Evening Republican, Volume 16, Number 262, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 November 1912 — FARMER'S FRIEND IS PROTECTION [ARTICLE]

FARMER'S FRIEND IS PROTECTION

RECORD OF MORE THAN A CENTURY PROVEB THIS BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT. A HOME MARKET ASSURED Fallacies of Professor Wilson’s Argil* ment and of Democratic Pros Trad# Exposed by Facta— American Farmers Have Always Benefited by a Protective Tariff.

The Democratic tariff bill, courageously vetoed by President Taft, PLACED CEREALB ON THE FREE LIST. A vote for President Taft and the Republican ticket Is the safeguard of the farmer against the entry Into the United Btates, duty free, of the products of the great fields of Canada and other grain-growing countries.

Professor Wilson is telling the farmers over and over again, that they have never been protected—that they do not need protection. Then in this ‘connection the professor adds: "But everything you use on the farm, everything that you wear, and a great deal of what you eat, but do not produce yourself, including meats, bears a heavy duty, which brings about the interesting result that you are paying for the wealth of the United States and getting nothing, or equivalent to nothing, so far as the tariff is concerned. Now that hasn’t just begun to be true. It has always been true.’’ It is not true. The protective tariff does benefit the farmers. American farmers know this fact, and by their votes have helped to maintain the policy of protection. Without their votes the party of protection could not (have won a single presidential election in the last forty years. Have the farmers been mistaken through all these years? They have not. Has protection been of no value to them? It certainly has. All history and all fact dispute the academic free trade contention that the farmer has no share in the benefits of protection. In every period of industrial depression, resulting from the destruction of the tariff duties below the protective point, the farmers of this country have been heavy losers, because of diminished demand and lower prices for their products. In the most recent period of Democratic free trade legislation—lß94-97— the farmers of the United States lost fully five billion dollars in reduced prices of farm products, and diminished values of farm property. In every period of restored protection the farmers have reapetT the benefits of a greater demand and increased prices. There has been no exception to the rule of prosperity for American S&rs, when American labor is fully oyed. some proofs of that fact. 1 In a recent statement by Senator Smoot printed in the Congressional Record of August 26, 1912, It is shown that in December; 1896, after two years of free trade tariff revision under the Wilson law of 1894, the price of corn was twenty-three cents a bushel, while in December, 1911, after fourteen years of restored protection, the price of corn was sixty-nine cents a bushel; or an advance over 1896 of 200 per cent. Using 1896 as the basis of comparison with December, 1911, it is found that under a protective tariff: Corn advanced 200 per cent. Wheat advanced 67 per cent. Cotton advanced 28 per cent. Oats advanced 166 per cent. Rye advanced 137 per cent. Barley advanced 308 per cent. Hay advanced 138 per cent. Hops advanced 286 per cent. Potatoes advanced 282 per cent. Flaxseed advanced 149 per cent. Fat cattle advanced 62 per cent. Fat hogs advanced 96 per cent. Dairy butter advanced 86 per cent. Eggs advanced 90 per cent. While the price of farm products has increased, the price of articles which the farmer purchases has not increased in proportion. He can buy more today with the products of his farm than he could In 1896. For example: Ten bushels of corn In 1911 paid for 125 pounds of sugar, and only 56 pounds In 1896. Ten bushels corn P a,d for 31 yards of bleached sheeting In 1911, and only 13 yards In 1896. Ten bushels of corn In 1911 paid for two pairs of shoes, and bnTy one pair In 1896. ,

Professor Wilson and other Democratic speakers and writers assert what is absolutely untrue when they say, that the protective tariff robs, and in no way benefits the American farmer. As a matter of fact, there is probably no class of American producers whose share in the benefits of protection in the past fifteen years, thas been so great as the share of the American farmer. If the farmers rightly understand their interests, they will vote against the party of free trade. They will cast six million votes for President Taft and Vice President Sherman and a continuation of the Republican policy of protection. .. V/". • The voters will not .spoil a falriy [good schoolmaster by trying to make Ub a second-class president