Слике страница
PDF
ePub

33, 40

X. FOUR AMENDMENTS TO THE DINGLEY BILL ASKED FOR—Continued.
Reasons for these :
1. The “skirting clause”

36 1. As to the skirting clause see footnotes 7, 11.

27, 33, 38 2. The FORM of AMENDMENT as to skirting clause, footnote 11..

33, 36 II. THE PROVISION TO CONTINUE “UNTIL AUGUST 1, 1998”.

37 1. Objection to this, footnote 13.

36 III. THE DUTY ON RAGS, SHODDY, ETC.

37 1. Reasons for this, footnote 14.

37 IV. As to goods remaining in bond.

1. Reasons, see footnote 15.
XI. THE OBJECTIONS TO AMENDING THE DINGLEY BILL CONSIDERED..

1. The President will uot veto the bill if amended. Footnote 15.
2. If he does, it can then be changed to meet his views, if they admit
of a bill of any value. Footnote 15.

38 3. Those who oppose fair amendments responsible for defeat of bill.

4. How the Dingley bill would operate. Footnote 16.. XII. The Wilson tariff ruinous to manufacturers .. 1. This is shown in footnote 15....

38 XIII. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DO NOT CHANGE THE RATE OF DUTY

40 1. This is shown in footnote 16..

40 XIV. Resolutions adopted by the Farmers' National Congress.

42 XV. THE DINGLEY BILL..

32 1. This is more fully considered in Chapter II of this document.... 46 MEMORIAL TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, ADOPTED BY

THE SIXTEENTH ANNUAL SESSION OF THE FARMERS' NATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HELD AT INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, NOVEMBER 10-13, 1896. To the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States in

Congress assembled :

The Farmers' National Congress of the United States of America is composed of two delegates at large from each state and one delegate from each congressional district in the United States, appointed and commissioned by the governors of the several states, together with a large attendance of associate delegates from the various states. Its object is to advance the agricultural interests of the country. While it is non-partisan in its organization, it has certain political ends to accomplish, among which is to secure legislation, state and national, in the interest of Agriculture, in which it asks the cooperation of all political parties.

I. ADDRESS OF HON. B. F. CLAYTON. Hon. B. F. Clayton, president of the congress, in his annual address at the above mentioned session, used the following language as to the position of the organization, which is made a part of this memorial, to wit:

At the fourteenth annual meeting at Parkersburg, in 1894, and at the fifteenth annual meeting at Atlanta, Ga., in 1895, this organization by a practically unanimous vote passed the following resolution:

Resolved, That to whatever degree either great political party shall adopt the policy of protection, we, as representatives of the farming interests, demand that equal protection be given to farm products.

A committee of three was appointed to confer with the proper Congressional committees as to the adjustment of tariff schedules on farm products. I regret that there has been no report from that committee, but I have been placed in possession of the figures on farm products under the operation of the former and the present tariff laws, both of which are protective; hence I shall give the purported facts without fear of party criticism.

During the last fiscal year of the operations of the former law, the agricultural imports on twenty articles the like of which we produce both north and south, amounted to $65,804,446; during the first calendar year of the operations of thé present law, the importations of the same articles amounted to $134,068,860, or an increase over the former law of $68,264,314. In the exportation of farm products, we find the discrepancy still greater in twenty-seven chief articles produced on the farm. During the fiscal year 1894 we exported farm products to the amount of $907,946,945, while during the calendar year 1895 there were exported in the same products to the amount of $751,833,937, a decrease of $156,113,008. Adding the gain in imports to the loss in exports and the American farmer loses in one year $224,337,322.

Figuring from the same basis for 1896, and the loss to the farmer amounts to $497,000,000, and for the two years $721,000,000, or a loss of $150 to each farm.

I herewith submit the following tables of the imports and exports of the leading articles of farm product for the years named:

[merged small][graphic][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed]

Gain of imports, $68,264,314.

2. EXPORTS OF FARM PRODUCTS.

Fiscal year Calendar year 1894.

1895.

Cotton
Breadstuffs (all)
Provisions (all)
Flour.
Wheat
Lard.
Bacon.
Animals (all)
Cattle.
Corn
Beef
Oil cake and meal.
Seeds (all)
Cheese.
Distilled spirits.
Pork.
Clover seed
Hides..
Hops
Tallow
Flaxseed.
Barley
Sugar and molasses
Oats
Vegetables
Hay..
Broom corn
Rye....

