The River Falls times. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1894-1933, 1897-07-06

bill which IS likely to make trouble fGr
the Republican leaders, and which may
break down the whole protective sys-
tenn The amendment fayors the Lu-
bin scheme of paying export bounIeS
on farm products. This scheme is now
being pushed vigorously, not only by its
author. David Lubin, but also by the
oranges "of many states and by trades
unions ard 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 al
examination of the measure, that |
found that the great class Of cur pOpu-
lltion 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 Cp-
Grafton, were in large degree eXclud-
ed from any of its benefits. 1t is, | say,
to supply very patent omission from
the measure as it now stands that the
amendment is proposed and will be ad
YOcated here until Il vote shall be had
thereon.
The bill. as it is offered today, affords
no protection to agricultural staples.
There is remaining, | presume, no adj
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 these 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 viii
prove that the indirect protection at
forded to the farmer by the tariff on
manufactured goods is sufficient com
penSatiOl to him for the vast cost en-
tailed upon him in carrying the protect
I've 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 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 /,
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 lie 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 Il great measure, give restitution to
the farmer for the higher prices which
he is compelled to Jay in protected mar
kets.
No proposition based upon the declar-
alton 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. I'M
less it gives to the exporter of agricltlt-
ural staples from the United States an
equivalent to that given to the manu-
facturer by the imposition of an import
duty.
A duty of p cents 4 buShel on wheat
is delusion and snare. The farmer
Of the United States gets no benefit
from it. The imposition of duty upon
cotton. if that were attempted would
be of no value to the cotton producer.
The imposition of Il 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, be-
cause where we do not produce IN the
United States sufficient for our own
consumption and a quantity consider
ably in excess for export the import dQ-
ty serves as means whereby the local
producer can enhance the price to the
local consumer.
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 1925 100000 in higher prices than
he now receiveS.~It is true that this
would Increase the price OF bread
StuffS to the consumers in the cities;
but, under the declaration made here
to-day that, with higher prices the peo-
pie will be more able to buy, we VIII
have n larger consumption of wheat
and wheat flour and other agricultural
staples in the cities of the country
than we have now at the low prices
Mr.. Butler-Nfr. President. the senat-
or from Utah said he was in favor of
about $13.OOO0O0 export duty on wheat
at 10 cents bushel If we pay IN eN-
port bounty of 10 cents a bushel, that
will raise the price of every bushel OF
wheat. whether exported or consumed
at home. that much, will it not!
Mr. Cannon-Certainly it will.
Mr. Rutler-Then. for an investment
of 81: 100000. which the government
would pay out in the shape of an eX-
port bounty the wheat farmers OF the
country would get their protection OF
$6O,OO0,000 or $70,000000, would they
not?
Mr.. Cannon-They would, if there be