| Show IS IT A TAX l l The Tribune is again abroad explaining that the tariff is not a tax or that it is a barely perceptible one t The farmers were prospe ous thirty years and twenty years ago and thciariff was much higher then than it is now The extra cost imposed im-posed by the tariff does not one year with another an-other amount 1 per capita per annum for the farmers family The farmers were prosperous thirty years ago after a low tariff from 1847 to 1862 the rate at the latter date being 1566 per cent From 1S62 to 1SS4 the average rate was 3416 per cent from 18S4 to 1S90 the average aver-age rate was about 47 per cent and by the MCKINLEY tariff law the average rate is GO per cent The reader is invited to decide whether or not the tariff rate was much higher twenty and thirty years ago than it is today It is true that the farmers were prosperous prosper-ous thirty years ago but they were less prosperous twenty years ago while during the last ten years up to 1890 the farming population has actually remained stationary station-ary while the other industries have enormously enor-mously increased in population Notice the following facts Thirty years ago was 1860 There had been a low tariff during tho preceding decode de-code covered bjr census returns How well 1f the farmers prospered during ten years of low tariff may be learned from the compendium compen-dium of the Tenth Census page 450 The value of farm land in 1850 was 53271575421 In 1860 after ten years of low tariff tho value was 6645045007 < The value of farms then doubled in ten years of low tariff or more exactly increased in-creased at the rate of 10M per cent yearly In 1SSO after twenty years of protection the value of farm lands had increased to 10197096766 The value of farms had not doubled in twenty years of protection but had increased at the beggarly rate of 2M per cent yearly I These census facts convict the Tribune upon every statement it makes but it affects to wriggle out of its embarrassment by alleging alleg-ing that the rapid increase of wealth during dur-ing the low tariff decade was duo to our chance discovery of gold and silver The census shows However that the yield per head of these metals was 818 during the low tariff decade and 815 during the protection protec-tion decades while the increase per head in total wealth was 235 during low tariff and only 35 during protection from 1870 to 18SO MULHALL A difference of c3 in gold and silvor production fails to explain Now notice the assertion that the extra cost imposed by the tariff does not amount to 1 per capita per annum for the farmers family It is so seldom that the Tribune dares to make a definite statement that wo direct special attention to this one To answer it we shall not argue with the protectionist pro-tectionist nor banter theories with him but shall simply copy tho facts on the question ques-tion Open tho Statistical Abstract of tho United States for 1889 It can generally be found at the public libraries Turn to page 167 where tho exports of agriculture manufacture etc aro given from 1860 to 1SS9 inclusive In 1881 the value of agricultural exports was 730394943 or 82 per cent of the total exports from this country In 1SS9 the value of the agricultural exports was only 532141490 or 72 per cent of the total exports The pay for these agricultural exports was the same value of imports and alwnys is The tax collected on the pay for these exports of agriculture was in 1881 exactly 189903685 or 20 per cent of their total value and in i 1889 it was 158805432 or 30 per cent of their total value page 14 Not SI per capita hey Just divide the figures of tax collected in 1881 by 25000000 the number of men women and children on farms at that time and see if it is not 1 per capita It is over 57 per cap ita for the farmers family and it is 427 per capita for every farmerfarmhand and dairy maid in this country and it is 82 per capita for every farmer farmhand and dairy maid engaged in producing the surplus sur-plus that is thus exported Oh no 1 it is no tax on the farmer It has reduced his export of agricultural products 200000000 in eight years It has made him pay in that eight years 300000000 more than the war indemnity paid by Franco to Germany It has made him pay a billion and a half of dollarsin fines at the custom house during the last decade for tho crime of producing a surplus and selling sell-ing it It has also indirectly inflicted a still greater loss on him through reducing the prices in his vaunted home market in tho same amount It has impoverished the followers of tho once best paying industry In the greatest and richest country on the face of the earth If it isnt a tax then in heayens name what is itl |
