Rensselaer Republican, Volume 20, Number 33, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 April 1888 — TOPICS OF THE TIMES. [ARTICLE]

TOPICS OF THE TIMES.

A FARMER* ANSWER. Firm!*, Kan., letter to Chicago Inter Ocean. As a subscriber to yonr paper please grant me space for a few facte in answer to the free-trade catechism which ia circulated bo freely among our Western farmers. “Why is the farm on which the Kansas farmer raises his wheat mortgaged to a money-loaning corporation in an industrial State?” Is is not a fact that the industrial State which holds oar mortgages waa once an agricultural S.a'e; is it not probable that the money-loaning corporation from which we get oar money is composed of retired farmers in an industrial State? does not agricultnre go in advance of other industries? We know there are no industries beyond the line of agriculture, no families dependent on the farmers for supplies, no mills, no mines, consequently no market, the result of which ia our produce that will bear transportation must be tent to those States where varied industries flourish. From .hence our wheat, raised on the mortgaged farm, must go to halp make the 50,000,000 bushels sent across the water to compete in the markets with the wheat raised by the half-civilized fellahs of Egypt, and the slavish ryots of India. Then also, statistics show that since 1880 tthcre has been acquired 1,000 000 new farms in the United States, Kansas contributing largely to this number. Thousands of these new farms are owned by young men, and otheis who have never be fore tilled lauds of their own, and who commenoed with small means,with little more than health energy and a determination to succeed, and in consequence of improving and the disadvantage of pioneer farming mortgages are incurred, and yet they represent capital which in pioneer agriculture is of recent creation, and which is an advantage unknown to the pioneer farmer of thirty yes re ago—an advantage whien will enable ns to bridge over failures, build up our country, create new industries, and establish a market for oar produce which will not bear transpor.ation. This is an argument that our protective policy, to which we are indebted for the advantage of so easily obtaining money, be not abandoned by the American people. Whether the mortgage on our farm be a blessing or a curse to u», one thing is certain, the came cause which placed these mortgages on our farms would produce like effeet in Nebraska, yet Nebraska is never mentioned. Why, let us see: Statistics show that the proportion of farms mortgaged is quite small; statistics also show that the value of stock in Nebraska for 1886 was $Bl,333,896, while the valuation of stock in Kansas fer the same year was $109,181,181, which shows that the mcr gages represent capital. Besides, building, fencing, and improving our farms, statistics show that our indebtedness is confined chiefly to that portion of the S ate which bnt a few years ago was uninhabited and considered unfit for agricultural pursui s. For my part I consider the catechism very weak argument in defense of free trade. J. Spicer. TALKS ON THE TARIFF. New Yerk Pies*. Mr. 8. 8. Harper, of Denver, Col., an extensive owner and manager of mines, does the tariff talking for the Press today. He is now visiting this city. In the oonrse of his business be has been obliged to visit Europe and has resided for a number of years in London. While in the city he instituted a compareion between the price of several articles cf every day use in England -and this country, which, in View of 1 the statement in President Cleveland’s message that the heaviest burden of the protective tariff falls upon the consumer, is interesting reading. A rep oiter called upon Mr. Harper Kills morning and asked him to make the result of his comparison pnbb'c through the colams of the Press. He readily consented and said: “Upon my first trip abroad I was Bfrongly advised by my friends in this country to lay in a stock of clothing, etc., in London, as those articles conld be bonght very much cheaper there than they eonld in Ihis country. I did as advised, and bonght a large amount cf underclothing, neckties, purchased became lost in going from London to Denver, and wishing to replace Bome pieceß. I.fAll«>d fir in gentlemen’s wear in Denver. I desired to obtain goods as like as possible to those I had bought in London, and much to my surprise, found that I conld duplicate thp London underwear for a shade less in price. “The Denver goods so closely resembled the English articles that the clerk conld only tell them apart by the firm’s private marks. This rather shook my faith in the statements bo freely made by free traders and tarifl-for-revenue men, that the consumer was taxed the smonnt of the tariff. “I then begior'a series of investigations, and found t hat most of the articles I had purchased in London, although not such aa laboring men and farmers would buy, cost about the same aa they do in this country.” “For instance, I found that readymade boo!s such a* I had paid ten and twelve shillings. ($2.50 and $3) for in London conld he bonght in Denver for $2 50 and $3, jnst about the same thing, as yon will see. .... “I also discovered that I could bay a

