The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1911-07-26
THE DEADLY PERIL.

THE DEADLY PERIL.
Paragraphs from speech Of Senator
Norris Brown, of Nebraska, in support
of Canadian reciprocity.
But, Mr.. President, l am not COM
PEELED to rely on the logic of these
facts alone to sustain the conclusion
that the price of wheat is not affected
by the duty on wheat. purpose to
sustain the conclusion by distinguished
and illustrious precedent and author
ity. | shall quote no authority but
that of the highest character, and |
challenge my republican colleagues on
the floor who differ with me about
the merits of this bill to point to a
single public utterance ever made by
a republican president, or declara-
ton of the republican party ever made
in national convention, or any state
ment ever made during the last forty
years up to two years ago by re-
publican statesman wherein it is
claimed or limited that duty on any
agricultural product Of which Ameri-
ca has an annual surplus was ever
protective in the slightest degree. The
farmer of this country has never en-
tertained the notion, and does not
now entertain the notion, that duty
on the commodities which he pro-
duces and which are produced in ex-
cess of the demands of our people,
and are thereby forced to foreign
market to compete with the products
of the world, is protective or has any
thing to do with fixing the price of his
at the elevator where he
sells and delivers his grain.
What Senator Mccumber Once Said.
Let me read you the testimony and
the judgment of experts on the ques-
ton as to whether or not the duty on
wheat and agricultural products gen.
orally affects the price of those prod
ucts.
l read first from the congressional
record of the sixty-first congress, first
session, page 1886. This is record
of the proceedings of the senate on
the ed day of June, 1909. In the
course of the debate on that day on
the tariff bill, among other things,
the distinguished senator from North
Dakota (Mr. McCumber) said:
"The wheat acreage today is prollc
ing a surplus of wheat which must
be thrown into the worlds market,
keeping down the price of the
home product, tariff or no tariff"
Senator cummins Quoted.
In the same record find a discus
sion between the senior senator from
Idaho and the present senior senator
from Iowa. The senator from Idaho
the following question to
the senator from Iowa (Mr. Cum
mins):
docs the senator believe that the
duty on wheat affects the price OF
The answer of the senator from
Iowa was clear and distinct and was
given in three worss:
81 did not"
Further along in the debate the dis
senator from Iowa rendered
the following observation:
1--WE are as firmly welded to the
doctrine of protection as is the SEN
ator from Idaho. We believe that the
system of protection does have great
deal to do with the price of every
thing sold in this country, but we do
not believe that the duty on bacon
and ham has anything to do with the
price of hogs, because vel am speak
ing now of Iowa-are the largest ex-
porters of the products of hogs OF any
state in the union. Therefore l want
to know whether the senator, down in
his heart, believes that this duty on
bacon and ham has affected or can
affect in any way the market value of
hogs, because l am sure the farmers
Of my state have never been deluded
sy any such notion"
On the 18th day of June, 1909, the
witness, whom l now
have on the stand, expressed himself
again on the subject. He said:
81 do not believe that we in Iowa
receive any direct benefit for the AGO.
DOC, 900 bushels of corn that we raise
every year. l do not believe that we
receive any direct benefit from the
luty on the eight or ten million hogs
hat we market every year. do not
believe that of the S7OO,0OO,O00 of ag-
.icultural products that we pour every
year into the channels of trade pro-
.ection advances the price OF 1.-THE
If them.
81 want senators to remember that