Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Benton County, Or.) 1900-1909, 1902-05-02
TRUTH FOR FARMERS.

A contemporary writes: 'lhe
fact is that whatever concern the
farmer once had in the mainten-
ance of tariffs has disappeared.
They were always more or less OF
a fraud upon him, thrown as
sop to reconcile him to support
of manufacturing, and now they
have become a positive burden"
This is mere scholasticism and
is easily answered by the practi-
cal working and results of tariffs
as they have affected and ever
must effect the farmer.
It is true these results are more
apparent in manufacturing dis
tricts than in agricultural. If
Oregon were a great manufactur-
ing State like Pennsylvania, for
instance, the benefit of tariffs
would be more apparent than
now, while Oregon is all agricul-
tural, rather than a manufacture
ing, state.
The farmer is not necessarily
an exporter. The real truth is
that he realizes a greater and
more certain profit in the home
market. This market is the one
to which he is nearest, has east
est access, and which brings him
the largest and surest cash returns
for his products. 1t is not easy
entrance to foreign markets which
benefits the farmer 50 much as
large home consumption which
he must supply. This home con-
sumption is most profitable to
the farmer because it is nearest.
Fewer middle men intervene.
The producer, the farmer, and
the consumer are brought into
more desirable juxtaposition and
both are benefited thereby.
It is not theory, but an abso-
lutte, demonstrated fact that the
home market is the most profta-
bic for the farmer, whether his
product be wheat, potatoes, meat,
apples or peanuts.
It is sheerest nonsense, or at
best, but plausible scholasticism
that a condition of free trade
would be of greater benefit to the
farmer. Tariff reduction here
would not help the farmer by
giving him more for his products.
Under the operation of protection
the farmer finds home market
at prices practically named by
himself for his products. Free
trade would compel him to sell
at prices fixed by the foreign pur-
chaser, who is forced by his very
necessities to buy what he must
buy at the very lowest price pos
sible.
Neither would tariff reduction
benefit the American farmer by
cheapening the cost of goods he
must buy. Our experience is
that free trade, or near approach
to it, floods our markets with
foreign goods of iAferior quality
at prices for which Our own pro.
tected manufacturers can supply
articles of far better quality.
The practical demonstration is
that under a system of protective
tariffs the farmer is enabled to
sell his products in the home
market with greater and mere
certain profit. He is also en-
bled to buy such goods as lie re-
quires in the home market, of
American production, of superior
quality and at most reasonable
prices.
The farmer suffers under free
trade conditions as we'll as the
manufacturer. The system of
American protection ever has the
farmer in view.
The gospel truth about protec-
ton is that the farmer as we'll as
the manufacturer is the benefci-
ary of protective tariffs. The
Oregon farmer knows as we'll as
does his eastern brother, that the
home market is many times more
valuable than any other and