Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-07-31
pRooREsslvE sENAToR SEES IN
jury AND NO BENEFIT TO
FARMERs or NATION.
GAYS DAKOTA FARMERs WILL
LOSE e1seoaeoo YEARLY



er fowl nor herring" . measure not
framed on the scientific principles Of
free trade or protection, and declaring
it will benefit the consumer because
it win injurs II not destroy the pro-
ducer. Senator 0ronna. progressive. Of
North Dakota, attacked the measure in
the senate discussion today.
The great industry Of agriculture" !"
he said. 'is again the subject Of an
unjust onslaught and discrimination.
call your attention to the fact that In
my state alone where In 1912 we raised
moro than 100000 bushels Of wheat.
under tho provisions Of the bill our
farmers would lose in Q single year
more than $4,000. .ooo."
Gronna declared the bill IL discrimi.
mating against the farmer. ''The dem
ocrats found themselves In power with
two prominent reasons both 1nconsist-
ent. using one or the o.ner ~ occasion
might demand. and now they are at
tempting to use both at the same
time"
How Il Works in Principle.
III the removal Of the tari6 on farm
products 10 going to give the consumer
cheaper food" he continued" then the
tariff gives the producer q better mar
ket and the producer II benefited by
it. II on the other hand the taTin on
farm products IL Of no benefit to the
producer, It can only be because the
tariff does not Increase the price. and
IL the tariff does not increase the price,
then where 10 there any excuse to
state that the removal Of the tariff
IL going to benent the consumer and
give him cheaper food"
ceuntsrvaliins Duty No Benefit.
Accepting tho countervailing duty
provision In the bill on wheat and
flour. Senator Gronna said It u Of no
value Insofar ~ the farmer 10 con-
cerned. .1f Il L. pretended that by its
means The farmer1 market for wheat
win then be extended. Il 10 Q mere pre-
tense and nothing more. The countries
which maintain q duty on wheat and
-four are those which have no wheat
they want to sen uA and have no fiour
they want to sell us. and which 1t. con.
seuuently, makes no difference wheth-
er or not we maintain q duty on wheat
and flour. It does not affect them.
Why then. should the fact that We are
willing to remove our duties be any In
centive to them to remove theirs?
On the other hand. countries which
have wheat which they wish to ex-
port. and the consideration applies
especially to Canada. have no market
for our wheat, and they will no doubt
very willingly remove their duty in
return for our admission Of their
wheat FREQ Of duty"
Democrat Attacks Free Sugar.
Senator Thornton. democrat, Of Lou
lsiana, who Will vote against the tariff
bill because Of FREQ sugar. delivered
today an fmpasstoned denunciation Of
his party's determination to put sugar
on the free list In 1915.
Hk vas the first speech from within
the democratic party attacking the
bill since 1t was reported to the senate.
Il owe 20 the people Of my state .
Iar higter measure Of devotion than
pwe to the democratic party" he said.
ssrIonor and duty demand that ! vote
against this bill.
senator Thornton quoted from re-
port Of the democratic minority OF the
senate on the free sugar bill In July,
1919. which maintained that putting
auRar on the free list was mot IN
keeping With the promise OF the DEM
;ocrnfic platform TO reduce present
protective duties gradually toward.
and finally 10. revenue basis.
arhis report was signed by such
..4afwart tariff revenue democrats a.
senators Bailey. Simmons. Stone, VIZ
lians. Kern and johnson. Ill Of whom.
vith the exception Of the first named
are still members Of the senate" said
= l1
he.