The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-08-10

PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURE.
There can be no misunderstanding as
to the position occupied by the leading
men of all parties, in the earlier days OF
the Republic, toward protection for do
nestle agricultural products. Whatever
differences OF opinion may have arisen
too often shaded by words and mere
theory on the subject OF protection for
domestic manufactures, on the question
OF adequate encouragement OF agricul-
ture, they were substantially agreed at
ali times. The Democracy of the North
never wavered in it's effort 10 care for
wool and grain, for rice, sugar, tobacco
hemp, indigo and cotton, all of which it
has been our policy to protect. The
South would have been beggared with
out the protection given it On tobacco,
rice and sugar, and. at an earlier period,
on cotton.
revenue only" do when they approach
the early and subsequent periods in our
history which are SO full of evidences of
the object of legislation to encourage
and protect the products of agriculture?
Those duties were not laid for revenue,
but solely to foster, encourage and pro-
tect the specific articles on with duties
were laid. The cause of agriculture was
then with us-as 1t had ever been
throughout ancient and modern history
"a subject of our constant care and So
licitude and it was not allowed to suffer
because OF the anxiety which was felt for
cheap raw material for our manufactur-
ing industries.
The discussion pending the framing of
our first tariff law in 1859 leaves NO pos
sible 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 Ir. BURKE of
South Carolina. The duty on hemp was
suggested by Mr.. MOORE of Kentucky
and several others. The duty on ale, beer
and porter was supported, in aid of hop
and barley growing, by Mr.. MADISON.
The duty on tallow, cheese and indigo
were all laid to encourage agriculture and
not "for revenue only.' Tobacco leaf
came in for protection in 1882, although
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 duty for revenue only at the outset.
1t did not reach the protection point un-
til 1915, when the three cents then given
brown sugar was equivalent to half
cent OF protection.
This policy gradually grew until it has
practically embraced all our agricultural
products that are liable TO be interferred
with by importations, and the basis Of
these duties is protection and encourage
ment for our farmers as against for
eign products OF like kind.
That this was the object of these duties
was not only openly EXPIRE sed by their
authors, but as late as 1S4I Hon. LEWIS
MCLANE of Delaware-who had been a
member Of the House for 10 years, secre-
tary OF the Treasury under JACKSON, and
severe Jackson Democrat-in making an
able argument In the Senate in favor of
encouraging home industries and allud-
ing to the cause of agriculture, said
sour duties upon the agricultural pro-
ducts of foreign countries were not i'm
posed for purposes OF revenue, but for
the protection of our agricultural indus
tries. And although gentlemen may be
disposed to regard these regulations
lightly now, because of the peculiar con-
dition OF foreign countries heretofore.
they are, nevertheless, indicative OF the
sense we entertain OF our true policy.n