eral beyond the asking, to the suggestions thus made, and as a result it will on careful examination be found that of the seventeen articles transferred from the free to the dutiable list by the pending bill eightninths of them relate to agricultural products, thus adding material protection to the farmer which under existing law is not.accorded him. These include a great variety of articles, among them camel's hair, heretofore largely imported free, and used in this country in direct competition with American wool; fruits, apples (green, ripe, and dried), eggs, vegetables, flax, hemp, broom-corn, plants, trees, shrubs, straw, macaroni, vermicelli, and various other farm products, all of which can be produced and are produced largely in this country, and which under existing law suffer from competition with free foreign importations of these articles. I happen to have in my hand a copy of the report made by the national legislative committee of the National Grange, the Patrons of Husbandry, to this national farmers' association, which I beg to incorporate in my remarks, and which shows specifically precisely what tariff legislation was demanded. This committee is composed of Hon. J. H. Brigham, of Delta, Ohio, worthy master of the National Grange; L. Rhone, esq., of Centre Hall, Pa.; and John Tremble, esq., of Washington, D. C. It is as follows:

NATIONAL GRANGE, THE PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY. [Legislative committee: J. H. Brigham, Delta, Ohio; L. Rhone, Centre Hall, Pa.; John Trimble, Washington, D. C. Office of the legislative committee, 514 F street.] WASHINGTON, D. C., March 24, 1890. The committee appointed at the last session of the National Grange to present to Congress the various measures considered by that body, as requiring legislative action, have endeavored faithfully to perform the duty assigned them. Each member of Congress has been furnished with a copy of all resolutions and reports adopted by the National Grange relating to legislative matters. We bave also appeared before committees and urged immediate legislation for the relief of the farmers. Of the Ways and Means Committee we asked in some cases a duty and in others an increase of duty upon agricultural imports brought into this country to be sold in competition with the productions of the American farmer. In other cases we asked a reduction of duty upon some of the commodities farmers are compelled to buy.

The following is substantially what was asked and what will probably be reported. No change was asked upon products not imported in considerable amounts:

There will be some opposition to the increase of duty asked upon farm products, particularly upon hides, and we said to the committee, "If you will make leather and manufactures of leather free, we will ask no duty upon hides. If leather and its manufactures are protected, we want equal protection upon hides."

The duty upon sugar will be reduced 40 or 50 per cent., or it will be made free and a bounty paid to American producers. Farmers should at once inform their Representatives as to their wishes upon this point, as there is quite a division among members of Congress on the subject. Jute will be made free, and the duty will be removed or reduced upon cotton-bagging. Sisal and manilla will probably be put on the free-list, and binder-twine will be free or the duty will be reduced. Some changes will be made in the wool schedule which will prevent fraud at the ports of entry. The committee also went before the House Committee on Agriculture and urged the passage of pure-food bills, the bills to prevent gambling in farm produce, the formation of trusts, and urged legislation to protect the innocent purchaser of patented articles. We have also urged the Department of Labor to assist us in securing a reduction of the tare on cotton.

The above is a synopsis of what the legislative committee has done, and represents anxious and arduous labor upon our part. We now submit this brief report for your examination and consideration. We trust that our action will

7

meet with your approval, and that you will at once write your Congressmen and Senators indorsing what we have asked and urging speedy action. We hope all will help us.

There is no political question involved in what we ask for farmers in regard to tariff legislation; it simply means that we want the same policy pursued towards us that is adopted for others. We can consistently ask this and still remain free to support any policy in future campaigns which best accords with our opinions. It will be well also for you to draught petitions asking for these measures, produce signatures, and forward to your member of Congress. In conclusion, we desire to thank all those who have in good faith responded to our calls for assistance, and hope that we may continue to co-operate for the protection and promotion of the interests of the farmers.

J. H. BRIGHAM,
LEONARD RHONE,
JOHN TRIMBLE,
Legislative Committee.

On a careful examination of Schedule G of the pending bill (agricultural products and productions), commencing with section 244 of the House bill, section 232 in the bill as reported from the Senate committee, it will be found, on a comparison of these suggestions of the legislative committee of the National Grange, that their requests have been more than met. In not a solitary instance has the duty on any agricultural article named been reduced by the bill as it passed the House, but on a number the duties were largely increased. For instance, the committee of the Patrons of Husbandry asked a duty of 50 cents on hogs. The House bill and the Senate committee each gave protection to the amount of $1.50. The committee asked 40 cents per bushel on barley malt; the House gave them 45, the Senate committee 40 cents.

