioneer Press. 1t
presents tables of imports and exports
of alleged farm products for the fiscal
year 1894 and the calendar year 1895,
| designed to show that under the pres
ent law imports increased and exports
| decreased as compared with the term of
| operation of the Mckinley act. This
is why, according to it, the farmers
are demanding with one accord the
restoration of the Republican policy of
| protection to American industry" And
! if any farmer is taken in by this
article, we advise him to look out when
he visits any large city. For the
methods of the crudest and most in
experienced bunco steerer alive are
marvels of scientific ingenuity when
compared with the absurdity of the
showing made by the Pioneer Press
The first and largest item on its list
is Hides" of which it says we import
ed over $36,000,000 worth last year, as
against only $17,OOO,OOO worth in 1894.
Behold the Infamous work of the Will
| son bill! But is the Pioneer Press
| ignorant, or does it only desire to keep
| the farmer ignorant Of the fact that
hides were on the free list of the Nc
Kinley bill and were left there by the
! present tariff act? They are not and
have not been subject to any duty
for years. Therefore this increase of
! imports has absolutely nothing to do
with tariff changes. And if this is true,
as is demonstrated, in the case of the
largest entry in the account, it must
be true of all the others. Take
Leather" which the Pioneer Press,
with delicious humor, classes as an
agricultural product. Here we have an
enormous increase of from 81, 100000 in
1894 to $39,77O,O 900 in 1895 by the Pioneer
Press table. More ruin to the farmer,
it shrieks from the lower duties of the
| Democratic tariff. And yet the duties
on leather under the Mckinley act and
the present tariff law are absolutely
| Identical. No change in that item
! Whatever was made. So that out of the
$69OOO,OOO of American products which
the Pioneer Press says have been
driven out Of the market by the Will
son bill. 10000 are included in two
items alone that stand today exactly
where they did when the Mckinley act
was in force. What kind of stuff is this
for any honest newspaper to print, and
what does the farmer think of it?
The entire table, of course, is desti-
tute of the smallest particle Of weight.
You can prove anything whatever by
trade statistics if you select particular
years that suit your purpose for COM
parison. Let us take a whirl at it.
The fiscal year 1893 ended on June 80,
which was before the panic broke upon
us. 1t is, therefore, fair for compara-
tive purposes. Take one metal and one
textile, and see how they compared in
1893 and 1895, by the government official
reports; the one being a Mckinley
period. and the other with the present
law in force. Here is a statement Of
our imports of those commodities for
the two periods:
Ircn and Steel Man. 1894, ,SS7, ,s74 $2S 1851, ,s19
Manufactures of silk . 3S 95S 928 81 206 002
Now let us glance at the exports of
our manufactures Of the two great
textiles, wool and cotton, under the two
systems:
Wool Wool '.... $326,055 $3.50, ,226
COTTON ........ Ill, 800, 1856 l3 789 $40
ThuS, by the same argument we see
how the lower duties of the Democratic
tariff bill decreased our imports of two
great commodities by nearly $40, 900 900.
relieving the home market from
competition; while at the same time
they increased our exports in two great
lines of manufacture by nearly $780,
600, thus extending the scope of our
foreign trade. And the same line of
proof, by picking out the years judi
ciously, could be extended through all
the trade schedules. The Pioneer Press
enemy. 1t is precisely the method of
the great fraud once known as the
Great Cryptogram
Every sensible farmer knows that a
tariff on agricultural products can no
more affect their prices than the pope's
bull against the comet. Take an illus
tration, The price of potatoes was
phenomenally low last year. Was it
the tariff that did it? Thousands of
bushels were left in the ground because
1t would not pay to dig and ship them.
All the markets were glutted. Of what
avail would tariff of 100 per cent have
been? 1t would not have made a single
tuber marketable And so with wheat
and corn and all the great farm
staples, which we sell to other peoples
in excess of our own consumption
Their price is settled in a market where
tariffs do not enter. Pile on the duty
or take it off, the result is Indifferent.
The farme" is the one unprotected and
unprotectable worker in the nation.
taxed for the profit of the organized
beneficiaries of a system of legaIized
robbery. That ought to be injury
enough, without writing him down the
colossal ass that every man asserts him
to be who offers for his consumption
such tissue Of silly statements, apart
I. =,