The Dalles times-mountaineer. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1882-1904, 1897-05-29
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

Senator Cannon, of Utah, has struck
upon an idea for creating prosperity
that is vastly more practica 5le than
many of the theories advadced by
some of the more radical protectionists.
and has offered the following amend
ment to the tariff bill now before the
senate:
"On and after go days from the pas
sage of this act there shall be paid out
of any moneys in the treasury not
otherwise appropriated, to any ex-
porter of wheat, or wheat flour, rye
-four, corn ground or unground, cotton,
hops, or tobacco, produced wholly in
the United States, and exported by sea
from any port in the United States, to
any port of any other country, the fol-
lowing export bounty, by way of an
equalization to agriculture of the
benefits of this act, to encourage the
industries of the United States, to-wit:
"Ten cents per bushel on wheat, 80
cents per barrel on wheat flour, 10
cents per bushel on rye. SO cents per
barrel on rye flour, cents per bushel
on corn. 10 cents per GENITAL on corn
ground, cent per pound on cotton, 2
cents per pound on tobacco"
While there is little probability of
this amendment being seriously con-
sidered by the senate, still is directly
in line with the theory of protection.
That'is. taxing the many for the bene-
fit of the few. and would be more eff
fective in creating general prosperity
among the masses than all the pro-
teo5iye duties levied upon manu-
factured articles.
The system of bounties is pernicious,
but If we are to have a paternal form
of government, it would be vastly
better to extend beneficience to
those on whom the wealth of the
country depends-the farmers-than to
foster the Industries of those who are
not real producers, but finishers of raw
materials-the manufacturers. And
outside of the idea of revenue, the
bounty system is less Objectionable
than the system of protection. A pro-
tective tariff enables the producer of
protected commodities to collect from
the customer an amount equal to the
duty imposed by the government on
the imported article, while the bounty
system enables the producer to collect
from the government the amount of
the bounty on all exports, and at the
same time collect from the domestic
consumer an amount equal to the
bounty paid by the government. In
effect. the two systems are identical,
except the former causes revenue to
come into the bands of the govern
ment from duties collected on imports,
while the latter draws from the gov.
ernment, and at the same time levies
an additional burden upon the con-
sumer. For example: A protective
tariff on wool enables the wool grower
to charge an extra sum for his pro-
duct, and also causes revenue to be
derived from imports; but it does not
aid the wheat raiser, whose acres yield
more than is required for home con-
sumption. He must depend upon
what the foreigner will pay for the
surplus. and the price of what he sells
for. home consumption is governed by
this, but if, in addition to what the
foreigner pays, the government should
give him bounty on every bushel he
exports. that portion of his crop kept
for home consumption would sell for
the export price plus the bounty.
Such system, if put into operation,
would become burdensome to consum-
e's at once, but it would readily create
p 'osperity among the agriculturalists,
and they in turn would become larger
consumers of manufactured goods, thus
creating indirect prosperity among the
manufacturers The idea is more
easily defended than is protection to
manufactures, because it would di-
rectly benefit more people, still it is
indefensible, because it is a tax upon
the many for the benefit of the few.
But it is move in the right direction
for it proposes to benefit the real
wealth producers of the nation, those
upon whom all others depend not molly
for market but for support. II protec-
tion is just, so are bountie on agricul-
tural products, and of the two evils the
latter is the least.