| OCR Text |
Show rnvmoru, roudy to aid such a slate of nlluirs? I think not. "In appealing to you for protection protec-tion for our class, we ftsk that if it he iKTCHsary in your opinion to ; protect the manufacturers ami ; wae workers, that you rant a proportionate, share of protection ;totlie tnxpaying farmer, and as you cannot do tliis by levying a protective tariff on his cotton, corn, wheal, hogs and beef, all of which lie exports, we come before you to a.sk that this surplus, drawn from the turmer (nut for t lie needs of the Government, it cannot use the immense stun collected, but for the benefit of the nmnuuicturers) be equally divided anion" our claws by a system of bounties to the agricultural agri-cultural producer on what he raises over and above his individual individ-ual needs, so that the irregularities irregulari-ties now existing may be equalized and the surplus distributed among that class from which it was drawn, without equity or justice." Thus we see the representatives of the national grange are hardly willing will-ing to confess that "protection helps the farmer," nor do I think that any farmer who will just think and examine into the matter will confess that Congress cun aid him "FARMER DEMOCRAT." He Touches up "Richard Roe" With Sound. Stubborn Facts. KniToti Bl'Gl.Kll: Jlr. ''Uic-hard Roe," in your 'Public Opinion" column, makes use of these words: ''The farmers are the main support upon which the interests of our country center. They should lirst be considered, for their interests are to a great degree de-gree our interests." 1 do not know what his interests are, but it is very evident that they are not in the farmers, for lie says in the next sentence, ''A protective tariff is what benefits him." I infer that j by a tariff. I will quote figures from the same decade that my friend has quoted and bears directly on the question before us: "In 1S50 the wealth of t he cou n t ry i n rou n d n u m-bers m-bers was $7,000,000,000. Of this great wealth $4,000,000,000 were owned by the farmers. From ISoO to lSbO the wealth of the country increased to $16,000,000,-000, $16,000,000,-000, and the farmers' share was $8,000,000,000. This was during a period of low tariff and the farmers still own one half of the wealth of the country; but from lSUOtolSSO, during twenty years of protection, the wealth of the nation increased to $43,000,000,000; the farmers' share was $12,000,000,000, or a little more than one fourth of the wealth." Thus it will appear, while under a revenue tariff, the aggregate wealth of the farmers had increased increas-ed at an even rate with the other portion of . the population, but during the twenty years of protection protec-tion the farmers' increase was only $4,000,000,000, and the other por- mv friend lias not read very much in the "books and pamphlets published pub-lished ami costing but little money upon the subject," or if he has he became confused in his research and lost his text, for in the next paragraph he " adduces a fair figure for the reader," but all upon factories, etc., and n it a word or sentence to show where the farmer is benefitted by protection. The fanner is the most conservative conserva-tive and most easily satisfied of all our people; but experience has taught him a harsh lesson and he brands such statements, as "protection "protec-tion is what helps the farmer" as a little campaign lip. From year to year he has been assured that protection extends to the products of his labor, against the competition of similar products pro-ducts imported from other countries coun-tries for sale in our markets. Does anyone believe that the farmer will assume this? Do the home markets, that so great a talk has been about for twenty-five years, invite the staples of the agriculture from other lands? Does the price of wheat, of corn, of pork, of beef, of potatoes, of mutton in our markets excite the cupidity of the farmers of other countries? What need is there for a tariff duty to keep the products of foreign farmers farm-ers away from our shores when in point of fact the prices in our markets for agricultural productions pay us but little more than our expenses of hauling it to market and neighborhood transportation and nothing for our labor? The farmers and stock raisers of the United States sell abroad and feed the world. When our wheat and beef are high, it is because the demand de-mand in Europe is great and it is not because of the tariff. Every pretense of protection for their home markets is a fraud; every duty placed on such articles as wheat, corn, cattle, horses, eggs, poultry and other like productions of farm life and farm labor is a tion's wealth was if 23,000.000,000, ! or nearly Bix fold. ; There is no earthly reason to suppose that this steady increase . in the general prosperity of the farmers would not have continued had the low tariff policy of the Government not been changed to one of protection. That is to say, if the rate of increase in the agricultural agri-cultural wealth bad not been interfered in-terfered with by special legislation, legisla-tion, the total agricultural wealth of the country would have been, in 1880, $32,000,000,000 instead of $12,000,000,000 and the wealth of the other portion tif the population would also have been about the same; as the increase during the low tariff was at an equal proportion. propor-tion. This would have made the total wealth of the community $0-1,000,000,000 and more equally distributed,as against $-13,000,000,- 1 000 and the greater portion of it owned by a privileged few. My friend Roe lias referred to the City Council of your city and given them praise. I wonder if he has read the Republican platform, prepared by the great mucky muck Republicans of your city, who presented pre-sented it at the convention, and afterwards wrote several articles in a certain local paper in its praise. My Republican neighbor informs nie that "that platform was gotten up to catch votes in your city; that of course it would not have any effect outside, but if we can get the responsibility of tutting in the water system on I the Democrats, we will get about half of them to vote our ticket next fall. We have a paper now that will go after them and thus hoodwink some of the unsuspecting unsus-pecting to the belief that the Republican Re-publican members of the Council had nothing to do with the action nf that body in the question of bunding." A Farmkr Democrat. cheat and a sham and is so intended. in-tended. Go into the manufacturing manufactur-ing districts and hear what the protectionist has to say "when you shut oft the foreign trade by a high protective tar ill', it lessens the demand for the farmers' product abroad; thus it will be cheapened here from year to year and finally you can buy it at half what it used to cost you;" but to the farmers farm-ers of the middle states and the south, "the high protective tarill' you have to pay the manufacturers is for a remunerative home market for all you raise and what yon sell," but, mark you, the words "cheapened from year to year" are not mentioned here. ! Tims the ignorant charlatan and the designing politician have alike pourel falsehood into the ears of the people, assuring tin: u nwupeet ing of the manufacturing localities that a high protective tarill' will cheapen the necessities of lift?, and in the other that a home market is created ami sustained by the same thing. 1 will call the attention of Mr. lioe to the statement made by the representative of the national grange before the Committee on "Ways and Means in 1S1K). Mr. MeKinley was then its chairman. He said: "Patriotic, patient and long-sn long-sn Merino the fanner has waited wait-ed and imped. As lnntf as money sullicient to meet the needs of his expenses was obtainable lit1 paid all demands upon his purse or labor, with little more than a fjrunt of dissatisfaction. Content in his own apparent independence lie cheerfully met all drafts upon him, feeling proud that it fell to his lot lo sustain the ( iovernment. But now, sirs, this should change. The fanner, from necessity, begins to realize that the burden of taxation is robbing him of his toil ami of the accumulation left him by industrious in-dustrious ancestors. In looking over the country we lind agriculture agricul-ture languishing ami the American farmer, from being the most independent inde-pendent and prosperous of human beings fast becoming little better than European serfs. Arc you, sirs, as representatives of American |
