The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-04-13

The following article from the pen
of John w. Scott. the well-known
Gilby farmer, in reply to an editorial
Of The Grand Forks Herald. contains
SO many good things on reciprocity
that it is reproduced below:
TO the Editor: Some years ago
The Herald advocated the republican
principle Of a protective tariff, sound
money, or gold standard, and / an
ignorant farmer" thought 1t was
right and was with It, and in recent
years it has been against the prin-
ciples of the republican party as adj
vocated by Lincoln, Blain and Nc
Kinley and President Taft, until he
became president by our votes, and as
at present 1t favors the proposed trade
agreement made with Canada by the
Taft administration, which puts all
farm products from Canada on the
free list, and as it seems to advo-
cate some other kind OF a tariff, or
no tariff on imports. l. as one of its
readers, would be pleased to have the
editor outline the kind Of tariff 1t
does stand for, and If we should not
have a tariff on farm products, print
paper, lumber sugar and other pro-
ducts Of the farm and factory, on
what articles would you put the tariff
In order to raise sufficient revenue to
pay the expenses Of this great and
growing country? The tariff is a tax
on someone; that's a cinch, and as no
man, set of men or party has yet
devised any way to run government
without taxes except the American
Indian, the South Sea Islander and
the Esquimo how would you tax the
people to run the government, If not
by a tariff on imports? In your edi-
torial Of March 81 you say:
"Just read that capitalized clause
over again and let it sink in. The
Protective Tariff league stands for
exactly the same kind of protection
that the northwestern farmer has been
grooming under, and which he would
like to throw off, a protection which
gives certain favored manufacturers a
monopolistic advantage in the home
market, which compels the farmer to
pay the enhanced price for all the
commodities which he buys, and which
in turn gives to the farmer a shadowy
protection which never benefited him
and which never will benefit him, but
which has been twisted by the glib
spokesman of special interests into a
plausible shape, and which has been
made the basis of the farmers endur-
ance Of the tariff burdens which have
been imposed upon them. These men
understand fully that If the husks
which have been fed to the farmer
are taken away from him the farmer
is certain to get busy with the mem
bers of tho Protective Tariff league
who are eating their fill of good
sound corn at his expense, and be-
cause of that the league Is opposed
to this reciprocity agreement, just as it
has been and is opposed to any and
all reciprocity to any and all tariff
reform. Just think it over again"
Scott Not GFoaning.
Now /, as one farmer, have not
been grooming very hard over the
to 20 cents per oushel more for my
wheat, 80 cents per bushel for my
barley and % cents per bUshel for my
| fax for the last ave or six years than
the Canadian farmer across the
boundary has received for his wheat
barley and fax. How will 1t benefit
me to have the protective tariff taken
from my products which has increased
my income from my farm from $500
to $1,000 per year for the last few
years and practically no reduction on
the tariff on manufactured articles?
must buy at combination prices. I've
/ haov1 fhfva1yfrar sir
read your editorial and that is why
am writing you this letter. I am
| looking for light You seem to want
to reduce all tariff (and so do all OF
us). but If we reduce the tariff to any
great or saving extent. will we not
decrease the revenue greatly7
Now, think YOU will say to re-
duce the tariff will increase the rev.
enue. think 1t will. If we increase
the revenue or maintain sufficient
revenue to pay government expenses
with lower tariff rates. will we not
have to import more foreign goods
If we import more goods will not oui
mills and factories have to decrease
their output? If they decrease THEN
output will not American labor be
\ thrown out of employment and will
| we not have another Coxey's army
marching down to Washington de
manding work or bread7 Anticipating
that you viii answer some Of the above
questions by saying reduce the tariff
and reduce the government expenses
will say that when we cannot re-
duce our county taxes that have more
than doubled in the last ten years and
our population in the county decreas-
ed outside OF Grand Forks city, how
can we expect to decrease our general
government expenses?
Farmer Prosperous.
You say that the northwestern
farmers are against protective tariff
and would like to throw it off. Let
us look for facts. The northwestern
farmers, many Of them, are riding
in high priced automobiles. They have
been building many new and modern
houses with steam furnace heat There
is piano in almost every farm house
and some have both organs and pianos.
They have been building nice big hip
rooted barns and painting them with
high priced oil paint Their land has
doubled and trebled in value In fif-
teen years of "robber tariff, put on
our statutes by. the republican party.
They have graded. high and high
salaried school teachers in almost
every hamlet. Many of their children
ride to school in covered, heated
'buases THE agricultural and domes-
tic science schools are filled to over
flowing with farmers sons and daugh-
tiers. They take and read the daily