The McKinley Tariff Sham
A political critique on how proposed protectionist duties on farm goods served industrial monopolies rather than the rural population.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
It is amazing to observe how the old trick of fooling farmers is repeated in the new tariff bill prepared by Mr. McKinley. Republican farmers of the north and west have been making such a troublesome racket of late about having to pay so much for the protection of eastern manufacturers, while receiving none themselves, that the high tariff leaders found that something must be done to pacify them. The leaders decided to give western farmers not the protection they demand, but the pretense of it—the fragments of the shell while the kernel is kept for the favored manufacturer. The trick is to protect products like cider, eggs, butter, and milk. It is a sham; the increased duty on this garden and orchard truck can benefit no persons but the small farmers of New England by keeping out Canadian products, and was never intended to be of any advantage whatever to western and southern agriculture.
“The leaders decided, therefore, to give western farmers, not their share of protection which they demand, but the pretense of it—not the kernel, but the fragments of the cracked shell.”
This piece captures the perennial tension in Washington politics: the friction between the state's powerful agricultural sector and the trade policies often dictated by national interests or distant urban centers. Today, these debates continue to shape the Yakima Valley's identity as it balances local production with complex global market realities.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.