14 The Tariff and the Farmer. 



animals imported (not including sheep), of breads tuffs 

 (includes all grain brought in), of meats, dairy products 

 and vegetables was only about $10,000,000. 



Here we have protection to the agricultural masses 

 brought down to about the vanishing point. Now it will 

 be claimed that the reason why so small a value of com- 

 peting agricultural products is imported is that these 

 are kei3t out by the tariff. But this claim is knocked into 

 smithers when answer is made that the products named 

 above, imported only to the value of $10,000,000, were 

 exported the same year to the extent of $492,000,000. 

 When competition is successfully met way beyond where 

 tariff bars have any effect, how absurd sounds the ques- 

 tion of Mr. McKinley, ^'Do the agriculturists want all 

 duties removed and their products driven from this mar- 

 ket?" The agricultural masses will suffer no harm if 

 given the freest trade. No protection is given them. 



We have next to consider the effect of protection on the 

 exportation of agricultural products (see chapter III). 



In the famous report of Secretary Walker made in 

 1845 it is asserted that ''the farmer and the planter are 

 deprived to a great extent of the foreign market by those 

 duties. ' ' The high protective duties of the tariff of 1842 

 are referred to. 



This position of Mr. Walker is combated by Mr. Stan- 

 wood in his recently written book on tariff controversies, 

 who adds in his closing remarks, ''If this view of the 

 subject is accepted, it follows that the tariff affected in 

 no way the amount of American produce which could be 

 or was sold abroad." We understand Mr. Stanwood 

 takes this view of high protective duties generally. Now 

 to come to such an opinion as this is to ignore the report 

 of the agricultural export trade. Especially does this 



