The Washington bee., 1897-06-26

In a Dear MnEAGA-SAn lie KNFOfGekt
p only by Export Bounties oln Far
! Products-If He Cannot Gest The
u He Wants Absolute Free Tr4ssea
Is Senator Cannon, of Utah, ipt3-oduc,
ON Nav 25 an amendment to de tari
% bill which is likely to make trouble fl
e the republican leaders, and whi ch ma
% break down the whole protect.rs
tenn. The amendment fays +haInb;n
} scheme of paying eyo.+ horn+ies on
}. farm products. = ho-
;, inc pushed vi + MS scnenie - Nv" ~
's a.+thpr a Ia vsorously. not only by It's
d "u'noi "a Lubin, but also by the
srsn6 81 many states and by trades
ugand ministers. 1t makes its fight
aside the ranks of protection, and has
already opened more farmers eyes to
the follv of the system than all OF the
tariff reform work that has been done.
Senator Cannon told some plain
truths when introducing this amend
ment. He spoke in part as follows:
It was with great surprise, upon an
examination of the measure, that
found that the great class of our popula-
ton who have from the beginning not
only supported the protective tarl1f
party by their votes, but have supported
the protective tariff principle by their
industry from the beginning OF its OPP
Grafton, were in a large degree excluded
from any of it's benefits. 1t is, say,
to supply very patent omission from
| the measure as it now stands that the
amendment is proposed, and it will ioe
| advocated here until vote shall be had
| thereon.
The bill, as it is offered to-day. affords
no protection to agricultural staples.
There is remaining, 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
, prices arising from import duties upon
any of those commodities of which we
export our surplus, nor are there re-
manning at the present time in the
! school of protection very many men
who will contend and none who will
/ prove that the indirect protection af-
| forded to the farmer by the tariff on
manufactured goods is sufficient COM
pensation to him for the 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 the 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 l,
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 ap-
plication of an export bounty which
shall in measure give restitution to the
farmer for the higher prices which he
is compelled to pay in protected mar
kets.
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 a 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 man
ufacturer 10y the imposition Of an i'm
port duty.
A duty of 25 cents buShel upon
wheat is a delusion 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 pro-
ducer. The imposition of duty on
rye is of no value to the farmer OF the
United States. Every other protected
industry has a direct benefit from this
tariff, because where we do not produce
in the United States sufficient for ouI
own consumption and quantity con-
siderable in extent for export the i'm
port duty serves as a means whereby
| Soh viz p
to the local consumer.
The immediate benefit to the farmer
; derived from the treasury of the United
States would not be all. For this com
paratively small expenditure to him he
would receive for these staples more
than S225,OO0,000 in higher prices thar
he now receives. It is true that this
would increase the price of breadstuff:
to the consumers in the cities, but un
] der the declaration made here to-day
that with higher prices the people will
be more able to buy we will have 6
larger consumption of wheat and whea'
/ -four and other agricultural staples il
the cities of the country than we have
now at the low prices.
Mr.. Butler-Mr. President, the sen
ator from Utah said he was in favor o.
about $13, 5000, 900 export duty on whea
. at ten cents busheL If we pay an ex
port bounty of ten cents bushel, tina
) will raise the price of every bushel o
= wheat, whether exported or consumed
at home, that much, will it not?
Mr.. Cannon-Certainly it will.
Mr. Butler-Then, for an investmen