The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-05
.LUB|N WILL co EAST
A General Movement for Pro-
lection to Agricultural
Staples.
HIS REPLY TO ONE CRITIC.
The Editor of the New York Marine
Journal Comes in for
Lesson.

The proposition OF 2. Lubin of Sacra-
mento for the protection to staple agri-
cultural products by an export bounty,
which has been Endorsed by the Boards OF
Trade of this City, Portland and Seattle, is
to be laid before commercial bodies in the
East In few days Mr.. Lubin will start
on his Journey toward the Atlantic, and
before his return to California will have
presented his views to the Chambers of
Commerce in all the large cities.
Already two Eastern journals have COM
mented at length on the proposition. Both
are shipping papers, one the Marine Jour
nal, published in New York, the other the
Seaboard. The interest of these papers
was melted by question from Mr.. Lubin
to link the question of subsidies to Ameri-
can vessels to bounty on exported agrl-
cultural products. The comment of the
Seaboard was favorable to the plan. On
the other hand, the Marine Journal came
out violently in opposition. In its issue OF
June 22 last it violently attacks the posi-
ton of Mr. Lubin. 1t has some very I'M
kind things to say personally, but the
members of the Chamber of Commerce of
San Francisco, who Endorsed the Lubln
plan, fail to see that the cause has been
weakened by the attack. Mr.. Lubin him
self has not been moved a particle. Said
Mr.. Lubin:
wish to remark that there is much of the
personal, therefore, of the irrelevant, inmate
rial and incompetent, in the editorial OF the
Marine Journal, which does not belong to sober
criticism. l shall endeavor to criticize such
portions of it as seem pertinent to the subject.
The editor says that:
''The Pacific Coast people who have under
+olya tn ind hp hQ q
their memories to become clouded in regard to
the history and tendency of our ship-building
industry; also uniformed on the subject of
protection for it, from National point of
This seems to be gratuitous insult to the
people of the Pacific Coast. We shall presently
observe that the Pacific Coast people. in their
Endorsement of this proposition, did not per
nit their memories to be clouded," nor were
they "uninformed on the subject of protection
for it," OF from National point OF view"
The Marine Journal says: at is not a matter
of evidence that our agricultural industry is in
need of any greater protection than 1t AT pres
ent receives directly or indirectly" That de-
pends. II the editor of the Marine Journal re-
fers to that kind and class of agricultural
products of which no surplus is produced, for
export, he is right; but if ne includes in this
the great agricultural staples of which we pro-
duce surplus, then he is wrong.
Ample and indisputable evidence is at hand
that we do export agricultural staples to for
eign countries. The evidence is also ample
pay the American exporter no more for his
surplus than this foreign buyer can procure
the same for from other foreign countries, Ar
gentine, Russia, India. Egypt and North
Africa for instance, or in other words, mas
much as England is the principal buyer of the
surplus agricultural staples, and as Liverpool
is the central market for this surplus it follows
that the worlds price of the surplus is the
Liverpool price less cost of transportation from
any place of production to Liverpool. The sur
plus is therefore sold at the world free-trade
n wi q q
land and labor countries of the world.
AS soon we accept the worlds free trade
Liverpool price for the surplus agricultural
products we must also accept the same price
for the greater quantity sold for home use.
Because this is so the entire volume of aGricult-
ural staples produced in our country las long
as there is a Surplus) must be sold at the
worlds free-trade prices in direct competition
with the cheapest land and labor countries of
the world.
That this is true must be evident to every
intelligent mind. Should the Marine Jour
nal still have doubts on this point refer him
to House of Representatives report 1899, Fifty
third Congress, third session. On page 80 is
the testimony of George F. Stone on
this proposition, ana who gave. it in his
official capacity as secretary OF the Chicago
Board OF Trade Trad and in h which I,, is the
single fraction of a cent more for single
bushel of wheat than the buyer for export
viii pay" If the Marine Journal is still in
doubt, let it take the article to the New York
wheat pit or to the Cotton Exchange, and upon
investigation it will learn that this is abso-
lutelv a tact That the Marine Journal did
not know this fact is evident from the long list
OF agricultural products and the duties upon
them which it quotes, showing ito its own sat
isfaction at least that because there was duty
on agricultural staples they must, therefore,
be protected, actually closing the alleged proof
by saying. "The farmer cannot claim that he
is not protected" Perhaps the Marine Jour
nal was in earnest; but it evidently did not
know it was in error.
Stranger yet, there were hundreds OF thou
sands of farmers who, until recently, knew no
more about protection of agricultural staples
than the Marine Journal. The issuance and
distribution of over 600 900 pieces of Otter
AZURE" on this subject has had the tendency of
opening the eyes of several hundred thousand
voting farmers, and many more eyes will be
opened as this work progresses.
Granting that the staples of agriculture.
being exports. cannot be protected by a tariff
on imports, the question remains: What ratio
to the volume OF total production are these
staples? The answer is: About equal 10 the
non-staple agricultural products and manu-
features combined; because in our country,
both these latter are chiefly sold at home and
are paid for with agricultural staples. More
than that, the latter industry exceeds the two
former combined in volume in proportion as
we export the staples OF agriculture almost en-
tirely in payment OF our imports.
Now, what happens If in country there be
two industries equal in volume, and one is pro-
tected and the other unprotected? Would it
not follow that the unprotected industry would
pay for the protection of the protected indus
try? VIII the Marine Journal please answer?
Should the Marine Journal dispute this, then
in that event it destroys its own argument in
support of bounty on shipping.
It cannot. however, dispute it, because it is
fact Being fact, let us sum up the case. We
find that shipping in the foreign trade. agri-
cultural staples, workingmen out of job and
foreigners temporarily residing in our country
and living on foreign incomes, are all unpro-
tected therefore, paying for the cost of protec-
ton of the protected industries.
We may now inquire, What is the cost of
protection? The protective tariff revenue
averages about 5000, 900 a year; add to
this 10 per cent, 20 per cent, % per cent re-
spectively for the importers jobbers' and re-
tailers' profits on the outlay of this protective
tariff and we have $345, 600, 900. How much
the enhancement, foot up on home manufac-
lures by reason of the protective tariff is not
known, but the difference in the wage rate and
in the enhancement on home manufactures,
which the protective high tariff permits, would
justify dou bling or trebling the $345 900 900.
Who is ii, then, that foots the bulk OF this
enormous enhancement? Can the Marine
Journal tell us +? Perhaps it is inclined TO say
American ships in the foreign carrying trade;
if it does, it is greatly mistaken.
The producers OF agricultural staples foot
almost the entire costs of the protective sys-
TEN, because all other unprotected interests
are collectively insignificant in volume when
compared to 1t.
But the Marine Journal tries to hop out of
the difficulty by broad claim that the home
manufacturer, by protection, can produce his
(the producer of agricultural staples) imple