The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1922-06-30
Foreign Advertising Representative
THE AMERICAN PRESS association
THE DUTY ON POTASH.
Proposed Duty On Potash Means
$51 ,3OO,O Tax On Farmer.

$51 300, 900 Tax On Farmer.
Following is a statement issued
by the American Farm Bureau
Federation:
The proposed tariff rates on pot
ash will cost the American farmer
the enormous sum of $51,3O0,0OO.
That is the tax burden he will have
to shoulder if Congress adopts the
rates proposed in the pending tarlf
bill, and there will be no escape
from payment, for the farmer can
not pass it along. He will have to
pay or do without potash.
This potash tax bill of $780,
900, be it remembered, is in addi-
ton to all the other taxes which the
farmer must share in common with
the rest of us. In plain words, the
proposed potash tariff is scheme
that singles out the farmer to carry,
alone and unaided, the unconscion-
able additional tax load of $51, 30O,-
900. The iniquity of such scheme
becomes the more apparent when it
is realized that without potash,
which is one of the elements of COM
plete fertilizer, the crops of the ma
tion will fail in yield and suffer in
quality.
The computation by which the
amount of the potash tax is calcu-
lated is easy of demonstration. Here
are the figures, based on 100000
tons potash used in 1913, a normal
year: LIST year, $50 per ton, 3d.
100000; End year, $50 per ton,
$13,50O,O00; 3rd year, $40 per ton,
$10,S00,000; 4th year, $50 per
ton, $8,1OO,000; 9Th year, $40 per
ton, $5,4OO,OOO.
Why this indefensible scheme OF
taxation, with its heavy hand upon a
single industry agriculture?
Because of the demand of the
domestic potash producers.
They have persuaded committees
of Congress to levy toll of $751;
100000 upon the food producers OF
the country that they may continue
an industry totally inadequate to
meet the normal consumption de-
mand.
Under the stimulus of inflated wal
prices, the output Of domestic pot,
ash producers in their best year
1918, reached a maximum of only
$4,000 tons. Since then their pro
duction has declined, amounting tt
only 1926 tons in 1921. But grant
ing that the wartime maximum OF
$4,000 tons of domestic potash car
be equaled, then the operation. OF
the duty on this basis of production
gives the producers power to take
from the farmer $2,5OO,000 the frs
year, $2,500,000 the second year
100000 the third year, $1,000,
900 the fourth year, and $1,00O,00C
the fifth year. But in addition the
farmer is to be still further mulcted
in the sum Of $11, 100000 the frs
year, $11,0O0,O00 the second year
$S,3O0,O00 the third year, $5,600,
600 the fourth year, and $2,900,00C
the fifth year.
In other words, the proposed rates
provide that after the potash pro
ducers shall have taken $4,000
as their share of the tax, the farmer
must pay an additional tax at the
custom house of 100000.
1t is almost certain that domestic
potash production will not reach
! $4,000 tons year. AS has been
stated, the 1921 output was only
1926 tons, but large or small pro-
duction will have no effect on the
tax proposed to be levied on the
potash consumers. If the produc.
ton should be low. the farmer will
have to pay at the custom house
what the potash producers fail to
collect.
Such system of customs duties
never has been written in any tariff
bill passed by any party in the his
tory of the country. 1t cannot be
justified either as measure of pro-
lection or as a means for raising
revenue. Tax laws avow a purpose
to distribute their burdens equally
The proposed potash rates are laid
with discrimination against the agri-
cultural industry. The farmer in
this case is the ultimate consumer,
and no others participate in the tax.
The proposed rates mark de-
parture from the traditional policy
of all parties, which have always de-
clared for free plant food. Every
civilized nation adheres to that
policy, recognizing as fundamental
principle that food producers shall
be unfettered in their labors to sus-
tain the nation.