The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1912-10-03

He Voted For a Measure That Would
Have Brought Loss to the Farmer
and Again to the Meat Trust, and
No Advantage TO the Farmer.

Republican last week, under the caption
''Mr. Lewis record and the farmer"
we showed that Mr.. David j. Lewis,
the present Congressman from this
District and candidate for reelection.
voted in Congress for measure, which
if it had become a law, would have
placed all farm products and live stock
including wheat, corn, oats, hay, barley,
buckwheat, rye, vegetables, fruits,
poultry, butter, eggs, horses, mules,
cattle, hogs and sheep on the free list
and thus deprived the farmer of the
benefits of protective tariff on the
articles which he produces for sale.
Fortunately for the American farmer
that bill did not become law, although
it was passed by Democratic House of
Representative with the assistance of
Mr.. Lewis vote. But, rejecting Mr.
Lewis's real attitude toward the farmer,
that is not all. This same Act which
was supported by the vote of Mr.. Lewis
and which was passed by Democratic
House of Representatives did not stop
at placing all farm products on the free
list-thus subjecting the farmer to sell
in free trade market-but more re-
markable still, it placed upon the
dutiable list all agricultural implements
and machinery used by the farmers and
also all articles that are manufactured
out of the products of the farm. As for
instance, upon this dutiable and there
fore protected list was placed, IN ad
dtion to agricultural implements and
machinery, all manufactured products
of live stock, fresh and prepared meats,
lard and tallow, as also -four, meals,
| breakfast foods, cereals of all kinds,
pickles, canned or prepared vegetables
and fruits. 1t will thus be seen that
the direct result of such legislation
would nave been that the farmer would
lose through lower markets for his grain,
produce and live stock, and the man
ufacturers using raw products of the
farm would be doubly benefited, first,
by being able to buy cheaper raw
material, and second, by selling in
tariff protected and non.competitive
market. To illustrate: The meat pack
ers comprising the great Meat Trust"
would have been able to buy both
American and Canadian live stock in
free trade market and to sell all the
meat products in a tariff protected
market. The farmers would gain; while
the customer for whom Mr.. Lewis pro-
fesses to have the greatest concern,
would remain at the mercy Of the beef
trust and other packing combinations.
The above facts cannot be questioned.
They are matter of record and Mr..
Lewis cannot successfully refute them
He will not be able to satisfy the farm
ers Of mis- District that he is entitled to
their support in the face of that record.
Let US take another illustration: The
great milling companies of the North
west and the manufacturers of break
fast foods and other cereal products,
under such legislation would have been
able to buy wheat and other grains used
in their business in a free market at
reduced price because the tariff had
been removed from those raw products
and yet everything that they manu-
featured was placed on the dutiable list
and the manufactured product would
have been sold in protected market
The price OF wheat would have been re-
duced, while the price of flour would
have been protected by tariff, and the
consumer again gain nothing by the
legislation. Thus we see, that the
farmer would lose, the manufacturer
would be protected, and the consumer
would derive no direct benefit. Other
articles will follow, which will show
that in other respects Mr. Lewis's
record has been against those things in
which the farmers are vitality in
terested