The Penn's Grove record., 1897-06-18
EXPORT BoUNTIES.
SENATOR CANNON INTRODUCES L.
BINS SCHEME TO HELP FARMERS.

- WY
Sided and Robs the Farmer-He Nov
Sells In a Cheap and Buys In n Deal
Markct-can BE Protected Only by Ex
port Bounties on Farm Products-If ii,
Cannot Get These He Wants Absoiut,
Free Trade.
Senator Cannon of Utah introduced
IN May as an amendment to the tariff
bill which is likely to make trouble fol
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 Its
author, David Lubin, but also by the
oranges of many states and 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:
1t was 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, I say, to sup
| ply O 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, I presume, nc adj
vooate Of the protective tariff system
who will contend that in this bill, with
these import duties, there is afforded
n 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-
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 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
| 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 tho 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 n 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 q measure give restitution to the
farmer for the higher prices which he il
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
kmade.a-eontention that it is just, unless
it gives to the exporter OF agricultural
STAPLES from the United States In equiv
alent benefit to that given to the manu-
facturer by the imposition of an impor'
duty.
A duty Of % cents a bushel upor
wheat is a delusion and q snare. Th,
farmer Of the United States gets no ben
eft from it. The imposition of duty upor
cotton, if that were attempted, woule
be of no value to the cotton producer
The imposition of a duty on rye Is of NJ
value to the farmero of the United States
Every other protected industry has
direct benefit from this tariff, becaus'
where we do not produce in the Unitet
States sufficient for our WI consump
ton and a quantity considerable in ex
tent for export the import duty serve
as a means whereby the local produce
can enhance the price to the local con
sumner.
The immediate benefit to the farmet
derived from the treasury of the Unitet
States would not be all. For this com
paratively small expenditure to him h
would receive for these staples NOR
than 1926, 600, 900 in higher prices THAI
he now receives. It is true that thi
would increase the price of ~breadstuff
to the consumers in the cities, but un
der the declaration made here toda.
that with higher prices the people vii
he more able to buy we will have
larger consumption of wheat and whea
-four and other agricultural staples IL
the cities of the country than we hay
now at the low prices.
Mr.. Butler-Mr. President, the sena
tor from Utah said he was in favor Q
about S13, 900, 900 export duty ON whea
at 10 cents O bushel. If we pay an Ok
port bounty of 10 cents a bushel, tina
will raise the price of every bushel O
wheat, whether exported or consume
at home, that much, will it not?
Mr.. Cannon-Certainly it will.
Mr.. Batler-Then, for an investmen
of 3d. 600, 900, which the government
would pay out in the shape of an expor
bounty, the wheat farmers of the coun
try would get their protection of $50,
900, 900 or $40, 900, 900, would the
not?
Mr.. Cannon-They would, if Their
be n truth in the protective principle
Mr.. Butler-That would be q yer
good investment.
Mr.. Cannon-It would be a very5goo
investment if it were to be mad An be
half of any manufacturing industry G
any trust in the United States, but any
thing in behalf Of the farmer is locke