Evening journal., 1897-06-12
EXPORT BOUNTIES.
BENAToR CANNON INTRODUCES LU-
BINS SCHEME TO HELP FARMERS.

Sided and Robs the Farmer-He Now
Sells In Cheap and Buys In Dear
HIarket--Can Be Protected Only by Ex-
port Bounties on Farm Produets-If He
Cannot Get These lie Wants Absolute
Free Trade.
Senator Cannon Of Utah introduced
on May 25 an amendment to the tariff
bill which is likely to make 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 on
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 as follows:
1t was with great surprise, upon an ex-
animation Of the measure, that l found
that the great class Of our population
who have from the beginning not only
supported the protective tariff party by
their votes, but have supported the pro-
tective tariff principle by their industry
from the beginning Of its operation,
were in large degree excluded from
any Of its benefits. 1t is, l say, to sup
ply a very patent omission from the
measure as it now stands that the
amendment is proposed and will be adj
vocated here until a vote shall be had
thereon.
The bill as it is offered today affords
no protection to agricultural staples
There is remaining l presume, no ad.
vocate Of the protective tariff system
who will contend that In this bill, with
these import duties, there is afforded
any protection or benefit Of increased
price arising from import duties upon
any Of those commodities of which we
export our surplus, ncr are there re-
manning mt the present time in the
school Of protection very many men
who will contend and none who will
prove that the indirect protection afford
ed to the farmer by the tariff on man
ufactured goods is sufficient compensa-
tion to him for the vast cost entailed
upon him in carrying the protective
tariff system upon manufactured goods.
1t has become apparent to all thought
full 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 well knows
that the farmer will not, much longer
bear this burden.
There are three remedies possible
The second remedy, and one which J.,
as a believer in protection, would be
ready to accept rather than to hold to
and vote for an inequitable bill, would
be absolute free trade, by which the
farmer might buy as cheaply as he is
compelled to sell, and that remedy this
congress will not seek to enforce. There
remains, then, but the third-the appli-
cation of an export bounty which shall
in a measure give restitution to the
farmer for the higher prices which he is
compelled to pay in protected markets.
No proposition based upon the decla-
ration Of equal protection to all the in
dustries Of the United States is com
plete, nor can there be successfully
made contention that it is just unless
it gives to the exporter Of agricultural
staples from the United States an equiv
alent benefit to that given to the manu-
faoturer by the imposition of an import
duty.
A duty of 25 cents a bushel upon
wheat is q delasion and a snare. The
farmer Of the United States gets no ben.
eft from it. The imposition Of duty upon
cotton, if that were attempted, would
be of no value to the cotton producer.
The imposition Of a duty on rye is of nc
/ value to the farmer Of the United States
Every other protected industry has 3
direct benefit from this tariff, becaus,
where we do not produce in the United
States sufficient for our own consump
ton and a quantity considerable in ex
tent for export the import duty serves
as a means whereby the local producer
} can enhance the price to the local con
sumer.
. LUZ AL4LlNuANlt bNLNA4b " VIC AhA
/ derived from the treasury of the United
States would not be ALL For this com
paratively small expenditure to him HI
! would receive for these staples more
4 than 1925, 600, 900 in higher prices thar
I he now receives. 1t is true that thii
{ would increase the price of breadstuff
S to the consumers in the cities, but un
der the declaration made here today
that with higher prices the people vii
be more able to buy we will have {
larger consumption of wheat and whea
4 -four and other agricultural staples il
the cities of the country than we hay'
J now at the low prices.
e Mr.. Butler-Mr. President, the sena
tor from Utah said he was in favor o
q about $13, 600, coo export duty on whea
{ at 10 cents bushel. If we pay an ex
port bounty Of 10 cents a bushel, tina
S will raise the price Of every bushel o
v wheat, whether exported or consumed
at home, that much, will it not?
Mr.. Cannon-Certainly it will.
Mr.. Butler--Then, for an investmen
- of ST9 O0O O00 xvlioh tho Dovprnfnpn