THE DECADENCE OF FARMING. 33 



pose. It is the result of a soil and climate different from ours. It goes to France 

 because, though France is a protected country, they do not think it economy to 

 tax the raw material of manufacturing, and they consider it wise to so draw the 

 line of protection as to preserve commerce with nations producing raw material. 

 They exchange goods for wool, they make the freights, commissions, and profits 

 of shipping, and we pay them for manipulation of the wool." 



" Question 5. If the effect of the tax on foreign wool has been to put down 

 the price of domestic wool and to put up the cost of woolen goods, who gets any 

 benefit from it? Is it the farmer, who gets less for his wool and pays more for 

 his clothing?" 



" Answer. The benefit of this tax accrues to the politicians and to other enor- 

 mously protected interests. The tariff on wool is the key-stone of the wide arch 

 of protection, because it binds the farmer to the support of the whole system. 

 Without his support the tariff would be reduced to a tax that would raise only 

 what is required by the Government economically administered, with incidental 

 protection. How the farmer is deceived may be further explained by a calcula- 

 tion of what he gets even if he makes all that is promised him. The duty upon 

 unwashed wool that comes in competition with ours is ten cents a pound, the 

 average number of sheep in a flock upon the older Western farms is not over 

 thirty, and the average product of wool on such a farm would be about one hun- 

 dred and eighty pounds. If the duty increased the price of this wool ten cents a 

 pound, it would be but eighteen dollars to each flock, or less than the enhanced 

 cost of the clothes of his family. It gives him nothing to pay the increased cost 

 of lumber, salt, tin, crockery, implements, fence-wire, etc. The fact is, that his 

 protection fails to protect, and he gets nothing but the privilege of carrying the 

 load. He is a victim of those who cut straps out of the hides of the poor to make 

 stirrup-leathers for the rich." 



The next question of importance is number 9. It is as follows : " Is not the 

 farmer misled when, under pretense of protection to wool, the price of his wool 

 is reduced and the export of his wheat and cotton is partly stopped, because by 

 way of a tax on foreign wool we prevent in part an exchange of wheat, cotton, 

 and flour for wool? Answer: 'Misled' is a weak term to use under the circum- 

 stances. We might say he is in the same position as the man who votes for high 

 taxes to keep up his wages ! " 



If there is any farmer in the land who can read these undeni- 

 able facts, and, after doing so, is still willing the " wool " shall be 

 " pulled over his eyes," he, at least, deserves little pity for his fate. 

 Sheep ought really to be a profit to the farmer, as they are an im- 

 portant factor in soil enrichment. They ought not to be unprofit- 

 able if they grew hair in place of wool. But our law-makers have 

 doomed them. The only " protection " they ever were in need of 

 is protection from dogs and tariff -mongers. 



There is really no probability that we can ever have a " farm- 

 protecting" tariff, for obvious reasons. One is, the farmers are 

 too numerous to organize efficiently. They lack the massed capi- 

 tal and commercial skill necessary to maintain a lobby at Wash- 

 ington. They are too vast and minutely divided a body to be 

 thrown into any efficient cohesion. To move Congress and com- 

 pel politicians, you want just the sort of conspiracy that exists and 



VOL. XXXVI. 3 



