Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 February 1891 — NOT M'KINLEYED. [ARTICLE]

NOT M'KINLEYED.

THE FAILURE OF THE FARMER’S TARIFF EXPOSED. Fortar’i New York Press Shows that the McKinley Duties Have Not liaised the Prices ot Farm Products—Facts and Figures Showing the Worthlessness ot the “Farmer’s Thrift” The protection papers can be depended upon to make admissions which damage their case and confirm the positions of the tariff reformers. The opponents of our present tariff system have at all times contended that protective duties on general farm products could not possibly result in any advantage to the .farmers, since we are exporters of such products to an enormous extent, and since we import almost nothing in those lines. For these reasons tariff reformers predicted that McKinley’s so-called "farmers’ tariff” would prove a failure, since his duties on farm products could not raise the prices on such commodities. A prominent Republican journal now undertakes to show in detail that this prediction is fulfilled, that the prices of larm products have not advanced. This journal is the New York Press, of which Robert P. Porter was editor before he became Superintendent of the Census. The Press was founded and has been kept alive by wealthy protectionists for the purpose of propagating the protection heresy. This protectioni.it missionary journal undertakes in a two-column news article, entitled “Not ‘McKinleyed,’ ” to show that the McKinley law has not increased the price of the necessaries of iife. The Press goes about its task in a very light-hearted way. “There has been a great deal of talk,” it says, “anent the new tariff law, that the measure was bound to raise the price of necessaries, would raise the price anyway, and great endeavors have been made by free-trad-ers to prove that the enactment of the bill introduced by Major McKinley has ‘enhanced the price of necessaries to the poor,’ to employ an English common-law idiom. The law has now been in effect three months, and the Press has been looking around a little in this city and its suburbs to ascertain in a quiet way for itself what real y has been the effect of the. McKinley law in its bearings upon the necessaries of the table. The result in this city is that the free-trade outcry appears to have all the well-de-fined symptoms of a bugaboo. ” With this jaunty introduction the Press proceeds to give brief interviews with grocers and butchers, and to print the price lists of some of these. Looking over these price lists, one sees that they are made up entirely of the products of farms, dairies and orchards. The prices of beef, mutton, pork and poultry,' vegetables, green and canned fruits, canned meats, etc., are given in these lists, and we are assured by the merchants that these things are as cheap now as in October. This is precisely what any man could have foreto d; but it was not to bo expected that one of the chief protection organs in the country would undertake to demonstrate to the farmers that McKinley’s tariff on farm products does them no possible good. One wholesale dealer in meats assured the Press reporter that “prices have been high right along for five months, and the McKinley bill has had no effect on them whatever. The fact is that the prices average two cents a pound lower than they did Nov. 1 ” A fruit dealer “declared that prices now remain steadily as they were Oct 1;” and a dealer in butter and cheese made precisely the same report for thoso articles. A firm of .largo pork dealers asserted that their prices were the same as Oct. 1. The head of this firm went on: “The fact is, we are purchasing a little cheaper than we were Oct. 1, but as we were selling very close then, the prices have not dropped. Hogs have not been so cheap in ten yeas as they are this year. They are two cents more a pound than they were Nov. 1, but that is due solely to the fact that feed is so high. It has nothing whatever to do with any tariff measure.” This article in the Press, as the farmer will see, was written for city readers, and was intended to show them that the McKinley law has not hurt them by raising the prices of farm produce. It was not intended for farmers, for the farmers must be made to believe that McKinley’s “farmer's tariff” really does them some good. But how could the McKinley duties be expected to raise the prices of these things? Let the farmers reflect on a few figures of duties under the old law and under the McKinley Jaw, together with our imports and exports of a few articles for the fiscal year 1890: Butter. —Old duty, 4 cents per pound; McKinley duty, 0 cents; imports, 75,523 pounds; exports, 29,743,042 pounds. Cheese.—Old duty 4 cents, McKinley duty G cents; imports, 9,203,573 pounds; exports, 95,376,053 pounds. Bacon. —Oid duty 2 cents, McKinley duty 5 cents; imports (too insignificant to get into the Treasury reports, but all “meat products” were about 8500,000 worth); exports, 531,899,000 pounds. Hams. —Old duty 2 cents, McKinley duty 5 cents; imports (none reported); exports, 76,591,000 pounds. Beef. —Old duty 1 cent, MdKinley duty 2 cents; imports (none reported); 6xports, 353,500,000 pounds. Mutton. —Same duties as beef; imports (none reported); exports, 256,000 pounds.' Pork. —(Fresh and pickled.) Same duties as beef; imports (none reported); exports, 80,000,000 pounds. Lard.— Old duty 2 cents, McKinley duty 2 cents; imports (none reported); exports, 471,009,000 pounds. Apples. —Old duty (none), McKinley duty 25 cents per bushel; imports (none reported); exports 453,000 barrels. Dried Apples. —Old duty (none), McKinley duty 2 cents a pound; imports (none reported); exports, 20,800,000 pounds. Barley. —Old duty 10 cents a bushel, McKinley duty 30 cents; imports, 11,330,000; exports, 1,400,000 bushels. Corn.—-Old duty 10 cents, McKinley duty 15 cents; imports, 1,626 bushels; exports, 101,900,000 bushels. Oats. —Old duty 10 cents. McKinley duty 15 cents; imports, 21,000 bushels; exports, 13,690,000 bushels. Oat Meal. —Old duty a half cent per pound, McKinley duty one cent; imports; 2,360,000 pounds; exports, 25,460,000 pounds. Wheat.—Old duty 20 cents a bushel, McKinley duty 25 cents; imports, 157,000 bushels; exports, 54,380,000 bushels. Flour. —Old duty 20 per cent., McKinley duty 25 per cent; imports, 1,219 barrels; exports, 12,231,000 barrels. And yet McKinley tried to remedy agricultural depression by raising the duties on farm products! Can anybody sup-

pose that he thought an increase of duty on these products of the farm could have the slightest effect in raising prices, and thus in helping the farmers? If McKinley really expected his “farmers’ tariff” to have any'such effect, this protectionist journal has taken pains ‘to show that nothing of the kind has happened. What a sorry and discreditable thing the whole business is anyway! McKinley doubtless fancied that he was at least doing the cause of protection good service when ho concocted this “farmers’ tariff,” and here is the protectionist Press equally sure that it is serving the cause of protection by showing its city readers that this same “farmers’ tariff” has had no effect at all in raising prices. But then the protectionists may be depended upon to show up the inconsistencies and absurdities of their so-called system; for even protectionists cannot shut their eyes to facts all summer and winter, too.