The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1911-12-28

Some time ago We discussed in this
column the tariff on rice and asserted
that while it was one of h highly
protected farm products. the Demo-
Gratis in their tariff reforming would
not attempt to reduce the duty on the
article because it is strictly a southern
product-produced by the same sec
ton that produces the nucleus OF the
Democratic party. The equivalent ad
yalorem duty under the Payne-Ald-
rich law on %cleaoned rice is 1856 per
cent. and on uncleaned it Is ABB per
cent. The former is two and a half
times and the latter twice as much as
the tariff on wheat at the present
price.
1t was stated in the former editorial
that we did not oppose the tariff on
rice because it did not happen to be
a North Dakota product. but that on
the contrary we believed in a tariff
on all raw agricultural products
whether they were rice or wheat. The
logic Of protection applies as we'll to
rice as to wheat or barley or cattle or
wool. If under protection rice farm
ing has increased and prospered, 1t
IL a reasonable conclusion hat the
same results would follow as to any
crop.
According to the census returns the
cultivation of rice is gaining rapidly
in this country. The increase from
342, 600 acres in 1899 to 100000 acres
in 1909 is quite remarkable, but the
increase in bushels from 100000 to
20,626,0 900 bushels in the same period
is more 30. The gain in acres in the
gain in production is 129 per cent In
the same ten years. The per capita
production vas 80 pounds in 1899,
and SO pounds in 1903. During the
same ten years the amour of rice
imported was greater in excess over
that exported in 1909 than in 1899.
All this shows the great increase go
ing on in the per capita consumption
of this food crop. increasing as it does
SO much faster than the increase in
population. No other food crop equals
1t in relative increased production and
consumption.
The average import price of clean
ed price for the year ending July 81.
1911. was OTIS cents, or for prac-
teal purposes 23-4 cents. This
amour represents the value of rice
at the port from which it was ship
ped, and to it should he added the
cost Of ocean transportation which
cent, though this is much too high.
But this would make the average
price Of rice in this country, if there
were no duty. three cents at primary
wholesale. The average primary
wholesale price Of rice during 1911,
according to government figures, was
within a very small fraction of four
cents. 1t is. therefore. evident that
with free trade in rice the American
people could get this food product for
three-fourths of what they primarily
pay for it under protection.
This is the point in the philosophy
Of the tariff at which professors Of
political economy and the Democratic
party stop. AS a catch-penny argu-
ment the smaller cost of living Is APP
parent and the Democratic patriots
thrust their hands into their coat bo.
SONS and with a look of devotion
to the welfare Of the people, say
"this thing I do"
Suppose the people could buy rice
for a cent a pound less by having
free trade on the commodity, what
would happen to the farmers who till
the 100000 acres Of rice land? Evil
IDENTIFY they would be driven out Of
business. And il they were driven
out Of business, what would become
of the rice lands they had formerly
titled? They must lie idle or be con-
verted to the growing of some other
crop that would compete with that
crop in the market and reduce the
price to the farmer by overstocking
the market. And what would the rice
farmers driven out of business do?
Go into some other crop and produce
that much surplus to reduce the price.
Would it not be better for all to let
the tariff remain on rice and keep the
land and the farmers engaged in
growing this crop, leaving a wider
field in other agricultural products,
even II the price Of rice to the con-
I'm is slightly increased? Did any
n ever hear Of the tariff burden on
rice? Though it is an article Of al
most universal household use, not one
person in twenty knows whether it lie
protected or free. Under protection
1t has increased in both production
and consumption.
Take the rice production out of the
south and a great industry is destroy
ed. Yet the cost per capita of main
tanning hat industry is go small as
to be a negligible quantity. Take the
wheat crop out of North Dakota, or
what is equivalent to that, reduce the
income to the wheat farmer to a point
below profit making by placing It on
the free list, and the state suffers a
s75,000,000 loss and every wheat
grower shares in the loss. Yet the adj
vantage per capita to the public is
Just as infinitismal comparatively as
1t is on rice.
The Democratic party Of whatever
faction, following, leader or stripe
wants to destoy every northern agri-
cultural industry by placing the prod.
acts on the free list. 1t is about time
farmers aroused themselves to the
dangers of Democratic success in
nation and state.