The San Francisco call., 1896-02-13
Master Of the State Grange an
Eager Listener to the
Discussion.
THE ISSUE SWAPS THE NATION
0verpr reduction, Improved Machinery
and Cheap Transportation
Cause Low Prices,

| %.
12.-The preliminary discussion of the
Lubin proposition took place before the
Economic Seminary yesterday afternoon.
Professor Ross introduced Mr.. Greer,
master OF the Grange of California, who
opened his remarks with the statement
| that he came to hear the discussion as
representative of the farmers of California.
The farmers, he said, had taken great in
terest in proposition which seemed to be
| method for equitably adjusting relations
between the manufacturer and the farmer.
One hour and ten minutes was allowed
to each side. The speakers against the
proposition were Messrs. A. NJ. Cathcart
| and ]. M. Ross. The question was: "Re-
| solved, That, assuming protection to be
the policy of this country, it is Just and
expedient that ompensatory bounty be
paid on export of staple products
Mr.. Lubin stated that he did not claim
to be an orator, but he wished to convince
by the plain statement of fact.
He had addressed large number of
citizens in San Francisco on the question
where vote was taken on the question
after speech by John P. Irish, with the
usual result after one of that orators
efforts. He wanted no vote at Stanford,
but he wanted silent conviction to be
burned into the heart of each of his au-
ditors on a question that swayed the
Nation.
The speaker stated that Mr. Greer had
issued directions to each of the Grange
organizations of California to sent petit
tions to Congressional representatives to
support bill No. 1926. This would have its
result.
"Tte question is not one of free trade or
protection, but it is assumed" said the
speaker, "by the debaters that this is the
question. The question is to be considered
from an equitable standpoint. So long as
protective system is in operation, pre-
venting the entry of cheaper goods,
whether that system has or has not ac-
complished this, whether free. trade is
good or not is not the question.
"The question is, Assuming protection
to be the policy of the Nation, is it just
to refuse protection to the producers of
staple articles by an export bounty?'
]. M. Ross, '97, was the first speaker
against the proposition. He called atten-
ton to the terms 'just, equitable, )" ''ex-
pedient," and explaining their meaning,
he continued:
"The falling in agricultural prices has
been much overdrawn. Ali productions,
agricultural and otherwise, have fallen
together, due to improved machinery, i'm
proved transportation and other causes.
Until it can be shown that the farmer has
been injured by the tariff it is unnecessary
to demand that he be protected therefrom
by bounty.
lover production for export is itself
largely to blame for the fall In prices of
agricultural stables. The proposal is un-
just to the taxpayer, on whom another
tax is laid by the proposed bounty. The
farmer cannot have his wheat protected
from the Russian and Indian product even
by the paternal efforts of Government
bounty. The export price will govern the
home price, and as only one-tenth of the
cereal production is exported the nine
tenths at home must be paid for by con-
sumers at the increased rate.
cit would be a class legislation, capable
of being made use OF in political corrup-
ton. The bounty system has been found
to be source of great corruption.
''The granting of the proposed bounty,
it has been shown, would be unjust, first.
because the farmers have not borne the
weight of those burdens tend to increase;
third, because the farmer have no especial
claim to compensation, since his troubles
do not originate in the tariff, and, fourth,
because the bounty would be an inexcus-
able tax upon other unprotected classes"
Mr.. Lubin then rose to refute the argu-
ments of Mr.. Rose.
1--WE do not take into consideration, he
said, "the rise or the fall in cereals. The
question is that if half the producers
or manufacturers are protected, the other
half-the farmers, the agricultural pro-
ducers-must in equity and justice be
protected. The little brown man, so small
and contemplate now, will in time be-
come the master of the so-called mon
archy Anglo-Saxon, if he is given a
chance. When agriculture is killed you
kill the republic.
Mr.. A. M. Cathcart, '96, said the bounty
would mean the appropriation of public
| money for class. No matter how small
the scheme is inequitable, He cited bounty
export schemes of England, showing that
prices fell after going into operation in
| stead of rising, and cited tables showing
what small portion of the cereal produc-
| ton was exported.
He argued that an export bounty would
increase exports, but the price of staples
would fall; that is. the world price would
ultimately become less. The bounty
| would not create any new wealth-what
the farmer might gain the public would
lose-while the loss of National wealth
distributed on account of the bounty
throughout the worId) would be an un-
necessary, unjust loss to farmers as we'll as
! others.
In closing, Mr.. Lubin showed that the
English bounty probably failed because
the bounty was paid only in case the prod.
ucts were transported on English vessels.
The sugar bounty was cited as an example
OF bounty which had done great benefit
in Germany. The price of sugar had fallen
on account of the opening OF new fields in
France, Austria, the. United States and
elsewhere.
Mr. Lubin himself now brought ont q
collection of pamphlets and from, tba,r