The Saint Paul globe., 1897-05-27

One IdllS 10 see, even dIlCl IilC hAiOoS
diligent study Of the matter, why the
amendment to the senate bill proposed
by Mr. Cannon, Of Utah, should be sent
out labeled as a device Of the silver
men. One fails, likewise, TO understand
why Eastern Republicans, who are
rabid protectionists, should object to
this proposition, that aims only to
make the protective principle bear with
more equality upon all classes in CIR
population. Mr.. Cannon points cut
that. if the idea of protection is to
guard the interests of the laboring
men of this country, then these who
work upon the soil have quite as good
g right to the solicitude IF legislators
as those who work in the mine or tine
factory. Heretofore, even il protection
had done what it intended to do, its
benefits would not haYe been -, dis
tributed equally, as its burdens are.
The tax levied upon imports. for pro-
tective purposes is borne by all the rco-
pie who use the taxed commodities.
Surely, if there is any good to be got
out Of it, all the people sho I'D nave
share.
In all such legislation the .farm=r is
the only man who has IL pay his score
without getting anything in return. He
has justified the slang use Of the -are
of his occupation, which makes the
farrr 70,
does a thing blunderingly and witbc ut
regard to his own interest. NoW a1l
that Is suggested in the amendment
that Mr.. Cannon offers is, that earm
products should be placed upon feet
ing of equality, in the view Of !egis-
lative favoritism, with the products cf
the manufactory. That this canno. be
done by taxing them as imports, we all
know. Of agricultural products we
have a great surplus, and our imports
are nothing and our exports immense.
Therefore, the custom house Is impo.
tent to affect the farming Industry or
the price Of it's products. 1t is now pro-
posed by the Cannon men that, after
sixty days from the passage Of the new
tariff act, there shall be pail on al!
exports of the principal fruits of the
farm substantial cash bounty. This
is to range from 10 cents bushel on
wheat and rye to 2 cents a pound On
hops and tobacco.
1t introduces absolutely no new
principle Of legislation. The boun-
ty idea, which is identical with
the protective idea, is not a nov
city even in form. We pay bounties
to steamship lines under the name of
subsidies. Bounties have been paid out
of the United States treasury to the
growers of cane and the producers Of
maple sugar. Indeed, the idea Of bo-
nuslng fat industries by direct pay
ments from the treasury has grown so
fast with the advance of paternalism
that we may expect this practice to
eupersede, presently, the less direct
method of levying taxes on imports.
If the contents of the treasury are to
be distributed among the people, and
the government is to be turned into
vast machine for taking money out
of the pockets of some of the citizens in
order that 1t may be put into the pock-
cts of others, why should not the farm
er not only be included in the distri-
button, but why should he not be the
first recipient Of our bounty? If it is
Industry that we want to encourage,
the industry of the farmer is numeri-
cally the most important and economi-
eally the most valuable in the nation.
AS matter of justice, too, he takes
precedence, because the drop in the
prices OF farm products has been sud
den and severe, and the purchasing
power oe the crop has declined while
legislators were trying to make deare1,
all the commodities for which it must
be exchanged. The time has certainly
como to place the farmer among the
of a benevolent govern
Elent. Not one argument can be ad-
duceG In favor of protective duties on
! manufactured goods which does not
-applv with tenfold force IN honnties