The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1888-06-20

a farm product, and of the Il l3l, 1913
pounds produced in the crop of 1879, as
reported IN the census of 1850, 100, 6S5, 5l3
pounds were produced by the Southern
States of South Carolina Georgia, and
Louisiana Southern product, as you
will see, and cultivated in Democratic
States. During the last three years the
amount of rice entered for consumption
from foreign countries and the duty paid
thereon in the form of tax by the con-
sumner, as our free-trade friends contend,
is rs follows:
Entered for
consumption,
Year. pounds, Duty.
1885. lbs 500 sl6l9,j76
1856. .......................9 2596,3n llSl, 257
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 9j5o5,49O 972,6l4
Rice is food product consumed large
~ by the laboring classes of this country.
Why not furnish cheap food as we'll as
cheap clothing, if the argument of the ma
jority of the committee is TO prevail, and
put rice on the free list? But instead of
that, Mr. Chairman, we find that the tariff
on rice is increased rather than diminished,
and the importers of that food product
have called the attention of the public to
the fact that the duties now proposed in
the Mills bill are actually higher than
those which prevailed during the war.
from 1861 10 1851. 1t is claimed by those
who are conyersant with the process and
expense of rice culture that il can lie grown
and sold ut three cents per pound, cleaned.
pay all the charges of production, and
leave good margin of profit TO the plan
ter; and mt three cents per pound, cleaned,
forty-four bushels to the acre, nets the
planter S22 per acre; and Mt eighty bush
els per acre, which it is claimed IS not an
unusual yield, n net profit TO the planter
Of And Mr. lFhaipp,on
this is an industry which it is claimed
should he protected by a high duty on i'm
ported rice. a less numberof persons are
interested in this country in rice produc-
tion than in the production of wool. The
capital invested Is less, and the product is
one which is used in every home No ar
gument can be used for placing wool on
the free list which will not be as forceful
in placing rice on the free list. 1t Is easier,
however in this soc llled revision of the
tariff laws, TO strike deadly blow Mt an
industry cultivated in Republican States
than to interfere with those which prosper
in Democra lie States.
Again, Mr.. Chairman, why not place
sugar on the free list? Here is a product
as univera al in its consumption as tea or
coffee. The people of this country pay
tax annually on imported sugar of nearly
500 GOT, 900. If the object of this bill is
40 reduce the revenues and furnish cheap
food for the people, how better can that
object be subserved than by placing sugar
on the free list? The whole sugar-pro-
ducing interest In this country, on the
most accurate and reliable authority, does
not exceed in value $50 900, 900. This in
terest is limited almost wholly TO Louisi-
ana. The sugar consumed by the rich and
the poor during period of less than eigh-
he - taNa1 hHy inn, It,tfac in,
an amount sufficient to pay for the entire
capital invested in that interest in this
country and leave many millions besides.
And yet the friends of this Mills bill for
the alleged purpo2e of reducing the rev.
enues of the country IS, 800, 054. 73 duties
on imported wool, are willing to imperil
this great wool industry, with its aggre-
gated capital as l have already shown, of
$3.50, 900 600.
The logic of this bill would put iron ore
and coal upon the free list, and had the
same disregard for the great industries
which flourish in the Northern and Re-
publican States, as l have already pointed
out, been followed in the preparation of
this bill these articles would have been
placed there. And it is even claimed by
many that such is the fact from proper
construction of the bill. This construc-
ton, however, was combated by Mr.. Nc
Millin in his speech the other day, but
his argument did not seem to satisfy
the Virginia representative, Mr.. O'Fer-
rail-.
The following clipping, however, from
the Washington Critic of April 2G indi-
Gates that an understanding has been
reached between these two gentlemen who
are willing TO destroy the wool industry
and jeopardize an invested capital of
GpE0 mn nv, hot 50,
on the free list. Here it is:
There was a little talk yesterday that
| the Ways and Means Committee would
amend the tariff bill so as to include iron
and coal on the free list, but MIR. MclIil-
lin has assured Col. O'Ferrall, of Vir-
ginia, that nothing of the kind is contem-
plated, and, what is more, the phraseology
of the tariff bill will be changed so that
all doubts on the point of free iron and
coal will be removed. This will be inter-
esting news to the people of Southwest
ern Virginia"
Aside from the argument that the ne
cessities of the situation require that the
| State of Virginia shall give its electoral
vote to the Democratic party this fall, no
argument can be urged in favor of duty on
those products that will not be equally
effective in protecting all the vast and
varied industries of this country-many
of which are being jeopardized by adyo-
eating the passage of this bill, and will be
utterly destroyed if it becomes q law. l
cannot sympathize with those who de-
nounce protection to home industries as a
species of robbery. The argument in ia
vor of protection rests upon the great
principle of the advantage of diversified
production. Every industry is stimulated
and benefited under regulated tariff
law. 1t keeps the currency in circulation
among our own people instead of draining
/ our country of it and sending it abroad to
purchase products manufactured in for
eign countries, and thus avoids financial
distress. 1t brings the consumer and
producer together, and saves the cost of
transportation. While this protective
theory is maintained our country will go
on in its marvellous accumulation of wealth
and prosperity.
The gentleman from Missouri (sTr.
Dockery) in his free-trade argument here