The Enid Weekly Wave. (Enid, Okla. Terr.), Vol. 4, No. 26, Ed. 1 Thursday, July 1, 1897 Page: 1 of 8
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Oklahoma Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Gateway to Oklahoma History by the Oklahoma Historical Society.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
i i
i
, *
>:
Ir WAVES SURGES ROARS AND REBOUNDS ONLY TO COME BACK AGAIN WITH GREATER FORCE FOR ENID. GARFIELD COUNTY. OKLAHOMA, AND DEMOCRACY
By Wave Printing Co.
ENID, OKLAHOMA TERRITORY. THURSDAY, JULY I, 1897.
VOL. 4, No 26
POWDER
Absolutely Pure.
Celebrated for its great leavening
strength and healthfulness. Assures
the food against alutn and all forms
of adulteration common to the cheap
brands. ROYAL BAKING POWDER
CO., Nfav York.
EXPORT BOUNTIES.
Senator Cannon Introduces Lubin'a
Scheme to Help Farmers.
Je Makes u Hot Speech nnd Floor*
All Opponent!)—Present Protection
Is One Sided and Hobs tlie Farmer
-He Sow Sells in a Cheap and Bnj-s
in a Dear Slarket—Can lie Protected
Only by Export Bounties on Farm
Products—If He Cannot Get Tlicse
He Wants Absolute Free Trade.
Senator Cannon, of Utah, introduced
on May 25 an amendment to the tariff
bill which is likely to make trouble for
the republican leaders, and which may
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 its
author, David Lubin, but also by the
grangers of many states and by trades
unions and ministers. It makes its light
inside the ranks of protection, and has
already opened more farmers' eyes to
the folly of the system than all of the
tariff reform work that has been done.
Senator Cannon told some plain
truths when introducing this amend-
ment. He spoke in part as follows:
It was with great surprise, upon an
examination of the measure, that I
found that the great class of our popula-
tion who have from the beginning not
only supported the protective tariff
party by their votes, but have supported
the protective tariff principle by their
industry from the beginning of Its op-
eration. were in a large degree excluded
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 it will foe
advocated here until a vote shall be had
thereon.
The bill, as it is offered to-day, affords
no protection to agricultural staples.
There is remaining, I presume, no ad-
vocate of the protective tariff system
who will contend that in this bill, with
these import duties, there is afforded
uny protection or benefit of increased
prices arising froin import duties upon
any of those commodities of which we
export our surplus, nor are there re-
gaining at the present time in the
school of protection very many men
who will contend and none who will
prove that the indirect protection af-
forded to the farmer by the tariff on
manufactured goods is sufficient com-
pensation to him for the cost entailed
upon him in carrying the protective
tariff system upon manufactured goods.
it has become apparent to all thought-
ful observers, and certainly it is known
to all who have any direct connection
wilh the agricultural industry of the
United States, that the farmer cannot,
and the man who reads him well knows
that the farmer will not, much longer
I,ear litis burden.
There are three remedies possible.
The seen I remedy, und one which 1,
as a believer in protection, would be
ready to accept rather than to hold to
and vote for an inequitable bili, would
be absolute free trade, by which the I
farmer might (buy us cheaply as he is
(ompclled to sell, and that remedy this
congress will not seek to enforce. There
renin ins, then, but the third the up-
jilieation of an export bounty which
shall in a measure give restitution to the
farmer for the higher prices which he
is compelled to pay In protected mar-
kets.
No proposition based upon the decla-
ration of equal protection to all the in-
dustries of the United States Is com- i
pletc, nor can there be successfully j
made a contention that It Is just, unless
it gives to the exporter of agricultural j
staples from the United States an equlv-
alci.l bei.elit to that given to the man- |
ii'v.luiei 'ny the Imposition of an Im- 1
port duty.
A duty of 25 cents a bushel upon
wheat is a delusion and a snare. The
farmer of the United States gets nobeu-
efit from it. The imposition of duty
upon cotton, if that were attempted,
would be of no value to the cotton pro-
ducer. The imposition of a duty on
rye is of no value to the farmer of the
United States. Every other protected
industry has a direct benefit from this
tariff, because where we do not produce
in the United States sufficient for our
own consumption and a quantity con-
siderable in extent for export the im-
port duty serves as a means whereby
the local producer can enhance the price
to the local consumer.
The immediate benefit to the farmer
derived from the treasury of the United
States would not be all. For this com-
paratively small expenditure to him he
would receive for these staples more
than $225,000,000 in higher prices than
he now receives. It is true that this
would increase the price of breadstuffs
to the consumers in the cities, but un-
der the declaration made here to-day
that with higher prices the people will
be more able to buy we will have a
larger consumption of wheat and wheat
flour and other agricultural staples in
the cities of the country than we have
now at the low prices.
Mr. Butler—Mr. President, the sen-
ator from Utah said he ^ as in favor of
about $13,000,000 export duty on wheat
at ten cents a bushel. If we pay an ex-
port bounty of ten cents a bushel, that
will raise the price of every bushel of
wheat, whether exported or consumed
at home, that much, will it not?
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, the wheat farmers of the coun-
try would get their protection of $00,-
000,000 or $70,000,000. would they not?
Mr. Cannon—Tliey would, if there
be any truth in the protective principle.
Mr. Butler—That Would be a very-
good investment.
Mr. Cannon—It would be a very good
investment if it v, ere to be made in be-
half of any manufacturing industry or
any trust in the United States, but, any-
thing in behalf of the farmer is looked
■inn with scorn and is considered a
doubtful investment by the legislature
of the United States.
