Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1897-06-14
EXPORT BOUNTIES. 4
BunSoe Cannon Introduces Luhixa
Scheme to Help FarmerA

He. Makes . H0t Speech and Fl0o0s
An 0DDonents-Presenf Proteetasn
/; IL One Sided aaA Hobs the Fof1eR
He Now Sells An . Cheap and BUys
IN . Dear Mafket-Caa he Protected
I Only By Export Bounties On Fam
1Roauets-lf He Cannot Get These
He wants Absolute Free Trade. 81
NEeust0r Cannon, Of Utah, introduced
on. May Is an amendment to the tariff
bill (which is likely to make troublefo
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 .nowbe-
ing pushed vigorously, not only by its
author, David Lubin, but also by the
Rrangers of many states and by trades
unions and ministers. It makes its fight
inside the ranks Of protection, and has
already opened more farmers eyes to
fhe folly Of the system than all Of the
tariff reform work that has beensdone.
! Senator Cannon told some plain
truths when introducing this amend
ment. He spoke In part as follows:
! It was with great surprise, upon an
examination Of the measure, that
founduhat the great class of our.popula-
tion.who have from the beginning not
only supported the protective tariff
party by their votes, but have supported
the protective tariff principle by their
industry from the beginning Of its OPP
Grafton, were in a large degree excluded
from \any Of its benefits. It is, say,
to supply very patent omission from
the measure as It now stands that the
amendment is proposed, and It win be
advocated hero until q vote shall be had
thereon.
The bill, as II is offered to-day, 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
prices 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 af-
forded to the farmer by the tariff on
manufactured goods is sufficient COM
pensation to him for the 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 the agricultural industry Of the
United States, that the farmer cannot,
and the man who reads him well knows
that the farmer will not, much longer
bear this burden.
There are three remedies possible.
The second remedy, and one which I,
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 Gbuy 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 ap.
plication 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 mar
kets.
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 contention that it is just, unles.
it gives to the exporter of agriculture
staples from the United States an equiv
alent benefit to that given to the man
ufacturer 10y the imposition of an i'm
port duty.
A duty Of IS cents q bushel upol
wheat is q delusion and a snare. Tn
farmer of the United States gets no ben
eft from it. The imposition of dut.
upon cotton, If that were attempted
would be of no value to the cotton pro
ducer. The imposition of q duty o.
rye is of no value to the farmer Of tn
United States. Every other protecte
industry has o direct benefit from thi
tariff, because where we do not produc
in the United States sufficient for GU
own consumption and q quantity cor
siderable in extent for export the in
port duty serves as o means whereof
1 tuc lOCdi Sdh tAC pit
to the local consumer.
The immediate benefit to the farme
derived from the treasury of the Unite
States would not be all. For this con
paratively small expenditure to him b
would receive for these staples MOI
than s2e5 .OOO. 900 in higher prices tina
he now receives. 1t is true that TIL
would increase the price of breadstuf
to the consumers in the cities, but III
der the declaration made here tQ-da
that with higher prices the people wi
DO more able to buy we will have
larger consumption Of wheat and wte'
, -four and other agricultural staples
the cities Of the country than we ha'
now at the low prices.
Mr.. Butler-Mr. President, the %
ator from Utah said he was in favor
about $13, 100000 export duty on whe'
ut ten cents . bushel If we pay an e:
port bounty of ten cents bushel. th'
will raise the price of every bushel I
wheat. whether exported or consume