The record-union., 1895-11-16

cultural staples. The development OF
the beet sugar industry in Germany,
France, Austria and Russia has cur
! tailed the demand for her sugar and
molasses, resulting in a material low
| ering of the worlds price for these
products. The maintenance of the pro-
| tective restrictions by Spain, and the
decline of the worlds price of her prod
uctS, both operating at the same Time
| have so diminished the purchasing
powers of the Cubans as to drive tHell
| into bankruptcy and revolution. EVERY
rieht-minded man, knowing these
facts. must sympathize with Cupa IN
her brave struggle for independence
| from this injustice and tyranny. Inc
| cause of the Cuban patriots is IN every
way as just as the cause OF the var OIL
| the Reyolution-the cause is the same
Now, let us mentally separate in TINS
| country the producers of agricultural
staples and their farms from the rest OF
the population by an imaginary inter-
vening body of water, and we can the
better realize the startling facts that
by our present faulty protective system
we treat as unjustly great ana I'M
portant body of our felloW-citiZens in
our midst as Spain does Cuba, as Eng
land did the Colonists before the War OF
the Revolution. That what has been
set forth above is true, no well-intormed
and fair-minded man will deny. Those
knowing it to be true, but who for partl-
san reasons deny it, may justly be
termed traitors to their country
Having already indicated the objec-
ton to free trade, and further on
pointed out the injustice and inequali-
ties of our present protective system,
we may now turn our attention to the
proposition of equaliZing protection by
t. payment of an export bounty on ag-
ricultural staples.
Inasmuch as the export and home
buyers buy at the same time, place and
iprice on the same calculation; therefore,
tie export bounty would not alone en-
hance the price of the quantity eX-
ported equal to the bounty paid, but
would also enhance the price to the same
degree of the much greater quantity for
| home use. This would do for the
staples of agriculture so long as they
are produced in surplus quantities for
export, what a protective tariff on i'm
ports cannot do. It would protect the
home market of this American in
dustry against the destructive compe-
tition of the cheapest land and labor
countries of the world.
To demonstrate that it would do this
is not a difficult task. We need only
bear in mind the several factors which
so to make the worlds price which the
producers in our country receive for
their product whether exported or for
home consumption and add to it the eX-
port bounty to be paid and we have the
sum of the protection of the home mar
lIet granted.
That many objections have been
offered against this proposition is true;
that any of them are valid is not true.
Space will only permit a review of the
more important:
First-"That an export duty is un-
constitutional"
SO it is, but this proposition does
not call for an export duty" it calls
for an export bounty" which is quite
a different matter.
Second-"That farm products are al
ready protected by the tariff on i'm
ports"
SO they are, but only such as we do
not produce a surplus of, leaving the
great and important body of producers
of agricultural staples unprotected.
Third-"That spectators would
combine and. 'gobble' up the export
bounty"
So they would, if they could; but as
the worlds price is known throughout
the world and the worlds spectators
bid against each other the export
bounty would go to the producer, un-
less there were a combination among
the worlds spectators, and if they
can do this when the export bounty
much now without the export bounty.
Fourth-"That foreign buyers will
not agree to pay us a higher price be
cause of the export bounty"
No. but it is not intended that they
should, for the export. bounty will
neither raise nor lower the foreign
price; it will only raise the home price
in our country.
Fifth-"That consumers will object
to pay for the protection of agricult-
ural staples"
BY what right, then, may the produc-
ers of agricultural staples be taxed
for the protection of those consumers
Sixth-''That there is no money in the
treasury for the payment of the eX-
port bounty
This is not true. The United States
Government collects annually about
So 900 900 through the operation of
the protective system. The producers
Of agricultural staples pay for the pro-
lection of other industries and receive
none in return. hence the protective
money in the treasury has been indi-
trectly contributed by them. Are they
not therefore entitled to a share of
their own contribution in order that it
may do for them in the form Of an eX-
port bounty what its collection as a
tariff on imports does for the pro-
tected interests?
protect all will protect none"
This is false. A system which pro-
tects A at the expense of 3 is unjust.
but to protect A and b in our country
against A and B in a foreign country
is equitable The gain under an equit-
able system of protection is in the
maintenance of a more just ratio of
CONDENSATION for labor than is possi-
BILE under free trade especially if in
other countries like products are pro-
duced by the same means of prOduc-
ton, and by an abundant supply of
efficient, yet yielding, nOn-aggressive
labor.
Eighth-'That if the sugar bounty is
unconstitutional, this export bounty
would be also
The sugar bounty in its scope and
operation is radically different. Ihe
sugar bounty is one Of production, and
is for the creation of a new enterprise;
but the export bounty on agricultural
staples is on the surplus for export
only. and is demanded as a measure of
Justice and equity SO long as the pro-
tective system is in operation.
Nhlth-''That it would prove as dis
astrous to this country as the export
bounty on sugar did to the European
countries"
These objectors lack broad and cor
rect information, and have perhaps
read a sided view on this important
matter. The export bounty on sugar
has done more for Germany than the
hundreds of millions of dollars which
she received as war indemnity from
France. Nor should it be overlooked
that an export bounty, paid to tue
sugar manufacturer in the form or re
bate on taxes, as in Germany, IS one
thing. TO paw direct export bounty on
agricultural staples is another. Beets
must be turned over to the manufact-
urer, who has the power to fix the price
and conditions of sale; wheat, cotton
t'iAN foicb.J