Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1892-08-26
THE MCKINLEY BILL.
What 1t Has Done for the
Farmers.
4 Mastery Treatment Of the subject by
a Practical Vermont Farmer.


Mckinley bill, and find that the first para
graph relates to horses. There were i'm
ported into the United States i'm 1888, up
on which duty was paid, 52,O33 horses,
valued at S2,GSS, 159. Think of it, 81
GSS, 150 worth of horses brought into this
country annually, principally from Cana
da. 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 30 per
cent on the whole value.
Now what has been the result? In 1891
there were but 16,0S3 dutiable horses inn
ported, thereby saving to the American
farmers market for 81, $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 S2,6SS, 1J0 which, be-
fore the Mckinley bill, went into the pock-
cts of Canadian farmers every year Horses
for breeding purposes are duty free be-
cause 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 pro-
lection. 1t is for the benefit of the farm
ers West equally with those in the East.
They ship carloads of horses from points
West to the New York and Boston mar
kets every week, and is it not to their ad-
vantage to find 30, $50 less Canadian horses
in those markets?
AS | read the next paragraph of the Nc
Knley act | find upon cattle duty of $40
per head against 81 under the old law.
The importations of cattle in 1889, com
pared with those of 1891, tell the same
story as the figures relating to horses, only
a more emphatic one. In 1889 there were
51,551 head of cattle imported into the
United States; in 1891, under the McKin-
ley act, only 1862; 47,S99 less than in 1889.
So many less cattle 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 trad
ers. There was before the Mckinley act
duty on sheep of about 45 cents per head.
1t was 20 per cent ad valorem duty, but
figured out about A. cents head on the
average value of the sheep imported.
What is the duty now? One dollar and
fifty cents per head on sheep over year
old and - cents on those less than year
old. The importations are mostly of those
less than a year old and the increase OF du-
ty is not so much as it ought to have
been. but it resulted in the importation of
A., 500 fewer sheep in 1891 than in 1889.
If you will give wool decent protection
al ng with other 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 NUT
ton. But il you adopt the free trade poll
cy you will soon be ont of both and at the
mercy of the syndicates of other countries
who will control the wool, and as for NUT
ton you will have to 90 without it.
Take the article of barley. Eleven mil
lion bushels of barley and malt were i'm
ported in 1888. The Old duty was 10 cents
per bushel; the present duty is 80 cents
per bushel 1t would take 447, 900 acres
mark the figures-447, 900 acres to produce
the barley and malt that were imported in
to this country in 1888 at 10 cents per
bushel
1t is pretended that Our product is un-
suitable for the purpose for which maltsters
and brewers require it. But, Mr.. Chair
man, this is not true. 1t might possibly
be true of barley raised in southern sec
tions of the country; but what real differ
ence can there be in barley raised just
south of the lakes and that raised in Can
ada Just north of the lakes? What is the
difference between that raised in North
Dakota and just across in British Colum-
bia? Probably the best barley producing
section in the country is North Dakota,
and it is well protected against the Cana
dian product by the present law.
| 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 5000 bushels of buckwheat
imported in 1880 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 10 cents bushel. In 1888 there were
1,042, SIG bushels of beans imported into
the United States. Think of it! 1t
would take an immense acreage to produce
that quantity of beans. This is a speci-
men of the increased protection which the
Mckinley bill gives the farmer.
Now take eggs. Why, sir, if had time
to get the figures l could show that the
poultry production of the country is almost
equal in value to the cotton production.
In 1889 10, 900, 900 dozen eggs were import
ed into this country. Under the old law
the duty was three cents a dozen; under
the Mckinley act it is five cents dozen.
Let these free traders cease croaking about
the Mckinley bill and set the hens to lay
ing!
Next is the item of hay. There were
imported 1O5, ,395 tons of hay in 1889. II
would take los, 600 acres to produce that
quantity of hay, allowing a ton to an acre
| The old duty was 81 ton; the new duty
! is 81 a ton, and importations fell from the
| above number of tons in 1889 to SO, "a.
tons in 1891. Yet the free trader says
there is no protection for the farmer!
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 15 cents per pound. Yet il
is claimed that the farmer is to be ruineC
by the Mckinley bill!
There were 259, ,53S bushels of potatoes
imported in 1888. The old duty was /,
cents per bushe. The new duty is p
cents per bushel. And so l might 90 OF
through the whole agricultural schedule
nearly every item of which gives increased
protection to the farmer.
One of the principal objects in the Me
Kinley act was to check the importation o.
farming products, 1851 ,07S, S37. worth o
which were brought into this country il
1889, and thus give the farmer an unob
Na.I ROY