Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1926-10-27
rnE FARMER.s rARIFF nuRDEN

tfE + AkMEkS IAkiff bONDEN
Accuracy az figures. statements
and conclusions Of Or E. V. WilcoN
In an article recently appearing in
the Country Gentleman on What the
Tariff Does fer the Farmer is chale
lenged BY the Fair Tariff League,
through It's Chairman, II r. Miles, In
statement given circulation bv the
Democratic NationM Congressional
Committee. The Fair Tariff League
IS described as ''protectionist or
ganization," non-partisan, made up
Of representatives of more than tive
million farmers, wage earners. eco-
nomistS and manufacturers.
DR. Wilcox reckoned the cost Of
the Fordney-McCumher tariff sched-
ules TO the farmer at $3.50. 600 GOO
annually. Instead, says MIR. Miles,
il is S1,050. 100000. or precisely
three times what Or. Wilcox reek-
oned IT, Mr. Miles saws DR. Wilcox
made this great error in that he esti-
mated the farmers buy only twenty
per cent of the total manufactured
products of the country. limiting his
reckoning to the farmers purchase
only Of commodities for personal use
ing, household effects, tools and
groceries. palpably, saws Mr.. Miles,
this is erroneous, because the farmer
continues thltv per cent of the popu-
lation of the country, and the per
capita ratio must be used in reckon
ing his buying power. because he
pays a fun proportion, and some
times more, of the cost of all mater
: ss4la eel .
locomotives, rails, electrical ma
chinery, etc. While the farmer does
not buy these things outright, be
cause he is thirty per cent Of the
total buying power, he pays thirty
per cent of all costs that always are
passed on to the general public.
Rails and machinery. etc, cost
more because of the tariff. and the
farmer pays his share. Obviously, il
is unfair to say that the farmer pays
more because of the tariff only on
clothing and the farm implements,
etc. he buys.
The other great mistake DIR. Will
cox made, said Mr.. Miles, was in
reckoning the cost Of the tariff 10
the farmer to be only what he pays
in additional initial or first cost Of
the tariff. and not in adding cumula-
tive increases. At every stage, from
the raw material to the finished pro-
duet, the tariff cost is added in in
creased price, percentage upon
each time. I'm short,
he says, investigation by federal
in 1922. when American
valuation was under consideration,
disclosed that as general PROPOSE
ion the original tariff burden is in
creased Is per cent at least by the
who convert the oriRi-
nal protected materials, upon which
is made successfully of %
per cent by the wholesaler, and even
more by the retailer, untsl the orig
nal tariff burdn is more than doubl-
I'd, lifting the burden which DR.. VII
,ox says is $3.50, 100000 TO $1,000
300. 1000"
Another number Of the Country
quoted Representative
rincher, of Kansas, as challenging
my Member of the House of Repre-
,entatives to disprove his statement
hat not single commodity the far
ners buy was then flast summer) as
high priced as in Sept, 1922, when
he present tariff act became effec-
i've, and that not a single commodity
he farmer sells was as low priced
hen as in Sept. 1922. Mr.. Miles
responds to this challenge with com.
PARSONS between Sept, 1922, and
he fall Of last year as follows -
What the farmer sells: Hides, 1870
over in November. 1925, than in
1922: wool. Ohio half-blood, 7@e low
,r: tobacco, Burlev good leaf, Sc
over: lemons, 1917 lower, Califor-
la raisins, 800 lower: sugar. 900
over.
What the farmer buys: cotton I'M
lerwear, 25R higher; wooden under
wear, 33ao higher; serge suitings,
.39o higher: blankets, wool, 1870
higher; cotton blankets, 1877 higher:
'offee. 80% higher. and so on
through the range Of commodities
which the farmer must purchase,
showing that the farmers purchas-
np power was 24ft less from last
ears crops than in 1913. His food
tufts cost him only go more IN
.925 than in 1913, showing the tar
# did little for the farmers food
tufts, while in his purchase Of cloth
ng, the farmer was handicapped
- " 70 in 1925 as compared with