Lancaster enterprise. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1891-1905, 1897-07-07
EXPORT BOUNTIES.
SENATOR CANNON INTRODUCES ~
BINS SCHEME TO HELP FARMERS.

sided and Eobs the Eariner-Hc Now
Sells Ia - Chca,, and I:uys IN "A Dear
IIari<ct-Can BE Protected Only by Ex-
port Bounties on INarm Iroducts-IT lie
Cannot Get These ne Wants Absolute
Free Trade.
Senator Cannon of Utah introduced
on May 25 AN amendment to the tariff
bill which is likely to mako trouble for
the Republican leaders and which may
break down the whole protective sys-
tenn. The amendment favors the Lubin
scheme of paying export bounties OH
farm products. This scheme is now be-
ing pushed vigorously, not only by its
author, David Lubin, but also by the
oranges of many states and by trades
unions and ministers. 1t makes its fight
inside the ranks of protection and has
already opened more farmers eyes to
the folly of the system than all of the
tariff reform work that has been done.
Senator Cannon told some plain truths
when introducing this amendment. He
spoke in part rs follows:
1t twas with great surprise, upon an ex-
animation of the measure. that | found
L
who have from the beginning not only
supported the protective tariff party by
their votes, but have supported the pro
tectivc tariff principle by their industry
from the beginning of its operation.
We're III large degree excluded from
any of its benefits 1t is, / say, to sup
ply very patent omission from the
measure rs it now stands that the
amendment is proposed and Will be ad-
vocatcd here until u vote shall la lpi
thereon.
The bill rs it is offered today affords
No protection to agricultural staples.
There is remaining, presume, no au-
vocatc of the protective tariff system
who will contend that in this hill, with
these import duties, th,To is afforded
any protection or benefit Of Increased
price arising from import duties upon
any of those commodities of which we
export our surplus, nor are there re-
manning ut tho present time III the
school of protection very many men
who will contend and none who will
prove that the indirect protection afford
ed To tho farmer 10y tine tariff uu man
ufacturcd goods is sufficient compensa-
upon him in carrying the protective
tariff system upon manufactured goods.
1t has become apparent To all thought
rdl observers, and certainly it is known
TO all who have any direct connection
with tho agricultural industry of the
United States, that the farmer cannot,
and the man who reads him we'll knows
that the farmer Will not, much longer
bear this burden.
There arc three remedies possible.
The second remedy, and ono which I,
as believer III protection, would tu
ready TO accept rather than TO hold to
and vote for an incquitablc bill, would
be absolute free trade. Ly which tho
farmer might buy as chcap!y as he il
compelled to sell, and that remedy thi,
congress Will not seek TO enforce There
remains, then, but the thirl--thc apuli-
cation Of an export bounty which shall
III u measure give restitution to the
farmer for the higher prices which n" Is
compelled to pay in protected markets.
No proposition based upon tho dccla-
ration of equal protection To all al. az
dustrics of the United States j. com
pletc, nor can there be successfully
made contention that it l. Just unless
1t gives 10 the exporter of agricultural
staples from the United states au equiv
alcnt benefit to that given to III. manu-
facturcr by the imposition of an import
duty.
a duty Of % cents u huShcl upuu
wheat Is d"lusiou and IA snare. The
farmer of the United States gotsm ben
eft from II. Tho irlruS!tign Uf ,uty uu0u