The Miller press. [volume] (Miller, S.D.) 190?-current, 1913-04-24
THE NEW TARIFF
AND Tilt FARMER
Who Pays For The Proposed
Reduction?

Every man who tao kles the tariff
question gets into trouble, because
it is beyond the power of an indivi-
dual to adjust it fairly to the varied
interests of the country. President
Wilson will be no exception to the
rule. The republican idea of a nom
partisan tariff commission is the
best method vet devised to handle
the complex question.
The new tariff bill. now before
Congress, has reduced the old re-
publican protection upon farm pro-
ducts about so per cent. In fact
about the only thing on the farm
which did escape the free list was
live cattle and sheep. Cattle, sheep,
meats and wool were all placed on
the free list in the original draft,
but a determined fight by western
congressman got some protection
for cattle and sheep. leaving meats
and wool on the free list.
The frame-up OF the Wilson tariff
bill was evidently designed for the
people living in the cities, in the
hope of reducing the high cost Of
living to them. AS their living
must come from the farm, how will
this proposed reduction affect the
farmer? Will he have to bear all
the burden of this reduction?
Among the early points picked
out of the new tariff bill, here are
a few pertinent ones by the Chicago
Inter Ocean:
The House Democratic caucus on
Monday refused b. a vote Of l22 to
70 to put live cattle on the free list
of the Woodrow Wilson tariff bill,
though that measure will admit
meats free of duty. Thus does the
Democratic party persist in its eff
forts to fool the voters.
If it is going to reduce the cost of
living to take off the percent duty
Of 4 cents per pound on bacon end
hams and 1.5 cents on fresh meats,
then it. stands to reason that some
further reduction might result from
taking duty off live animals used for
food.
AS a matter of fact that Demo-
cratic arrangement cuts our farmers
and cattle feeders both ways. 1t
diminishes their market by admit
ing free meats from all the world,
while it still taxes the animals which
they might import on the hoof from
Mexico or Canada to fatten and pre-
pare for market.
Certain limited districts along our
northeastern border might get their
meats slightly cheaper if they had
free access to Canadian supplies.
With respect TO those districts the
most advantageous plan would be to
permit free Importation on the hoof.
Then the Strengthening and preparing
of these animals would give employ
ment to American labor.
Free meats with taxed cattle will
benefit only men with the means to
establish in foreign countries pack
ing plants employing foreign labor.
Such plants will benefit those coun-
tries by giving employment to their
people. Whether they will reduce
meat prices in this country is very
doubtful.
However. it is easy to understand
why the Democrats shut their eyes
to the plain facts of the case and
tax cattle while taking the tax off
meats. They are engaged in max
ing campaign material for use in
the New England and other Cana
dian border states.
To the city jewellers of those
states Democratic stump speakers
will recite how the Chicago meat
trust was ''hit" by putting meats
on the free list. To the rural voters
they will recite how by keeping a
tax on live cattle the Democracy
guarded them from Canadian COM
petition
We shall begin to see a year from
November next what is the success
of this transparent Democratic at
tempt to play both ends against
the middle