The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1904-10-20

a,liMEs Hun IA lilo sSLEss
REcElVEps #sY,Sss E r MsR s.
uN5ER THE WILsoNsLAtyt -
THAN Y c4pER Me-
X lr1LEsfs law.


EEExtract from remarISs Of II or.s-x WIS.
Kerr, of Ohio. in House ofB epresen--
tatives, March 81; I&S7; :. and printed
n Appendix to bound congression-
Record; Vol. 80, page 36:l
During the last eigh- months of he
Mckinley law we bought from abroad
s16;80Q,O 00Sof wooden goods, at the
rate Of $4,000, 900 a year. n Il 8o5.
under theeWilson Law, we bought $751;
559, 900, an Increase of thirty mi. ifcns-
year.
In the lastsfun year under the Nc:
Kinleya law 1888 we bought from
abroadl1l1,O 100, 900 pounds of wool and
paid for its$13. 100000. Int11 a95, under
pounds, and paid Tor it S33,000,O00.
In the, one item of wool the farmerIost.
amarkettof s2O;0OO,o0o in. wool.
IS In: the last year of the Mckinley
law we imported $4,000 pounds of
shoddy.
In 1S95gunder the Wilson law, we
imported q, 100000 pounds OF shoddy,
everyspound of which took the place
of a pound of American wool.
Besides buying increased quantities
of goods from abroad, wey have been
deprived Of large markets for our ag-
riculturaI products. What we need
our -four, and thus De enabled to get
rid of our; surplus wheat. In Liver
pool we meet the wheat of the world,
and we can no longer rely upon favor
able markets for raw wheat.
Under the reciprocity of the Nc
Kinley law we built, up.a very irnpor-
tant trade for. American -four. In
Cuba in three years we increased our
sales of flour from 100000 barrels TO
662, 900 barrels, thus getting rid of
100000 bushels of wheat on one
island.
In the West Indies and Bermuda
we built up trade for 100 900 barrels
of flour. or 1000, 900 bushels of wheat.
In Brazil trade for 100000 barrels,
or 100000 bushels of wheat.
In Germany, under the reciprocity,
our trade in -four Went from 5000 bar
rels to $4,000 barrels. al this has
been destroyed by the Wilson bill and
the farmers compelled to compete at
Liverpool with the. cheap wheat of,
the world.
The two items just mentioned are
serious enough, but. the next one is
much more damaging to the farmer,
namely, the falling off in hone con-
sumption. He lost large part of his
best market-the home market.
A few facts will show the extent
which this shrunk. In the year 1856
Sc the consumption of wheat per cap
tia was bushels; that of 1S9i-92, 81
bushels per capita. III l391-92 the
non-agricutura1 population each was
able to pay the farmer for his wheat,
$427; wheat was S3 cents hushel.
In 1856 each one paid tie farmer
s2.16; wheat was then SCI cents a
bushel.
What does this show?
1t shows that of the forty or forty
five millions of people who buy their
bread each paid the farmer $2.11 less
for wheat than in 1S91-22.
This alone reduces his home market
immensely.
A still greater decrease in the con
sumption of corn is shown.
In 1892 the per capita consumption
of corn was 80 bushels, in 1888 1t was
only 16 bushels.
The following summary as to the
thirteen principal agricultural prod
ucts will show what the farmers have
lost by change in the tariff laws:
In 1891 the following articles, name
ly, wheat, corn, rye, oats, cotton, hay,
potatoes, wool, barley, buc}1wheat, to
bacco, hogs and sheep brought the
farmers Of the United States, or were
valued at, $2,957, 100000. In 1885 these
same articles brought them S2,661,-
100000. Nine hundred millions less
received by the farmer under the Will
son law than under the Mckinley law,
and both years were under the, same
money laws. What caused the loss?
Free trade, of course. X
SENATOR DEPEW,s NEW STORY.