Abilene weekly reflector., 1912-10-31

/ AdGFQ VI AIlG laEVFlNE G9GAUoA hbS
3 entry into the United States, duty
free, Of the products Of the great 9
. fields Of Canada and other grain :
! growing countries.
4 Professor Wilson is telling the far
mers over and over again, that they
have never been protected--that they
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, hut 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 States
and getting nothing. or equivalent to
nothing, so far as The tariff Is con.
cerned. Now that hasn't Just begun
to be true. II has always been true"
It is not true. The protective tarjF
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 them?
It 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 legislation--1S94-97-
the farmers Of the United States lost
fully five billion dollars in reduced |
prices Of farm products, and dimin-
lshed value Of farm property In |
every period of restored protection
The farmers have reaped the benefits
Df a greater demand and increased ,
prices. There has been no exception /
10 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. it Is shown
hat in December, 1896, after two
vears Of free trade tariff revision nm
Ter the Wilson law OF 1894, the price
Il corn was twenty-three cents
,ushel, while in December, 1871, after
ourteen years Of restored protection.
he price of corn was sfxty-nine cents
! bushel; or an advance over 1896 Of
100 per cent.
Using 1896 as the basis Of com.
'arison with December, 1911, 1t is
ound that under protective tariff:
Corn advanced 200 per cent.
Wheat advanced 81 per cent.
Cotton advanced 20 per cent.
Oats advanced 1865 per cent.
Rye advanced 1877 per cent.
Barley advanced 3o3 per cent.
Hay advanced 1873 per cent.
Hops advanced 286 per cent.
Potatoes, advanced 2S2 per cent.
FIaxseed advanced t49 per cent.
Fat cattle advanced 81 per cent. II
Fat hogs advanced 96 per cent.
Dairy Butter advanced s6 per cent.
Eegs advanced 30 per cent.
While the price of farm products
las increased, the price of articles
Ehich the farmer purchases has not
in proportion. He can buy
nore today with the products OF his !
arm than he could in 1896. For ex. q
mple: II
Ten bushels Of corn In 1911 paid for /
rs pounds Of sugar, and only Sc h
ounds IN 1895.
Ten bushels Of corn paid for 81
ards Of bIeached sheetlng In 1911.
nd only IS yards in 1896.
Ten bushels Of corn in 1911 paid for
'No pairs Of shoes and only one pair
4 1896.
Professor Wilson and other Demo
ratio speakers and writer's assert
that is abolutely untrue when they
ay. that the protective tarif robs.
nd in no way benefits the American Q
armer. AS a matter Of fact. there e
! probably no class OF American pro I,
ucers whose share in the benefits of 4
rejection in the past fifteen years. 8
as been so great as the share Of the b
merican farmer
II the farmers rightly understand 4
heir interests. they win vote against G
he party Of free trade. They win cast I
x million votes for President Taft e
nd Vice President Sherman and Ia