Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 29, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 August 1884 — TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

TARIFF.

A Revenue vs. a Protective TAriff. BY W. D. BYNUM. PROTECTION, IT IS CLAIMED, GIVES A MARKET TO FARMERS. Instead of furnishing the farmers a market, manufacturers are destroying the same. No truth is clearer than that the exchange of products between nations must, in the end, be equal. Money only represents something that has been exchanged or that is to be exchanged. To prove that the exchange of products must be equal, it is only necessary to call attention to the fact that last year we imported articles to the value of $723,180,914. If we had exported, or sold, nothing to the different. nations, we could not have purchased from them. It would take more money than our . entire paper currency, national bank notes, greenbacks and silver certificates represents, to pay for what we purchased from other governments in 1883. Every business man watches closely to see whether, at the end of the year, the ballance of trade is in our favor or against us. Our exports of farm products last year amounted to something near our entire currency. Iris no* nrr* gold nnd silver mines that enables us to trade with foreign governments, but our wheat-fields, our cottonfields and our corn fields; our sheep, hogs and cattle, etc., and without them we could not stand the drain for a single month. If, with all of our advantages, we can not afford to purchase from foreign governments unless they take what we have to sell, we certainly can not expect them to buy from us, unless we take

what they have to give in exchange. If our farmers sell to foreign governments $619,000,000 worth ot produce every year, they must buy that amount from their customers. Now, it makes no difference to the farmer whether he takes his wheat directly to Europe and sells it. or sells it at his nearest railroad station, he gets what it is worth in Liverpool, less costs of handling, shipping, commissions, etc. If lie sells to the buyers on any of the railroads leading into Indianapolis, he gets the price at Indianapolis, less freights, etc. The Indianapolis dealer pays the price at Baltimore, less freights, etc., and the Baltimore dealer pays the price in Liverpool, less freignts, etc. So it makes no difference where our (farmers sell, they get the price in Liverpool, less all expenses. Now, to illustrate the point in a practical was, suppose our farmers, instead of selling at the nearest railroad stations, should all ship to Baltimore and there load their produce on board ships, and place the same under the control of a dozen or more of their number, with directions to take the same to Liverpool and exchange for such articlesaeiwere suitable Those in charge, after making the voyage safely and exchanging their cargoes for such goods as they were directed to bring back, reload their ships and safely return to New York, from which point each farmer is to receive his share. As soon as the ships enter the port, government officers take possession and remove every article to the Custom House. Now, the farmers, had theyinot beeh advised of such a proceeding, would look upon the same as an unwarranted interference, and would demand by what right their goods were taken possessi n of. Under the present condition of the law and circumstances such a demand by the farmers, we can readily imagine, would lead to the following colloquy between one of their number and the chief officer:

Farmer: These goods we bought in Liverpool. We could not sell all or products at home, so we shipped our surplus to Liverpool and had to take what yon see here in exchange. We have nothing but common clothes for our families, cheap carpels, a few blankets, andhalter chains and other articles, such articles as .we need, and we want to divide the same and send each man his share. Officer: This may all be true, and. I don’t doubt it. But before you can divide these goods or take any of them away you must pag to the government a tax, which is fixed on each article, by a law of Congress. Farmer: Pay a tax to the Government! What do we have to pay a tax for? Officer: The Government requires that every person bringing goods from a foreign country into this must pay a tax on them with which to pay the expenses of the Government. Farmer: We did not think of this. It’s all right. We shonld pay our portion of the expenses. How much does it require from us? Officer: We find that you have $619,000,000 worth of goods. A portion of your goods are taxed very high. Your cloth is taxed from 49 to 70 per cent., carpets 50 per cent., blankets 90 per cent., etc. vVe find that the total amount you must pay is $190,000,000. Farmer-: What! 8190,000,000 from us farmers to carry on the expenses of the Government! Why, sir, how much does it take to run this Government? Officer. Well, enough has already been collected from other sources to pay all the expenses but 90,000,000. There is a surplus of 8100,000,000 every year left in the Treas-

