The Hartford republican., 1913-08-08
.GRONNA ASSAILS
TARIFF MEASURE
Will Cost North Dakota
Farmers $15,0OO,000.
Asserts Neither Producers Nor
Consumers Will Benefit By
Proposed Changes.

Washington, Aug. 4.-Characteriz-
ing the Democratic tariff bill as
neither fish, fowl, nor herring"
measure not framed on scientific
principles of either free trade or pro-
lection. and declaring 1t will not ben
eft the consumer because it will in
jure, if not destroy. the producer,
Senator Gronna, Progressive Repub-
lican. of North Dakota, attacked the
measure in the tariff discussion I'm
the Senate to-day.
"The great industry of agriculture"
he said. 'is again the rsubject Of an
unjust onslaught and discrimination,
. call your attention to the fact
that In my state alone where in 1912
we raised more than 143,0O0.000
bushels Of wheat, with short crops In
foreign countries. under the provis-
ions Of this bill our farmers would
lose IN a single year more than $l5.-
00O. 600"
Senator Gronna declared that in
discriminating against the farmer the
Democrats found themselves In the
difficult position Of having two sets
OF reasons inconsistent with each
other. "using the one or the other as
the occasion might seem to demand,
and that now they are attempting to
use both at the same time.
"If the removal Of the tariff on
farm products is going to give the
consumer cheaper goods" he declared.
thea. the tariff on these products
gives the producer a better market
and the producer u benefited by
it. On the ohter hand. II. as has
been commended. the tariff ON farm
products is of no benefit to the pro-
ducer Of them, it can only be because
the tariff does not increase the price
of those products; and II 1t does mot
increase the price. then where is
! there any excuse for stating that
the removal of the tariff Ia going to
benefit the consumer and give him
cheaper food?"
Discussing the countervailing duty
provision in the bill ON wheat and
flour, Senator Gronna said it is Of
no value insofar as the farmer is
concerned.
"k it is pretended" said the Sem
ator, that by Its means the farm
er's market for what will be extended
1t is a mere pretense and nothing
more. The countries which find It to
their interest to maintain a duty
ON whea or ON flour are those
countries which have no wheat they
want to sell US, which have no flour
they want to sell US and to which
1t, consequently. makes no difference
whether or not we maintain a duty
on wheat and flour. 1t does not af-
feet them.
"Why, then. should the fact that
we are willing to remove our dutdes
on these products be any incentive
to them to remove theirs? On the
other hand. countries which have
wheat they wish to export in any
considerable quantity to this country
and this consideration applies es'
pecially to Canada-have no market
for our wheat; they will, no doubt
very willingly remove their duties
in return for our admission of their
wheat free of duty"
Senator Thornton. Democrat. OF
Louisiana, who will vote against the
tariff bill because of free sugar. de-
livered an impassioned denunciatior
of his party's determination to put
sugar ON the free list in 1919. His
was the first speech from within
the Democratic party attacking the
bill since It was reported to the
Senate.
81 owe to the people of my State
a far higher measure Of devotion
than | owe to the Democratic pa: ~
he exclaimed. Honor and duty alike
demand that vote against this bil
while 1t embodies this provision"
Senator Thornton quoted from q re
port OF the Democratic minority ol
the Senate on the free sugar bill. In
July. 1912. which maintained thai
putting sugar on the free hst was moi
In keeping With the promises of the
Democratic platforms to reduce
present protective duties gradual,
toward and finally to revenus
basis"
This report was signed by such