The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1897-06-15
: EXPORT .BoUNTIES.
SENATOR eAhtfafa fahlrlhi5RopucEs tu-
BINS SCHEME TO HELP FARMERS.

Opponcnts-Preseut Protection IL One
Sided and Robs the Farmor-He Now
Sells In Cheap and Buys In . Dear
darket-Can Be Protected Only by Ex
port Bounties on Farm Produots-u He
Cannot Get These He Wants Absoiut'
FREQ Trade.
Senator Cannon Of Utah introduced
ON May 90 ON amendment to the tariff
bill which Is likely to mako trouble fo'
the Republican leaders and which may
break down the whole protective sye'
tem. The amendmont favurs tho Lubiu
scheme of paying export bounties. on
farm products. This scheme Is now be-
ing pushed vigorously, not only by ite
author, David Eubin, but also by. the
oranges Of many states and by tredct
unions and ministers II makes Its fight
inside the ranks of protection and hos
already opened moro farmers eyes Il
the folly Of the system than oil 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 an ex-
animation of the measure, that I found
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 tho pro-
tective tariff principle by their industry
from the beginning of its operation,
were In large degree excluded from
any of its benefits. 1t Is, say. to sup
ply q very patent omission from the
measure as 1t now stands that the
amendment Is proposed and will be ad-
vocated here until vote shall be bad
thereon.
The bill as 1t 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-
manning 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 oompensa-
tion 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 10 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 we'll knows
that tho farmer will not, much longer
bear this burden. ,,.
There arc three remedies possible.
Tho second remedy. and one which ],
as q believer in protection, would bo
ready to accept rnthor than to hold to
and vote for an inequitable bill, would
be absolute free trade, by which the
farmer might buy AZ cheupiy. as he Is
compelled to sell, and that remedy this
congress will not seek to enforce. There
remains, then, but tho 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 bnsed upon tho 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
1t 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 bushel upon
wheat is delusion and snare. The
farmer of the United States gets no ben
oft from It, Tho imposition OF duty upon
cotton, If that were attempted, would
DO Of no value TO tho cotton producer.
The imposition Of duty on rye is Of no
value to the farmer of the United States.
Every other protected industry has q
direct benefit from this tariff, because
where we do not produce In the United
States sufficient for our own consump-
tion and quantity considerable in ex-
tent for export the import duty serves
as q means whereby the local producer
can enhance the price 10 the local con-
sumer. f.
The immediate benefit 20 the farmer
derived from the treasury OF the Unitod
States would not be all For this COM
paratively small expenditure to him be
would receive for these staples moro
than sees, 600, 900 In higher prices than
he now receives IL 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 tho sena-
lor from Utah said no wss In favor Of
about $18. 900, 900 export duty on wheat
at 10 cents busbel. II we pay an ex-
port bounty Of 10 cents q bushei, that
will raise tho price Of every bushel OF
wheat, whether exported or consumed
ut home. that much, will'it not?
Mr.. Cannon-Certainly it will.
Mr.. Butler-Then, for an investment
Of $4,000. 900. which the government
would pay out III the shape of an export
bounty, the wheat farmers Of the coun-
Try would get their protection Of &c.,
300, 900 or $40, 900, 900. would they
not?
Mr.. Cannon--They would, IL there
oe any truth IN the protective principle.
~ /