The Coconino sun., 1921-08-12
SENATOR ASHURST WRITES STRONG
 LETTER TO ARIZONA ST0CKMEN

mutton, hides, wool, cotton and wheat at loss so that the consumer in the cities may obtain these commodities cheap. For example: the cattle grow CT furnishes the beef and hides and the stockraiser furnishes the mutton and wool for our nation, but it is an uphill task to enlist the support of the public at large for policies of state that tend to encourage stockraising.
 Tariff.
 We are learning slowly but surely that the tariff question is more of a business than political question. I am familiar with the history of tar ifs in the U. s. and l am unable for the moment to recall any tariff legis- lation, whether high tariff or low tar if, that did not discriminate against the farmer and the stockraiser.
 The manufacturing interests have practically controlled our American tariff policies and neither of the two political parties have been free from error respecting the subject of tariffs.
 The policy of the manufacturer has always been to protect himself from competition of foreign-made goods but to force the farms to compete in an open market with foreign farm prod ucts. The manufacturers desire cheap food and clothing for themselves and their employees; they want cheap raw material for their factories, but they demand and receive high prices for their manufactured articles.
 The mistake of our tariff legisla- ton for the past 100 years has been that it grossly discriminated against the farmer and the stockraiser and in favor of the manufacturer, that is to say, it placed high import duty on the manufactured article, but as a rule it either left the raw material, (the wool, hides, cotton, sheep and cattle) on the free list or placed a very small duty thereon.
 If it be economically sound to pro- tect the factory from foreign compe- tition it is also economically sound to protect the farm, field and ranch from foreign competition. A system or plan that lays a duty upon boots and shoes and clothing but not upon wool and hides is discrimination. A system that would raise revenue for the support of the government by levying revenue duty upon boots, shoes and clothing but not upon wool or hides or pelts, cannot be explained or, defended. The farmer and stock raisers in my judgment should insist that whatever may be the tariff policy of our political parties, the ranchman, the farmer and the stockraiser should have the same measure of treatment that is extended to the manufacturers.
 One of the vital principles of the American system of government is that the burdens and benefits of gov ernment should be distributed equally and fairly to all citizens, but is ie a singular and discreditable circum- stance in our history, that the advo- cates of high tariffs side by side with the advocates of low tariffs have us- ually agreed upon one point, to-wit: that the raw material for the factory should be in the free list or if dutiable at all, the manufacturer should be giv- en compensatory duty equaling the amount of the duty he has paid.
 I voted for the farmers Emergency Tariff bill, and whilst it was not a scientific bill nor adequate to give the full measure of relief to which the farmer was entitled, it was supported for the reason that our agricultural interests were bleeding at every art cry. What l shall do on the main tariff bill, depends of course, upon the nature and structure of the bill. If it should grossly discriminate against the stockraiser and the farmer and in