Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1900-09-08
TIE Imports INTO rlvefpoor are usuar.

/ tlOn OF American grown wheat con.
! sumed by the operatives of factories
called into existence by protection and
! of those directly and indirectly de-
! pendent upon the protected manufac-
/ turing industries is saved the cost of
/ this transportation. and the greater
/ part of the saving inures TO the bene-
4 fit of the American farmer. If all the
wheat raised in the United States were
| consumed in this country. the amount
/ expended for transportation Of the sur.
| plus to foreign markets would be SINH
| larry saved for the benefit of the Amer
/ lean farmer
Fourth.-Would this country, without any tariff
! duty on farm products, import such articles to
such extent as to lower their pricef
! Undoubtedly that result would en-
| sue. If. to illustrate, the Dominion of
/ Canada could freely enter the nearby
| market of the United States and thus
| save to its farmers the cost of trans
/ porting their. surplus TO European mar
kets, the effect would inevitably be to
! deprive the American farmer of just
| so much of the domestic market as
was supplied by the imported Cana
| dian product and compel him to dis
pose of a greater surplus abroad. That
would necessarily mean a reduction of
the real price at which the American
farmer could sell his product.
| Fifth.-Ii wheat is selling at 60 cents bushel
! In the foreign markets and exporting
| surplus wheat, will you explain how protective
| tariff imports of merchandise will increase the
| price OF wheat?
This question is merely variation of
! question No. 3. 1t is fully answered
/ by the statement showing that it is
| impossible to promote the growth of
manufacturing industry in country
without greatly benefiting the agricul-
| tural population.
! sixth.-If we export farm products and sell
! them abroad in competition with farm products
| OF other countries will not your protective tariff
! force him (the farner) to buy at higher prices
| what he wishes than ii this protection did not
| exist?
| The answer to question No. / covers
| this, but it may be supplemented with
| an illustration which any purely agri-
cultural country will supply-namely,
| that in countries dependent upon for
| eigners the farmers as a rule are I'M
| able to buy many products which those
! in a manufacturing country obtain
| with facility. If the United States
! had remained in the condition to which
the free traders wished to relegate it,
of being producer of raw materials
| and food products to be manufactured
| and consumed by other peoples, the
| American farmer would lack many
comforts he now enjoys. The saying
/ Of n 11at "a xNh
| devotes itself to agriculture is obliged
to exchange a great deal of the rude
| products of the soil for very small
| quantity of manufactured articles is
| very pertinent in this connection.
seventh.--Is he (the farmer) not forced to pay
the import duty ii he buys abroad; or, if he re-
| turns empty and buys at home, is he not forced
| to pay additional price by reason Of the protec-
! ton?
This question is only variation of
| No. !. The answer to it has already
| been given.
Eighth-Does a tariff duty imposed upon i'm
ports OF farm products help the price of the farm
! products which exporting2 II not, why
tax the farmer to put money into the hands of the
| domestic manufacturer?
Fully answered In the answer to
| question No. 4.
Ninth.-H it is right to tax the farmer to help
| the manufacturer in his private business, why
| would it not be right to pay bounty TO farmer
| on his expectation and by that means tax the
| home manufacturers
The primary object of protection is
| to promote by artificial means when
ever necessary the creation of indus
! tries which require such assistance to
establish them and which promise to
prove profitable after their establish
ment. 1t does not aim to assist those
engaged in an industry already estab-
| lished to overcome the effects of over
production. The most it can do in
! such cases is to secure to the farmer
the domestic market, which it does By
| imposing a tariff on competing agri-
cultural products.
Tenth.-You advocate higher tariff in order
| to protect the manufacturer against competing
| with the pauper labor OF the old world. Why not
pay a bounty to the farmer in order to protect
] him against the same pauper laborT
The protective tariff does prevent
the competition of pauper labor by
imposing a tariff on competing agricul-
tural products. 1t cannot be expected
to go further than it does in this di-
rection. If the farmer were assisted
with a bounty ON exports, the manu-
facturer would have right to ask
for a similar bounty. The manufac-
turer. however demands nothing Of
the kind. He is content to accept pre-
cisely the same kind of protection that
is accorded to the farmer.
Eleventh-what is the difference in principler
What right has the government to collect any
more taxes than are necessary to pay the expenses
| of the government, and why not, il all bene-
fitted, distribute the surplus among all2
The government as a matter of fact
does not collect any more taxes than
are necessary to pay its expenses. In
the past there has been a surplus in
certain years, but it has been applied
to the eXtinguishment of debt. In any
event it is not the aim of the pro-
tective policy to raise surplus, there
| fore fhp npcpSSify or OronPipfV of dis