The Ely miner., 1928-10-19

tariff is the cornerstone or the fun
damental.
why, Mr.. Hoover and Senator Nye
know very well that that is not true
They know that the tariff does not
function with respect to these major
crops because of the surplus, and Sen
ator Nye appreciates that or he could
never have declared in favor of the
formula set forth in the McNary
Haugen bill, because the theory of
that bill is to lift the surplus out of
the domestic market so that it will
not operate to drag down the price of
the whole CROP"
The records belle you, Governor:
consider, for example, the case of
wheat. During the first five months
of 1921, while the Underwood free
trade for-agriculture- -tarifl was in
force, we imported 1871, ,166 bushels
of wheat, valued at $29, ,772,931. On
May 81, 1921, with the passage of the
Farmers Emergency Act, which Presi-
| dent Wilson had previously vetoed,
| wheat was taken from the free list
and given soc per bushel duty. I'm
portations of wheat for the balance
of the year totaled 5,154,356 bushels
valued at $6,140,279. In other words,
the Underwood imports of wheat for
months were almost four times the
| imports under the Emergency Act for
months. But the Governor says the
tariff on such major farm products
is not effective.
And what about cattle and beef,
Governor? These were on the free
list under the Underwood Act of 1913.
Immediately after the passage of this
free trade for agriculture measure,
large quantities of frozen beef and
mutton were diverted from Europe to
our own markets. The war halted this,
but in 1918 and 1920 and 1921, the
food began anew, and American beef
steers sold from SIS to $3.50 per hun
dred pounds Thus far during 1928,
according to the Department of Com
merce, and with protective tariff
law in force, the average price per
hundredweight at Chicago has ranged
from $3.50 to $3.50. But the Cover
nor says the tariff on such major pro-
ducts is not effective.
In 1919 and 1920, the United States
imported 100000 pounds of mutton
and lamb and 36,000.000 pounds of
beef. In 1927 and 1928, under pro-
tective tariff, we imported only g.
100000 pounds of lamb and mutton
and $4,000, 900 pounds of beef. But the
Governor says the tariff on such ma
jor farm products is not effective.
Nor does the tariff affect cattle and
] wheat growers only. In the fiscal
year 1sl9-l920, butter was dutiable at
21ac pound, and we imported 49,
100000 pounds. Under the present
protective tariff rate of &c pound,
butter importations for the fiscal year
1927-1928 amount to only 100000
pounds. But the Governor says the
tariff on such major farm products
is not effective.
If the Governor means this, if he
really believes that the tariff is not
effective on the major agriculture
products of the American farm, then
his next step logically is to advocate
the removal of the tariff on farm pro-
ducts. And put them back on the free
list where they were under the Demo-
cratic Underwood Simmons Act of
1918. How about it, Governor? Is
that what you mean? The people
want to know!
In his attack on the tariff in his
Omaha speech, Governor Smith lined
himself up with the opponents of pro-
lection to American industry, and
broadcast the absolutely false state
fnent that the farmer buys in pro-
tected market and sells in an unpro-
tected market It is high time that
someone among his advisors knowing
more about the tariff than thus far
he has indicated he does, sets the
Governor right on this. Someone
ought to tell him that practically
everything the American farmer uses
in his business including fertilizers,
agricultural implements and machin-
cry, cement, bricks, binding twine,
gun powder, harness and barbed wire
are on the free list in the Tariff Act
of 1922, and in marked contract to
the Democratic Underwood Simmons
Act of 1918, every important agricul-
tural product is given a substantial
protective tariff duty under the Act of
1922 For example-wheat 42c
bushel, beef SC per pound, corn 15c
per bushel, mutton &C per pound, po-
tatoes SOC per hundred pounds and
butter &c per pound.