In addition, Mr. President, it is 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 is the very first
duty of the congress of the United
States to provide a bill which shall not
only be honest in its present applica-
tion, but which shall pay back some
portion of that which lias been taken
from the pockets of the toilers of this
land.
I have talked with the farmers in 20
states of the union since last fall, and I
firmly believe that this tariff would no
longer endure them until the farmers of
the United States can have a chance to
revise it at the polls, if you do not give
to them some portion of its benefits.
The farmer is bending beneath a bur-
den which he cannot carry longer. Ho
has been the backbone of the integrity
of the United States, but there comes in
the place of the free and independent
farmer of this country a race of tenant-
ry to reap servilely where he sowed
nobly, men who receive their opinions
from others instead of giving their own
independent voice at the polls and in
all their declarations to their fellcw-
men.
m nun sufficiently to think he will
come back and say that this bill is rob-
bery of the American farmer.
I have stated that I am in favor of a
protective tariff system. I stated that
iu the guilelessness of my soul, being a
republican, I went out and advocated
the republican idea of a protective tar-
iff. I never was brought quite, so close
to responsibility concerning it before
,as I am to-day. Heretofore I have dis-
cussed it on the stump, advocating it in
general terms, but as soon as I am con-
fronted with responsibility which
obliges me to look more closely into
its application to all the people I am
simply discharging my duty when I
seek to amend this measure so that it
shall be honest to all.
i ,y v
ROMANCE VERSUS REALITY
THESE SENATORS POSED FOR A
GREAT HISTORICAL PICTURE.
& tM
'mm
I
BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A
ROENTGEN CAMERA.
The senate of vho United States can
afford to be absolutely just. I believe
the amendment should be adopted.
Mr. Chandler—May I ask the senatoi
froni Utah a question?
Mr. Cannon—Certainly.
Mr. Chandler—I heard the senator
speak of robbery a little while ago with
reference to the farmer. Does the sen-
ator mean that the farmer has been
robbed all these years by the turiff?
Is that the senator's argument?
Mr. Cannon—Yes, sir, decidedly.
Mr. Chandler—When did the senator
first think that the American tariff sys-
tem was a robbery of the farmer?
Mr. Cannon—Just so soon as the sen-
ator gave sufficient attention to the sub-
ject 'o understand the truth of It. I ad-
vocated republican tariffs as earnestly
and as faithfully in my humble way as
the senator from New Hampshire, and I
believed exactly what I taught.
But I am not disposed any longer to
advocate a system by which one nor- j
tion of the population is taxed for the
benefit of another portion of the popu- j
latlon. 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
New Hampshire will go across the
plains uf Kansas, us I have gone, and
ucross the plains of Nebraska. 1 believe
New England is much concerned
about free hides. Some of her biggest
industries, especially that of boots and
shoes, have bceu built up during our
quarter of a century of free hides. She
now sells boots and shoes in all parts of
the world. Taxed hides would cripple
this and other industries. Her leading
senators pretend to represent her and
to put up a fi ght for free hides. In real-
ity, if necessary, they will sacrifice free
hides to obtain high duties on sugar
with plenty of margin for trust prof-
its. Just why this is so should be a
matter for senatorial investigation, if
such investigation would only investi-
gate. Fortunately for the sugar trust,
but unfortunately for the rest of us
70,000,000 people, the sugar trust un-
derstands well the art of making friends
where they will do the most good. It
has able attorneys to advise it how to
distribute its sweets to politicians and
lawmakers and at the same time to
steer clear of jails.
In this way and in this way only can
we account for the attitude of not a few
prominent tariff makers at Washing-
ton. The situation is Interesting—de
cidedly so.
The Mammoth
And
illinery
HOIJSF
OF
WAS
Opened lor Business
Thursday June 17.
Watch this space for special an-
nouncements from time to time.
Come in and sec us whether you wish
to purchase floods or not.
GEO. V. MENTEL.
S
How Capitalist* Save Thein*elv©«.
The woolen manufacturers continue
to stock up with cheap raw material in
anticipation of the coming tariff legis-
lation, the transactions in the Boston
market last week amounting to nearly
3,000,000 pounds of foreign wool and
over 1,250,000 pounds of domestic. They
expect to reap rich profits w hen they
can make this wool into cloth to be sold
at the advanced prices which are now
iu sight. It is one more illustration of
the fact that the capitalists can over-
come many of the evils of any kind of
tariff. It is the consumers who must
bear the burden of the suffering.—
Providence Journal.
Mean* Tens of Million*.
Careful estimates show that nearly
anc-half cent a pound profit is given to
the truot on every pound of sugar re-
fllic<l__!t profit which means tens of
millions uf dollars. Such a duty assures
for It as great a power over the con-
sumer as it now enjoys over the pro-
ducer, and no single duty in the senate
requires a fuller explanation
• f tV • i >: Ives leading to It.—Harper's
Wave Office
Our Job Department Gan-
New Type
Good Stock
Low Rates.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Isenberg, J. L. & Isenberg, Edna. The Enid Weekly Wave. (Enid, Okla. Terr.), Vol. 4, No. 26, Ed. 1 Thursday, July 1, 1897, newspaper, July 1, 1897; Enid, Oklahoma. (https://gateway.okhistory.org/ark:/67531/metadc112021/m1/1/: accessed April 25, 2024), The Gateway to Oklahoma History, https://gateway.okhistory.org; crediting Oklahoma Historical Society.