Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1902-08-29
eE0TEoTfON SfoRI'y'FARMeRs.
5asG How THO Tarfn Bensnts Amerf-
Observation-Disclosures Doesn't Appear.


Jast How thc Tariff Benent. Amcrf-
cansSAgrfealturtsts Doesn't Appear.
The, solicitude OF the protectionists
FOR the farmer Is indeed touching
They put duty OF 30 cents per bushel.
equivalent to about O. per cent. on bar
ley. This compels the Milwaukee
brewers TO pay out more money to the
railroads In freights on barley shipped
from points In the United States far
Their away than the Canadian barley
fields IL doesn't give one cent more TO
our farmers, for American barley is
exported in quantities. and the price Is
hxed In the markets Of the world. The
brewers OF this country don't pay any
more per bushel for barley at the
thrashez than do the exporters. and no
duty can affect the export price. The
extra cost to the brewers comes In the
shapeof railroad freights.
A duty is levied on corn at the rate
Of 10 cents per bushel. or about % per
cent ad valorem. We imported last
year 1000 bushels OF corn, an unusual
ly large amount. In the same year we
exported III 1917, 965 bushels, valued at
So. 527, 1888. 1t would be hard to con-
vince a rational being that this duty
on corn protects the farmers from the
''pauper labor" OF foreign lands. How
In the name OF common sense the price
OF these 17S.OOO,O0O bushels OF export
ed corn can be at all affected by the
duty of - cents per bushel is n puz-
zle, yet the trainers OF the DingIey law
call this protective duty for the
sturdy American farmer. 1t certainly
isn't much of a revenue producer, for
last year It poured only about 81 900
into Uncle Sans Golfers and the year
before about $500. Just what it pro-
tects the American farmer from has
never been explained
Oats must pay a duty Of Is cents
per bushel, equal to about 81 per cent
ad valorem. Perhaps this is a protec-
tive duty. Last year we exported 81
iIG,S12 bushels of oats, valued at SILL
765,330. We imported 1880 bushels
and collected 81. S44.0S In duties. 1t is
impossible to discover any benefit to
the farmers in this protection" SO long
as they must depend on foreign buy
ers. They cannot sell at home for one
price and abroad for another, as is
done by the steel trust and other In,
dustrLl corporations, because the
farmer hasn't any trust to limit the
output and control prices.
But there is n duty OF % cents per
bushel on wheat Perhaps this duty
protects the farmer and so justifies
the claim that the Dingley law pro-
tects the farmer. Last year we Inn
ported about 5000 bushels OF wheat
and collected about thousand dol
lars I'm protective" duties. We ex-
ported 100000. 667 bushels. valued at
$96, l,143. Did the twenty-five cent
duty enable the farmers to get higher
price for their wheat? Certainly not.
for every bushel sold went for the
same price as that sold I'm foreign mar
kets. No American import duty, how
ever high, could have the slightest
influence upon the grain dealers at
Liverpool and London. The imbecili-
ty OF the claim that the duties on
grain protect American farmers Is SO
obvious that 1t seems a pity TO take up
space with discussion OF 1t, yet the
Republican party has repeatedly been
put In power by the votes OF farmers
who believe that they are voting intel
hgently. little thought should con-
vince any farmer not made blind by
prejudice that protection Injuries him
In two ways-first, by closing foreign
markets to his products. and. second,
by raising the prices OF the conlnodi-
ties he consumes. For these injuries
there is no compensation in increased
prices of farm products.