Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 September 1890 — THE "HOME MARKET” FALLACY [ARTICLE]

THE "HOME MARKET” FALLACY

An Object Lesson for Our Agricultural ! Friends. [From the Detroit Free Press.] “Give us protection for tin plate,” say i the tin-plate men, “and the farmer cun 1 send his product to Pittsburg instead of ; to England, for the workers in tin will I bo transferred to the former!” This is the “home market” idea in the concrete. Put on the duties so as to enable the American manufacturer to compete with his foreign rival and the population of the manufacturing towns will Increase so much that the farmer will find all the market he wants here instead of being compelled to go abroad for it It is an attractive theory, and it is not to be wondered at that the farmer has been attracted by it The wonder is that he has not learned long since that it is only a theory, and that the facts do not support it. One would think he would have learned this, when, after nearly thirty years of experience with the workings of the home market theory, he finds himself still dependent on foreign countries for a market for his surplus products and for the price in his home market. Perhaps he has learned it—at all events there are some Indications this year that he is no longer following the home market theorists as blindly as he once did. But if he has not learned it, the indications are that the forthcoming census will open his eyes completely. Among the instructive facts whicb>the census will show are the workings of the “home market” theory in Connecticut. This State, as every farmer knows, has been one of the chief beneficiaries of the protective tariff by reason of the number and importance of its manufacturing establishments. Here, if anywhere, the beauties of the protective system and the resultant fruit of the “heme market” should show themselves. But, alas! for the “home market theory. ” From the figures already received the New York Evening Post has constructed a table showing that the. theory in Connecticut has proven a lamentable failure. In this table each of the twelve cities of the State has been selected as the center of the group of farm towns lying nearest it—the towns which should profit by the establishment of a “home market.” “In a large number of cases,” says the Post, “the farm towns selected adjoin the city, which is their natural market, and in no case are they more than a few miles away. The population by the last two censuses of these twelve ‘ farm groups,’ consisting of the three rural towns nearest each of the cities—except in the case of Hartford, the State capital, where four towns are taken — is approximately as follows: Population Population Group. 18s j. 1892. New Haven 2,UH 2.801 Hartford 6.010 5,412 Bridgeport ~G.21> i’,323 Waterbury 2,61 > 2.179 Meriden 3.767 8.3 17 New Britain 3,215 3,028 Norwalk « 3 927 3.498 Danbury 5.9> '• 5,195 Norwich 2,689 ‘-',‘210 New London 2,972 2,f03 Midflletown ........ 3,7.5 3.386 RockviUe 4.4 >7 4.010 Total 46,315 43,567 On this table the Post comments thus: “The decrease, subject to very slight revision in the final returns, during the ten years in these twelve groups is 4,748, or about 10 per cent. In the thirtyseven ‘farm towns nearest cities' which make up the whole twelve groups, two or three towns have been used twice over, in. cases where they adjoin two cities —a point <o which the ardent protectionist cannot object, as in that case the farm town is supposed ti receive ‘protective’ benefits from both its urban neighbors. It will be observed also that in only a single group of towns has there been a gain of population during the ten years, and in that but the merest trifle. The figures, however, derive their chief value from the fact that they test and vitiate the ‘truck-farm’ and ‘proximate-farm-town’ theory on the choicest protection ground—in a New England State, in towns close to bustling and prosperous cities, where the farmer may be supposed to encounter no problems of transportation, and where the competition—in ‘garden sass' at least —with other regions of the country is reduced to its lowest terms,” The Western farmer, who is being urged to demand the privilege of paying an enhanced price for his tinware in order.to sell more grain in Pittsburg, should take this little lesson to heart. Foreign and Home Prices. Much has been said about the fact that the price of farm machinery has steadily decreased under the protective tariff. While nobody denies the fact that the price has decreased, some have maintained that it was owing to other causes than the tariff, and claimed that the tariff has prevented the price of these machines from going still lower. To prove this they have claimed that our manufacturers have really sold and are now selling their wares abroad cheaper than they sei l them at home. This claim has been denied, but now it appears that tangible proof of its correctness has been found. The Ann Arbor (Mich.) Agricultural Machinery Co. advertises by publishing cuts of its implements, with the price annexed. These cuts have been published in both foreign and home papers. Cuts which are identically the same are published in a Spanish paper and in an American paper. The ‘following table gives the result of the comparison: Spanish American price. price. Advance plvw.. 8 9,02 $lB Adv* ice plow 4.0> 8 Hay tedder 32.’J0 .-5 Mower 49.62 65 Horse rake 17. J 25 Cumming feed cutter, No. 3.. 60.0 i <i > Ann Arbor cutter. No. 2 28.0 > ->0 Ann Arbor cutter, No 1 16 oj ts Clipper cutter 9.5 j 18 Level cutter. 4.2 ■ 8 Cultivator I 22.02 So Sweep 60.02 92 Or an aggregate difference of 8165.20. We do not publish these figures to prove any preconceived idea. They are facts, and are submitted as such. Northwestern Mail. An Urgent Question. “If reciprocity,” said Mr. Plumb, “is in the mind of auy one. why not make that reciprocity wide enough to take in all nations with which the Upited States could establish trade in products of which there is bound to be an excessive supply beyond the home demand?” That is a very urgent question, and no man on

