The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1897-06-17

measure as it now stands that the
amendment is proposed and will be ad-
vocated here until vote shall be had
thereon.
The bill rs it is offered today 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
price arising from import duties upon
any of those commodities of which we
export our surplus, nor are there re-
naming at the present time in 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.
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 /,
as q 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 oheaply as he is
compelled to 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 measure give restitution to the
farmer for the 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 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 manu-.
facturer by the imposition of an import
duty.
A duty of 20 cents q bushel upon
wheat is 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 producer.
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 our own consump-
tion and a quantity considerable in ex-
tent for export the import duty serves
as q means whereby the local producer
can enhance the price to the local con-
sumer.
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, 900, 900 in higher prices than
he now receives. 1t 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 q
larger consumption of wheat and wheat
-four and other agricultural staples in
the cities of the country than we have
now at the low prices.
Mr.. Butler-Mr. President, the sena-
tor from Utah said he was in favor OF
about $13, 900, 900 export duty on wheat
at 10 cents bushel. If 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, that much, will it not?
Mr.. Cannon-Certainly it will.
Mr.. Butler-Then, for an investment
of $18, 900, which the government
would pay out in the shape of an export
bounty, the wheat farmers of the coun,
try would get their protection of $780,
600, 900 or $40, 100000, would they
nat?
Mr.. Cannon-They would, if there
be any truth in the protective principle,
Mr.. Butler-That would be very
good investment.
Mr.. Cannon--It would be a very good
investment if it were to be made in be-
half of any manufacturing industry o.
any trust in the United States, but any
thing in behalf of the farmer is looked
upon with scorn and is considered a
doubtful investment by the Legislature
of the United States,
In addition, Mr. President, it is a
very poor argument, when you have
been robbing some man for years and
he asks you for Justice, to say that you
propose to continue to rob him of more
and say that you do not know where
you are going to get the money witt
which TO restore that which you have
uprighteously taken 1t is the very first
duty of the congress of the United
States to provide a bill which shall no
only be honest in its present applica
ton, but which shall pay back som'
portion of that which has been takeI