The record-union., 1894-08-18
AN ADMIRABLE PLATFORM. "
eae Of the PIanks Discussed al
Some Length.
Afr. Lubin Warmly Defends Ills Plan
for the Relief Of the
Farmers.

EDS. RECORD UNION: In your issue
of the 18th is en- article criticising the
action of the Republican State Conven-
ton for the adoption by it of plank 10
the Republican platform for Government
reduction in the cost Of transportation OF
staple agricultural products from Ameri-
can ssaports to foreign seaports. 1n q
former issue of yours Of August 9th,
wherein you also criticise this plank. you
say: "We regret our inability to agree
with our neighbor, and with this particu-
lar plank in the very admirable platform
OF the Republican party" Now. as
sveEy plank in the platform taccording to
your statement is admirable except this.
we will presently see just how admirable
your admirable is. Not to take up time
(for my space is limited). We will just
drop minor matters and take up the prin-
cipal one Of protection, and without
which Republican platform would ap-
pear as ridiculous as Prohibition plat
form without prohibition. As protection
Is the principal plank, 1t must be, accord
Ing 10 your definition, the most admlra-
bic. Now, then, to be admirable 1t ought
TO be just. and in an economic sense,
polite. and, from patriotic sense, IN the
Interest of our republic.
Now, can you conscientiously and hon.
estly give it as your deliberate conclu-
sion that protection as it is is just, polite
or patriotic2 Please answer. wish to
state right here that case Of imported
goods on which there is a duty OF $40,
going through the usual channels OF
trade, that is, importer, jobber and re-
taller. swells by additional profits from
ho Hr, l1or
but Tor the duty. You observe that a $50
duty does not mean $50 to the consumer,
but means S66 20, and not copper Of
this for goods, mind you. but for duty.
Now, please tell me who pays this duty !?
wish TO state right here, and challenge
anyone to refute it, that the only parties
who pay il in our country are the pro-
ducers of agricultural staples and the
foreigners residing here who are not IN
business and who have no investments
In the United States. AS the foreigners
under this class are but few, it follows
that the producers of agricultural staples
Ia our country pay the entire costs OF
protection, amounting to hundreds OF
millions of dollars every year. Every
workiugman receiving a - wage rate,
instead of the forty-cent day wage rate
OF Austria or Germany, obtains indi-
rectly the greater part of this S2 from the
producers of staple agriculture, because
producers form the only great Industry
in our country who are compelled to pay
for protection when buying and are fur
ther compelled 10 sell their products at
the worlds free-trade Liverpool prices,
with cost for transportation from place of
production to Liverpool deducted, and
that whether the product be exported or
sold for consumption TO protected
asighbor within stones throw from the
Fanoh.
Is it this system that ycu csll ''admira-
ble"2
Yes, there was a time when it was ad-
D3iYable, and that WAS the time when
staple agriculture had protection. Not
by tariff, for a tariff cannot protect an
industry whose product is sold in the
worlds open market, and a portion of
which is exported. Staple agriculture
was protected in our country when We
were almost the only exclusive users of
laboF-saving agricultural machinery.
EnglRnd's great desire for cheap food and
cheap raw material has changed condi-
tions wonderfully. She has placed labor
saving agricultural machinery IN the
hands of the cheapest field labor in the
world, and Russia has followed suit
The result is manifest. Our advantage
Ia cost of production is gone, perhaps
never to return, and we must now
awaken to the startling truth that the
lection to manufacture is gone. Shall we
then have free trader No, by no means,
for free trade first Of all could not be had,
because the majority do not want 1t, and
even if it could be had it would not be
desirable for the change TO be radical and
revolutionary.
Neither would tariff lowering prove a
permanent remedy, because a constant
yeerlng from extremes entails by lar
greater loss than gain. There is another
course, and that is in protecting staple
agriculture as well as manufacture, and
as the agricultural staples are exports,
they cannot be protected by a tariff. They
can, however, be protected by Govern
nent reduction in cost of transportation
from American seaports TO foreign sea-
ports, which, when done, will not only
enhance the quantity exported. but the
much greater quantity sold for home use.
Now, in your article of the 10th, you
seem to be under the impression that a
reduction in the cost of shipping would
tend to lower the rate IN place OF advanc-
ing it, and cite as authority Mr.. Fried
lander and Mr.. Montpelier. Neither
you nor your authorities have failed 10
make clear what you mean by reduc-
ton. Do you refsr TO a world redue~
ton, or do you simply mean reduction
in the United States If the former, you
are right, If the latter you are wrong. Is
not the cost OF transportation much
less from New York TO Liverpool? Is
not the price IN New York accordingly
higher? When wheat at 80 cents is just
about cost of production, did not wheat
growers make q profit of 90 cents per
buShel when wheat sold for 81 :? Why did
ii bring 81 /? Why did not competition cut
il down to IS cents? Because the sellers
here knew the Liverpool price as well as
those IN Liverpool, and TO arrive at the
home price all they did was 10 deduct the
cost for trans portation. But wheat did
come down. Yes. but not on account OF
lessening the cost of transportation in our
country, but because Of lessening of cost
OF transportation from the most depend
ent cheap-labor countries in the world,
and much greater factor in the reduc-
ton was the employment of labor-savlng
machinery in the hands OF the worlds
cheapest labor. We export but little TO
Argentine, England doing most Of it.
Yet within q period of twenty months
betweenn 1892 and 1898 we exported over
$1,000, 600 worth of agricultural machinery
to that country. If labor-saying ma
chinery in an Independent country like
ours could reduce prices, how much
lower can the reduction reach in the most
dependent countries in the world?
The degree OF reduction is manifest
but it was the persistence in the accept
ance of low price that compelled the
producers of our country TO accept It.
Briefly then a reduced cost for transpor-