ury, but Congress has fixed the exact amount on each article, and we must have the full $190,000,00. Farmer. Congress has fixed the amount, ana compels you to collect slu«Mtoc.ooo a year more than is necessary irom us! What did Congress do this for? Ninety millions is enough for us to pay. Officer. That extra hundred million is put on to protect our manufacturers. That is a penalty you must pay for not buying your goods at home. Next time you must not buy so much in Liverpool. Bring money home and buy your goods here. Farmer. But we could not get money. We had to take foods or lose our products. )oes the Government intend that we shall sell nothing to foreign countries nor buy anything from them? Officer. We do not know about that. You must rid of your products as best you can; but you must not buy anything abroad. If you do you must pay this penalty every year. Farmer. Weil, sir, this may be a law of Congress; but a law that punishes us for taking goods in exchange for our products is infamous. What right has the Government to prevent us from trading outside? This may be alaw now, but in the future the farmers of this country will vote for no man for Congress who will not pledge himself to vote in favor of a reduction of this tax until no more money is collected from us than is necessary to administer the affairs of the Government economically Now, it is easy to see that our farmers, if they are compelled to pay this enormous taxon the goods they receive in exchange for their products, will refuse to take anything in payment but money. We have "seen, however, that no nation can afford to pay money for any great length of time. Our English customers, Who have been purchasing our farmer’s wheat, pork and beef, understand this, and they say to the farmers: “If you can not take our goods in exchange, we can not trade as freely with you. We must get our provisions elsewhere. We have rich soil and good lands in Egypt and the Indies, and we will raise our own food.” Only recently the Indianapolis Journal called attention to the fact that Eengland was raising large quantities of cotton and wheat in her own possessions, and that it " ould not be long till our farmers would have to look to a home market exclusively. Could any admission be more fatal to a protective policy? In order to foster monopolies at home, we have driven the farmers best customers to turn agriculturists, and become their competitors in the markets of the world. France and Germany, goaded by our high tariff, which prohibits them from selling to our farmer such articles as they have for export, under the pretext that American meat is unhealthy, have excluded it from their markets, and our farmers are shut out of two great cQuntiies that could and 'would consume large quantities of American meats if they could only give in exahange their products. Instead of furnishing the farmers with a market, these monpolists have more effectually “cut off our trade with all parts of the world” than ever the King of Great Britain had when arraigned by the patriotic Government in their declaration of freedom. Is it not time that the people of this Govenment should examine this question in the light of reason and fairness? Is it not time that we should investigate not as partisans, but as patriots, a question of such vital importance to our-

selves. Farmers aretold, however that they are protected as well as the manufacturers. There is a tariff of 20 cents a bushel on wheat, 10 cents a bushel on corn, 15 cents a bushels on potatoes, and 20 per cent, on live animals, and from 10 to 12 cents a pound on wool. This provision for the benefit of our farmers is exceedingly genero us. No doubt that the farmers of Kansas, as they occasionally kindle a fire with a few ears of corn, because wood is too scarce or expensive, thank Congress, and the manufacturers, that the struggling farmers of Europe, are not permitted to utterly destroy their markets at home. That, a few years ago as they drove into Wichita, and saw the streets crowded with wagons loaded with wheat, and learned that over 4,(XX),000 bushels were anually shipped from that little town, they blessed the policy of protection, which prevented the poor tenants of Ireland, from flooding our country with wheat, w hat a consolation it is for our farmers to know that they are orotected and that there is no immediate danger of utter ruin. Our farmers may, however, wish to improve their crops, or their stock. They may wish a few pure Jersey cattle for milk stock; some Clydesdale or French horses for draft purposes* and to get them they must pay the duty, and this is the sole benefit of protection to farmers on their stock. But, say protectionists, farmers are protected on their stock. u e are told that our farmers can not compete with the cheap wool of South America and Australia, and that a duly of from 10 to 12 cents a pound is necessary to protect pur wool-growers. It is rather singular that the woolgrowers have been caught with this bait, and are ready to do the bidding of the protectionists, if the duty can only be increased. Have not the wool-growers investigated their true interests sufficient to learn that the tariff on wool is a direct and positive injury instead of a benefit to them? Have they suffered the “wool to be pulled over their eyes” and gone on blindly without investigating the effects of the tariff on their wool? A high tariff has invariably lowered the price of wool at home instead of raising it.

Mr. Haskell, formerly a Republican member, in a debate in Congress, in 1882, said: “Take the very item m wool, in which you are all interested. From 1850 to 1860, wool was free, and the wool interests of tnis country were at a low ebb. * * Do you say the price of wool has increased under this tariff of 12 cents a pound against the free wool of 1850 to 1860? I have here the figures. To-day wool is cheaper per pound, and has been for the past five years, than it was from 1850 to 1860, under the free rating of the free trade party.” Ought not this admission put American wool-growers to thinking? If a tariff on wool has reduced the price of American wool, in the home marked, where is the protection? Mr. Stebbins, who possesses a remarkable, thougn somewhat singular, faculty of drawing conclusions, in speaking on the tariff on wool, says: “Its results as to wool, are given in the tariff commission report, and can he stated as follows: Sheep, 1860, 22,471,275; 1880, 43,576,896. Founds of wool in 1860, 50,264,913; in 188° 340,000,<>M—or twice as muc S3r head as in 1860. Prices i oston in currency average in 1867, fifty-one cents; in 187 forty-three cents; in 1880, so ty-eight cents. The price is little lower, but the sum from each fleece nearly double, as the result of imp oved breeds,

