Evening star., 1926-08-22

corn belt. If they can convince the
farmer that he suffers from the tariff
to II greater extent than he gains,
Democratic leaders figure they may
have an issue that will shake the com
placency of Republicans in the Middle
West and West. and more particularly
that of the Republicans In the Indus
trial East.
AT the same time the farmers of
the corn belt-and they are Republi-
cans. generally speaking-are roaring
that the farmers do not benefit to the
extent they should from the protective
tariff. They have centered their et
forts about the McNary- y-Haugen bill,
with revolving fund to aid in selling
surplus of staple crops abroad at a
lower figure than the domestic price
and with an equa liZation fee imposed
upon all the producers of these crops
10 meet the loss. Under The operation
of the MrNary- Haugen bill the iull
benefit of the protective tariff system
Will inure 10 the farmers, they insist.
Meanwhile the Republican admins.
tration. having no faith in the eco
homie virtue of the Mc\ary- iiaugen
pan. is eager to extend aid to the
farmers through their cooperative or
EanlzationS, but wants to keep the
Government out of the business OF
buying. selling or imposing an equal
iZatiOn fee.
Major Questions Arise.
With the congressional campaign
now in fun swing, and with the dis
cuSSion of presidential possibilities IN
1928 gaining momentum daily. the
sluestion of the farmer and the tarlf1
becomes of very keen interest polltl-
cally. as we'll as economically.
Does the American farmer beneht
by the protective tariff?
Does he benefit by the tariff to the
extent that the American manutac-
turer benefits thereby?
or does the protective tariff operate
against the farmer?
Can the protective tariff be made
to operate more effectively for the
farmer. and if SO, how?
The answers to these questions, II
addressed to political leaders, depends
upon whether they are Democrats or
Republicans. or Republicans from the
farm belt When addressed to some
of the officials of the Government con-
nected with the Tariff Commission
and the Department of Commerce
here in Washington they bring the
answers that Nobody knows" and
that Those are questions with which
the best minds in the country are
struggling
II is possible. however. to dig out
some of the informal ton compiled by
Government agencies regarding the
farmer and the protective tarif.
For example. under the Fordney-
McCumber tariff act of 1922, the
american farmers produce is gen
orally protected" by the imposition
Of customs duties. Corn carries
tariff rate of Is cents per hushel; hay.
81 per ton: swine, 0ne-halt cent per
pound. cattle, 1i2 TO cents per
pound; wheat. 80 cents per bushel.
-IS.Nr
of the act has been increased to a.
rents; potatoes. 80 cents per 100
bounds: oats. 15 cents per hushe.; to-
hacCo. 81 cents to S2.75 per pound;
apples. p cents per bushel: barley,
90 cents per hushel: wool. 81 cents
per clean pound; oranges, | cent per
pound: rice. cents per pound: rye,
j. cents per bushel, and on down
the list including dairy products,
eggs. peanuts, onions. sugar, etc.
Cotton is the only great American
crop which is not accorded protection
of the tariff. Americas dominance
in the production of cotton is given
as the reason for not including it.
Price Effect Doubted.
It appears. therefore. that the
American farmer is given "protection'
under the rates of the tariff law. The
duties are there and are imposed on
imported products. But what the
farmer wants. to know is, do these
duties help to keep up the prices of
commodities which he produces and
sells? Here we strike a snag. In
some cases. undoubtedly. the pro |
tective tariff operates to keep the
American farmers prices up. Sugar
and wool are perhaps the most
striking examples of actual protec-
tion. Without the sugar tariff the
cane sugar growers in Louisiana ana
the beet sugar producers in Colo
rado. Michigan and elsewhere IN All
,roha bility would he run out of
business. The wool growers have
been benefited by the duty on wool
To a very considerable extent.
But what about wheat? 1t is pretty
generally conceded that the price OF
wheat is made in Liverpool, that the
price of American wheat is the world
price and that this world price ap-
niles In the United States as we'll as
out of it. What becomes of the pro
tectiye tariff theory here? The diff
Guilty has been that America produces
surplus wheat. and that surplus,
which must he sold abroad, fixes the
prices which the farmers receive tor
wheat sold in the United States. II
is to correct that situation particu-
larly that the corn -belterS have come
"
The administration. headed by
President Coolidge. has made il clear
time and again that ii desires to help
the farmers. In this connection at
tention may he called to the fact that
the President has increase the duty
on wheat by proclamation from 80
cents 10 A. cents per hushel on flour
from IS cents to 81 04 cents per hun
dred pounds. and on butter from to
- cents ner Mound He has taken
This action under the flexible proNi-
sions of the tariff act. which permit
him to increase or lower duties by 30
ner cent after investigation by the
Tariff Commission.
The Tariff Commission is at present
engaged on Investigations tn deter
mine whether the duties should be in
creased on milk and cream. peanuts.
SOW beans. cottonseed, onions. flax
seed. eggs and egg products.
II appearS therefore. that the Gov
ernment is giving real attention to
this matter of protection for the
farmer under the tariff laws.
Most Crops Protected.
The criticism is repeatedly made
that the farmer must sell in an open
market and buy in a protected market.
Rut the facts do not bear out this
criticism Except. perhaps. IN the
rase of wheat and cotton. all the big
starle crops are afforded protection
through the tariff Even in the case
of wheat the tariff duty is on the !
books and levied on imported wheat. |
and the failure Of the tariff to pro |
tect" is due To conditions that !
straight tariff seems Incapable of rem |
edving. Furthermore. many Of the |
things in the farmers budget are free |