The Cook County herald. [volume] (Grand Marais, Minn.) 1893-1909, 1897-07-03
EXPORT BOUNTIES.
5sENATOR CANNON INTRODUCES L.
BINS. SCHEME TO HELP FARMERS.

Sided and Robs the Farmer-He Now
Sells In a Cheap and Buys In a Dear
Market-Can BE Protected Only by Ex-
port Bounties on Farm Products-If He
Cannot Get These He Wants Absolute
Free Trade. -:
Senator Cannon of Utah introduced
On May e5 an amendment to the tariff
bill which is likely to make trouble for
the Republican leaders and which may
break down the whole protective sys-
tenn. The amendment favors the Lubin
scheme Of paying export bounties on
farm products. This scheme is now be-
ing pushed vigorously, not only by it's
author, David Lubin, but also by the
oranges of many states and by trades
unions and ministers 1t makes it's 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:
TWAS 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 the pro-
tective tariff principle by their industry
from the beginning Of it's operation,
were in a large degree excluded from
any of its benefits. It is, I say, to sup
ply a very patent omission from the
measure as it now stands that the
amendment is proposed and will be ad-
vocated here until a vote shall be had
thereon.
The bill as it is offered today affords
no protection to agricultural staples.
There is remaining, 7 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.
It has become apparent to all thought
full observers, and certainly it is known
to all who have any direct connection
with tho agricultural industry of tho
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 all 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 a bushel upon
| wheat is a delusion and 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-
ton and quantity considerable in ex-
tent for export the import duty serves
as means whereby the local producer
can enhance the price to the local con-
sumner.
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 1926, 900, 900 in higher prices than
he now receives It is true that this
would increase the price Of breadstuffs
to the consumers in the cities, but IN
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 il
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 whea
at 10 cents bushel If we pay an ex
port bounty of 10 cents a bushel, tina
will raise the price Of every bushel O.
wheat, whether exported or consumed
at home, that much, will it not?
Mr.. Certainly it will. =
Mr. Butler-Then, for an investment
of $1S, 100000, which the government
/ would pay out in the shape of an expor