Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 July 1884 — THE TARIFF AND THE FARMER. [ARTICLE]

THE TARIFF AND THE FARMER.

Ed. Sentinel: An address, delivered before the New Jersey State Agricultural Society by Hon. ihomas Dudly, is being widely circulated by the Republican party as a campaign document. This document ostensibly ets forth the claims of agriculture, but covertly presents the manufacturer’s interest, and, in doing so, advocates a tariff for protection. It assumes that a protective tariff is needful to the success of of manufacturing interests and that the farmer is depentent on manufacturers for a home market. “If,” says Mr. Dudly, “protective duties tend to do this by building up manufactories, and gives employment to labor, then protection benefits ihe farmer.” In the course of the argument it is conceded that our manufactured commodities can be afforded so cheap as to be sent to foreign markets and placed in competition with foreign manufactured articles. In corroboration of this statement we quote the following paragraphs: “As one proof of thisjyou have only to look over the exports from our country to foreign countries of our manufactured commodities. We are sending to other nations yearly our agricultural implements. including fanning mills horse powers, mowers and reapers, plows, cultivators, forks, hoes, etc., carriages, carts, cotton goods, railroad cars, locomotives, steam engines, watches, clocks, glass and glassware, hats, caps, boots, shoe?, wearing apparel, machinery cutlery, eage tools, files, saws, firearms, nails, India rubber goods, jewelry, lamps, saddlery, harness, organs, piano fortes, paper, stationery, printing presses, sewing machines, household goods, furniture, woodwork tinware, and scales. As a rule men do not export goods to another country to be sold at a loss, and when you see a manufacturer sending his goods to a foreign country steadily for a succession of years it is fair to presume that he does it because he can get more there than he •an at home; in other words, that they are cheaper here than in the foreign country to which they are exported. During the fiscal year 1880 we exported to foreign countries; JO6 millions of dollars of onmanufactured commodities; md during last year nearly #0 millions of dollars, whilst u 1868 our exports only imounted to 68 millions.”

If, as above stated, oui manufacturers can send their commodities abroad and successfully compete with foreign manufacturers where, is the necessity for protection? The plea for a protective tariff has always been that our manufacturers could not successfully compete with foreign manufacturers. Here it is affirmed in this Republican campaign document that our manufactured commodities can be disposed of at a profit in foreign markets; nay, more, that they are exported and disposed of in large quantities. It would have interested our farmers very much if the prices for which our commodities sell in foreign markets had been stated. It would be a matter of t urprise to some of our farmers to learn that our manufactured commodities are shipped to foreign ports and sola for a less price than is exacted for the same article at home. In consequence of our protective system, and the facilities it affords for combinations, our farmers are made to pay exorbitant prices tor farming implements and other commodities favored by this system. It would be well for those farmers win have been favored with this campaign documentlto read it in connection with the speech of Hon. Thos. J. N oodjwnich clearly and forcibly demonstrates how the protective system affects the interest of tne farmer. This tariff question is one that vitally affects the interests of agric lturists, and they sho’d look well to it before they approach the ballot-box at the coming election. The farmer who favors protection is nourishing a viper that, in the end, will sting him to death.

A FARMER.