Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-05-13

If Il decline in prices as great as TINS
tn bic shows has not benefited the con-
sumner in the slightest degree, what fea-
son nave you for thinking that forcing
down the price of wheat and rye another
10 cents per bushe) is going to bcnelt
the consumer when Il decline of more
than twice thar much has not reaclro
him? Forcing down the price of wheat
10 cents per bushel, which would reduce
the cost of 4 loaf of bread onc-seVenth
between success and failure with the
wheat raisers. Any intelligent and un-
prejudiced student can quickly on
vince himself that the farmer is not now
getting more for his products than enough
to pay for expenses, upkeep and a com :
Portable living. and that if the price OF
his products could be reduced to the
lowest point at which the industry could
exist at all the reduction would be so
small that it would not be passed on to
the price of wheat between the producer
and consumer than on most other pro-
duets, and still Il reduction OF 10 cents
per huShel on wheat would make pos
Sible Il reduction of only one-ScVenth "l
a cent per loaf of bread. an amount so
small that the baker would add it to his
profit instead of reducing he price Of
the loaf. 1t would be Just as sensible
for the farmers t" say that because their
business is not now profitable the con
sumner SllDull De I1littt W pay NV VI
farm products. even if the increase in
price did not 90 to the farmer. as it IS
for the consumers to say that because
they have to pay too much for farm pro-
ducts the farmer shall be compelled I"
red III" MS p'I"" even yen c ), amr r'""'''''
1t is very evident therefore tiat by
discriminating against the farmers who
I'll Use bread StufiS YOU are not even gong
To help the poor people Of the cities to
-l .l - 80, ,,,,. IN ,,,nl:-
ing the raising Of food stuffs less profit
able than it is now you will bankrupt
that industry, which means that no other
industry can succeed that depends on
the farmers for a market. and that in
Guides practically all our industries.
Why have you treated barley and malt.
the product of barley, different from
wheat, rye, ~buckwhcat, and so forth? or
course you are just as moons stant in
dealing with barley as with the other
grains mentioned: Your excuse for put
ting al kinds OF flour on the free list.
and thereby robhing the farmer of tho
duty you put on his grain, is said to
be that you thought it might make cheap
or bread for the poor. But in dealing
with barley you forget all about the poor,
drinker, for while you AVE reduced the
duty on barley 30 per cent and the duty
on malt about l3 per cent you have left
the same high duty or beer. ale. stout,
and porter contained in the ~Iayne-Al-
drich law, which can only be in the in
tercStS of the brcwtries and saloon keep
crs, for. of course the ultimate consumer
will pay just the same price as before:
The farmers of my state got about 80
cents per, hushcl for their 1911 barley
crop, while they have sold their 1912
crop for about 30 cents a bushel, and
still beer, ale. and SO forth, was the same
by the glass both years. Cutting the
duty on barley in W will take that
amount out Of the pockets of the farm
crS, and no one will be benefited except
the breweries and saloon keprs, who a
be able to buy a little cheaper at whole
sale. l cannot understand why you
should prefer to favor the brcwerieS INC
the saloon keepers rather than the farm
crs. unless you figure that you have re-
ceived more support from them in the
past than from the farmers, as you have