Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-04-18
Why not Rice on the Free List2

In view of the fact that oue-third of the
free list IN the new Tariff Bill is made up
from the products of the farm. forest aud
mine, which are now dutiable at minimum
rates and in view of the fact that our
Democratic friends seem disposed to
strike down the slight protection So essen
tial, to the farmer, lumbcr-man and quar-
ry-man; we respectfully ask why not add
to the list that of rice? 1t il true hat il
is sway down South In the land of cot
ton" but we can see no good reason, il the
rule of 'Free Trade" is to he applied North,
why Its gentle y hand should not also
be placed upon the products of the South.
We have been looking into the rice Ques-
ton, and while IL is quite apparent that
the time has come when it can afford Ia
stand alone, its history since the war il
one the finest commentaries which could
be displayed upon the advantages of pro
lection. The following table represents
the product prior to the war. The given
year shows the average product per
year for the decade preceding such
pounds.
1880 Il 500, 600
1910 50 900. 600
1850 90. 700 600
1859 lo2 10000
During the war, as the cultivation had
been mainly confined to the southern
States along the Atlantic coast and which
were more or less oNer-ruu hy the armies
of the Union, the culture was almost
entirely suspended and at the close of the
war little remained of prosperous culture
other than ovcr-grown swamp lands, I
broken dykes. and impoverished aud dis
couraged planters. What has been done
since the war is most happily illustrated |
in the following data. which are the
growths of the various year named, and
given at intervals of five years, to show |
that the progress has been steady and /
assured development.
Pounds.
1865. 100000
1870, 5O.O00,0O0
1873, 5000 900 /
1880 l22 200 goo /
1855, 150,oo0,00o
BY comparison it will be seen that
the product, which is now running AT the
rate of $50, 0oo. 900 lbs, per year. is fifty
(50l per cent. larger than the highest
reached before the war. II before the
war the cultiyatdrS oi -. -ii.'s under tariff
of one-eighth (l-S) cent per poun1 ,1'.-S4ilNi4
it profitable. they certainly will not be
injured If the duty be reduced to some
point which approximates thereto in some
greater degree that is now proposed. If
at one-eight of a cent per pound the South
was enabled, as it was, to produce more
than they actually required for the wants
of the United States, (for some was eN-
ported it certainly ought not to need
sixteen times the amount of protection,
which will be given if the proposed duty
on cleaned rice be left at two % cents per
pound. We also notice that the majority
report of the Committee of Ways and
Means have given definition to uncleaned
rice which is contrary to common sense,
and the general conditions under which
such styles of rice are known throughout
the world at large. We recommend that
the majority avail themselves of the in
formation of those who know what I'M
cleaned rice is. The definition proposed
will initiate against the American miller
and laborer by causing the preparation
abroad Of all foreign rice which may be
imported into the United States. We do