The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1897-04-07
LET Us HAVE i SHARE.
CONTINUED ERoN FACE ONE

10 assume tQ2t tIGFe are no resi- invest
ments in agricuitucal pursuits, or
that AGRICULTURAL iaborers are 9 pro
due. OF Lae soil. and that the chief
mission o. both IS TO conserve the "a
terests Of manufacturers and money
I pom thase agricultural lands stand
the foundations of our Republic, and
| the people who cultivate them consti,
tute law-abiding, hard-working,
economizing, prudent and taxpaying
portion Of our citizens. whose rights
should be recognized and whose
wrongs must be remedied.
This bill discrin2inates against the
raw products OF the section which I
IN part represnt, and l shall under.
take to point out its inequalities and
demand fair play. In fact, this dis
elimination does not stop vita the
manufacturer Of the East, bUteXtends
to the products OF raw material in the
West. This condition IS the result no
doubt OF vigorous contest on tce
part OF the Western asricuituriSts for
reciprocity of these privileges, while
the South was made the victim De
cause of the demand on the
part of her representatives for free
raw materials In this respect the
South has been considered fair game
for the balance Of the country and
piundere6 as consequence at every
turn. | will cite a few hagrant IL.
stances Of this character. Oar navy
needed a coalins station in the Pacific
Ocean and one was secured in Hawaii.
Did our Government lay for it in
money No. indeed. I. simply gave
Hawaii the privilege ofimporting raw
products free into this country And
what were these products? Sugar,
rice. bananas. etc., all OF which were
produced only in the South.
To such an extent has this been
carried that Senator Sherman declared
we had paid $4,000, 900 for a misera-
bic little ccaling station; while the
late Senator Dolph stated that q fair
duty upon ali imports from Hawaii
would have paid Si2 FOR every acre OF
land in these islands. The South has
been asking for free raw materials,
and here IS case in point where its
request was granted loo, 900, 600
pounds of sugar and 5000, 900 pounds
OF rice came into this country last
year duty free from Hawaii. Does
anyone imagine that tenth part Of
this amount either in wheat, corn,
cloth or other manufactured articles
could have been imported IL this man
ner without loud protest from theEast
and West? The South in this instance
| was plundered the majority of its rep
resentatives advocated free raw ma
terial and were IL consequence barred
from making any objections.
RICE COMPARED WITH HAY.
I will take the Southern product Of
rice in this connection and compare It
with the Northern product Of nay and
potatoes. This country produced in
| 1895 297, 237, 370 bushels OF potatoes
and imported 127,976 bushels. It
produced the same year 47,07S, 541
ions of hay and imported 247, 1897
tons. The per cent OF imports on
productions is almost too small for
calculation, being about one-half OF /
per cent, In 1895 we produced 1885,.
665,44O pounds of rice and imported
219, 564, 320 pounds. In other words,
we imported so, $50, $50 pounds more
rice than was produced in the entice
South. We find potatoes protected
BY duty of 25 cents per bushel, and
hay 81 per ton, while Southern rice
receives but Il cents per pound. This
unequal per cent Of i'm mportation proves
concIusively want of reciprocity IN
tariff duties upon these products.
There are millions OF acres in the
South that will produce rice If It can
be made remunerative.
SUGAR AND CORN COMPARED.
Following out this idea I viii Gem
pare the sugar with the corn Of the
North and West. Under the present
bill corn is protected by duty OF IS
cents per bushel, and 20 per cent ad
valorem under the Wilson bill OF
1898.
In 1895 the corn crop amounted to
I1,212, 2,779,052 bushels with imports
amounting to 16, SIS bushels. One
small train load of corn would repre-
sent the total imports tor 1895. In
1894, with four hundred million more
corn produced, the imports were only
1000 bushels.
Comparatively speaking the imports
of corn amounted to nothing.
During the year 1895 there was pro.
ducad 729, 1926 pounds OF cane
sugar ard 81 SIT, ,076 gallous OF mo-
lasses. During that year 5, 574 5lO.-
454 pounds OF sugar and 15,075, ,Sl9
gallons OF molasses was imported.
The duty on sugar is 10 per
cent ad valorem, and on molssses
from 2 to cents per gallon.
In this case there was five times as
much sugar imported SIS produced, and
nearly one-half as much molasses.
Ishall not attempt to go into details
or bring forward any theories IN con-
nection with this comparison, but sim
ply say that there IS something rad
| cally wrong as this showing discloses
and the burden as usual falls upon the
South. When, on the one hand, we
ind no corn being imported, and Oh
the other more than score OF nations
sending their sugar to our shores the
conclusion must force itself upon
everyone that grave injustice IS De-
ing perpetrated. and fair reciprocity
does not exist. II raw sugar received
the same fostering care from the gov
ernnent as the manufacturers Of New
England it would require but a few
wears for the South 10 produce all the
sugar We consume. But the present
| bill bv means Of its difSarential duty
| largely favors the refners at the ex-
pense of the producers.
Mr.. Speaker, is it NOT time for some
representative from the Cotton States
to stand on the floor Of this House and
defend the interests OF the cotton
planter? Should not reciprocity OF
protection for his toll be demanded:
| Why should the wheat grower De pro,