Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1897-07-15

sided and Robs the Farmer-He Now
Sells In a Cheap and Buys In . Dear
Market-Can he Protected Only by Ex-
port Bounties ON Farm Products-If He
Cannot Get These He Wants Absolute
Free Trade.
Senator Cannon of Utah introduced
ON May 25 an amendment 10 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 beunties 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 trudes
unions and ministers. Il 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 ap ex-
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-
teetive tariff principle by their industry
from the beginning of its operation,
were in a large degree excluded from
any of its benefits. 1t is, / say, to sup
ply n very patent omission from the
measure as it now stands that the
amendment is proposed and will be adj
vOcated here until vote shall be had
thereon.
The bill as it is offered today affords
no protection to agricultural staples.
There is remaining, / presume, no ad-
vOcate of tho 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, nor are there re-
manning ut the, 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 the farmer by the tariff ON man
ufactured goods is sufficient compensa-
ton to him for the vast cost entailed
upon him in carrying the protective
tariff system upon manufactured goods.
It 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
A. A.
and the man who reads him well knows
that tho farmer will not, much longer
bear this burden.
There are three remedies possible
The second remedy, and one which !,
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 10 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 tine 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 il is Just, unless
it gives to the exporter of agricultural
staples from the United States an equiv
alcnt benefit to that given to the manu-.
facturer by the imposition Of an import
duty.
A duty of 90 cents bushel upon
wheat is delusion and snare. The
farmer of the United States gets no BEN
eft from il. Tho imposition of duty upon
cotton. II that were attempted, would
he OF no value TO the cotton producer.
The imposition Of a 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 i'm the United
States sufficient for our own consump
ton and quantity considerable in ex-
tent for export the import duty serves
rs means whereby the local producer
can enhance the price to the local con-
sumner
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 $225, 000. 900 in higher prices than
he now receives. Ii is true that this
would increase the price Of breadstuffs
to the consumers in the cities, but un-
der the declaration made here today
that with higher prices the people will
be more able to buy we will have a
larger consumption of wheat and wheat
flour and other agricultural staples in
the cities OF the country than we have
now ut the low prices.
MIR. Butler-Mr. President, the sena-
tor from Utah said ne was in favor of
about SIS, 200, 900 export duty ON wheat
nc 10 cents n bushel IL we pay an ex-
port bounty of 10 cents bushel, that
will raise the price Of every bushel of
wheat, whether exported or consumed
at home, Mat much, will it not?
Mr.. Caanon-Certainly il will.
Mr.. Butler-Then, for an investment
of $4,000. 600, which the government
would pay cut in the shape of an export
bounty, the wheat farmers Of the co.:.-
try would get their protection of $50, :.
600. 900 or so, 600. 900. would they
not?
Mr.. Cannon-They would, il there
be any truth in the protective principle
Mr.. Butler-That would be a very
good investment
Mr.. Cannon-It would be a very gooi
investments il il were e lie made IN he
half of any manufacturing inl.astry or
any trust in tne United states. het Any.
thing in behalf Of the flTntr is looked