The McCook tribune. (McCook, Neb.) 1886-1936, 1895-09-13

lHeIe CAN De no as
to the position occupied by the leading
men Of all parties, in the earlier days
OF the republic, toward protection for
domestic agricultural products. What
ever differences of opinion may have
arisen-too often shaded by words and
mere theory-on the subject % protec-
ton for domestic manufactures, On the
question of adequate encouragement of
agriculture they were substantially
agreed at all times. The Democracy
OF the north never wavered in its eff
fort to care for wool and grain, for rice,
sugar, hemp, indigo and cotton, all of
which it has been our policy to protect.
How, then, can it be said that protec-
ton is vicious? The south would have
been beggared without the protection
given it on tobacco, rice and sugar, and
at an earlier period on cotton.
What will the friends of a tariff
for revenue only" do when they ap-
proach the early and subsequent periods
in our history which are so replete with
evidences of the object of legislation
to encourage and protect the products
of agriculture. Those duties we're not
laid for revenue, but solely to foster,
encourage and protect the specific az
ticles on which duties were laid. The
cause of agriculture was hen with us
as it had ever been throughout ancient
and modern history-a subject of our
constant care and solicitude, and it
uoc mot o11or-ol n c,,ffo, ooo,, - 49,
anxiety which was felt for cheap raw
materials for our manufacturing indus
tries.
The discussion pending the framing
of our first tariff law in 1889 leaves
no possible doubt as to the primary
object of laying duties on products
which we either produced, or hoped to
produce, On our own soil. The duty
on cotton of three cents a pound was
suggested by Mr.. Burke of South Caro-
lima. The duty on hemp was suggested
by Mr.. Moore of Kentucky and several
others. The duty on ale, beer and por-
ter was supported, in aid of hop and
barley growing, by Mr.. Madison. The
duties on talloW, cheese and indigo
were all laid to encourage agriculture
and not 'for revenue only" Tobacco
leaf came in for protection in 1892, al
though we were then large exporters
Of it. Wheat was put in our tariff laws
in 1924, corn in 1912, rice in 1916. On
sugar there was a duty for revenue only
at the outset. 1t did not reach the pro- |
lection point until 1916, when the three
cents then given brown sugar was |
equivalent to a half cent of protec-
ton.
This policy gradually grew until it
has practically embraced all our agri-
cultural products that are liable to be
interfered with by importations, and
the basis of these duties is protection
and encouragement for our farmers as
against foreign products of like kind.
That this was the object of these duties
was not openly expressed by their au-
thors, but as late as 1871 Hon. Lewis
McLaEe of DelaWare-Who had been a
member of the house for ten years,
secretary OF the treasury under Jack
and a severe Jackson Democat-in
making an able argument in the senate
in favor of encouraging home indus
tries and abiding to the cause of agri-
culture, said:
Our duties upon the agricultural
products Of foreign countries were not
for purposes of revenue, but
for the protection Of u agricultural
industries. And although gentlemen
may be disposed to regard these regula-
tons lightly now, because of the pecu-
liar condition of foreign countries here
they are, nevertheless, indica-
tive Of the sense we entertain of our
true policy.