The Opelousas courier., 1894-01-13
correspondence,
New York, Jan. 9Th, 1891

New York. Jan. 9Th, 1894.
Editor Opelousus C%orhlER:
any attention to what newspapers say but
we think it important. especially in case they
fall into error as their position in the com.
munity is great, exceeding that of the indi-
vidual many thousand-told. Let us say at
the outset that we are charitable enough to
.'set naught down in malice" and believe that
Misrepresentation is due to misconceptlon
based on faulty information. First as to
some few things charged against tile foreign
rice interests Of New York" 1t is stated
''Unclean rice, which is nothing more nor
less than clean rice mixed with Il little flour,
is brushed in New York and put on the mar
ket as clean rice. 1t actually costs to brush
the rice but 1872 of Il cent per pound and yet
the New York importers demand a difference
in the tariff duty of fully ! of ii cent per
pound in favor Of uncleaned rice so-called."
There are three statements in the above
and each one false. l, there never has been
nor are there imports made OF clean rice
mixed with a little flour. ,, the cost OF
milling the rice referred to greatly exceeds
| lt52 Of q cent per pound ;. the New York
importers are not asking difference in the
tariff Of duty fully ! Of a cent per pound IN
favor of unclean rice so called.
So much in way of general correction aud
now 10 that which is more personal. We are
not ashamed of anything done or sought as
have neither done or sought anything which
would initiate against the home product.
We have simply asked that the tariff on rice
be made more comprehensive and that it rec
ogniZe three worldwide known forms of I'M
cleaned rice:
ist. Uncleaned Bengal or Patna, mealy
state, inner cuticule partially ioosened or re-
moved, which would be rated cent less than
cleaned.
ID. Uncleaped Japan. inner cuticle there
~, who'll, phnpl9l no rated Of tlYaa tburt ~
cent less than cleaned
Sd. Uncleaned Burmah, two-htths To
three -tifths Paddy, balance inner cuticle
! thereon, which should be rated at | cent less
| than cleaned.
| The Wilson Bill places the duty on cleaned
rice at ! and oue-halt cents per pound Our
suggestions as to duty on the three forms of
uncleaned are made relative to this | and one.
half cent on cleaned although we would
cheerfully favor retention Of present duty on
cleaned. j. G. at ? cents per pound. All that
is asked is that at whatever point cleaned
is placed, other styles of rice shalt be subject
to a relative duty. If this is not fair and
equitable we do not know what is.
The Inference suggested places the uu-
! cleaned in fair relation to the clean as by the
time the uncleaned is ready for market it
would cost as much as that imported IN the
| cleaned state plus The duty on clean. That
this may more plainly appear, we state the
average loss on Bengal or Patna is II per
cent Japan 20 per cent; Burmah 40 per cent.
1t should be remembered the broken and
meal sells at less than original cost and by so
much adds to the final cost of the cleaned.
In other words, equal protection is assured
to the home product in either instance, but
by the just discrimination asked for. the
milling can be done in the United States.
We have always been stout supporters OF
a tariff on rice and begun our work shortly
after the war when, in opposition to other
importers North AID without assistance from
any Southerner, we Influenced the retention
of the War-duty in order that the culture
might bU more quickly re-established and
from that time on have always been on the
side of the home product, resisting reductions.
What We now ask Is just and by any fair
spirit of reciprocatioE are entitled to CO
operation at the hands Of every Southern rice
grower for. we have befriended the rice cul
ture through evil and through good report.
Truly Yours.
Dan TALMAGE's Sons.
L. S. That friends may see the various
styles of uncleaued above referred to, we
send samples of sam by express to you.