Export Bounties

Senator Cannon of Utah introduced on May 25 an amendment to the tartff bill which is likely to make trouble for the Republican leaders and whiich may break down the whole protective system. The amendment favors the Lubin scheme of paying export bounties on farm producís. The scheme is now bcing pushed vigorously, not only by its author, David Lubin, but also by the granges of many states and by trades unions and ministers. It malies its flght inside the ranks of protection and has airead y opened more farmers' eyes to the folly of the system than all of the tariff reform work that has ben done. Senator Cannon told some plain truths when he introduced this amendment. He spoke in part as fo'Jows: It was with great surprise, upon an examination of the meawure that I found the great class of our population who have from the beginning not only supported the protective tarlif party by j their votes, but have supported the protective tariff principie by their industry fram the beginning of its operation, were in a large degree excluded irom any of its benefits. It is, I say, to supply a very patent omisöion from the measifïe as it now stands that the ! amendment is proposed and will be j vocated here until a vote shall be had thereon. The bill as it is offered today affords j no protection to agricultural Staples. There is remaining, I presume, no j vocate of the protective tariff system who will contend that in this bill, with j these import duties, there is afforded : any protection or benefit of increased price arising from import duties upou any of those commodities of which we j export our surplus, nor are there j maining at the present time in the school of protection very many men j who will contend and none who will prove that the indirect protection forded to the farmer by the tariff on manufactured goods is sufflcient compensation to him for the vast coat tailed upon him in carrylng the protective tarift system upon tured goods. . It has become apparent to all thoughtful observers, and certainly It I is known to all who have any direct connection wlth the agricultural iudustry oL the United States, that the farmer cannot, and the man who reads him well knows that the farmer will not much longer bear this burden. There are three remedies possible. The second remedy, and one which I, as a believer in protection, wovild hs ready to accept rather than to hokl to and vote for an inequitable bill, would be absolute free trade, by whlch the farmer might buy as cheaply as he la eumpelled to sell, and that remedy this congress will not seek to enforce. There remains, then, but the third- the application of an export bounty which shall in a measure give resuuition to the farmer for the higher prices which he is compelled to pay in ! protected markets. No proposition based upon the ieclaration of equal protection to all the j dustries of the United States is ; plete, nor can there be successfully j made a contention that it is just, unless it gives to the exporter of : tural staples from the United States an - equivalent benefit to that giveh to thé manufacturer by the imposition of an import duty. A duty of 25 cents a bushei upon wheat is a delusion and a snare. The S farmer of the United States gets nu benefit from it. The imposition of duty upon cotton, if that were attempted, would be of no valué to the cotton j tlucer The imposition of a duty on rye is of no valué to the iarmer of the United States. Every other" protected industiy has a direct benefit from this tarilï, because where we do not produce ín the United States sufflcient for our own consumptíon and a quantlty considerable in extent for export the import duty serves as a means whereby the local producer can enhance tho price to the looal consumer. The immediate benefit to the farmer derived from the treasury of the United States would not be all. For tjiis.comparatively small expenditure to him he would receive for these stapjes more than $225,000,000 in higher prices than he now receives. It is true that thís would increase the price of breadstuffs to the consumers in the clties, but under the declaration made here today that wlth higher prices the people wlll be more able to buy we wUl have a larger consumption of wheat and wheat flour and other agricultural staples n the cities of the country than we have now at the low prices. Mr. Butler- Mr. President, the senator trom Utah said he was in favor of about $13,000,000 export duty on whoat 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, whether exported or consumed at home, that much, will it n,ot? Mr Cannon- Certainly it will. Mr. Butler- Then, for an investment of $13,000,000, which the government would pay out in the shape of an export bounty, tbe wheat farmers of the country would get their protectlon of $60,000,000 or $70,000,000, would they not? Mr. Oannon- T&ey ' mild, "if ' tüéié be any truth in the protecüve principie. Mr. Butler- That would be a very good investment. Mr. Cannon - It would be a very good investment ií it were to be made in behalf of any manufacturiiig industry or any trust in the United States, but anything in behalf of the farmer is looked ' upon with scorn and ia considered a doubtful investment by the legislature ofWlhe United States. In addition, Mr. President, it s a very poor argument, when you have been robbing some man for years and he asks you for justice, to say that you propose to continue to rob him of more and say that you do not know where you are going to get the money with which to restore that which you have unrighteously taken. It ia the very first duty of the congress of the United States to provide a bilí which shall not be only honest in its present application, but which shall pay back some portion of that which has been taken from the pockets of the toilers of this land. I have talked with the farmers in twenty states of the Union since last fall, and 1 firmly believe that this tariff will no longer endure than until the farmers of the United States can have a chance to revise i at the polls, if you do not give to them some portion of lts benefits. The farmer is bendlng beneath a burden which he cannot carry longer. He has been the backbor.e of tho Integrity of the United States, but thera comes in the place of the free and independent farmer of this country a i race of tenantry to reap servilely wheré he sowed nobly, men who re; ceive their opinions from others inj stead of giving their own independent j voice at the polls and in all their deci ltrations to their fellow men. The senate of the United States can afford to be absolutely Just. I belleve the amendment should be adopted. Mr. Chandler- May I ask the senator from Utah a question? Mr. Cannon- Certainly. Mr. Chandler- I heard the senatoi speak of robbery a little while ago with referenee to the tariff. Does the j eenator mean that the farmer has been robbed all these years by the tariff? Is that the senator's argument? Mr. Cannon- Yes, sir, decidedly. Mr. Ohandler- When did the senator fust think that the American tariff system was a robbery of the farmer? Mr. Cannon- Just so soon as the senator gave sufBelent attention to the subject tó understand the trufh of it. I advocated republican taiiffs as tstly and as faithfully In my humble ! va y as the senator from New Hamp: shire, and I believed exactly what I i taught. But I am not dispoaed any longer to advocate a system by which one portion of the population is taxed.for the benefit of anotiier portion of the popuiation. I think that it is unfair to cherish only,one class, and that the j class which has already the most power of self protection. If the senator from Xrw Hámpshlre will go across the plalns of Kansas, as I have gone, and I across the plains of Nebraska, I believe in him suffieiently think he will oome back and say that this bill is I robbery of the American farmer. I have stated that I am In favor oí a protective taríff system. I stated i that in the guilelessness of my soul. ! being a republican, I went out and ad! vcóated the refiublican Idea of a protective tariff. ' I never was brought quite so close to responsibllity con-; : cerning i t bef ore as I am today. HereI tofore I have discussed it on the slump, advoeating it in general terms but as soon as I am confronted wlth responfcibility whlch obliges me to look nror ! closely into its applieatlon to all the i peopíe I am simply dtecharging my duty when I seek to amend this i measure so that tt shall be honest to 1 all.