the price they sell for in England in competition with the world. Our farms produce much more than our people consume, and the surplus must find a market abroad. Unless it did this, there would be a glut of the market here, and a still further lowering of prices. So each year we export enormous quantities of grains and breadstuffs, last year nearly 70,000,000 bushels of corn, 46,000,000 bushels of wheat, nearly 10,000,000 barrels of flour, over 15, 000, 000 pounds of butter, and great quantities of meats, cheese, tobacco, hops, etc. Under the Republican tariff policy, which discourages foreign trade and looks upon commerce as a sin, our exports of these articles have been declining, while the exports of the same articles from India and other nations have increased. Our exports of breadstuffs declined from 1880 to 1889 to the extent of $165,000,000; of wheat, from 144,000,000 bushels to 46,000,000 bushels. In 1880 we furnished 69 per cent of all the foreign wheat consumed in European markets, and in 1889 but a little over 20 per cent. What is to become

of the farmer of the West if the amount of his product. is constantly increasing, but the foreign market for it constantly diminishing?

And if the farmer of the West suffers from this, in Heaven's name what is to become of the small farmer of New England, who suffers also from the Western competition?

Mr. Blaine appreciated this difficulty when he said that our great need was to extend our trade and get additional foreign markets, and showed that he was perfectly well aware of the enormous burden of this McKinley Tariff Bill on the farmer, and of the injury it inflicted on the whole country, when he said there was not a line or section in it which opened up a market for another bushel of wheat or barrel of pork.

Now let us see, with this well-known burden of the tariff on the farmer, and his present depressed condition, what the McKinley Bill does for him?

It gives him only a mock protection. For instance, it doubles the protective tariff duties on beef and pork, though we export about $100,000,000 worth of these articles, and import only about $500,000 worth. What possible good can the farmer get by a tariff on such articles under these circumstances?

It raises the tariff duties on butter and cheese, though we export 12 times as much cheese as we import, and 350 times as much butter as we import. It raises the tariff protection on wheat, though last year we exported 46,000,000 bushels, and imported less than 2,000 bushels; on corn, though last year we exported over 69,000,000 bushels, and imported a little over 2,000; on rye the tariff tax is left at 10 cents, though we exported 287,000 bushels, and imported 16 bushels. Does any farmer believe that a high-tariff tax on these 16 bushels will affect the price of rye in this country?

So, too, we find a tariff tax on tallow, though we export nearly 80,000,000 pounds; on lard, though we export 318,000,000 pounds, and import 1,700 pounds. On flour they have raised the tariff tax, though we exported nearly 10,000,000 barrels, and imported 1,155. And so I might go through the whole list. I say, without fear of contradiction, that such tariff taxes are the merest absurdity, and are a humbug and a mockery to the farmer for the purpose of deceiving him into a patient assent to his tariff burdens.

It is true, there are some articles of which we import larger quantities on which the Republicans have raised the tariff. For instance, they have put a duty of five cents a dozen on eggs, and the amount of eggs imported is 1 to every 100 used in this country. So, too, with

potatoes, though we exported last year nearly 500,000 bushels, and almost as many as we imported. The tariff has been raised on these, though it is well known that the potatoes imported come at such a season and fill such a demand that they practically are not in competition with our home product.

No wonder, my friends, with tariff taxes bearing so heavily on the farmer, and little or nothing given him in return, we hear a cry of distress from him all over the country. We hear of a large increase through the whole West in the number and amount of mortgages on Western farms. Senator Hoar thinks that this is evidence of the prosperity of the farming class, on the principle, I suppose, of the fellow who said he managed to live on his debts. No wonder the Farmers' Alliances are everywhere protesting against a high tariff. Here is a resolution adopted by a Farmers' Alliance in Indiana. It reads:

"That the bill now before the United States Senate. which by its provisions increases tariff taxation, meets with our earnest protest. We scorn the increase of the tariff on agricultural products as a bit of hypocritical, vote-catching claptrap, well knowing that no amount of alleged protection on agricultural products, by any possibility, could have any effect on the price of the same as long as the home supply is greater than the demand."

Most properly, the President of the Farmers' Alliance enters his protest, too, in this indignant language. Speaking of the distress of the farmers, to the very committee that framed the bill, he said:

"We protest, and with all reverence, that it is not God's fault; we protest that it is not the farmers' fault. We believe and so charge, solemnly and deliberately, that it is

the fault of the financial system of the government, a system that has placed on agriculture an undue, unjust, and intolerable proportion of the burdens of taxation."

I have shown you, first, that the burden of the tariff increases the cost of living, and falls heavily on the farming community, who are nearly one-half the people of the country. Second, that under a high-tariff policy the value of farms in New England and the United States has either actually decreased or not increased as much as under a low tariff. Third, that the value of farm products has declined.

Fourth, that the selling price. of those products is fixed in competition with the world, but that the farmers' purchases are raised by tariff taxation. To him the tariff is all outgo, and no income. Fifth, that the farming towns in Massachusetts and New England are growing poor and losing their population. Sixth, that throughout the West there is also suffering in this industry. Seventh, that what the farmers need more than anything are more markets abroad to prevent the home market from being glutted by over-production. Eighth, that this McKinley Bill absolutely fails to give them relief, but deliberately, defiantly increases the burdens on the farmer in his purchases.

I want to ask any farmer, with such facts staring him in the face, how he can on his conscience or for his interest give his vote to support the Republican party which has enacted such a policy, and done it, not for the good of the whole country or its industries, but because it is under the control of selfish interests that through it are determined to make money out of the people's law, and to force the people to contribute by taxation their dollars to roll up enormous fortunes for the few.

IT

SPEECH

AT THE TARIFF REFORM LEAGUE DINNER, NEW YORK, DEC. 23, 1890.1

T is a great pleasure to come to this gathering of patriotic and public-spirited men, and to rejoice with them in the success of principles for which they have gallantly fought through defeat to a great and deserved victory. It adds to my pleasure that I can bring to you the greeting and the sympathy of old Massachusetts and of all New England, except two States still in darkness, and perhaps one other which the experienced hand of an unscrupulous politician is trying to keep from the light.

New England has once more rebelled against unjust and unequal taxation. In her colonial days she uttered her first brave protest. In my own city it was ordered "to be recorded in the town books that the children yet unborn may see the desire that their ancestors had for their freedom and happiness;" and again it was there recorded, "We can no longer stand idle spectators," but will aid in any measure "to deliver ourselves and posterity from slavery." With the same spirit, and for the same purpose, New England has now severed old political ties to give emphasis again to her protest, and to declare to the country that she can no longer stand an idle spectator, but has buckled on her armor to deliver ourselves and posterity from the slavery of selfish control by selfish interests of the people's law.

1 This speech was made to the toast: "The place of New England in the contest: once more she rebels against unjust and unequal taxation."