Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 34, Number 66, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 April 1902 — THE FARMER’S VIEW. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

THE FARMER’S VIEW.

THE CUBAN TARIFF AND DOMESTIC AGRICULTURE. American Growers of Sngar Beets and Leaf Tobacco Likely to Ask Why They Alone Should Be Required to Bear.the Entire Burden of Relief. In the preamble of the resolutions submitted by Congressman Tayler, of Ohio, at the meeting of the House Republicans on The evening of March 11 the case of the' opponents of the policy of tariff reduction on Cuban products is set forth with clearness and force. It is hard to answer, and it has not yet been answered, either by free-traders or ex-protectionists. What answer can bo made to the plain proposition that the lowering of the duties on sugar and tobacco “Involves a relaxation of the protection principle,” whise evil effects fall wholly upon American farmers? This is the exact truth, and it cannot, be denied or explained away. You may assert, that the American farmers who raise sugar cane, sugar beets and tobacco can stand it, but will the American farmers agree with you? Are they not very certain to ask why they only among the general body of American producers should be singled out to foot the entire bill of socalled “Cuban relief?” If the sugar cane of Louisiana and Texas, the sugar beets of twenty or more States, and the leaf tobacco of yet other States are the only sufferers through

such a “relaxation of the protpqtive principle,'’ will the spirit of self-sacri-fice be likely to inspire in the minds of the growers of cane, beets and tobacso an Increase or a decrease of devotion to the protective principle? Is it in human nature to admire a “principle’’ that works that way? The Tayler manifesto makes some things very plain—so plain that the wayfaring sympathizer, though he be a fool, may read. Among the things thus made plain is the fact that in this scheme of “relief” the American farmer is morally certain to ask where he comes in. He can see where the sugar trust comes In, with Its nearly $15,000,000 of profits on raw sugar, now waiting to be admitted at a lower rate of duty; he can see where the domestic manufacturer comes in with his larger market ns the price of the lowered duties on competitive agricultural products. Yes; the American farmer can see where these interests come in, but he cannot see whore he himself comes in. Yet the American farmer is sure to come in somewhere when the time arrives for casting and counting votes.-*- . American Economist. A Warning. The fact that a dear majority of the Republican members of the House of Representatives are decided opponents to sacrificing bur domestic sugar and tobacco interests for the benefit either of the sugar trust or of a foreign nation should be a warning to Republican leaders as to what they may expect should the scheme succeed. Weakkneed Congressmen may be won over by executive pressure. The masses of the people cannot he thus won over and they cannot be fooled. If they are betrayed, they will remember who betrayed them.—San Francisco Chronicle. Trust Caueed Jones* Defeat. But opposition to Bryan, or a lnr« h toward the reorganization of the Democratic party, is not the cause of the repudiation of Jones in Arkansas. He played false on the trust question. While he was a director and stockholder In the round cotton bale monopolistic company he was among the foremost in denouncing the trust system.— St. Louis Globe-Democrat. We Have bone Enougk. Tlie “sympathy for Cuba” racket is playing itself out. The public Is beginning to realize the fact that we have done very much for Culm In giving her lnde|M*M<lem-e at the cost of thousands of lives ami millions of money, and In assisting her in the formation of a home government, and. having done this touch, we are called upon to ruin

whole 'communities or prostrate an entire industry In order that Cuban planters may the more speedily enrich themselves. They prospered in bygone yeani with a heavy American tariff on their product.—Denver News. A Question of Reckoning. We already buy from Cuba nearly twice as much as we sell her. We shall buy still more under the scheme of relief-reciprocity, and very likely shall sell more of certain articles, but the trade balance against us will remain and probably be larger than ever. In any event, will the increased volume of our sales to Cuba operate as compensation to the domestic interests which are called upon to make all sacrifices? Will the American sugar and tobacco growers and the American cigar makers be able to trace to their own pockets enough of the profits on increased Cuban trade to make good their direct losses through reduced tariff duties? This question is to be asked, this reckoning is going to be made. Is the Republican party ready with an answer that will meet this question? Is it provided with a solution that will satisfy the reckoning? Cuba and Beet Sugar. We are going to make our own sugar in this country, don’t you doubt it, and make It from the beet, the soil for whose production may be found almost everywhere. Last year the output in the United States wms 185,000 tons, an increase of 108,000 tons over 1900. Forty-t wo factories were in operation last year, with nine in course of construction. Factories have been established in nineteen States. This is one

of the most promising young industries in the country, and one of the most important, and it is no sin to guard its development here as we did that of iron, steel, tin plate and scores of other industries that are now the glory of the nation and its strength. In truth, beet sugar production is the most promising new industry on a large scale the country has in sight, and there is force in the plea that if Cuba wants free admission to the markets of the United States, let her come in and be part of the United States and take pot luck with us. The grave, the singular, the almost unaccountable mistake Cuba made was in not asking immediate annexation. And there will be friction and dissatisfaction without end. one ground or another, till it does occur.— Oswego Times.

A Curious Distinction. Tim free trade papers pronounce unconstitutional the proposition to repay some of the duty charged on Cuban sugar. But. they insist that it is perfectly pfroper to refrain from collecting the duty. The distinction as to effect between the two methods is not very marked.—Lowell Courier. How to Hattofy Them. Free-traders are assailing the proposed concession of 20 per cent on Cuban importations. The only Way to. satisfy the champions of a souphouse tariff like that identified with the last Democratic administration is to knock off the other 80 per cent also.—Tionesta (Pa.) Republican. Very Unanimous. Every free trade paper In the United Htqtes to whooping up tariff concessions to Cuba, and insisting that anything less than a cut of 50 per cent will be ' absolute ruin for the Island.”— St. Louis Glolie-Democrat. Would Fvuttlc the Ship.