[Concluded.] under protective encouragement and with a home market ” If there is any person who can find in all tne absurdities of logic a conclusion more preposterous, he Should apply for copyright “Although the price was flowered under a protective influence the breeds were improved.” If under a lower price the breeds were improved, what would have been the consequences if the price had not been lowered? Such sophistiry, however, the protectionists are driven to, but they can not long escape the righteous indignation of a tax ridden people. The reduction in rthe price of wool, under a high tariff, is one of natural consequences, and wool growers ought to have discovered this fact long ago. Mr. Brooks, in a speech in Congress on March 3, 1870, said: “In <iur high protective or prohibitory tariff on this article we look only to the surface of things, forgetful of the great fact that the manufacturers of cloth need wool from all parts of the earth—from Germany, from Australia, from South Africa, as well as Buenos Ayres and Montevklo, ana that when they are limited to the one producing market of wool, there can 'be lhtle or no variety in these manufactures, and, consequently, less of production and less of demand even for our own American wool The European nas open to him wool ot every fiber or texture: the Americau, only

his own. Hence, we hwe overstocked the market with our own lines of production’but left it free for such a demand a finer, or more varied or, in some cases, a cheaper article than our own- We have nearly lost our commerce with South Africa, Auetralia and La Plate, and Prance and England have taken it, * * The Argentine Republic, which- in [Sf4, sent us 21,11 ,408 pounds of wool, sent us but 8,173 660 pound in 1367. Under the vain expectation that so high a tax as fourteen cents a pound on woo! coding abroad but four een cents ("100 pei cent), would raise sheep to, we have seen wool fall in price here and sianghN ered here as never Defore. * * While the price of Ohis woo! before the high tarifFof 1867 was fifty-four to fi/ty«.riye cents a pound, it is now down" from forty-three to forty-five cent*. And why is this? It is because oue woo’,» raisers of the world have been unnaturally driven from oar market to J 2 gland, France, Belgium, Germany, ami have there glutted those markets wish the millions of pounds we once brought, here in our ships, a®d there using and mixing the test adapted of the raw materials to the textures they would work, the softer and finer the Buenos A vies and German with the coarser and rougher wools of the world, they have commanded the markets elsewhere, and, in some degree, our own. What our farmers were supposed to gain by a heavy prohibitory tariff upon their wools, they have lost in the reduced price of wool la Kuropo—a price so reduced there as to underbid even tne prohibitive protection we gave in 186 7 to our woolen manufacturers.” A better statement of the causes that have lea to a reduction in the price of wool under a high taiiff could not be made. Similar causes have led to the depres sion ot every other industry. Instead of exchanging our manufactured products freely with every nation for raw materials, we have driven them all ’O England, to supply her mauu factories ana workmen with a superabundance at the very lowest prices li is to the interest of <Ur wool-growers, considering only the price of wool, to favor tree trade in -ool; but. when we take into consideration the benefits they would derive by a reduction of the tariff to a revenue basiß, they ought, at a glance, to see upon which side of the question their true interests lie. A PROTKCTIVK TARIFF, IT IS CLAIMED Reduces prices.

We are told that the tariff has reduced prices- and that it must be retained at present rates or Eusland manufacturers will flood our 'ountry with their pro. duets, break down and destroy our industries, and then put up prices MrStebbins approvingly quotes the following from the Minneapolis Wood and Iron Journal: “The mechanic trader, fanner or manufacturer who desiiesa removal of the protective tariff mav be compared to an inhabitant and low lyiDg land bardering on the Mississippi river who advocates cutting the levey whieb protects him and his possessions from the angry flood without-” If cutting the levy would flood the farmer’s land with cotton, corn and cane cheaper than lie could raise them bewould not be likely to objects to the work being done. Iu all orobility he could be induced to assist in the j b. But suppose the leyy is high enough to protect his land from overflow and yet affords him easv access to the riyer, where he can load his produce upin a barge and receive his supplies in exchange, and a government officer come 3 along and proposes to tax him to build the' levy so high that he can not get over it, and thereby destroy his maket, what would the farmer say? If he believed in a;‘protective policy he would say, “Build it higher, and I will eat what I raise and raise only what 1 eat; make what I wear and wear only what I make.” We are told that, under a high tariff, prices have been reducer; that cotton goods are cheaper, that woolen goods are cheaper; that iror is cheap er, and. in tact, eveiythmg cheaper than 1860 under a low tariff. True, the price of manufactured a: tide sis lower, tint the tariff has not been the author of this reduction. To hear protections talk, one would suppose that the tariff had organized every new invention made from the foundation of our Government. Mr, StebMne says: “Before axes were made in this county, except' by country blaekamiti s, English axes cost our tanners and others from two to four dollars each. By the tariff of 1828 a protective duty of 98 per cent, was levied upon imported axes. Under this pros lection the Collins Company, of Hartford, introduced labor-saving machinery, much of wnich .was invented, patened and constructed bv ourselves-” This oondu ion almost equals the one drawn