$210, 869, 298
166, 774, 558
145, 262, 273
69, 271, 760
59, 470, 041
40, 089, 721
38, 338, 357
35, 698, 180
33, 455, 092
30, 211, 154
16, 696, 583
5, 807, 807
7, 941, 935
7, 180, 232
5, 676, 936
5, 067, 773
4, 540, 822
3,972, 487
3, 844, 194
2,766, 164
2, 426, 284
2, 379, 714
2, 209, 265
2, 027, 934
1, 740, 604

890, 503
210, 742
126, 532

$189, 890, 645
125, 604, 486
132, 456, 843
50, 292, 886
40, 898, 547
37, 348, 753
37, 411, 944
33, 791, 014
26, 997, 701
27, 907, 766
16,522, 018
7,851, 246
1,983, 894
3, 401, 117
1, 685, 460
4, 430, 155
1, 126, 618
2, 835, 947
1, 745, 945
1, 207, 350

31, 076 1,485, 038 1,886, 672

599, 835 1, 557, 467

698, 934 179, 856

724

Total

907, 946, 945

751, 833, 937

Loss of exports, $156, 113,008.
Loss to the American farmer in one year, $224, 377,322.

It may be claimed with some show of reason that other conditions aside from the change in schedules produred this effect, as, for instance, on the article of hides, on the free list under both schedules, the increased importation was $19,162,272; on wool the increase was $27,662,718, while our exports in cotton and breadstuffs receded $81,122,389. If these figures be true, a vigorous remonstrance to the schedules should go up from this body, and we should demand that the Agricultural Department should recommend to the General Government such changes in tariff schedules as will furnish equal protection to the products of the farm.

This is a nonpolitical organization, and I think very properly so. Gentlemen will see at once the impropriety of this body trying to settle great economic questions, The Congress of the United States has been trying to settle these great questions and has failed.

There is scarcely a question that may be raised in this body affecting our agricultural interests but what will have a political side to it, but let us discuss those questions without reference to its influence upon any political party. Let us take each other by the hand and make one common cause for our great interest.

I do not mean by this the farmer and agriculturist should take no part in politics. We should not for a moment lay aside or forget our duty to society and to the Government. At the risk of being called politicians, it is our duty to see to it that the political atmosphere is kept pure and that the vicious classes are held in check.

There is no interest so sensitive to radical change of government policy or that so quickly feels the effect of unfriendly legislation as the American farm; nor is there any interest but what can better protect itself from corporate demands, trusts, and combinations. The American farmer is loyal to the American Government and to her institutions. He is ready to defend the Republic with his money or with his life. Our Government has no fear of revolution or anarchy among the great agricultural classes.

We should ask for no class legislation. We should demand no favors beyond a legitimate protection to the farm interests, and we should be satisfied with nothing short of the saine recognition accorded to all other American industries. Protection being the policy of both of the great political parties, I therefore ask that this congress appoint a committee to draft a memorial to the Congress of the United States asking for a revision of the schedule on farm products the like of which we produce.

3. PROTECTIVE DUTIES ASKED FOR.

In the revision of such schedule and in connection with all other products of classes which the American farmer produces, we invite a careful consideration of the rates on the articles contained in the above-mentioned tables, and the results as to the increase in the late importation and the decrease in the exportation of thiese articles whereby the American farm is robbed of its legitimate revenues.

We believe that these products can be supplied by the American farmer, and that the home market should be reserved for the home producer; hence we are unwilling to surrender such markets unless amply remunerated by reciprocal trade in articles of classes which we do not produce.

If anything was settled by the late election, it was that the policy of protection should be maintained. This being the established policy of the Government, why should it not be extended to our great production interests and to many articles of farm product?1

II. CONSIDERATIONS IN FAVOR OF PROTECTION PECU

LIAR TO AGRICULTURE.

In order to give effect to the policy of protection, it should be observed:

I. That most of the products of the farm can be supplied by American farmers in sufficient amounts to meet the total needs of the American

1 This protection is asked for in view of the result of the recent Presidential election, so that farmers shall share the benefits of the protective policy equally with the most favored industries. Neither the memorial nor the footnotes are designed to pass judgment on the merits of the policy of a “protective tariff,” or of " a tariff for revenue,” or for “revenue only."

people. This condition will evidently continue for many years, even with the enlarged home market that may be created by a needed increase of our manufacturing industries.

