Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1890-04-23
Or. Miller on Tariff.


EDITORS INDEX: In your issue OF
April 9th, you make the following state
ment:
Farmers are the principal importers of live
stock. horses, cattle, sheep and grain. The
1--we stock they use for breeding purposes, SIM
ply in improving their herds. The grain they
import is usually new varieties that they are
DESTROYS OF experimenting with. The McKin-
ley tariff bill, prepared at the dictation of the
republican majority in congress. increases the
import duties on live stock and grain, hoping
that the farmers will consider this q benefit to
them. No thinking man will be caught by such
chaff."
Now, your statement is calculated to
mlslead the farmers on this subject.
Livestock that is imported for breeding
purposes comes in free of duty now,
and 1t also comes in free of duty under
the Mckinley tariff bill. 1t is simply
an increase of duties on livestock and
grain that is not imported for the bene-
BIT of farmers that the Mckinley tariff
bill effects.
In 1889 the cattle, horses and sheep
that were imported free of duty for
breeding purposes were valued at So
2S7 ,53S. but there were also imported for
beef and mutton and for services, cat
tie. horses and sheep valued at So $685.
sos. Horses and mules that have been
imported for use in this country. aside
from breeding, pay duty of 20 per
cent. Under the Mckinley bill, so per
cent.
Cattle, over one year old, under the
present law pay 20 per cent. Under the
Mckinley bill, SIG per head. Cattle one
year old and under are now free. Under
the Mckinley bill the duty is So per
head. Hogs and sheep now pay 20 per
cent; under the Mckinley bill $l.5O
per head.
Now, this increase of duties specially
affects the cattle, horses and sheep that
are imported which come in competi-
ton with the farmers products, there
fore think you and your readers must
admit that it will be a benefit to far
mers. Those that are imported for
breeding purposes under the Mckinley
bill. come in free, the same as they
have been doing.
Now in regard to grain: In the year
1889 we imported over eleven million
bushels of barley, valued at over seven
millions of dollars. That was bought
by brewers mostly for brewing purpo-
ses, and think that this barley came
directly IN competition with the barley
raised by the American farmers. This
barley came in under the present duty
or 10 cents bushel. The Mckinley
bill places the duty on barley at 30
cents bushel. That certainly should
benefit farmers.
In 1889 we imported 81 ,0S2,S worth
of hay. The present duty OH hay is 81
ton. The Mckinley bill proposes to
place it at 81 ton, which would, of
course, be benefit to the American
farmers who produce hay.
In 1889 there was ST., 974 sis worth of
wool imported. The Mckinley bill pro-
poses to raise the duties on wool cent
a pound, and we think the American
farmers will be benefited by that tax.
we imported last year, ST, ,472
worth of hops. The present duty on
hops is cents pound. The Mckinley
bill proposes to make it Is cents a
pound.
We imported, last year. 1853, 799
worth of vegetables. The present duty
on peas and beans is 20 per cent. the
Mckinley bill raises it to 80 per cent.
On potatoes the duty Is Is cents BUSH
ell. Vegetables in natural state now
pay 10 per cent. they are increased to
Is per cent.
In 1889 we imported SS1 ,249,s 45 worth
of sugar. The Mckinley bill proposes
to reduce the duties on sugar one-half
think that is grave mistake. Sugar
is cheaper under the present duty than
it ever was known before In the history
of the country. If the present duty is
retained and bounty offered by the
states, In ten years from now Kansas
would produce about all the sugar she
consumes, and would afford an increas-
ed profit to the farmers of this country.
In fact, every single farm product that
the Mckinley bill affects will be of such
benefit to the American farmers that !
hope it will put the farmers of the west
again on the high road to prosperity.
E. L. MILLER.