The San Francisco call., 1897-01-06
HOME INDUSTRIES
SEEK PRO lection
Ways and Means Com
mittee Listens to Many
Grievances.
Congressman B-wers Pleads the
Cause of the California
Fruit-GroWer.
Shows How $I6,ooo,ooo Sent Abroad
Annually Could B, Kept in
the Country.

seventh days session of the Ways and
| Means Committee found the rooms well
filled with those interested in the agricul-
tural schedule, including live animals,
dairy products, fruits, fish, meats, etc.
w. H. Rockwell of Warren, Pa, en-
gagged in raising, feeding and fattening
cattle in Kansas and Mexico, was the tirst
speaker. He said that under the McKin-
ley law cattle could not be imported from
| Mexico, as the tariff was prohibtive. He
had started business in Arizona in 1893,
but on account of the dry season was
forced to go TO Mexico. The Kansas
farmer, he said, was greatly benefited by
the bringing of cattle from Mexico TO
Kansas, where they were kept from six to
eighteen months Last year the cattle
men paid $4,000 to the Kansas farmers
for grain alone. and his year the amount
would be over $40, COO Much was also
paid the farmers for their labor, and it
was more profitable to tie farmer than
raising cattle themselves.
NJ. L. Sherman of Salina, Kans., also
engaged in the cattle basiness, said that
tho trade was almost entirely in the hands
of Americans and that two-thirds of the
cattle coming FROM Mexico were owned by
| Americans.
| Representative Curtis of Kansas asked
for duty of $40 per head on cattle for one
year. The Kansas raisers and feeders, he
said, were injured and not benefited by
the importation of Mexican cattle. 1t
prevented them from raising stock them
selves.
Representative Bowers of California
then took up the matter on which he ap-
| peared-the fruit trade. 1t was, he said,
| in the interest OF all, the raiser and pro-
ducer to raise the present rates on fruit.
! The law now affords no protection to the
| growers and does not yield any revenue to
speak Of
1t was suggested by member of the
| committee that an increase in duty would
raise the price. Mr.. Bowers replied that
| it would not. On the contrary, the fruit
growers of his State would guarantee to
increase production and decrease prices.
| On raisins prunes, plums and all dried
fruits he asked duty of 3 cents per pound.
| This would in ure Americans a market
| and stimulate the industry. On oranges
he requested a duty of 25 cents per cubic
/ foot. If the fruit t-growers were given fair
protection some S16000,000 which was
yearly sent abroad for fruit, would be kept
| at home.
Senator Perkins of California presented
the memorial of the f:uit-growers OF Cali
tornia requiring the du,ies mentioned by
Mr.. Bowers. He also Endorsed what his
colleague had said.
T. B. Armstrong of California, who was
speaking tor the almond-growers, said
that they had almost been ruined by the
present law. He asked for an increase in
the duty from 8 to cents per pound. with
10 cents on shell-d almonds. Some $10,-
900. 900 or $15 0G0. 600. he said, was invested.
Davis Lubin of California requested an
export duty on all agricultural prodacts.
A. j. Wedderburn, representing the
State Grange of Virginia, appealed for an
export bounty on agricultural products.
E. N. Loomis, representing the produce
merchants of New York City, asked for a
low duty on early vegetables especially
potatoes and onions. Replying to ques-
ton, he said that the admission OF these
products would not damage the trade Of
California or the Southern States.
Representative Russell of Connecticut
presented the petition of the seed farmers
of southern New England, advocating
specific duty according to the following
schedule:
Five cents per pound on all turnip, rape
spinach, parsley, beet and mang gold; Is cents
per pound on celery. lettuce, enoive; 20 cents
per pound on cabbage, kale,, onion satisfy,
| tomato; 20 cents per bushel on peas and
beans; 40 cents per pound on kohlrabi so
cents per pound on caulifiower; all seeds not
| enumerated, 60 per cert ad vaorem.
A committee. composed of Burnet
Landreth, w. F. Greer and w. A. Burpee,
all of Philadelphia, appeared in behalf of
the seed farmers, seed importers and
laborers. Mr.. Landreth urged a specific
duty levied on the busheI or pound and
an increase In the rates on garden seeds.
He sugg ested the following schedule:
Five cents per pound oD all seed of table
beets sugar beets, kale, leek, lettuce, mangel-
| wurzel, parsley, radish, rutabaga rape spin
ach, turnip, and on all vegetable seeds not
otherwise provided for; 10 cents per pound on
| all seeds OF carrot, celery, onion and satisfy !;
20 cents per pound on all seeds of cabbage
caulifiower and tomato; Is cents per bushel of
| sixty pounds on potatoes; 40 cents per bushel
OF sixty pounds on all beans and peas; 20 per
cent on all flower seeds; So per 1000 packets
on seeds OF every kind in packets; the free to
include mushroom spawn, aromatic seeds pot
herbs, medicinal seeds, castor beans, cotton,
canary, clover hemp, tree, tobacco, mustard,
flax poppy, sorghum and grass, and Oil seeds
and yetches.
Representative D. F. Wilber of New
| York presented the petition of the Ma
tional Hay Association requesting duty
of 81 per ton on hay. He also spoke for
the hop farmers of New York, who, he
said, since the German Wilson bill be-
| came law, WHICH reduced the DUTY on
hops from Is cents to 8 cents per pound,
had been forced to sell their product for
less than the cost OF production.
At the request of Representative Sher-
ham of New York the testimony relating
to hops taken when the Mckinley bill was
in preparation was ordered printed as a
part of to-day's proceedings.
T. J. Baker of Charleston, s. c., and f.
G. Ernst of New Orleans, on behalf of the
rice growers, asked for protective duty
on this product.
A. ]. Toomey of New York asked for
duty of 2 cents per pound on macaroni,
TO make up in part the difference in labor
between the United States and abroad.
F. Woodruff of Brooklyn opposed any
change IN the salt schedule of the present
law.
E. w Brown of New FORK, representing re
the salt manufacturers of the United
States, suggested the re-enactment of the
| Mckinley law provisions regarding salt.
W. A. Hadley of Boston held that a
duty on torelgn salt was entirely unnec-
essary.
r. r. Backer spoke for the Michigan
saltmakers, many of whose mills had
been com mpelled to close down on account
of the low price Of that article. He wished
the salt clause of the Mckinley law re-
enacted.
c. III. McKue of Boston spoke for the
fishermen OF the United States He asked
for an increase of three fourths of a cent
per pound in the duty on mackerel one
fourth OF cent on cod and new clause