Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 42, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 November 1891 — TAX OF PROTECTION. [ARTICLE]

TAX OF PROTECTION.

A Parallel Drawn Between the Canadian and the American Farmer. ]Boiiton Herald.] In one of Mr, McKinley’s addresses, recently made to the eleotors of the State of Ohio, he made use of an argument in support of the notion that our customs taxes are paid by the foreign producer, which has apparently attracted some considerable attention in the West, where its sophistical character does not seem to have been clearly apprehended. Mr. MoKinley s statement was something to this effect: If a farmer in northeastern Ohio carries his wheat to Buffalo he can sell it there for 90 cents a bushel, and can take back with him to his farm every cent of the money he receives. If a farmer in Canada, across Niagara river, takes his wheat to Buffalo, ho can not sell it for a penny more than the American farmer obtained, and yet, out of th.s 90 cents, he is compelled to pay a tax of 25 cents, so that when he gets back to his > anadiun farm he finds that, instead of having all the money to himself, he has only 65 cents per bushel for his wheat, and has contributed 25 cents perbusuelof what he sold to pay the expenses of the United States Government. In this way the foreign producer pays our customs taxes. This argument, the spirit and subst ince of which we have, we believe, taithfully reproduced, is one<of those tricks in the trade of politios which only deceive those who confine their observation to what is strictly set before them. As a matter of fact, the Canadian farmer does not and would not send his wheat to the Buffalo market, for the reason that the ptyme n of this 25 cents duty to the Governmenwould, m all but whollyjexceptioual cases, prove an insuperable banier in the way. Practical^, the only wheat which comes across the Canadian frontier into the United States is that wheat grown mjje-o-'raphical localities where the cost of transportation to the Canadian or European markets is so g eat that, rather than meet it, it is better to pay a 25 cents per bushel duty to t e United States, and find a market for the wheat at some conveni«nt point across the border. In the great movements of trade :the wheat whioh the American and the Canadian farmer have to sell both find their markets and have their prices controlled y the demands of purchasers on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. If the price of wheat in London is continuously high, it is altogetherjimpossible for the-price of wheat to be low for any length o time in either the United States or Canada on the other hand, |if the prioe "of wheat in London is continuously low, it c m not be continuously high in either tLe Unite \ States or uanada, unless our upply is muoh below the demands of our own consumption. In such a case—ti.at is. a great f ilure of the crops mt hi country —the price of wheat might be ig- enough here to attract foreign gram to o r markets, and in that case it would ffe the American consumer, and not th-> foreign r roducer, who would pay the dntv of 2 cents pe bushel; and it would be found that the price of wheat in America was substantially the English price, pins the cost of transportation, insurance, interest and 25 cents per bushel duty. But, perh ps, the best way of answering Mr. McKinley’s argument is not to assume conditions, as be does, but to take conditions as we find them. The Canadian farme • sends his surplus wheat to the London market, and receives, let ns say, a collar a bushel farit. This money e uses to purchase the supplies that he and his family need| for their eviry day existence. If the market in which he deals is not incumbered by prot ctive tariffs- end injmany ways the Canadian far-

mer has, in this respect, the advantage over his American rival—he can spend this money to good advantage. The American farmer sends his wheat to the Lon don market and receives for it his dollar a bushel, but when he in turn goes out to make his purchases, he finds that, while London has fixed the price, both at home and abroad, at which his wheat will be sold, and has fixed it at the lowest competiti i e point, the use that he can make of his money is materially limited by an immense mass of tariff r strictions. Itis possible that in some of the commodities that he buys he does not pay the entire duty himself, because the margin of protection was so large thet in a number of instances domestic com: etition prevents the American producer from obtaining the full advantage of the Gov< rnment bounty. * But there are qu te a number of articles npon which the tax, either directly to the Government or indirectly to the interested manufacturer, is represented in the market price, and the poor farmer who sells in the cheapest m rket in the world, is compelled by congressional legislation to buy what he wants in the dearest mnrket. This is not, like McKinley’s pleasing fable, an entirely imaginative condition of affairs, but is, on the contrary, a sta ement of what is practically o -curring during every hoar of every business day. On almost all of the commodities of which we r ise a surplus the price is determined by the exportable surplus, and not by the remainder that is left at horn . Whatever we export we have to sell in competition with the world, and those engaged in this business, chiefly the agriculturists of this counrry, are the ones who, while taking for their services the lowest prices, are compelled, as their other fellow-consumer-i ar., to pay high prices for whatever < ommodities they purchase. *When this condition is reached, how. ever, combines are formed, production restricted and prices increased.—Ed. Sentinel.