Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-01-21

The farmers, after long and hard ex-
perieuce are beginning to understand
that there is no protection in the
tariff for them. But as they consti-
tute something like half of the poPula-
ton of the country they have GOT it
into their heads thae they deserve q
little slice of these good things, that
the government is givias away so law
ishiy. And so. after many years they
have got together and appointed COM
uittee to ask m export bounty from
Uncle Sam. And it is dead corCain sure
that if the manufacturer deserves the
heavy protection of the proposed duty
i'm the Mckinley tariff on imports, the
farmer-the mainstay of the country
certainly deserves an equally heavy
bounty on exports-the only manner
i'm which it is possible to protect him.
This is simply the logical result of a
policy of direct tariff protection, in
stead of one which frames q tariff for
revenue purposes. while not discrimi-
mating against home products protected
incidentally by the tariff levied for rev
enue.
The manufacturers had their innings,
and with hardly an exception they
wanted higher duties upon articles COM
ing into competition with them, while
looking with d.sfavor upon any in
crease of duties on the raw materials
of their manufactures. The producers
of raw material, however. made it plain
that they are not to be ignored. What
is the raw materil of one industry is
the finished product Of another, and the
one is as much entitled TO protection
as the other. About the great agricul-
tural staples no class of manufacturers
had anything TO say. Presumably they
wanted these to be as cheap as posi-
BILE so that they might not have to
raise the wages of their workmen on
account of dearer living.
But the agriculturists were not back
ward i'm their demands. One of the
speakers admitted that he would have
a duty absolutely prohibitory on every
agricultural product that can be raised
i'm this country" Another was not
satisfied with that sort of protection.
Prohibitory duties on hay, oats and
faxseed might help some farmers,
but similar duties on wheat corn, cot
ton. and some other products would
not be of much help. because these are
not imported to any extent, if at all.
Our products of this class have to so
abroad and meet the competition Of
other countries in the markets of the
world. Protection in our own market
would be practically useless. What Is
asked for is an export bounty on these
staple products, so that the farmer
could get full price at home for the
exported cereals and yet the exporter
might undersen the cheap labor product
of foreign farms.
The sugar bounty Of the Mckinley
law of 1890 furnished an excuse Tor the
demand If that was a good thing for
the beet growing farmer and for the
country. 1t is argued, why confne the
bounty cure for agricultural ills TO the
beet growers? Why should not the
wheat grower. the corn raiser and the
cotton planter have like encouragement?
Besides. il protective tariff duties ben
eft the manufacturer and not the far
mer. why should not part Of the rev
enue obtained from those protective du-
ties be turned over TO the farmer in the
shape of bounty on the products that he
may be on equal footing before the