The San Francisco call., 1895-11-15
PROTECTION FOR ALL,
That Is What David Lubin
Asked Of the National
Grange.
EXPORTS OF PRODUCTS.
An Interesting Argument Ably
Made and Backed by
Figures.
AN EXPORT BOUNTY ADVOCATED
Various Ways in Which the Growth of
Agricultural Staples Should Be
Encouraged.

tural products. Mr.. Lubin explained that
by a resolution OF the California State
Grange at its last session, a committee of
three was appointed to appear before the
National Grange and advocate the adop-
tion of resolutions indorsing the PROPOSE
ton for equalizing protection. Several
other State oranges have likewise ap-
pointed committees for the same purpose.
AS one of the committeeman from the
California State Grange, it became his
duty to aid in the presentation of resolu-
tions indorsing this proposition. Mr..
Lubin said:
Whatever differences OF opinions may exist
in the minds OF the delegates present, there
can be no disagreement as to this that this
proposition is now generally known through
out the United States. We can safely assert,
for instance, that there can be but few pro-
ducers of agricultural staples in our country
who have not heard of it. Nor are those the
only people whose interest has been awakened
thereby; the shipping people, manufacture rs,
commercial bodies, labor unions, politicians,
the lawmakers of our country, all these have
given this matter more or less thought.
In addition to the public presentation of this
proposition at meetings, there was an eager
demand Tor literature, which took over l ,00O,-
600 pieces OF printed matter to supply. Those
scrapbooks now on the desk, and from which
quotations may be made in the progress of this
presentation, form portion of several similar
volumes containing clipping of editorial criti-
cisms and comments 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 this subject. To such a
degree is this manifest that even some promi-
nent journalists no longer employ the argu-
ments against this proposition that they did g
year ago. as can be seen from the clippings in
these books. At the start of this agitation
many honestly believed that a tariff on i'm
ports could protect the home market of prod
uct produced in surplus quantity for ex.
port. They now understand that the foreign
buyer will pay US no more for our surplus
than they can obtain the same from the cheap
est land and labor countries OF the world
They also understand that because the sur
plus ana the greater quantity for home use is
sold in the open market in public salesrooms,
like at auctions. where buyers for export and
Tor 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, there
tore the former claim that a tariff on imports
can protect the home market OF product pro-
duced in surplus quantities, sold at the world $
auction free-trade price, is no longer of any
value, except it be to confuse the most stupid,
In the past many others ware under the i'm
preston that while tariff on imports could not
directly protect the home market of agricul-
tural staples by reason of the export of its sur
plus, that these products were nevertheless
indirectly protected by reason of the protected
wage rate paid as result of protection to
other industries, which high wage rate thev
claimed, caused greater consumption, hence
steadier demand and higher prices. There are
yet quite q number who make this claim
There is, however. no ground for this belief
at all, for as the export price and the price for
home use are the same it must follow that be-
fore we can enhance the price for home use
we must first enhance the export or world S
price.
As soon as we do it is not the producers of
agricultural staples in our country who are
benefited, but the producers of India, Russia,
Argentine, in fact the producers of every coun.
try but our 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 coun-
try any such increase must, when balanced
against the cost OF our present one-sded pro.
lection system, be grievous loss to them 1t
is like compelling these producers to pay half
dollar for direct protection in order that they
may have q chance to exchange it for posi-.
| bic half dime through indirect protection.
Even this once possible chance for indirect
protection is now gone. Increased production
by the cheap land and labor countries is now q
sufficient factor to Offset any increased con.
sumption as the result OF our protective tariff
on imports.
The producers of agricultural staples in our
country not alone gain nothing by indirect
protection but on the contrary they are yerv
heavy losers by it. This loss is so grossly un-
Just, so lnequitable, SO oppressive and of such
great magnitude as to be without parallel in
the economic history among civilized or I'M
civilized nations. 1t may be supposed that as
soon as the truth OF this injustice has been
made clear that there would be prompt gen.
eral effort on the part OF our political leaders
at rectificatfon, but the contrary is true
Among those who understand the truth are
to be found political leaders who prefer to
cater to the wish OF majority rather than TO
strive unselfishly for the good of the country.
There is, there can be, but one term for such
Ieaders-they are traitors to the Republic.
And yet under guise of patriotism, these men
shout loudly for protection--"for protection OF
American industries against the competition
of the pauper labor of the world" Under
guise OF this patriotism they help perpetuate
the most stupendous robbery in the world.
They help the majority to sacrifice the minor
ity-to literally eat the flesh and drink the
blood OF the producers of agricultural staples.
Here we have spectacle OF a greedy, selfish,
unjust, unpatriotic portion of the people OF
this Republic devouring the other half, and
that the better half too.
But" says Editor Grosvenor of the New
York Tribune, "you forget to take into consid-
Grafton that this very system has been in
operation in the United States for the past
thirty years. and that these have been the
most prosperous in its history Admitted.
What then? This: that for thirty years the
producers of agricultural staples have suffe red
under unjust laws, but that in spite of this,
and by reasons of certain world advantages,
they prospered
Ohlef among these advantages was the al
most exclusive use OF agricultural machinery
cneap and fertile lands and better transporta-
tion, all OF which almost gave the American
Prooucer OF agricultural staples monopoly
pIlee ana profit on his investment and labor.
ihese advantages are his no more, nor is it
lkely that they will ever be mis- again. Agri-
cultural machinery is now in the hands of the