Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-08-24
WAR ON THE FARMER
REPUBLICAN, METHODS SHOWN UP
6Y Mr.. DANIEL.
How the Republican Tariff Crushes the
Agricultural Intcrests-Protection
No Protection at All.

- Wv tft''A nhhtF' tfNhtheN-
kindness Of that gentleman we have q copy
Of that speech. 1t is an admirable docu-
ment. and we Gull from it what viii prove
interesting and instructive reading
TOBACCO TAXED BY THE ExcIsE.
turn next 20 tobacco. 1t is the single
object Of agriculture which is the subject
OF direct act In your internai-reVenue
system. Two years ago IN TINS nan OH
passed, and in the House II was the same,
upon which both parties were united IN the
proposition that the tobacco-tax should be
repealed.
In the State which have the honor in
part here 10 represent we had, pending the
election. c0tyie of distinguished Repub--
l,can orators who addressed our people. l
was present on some occasions when they
made their speeches and when they SAID
why. the Democratic party Is triflng
with Won about the tObaccO-taX lid not
Mr. Cleveland in his message show his dis
inclination 10 repeal it, Just let the Re-
publicans be elected and elect their state
candidates and the tobacco-taI will be
gomez
However. Mr.. President, here is the Re
publican House. here is the Republican
Senate. and here is the tobacco-taS-re-
duced. IL is true. but still preserved when
You do not need the revenue. and when
you proclaim you have brought IN bill to
reduce it. .
SHAM PROTECTION or OATS, RYE, AND WHEAT.
/ was referring 10 the family group Of
taxed articles IN which rice appears, para
graph pa. / find oats, on which IT Is pro-
posed TO put a tariff protective duty OF 10
cents a bushel. The tax on oats now Is 10
cents per bushel. We import into the
United states but 22,32i bushels. at a
valuation Of $4,000, paying q duty Of
S2,232.li.
Why have YOU increased the duty on
oats: it is because and only because it Is
imagined by the authors of this bill that
they can feed q few tauf oats TO ignorant
voters. and make American Oats-p producers
believe that they are protecting them when
we do not import enough 10 amount to o
drop in the bucket.
The next item is oatmeal, which is now
taxed cent per pound. The House pro-
posed 10 increase the tax on oatmeal 20 Il
cents per pound, and the Senate has re-
duced 1t in its proposition TO ! cent a
pound. In that think the Senate Is right,
but / do not see why in an attempt to
euuallze IL should increase 1t on oats and
leave II on oatmeal as it Is.
Paragraph 247 ~ rye. Rye IS now taxed
10 cents per bushel. 10 is claimed 10 be q
protective tax for the benefit Of rye-pro-
ducers. The quantity Of rye which We inn
ported in lSs3 was sixteen bushels at a
valuation Of 81. The tax was SLIGO
Mr. President. does the Republican
party imagine that 1t can Woo the coy
maiden of agriculture Comm through
the rye" with the enormous protection Of
SLIGO on the whole rye crop OF the United
States?
The next proposition. Mr. President, is
rye flour. IL ia now taxed a half a cent q
pound, and this magnificent protective
duty Of one-half cent IS carefully pre-
served Our impOrtations OF rye -four
amount 20 theenormous sum OF 500 pounds,
and the taxamOunts TO $50.
The next propositions wheat. II IS taxed
now 20 per cent. 1t is proposed, in order
to give the speciOus disguise OF protection
and float that flag over the farmers head
marked " Soc how we are protecting you "
TO increase the tax on imported wheat 20
twenty-five cents bushel. We imported
last year, Mr.. President. 1900 bushels of
wheat. It's value was S3,0O0and some odd.
and We derived the magnificent duty OF
$3S9.35. Meantime we were exporting 40
! 100000 bushels.
Now. Mr. President. this fact appears
clear in this little glimpse at the agricuitu-
raj schedule. We are exporting wheat by
the million bushels. This sO-called pro-
| tective-taI does not protect wheat 10 the
| value of one mill to all the farmers IN any
one county Of tho United States. But a
/ great cutlery j. made, from the mere strnc-
/ ture of the bill. under the delusiye promise
| 10 protect wheat, when in the same class
! Of products you are taking Oh the protec-
| tion of those articles of agricultural pro-
( duce that are really protected. In other
words, Mr. President, for the American
| farmer in this bill there Is protection
wherever IL will not protect, and there Is
no projection where 1t will.
80 PROTECTION or HIDES.
20 n little further, Mr.. President. "a
where hides are put upon the tree list.
! Whv are hides put upon the free list IN tins
/ so-called protection billg The price OF
beef has declined in the market. The sta
tlstician of the Agricultural Department
informed the country that there has been
an oyerproducilOn Ot our meat products.
No longer fOurishinc In theTalslng OF cattle
and needing protection when IL Will 90
him any good. why IS it that you have Sc
/ lected from the great industry OF cattle
| raising the article which IL TO DO shOt al
with your fatal shaft of free trader
The Senator from Vermont Mr.. I'd
munds) said a few DAYS ago that for the
I time be was free trader. If anybody on
| this side Of the chamber bad called HIM a
| free trader 10 would have brought on bis
I head the maledictions Of the Senator from
Vermont and all of his companions. But
| in this bill. Mr.. President. the Republican
PARTY is for free trade in nearly everything
| that will injure the farmer OF the United
| States.
We are importing hides from South
America. and that Is the field which Is
pointed out 10 us as the great held
| for future reciprocity with the United
/ States. Why is ii, Sir. President
/ that when we have u proposition
Of reciprocity with South America
we should. in advance OF II, pre-
/ serve upon the free list and TOR free trade
! that article in which South America is oul
/ Tiyaly There IS u reason Tor 1t. The nae
/ is q product Of agriculture. 10 IS wanted
/ free by certain manufacturers. Yes. Mr
/ President, there are some manufactures
! in this country who see that neither they
nor the farmer are protected by the deylou;
| devices OF Republican legislation, and a.
! they have asked for free trade tho HepuO
/ lican party is down upon its knees before
/ them with an armful Of free trade 20 helT
them with az the expense OF the agrlcuL
I turo Of the United States.
OUR fARMERs II COMPETITION WITH TN
PAUPER LABOR OF oTHER LANDS.
One other inquiry, Mr.. President, before
| j cease my humble plea IN behaI OF lut
American agricultural workngmen. They
/ come IN competition with the pauper labor
of other lands. but they are never digni.
fed here, either by being elassed amongst
our workingmen or by attention being
paid 10 the fact that they are coming II
competition with the pauper labor Of other
countries. If tho cry which Republican
Ism makes 80 often, that 10 Is ready, Will
ing, and glad to interpose the arm OF
protective tax between the pauper labor
/ of other lands and the free labor OF Amerl
ca. were not sound and fury, siguityins
nothing why. let me ask you preachers
Of the creed. Why will you not put pro-
tectlye tax on cotton TO place II between
the toiling millions of your southern coun'
trymen and the ryots of India, who are
their chief competitors IN cotton prchuc
ton?
ALL AGRICULrURTsTs UNPROTECTED.
will tell you why, Mr.. President, anc
the farmers OF this country north, south
east and west can tell you why. IL IS be
cause they are simply agricultural labor.
ers IN your eyes, hewers OF wood anC
drawers Of water, and such you wish then
70 remain.
There are no importations to this coun
try Except such trivial amounts TO whict
might apply the legal maxim, De mIaarau
] ~ r