The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-09-05

exports klooOl were Z.4o per cent
OF our production. One-third oil
2.4S per cent is .S2s per cent
little more than eight-tenths of one per
the Indiana farmers are all fools?
Again he says:
The protection afforded the corn starch in
dustry by import duties has not served to in
crease the price to the home consumer
If this is true, can Mr.. Phelps tell of
what possible benefit protection" has
been to the starch industry? lit does
not enable him to get more for his starch
than he otherwise would, how can it helr
him, or how can its removal or reduction
hurt him? Unless protection" enables
him TO sell his starch for better
prices, how does it enable him to pay
higher wages to his employees, or better
prices for corn2 We challenge Mr.. Phelps
to answer these questions.
As to his contention that protection has
not served to increase the price OF starch
to the home consumer, he answers it him
self when he says that 'the farmer who
favors free starch finds that his free trade
neghbOr favors free wool, and that arhere
he may gain q fen cents on starch, he will
lose as many dollars on b is wool" Oh
course nobody is talking about free starch,
unless protection OF 47.27 per cent is
''free"
Mr.. Phelps also says:
But what protection does the farmer pet on
the corn consumed in the starch factories? The
duty on corn is 10 cents per bushel, which on
l2,4SO,000 bushels equals $1,24S,000 Divide
this last amount among the IA 400 farmers re-
CURED 70 raise and market the corn (estimating
three men per 100 acres) and we find that
each IS annually protected to the extent OF $S6
Again we ask: Does Mr.. Phelps take
the farmers for fools? We have already
shown that the price of corn, as of every
agricultural commodity OF which we reg
ularly produce surplus, is fixed abroad.
II the duty on corn were taken off to-
morrow it would not affect the price bv
the smallest fraction of a cent; and if it
were increased to 81 bushel it would
have just as little effect. This is the case
as to wheat, cotton (already on the free
list and every other agricultural product
OF which we produce a surplus. But it is
worth noting that while Mr.. Phelps says
the duty on starch, which is supposed to
be exposed to foreign competition, does
not increase its price, he adds the full
amount OF duty to the price of corn, which
we do not and cannot import.
We quote again:
Mr.. Mills strenuOusly insisted that the aver.
erage reduction proposed by the bill was only
$iol on the present average rates on each 500
imported. Why does he single out starch and
propose reduction of AZ 27-l00 per cent. in
the duty on that product, when the average
reduction on all other articles is only 6l-1O0
per cent?
Why not put it this way? Mr.. Mills
leaves protection" of 4727 per cent. on
starch, while he only protects" other
dutiable commodities ~ per cent. on the
average. Why does he discriminate in
favor of starch? And suppose Mr.. Phelps
explains why starch is now protected" to
the extent of 9L54 per cent, while the
average protection in other articles is AZ
per cent? Will he do it?
Mr.. Phelps devotes some space to the
sugar schedule, and in so doing makes it
very embarrassing for the republican poll
ticians and organs that have been telling
the people of Indiana that the Mills bill
increases the duty on sugar. Mr.. Phelps
says that the bill makes a reduction of Is
per cent on sugar (which, by the way, is
a northern as well as a southern product. J
He neglects to say, however, that the
sugar duty is chiefly revenue duty; that
most of the tax paid on 1t goes into the
national treasury and not into the pockets
of the individual, and that sugar is al
ready imported free of duty on very
large scale from the Hawaiian Islands
But he isn't dealing in facts.
Another specimen OF his logic:
THE SENTINEL confidently avows that the
Mills bill viii reduce the price Of starch about
23l% per cent. This reduction, il asserts, world
come out of the profits OF the manufacturer;
but how such a result would be reached we are
not informed. | will venture the assertion that
there is not a starch concern In the United
States that paid last year a greater dividend
than s per cent and that at least eight of them
paid no dividends at all, and have not paid any
for years. know OF seven starch factories
which can be bought for one-half the cost OF
the plant
The SENTINEL did not say that the Mills
bill would reduce the price of starch
about 234 per cent. 1t said that reduc-
ton in the tariff would only be a reduc-
ton on the present price of 234 per cent.
instead OF AZ per cent. as claimed by Mr..
Phelps in his pamphlet. As TO the prop
osition that because starch factories pay
no more than per cent profit on the in
vestment there can be no more than S per
cent. profit on their goods, any merchant
will tell Mr.. Phelps that 1t is absurd.
Plenty OF business men sell for Sl.50
what costs them but 81, and yet make but
or 10 per cent. year on their capital, as
everybody knows. Mr.. Phelps knows it,
too. He is only making believe that he
doesn't.
Now comes the most demagogical and
dishonest part OF the Phelps letter, which
is saying good deal:
If the duty on corn were repealed, consumers
on the Atlantic seaboard could buy their corn
in Russia and the Argentine Republic and
bring i into New York at a less price than
western-grown corn. The exports of corn
from the Argentine Republic last year were
equal to about one-half OF the exports of corn
from the United States. Were not the farmer
protected on his corn we could to-day land
cargoes in New York at a less price than that
now quoted in the market for homegrown
corn. Western farmers need not be SURPRISED
if they find in the near future, and probably
next year, Argentine corn arriving In New
York, even in the face of the import duty OF
10 cents per bushel
1t is difficult to speak Of such rot as this
with patience. We have already shown
that corn sells at Liverpool 40 per cent.
higher than it does at Chicago. and that
we export more than 40,0O0,000 bushels.
This, indeed, is far below the average ex-
ports. When Mr.. Phelps tells the farmer
that there is danger OF corn being imported
Except in the event of failure of our
crop from the Argentine Republic or any
where else, he talks like fool. In 1886
we imported 30,536 bushels, which was
only about 60 per cent. of the average i'm
portations for the preceding nineteen
years. The average-1s67-I8S5 inclusive
was 50,595 bushels. Our imports are
declining, although they have always been
SO small as to cut no figure. Our exports
in 1856 were Al 1855, Ssh bushels-2.4S per
cent OF the production. Twenty years