Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 February 1891 — TARIFF LETTERS TO FARMER BROWN. [ARTICLE]

TARIFF LETTERS TO FARMER BROWN.

NO. 14. ) Does the Tar ill Develop Our Industries Symmetrically ? Dear Farmer Brown: Tho protectionists deal in much specious talk about promoting “the symmetrical development of our industries,” and “an equilibrium *

of all industries. ” In his speech in the Senate on September 10, last year. Senator Jones, of Nevada, gave expression to this idea by saying: “I believe, in order to have a perfect system of industries, there must be an equilibrium of all industries, and that this country ipust produce everything which by nature it is capable of producing.” What the protectionists mean by this “equilibrium of industries” and “symmetry of industries” seems to be a combination of two ideas: First, that all possible industries must be carried on in this country; and, secondly, that the rate of profits must- be kept at about the same level in all industries. One industry, they argue, or think they argue, mu3t not be favored at the expense of another; must not be allowed to outstrip another in gaining wealth. Talk of this kind, bo it remembered, is indulged in by protectiouists in defense of protection; and it is in favor of the manufacturing classes that such talk is uttered. But what an absurd position these men take here! Who is it that would make unfair and disproportionate gains if there were no protective tariff? They mean, of course, that the farmer would; for when they say there must be an “equilibrium" of profits in all industries, and when they say this in support of a protective tariff in manufactured goods, they necessarily imply that without protection the farmer would make much greater profits and the manufacturer much smaller profits. But do you think that the farmer is getting his share now in this “equilibrium” of profits? Gov. Boies of lowa stated in, his noted speech at the dinner of the New York Reform Club that farming had been done at a loss during the past few years in the great State of lowa. lowa is one of the greatest of our agricultural States, and when farming is done at a loss there, how must tbo condition of agriculture be in less favored States? It is a well-known fact that the farmers are now, as is confessed by that arch-protec-tionist Robert P. Porter, “passing through the gloomy valley of hard times. ” It is not to be wondered at that tfiq conviction is settling down in the minds of the farmers that they are not getting all that justly belongs to them, and that far from having an “equilibrium” of profits, they are toiling and other men are reaping the profits of that toil. Indeed, there are indisputable facts to show that, while the farmers ard either laying up nothing or else actually going in debt, many others in the protected classes are making enormous fortunes every year. Andrew Carnegie has become a millionaire, worth, it is said, some $50,000,000, and all this made in the manufacture of steel rails ana other steel products, made at a time when there was a duty of 817 a ton on steel rails, and when the country was paying every year, by a comparison of actual prices, $56,000,000 for iron and steel products, over and above the price in England. The figure given officially by United States Labor Commissioner Carroll D. Wright, as the total cost of producing a ton of steel rails, is $25.77. The steel rail manufacture of this country was in the hands of eleven companies ten years ago, but consolidations have reduced the number to six, and these have a “combine” to regulate prices. This combine has just put up the prices of steel rails $2 to 83 a ton, making the price S3O. This makes a net profit of $4.23 a ton. The New York Engineering and Mining Journal estimates the annual output of Carnegie’s two rail mills at 600,000 tons. This amount at a net profi tof $4.23 a ton would yield $3,538,000, One of Carnegie’s mills recently turnqd out 1.441 tons of rails in a single day. This amount would yield a net profit of $6,095 —and all this in a single day!

Bqt this is only one case. We heai of a plate-glass company that makes 34 per cent a year on its capital; of a lampware factory that declares a dividend ot 20 por cent, a year, and pots more than that into its surplus fund besides; of a cotton mill that • earns dividends of from 20 to 37 per cent; oi a copper mining company with a capital of $1,250,000 which has paid dividends of $34,350,000 during its brief existence. Yet all the prosperous concerns here named are highly protected under the humbug plea , of developing our industries “symmetrically.” Is this what is meant by a symmetry of industries? How does Carnegie's profits for a single day compare with the profits of all the farmers in your county for a whole month? Can protectiop, then, give us an equalization of industries? Have I not succeeded in showing in previous letters that it is of the very essence and nature of protection to take away from one industry in order to give to another? As farming is the only industry which can be preyed upon by nearly all others in order to meet the expenses of this “equilibrium,” and as there is absolutely no way In which the farmers can even up accounts with those who get tho “equilibrium,” is it not a clear case that this most important industry gets no good at all, but only harm and disaster, from a system of protected “equi-

librium?” These principles can be laid down as the bed-rock underneath all this tariff controversy: That no man will permanently engage in an industry which cannot be conducted on a paying basis; that if an industry cannot be profitably conducted without a tariff it is run at a loss to the consumer with a tariff; that such an industry cannot add to the “sym metry” ot our industrial life, for it withdraws men from work which cau be profitably done and sets them to doing what is, undeft natural conditions, unprofitable; that in many protected industries an undue, number of seekers after wealth rush in with tho expectation of gain, build factories far in excess of the homo market, and these factories are therefore compelled either to go out of business altogether or to shut down for a part of tho year; and that the products of these factories are in most cases shut out of the foreign market by reason of the high price of tariff-taxed raw materials. Where such,forces aro at work, how can it be said that we have “symmetry?* Is it not more reasonable to expect to find “symmetry” and “equilibrium” in industries in a country where each man tan turn his hand to the labor of his with no ono to step in and demand a part of his earnings under tho name of “protection” to some other man’s work? Yours truly,

RICHARD KNOX.