The record-union., 1895-11-16
BQUALIZING PROTECTION.
Address of David Lubin Before
the National Grange.
The Patrons of Husbandry Recon-
mend Mr.. Lubin's Proposition to
Congress-An Interesting Docu-
nlent.

at Its annual meeting heIQ IN w OrceSleI,
Mass, on November II, 1895, by David
lubin of Sacramento Cal:
Worthy Master and Fellow-Patrons:
BY resolution of California State Grange
at its last session, a committee OF three
was appointed to appear before the Ma
tIonal Grange and advocate the adop-
tion of resolutions indOrSing the propo-
sitiOn for equaliZing protection SeVeraI
other State Oranges have likewise ap-
pointed committees for the same purpose
AS one of the committeeman from can
fornia State Grange, it becomes my duty
to aid in presentation OF resolutions IN
dorsing this proposition for your consld-
Grafton and action.
In doing so l respectfully ask, as
matter of fairness and of established
parliamentary usage, that L be per
mitted to make the closing argument
before the final vote is taken. l desire to
emphasize the above request because
at the last annual meeting a similar re-
guest by Past Master Johnston of Cali
fornia was denied, and as result GER
tain statements highly prejudicial to
the Endorsement of the proposition Whlch
could have been replied to in a satls-
factory manner, We're left unanswered.
This, in my judgment, was the prln-
cipal reason why this proposition did not
receive the unanimous Endorsement OF
the National Grange last year. Where
ever the proposition was presented for
Endorsement, whether before subordl-
rate or State Oranges, before Alliances
or labor unions, or in mass meetings or
Eefore commercial bodies, my request
for the closing argument was uniformly
granted, not alone as a matter OF cOur-
teSy but as a right accorded, as was
said before, by parliamentary usage.
So essential is this point to the proper
presentation of this matter that I
70 Cic bara al her.
than again jeOpardiZe action on this
proposition by a refusal to permit a de-
Tense against objections which can per-
haps be readily overcome to the entire
Satifaction of the objector With the
understanding that I shall have the
right of making the closing argument
before the vote is taken on the resolu-
tions. shall proceed.
Before closing this Introductory, it is
deemed proper to state that the general
interest justifieS the belief that reports
of proceedings before this organization
on this proposition and copies of this
address will be in general demand. And
unless the National Grange gives con-
trary instructions, there will be 10000
copies of same printed and circulated.
In addition to this, a large portion of
the matter will be printed in some of the
journals of the country. One of the lead
ing daily journals of California has ap-
pOluSSu J4G SpSCldl COL1tSIOlluC14I LOA
that purpose.
Whatever differences of opinions may
exist in the minds of the delegates pres
ent there can be no disagreement as to
this, that this proposition is now gener-
ally known throughout the United
States. We can safely assert, for in
stance, that there can be but few pro-
ducers of agricultural staples in our
country who have not heard of it. Nor
are these the only people whose interest
has been awakened thereby, the ship
ping people manufacturers, CONNER
cial bodies, labor unions, politicians, the
lawmakers OF our country, all these
have given this matter more or less
thought
In addition to public presentation of
this proposition at meetings, there was
an eager demand for literature, which
took over 100000 pieces of printed
matter to supply. These scrapbooks
now on the desk, and from which QUO
tations may be made in the progress of
this presentation, form portion of sav-
eral similar volumes containing clip
pings of editorial criticisms and COM
mentS on this subject, from among the
principal journals of this and of foreign
countries.
From all this we may conclude that
general information and interchange of
thought has tended largely to correct
former erroneous ideas prevailing on
the subject. To such a degree is
this manifest that even some promi-
nent journalists no longer en-
ploy the arguments against this
proposition that they did a year
ago, as can be seen from the clippings
IN these books. At the start of this agi-
tation many honestly believed that a
tariff on imports could protect the home
market of a product produced in sur
plus quantity for export. Thev now un-
derStand that the foreign buyer will
Iay US no more for our surplus than
they can obtain the same from the
cheapest land and labor countries of the
world. They also understand that be-
cause the surplus and the greater
quantity for home use is sold in the
open market in public salesrooms. like
at auctions, where buyers for export
end for home use buy at the same time
and place, therefore both buy at the
same price the worlds free trade price
in direct competition with the cheapest
land and labor countries of the world.
All this is now generally understood,
therefore the former claim that a tariff
on imports can protect the home mar
kot of product produced in surplus
quantities, sold at the worlds auction
free trade prices. is no longer of any
value, except it be to confuse the most
stupid. In the past many others were
under the impression that, while a
tariff on imports could not directly pro-
tect the home market of agricultural
staples by reason of the export of its
surplus, that these products We're new
ertheless indirectly protected. by rea-
son of the protected wage rate, paid as
a result Of protection to other indus
tries, which high wage rate they
claimed caused greater consumption
hence steadier demand and higher
prices There are yet quite a number
who make this claim. There is, how
ever. no ground for this belief at all,
for, as the export price and the price
Tor home use is the same, it must follow
that before We can enhance the price
for home use we must first enhance the
export or worlds price.
AS soon as we do it is not the produc-
ers of agricultural staples in our
country who are benefited, but the pro-
ducers of India, Russia, Argentine. in
fact, the producers Of every country but
OUT own.
Any increase in price as the indirect
result OF our tariff system would be
clear gain to the producers in foreign
countries.
But, to the producers of agricultural
staples of our own country any such in
crease must. when balanced against the
cost of our present one-sided protection
system. be a grievous loss to them. IT
is like compelling these producers 10
pay a half-dollar for direct protection.
in order that they may have a chance 20
exchange 1t for a possible half-dirne
through indirect protection.
Even this once possible chance for in
BEST MADE Il
IS4S