New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-16
PROPOSED DUTY ON BARLE
A DECLARATION THAT 1T is TOO HIGH.
oswEGo BOARD OF TRADE SENDS A PROTEST TO

oS"H'o BOARD OF TRADE SENDS PROTEST TO
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.
washington. April 1.-THE Oswego Board of
iraue mas sent a protest TO the Senate Committee
On FINANCE against the rates of duty on barley, as
no" provided In the Dingey bill. The fixed
/" 'ne law or 1880 almost ruined the business of
converting Canadian barley into malt along the
Northern frontier. The investment in this industry
was increased in Buffalo from 81 3e2 900 in 1850 TO
sS2@lss in $780, and in Oswego from $4,000 to
$S2 COO
The protest says in part:
Gentlemen: The OsweCo Board NJ Trade re-
specuully petitions your honorable body for a
mobilization of the rate OF duty on barley. as
nxed In the agricultural schedule of the House Of
Representatives bill. pending in the Senate
and at present before you for consideration.
80 cents per bushel on barley is prohibitive and is
therefore opposed TO the main purpose of the BILL
Of the Government No revenue will be collected
on importations OF barley irto this country + the
IN by the Senate and approved by the President
whereas .ii lower rate Of duty. rate consistent
protective policy. will bring gradually increasing
revenue into the Treasury. 1t has always been
higher duty imports should be levied than
the greater cost of production in this country.
computed or the basis OF American standards OF
wages, as against the cheaper wages of foreign
countries requires. rate Of duty on barley
eEoIFed out or that method OF calculation. while
anording ample protection producers.
viii at the same time aid materially in raising
revenues required TO the Government.
VIII anybody claim that 30 cents per bushei is
the proper rate TO serve those ends? We venture
TO say that not only is 80 cents per bushel more
than requisite or wise. but the lower rate OF %
cents per bushel is above the best adapted figure
TO accomplish such results Il is believed. indeed.
that % cents is more than needed protection re-
the conclusion Of the Tar T 1H %g POM of
which as stated further on in this communication.
that the income OF the Government was
helped TO the extent Of about 100000 per annum.
second-The experiment OF prohlbitive duties on
beneficial a
tried and failed II should therefore be abandoned.
nothing less han fHy Of s LARGE sums %
money invested in land. extensive structures and
other property especially the northern frontier
Of the line separating Canada from the United
States by owners in good faith whose business
of access 10 the barley fields OF Canada caused by
prohibitive duties In short. the rate OF duties pro
OF the United States without corresponding benefit
body i'''e' "''"00' any dement, Whatever TO any
Speaking Of the rates in the law Of 1890 the pro-
test says:
1t was alleged tina; the prohibitive duty would
mand in consequence a higher price for his bar
ley The facts developed since the enactment OF
result has f0lowed Prices Of America
barley have never before been so low as since the
enactment of a prohibitive rate Of duty The re-
ports Of the various markets in this country prove
this assertion 70 be true beyond doubt. and In
give figures tabulated from Chicago Board Of Trade
1855 which are indicative Of other markets for bar
ley well the market of Chicago.
The average prices Of No barey-the standard
grade Of Chicago-for the years named we're as
follows: In 1890 II IS cents; 1891 60 cents 1892 IS
1893 50 l5 cents; 1894 "a l3 cents 1885 80 %
cents.
"The Oswego Times" Republican. thus sum-
nnarizes the situation
The 30-cent bushe barley duty proposed In the
new tariff schedule not only negatives all chances
Of Government revenues and destroys the value or
large home nvestmens but falls to BENEFIT net , the
are made the excuse for its imposition.