Evening star., 1926-08-22
FARMERS ARE ADVISED
HIGH TARIFF is SHIELD
Move to Lower Duty Called Fallacious
Method of Solving Present
Agricultural Troubles.


| ber, gasoline, fertilizers. oil cake. oil
cake meal, coffee. bananas. boots and
| shoes. 1t is true that all of these artl-
cles come in free of duty for the rest OF
the people as well as for the farmers.
But it is equally true that tariff duties
| levied on the crops produced by the
| farmers are against the industrial1stS
| and other consumers of foodstuffs In
this country in just so much as they
increase the price of food to the ulti-
mate consumers.
Lowden's Views Cited.
Former Gov. Frank 0. Lowden of
Illinois, a supporter of the principle
of the McNary Haugen bill. returned
from Europe recently and in a pub
lished interview declared that the
protective tariff must be made to
serve agriculture as we'll as it does
industry in this country He said |
that has been done in some European
countries. adding:
Germany. better than any other /
great industrial nation. L think. has |
succeeded in maintaining a proper !
bala ance between her agriculture and |
her industry. Ever since she adopted
the protective policy in the last quar- !
ter of the last century she has seen
to it that her agriculture should keep |
pace with the growing industry. Co
operation among her farmers was the
principal agency employed. but her
leading authorities are agreed that |
without the encoura cement and pro- |
lection which the government afford |
ed to agriculture cooperation alone |
could not have achieved this result
In his interview Mr.. Lowden did |
not make clear just what Germany !
had done in the way of making the |
protective tariff apply to the products
of the farm which has not also been |
done by the United States. Nor have |
Government officials engaged in the !
study of international commerce been
able to throw any more light on the |
matter.
Mr.. Lowden is regarded as poten- |
tial candidate for the Republican
nomination for President in 1928, par
ticularly in the corn belt. His demand
that the tariff be made to serve the
farmer better, therefore, is considered
significant.
Official Figures Given.
The Department of Commerce re-
Gently issued q statement classifying
all commodities brought into the
United States. In some quarters this
statement was interpreted as showing
that the farmer was well protected
because more than As per cent of all
United States were clasSed as agrl-
culture, while only 36.4 per cent OF
the dutiabe goods imported were
manufactured and non-farm products
This Interpretation seems somewhat
faulty. If the farm products were as
we'll protected as the manufactured
products Of this country the impor- |
tations of farm products should be
no greater than the importations or |
manufactured products.
This statement showed that the !
total imports into the United states |
in 1925 were valued at S4,226 100000. |
The duty-free imports were valued at
S., ,6S9, 900 900, while the dutlable I'M
ports were valued at 1887 10000 |
OF the total dutiable imports, 45.3 per
cent were listed as agricultural pro |
ducts. amounting in value to $685.
600 900. 1t is only fair to say at this
point that more than $200,000,O00 of
this value was in sugar alone. ana
the wool imported was valued at STA
OOO. 600; tobacco at $71 100000. Meats
imported were down to about $1,ooo,-
600; eggs and dairy products, S39 900
600. and grains, folders and feeds |
$36 900. 900.
In this connection, statistics put out
by the Tariff Commission throw some
light on the situation. While LIS
1913 bushels of corn were imported In |
1928, valued at $1,223.276, there was |
produced in this country in that year |
2.0O0.5 .5Sl 900 bushels of corn, END H..
76i 900 bushels were exported. valued |
at more than $14 100000. In the case !
of the much discussed wheat, the i'm !
ports were 1.30S, 900 bushels dutiable, |
and 1O,439 900 free of duty, valued at |
a total of nearly SIT ,000, 900. But the |
domestic, production of wheat was |
$50 .365 900 bushels and the exports OF |
wheat were sc, ,525 0G0 bushels, valued !
at S14S, 900. Other staple products
showed a huge domestic production |
and a considerable export. as COM
pared with the importatlons, among !
them cotton, swine, potatoes, tobacco,
rice, etc.
Total Crop Values.
The total value of crops in the
United States in 1925 is estimated at !
s1O.27O, 1000 900 With the exception |
of cotton, valued at $l,656, 900 900, and !,
farm forest products, valued at S32|.. !
600 900, practically all of this total |
represents products subject to duty, |
approximately $3.50, 600. .0Oo, or oo per |
cent of the farm crops.
The total value of animal products, |
on the other hand. is estimated to be |
Sc 694, ,O0O, 900 for the year 1928. Prac- |
tically all of these products are dutl-
able. About the only exception Is
hides.
Some of the crops are fed to the !
animals. so while the gross total value !
of these farm products In 1873 is ,estl. !
mated at SIC, ,964 100000 the net total
value of these products Is put at
SI3 O32 600 900, and of this amount |
about SIO.S55 900 900 was dutiable, or
so per cent.
Roughly, the value of manufactured |
products in this country in 1929 was
$50 .OOO. 900 900. Many of these prod i
ucts overlap and a reduction would |
have to be made to reach net figure
for the value of manufactured prod |
uCtS Also many of these products /
are not subject to duty. But the value |
of manufactured products subject to !
duty is nevertheless in excess of the |
value of the farm products subject |
TO duty. 1t would seem. therefore, that !
as the value of the dutiable agriCul- |
tural products imported is greater |
than the value of the imported manu- !
featured products, the tariff gives !
greater protection to the manufac !
lures than to the farm products.
1t has been charged often that the |
American manufacturer has a dis !
tinct advantage over the farmer. be- |
cause he is able to sell his surplus !
products abroad at lower prices. while |!
keeping the domestic prices Of his |
goods at high level. Indeed, it is to |
enable the farmer to dump" his sur |
plus wheat, etc. in foreign countries |
at a lower level than the domestic |
prices that the McNary Haugen plan |
is put forward. But investigation |
does not tend to bear out the fact that |
American manufacturers can or do |
dump their surplus products abroad |
at lower prices than they receive for |
similar products in the United States. |