The Idaho recorder. [volume] (Salmon City, Idaho) 1886-1927, 1922-06-23

of somebody else. In other words, fol
every / per cent of protection tney
are given they pay 80 per cent of pro.
lection for the benefit of other people
| do not think there is any question
about that.
Take the wool schedule, known as
schedule K in the Payne Aldrich bill
Tut having q number in the bill tina
is now before the senate. If the tax
proposed in the bill is levied the farm
er will have to pay the tax the same
rs does the man who lives in the city,
the man who works in the store, the
machine shop, the foundry or in an
Office. If the analysis be worked out
it will be demonstrated that the tax
Of 80 per cent on secured wool will
cost the public nearly S200,000,000, of
which those engaged in the growing
OF wool will receive something like
S72 1000, 10000, against which the farm
ers as a whole will pay about $99 ,0oO,-
900, the rest of the people will pay in
proportion, while the government will
receive as its share of this enormous
tax less than S20,000,000. Yet, it is
contended that ghis will help the men
whose business is raising sheep, but
the other farmers of. the country.
those who do not grow wool but raise
wheat and corn and cotton, will pay
the bill-that rs, most substantial
part of it-and for every wool grow
er there are a thousands farmers who
do not raise sheep. ! do not have in
mind ihe little farmer who raises cot
ton or wheat and has a few sheep on
the side. but men whose business is
growing sheep and who are only a
few in number when compared with
the great mass of farmers who witt
pay SO large a proportion Of the tax
proposed in the pending measure.
$50 we find some of the propcnent,
that It's enactment will greatly relieve
the agricultural situation in this coun-
try, because it ,aises the tax on their
products at the custom house. Per
sonally | have never believed that
such tax would prove of any benefit
to the American farmer. We are tor.
how the bill is going to help the farm
er by an increased tax on wheat, by
increasing the tax on certain kinds of
cotton, neither of which viii ever be
of any benefit to the farmer or put
GRE dollar in his pocket. This talk
NAV sound like music to the farmer,
but does the farmer realize that
there are also in the bill paragraphs
taxing the necessities OF life, neces-
sites that are vital to the farmer,
the necessities by which agriculture
lives
when the present law was written
not only were all kinds of fertilizer.
which are important in the United
States and are valuable in the devel-
opment Of agriculture, placed on the
free list. but binding twine for the
man who raises wheat in the west and
and ties and bagging for the farmer
whose basic crop is cotton were like
wise placed on the free list. Under
this bin they propose TO put these
things back on the tax list, and there
is no evidence that either of those in
dustTies has suffered from outside
competition under existing law. Some
of the fertilizers coming into this
market and many Of the commodities
from which fertilizers are made also
viii be taxed under the proposed law
am confident that the farmer will
not be long in finding out these things.
The items | have cited are simply IL
lCstrative. Others which concern the
welfare Of agriculture can be found
all through the bill"