The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1890-06-03
TWO DOLLARS AND A HALF A
TON.
That is the Additional Tax on Fertil-
izers
Which as Imposed by the Mckinley Tariff
Bill What 1t VIII Cost
North Carolina.


The tariff bill has passed the House
and will nov 90 to the Senate. Ii
NAV or may not become a law. The
4 chances are that the Republican lash
will be applied, and that it will be en-.
acted into a law. 1t is the worst
measure, the most unjust and burden.
some upon the great mass OF the peo'
pie, that has passed the House IN a
quarter of a century. No time was
y allowed for general debate. Under
the rule adopted 200 amendments,
offered and pending, will never be
considered. The members of the
\ House we're deprived of the right of
discussion by an ron clad rule. More
than one hundred of the one hundred
and fifty pages of the bill we're not
discussed at all. 1t was well for the
Republicans hat little time was al
lowed for debate. Even in the few
short speeches that were made the
Democrats showed up the inequalities
and burdens and wrongs Of the meas
ure.
The bill is ostensibly in the interest,"
of the farmers, but there is really no
protection for them. The sham pre-,
tense of helping the farmer by impos-
ing duties upon certain products of
the farm, as pretended protection of
the farming interests, is seen when we
refer to the amount Of the impOrta-
ton of such art Giles last year. They
were:
Eighty eight dollars worth of lard,
J 1913 worth of pork, Sl,2l2.7O worth
of corn, $252.75 worth Of corn meal,
l6 bushels of rye and I,9463 bushels
of wheat. The total importation of
these six articles fell short of $4,000
in value, while the expectations Of the
same commodities reached $40, O00,-
900 in value. There is no help for
the farmers. On the contrary, their
burdens are increased. Take the item
lof fertilizers. In a short speech, Hon.
III. G. Turner, of Georgia, IA native
of Vance county and brother of DR..
V. E. Turner, of Raleigh), shows that
the aids promised to farmers care
certain cheap shams." He says:
OuI 1dLL4CI at bnO OOObuJ LII O4NO4
to be able to compete with growers
Vt cotton in Texas and on the bot
toms of the great Western rivers,
Ahave been compelled to go largely
into the use Of commercial manures.
By intense fertilization, as well as by
II the extension Of the cotton area, we
q have nearly doubled the cotton crop.
D. $1,000 - Por%1lI1C~C MO horn hnnn
able to keep u population in Geor,
gia stable and conGented, and enjoy
at this time a fair degree of prosper
ity, considering existing conditions.
In that State, &C ;ording to the report
of u commissioner Of agriculture
for the year 1887, more than 2O8, 900
ny tons of commercial fertilizers were in
spected and sold.
Now, this bill puts upon sulphuric
acid, which has always been fire., a
tax of one fourth of a cent a pound.
Sulphuric acid is required in the pro-
portion of 1000 pounds to 1900
pounds of phosphate rock to make a
ton of fertilizer. If the tax enhances
the cost of the acid to the extent of
the duty every ton Of fertilizer in
Georgia of whatever kind will cost
the farmers $3.50 more than the pres
ent price, other existing conditions re
naming the anne
You tax the bagging in which
these farmers have been accustomed
to send their cotton to market. You
tax the iron ties by which the bales
are bound. Do you propose to tax
every ton Of fertilizer they use to the
amount of $3.50? In the State OF
AZ Georgia that tax on sulphuric acid
M alone, in the case supposed, would
amount to $500, 0OO-half as much as
the entire State taxation. On the
citizens of the county in which l live
this tax on sulphuric acid would
amount to $4,000. And when it is
remembered that muriatic acid is also
taxed in the same amount in this bill,
to say nothing of ammonia, it will be
" found that the bill imposes upon the
@farmers of the South, of the North,
u and of the West a burden amounting
a to many millions of dollars. Taking
NJ the memorable lesson Of the jute bag
M ging trust which was formed two
years ago, let US pause and anticipate
what the result will be if this tax on
fertilizers shall break down foreign
competition and leave US no defense
against a trust in fertilizers. Surely
cotton ought not to bear any burdens.
Let US make the calculation for
North Carolina. Not less than 100,
tons of commercial fertilizers
ANwere used in the State last year.
Under the Mckinley bill the farmers
will have to pay an additional tax OF
$3.50 per ton. This imposes an an.
nual extra tax upon the farmers OF
North Carolina of $3.50, 900, more
EthIn one-third of all State taxes. Our