Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1912-10-29

. free, of the products of the great .
. fields of Canada and other grain .
. growing countries. .
eo0ooeoeS eoo OOee00Os
Professor Wilson is telling the far
mers over aud 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
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 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?
1t certainly has.
All history and all fact dispute the
academic free trade contention that
the farmer has no share in the bene-
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 value 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, it 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
bushel, while in December, 1911, after
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 is
found that under protective tariff:
Corn advanced 200 per cent
Wheat advanced 81 per cent.
Cotton advanced 2s per cent.
Oats advanced 1866 per cent.
Rye advanced 1877 per cent.
Barley advanced 3o8 per cent.
Hay advanced 1873 per cent.
Hops advanced 2s6 per cent.
Potatoes advanced 2s2 per cent.
Flaxseed advanced 149 per cent.
Fat cattle advanced 62 per cent.
4 Fat hogs advanced SO per cent.
Dairy Butter advanced Sc per cent
Eggs advanced go 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 bIeaehed sheeting in 1911,
and only 13 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 abolutely 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 beeh 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 cssl
six million votes for President Taft
and Vice President Sherman and a
continuation Of the Republican policy
Of protection
Ckrora CarSe