Export Bounties

Senator Cannon of Utah introdncet on May 25 an amendment to the tarif bill which is likely to rnake trouble for tbe Republioan leaders and which ruay break down the whole protective sys tem. The amendment favors the Lubin scheme of paying export bounties on farm products. This scheme is now be ing pushed vigorously, not only by ita autbor, David Lubin, but also By the granges of many states and by trades unions and ministers. It makes its fight inside the ranks of protection and bas already opened more farmers' eyes to the folly of tbe system than all of the tariff reform work that ha? been done. Senator Cannoa told somê plain trutbs when introduciug this amendment. He ipoke in part as follows: It was with great surprise, upon an examinatiou of the measvre, that I founc that the great class of onr popnlation who have from the beginning not only supportert tbr; protectife tariiï party by their vore?, bat have supported the protective tarifir priuciple by their industry from the beginning of its operation, were in a Iarge degree exclcded from any of its benefits. It is, I say, to supply a very patent omission from the measure as it now stands that the amendment is proposed and will be.advooated here uutil a vote shall be had thereon. The bill as it is offered today affords no protection to agricultural staples. There is remaining, I presume, no advocate of the protective tariff system who will contend that in this bill, with these import duties, there is afforded any protection or benefit of increased price arising from import duties upon any of those commoditiea of which we export our surplus, nor are there remaining at the present time in the school of protection very many men who will contend and none who will prove that the indirect protection afforded to the farmer by the tariff on manufactured goods is sufficient compensation to hiin for the vast cost entailed npon bim in carrying the protective tariff system upon manufactured goods. It has become apparent to all thoughtful observers, and certainly it is known to all v?ho have any direct connection with the agricultural industry of the United States, that the farmer caunot, and the man who reads him well knows that the farmer v?ill not, much longer bear this burden. There are three remedies possible. The second remedy, and one which I, as a beliewr in protection, would be ready to accept rather than to hold to and vote for an inequitable bill, vpould be absolute free trade, by which the farmer might buy as cheaply as he is compelled to sell, and that remedy this congress will not seek to enforce. There reruains, then, but the third - the application of an export bounty vfhich shall in a measure give restitntion to the farmer for the higher prices ■which he is compelled to pay in protected markets. Ko proposition based upon the declaration of eqnal protection to all the industries of the United States is complete, nor can there be successfully made a contention that it is just, unless it gives to the exporter of agricultural Staples from the United States an equivaleut benefit to that given to the manufacturer by the imposition of an import duty. A duty of 25 cents a bushei upon wheat is a delusion and a snare. The farmer of the United States gets no benefit from it. The imposition of duty upon cotton, if that were attempted, wouW De of no valué to the cotton producer. The imposition of a duty on rye is of no value to the farmer of the United States. Svery -iiher protected industry has a direct benefit from this tariff, because where we do not produce in the United States sufficient for our own consnmption and a quantity considerable in extent for export the import duty serves as a means whereby the local producer can enhance the price to the local consumer. The immediate benefit to the farmer derived frora the treasuryof the United States would not be all. For tbis cona)aratively small expenditure to him be would receive for these staples more han $225,000,000 in higher prices than ie now receives. It is true that this wonld increase the price of breadstuffs to the consumera in the cities, bnt under the declaration made here today that with higher prices the people will be more able to buy we will have a larger consumption of wheat and wheat flonr and other agricultural staples in the cities of the country than we have now at the low prices. Mr. Butler - Mr. President, the senator from Utah eaid he was in favor of about $13,000,000 export dutyon wheat at 10 cents a bushel. If we pay an export bounty of 10 cents a bushel, that will raise the price of every bushel of wheat, whetlier exported or consumed at home, that much, will it not? Mr. Cannon - Certainly it will. Mr. Butler - Tben, for an investment of $13,000,000, which the government would pay out in the shape of an export bounty, the wheat farmers of the country would get their protection of $60,000,000 or $70,000,000, would tbey not? Mr. Cannon - They woald, if there be any truth ín the protective principie. Mr. Butler - That wonld be a very arood investment. Mr. Cannon - It would be a very good investmeijt íf it were to be made in behalf of any mauufacturing industry or any trust in tbe Uuited States, but anythiüg in behalf cf the farmer is looked