The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1897-06-24
EXPORT BOUNTIES.
SENATOR CANNON INTRODUCES LU-
BINS SCHEME TO HELP FARMERS.

He Makes a Hot Speech and Floors All
Opponents-Present Protection Is One
Sided and Eobs the Tarmcr-He Now
Sells In n Cheap and Euys In Dear
Ma-kct-Can BE Protected Only by Ex-
port Bounties on Farm Products-If lie
Canno. Get These He Wants Absolute
Free Trade.
Senator Cannon Of Utah introduced
on MAY Ga an amendment to the tariff
bill which is likely to make trouble fer
the Republican leaders and which may
break down the whole protective sys-
tenn. The amendment favoss the Lubin
scheme Of paying export bounties on
farm products. This scheme is now be-
ing pushed vigorously, not cnly BY its
author, David Lubin, but also ny the
oranges of many states aud by trades
unions and ministers. 1t makes its fight
inside the ranks of protection and has
already opened more farmers eyes to
the folly Of the system than all 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:
Itwas with great surprise, upon an ex-
animation of the measure, that l 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 the pro-
tective tariff principle by their industry
from the beginning Of its operation,
were in a large degree excluded from
any of its benefits. 1t is, / say, to sup
ply a very patent omission from the
measure as it now stands that the
amendment is proposed and will be adj
vocated here until vote shall be had
thereon.
The bill as it is offered today affords
90 protection to agricultural staples
There is repaining, l 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 tine III 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
ful observers, and certainly it is known
to all who have any direct connection
with the agricultural industry of ths
United States, that the farmer cannot,
and the man who reads him we'll knows
that the farmer will not. much longer
bear this burden.
There are three remedies possible.
The second remedy, and one which /,
as a 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 cheaply 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 a 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 25 cents bushel upon
wheat is q 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 10 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
direct benefit from this tariff, because
where we do not produce in the United
States sufficient for our own consump-
ton and quantity considerable in ex-
tent for export the import duty serves
as a 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, 600, 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.
L.