Evening star., 1922-03-26
BY G. GOULD LINCOLN.

BY G. GOULD LINCOLN.
~ NE industry, at least, in the
United States is anxiously
awaiting the enactment Of
~ the permanent tariff bill into
law-the potash industry.
This industry came into being
when the war cut off the supply Of
German potash. an essential in the
fertilizers used by American farmers.
particularly in the Atlantic coast
states. approximately $30.000,000
were invested in the new industry
and plants established in many parts
Of the country.
But when German potash became
available again and at prices far be-
low the prices for which the Ameri-
can concerns could sell their product
! and live. the American plants shut
down. They are shut down today. and
the only American potash being
turned out now is in the by-products
obtained in the manufacture of other
materials. Even that is not being
sold.
SLIDING SCALE OF DUTIES
FOR FIvE-YEAR PERIOD.
In the permanent tariff bill-the
Fordney bill-passed by the House.
potash is carried in the free list, but
| with an important proviso. This
proviso fixes a duty on potash for
| the next five years. on a sliding scale.
| The first year the duty is 2iz cents
per pound actual potash imported.
The second year the duty is 2 cents
| pound; the third year, y cents:
! the fourth year. 1 cent, and the fifth
year, Il cent.
1t is about this provision that the
| contest between the American potash
producers on the one hand and the
fertilizer manufacturers and the Ger
| man syndicate on the other is now
| centering. The American producers
| insist that II they are given this
| amount of protection during the COM
ing five years they will be able to
meet on even terms thereafter. with
| out duty. the German and French
producers of potash. The French now
! possess the potash mines of Alsace,
formerly owned by the Germans.
now struggling with the tariff bill,
! and hopes to be able to report it to
the Senate by April 1. or soon there
after. So far the details of the meas
| ure have not been made public. But
! the belief prevails that the COM
| mittee will retain in the measure a
| provision similar to that in the House
bill giving protection to the Ameri-
can potash industry.
FARMERS AND CONSUMERS
HAVE THE CHIEF STAKE.
The American farmer. and after him
! the consumer of farm products In
the United States, after all, have the
chief interest in this contest For
practically all the potash used in this
country is used in fertilizers by the
farmers and used to increase the
crops.
The question seems to frame itself
this way:
| Are the American farmers willing
for the next five years to pay more
for the potash needed for fertilizer
than they would pay If there were no
duty on potash, in order that there
may be built up an American source
! of supply that will make this country
independent in the future of the Ger
man and French monopolies?
| When the war with Germany broke
out. long before the United States
entered that conflict, the importations
Of German potash soon ceased. The
American farmer could not get pot
ash for his lands after the stocks
already in this country had been ex-
hausted. Under the urgent solicita-
tion of the government. Americans
entered the field Of producing potash
In 1915 the domestic production OF
potash was 1890 tons. The importa-
tion Of potash was not entirely cut of
during the war, and 1887 tons were
| imported in 1915. But the average
annual consumption of potash in the
United States prior to the war was
25o,o00 tons. 1t is easy to see that
| the American farmers suffered in 1915
from lack of potash.
PRODUCTION OF POTASH
DURING AND SINCE WAR.
! In 1916 the production Of American
potash. increased to s.72o tons and
/, the importation decreased to 1886
tons; in 1917 the American production
was 32.573 tons and importation s,10O
] tons; in 1918 the American produc-
| tion was 54,S03 tons and the impor-
tation 1887 tons: in 1919 the Ameri-
can production was 30,S45 tons and
the importation 1858 tons; in 1920
the American production was 1854
tons and the importation 223,00 tons
The foreign potash was sold here
at prices less than the cost Of pro-
duction in this country. Not un-
naturally. the American plants closed
down in rapid succession.
Two questions naturally present
themselves in the consideration OF
this matter of tariff on potash. The
first Is How much more is 1t going to
cost the American farmers, and, after
them, the consumers of foodstuffs
with the tariff in effect? The second
is Are there sufficient supplies Of potash
to be found in the United States
and accessible, to meet a great part
Of the requirements Of the American
farmers?
/ ONLY A SMALL FRACTION
4