Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1912-10-24

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 a 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 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 tariff
does benefit the farmers. American
| farmers know this fact, and by their
votes have helped 10 maintain the
| rolicy Of protection Without their
votes the party of protection could
| not have won a single presidential
election in the last forty years. Have
| the farmers been mistaken through
protection been Of no value to them?
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-
| hn a q
CT 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 gislation-1894-97-
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.
|
| 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 I'M
der the Wilson law of 1894, the price
of corn was twenty-three cents
| bushel. while in December, 1911, after
fourteen years of restored protection,
the price of corn was sixty-nine cents
bushel or an advance over 1895 Of
200 per cent.
Using 1896 as the basis Of COM
parison with December, 1911, IL is
found that under a protective tariff:
Corn advanced 200 per cent.
Wheat advanced 81 per cent.
Cotton advanced 20 per cent.
Oats advanced 1866 per cent.
Rye advanced 1877 per cent.
Barley advanced 800 per cent.
Hay advanced 1873 per cent.
Hops advanced 2a6 per cent.
Potatoes advanced 2S2 per cent.
FIaxseed advanced 149 per cent.
Fat cattle advanced 81 per cent.
Fat hogs advanced 90 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
125 pounds of sugar, and only Sc
pounds In 1896.
| Ten bushels of corn paid for 81
yards of bleached sheeting 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 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 so great as the share OF
! tie 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
continuation of the Republican policy
OF protection.
|
The voters will not spoil fairly
good schoolmaster by trying 10 make