The Washington bee., 1897-09-04

in a Dear Market-Can Be Protected
Only by Export Bounties ON Farm
PrOducts-If He Cannot Get These
He Wants Absolute Free Trade.
Senator Cannon, of Utah, introduced
on May 25 an amendment to the tariff
bill which is likely to make trouble for
the republican leaders, and which may
break down the whole protective sys-
tenI. 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
grangers of many states and by trades
unions and ministers. 1t makes its tight
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 amend
ment. He spoke in part as follows:
1t was with great surprise, upon an
examination of the measure, that l
found that the great class of our popula-
ton 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 it's benefits. 1t is, l say,
to supply very patent omission from
the measure as it now stands that the
amendment is proposed, and it will Zoe
advocated here until vote shall be had
thereon.
The bill, as it is offered to-day, 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
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.
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 well knows
that the farmer will not, much longer
bear this burden.
There are three remedies possible.
The second remedy, and one which l, |
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 rouy 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 a contention that it is just, unless
it gives to the exporter of agricultural
staples from the United States an equiv
alent benefit to that given to the man.
ufacturer by the imposition of an i'm
port duty.
A duty of 25 cents bushel upon
wheat is delusion and snare. The
farmer of the United States gets no ben
eft from it. The imposition of duty
upon cotton, if that were attempted,
would be of no value to the cotton pro-
ducer. The imposition of 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, because where we do not produce
in the United States sufficient for our
own consumption and a quantity con-
siderable in extent for export the i'm
port duty serves as a 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 $225 900, 900 in higher prices than
he now receives. 1t is true that this
would increase the price of breadstuffs
to the consumers in the cities, but un-
der the declaration made here to-day
that with higher prices the people will
be more able to buy we will have a
larger consumption of wheat and wheat
-four and other agricultural staples in
the cities of the country than we have
now at the low prices.
Mr. Butler-Mr. President, the SEN
ator from Utah said he was in favor of
about S13.OOO,OOO export duty on wheat
at ten cents bushel. If we pay an eX-
port bounty of ten cents 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.