The Hays free press. [volume] (Hays, Kan.) 1908-1924, 1922-06-01
FARM PRODUCTS PROTECTED

It has been the uniform policy of
Protectionists to afford adequate Pro
tecton to farm products ever snce
the formation of the Government.
When the statement is made that the
pending Tariff bill is the first one in
which the interests of the farmers
have been looked after, such state
ment is untrue.
The first act passed by the first
Congress was a Tariff Act. It was
not a long law but it provided for a
Tariff on cotton, wool, unmanufac-
tured tobacco and raw hides. There
were a number of other articles which
were produced on the farm which al
so received attention, but those enum-
Grated were exclusively agricultural
products. Subsequent Tariffs, all of
them short, added to the dutiable list
of farm products. The Act of May
p, 1884, added materially to the list
by affording Protection to bacon,
beef, butter, fax, hams, lard, oats,
potatoes, pork and wheat.
Wheat was made dutiable at the
rate of 25 cents per bushel. We won
der what our internationalst trends
will think of that! AS a matter of
fact, wheat has been dutiable at that
rate most of the time since 1924. In
one of the Tariff Acts (that of July
80, 1846) it was dutiable at 20 per
cent. ad valorem, and in the Act of
March 2, 1861, it bore a rate of 20
cents per bushel.
The Act of October 1, 1890, the
Mckinley Tariff, gave full Protec-
ton to practically all agricultural
products. All domestic animals were
protected, horses and mules at $50
per head, cattle at SO each, hogs at
$1.5O per head and sheep at $1.50
each. Barley, buckwheat, corn, oats,
rice, rye and wheat, with their differ
, ent products, all were protected by
substantial rates of duty, practically
the same rates of duty provided for
in the pending. Fordney Tariff bill.
Wheat was dutiable at 25 cents per
bushel, the rate which has usually
prevailed under our Protective
Tariffs. All dairy products received
Protection. The farm and field pro
ducts, such as beans, broom-corn,
cabbages, eggs, honey, hops, onions,
peas, potatoes tobacco and wool, as
well as. nursery stock, all received
adequate Protection. Seeds, fruits,
nuts, meats and meat products, all
were protected.
The Act of August 27, 1894, the
Wilson Tariff, undid all that and
either placed agricultural products on
the Free-List or imposed so low a rate
of duty as to amount to the same
thing. Under that Tariff and under
the Underwood-Simmons Tariff, it
can be truly said that farm products
received no Protection. The Dipgley
Tariff of 1897 restored the duties on
agricultural products, which duties
were continued under the Payne
AIdrich Tariff. An examination of
those laws have not been neglected
by the party of Protection.
There are very few practical diff
ferences between the provisions for
the Protection of agricultural pro
ducts in the pending bill and those Of
the Tariff of 1909. Those differences
are mainly. accounted for by changed
conditions and the principal differ
enees affect Southern products, which
simply illustrates the necessity for
that section of the country to
awaken, as it has, TO the vital neces-
sfty OF an adequate Protective Tariff,
a necessity long lost sight Of.