Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1897-06-25


All OPponcnts-Prrsen Protection
10 One sided and Robs the Farmer
He Now Sells tn n Cheap and Buys
In - Dear markct-Csn tie Protected
Only b. Export Bountics ON Farm
Products-if He Cannot Get These
lie Wants Absolute Free Trade.
Senator Cannon. Of Utah. introduced
on May rs an amendment 10 the tarifY
bill which Is likely TO make trouble for
the republican leaders. and which may
break down the whole protective Bys-
tenn. The amendment favorn tho I.ubin
achemc of paying export bounties on
farm products. This scheme is now be-
ing pushed vigorously. not only by It's
author. David Lubin. but nlso by the
grangrrs of many states and by trades
unions and ministers. II makes It's fight
inside the ranks of protection, and has
already opened more farmers eyes to
the folly of the system than NIL Of the
tariff reform work that has been done
Senator Cannon told some plnin
truths when introducing this amend
ment. lie spoke In pnrt as follows:
II wns with great surprise. upon an
found TINT the great class of our populu-
tion who have from the beginning not
only supported the protective tariff
purity by their votes. but have supported
the protective tariff principle by their
industry from tho beginning of It's OPP
Grafton. were In large degree excluded
from my OF It's benefits. II liz, | say,
TO supply very pntcnt omission from
the measure as II now stands that the
amendment is proposed. and Ii will Toe
advocated here until vote shuli be had
thereon.
The bill. us it is offered to-day, affords
no protection to agricultural staples
There Is remaining. l presume. no adj
vocntc of the protective tariff system
who Will contend TINT In this bill, with
these import duties. there IL 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-
mining Mt the present time In the
school OF protection very many men
who will contend and none who will
prove that the indirect protection nf-
AOANS' W thC ny inc
manufactured goods In sufficient COM
pensntion to him for tho cost entailed
upon him I'm carrying the protective
tariff system upon manufactured goods.
II has become apparent to Nil thought
ful observers. and certainly II 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 nre three remedies possible
The second remedy, and one which /,
us believer In protection. would he
ready to accept rather thnn to hold to
and vote for an inequitnblc bill, would
he absolute free trnde. by which the
farmer might fouy as chcnply ns he IN
compelled to sell. md that remedy this
congress will not seek 10 enforce. There
remains. then, but the third-the np-
plication of IN export bounty which
shall In u measure give restitution to the
farmer for the higher prices which he
Is compelled to pny In protected mnr-
kets.
No proposition based upon the decia-
ration OF equal protection to all the In
dustries of the United States Is COM
plete. nor can there be successfully
mndc contention that II is Just, unless
II gives to the exporter of agricultural
staples from the United States an equiv
alcnt benefit to that given to the mnn-
ufacturcr ny tho imposition Of IN I'M
port duty.
A duty of rs cents a bushel upon
wheat Is q delusion and n snare. Tho
fnrmer of the United States gets no ben
eft from II. The imposition Of duty
upon cotton. II that were attempted,
would he of no value to the cotton pro-
Queer. The imposition OF duty on
rye Is Of no value TO the farmer Of tho
United States. Every other protected
industry hns n direct benefit from this
tariff. because where we do not produce
In the United States sufficient for our
own consumption and u quantity con-
siderable In extent for export the I'm
port duty serves us q means whereby
the local producer cnp enhance the price
to the local consumer.
The immediate benefit to the farmer
derived from the treasury Of the United
States would not be oil. For this com
paratively smnll expenditure to him no
would receive for these staples moro
than 5000. 900 In higher prices than
he now receives. II Is true that this
would increase the price of breadst Il ifs
to the consumers In the cities, but I'M
der the declaration made here to-day
that with higher prices the people will
be more able 10 buy we will have O
lnrger consumption of W heat and wheat
-four and other agricultural staples In
the cities Of the country than we have
, now at the low prices.
Mr.. Butlcr-Mr. President, the SEN
ator from Utah snid he was In favor of
about $4,000. 900 export duty on wheat
1T ten cents bushel. II We pay On ex-
port bounty OF ten cents bushel. TINT
Will raise the price OF every bushel Of
wheat. whether exported or consumed
at home, that much. will IL not?
Mr.. Cannon-Certaiply Il will.
Mr.. Butler-Then. for an Investment
of STA 0OO ODO which Tho uoyernma,<