The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1909-11-13

! the raw WOOL Those who repres ante0 the
farmers and the sheep ralEers wous1 not
ton. They remembered what the price OF
wool was when the tariff was reduced be-
fore. Many OF the farmers of this state
do not raise sheep but great many arc
1 still raising sheep in the western part Of
/ the state, and the sheep raiser is as much
emitted TO protection as the wheat raiser.
The wooden schedule IL perhaps the
highest schedule. and vet the tariff on
wooden cloth that goes into suit Of
/ clothes is Mere bagateIie when compar-
ed with the retail price. We are not i'm
tent. We do import great quantities Of
cloth. Now the duty on the clotll n an
ordinary suit of clothes that would cost,
tailor made, say $40, would be from IS
cents to SIPS. On the finest woolen suits,
suits that would cost, say SIS, the duty
might run as high as $3.50
The cotton schedule In my opinion Is
not very high. 1t was impossible to re-
duce this materially and at the same time
secure the necessary votes to put the bill
through as q whole. The question of what
can be put through the two houses Is al
ways an important question In reaching
compromise. On the one hand there will
be senator's and representatives who Will
not vote for the bill If they think the dut.
is too low on the things which their states
produce Others win not vote for i II
they purchase. We must fix such rates as
win meet the demand Of the majority.
Was My Duty to Vote With Committee
Every tariff bill, like every other meas
ure which becomes a law, is the result Of
q Compromise. Il | were to prepare a
views, one thatI would think did approx
innate justice to all sections of the coun-
try, It would get Just one vote. and that
would be mine. Not another man would
agree with me on all the thousands of
items.
As said before, the bin that passes, il
one passes at ALL is the one that Is re-
ported out Of the committee The princl-
pal work must be done there. Let me IL
lustrate. You and I are committee to
prepare a tariff bill. Your section Of the
country Is interested In the lumber bust
ness. You think there should DE a dut
OF thousands on rough lumber and 80
cents per thousands feet additional for
each finished side. IL the four sides were
finished that woud make a duty Of $500.
per thousand. On the other hand / do not
believe there should beany duty whatever
on lumber. And so for several months we
fight over this question. We have finally
got to agree on something or we will get
no bill Through. So you finally come down
step by step and 60 up step by step
until we compromise on S125 per thous-
and on rough lumber and 25 cents addi-
tiona for each finished side. We have
both got to agree to that in order to get
the bin reported, and a compromise In
order to get the bill reported, necessarily
carries with 1t an agreement to stand by
the compromise report. III 1t were under
stood that as soon as we got the bill into
the senate I would not vote for what /
had agreed to as compromise, you
would never have agreed to reduce your
demand. Would your On the pther hand,
IL you were to be at liberty to insist upon
II nign rare as sooN as the bill got
into the senate, / would not waste nv
time trying to get together tarifr bill
always Is and necessarily must be com
/ secured a great many imnortant 70
'uctions in the committee. If IL had been
understood that would pay no attention
70 what the committee reported not only
would not have listened to, but / would
not have been entitled to be listened to.
or course when new facts are shown
when the bill finally comes up for vote
demonstrating that the compromise was
inadvertently made, such change of vote
could be consistently made. But as rule
little Is brought out In the senate that has
not previously been considered in the COM
mittee.
/ myself did make exceptions In some
instances, but this was understood by the
committee, and, in fact, was not a case
OF compromise ! informed the committee
at the very beginning of the session that
l would not under any circumstances vote
for duty on lumber, coal. oil or any duty
on iron ore that would at least check its
importation. And so ! voted to place these
articles on the free list, except a. duty of
70 per cent on iron, which was convinced
would not diminish it's importations and
would give us more revenue. This did not
mean that would not finally vote for
bill which might contain some duty on
these articles.
ls Protection Needed on Wheat, Barley?
asked, ana put through the senate. an
amendment fixing the duty on wheat at
30 cents per bushel. Those papers repre-
senting the milling Interest began q TRADE
OF assault and ridicule. Those papers of
our own state whose prejudices are strong
er than their interest In the real welfare
OF the state, with great glee rehashed the
publications Of those papers which were
and always have been hostile to our in
terests.
They declared the tariff on grain was
useless and nonsensical. They either did
not know what they were talking about
Or ala not care. Ihat protective tariff
Is essential to high prices for our wheat
In the very near future can be demon
strated with mathematical accuracy. Lei
US see: From 1880 to 1898 we increased
our wheat production about % per cent
During the same time we increased our
population about 20 per cent, or nearly
three times as rapidly. 1t takes six and
one-half bushels of wheat per capita for
bread. At the same rate Of increase pro-
dutcion and consumption would be eoua1
In few years. Thereafter consumption
VIII pe greater than production, and the
price OF grain will advance enormously
the Canadian product of the northwest.
But we have already reached about the
limit Of wheat production while popula-
tlon Will still Increase at accelerated speed
Remember, that we only increased our
production OF wheat "a per cent, when we
had practically al Of western Minnesota.
all Of North Dakota, South Dakota, Okla
homa western Kansas and Nebraaka and
large sections OF Texas and Washington
to put under the plow. With all that vast
tract to open up we only increased our
production ~ per cent. We now have no
more North and South Dakotas, Okla
hnFoaN. ETC. WHARF mn nay
acre for wheat we will probably have to
take one and half acres Of old for d.
versiaed farming. Iowa, once the banner
wheat state, has ceased to great extent
raising wheat, and has gone into corn and
dairy farming. So we may say that about
zoo O00,000 bushels win be the approximate
production for several years. With excel
lent crops It may exceed this amount. And
keep In mind that our population will grow
right along. We raised this year about
TOO, 100000 bushels. We shall need for
That leaves for export, 50,OOO,0OO bushels.
Our population increased about 100000.
q year. At six and one-haf bushels per
capita. for bread, 1t Will require 16, 25O, 900
more bushels to feed our population next
year than It required this year. Three
years will about absorb this surplus of
O0,OO0, 600 bushels. In my argument In the
senate, to be. ON the absolutely safe side,
said that In less than eight years we
would not be exporting wheat. Mr.. Hill
says In less than five years
When that time arrives / expect to see
wheat not 81, but at least $3.50 per busheL
i have known wheat In this country when
1t sold for IS per bushel. History will re-
peat itself unless we, by free trade In
wheat. shall Invite the product Of all Of
western Canada.
Now let us look on the other side, the
danger side OF this picture: In 1900 Cam
ada raised, west of the Red river, II 900
600 bushels Of wheat In 1908 she raised
In the same section IFS, 100000 bushels,
an increase OF $50 per cent In eight years.
Travel over this section from the Red
River OF the North to Edmonton, south
to Calgary east to Wlnnipeg and you will