Evening Star Newspaper, November 13, 1929, Page 7

THE EVENING Nov. 8, 1929. Hon. Reed Smoot, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. My dear Senator Smoot: I have read your letter of October 30 with the ut- most interest and am very glad to have the opportunity of replying to you. Broadly, your letter seeks to convey two conclu- sions. One conclusion is that the Republican party made certain pledges to industry. The other conclusion is that we who are speaking for agriculture are following false economic and political gods. The first conclusion, to wit: that the Republican party has certain pledge obligations to industry you seek to prove by a multiplicity of quotations from the Repub- lican party platform and from President Hoover's pre- election speeches. May I respectfully submit that all this is wholly un- necessary. May I submit that it is not only unnecessary but is, inadvertently, no doubt, an avoidance of the issue. The issue in our correspondence simply has to do with the failure of the Republican party to make good certain solemn and definite pledges made to agriculture. The issue has nothing to do with the party’s pledge to industry. At the Kansas City Convention the Repub- lican party officially said: L “The Republican party pledges itself to the develop- ment and enactment of measures which will place the agricultural interests of America on a basis of economie equality with other industries to insure its prosperity and success.” The Republican party platform also said: “A ‘protective tariff is as vital to American agricul- ture as it is to American manufacturing. The Repub- lican party believes that the home market, built up under the protective policy, belongs to the American farmer, and it pledges its support of legislation which will give this market to him to the full extent of his ability to sup- ply it.” The gravamen of our complaint is simply this: that the Republican party gives no evidence of its intent either to place agriculture on a basis of economic equal- fty with other industries, or to give the home market to the American farmer. Beyond these two pledges we do mot go, and it appears to me that, as a matter of logic the pecitation of the party’s pledges to industry has no bear- fng whatever on the issue. I know that there are industries that need addition- al tariff assistance. I know that there are industries in need of tariff assistance that are not now asking for help. 1 am willing and anxious that they should. There cannot be any disagreement between you and me on this point. I am now merely trying to confine the issue to the points we raise—the failure to keep the equality and the home market pledges. Our request for a parity of treatment for agricul- ture is continuously answered as if such a request were in its very nature an assault upon industry. Surely you and your Republican fellow senators are not yet willing to assert that the attainment of a mere equality for ag- riculture, or the possession of the home market, means a destruction or an impairment of industry. Yet, that you admit this, is the unavoidable conclusion to which we must come, if our pleas for the fulfillment of the party’s pledges are forever answered by relating to us the pledges the party made to industry, as if the one were the negation of the other. Our contention i, and always has been, that a par- ity for agriculture must of necessity mean an increased prosperity for industry, and labor. The citation of the Republican party’s pledges to industry, as an answer to our demands for an equality of treatment for agricul- ture, is an answer to a fictitious belief that we most em- phatically do not hold, to a fictitious charge that most STAR, WASHINGTON. D. €. WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER 13. 1929. emphatically we never have made, and to a theory to which we most emphatically never will subscribe. May I trespass on your patience while I present some examples in support of our contention that the tariff measures of both the House and of the Senate do " not give agriculture its promised equality and its home market. The duty on hides as set down by both the House and the Senate is 10% ad valorem. The compensatory duty on boots and shoes is set down at 20% ad valorem. On the average, these two duties would mean 50c addi- tional for a hide and $1.00 additional for a pair of shoes. Surely you do not maintain that the imposition of these duties has any tendency to put agriculture on a basis of equality with other industries. The farmer is clearly a loser by this transaction and what adds to his irritation is the fact that thig, an actual injury, is given to him in the guise of a benefit. You tell him you will give him more for his hides and then turn around and take twice that sum away from him for his shoes. You will observe that I have confined my discussion to the simple items of hides and shoes. I say nothing about the duty on harnesses, saddles, gloves, etc., all of which are made of leather and all of which the farmer is compelled to buy. I respectfully submit that the above gives no indica- tion of the intention of the Republican party to keep its pledge to give equality to agriculture. Then, there is the matter of sago, sago flour, tapioca and cassava flour, used in the manufacture of starches. In 1928, 175 million pounds were imported. For starch purposes this is the equivalent of 15 million bushels of potatoes. Agriculture asked for a duty of 3¢ per pound "or the equivalent of the duty on other starches. This was refused by both the Senate and the House. It seems to me that this is in direct violation to the Republican party’s pledge to give the “home market” to the farmer, ' “to the full extent of his ability to supply it.” Here’s a “home market” for 15 million bushels of potatoes, for