The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1916-03-03
REPUBLICAN, PUBLICITY

4 /
The first sentence of Senate
Bourne's outgiving runs thus: GAS a
all-round knocker of American indus
tries the Democratic party is entitle
to first place." This pleasing an
elegant generalization is based on tn
operation Of the Underwood tariff dur
ing the ten months between its goin,
into effect and the outbreak Of the Eu
ropean war.
| We are informed that during thes,
10 months the importations of meat
and dairy products increased 200 per.
cent, of breadstuffs $50 per cent, Of
manufactured wool 100 per cent
"Once more the Democrats found the
opportunity to bring their hammer
down upon the heads of American
farmers"
| Does Senator Bourne know that the
year 1918 saw a general drouth in
the United States and that the pro-
duction of the three principal grains
wheat, corn and oats-fell below
that of 1912 by more than billion
bushels? Does he know that there
was no depression of prices Of food
products, but rather an advance? Does
he wish that we had had a tariff to
cause artificial imitation of prices of
food, in addition to the natural effect
Of the drouth upon the world price?
Does he know any American farm
er who complained of the prices he
received for meat, grains or dairy
products between October 8, 1918,
when the Underwood tariff went into
effect, and August l, 1914, when the
war began? The tariffs effect in the
realm of agricultural products was
wholly benefcent. The enlarged free
list permitted the foreign market to
feed the Amrican people when the
American farmer could not on account
of the drouth, without much advance
over the prices which usually rule in
the home market.
Senator Bourne notes that imports
of manufactured leather goods in
creased nearly $1,000, O00--"a about 80
per cent" American producers of
leather goods and employees in tanner
les and factories for the manufacture
of gloves, boots and shoes suffered
accordingly"
During that same period American
tanners and manufacturers of goods
made of leather sold in the markets of
the world, against foreign competi-
ton, goods worth more than $47,O0O,-
900. Of boots and shoes, which are
on the free list under the Underwood
tariff, we imported during these 10
months little less than $204, 900 |
worth; we exported them to the
of more than $14,390,0 900. In
view of this fact, the "sufferings" of |
our shoe manufacturers and workers
on account Of the tariff may be bet
ter imagined than described.
But we really think Senator
Bourne is at his best when he dis
cusses Schedule X. He tells us that |
the wooden imports increased 225 |
per cent and that importations of UNI
manufactured wool increased 100 per
cent. And he invites us to weep over
the havoc.
Now we have no objection to weep
ing, provided it is all there is left TO |
do; but if weep we must we should
lick to weep intelligently. And some
how this tale of red ruin to the wool
growers and wooden manufacturers
fails to hang together. If the Sena-
tor will examine the records of wool
prices for 1918 and 1914 he will find
that there was no reduction in price in
consequence of the Underwood tariff.
AhS A0AAhCL NOIltilucu W R6J his price
and the wooden manufacturer to alb
sorb the American product. We are
therefore moved to ask question:.
If the manufacturer was faced with
ruin himself, in consequence of the
increased wooden goods importations
-2O,0OO,000, according to the Sena-
ton-what did he want with that 100
per cent more of manufactured
wool he bought from abroad? 1t
really seems to us that his purchase
of it was, from Republican stand |
point, one of the most reckless ven
lures we ever heard Of.
The free wool clause did not trou- |
BILE the American farmer during the
10 months in question; and if the low
cred rates on woolens worked harm
to the manufacturer why did he dou-
Die his purchases of wool abroad while
continuing to take all offerings at
home?
We pause 70 reply.-St. Louis
b e-..lIs