better ready-made white shirt in Denver for $1 than I could in London for $1 and as the proof of the padding is in the eating thereof, I purchased one of the $1 Denver shirts and wore it alternately with the London $1.50 article, with the result that the American garment outlast ed tbe English shirt 50 per cent. “In regard to clothing it is very bard to make comparison. Most of ttie 010 hing worn by workmen and the like in Denver is ready-made, and I myself invariably puichasetuch clothing. In London, however, no one but tbe very poorest clssKs wear ready made clothing, which is veiy longh and clumsily made, whereas ready-made clothing in Denver is very presentable. The custommade clothes in Denver cost in some cases nearly doable what they do in London, bnt the cause of this is readily apparent upon a little investigation. A tailor in Denver receives fully twice as much for making a coat as a London tailor does, while the general make-up and appearanoe of the Denver garment is far superior to the London article. “On my next trip to London I turned my attention to agricultural implements and compared their prices in England with thos * in this country. “Now I have had no practical experience as a farmer and have had nothing but my observation to guide me. “I discovered that the cheapest stubble plow of from three to seven inches; for two hirses, cost-in England from £4 to £5,-(s2o to $25), while in this country the price cf the same article is 25 per cent. less. A self-binding harvester in England costs from £SO to £55 ($250 to $275) and a threshing machine, exclusive of horse power, brings all way from £l2O to £l4O (S6OO to $700). whereas I can bay the same and much better implements in this country at one-qnarW of these prices. “An ordinary farm wagon in England costs from £25 to £27 ($125 to $135), and it is at that sueh a clumsy and heavy arrangement ttat no American farmer would bave it on bis place. I can bay in Denver for from $75 to-S9O a wagon which in my estimation is far more satisfactory in every respect. “Take tbe matter of shovels. In Denver I can purchase a far better shovel for from 75 cents to $1 than lean in England for the eame money, while I found that small quantities of na U coat as much in London as far better ones in every respect do in Denver. “I found it much the came in many more articles, and am firmly convinced that in spite of onr tariff tbe necessaries of life are as cheap ia this country as they are in England.” REPUBLICANS SOLIDLY UNITED, , Waflhiugton special. If anything were needed to consolidate the Republicans on the question of revenue redaction this bill supplies tbe want. Mr. Reed says that it is fresh evidence that God is good to the Republicans. Mr. J. C. Burrows, of Michigan, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, cays that the bill leaves nothing for the people of his State to do bnt to raise white beans! In hiß judgment it is a worse measure than tbe Morrison bill of the last Congress. Free wool wiil cause the Bheep to disappear from Northwestern pastures at a greatly accelerated rate. To enact it would be to publish to the world that the United Btates retires from the business of wool growing. The bill practically wipes eat the lumber and wood schedules, in which large amounts of capital and thousands of men are employed. To pes3 this bill would be to cause a large redaction in the wages of many of these peopls and the idleness of the rest. Free salt will greatly enlarge the area of the country in foreign salt can be sold, and reduce by the same amount the market for the home product, and .that, too, without making salt any cheaper. The Copper Trust will prevent that industry from suffering. The California men say that there is hardly an article which their constituents produce that does not receives “black eye.” Representatives of the pottery manufacturers say that the bill means ruin to their principals, and the gl> ss manufacturers say that they can not live under any each redaction as it ia proposed to make in the glass schedule. These are only a few of the expressions that one with tiis ears open might hear on every side at the Capitol to-day. Probahty Mr. Mfllß affahlg nEsocintes know what the effect of the changes in tbe rate of dnty tbat they propose will be, a great deaTbettei than the men who are engaged in the indns tries now protected, bnt it will take something more than argument to convince other people of it.