Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1920-12-20
GOVERNMENT RELIEF.

Secretary Houston and the federal
reserve board are right in holding that
no class of citizens, not even so import
ant class as the farmers, is entitled
ito government relief as against falling
prices, that could not be demanded with
equal justice by all classes in like case.
have been caught with high priced
goods on their shelves, and that some
|of them have been under the necessity
Iof shouldering heavy losses. If the
rule that it was sought to establish
had been adopted the government
would have been converted into re-
lief agency, not simply for certain
classes, but for the whole people. We
should then have had a development
of paternalism such as had never be-
fore been dreamed of. Business, in
Guiding the business of agriculture, is
entitled to fair treatment by the
banks-even to liberal treatment so
far as this is consistent with safety.
But the loans that are made must be
good loans, and well secured. If they
are not, we should have repetition
on a vast scale of the bank failures
in North Dakota.
Nor is it the business of the govern
ment to maintain prices, or to inter
vene to prevent their fall. The fact
that some people suffer from such a
movement is not relevant to the issue.
1t is on this principle that the treas
ury and the banks have acted."-Ins
dianapOlis News.
There is no question but that retail
merchants are being made to suffer
greatly from falling prices and they
have no remedy. However, the man
ufacturer can stop expenses for Il
time by shutting down, thus reducing
the supply Of goods and affecting mar
ket values. Retail merchants cannot
do that, nor can the farmer. Besides,
the farmer is the only big producer
that does not fix the price of his own
products. He must go into the mar
ket and accept what others are will
ing to pay.
True, it is not the province of the
government to serve special interests,
or any class, but the government does
some classes more satisfactory than
they would be If left to the competi-
ton of unrestricted commerce. This
is done in the interest of all and for
the general welfare. Hence we give
protection to certain manufacturers
to enable them to supply the. home
market. That is of great value to
them and it would be of considerable
benefit to the farmer right now ii he
enjoyed the same consideration But
in the framing of the present tariff
law it appears there were no efforts
to protect the farmer. The duty of %
cents buShel on wheat was removed
and now millions of bushels of wheat
are being imported from Canada.
There used 90 be duty of Is cents
a bushel on corn, which in the old
days was quite a fair protective rate.
Corn is now on the free list and con-
siderable corn is being imported from
Argentina. Corn meal used to be pro-
tected by Il tariff of 40 cents per 100
pounds. while now it is free. Cattle
valued at more than $14 per head
were subjected to duty of 271a per
cent prior to 1913, now they are adj
mitted free. The $1.5O per head on
pigs has been abolished. That is, the
kind of pigs the farmer raises, but
pig tin and pig zinc and some other
pigs in that class are still aided by
protective tariffs. Prepared or pre-
pork used to have a tariff of
25 per cent while now they are on the
free list. Beef was also taken from
the protected class and put upon the
free list And so it goes all through
the list of farm products.
1t is claimed that although some
products of the farm are admitted
free it has no effect upon the market,
because certain products are not i'm
ported to any considerable extent
Well, if it makes no difference why
did congress go to the trouble in 1913
to transfer so many of the products
of the farm from the dutiabIc to the
free list: If il cut no figure one way
Or the other why wern't such schedules
left alone!
Many other interests outside of