The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1938-09-29
Knutson Answers
Christensen

by Congressman Harold Knutson
In a recent press release, Mr.. Har-
nv w. Christensen, Farmer-Labor
candidate for Congress, states that
little criticism is being heard from
Republicans concerning the Ad-
ministration's trade treaty program
because it has borne fruit"
Just what that fruit is he does
not say, unless we are to assume 1T
is the Al per cent increase in farm
exports and the Is per cent de-
crease in competitive farm imports
during the last fiscal year.
The Administration can take no
credit for the decrease in farm i'm
ports, because it has done every
thing possible to encourage them.
Under the various trade treaties,
the duties on long list of competi-
tive imports have been reduced by
as much as so per cent. and these
reduced rates have been extended
not alone to the treaty countries
but to the whole world, save Ger
many.
The purpose of the trade treaty
program is not to restrict imports
but to increase them. Not single
rate of duty On agricultural imports
has been increased under the trade
treaties.
The figures quoted by Mr.. Chris
tenson are taken from the publica-
ton Foreign Crops and Markets."
issued by the u. S. Department CT
Agriculture. He failed to include
the explanatory statement showing
the reason for the decline in i'm
ports and the rise in exports CT
farm commodities. The Depart
ment states:
Imports of farm products into
the United States during the fiscal
year Just closed were 25 per cent
lower in value than they were dur
ing the preceding year. The dec
line was due principally to two in
fluences: % The decrease in
general business activity and de-
mand that marked the fiscal year,
and (2) the return to more normal
crops in the United States in 1887"
In other words. farm imports
declined, not because of any steps
taken by the Administration to re-
trict them, but because of reduced
purchasing power in this country
and also because our farmers for
the time being were being allowed
to supply the domestic needs in
stead of blowing their crops under
and letting foreign producers have
the domestic market.
With reference to the increase in
agricultural exports, the Depart
ment stated:
Grains dominated the farm
export picture during the fiscal
year just closed. Their export value
was more than five times that CT
the preceding year. The most i'm
portant factor in the large increase
in grain exports was the above
average United States production
of 1887. Bumper crops, resulting in
adequate SURPRISES available for
export, gave foreigners an oppor-
tunity to- buy United States grain
at competitive prices for the first
time in more than 4 years"
In other words, the lifting Of the
"plcw-under" program enabled our
farmers to find export markets for
the first time in years. The Depart
ment of Agriculture gives no Gre
dit to the trade treaty program for
this increase in farm exports. In
deed, no credit is due. 1t will be
found that they have influenced
farm exports very little. In fact,
exports Of many farm commodities
are far below what they were be-
fore the trade treaty program went
into operation. In cases where ex-
ports have increased, it will gen.
orally be found that the increase
is as great in the case of non-treaty
countries as in the case of those
with whom we have trade treaties.
Mr.. Christensen lists the total
agricultural exports for 1898 at
SS8,00O000 and the total imports as
$521, 100000, and then states:
I'm ether words, for every dol
lar of farm imports, there are now
S1.74 of farm exports"
AS a matter of fact, the total
farm imports in the fiscal year
1878 were of the value of 81, 1885,
100000, not the figure stated by Mr..
Christensen, which covers only Sc
called competitive imports.
Mr.. Christensen charges that
farmers were hurt most of all by
the high tariff policy" OF course
he is merely reiterating some of the
stock arguments of the free trad
ers. AS a matter of fact. the tariff
helps the farmer by assuring him
an American price in the home
market and by creating increased
purchasing power in our factory
workers, who constitute the farm
er's greatest and richest market.
There is no justification for stating
that the tariff increases the price
Of what the farmer has to buy. This
has always been the argument used
against a sugar tariff, but the
housewife never had cheaper sugar
than under the two cent duty i'm
posed under the 1880 Tariff Act,
which the present Administration
has reduced to Cloths of 1 cent per
pound. We have sufficient COM
petition in the home market to
keep prices down. However, where
we have to depend upon some
foreign country for cur needs, we
are absolutely at their mercy. We
had such an experience not so
many years ago in the case Of rub
Der.
In his concluding paragraph, Mr..
Christensen refers to the practice
OF selling American pr NC 8