by Mr. Btebbins. that the tarifiLbad caused the sheep’s fleece to double in quantity. Was it the tariff or was it t a demand for a better and cheaper axe that put the patentees to thinking? No doubt Mr. Stebbina could prove that the tariff on lumber ana iron, and not the demand of the great grain growing sections for better machinery- caused Me t'ormick to invent the selfbinder. Upon this question of a reduction of prices Mr. Powers says: “Mr Swank tells us we ought to be profound kytgraieful to the protective tariff for reduoing the price of steel rails from tllO io iSM) per ten, and then showing that English steel rails are sold at $27.37, and that not a cent can be taksn off of our duty of S2B per ton. It appears, then that instead of reducing the price ot rails the tariff raised their price from $27.37 to $45.1:0.” And again he says: Mr. Swank, Secretary of the irou and steel Association, states tnat the close of 1877 we had 444 furnaces out ot blast and 270 in blast. We certainly can’t export the product, of these furnaces, for Mr. Swank shows that English pig iron can be laid down in New York at $9,4&i and i11;62J per ton, while the price of American pig iron ranges from sl6 to $18.6C. We have orotected ourselves wbh a duty of $7 per ton, and Mr. SwaDk says he can’t spare a cent of .that. * * But while we can’t export pig iron and steel rails, because without tariff we can’t even hold our home market, yet in spit of Engli-h competion we can export the finer manufacturers of iron and steel, handicapped as we are by the high prices of raw materials. Last year we exported machinery worth ss,Und,ooo- - worth $2.000600, edge-tools worth $1,000,000, and sewing machines worth $ l ,660.000, This indicates where our strong point lies. If we could get cheap iron and steel we can put the prices of our manufacturers down so low as to drive England out of the markets of the world ”

Within the last tew years, however, furnaces have been erected in many.of he Souther States. principally in Alabama Georgia and l'ennessess, wire re pig iron is made much cheaper thau ,in Pennsylvania. This is what we need. We ceitainly can make iron as cheaply as England, and when our manufactur ers can get cheap iron they will supply the world with all the finer manufactures of ihe same. Give us cheap iron to work and there will be . demand for labor in our machines such as was never known before in our history. Instead of (he tariff being the e,*use of inventions it has directly the opposite effect. It is an old but trite saying that ‘'necessity is th 6 mother of invention,” and le his tact more than tujy other are we i □debted for ous j r igi ess. It was not { the tariff that caused the invention of 1 the cotton-gin, DUt the absolute necessity for such a machine. We aie not indebted to the tariff for our agriculur | machinery. Our great pr«ries and fertive yalley imperatively required thut we should have better Implements srd machinery for their cultivation. r Jhe necessity for invention am improvement is less where competition is least, and, therefore, ihe conclusion is i*evitable that a Drotective tariff ret ids rather than promotes, industry. I • position of those who favor a high i riff is wholly inconsistent. While th claim that a prot ctive tariff is the so . au.se of a reduct on in pricesonemon :. in .the next breath they demand tin.i -* tariff sh ill not be reduced because F irade Egland will deluge us wii„ her cheap good-. i.ai Im-enabled E urlivti .on,, f ictnreis, under tie- trade reduce iln-in j Uutil weliavebiien forced to raise ouixanlf duty on many articles to 100 ner cent while in the early history of our Govern ent 8 per cent was sufficient. The reducth n in the price of steele rails was owing >u the discover/ of Henry Bessemer, an Englishman, by which steele could be made as cheaply as iron. After Mr. Bessemer’s discovery had proven a success, eleven men pun based, at a low price, the exclucive control of the p;.t nt in the United States. As so<>n as ttay obtain d this aud w re able to make steele rails at re luced prices, they induced Congress to impose a duty of ion per cent, on bessemer steel and steel end steel rails, and thereby shut out importations. They refuse to allow any other person the use ot the patent except upon payment of an exorbitant royally, and the people of the United States. < n amount of the tariff duty, were compel - en to pay to these eleven men over thr y millions a year And vet. they boast of having reduced the "price of steele! rails and say they could not have ;

done so without protection. Every new d scoveiy abroad, by which the price of aD article is cheapened, is a signal for gi eater protection. E very discovery of a new deposit at home is followed ly a demand for protection. We have never found any tin in this co ntry, an., u u to be hoped that, while iirestn policy obtains we may not be so unfortunate as to make a discovery, because th li.f.mt would have to be prob- te,{. uowiUistanding it would c"St toe people la 1lions to do it.