The Meridional. (Abbeville, La.) 1856-1906, 1894-01-27
THE RICE QUESTION.
NEW YORK, Jan. 5.
DIONAL, Abbeyille, La.

Editor MER1DIoNAL, Abbeville, La.
DEAR SIR: There are those who
'never pay any attention to whaU
newspapers say" but we think it inn
portant, especially in case they fall into
error as their position in the commu-
nifty is great, exceeding that of the in
diVidual many thousand fold. Let US
say at the outset that we are charitable
enough to ''seC naught down in malice"
and believe that misrepresentation is
due to miscOnceptiOn based on faulty
information. First as to some few
things charged against ''the foreign
rice interests of New York" 1t is
stated:
"Unclean rice, which is nothing
"more nor less than clean rice mixed
with a little flour, is brushed in New
York and put on the market as clean
rice. 1t actually costs to brush the
rice but 1872 of a centper pound and
"yet the New York importers demand
"a difference in the tariff duty of fully
" I of a cent per pound in favor of un-
/" cleaned rice so-called."
There are three statements in the
above and each one false.
First. There never has been nor are
there imports made of "'clean rice
mixed with a little -four" (2) the cost
of milling the rice referred to greatly
exceeds 1872 of a cent per pound. (3)
the New York importers are not asking
difference in the tariff of duty of fully
4 of a cent per pound in favor of I'M
clean rice so-called."
So much in way ofgeneral correction
and now to 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
recognize three worldwide known
forms of uncleaned rice:
First. Uncleaned Bengal or Patna,
mealed state-inner cuticle partially
loosensd or removed, which should be
rated / cent less than cleaned.
I Second. Uncleaned Japan, inner
cuticle thereon, which should be rated
at Z of a cent less than cleaned.
Third. U~ncleaned Burmah, 2-5 to
3-5 Paddy, balance inner cuticle there
on, which should be rated at l cent
less than cleaned.
The Wilson bill places the duty on
cleaned rice at Il cent per pound. Our
suggestions as to duty on the three
forms of uncleaned are made relative
to this II cent on cleaned, although
we would %cheerfully favor retention of
present duty on cleaned, i. e. att cents
per pound. All that is asked is that
at whatever point cleaned is placed,
other styles of rice shall be subject to a
relative duty. If this is not fair and
equitable we do not know what is.
The difference suggested places the
uncleaned 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 OF 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 support
ers of a tariff on rice and began our
work shortly after the war, when in
opposition to other importers north
and without assistance from any
Southerner, we Influenced the retention
of the war duty in order that the cul-
ture might be more quickly reestab-
lished and from that time on have al
ways been on the side of the home
product, resisting reductions. What
we now ask is just and by any fair
spirit of re%ciproeation are entitled to
cooperation at the hands of every
Southern Rice grower for we have be-
friended the rice culture through evil
and through good report.
Truly yours,
DAN TALMAGE'S Sons.