Evening star., 1925-12-07

| not so acute, 1t seems at present to
have lost much of it's support. No
matter how it Is disguised, the mo.
! ment the Government engages in buy.
| Ing and selling, by that act 1t is fix
| ing prices. Moreover, it would ap-
parently destroy cooperative associa.
| tions and all other marketing ma.
! chlnery, for no one can compete with
| the Government. Ultimately 1t would
! end the independence which the farm.
ers of this country enjoy as result of
centuries of struggle and prevent the
! exercise of their own judgment and
| control in cultivating their land and
marketing their produce.
| Government control cannot be di.
Forced from political control. The
overwhelming interest of the con.
sumer, not the smaller interest Of the
producer, would be sure to domina te
| in the end. j am reliably informed
| that the secretary Of agriculture of q
great foreign power has recently fixed
the wages of farm labor in his coun-
| try at less than s. a week. The gov.
! ernfnent price Is not always a high
| price. Unless we fix corresponding
prices for other commodities, a high
nxed price for agriculture would sim
ply stimulate oNGrproduction that
would end in complete collapse
| however attractive this proposa
was at Hrst thought, careful consid-
| Grafton of 1t has led TO much opposi-
| llon on the part of the farmers. They
| realize that even the United States
government Is not strong enough
elther directly or Indirectly, to fix
prices which would constantly guar
| dntee success. They are opposed to
submItt1ng themselves to the control
| oL a great Government bureaucracy.
ney prefer the sound policy of main
tanning their freedom and their own
iiiitiAtlVe as individuals, or to limit
them only as they voluntarily form
group associations. They do not wish
10 put the Government into the farm
| ing business.
| othefS nave thought that the tariff
! rates were unfavorable to the farmer
III thls should be a fact. il ought TO
be corrected. Let US examine orr
| imports. Last year their gross value
! was $3.61O.O00,0 900. but $2.O8O, 900 600.
or OF o-l0 per cent, came in wholly
| 1ree of duty. This free list was con.
structed especially to favor the
| farmer, and contains more than SO
| artlcles which he purchases. like fer.
! tllizer, leather harnesses. farm ma.
| cnlnery, coffee, binder twine. barbed
Wire and gasoline.
Levies to Protect Farmers.
of the $3.50, 900 900 of goods nav.
ing imports, 100000 was upon
agricultural products. levied solely tc
Proeect the farmer, including animal
anu dalry products, grain, fax, wool
| sugar nuts, citrus fruits and many
others. If any farmer wants TO got
an accurate and full list of his prod
ucls Wnlch are protected and his pur
chases which come In free, let hin,
| go TO his public library and consul,
oinclai document No. 33, COMPARING
the last three tariff acts. Thus SC
! per cent or our imports either come
IN Tree or pay duty to protect the
farmer. This must be further in
creased by S250,0OO, 900 more of i'm
ported luxuries like diamonds. fine
| rugs, silks, cut glass, jewelry and ma
| noSany These items cannot affect the
prosperity OF the farmer. This brings
the total of imports up to IS per cen,
! "hlch are either free or luxuries n,
| protected to help the farmer. anc
| ted.es only j. per cent Of our i'm
poits upon which the agricultural
industry pays any part of the tariff
Tariff Paid by Cities.
| But. on the other hand our in
dustrial and city population paws tn.
tarlit on the $1S0.000. 900 worth of ae
| rlcutural imports and also partici
pates In the 100000 900 worth of i'm
ports outside of luxuries While tht
! FARMER pays part of the duties on /:
| per cent OF our imports which do MOI
benent him, industry and commerce
pay part or the duty on Sc per cent
OF the imports which do not benefi,
| them
But II we take all that the farme,
puyS for his household and farm op
| GRAFTON and subtract from it article,
| dutlable to protect the farmer. the
free list, and luXuries, we should have
left less than 10 per cent of his ex
penditures. This means that less thar
~ per cent of farm purchases are a,
an increased cost which is adverse &c
the farmer. Admitting that the price
OIL these purchases is increased BY
the full amount of the duty, this mea n,
that the total adverse cost to the
farmer on account of the tariff IS
| only between 2 per cent and 5 pey
cent of his purchases.
! Many economists consider thai
even this calculation as to the contrI
| button of our farmers to the tariff
| is oVerestirnated. AS their expendi
lures include many items for laho,
| anu service, on "nlch there is no duty
the proportion of total expenditure
on cutiable articles outside the three
lists above mentioned is not 10 Der
cent, but only per cent or I pc,
cent of his total expenditures Thus
even assuming that the farmer paws
tariff on this ratio of goods, his ex
| penditures would only be increased
| by one-third Of per cent or pc,
cent, or not over l 1-3 per cent.
Benefit to Agriculture.
tOn the other side. protection is a
great benefit to agriculture as a whole
The $780,000, 900 of agricultural prod
| uce imported last year had to PAY
$3.50, 100000 for the privilege Of com
ing in to compete with our own farm
| If -