Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1912-10-26

countries.
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 tartn Ia 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
policy 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
all these years? They have not Has
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-
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 OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
the farmers of the United States lost
fully five billion dollars in reduced
prices of farm products. and dimfn-
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 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 a
| fourteen years of restored protection.
the price of corn was sixty-nine cents
| a bushel; or an advance over 1896 of
| 200 per cent
! Using 1896 as the basis of COM
parison with December, 1911, it il
found that under a protective tariff:
Corn advanced 200 per cent.
| Wheat advanced 81 per cent.
Cotton advanced % per cent.
Oats advanced 1855 per cent.
Rye advanced 1877 per cent.
| Barley advanced 3o8 per cent
Hay advanced 1873 per cent.
Hops advanced 2e6 per cent.
| Potatoes advanced 282 per cent.
FIaxseed advanced 14e per cent.
Fat cattle advanced 81 per cent
Fat hogs advanced 90 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
12s pounds OF sugar, and only 81
pounds In 1896
Ten bushels of corn paid for 81
| yards Of bIeached sheetIns In 1911
snd emily IS yards In 1896.
/ Ten bushels OF corn In 1911 paid fol-
two pairs Of shoes, and only one pal,
In 1896.
Professor Wilson and other Demo
cratic speakers and writer's asser
what Is absolutely untrue when the.
say, that the protective tariff robs
and in no way benefits the American
farmer. As matter OF fact, Their.
is probably no class of American pro
ducers whose share in the benefits O
protection in the past fifteen years
las been SO great as the share O
the American farmer
If the farmers rightly understan,
their interests. they will vote agains
the party of free trade. They viii cas-
six million votes for President Tai
| and Vice President Sherman and
continuation of the Republican polio.
of protection.