Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1888-05-16
Why Not Put Rice on the Free List |?


 In view of the fact onethird of the free list in the new tariff bill is made up from the products of the farm, forest and mine, which are now dutable at minimum rates and m view of the fact that our democratic friends seem disposed to strike down the slight protection so es- sential to the farmer, the lumberman and quarryman; we respectfully ask, why not add to the list that Of rice ? II IS true that it IS "way down south m the land of cotton," but we can see no good reason, if the rule of "free trade" IS to be ap- piled north. why i,s gentle @ hand should not also he placed upon the pro- ducts of the south. We have been look ing into the rice question, and while it is quite apparent that the tune has come when it can afford to stand alone, its his tory since the war Is one of the finest commentaries which could be displayed upon the advantages of protection. The following table represents the product prior 10 the war The given year shows the average product per year for the de- cade preceding such l: IS3o. 7I.6oo,ooo pounds IS4o, 89. 900, 900; 1859. 99,-
 700, ,ooo I86c. Io2, ,3oo,ooo.
 During the war, as the cultivation had
 been mainly confined to the southern states along the Atlantic coast and which were more or less overrun by the armies of the Union, the culture was almost en- tirely suspended and at the close of the war little remained of a prosperous cul- ture ether other than overgrown swamp lands, broken dykes and impoverished and discouraged planters. What has been done since the war is most happily illus trated in the following data, which are the grow,hs of the various years named. and given at intervals of five years, to show that the progress has been steady and assured development 1865, 5.ooo.- ooo pounds 1870, 5o,ooo,oo 1875, S5,ooo, 900 1860. I22,ooc,ooo; 1885, I5o,ooo. 900.
 By comparison il will be seen that the product, which IS now running at the rate of I5o, 900, 900 pounds per year, IS so per cent larger than the highest reached before the war. If before the war the cultivators of rice under tariff of about five-eigh,hs cent per pound, found it prof. itable, they certainly will rot be injured if the duty be reduced to some point which approximates thereto in some greater degree than is now proposed. If at fve-eighths 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 exported). it certainly ought not to need nearly four times the amount Of protec- tion, which will be given if the proposed duty on cleaned rice be left at cents per pound. We also notice that the majority report of the committee of ways and means have given a definition to un- cleaned 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 rec ommend that the majority avail them selves of the information of those who know what uncleaned rice IS. The def- ni;ion 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 Srsr~s. We do not say as to how deep the knife ought to cu'' but do say it ,usb, to be mese vigorously applied a ,ainst rice, which iS indeed the poor m ms food, and tba, in he readjus'"ent of duties care ought to be Saken thas 'ne American miller and laborer properly cared for by nicely adjusted sca'e oI differential dutles. - Kennebec Me') Journal.