Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1870-05-18

On iron wire. re.................... .. Z
On lrOnssn s........................
On iron band and hoop.....................
On hammers, sledSes, and aXlcs.....-....-
On halter, fence, and trace-chains. ....-..... q
On stoves and stove e-plates...-.-..-.....-. IP
On woolen cloths.... - to
On lannels.. ........... Is 10
On blankets. 7s to
On dress OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. 81 to 6
On cotton cloths. ........................4 AZ to
The amount of duties which have beel
collected from this source during the las
three years, since the reciprocity treaty wa
terminated, are as follows in 1867, $452,
748; in 1868, S466, ,4O4 and in 1869
S7l5, 5,ll9, showing large and steady in
crease in the importation. l therefore asI
of those gentlemen who have been so verI
generous in their professions and so profHse
IN the expressions of sympathy for the agri
cultural classes, that this duty be raised a
least to point that will bear respectabl,
comparison with that of other articles.
Mr.. ScnENCK. desire to say, in reference
to this matter, that the duty provided for in
the bill is the same as under the existing
law, 90 per cent. dd Udlorenl, as the gentle,
man from Vermont (Mr. SMITH states. The
reason for the insertion of it here is that the
Committee of Ways and Means thought il
4 proper tc insert prOviso which has not
heretofore been in the law, that animals
specially imported for breeding purposes
shall be admitted free upon proof of that
what the gentleman says in regard to the
difference in the degree of protection which
has been afforded heretofore and now upon
farming products and upon manufactured
articles. 1t so happens that with regard to
live animals there was no proper protection
until 1866, and then an act was passed put
ting the duty at 90 per cent. 1 have my
doubts whether 20 per cent, is enough.
am willing for one to vote for the PROPOSE
ton of the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr
SMITD because | believe large number of
these animals are brought into Canada for
the purpose of being imported into our
country, competing with the animals raised
upon our own farms.
! do not, therefore, feel disposed to op-
1 pose the amendment in that view. | simply
wish to explain the reason for introducing
this provision in this bill imposing the same
duty that is imposed by the existing law
1 lnasmuch as no communication was made to
the Committee of Ways and Means asking
for highe protection, we introduced this
provision in this bill in order to add to it a
proviso that animals imported solely for bre ed
/ ing purposes should be admitted free of duty.
/ Mr.. BLAIR. | move to amend the amend
meDt by striking out the last word for the
\ purpose of making a single remark. | no.
tieed particularly the charge made by the
gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. SMITH) that
we are not protecting agricultural products
at the same rate that We are protecting man
ufactured articles. Sir, there is plain rea-
son for that they do not need it. The
reason for affording any protection at all is
/ the necessity of enabling our manufacturers
to enter into fair competition with those
engaged in manufactures abroad. Manufac-
tured articles are transported from foreign
countries To this with very slight expense.
1t costs but little to bring a yard of woolen
or yard of cotton to this country from
Europe; next to nothing. But to bring
cattle here in competition with us is an i'm
possibility. The very cost Of transportation
Is abundant protection.
This question, therefore, of any protection
ut all upon agricultural products, is a neces-
sity only along the line between and the
things from anywhere else. We have found
that the little protection which has been
heretofore given has been sufficient for that
purpose. / venture to say that the farmers
along the line have never asked us to increase
the amount Of protection they now receive
There has been no petition or request pre-
sented to this House or referred to the Com
mittee of Ways and Means, that | know Of,
from the farmers along the line asking for
an increase Of this protection. | am willing
to give them protection 10 the extent neces-
sary TO enable them to compete successfully
with the farmers on the other side of the
line but not more than that. If the gen.
tleman will show me that they need 1t, |
will 20 with him. | know something about
that line from my own State. ! hear no
complaint there that this protection is not
abundantly sufficient, and therefore shall
vote for the duty as proposed by this bill.
Mr. WILLARD. | had occasion some days
ago, when the tariff was under discussion,
to say that the protection of particular in
not farr of
ton that protection could only be justified
when it is given to all branches of American
industry which need it in order to enable
them to compete with foreign industries of
similar kind. The gentleman from Michigan
MIR BLAIRl tells the Committee of the
Whole that he thinks 20 per cent. is protec-
tion enough upon the cattle-growing interest
of this country. | do not know but 20 per
cent. would be sufficient protection for the
cattle-grOwers of Texas, so far as foreign
competition is concerned. But 20 per cent.
/ is not sufficient protection for the cattle
/ growers along the northern line of the
\ United States, to enable them to compete
with the cattle-growers of Canada, where
! both farms and labor are cheaper than in
the States. 1t is that competition, if any,
that is to be protected against. 1t is only
the importation from Canada that is to be
considered in this discussion. Cattle are
not imported from Europe into this country
for beef. But live animals for beef and for
other purposes are brought in large quanti-
ties from Canada into this country and they
come in competition with the cattle grown in
the United States, in the New England States,
in New York, and elsewhere along the border.
Now, sir, if protection is good for any
thing, it is good for a case like this. If the
manufacturing interests of this country are
to be protected against cheap foreign labor
and cheap foreign capital, the farming inter-
ests of the country ought also to be protected
against similar cheap labor and capital.
Thev ought to be projected wherever there
is asy need of that protection, in order that
they may be able to compete with the pro-
ductions of the farms of Canada and other
foreign countries. The gentleman from
Michigan Mr.. BLAIR has said that the
) farmers of this country have not asked this
increase of duty. Well, sir, | know the
farming interest is not SO clamorous in this
Z House the manufacturing interest is. 1t
does not keep lobbies here to inform members
, of the particular branches of it's industries
, , which need protection. 1t does not come
l here by its agents or attorneys, insisting thai
it must have any particular measure of pro
lection.
S But for all that. sir, is there any reason
D why it should not be considered? Is ther,
s not the same reason for protecting a farmer
: living in the northern part Of the State 0
+ Vermont against the importation of cattle
c grown just across the line, where there is n,
: cost OF transportation whatever, as there i
3 for protecting the manufacturer who happen
r to live in Vermont against an industry locate
q just across the line? | am greatly surprises
h to see any person who has been so much
y champion Of protection as the gentlema
d from Michigan attempt to make distinction
], between the manufacturing interests of tn
0 country and its farming industries in thei
e need of protection, and the more so, whe
t the farming industry is the great industry {