The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1897-04-21

|
o.fer:. assert here and now, and defy
contradiction. that 50 far as the bu,k Of the
cotton farmers are conccruc,l, the imposition
OF an import duty on cotton VIII not help
oac teu-thousaudth Of 1 cent. Ii would
ngt toUch the staple cotton producer n all.
| 1t would touch TO Z very small extent the
producer Of lower grade sea-islani cotton.
/; would touch directly only 4 small class,
engaged in producing the Intermediate
grades: and. as shall show presently. i!
would rot effect any rise of price 10 them, bat
ii il should re.u,t in an enhancement Of
price 10 those few, il would mean uSt so
much tax levied upon the growers of short
staple cotton, who compose the great bulk Of
our cotton farmers, for the benefit of those
| few. \ more
ABSURD CONTENTION
never cmacated from s sane and at the
Sar> time serious course But suppose, for
sake OF argument that 1t did raise the price
OF the home products ID cents. who will
| pay that additional - cents? Ii viii be
paid by the consumer Of the goods manutac-
! turel from that grade Of cotton. The great
mass of the cotton farmers will pay their
| sllITe "a lLlStI - - (SLNS NCI hOSIH III P4S-
portion as they use that grade OF goods: and
thus the great majority Of the cotton farm
e-s will be taxed for the benefit Of the very
few engagedin producing intermediate sta
pie. And yet this is the result of the boast
| ed business method oflaying a tariff.
But said above | would show that not
even the grower of cotton with which the
Egyptian product compete would he benefit
ed. Why, Mr. Chairman, even the average
farmer knows that the price Of cotton is fixed
in Liverpool. He has an object lesson on
this point each recurring season, burned IN
to his memory by hard experience.
The farmer in my section knows that this
is in obedience 10 an ineXorable law Of CON-
merce, that when any crop is produced in
| excess of the home demand, the surplus
must be sold, If at all, in the markets Of the
world; that this surplus will be sold at the
world price, and that the price Of the home
consumption will be regulated in the main
by the worlds price on the surplus. Ii IS
also well known that in fixing the world 5
price on cotton the entire production of all
countries and all climes in its relation to
J -robable demand has been considered.
The American crop, the Egyptian crop,
the Indian crop. the Chinese crop, the Peru
Wan crop-all are footed up and constitute
the world crop upon which world 5 price
is fixed in Liverpool, and not pound can
| be bought or sold anywhere in the world
that is not bought or sold upon the basis OF
the worlds price in Liverpool, less freight.
And it makes absolutely no difference
whether the ninety thousand bales imported
here last year were sold in the American
market or in the antipodes, the price would
be always and everywhere the Liverpool
price, less freight. How, then, can the pro-
posed import tax Of y cents help the price
to the grower Of The grades affected BY Egyp-
tian cotton? Is it not perfectly plain that
this is sheer pretense? 1t is a false pretense
upon its face even to the very small class OF
farmers affected BY it, in that it does not,
and can not, accomplish what it promises to
them; and if it did such benefit as is confer
red would be at the expense Of the great
majority Of cotton farmers along with those
who consume the goods manufactured from
this grade of cotton.
Can any further demonstration be neces-
| sary TO the unbiased mind? 1fcorroboratire
evidence Of history in collateral cases be de-
sired, it is ready 10 hand in the Statistical
Abstract issued by the Agricultural Depart
ment. The Mckinley Act placed tariff OF
Is cents per bushel on corn and % cents
per bushel on wheat, both Of them, Ike cot
| ton, raised largely in excess Of the home
consumption. The pretenSe was to compen-
safe the growers Of corn and wheat for the
/ burdens laid on the farmers Of the West for
| the benefit Of the protected industries ofthe
East. Did the import duty help the grow
| ers of corn and wheat? No. Although the
| production of both corn and wheat decreased
| for several years after that tax went into et-
feet, the price of corn went off from 4O.6
cents per bushel in 1891 to 25 5 cents in
1895. Similarly the price of wheat went
off from $50 cents per bushel in 1881 to
50.9 cents in 1895. 1t was . pretense and
fraud upon the Western farmer, in fact,
just as this will prove to the cotton farmer.
The price not only went down to the farmer
in spite of reduced production ard the pro-
tective tariff, but there was no revenue to
the government, as there never had been
any appreciable imports.
Hence, l repeat, if we listen to the seduct-
i've phraseology Of gentlemen who assure US
that it will be good business method to even
up our losses from the tariff robbery by join
ing the robbers and dividing the ''swag' let
us throw off all disguise, proclaim ourselves
protectionists, and openly demand something
substantial. Let US not sell out too cheap.
Let Us have some real benefit. What shall
it be? How shall the cotton farmer secure
bigger divide with the tariff robbers? That
is the business gu ;Stion. Will 1t be by de-
handing still higher import tax on cotton
say, ) cents, or cents or 10 cents? No;
it is supreme absurdity to expect any en-
hancement Of price to the producer from
tax on imports so long as the bulk of his
product is exported. Reason demonstrates
this by intallible proof. and experience veri-
fes the demonstration. There IS but one
possible way to benefit the producer Of an
export crop by any legislation, and that is
by bounty on exports or on home con-
sumption. think even our protectlonist
friends will hesitate long before committing
themselves TO the bounty iniquity again.
Now. Il our friends, the solicitous friends Of
the farmer, who profess to desire 10 compeA-
safe him by legislation for the unjust exac-
tons laid upon him by legislation, If these
friends sincerely desire to do something for
the cotton farmer, something worth the cot
Ton farmers while 10 consider, let them urge
q bounty on exports or on home consump-
ton. fthey are sincerely trying to help
the cotton farmer, and not talking merely |
for buncombe or 10 fool the farmer let them
offer him bounty, which is the only posi- |
bic way 20 reach the farmers present dis
tresS This is just as consistent as the doc
trine they now exploit. anl 1t is also just
as pernicious: bu, why take two bites az
cherry, even though rotten cherry: They
say Il protection is to be the policy Of the
government, then let Us 90 on in for our full !
share OF it by asking a >: cent import tax
on cotton. 1t is just as rational, just as
proper, to say, Since protection is to be the |
policy Of the government, give Us something
that will really bench; US: give us bounty.
Il is more unconstitutional to take the mon- |
ey out OF the treasury TO pay bounty 10 cot |
ton growers thar it IS 10 take money out Of