The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-04-20
THE FARMERS FREE LIST

| House Democratic caucus for farm
ers' free list has been sharply as
sailed as not only unfair and sophis.
teal, but as being without rhyme or
reason The articles put on that free
list are those which "farmers buy but
do not sell, and the move for such Il
free tariff list is supposed to be a
sort of consolation or compensation TO
the farmers who oppose the Canadian
reciprocity agreement, TO give taem
something in return for the alleged low"
ering of prices which that agreement
might compel, this by way of cheap
ening the products which they ''sell,
but do not buy
The principle, however, is an indie
fensibly scatter-witted one 1t is based
upon principle wholly fallacious. The
proposition is, to put on the free list
large number of articles, not be.
cause of any principle of protection,
not because il is easier or cheaper to
make those articles by any factory
than it is for that factory to make
other articles of the same general sort,
but merely because of the use to which
these articles are to be put.
The Springfield Republican illus.
trates the incongruity of the 90 farmers
free list in the following editorial ex.
preston:
Here, for example are two separate
Manufacturing concerns in about the
for fencing and hoop steel for baling cot
ton, and the other OF which makes steel
sheets and forms for other or non
agricultural uses. This bill places the
product OF one concern OH the free list
and that of The other is LETT TO enjoy the
existing high measure of protection. Yet
both are manufacturing under the same
conditions: The high tariff In particular
or general, IN so far as II Increases the
nominal rate of wages and the prices OF
the raw material and machinery and
but In one case an offsetting protection
is denied and the other case granted.
Here again are two separate concerns,
one engaged in manufacturing baeging
for cotton and the other In manufacture
ing cotton cloth for general consump-
ton. This bill places the product OF the
uct OF the other under full protection.
But both concerns arc manufacturing
under the same handicap OF hish-tariff
prices FOR labor and for such material
as is under high tariff pro-
lection. II is idle to pretend that justice
and fair dealing enter even to q remote
degree into such n tariff measure as this
IL the one concern in either of the above
cases is able to live under the handicap
placed upon ii, the other concern is per-
and this by act of the nations law
making power.
Nevertheless we have here a case OF
vicious and Geceivng Republican protec-
ipn hn1tt,fIll,g iEn
chickens and curses home 10 roost. II
would be amusing TO the last degree II
II were not likely 10 prove so serious
IN practical consequences TO the manu-
facuurng industries affected The farm
CTS have been told for years that they
were getting a due share in the benefits
OF the protective system through duties
On wheat and corn and the like. II the
farmers did not know. everybody else
has known. that such duties were. have
been. and must he for years to come, OF
no moro protective effect than an obscr-
ration made by Thomas jefferson on the
occasion of his 5Oth birthday
There can be no escape from the
logic of that position The farmer is
demanding something for uothing. He
is not going 10 suffer by reason of the
Of the Canadian reciprocity
treaty; but merely because he is OBJ
jeciing TO it he is 10 have these con.
cessions, which are absolutely opposed
TO the principle of protection, and
which would give him freely something
for bonus, at the expense of the
general public. For it is certain that |
the protection rclnquished in this |
farmers free list would have TO be |
added TO other protected articles |
There is neither compensatory quality, |
nor logic, nor fair equivalent in this
4" farmers free list. - On the |
contrary. it is simply an effort TO un.
load upon the general public the price
which is thus illogically and contrary
10 every principle Of protection, taken |
off from certain articles that. if made |
At all in this country. will have to be
made at Ii loss as compared with other !
factory products that are fully pro.
tected. There is not the least likei.
hood that the Senate Of the United |
States would agree TO any such an illog.
cal proposition as this Hfarmers' free
list. For, TO do so would be to sur
'ender absolutely the principle Of pro
.ection, and TO put the manufacturers
on a basis of competition with the
world at large on certain articles. The
necessary consequence would be that adj
litional protection would be demand.
ed, and would. as matter of reason
md argument, have TO be conceded on
,ther articles made under the protect
We system. And so. as the Republicans
rave a majority In the Senate, it is
lot in the least likely that this
farmers free list could be enacted
nto law; nor would there be any prin-
iple or soundness OF basis from which
IN argument for it could be made