News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1892-09-01
THE MCKINLEY BILL.
WHAT 1T HAS DONE FOR THE FARMER

| abridged from remarks made in Congress,
March 81, 1892, by Hon. William W. Grout. ]
| turn to the agricultural schedule
of the Mckinley bill, and find that
the first paragraph relates to horses.
There were imported into the United
States in 1888, upon which a duty
was paid, 52,O33 horses, valued at
$2,6SS,159. Think of it, So, 6SS, 159
worth of horses brought into this
country annually, principally from
Canada. The old duty on horses was
20 per cent. The Mckinley bill raised
the duty to $50 per head, anyway,
and if the horse was worth more than
$3.50, then 80 per cent on the whole
value.
| Now what has been the result? In
1891. there was but 16,OS3 dutiable
horses imported, thereby saving the
American farmers a market for 25,-
$50 horses. The American farmers
ought to raise every horse which the
American people want to use and
thus put into their own pockets every
dollar of the $2,6SS,159 which be-
fore the Mckinley bill, went into the
pockets OF the Canadian farmers
every year. Horses for breeding pur-
poses are duty free because it helps
the farmers. The protective tariff
furnishes him duty free the facilities
with which to produce horses, and at
the same time protects him In their
production.
There is another thing about this
protection. 1t is for the benefit of
the farmers West equally with those
in the East. They ship carloads of
horses from points West to New York
and Boston markets every week, and
is it not to their advantage to find
| $3.50 less Canadian horses in those
markets?
AS l read the next paragraph of the
Mckinley act [ find upon cattle a
duty of $40 per head against 50 I'M
der the old law. The importations
of cattle compared with those of
1891, tell the same story as the fig
ures relating to horses, only more
emphatic one. In 1889 there were
1851 head OF cattle imported into
the United States; in 1891, under the
Mckinley act, only 1852; 1882
less than in 1889. So many less cat
tie in the markets of the United States
to compete with the cattle OF the
American farmer-whether raised in
the East or brought from the West
where beef cattle are produced.
Take sheep, the poor animal just
now under the particular fire of the
| free traders. There was before the
I Mckinley act a duty on sheep of
about As cents per head. 1t was a
20 per cent ad valorem duty, but fig
ured out about 45 cents a head on
the average value of the sheep i'm
ported. What is the duty now? One
dollar and fifty cents per head on
sheep over year old and rs cents
on those less than year old. The
importations are mostly of those less
than a year old and the increase of
| duty is not so much as it ought to
have been, but it resulted in the i'm
portation of 1880 fewer sheep in
1891 than in 1889.
If you will give wool decent protec
ton along with their products, and
at the same time protect the article
of mutton land this particular item
goes to that you will neither be
short of wool nor short of mutton.
But if you adopt the free trade policy
you will soon De out of both and at
the mercy of the syndicates of other
countries who will control the wool,
and as for mutton you will have to
go without it.
Take the article of barley. Eleven
million bushels of barley and malt
were imported in 1888. The old duty
was 10 cents per bushel; the present
duty is 80 cents per bushel. 1t would
| take AT, Q6Q-@cres-mark the fig
ures-447, 600 acres to produce the
barley and malt that was imported
into this country in 1888 at 10 cents
per bushel.
1t is pretended that our product is
unsuitable for the purpose for which
maltsters and brewers require it.
But Mr.. Chairman this is not true 1t
might possibly be true of barley
raised in southern sections of the
country; but what difference can there
be in barley raised just south of the
lakes and that raised in Canada just
north of the lakes? What is the diff
| ference between that raised in North
Dakota and just across in British
Columbia? Probably the best barley
producing section in the country
is North Dakota, and it is well pro-
tected against the Canadian product
by the present law.
! l read in the Mckinley bill that on
ckwheat-formerly at 10 per cent,
which would be about three cents per
| bushel-the duty is raised to Is cents
per bushel. And there were $4,000
bushels of buckwheat imported in
1889 1t would take 5000 acres of
land to raise the buckwheat that was
brought into this country from Cana
da in that year.
The old duty on beans was 10 per
cent ad valorem; under the Mckinley
bill it is 40 cents bushel. In 1888
there were ,942 ,S46 bushels of beans
imported into the United States.
Think of i'll 1t would take an i'm
mense acreage to produce that guam
tity of beans. This is a specimen of
the increased protection which the
Mckinley bill gives the farmer.
Now take eggs. Why, sir, if had
time to get the figures | could show
that the poultry production of the
country is almost equal in value to
the cotton production. In 1889 49,
100000 dozen eggs were imported
into this country. Under the old law
the duty was three cents u dozen J;
under the Mckinley act it is five cents
a dozen. Let these free traders cease
croaking about the Mckinley bill and
set the hens to laying.
Next is the item of hay. There were
imported los, 1896 tons ofhay in 1889.
1t would take 1861 acres TO pro-
duce that quantity of hay, allowing
a ton to an acre. The old duty was
50 ton; the new duty is 81 a ton );
and impOrtations fell from the above
number of tons in 1889 to SO, 242
tons in 1891. Yet the free trader
says there is no protection for the
farmerl
Now take hops. Seven million
pounds of hops were imported in
1888. 1t would take 1000 acres to
produce such a crop. The old duty
was eight cents per pound; the new
duty Is cents per pound. Yet it is
claimed that the farmer is to be
ruined by the Mckinley bill
There were 259, 53S bushels of po-
tatoes imported en- 1888. The old
duty was Is cents per bushel. The
new duty is 25 cents per bushel. And
| an I miUht uO on throuuh he whole