The enterprise. [volume] (Harlem, Mont.) 1899-1926, 1912-10-17

i
Professor Wilson Is telling the far
have never been protected-that the1
do not need protection. Then In this
connection the professor adds: But
everything you use on the farm, ev'
erything that you wear, and great
deal of what you eat, but do not pro-
duce yourself, including meats. bears
a heavy duty, which brings about the
interesting result that you are paying
for the wealth of the United Staten
and getting nothing. or equivalent to
nothing, so far as the tariff Is con-
cerned Now that hasn't just begun
to be true. It has always been true" |
1t Is not true. The protective tarin
does benefit the farmers. American
farmers know this fact, and by their
votes have helped to maintain the
policy of protection. Without their
votes the party of protection could
not have won single presidential
election in the last forty years. Have
the farmers been mistaken through
all these years? They have not Has
protection been of no value to themr
1t certainly has.
All history and all fact dispute the
academic free trade contention that
the farmer has no share In the bene-
fits Of protection. In every period OF
industrial depression. resulting from
the destruction of the tariff duties be-
low the protective point, the farmers
of this country have been heavy
losers, because of diminished demand
and lower prices for their products.
In the most recent period of Demo-
cratic free trade 1s94-97-
the farmers of the United States lost
fully five billion dollars In reduced
prices of farm products, and dinin-
ished values of farm property. In
every period of restored protection
the farmers have reaped the benefits
of greater demand and increased
prices. There has been no exception
to the rule of prosperity for American
farmers. when American labor Is fully
employed.
Here are some proofs of that fact
In recent statement by Senator
Smoot printed in the Congressional
Record Of August 26, 1912. 1t Is shown
that in December, 1896, after two
years of free trade tariff revision un-
der the Wilson law OF 1894. the price
of corn was twenty-three cents
bushel, while in December, 1911. after
fourteen years of restored protections
the price of corn was sixty-nine cents
a bushel; or an advance over 1896 OF
200 per cent
Using 1896 al the basis Of COM
parison with December. 1911. 1t ii
found that under a protective tariff:
Corn advanced 200 per cent.
Wheat advanced 81 per cent
Cotton advanced % per cent.
Oats advanced 1853 per cent.
Rye advanced 1877 per cent.
Barley advanced 3o8 per cont
Hay advanced 1873 per cent.
Hops advanced 2e6 per cent.
Potatoes advanced 282 per cent.
Flaxseed advanced 149 per cent.
Fat cattle advanced 81 per cent.
Fat hogs advanced SO per cent
Dairy butter advanced 80 per cent
Eggs advanced so per cent
While the price Of farm products
has increased, the price Of articles
which the farmer purchases has not
Increased in proportion. He can buy
more today with the products Of hfa
farm than he could in 1896. For ex.
ample:
Ton bushels o. corn In 1911 paid fot,
1928 pounds Of Sugar and only sd
pounds In 1895.
Ton bushels ~ corn paid for 81
yards o. bieaohed sheetlno In 1s11,
and only - yards In 1896.
Ten bushels II corn In 1911 paid Aoe
two pairs Of shoes, and only ono paIr
In 1896.
Professor Wilson and other Demo-
cratic speakers and writer's assert
what Is absolutely untrue when they
say, that the protective tariff robs.
and in no way benefits the American
farmer AS a matter Of fact. there
is probably no class OF American pro-
ducers whose share In the benefits of
protection in the past fifteen years.
has been 40 great As the share o2
the American farmer
II the farmers rightly understand
their interests, they will vote against
the party Of free trade, They will cast
six million votes for President Tafe
and Vice President Sherman and q
continuation Of the Republican policy
Of protection.
Tho voters will not apoil 4 fairly