The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1932-06-27
HE DOESN'T BELIEVE 1T
Reeder, N. OAK,
June %, 1882.

JuIlc 20, 4SOZ.
Editor, Tribune:
At the recent Republican conven-
ton In Chicago the Republican party
adopted platform that needs to be
commented on, in order to let the pub
lie know the facts as they are instead
of the misleading statements as given
in the platform. In regard to its
stand on the agricultural problem the
platform adopted by the Republican
party reads as follows:
I'm 1928 the Republican party
pledged further measures in aid OF
agriculture, principally tariff protec-
ton for agricultural products and the
creation of federal farm board
clothed with the necessary power to
promote the establishment of farm
marketing system of farmer -owned
and controlled sterilization corpora
tions.
Almost the first official act of
President Hoover was the calling of a
special session of congress to redeem
these party pledges. They have been
redeemed.
THE 1890 tariff act increased the
rates on agricultural products by 80
per cent. upon industrial products
only IL per cent. That act equalized,
so far as legislation can do so, the
protection afforded the farmer with
the protection afforded industry and
prevented a vast flood of cheap wool,
grain, livestock. dairy and other prod
ucts from.entering the American mar
ket."
There are in particular two items
we wish to call the readers attention
to. The Republicans pledged tariff
protection, as well as other considera-
tons to agriculture and in reply to
this they say they have done what
they can do, so far as legislation can
do so, and in view of this, they have
redeemed their pledge to agriculture.
But let us look into the matter a lit
tie further and see with what truth
and sincerity these statements are
made.
At a conference of leading Progress
sives held in Washington on March II
and II, 1881, Senator Costigan of
Colorado made the following remarks
in regard to the tariff act of 1880:
1T was during the unfavorable en-
suing year 1930) that the highest
tariff law In our history was enacted.
That law was originally proclaimed
as intended to aid agriculture; instead
it has greatly burdened that stricken
industry. Enacted last June. and hur-
riedly approved by the president, the
law has been followed by worse. not
better times, and by increasing un-
employment. This was to be expected.
The law was approved by the presi-
dent over the public warning OF more
than a thousand of Americas ablest
economists, against the advice of our
wisest business men, and regardless
Of the objections of many nationally
known representative farm leaders.
Instead of benefiting American agri-
culture. it has tended to increase the
prices of almost everything the farmer
must buy, without increasing the
prices of the great bulk Of the prod
ucts he sells. Its benefits are trivial
to farmers; its burdens substantial.
For example, the law was so framed
as to increase the average .familys
cost for shoes approximately two and
one half times the amount Of bene-
fit that family under favorable con-
ditions might expect to receive from
the new tariff on hides. In our re-
cent tariff legislation the same UNI
friendly attitude towards stricken ag-
riculture was shown to farm produc-
ers Of our great staple surplus crops.
such as wheat, corn and cotton.
Spokesman for the administration
were adamant toward the proposed
reduction of manufacturing tariffs,
which would have tended to lower the
living costs of our farm population.
They insisted on continuing and In