The Watertown weekly leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1912-1917, 1912-10-25

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, but do not pro-
duce yourself, including meats, bears
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. 1t 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
rolicy 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-
ished values Of farm property. In
every period of restored protection
the farmers have reaped the benefits
of a 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 a recent statement by Senator
Smoot printed in the Congressional
Record Of August z6, 1912, it is shown
that In December, 1896, after two
years of free trade tariff revision an
der the Wilson law of 1894, the price
of corn was twenty-three cents a
bushel. while In December, 1911, after
fourteen years of restored protection,
the price of corn was sixty-ntne cents
II n1x n
200 per cent.
Using 1896 as the basis Of COM
parison> with December, 1911, 1t Is
found that under a protective tarin:
Corn advanced 200 per cent.
Wheat advanced 81 per cent.
Cotton advanced % per cent.
Oats advanced 166 per cent.
Rye advanced 1877 per cent.
Barley advanced 3os per cent.
Hay advanced 1873 per cent.
Hops advanced 286 per cent.
Potatoes advanced 2S2 per cent.
FIaxseed advanced 149 per cent.
Fat cattle advanced 81 per cent.
Fat hogs advanced SO per cent
Dairy butter advanced Sc per cent.
Eggs advanced 90 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 his
farm than he could in 1896. For ex-
ample:
Ten bushels Of corn In 1911 paid for
fo5 mounds of SUGAR, and only So
pounds In 1896.
Ten bushels Of corn paid for 81
yards of bIeached sheetlns In 1911,
and only 10 yards In 1896.
Ten bushels OF corn In 1911 paid for
two pairs of shoes, and only one pair
In 1896.
Professor Wilson and other Demo
cratic speakers and writer's assert
what is absolutely untrue wheA they
say. that the protective tariff robs.
and In no way benefits the American
farmer. AS matter Of fact, there
is probably no class Of American pro-
ducers whose share in the benefits of
protection In the past fifteen years,
Las been SO great as the share of
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 Taft
and Vice President Sherman and a
continuation OF the Republican policy
of protection.
~xvfy 0& Ill Eel IL