the Republican side tn the Senate, or in tlflTHouse, who supperts the McKinley biff-dared to give a truthful answer to it. The real answer -4s that •‘ Reciprocity woujd expose to fair comfietltten wealthy men who depend on tariff favors for their great profits, and who are ready to pay for. these favors. There is absolutely/ho Other Reason. The thousands of manufacturers whose skill, enterprise, pluek, and business capacity would enable them to compete with all the world in a fair field are ready for such mutual trade; but the favorites of the tariff kiow that the moment this is undertaken their exactions, must cease, and they will fight it to the last. The people of the United States, however, are cofnihg,-di/by day--to see the facts as they are, and the time is not far distant when the power of these monopolists to bldA tlih progress of the country will be taken away.— New York Times. Tin Plate. £ Tin plate was always admitted free until 1842, when it was taxed per cent., and that increased, to 15 pet cent, in 1846 to increase revfcHjie. In 1857 It was reduced to 8 per cent., and it was increased to 10 per cent, in 1861, and again increased in 1862 to 25 per cent, as a war measure, and reduced to 15 per cent, in 1878. In 1875 the duty was made specific at 1.1 cents per pound. In 1882 the tin, plate combine was formed that is now demanding the monstrous tax of over 815,000,000 per annum on the people for the benefit of a few monopolists, and it then appealed to Congress to Increase the duty to cents per pound. There was such a popular revulsion against it that Congress was compelled not only to refuse the demand of the extortionate combine but to reduce the tax to one cent per pound, and it has remained at that figure until now. If the tin-plate cannot be manufactured in this country with a tax of 34% per cent, on consumers, it should not be manufactured at all. It point of fact, it could be made here now at a fair profit, but that industry has been delayed solely to compel such increased taxes upon the people as would establish a complete tin-plate monopoly; and the whole battle now is for monopoly and greed against the hundreds of thousands of farmers who grow vegetables and fruits for canning and are general consumers of tin, and the nearly 800,000 workingmen now employed in the tin industries. There Is only one side of the question outside of Washington among the people who pay the taxes, but the national capital is besieged by a greedy and powerful monopoly, and the truth is seldom heard where truth should be mightiest in the cause of the sovereign people of the republic.— Philadelphia Times. Messrs. Quay and Hoar are fit representatives of the two wings of Republicanism. Quay is crafty, selfish, corrupt. monopolistic and daring. He is; out for plunder and he does not care whoi knows it. He is ably supported by the tariff-pampered trusts and combines, and by the jobbers of every description who' make up so important a part of the Republican Organization. Hoar is a pharisee, a hypocrite, a cheap retailer of sen-: tfment, a better-class aristocrat, a bigot' and, when occasion demands, a tyrant. Quay has fastened all his hopes to the 1 McKinley bill. Hoar is bound up in the federal elections bill. . Both of these measures cannot be passed by this Congress. One or the other must be sacrificed. Which one will go by the board? — Chicago Herald. Congressman Mason says: “I favor the principle of reciprocity, but do not} favor the agitation of the question at this time.” It is now, however, while there is something to reciprocate on, or never. Mr. Mason reminds one of that man who was in favor of the Maine liquor law, but opposed to its enforcement.— Chicago Tribune.