II. It is further to be observed that as to farm products, no combination, or monopoly, or trust, can be organized to extort exorbitant prices. No objection can be properly made as to protection for farm products on the ground of monopoly.

III. It results from these considerations that sound policy requires that as to such farm products, the protection to be given to them should be so ample as to exclude all similar foreign products. When American farmers can supply all needed for domestic consumption, why should they lose a market for any part? Why should foreigners draw gold from the United States in payment for commodities of classes which American farmers can adequately supply? Why not retain the gold, to be paid to American farmers?

In view of these considerations this memorial asks the Congress of the United States to give the “most ample protection” for farm products of the classes mentioned—that is, protective duties which will give the whole market to American farmers. Among these products may be named: III. FARM PRODUCTS ON WHICH THIS CLASS OF DUTIES SHOULD BE

IMPOSED.
(1) Cotton, (2) Hemp, (3)
Flax, (4) Wheat, (5) Corn,
(6) Barley, (7) Oats, (8) Po-
tatoes, (9) Hops, (10) Dairy
Products, (11) Garden vege-
tables, (12) Poultry and
, eggs, (13) Live stock for
use as food, (14) Some kinds
of tobacco, (15) Small fruits,
(16) Apples and other or-
chard fruits, (17) Hay, (18)

Peanuts, (19) [Provisions].2 2 Cotton. The act of Congress of August 10, 1790, gave to raw cotton a protective duty, going into effect December 2, 1790, and protection was continued until December 2, 1846, a period of fifty-six years. The cotton industry was thus protected until it was so firmly established as no longer to need protection. The dnty by the act of 1790 was 3 cents per pound, increased to 6 cents, and continued under acts of 1812, 1813. Under acts 1816, 1818, 1819, and 1842 the duty was 3 cents. It was made free by act July 30, 1846.

Changed conditions now require a protective duty on raw cotton. Chiua and Japan are fast becoming our rivals with their cheap labor, and other countries are already so, as shown by the following imports:

[blocks in formation]

And see Chapter IV, pp. 92–130, Senate Mis. Doc. No. 35, Fifty-third Congress, second session, 1893–94, for a discussion of this subject.

The woolgrowers and other farmers of the grain and wool growing States are

3. AS TO SUGAR, RICE, ORANGES, ETC. As to sugar, wool, rice, and some other products, some other considerations arise,

The cane and beet sugar industries are not yet sufficiently developed to produce anything like the amount of sugar needed for domestic consumption. They can be in time so developed, under favorable legislation by Congress and the state governments. Until this time sugar must be imported.

The form of encouragement, whether by protective tariff, or bounties, or some of both, is a proper subject for consideration. And this memo. ready to cooperate with the people of the cotton growing states in securing “the most ample protection” for all farm products.

For valuable information in relation to cotton, including Peruvian tree cotton, otherwise called “ vegetable wool,” see Senate Mis. Doc. No. 35, Fifty-third Congress, second session, pp. 93-99.

3 A8 to bounties.—On December 5, 1791, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, made a report on manufactures to the House of Representatives, in which he recommended a duty of 27 per cent on carpets, “to which,” said the report, “the nature of the article suggests no objection, and which may at the same time furnish a motive the more to the fabrication of them at home, toward which some beginnings have been made.” He proposed that the proceeds of this duty be used as a BOUNTY TO ENCOURAGE THE GROWTH OF Wool in the United States. See “One Hundred Years of American Commerce," Chapters XXXV, p. 236, and LXXIII, p. 485, New York publication, 1895.

A8 to sugar.—The St. Louis Republican National Convention, which nominated Major McKinley as a candidate for the Presidency, adopted as one plank in its platform of principles the following:

“We condemn the present Administration for not keeping faith with the sugar producers of the United States. The Republican party favors such protection as will lead to the production on American soil of all the sugar which the American people use, and for which we are sending abroad annually more than $100,000,000 to foreign countries.”

As to sugar--The following figures, etc., are useful:

[blocks in formation]

FACTORIES REQUIRED AND NUMBER OF PEOPLE SUPPORTED. To produce the amount of sugar now imported would require 920 factories with a capacity of 350 tons of beets each for every working day of twenty-four hours. Each

« ПретходнаНастави »