which the farmer asked and which a Republican Con- gress refused. Both the House and the Senate have refused to give to the farmer a sufficient duty on casein. Half the casein used in this country is imported from Argentina and here again is a “home market” that is denied to the farmer, in spite of the party’s pledge to give it to him. Both the House and the Sénate have refused to place a duty on hempseed oil, palm nut oil, palm-nut kernel oil, tung oil, sunflower seed oil, sesame oil, all of which are used in the manufacture of paints and varnishes, or soaps. These oils come into this country in large volumes from countries other than the Philippines and take the place of linseed oil, and other domestic oils, that could be produced by the American farmer. I purposely omit any discussion of the vegetable fats produced in the Philippines, although a vast and profitable “home market” which should belong to the American farmer, is thus denied to him. The tariff on linseed oil is not completely effective. It will permit the importation of oil which, of course, means a subtraction from the American “home market” for flax. The senate finance committee reduced the house duty on flax from 63c per bushel to 56¢ per bushel in spite of the fact that fully 50 per cent of the flax used in this country is imported from Argentina. The American farmers are thus denied 50 per cent of the ‘“home market” for flax in spite of the Republican party’s promise to give it to him “to the full extent of his ability to supply it.” The duty on wool which was increased from 31c to 34c per pound by the House was reduced to 31c by the Senate Finance Committee. Everyone is aware of the fact that the cost of the wool in clothing is a trivial mat- ter to the consumer. There are not to exceed four pounds of wool in a suit that costs $125. Yet, an increase of 3¢ per pound to the producers of wool means much. This - A Reply to the Honorable Reed Smoot was refused to the farmer by the Senate Finance Com- mittee. I respectfully submit that these conspicuous failures on the part of the Republican party to keep its pledges to the farmer are not compensated for by the duties that have been placed on wheat, corn, oats, barley, rye, rice and pork. These products are on an export basis and import duties on them are of little or no value. For the most part these duties have no effect, and when they do have effect, the effect is temporary and does not then re- flect to the farmer anything like the duty imposed. We have a duty of 42¢ a bushel on wheat but in 1927 we exported 190 million bushels of wheat. This fall the American farmers living along the Canadian line hauled their wheat into Canada, paid an import duty of 12¢ per bushel and sold their wheat in Canada for a higher price than they could obtain in the United States. In face of such facts as these what beneficial effect on the farmer does the 42¢ duty on wheat have? We have a 15¢ duty on corn but we export 15 mil- lion bushels of corn. We have a 15¢ duty on oats, but we export 10 million bushels of oats. We have a 20¢ duty on barley, but we export 40 million bushels of barley. We have a 15¢ duty on rye, but we export 26 million bushels of rye. We have varying duties on pork and pork prod- ucts, but we export nearly one billion pounds. The duties on these products, that are on an export basis, avail the farmer little or nothing. They may make a statistical showing but the farmers’ troubles are not statistical. They are financial. I think that these examples will convince any fair minded person that the American farmer has a valid complaint against the Republican party and can justly accuse the representatives of that party in Congress of a failure to keep its pre-election pledge. I again submit to you that your quotations, in your letter to me, of the party pledges 0 industry has no bear- ing on the failure of the Republican party to keep its pledges to the farmer. The allegation that we are following false gods is equally without bearing on the question of issue. At the most, such a charge is a matter of opinion and not of provable fact. May I suggest that your comparison of our attitude with that of certain newspapers during the free silver issue is not at all apt or pertinent. The Minne- apolis Tribune energetically supported the so-called “sound money cause.” Even so, it may even be said that the gold standard has been justified, not by the logic of ! its protagonists, among whom the Minneapolis Tribune ? was conspicuous, but by the discovery of gold in Alaska - and the perfection of the cyanide process. Both of these factors, unforeseen and unpredictable, came into the equation after the country had decided in favor of the gold standard. I would say that a closer parallel of the present situation would be the Winona speech of the Republican candidate for the Presidency, who attempted to justify the failure of the Republican party to keep its pledges. You will recall that the Republican party had promised “to revise the tariff downwards” and failed to do so with results that were unfortunate, at least for the Repub- lican party for the next eight years. In conclusion I want again to assure you that our demands for the fulfillment of the pledges to the farmer are in no wise made in opposition to the needed adjust- ments in behalf of industry. We feel that agriculture is industry’s best customer. We feel that the farmer is the best “foreign market” that industry has. All that we are asking is the fulfillment of the simple, explicit pledges to agriculture that were made in the Republican party platform. We ask for no more, and we will be satisfied with no less. With assurance of my great esteem for the service you have rendered your country and your party, I am Sincerely yours, F. E. MURPHY, Publisher Minneapolis Tribune.