The farmers' committee asked but 1 cent per pound on barley, pearl, patent and hulled. Both the House and the Senate proposed to protect them on this article to the extent of 2 cents per pound, just double what was asked. On buckwheat the committee representing the Grange asked a protection of 10 cents per bushel. Both the House and the Senate committee give 15 cents per bushel. The same on corn or maize; the committee asked 10 cents per bushel protection; 15 cents is accorded by both House and Senate committees. On corn-meal the committee representing the farmers asked protection to the extent of 10 cents per bushel. The bill gives them just double that amount, 20 cents per bushel.

On oats the committee prayed for 10 cents per bushel protection; the bill gives them 15 cents. On rice, cleaned, the committee ask 1 cents per pound; the House gives them 2 cents per pound, the Senate committee recommends 13. On wheat the farmers' committee asked protection to the extent of 20 cents per bushel; both the House and Senate Committee on Finance propose to give them 25 cents per bushel. On wheat flour the committee requests 20 per cent. ad valorem; the proposed legislation gives them 25 per cent. ad valorem.

DAIRY PRODUCTS.

On dairy products-butter, cheese, milk (fresh, preserved, and condensed) the rates of protection suggested by the committee representing the National Grange have been accorded both by the House of Representatives and the Senate committee.

FARM AND FIELD PRODUCTS.

Not a single reduction was made in the rates of duty requested by the committee of the National Grange in any of the farm and field products except, I believe, on the single article of cabbages; while on many the rates were materially increased over those suggested. For

instance, on potatoes the claim was 20 cents per bushel protection; it is proposed to give 25 cents. On hops all that was demanded by the committee of the National Grange was 12 cents per pound, while 15 cents per pound is accorded by both House and Senate committee. On onions the committee demanded 25 cents per bushel; it is proposed by the pending bill to give 40 cents per bushel.

On split pease 20 cents per bushel was asked; 50 cents is granted. On garden seeds 20 per cent. ad valorem was asked, while 50 per cent. ad valorem is proposed by the pending bill. The only article on which the Senate Finance Committee propose a reduction is on cabbages. The committee representing the farmers requested a protection of 3 cents per head; the House granted it, while the Senate committee propose 1 cent per head.

FRUITS AND NUTS.

While no reduction below that recommended by the farmers' committee is proposed by either on any article coming under this head, a material increase is proposed on many. For instance, the committee suggest, modestly, 2 cents per pound on figs; the bill proposes to give 2 cents per pound. On oranges a large increase is made over that claimed by the committee. The committee claim on the largest packages but $1; the bill gives them on these $1.50. On raisins the committee claim 2 cents per pound; the bill gives them 23. On filberts and walnuts the committee ask 2 cents per pound; whereas the bill gives on filberts and walnuts, not shelled, 3 cents per pound; shelled, 6 cents per pound.

MEAT PRODUCTS.

On meat products the suggestions of the Grange committee have been adopted by both the House and the Senate.

In discussing the question as to the consideration given to the farmer in this bill Mr. MCKINLEY, in his report in the House (H. Report No. 1466, first session, Fifty-first Congress), says:

We advance the rates upon the products of the soil which either do supply or can be brought to supply the home consumption. Horses, cattle, hogs, sheep, bacon, barley, beans, pease, beef, mutton, pork, buckwheat, butter, cheese, eggs, hay, hops, milk, poultry, flaxseed, vegetables, potatoes, flax, hemp, hides, wool, tobacco, and many other products are advanced with a view to save this entire market to the American farmer.

As indicating the general line of policy pursued in changing rates in this schedule, your committee can only, in the scope of this report, note a few articles illustrative of all.

HORSES, CATTLE, AND SHEEP.

In the last ten years not less than $60,000,000 worth of horses, cattle, and sheep, ordinary marketable stock, has been imported. A portion of these have paid 20 per cent. ad valorem on a fraudulent undervaluation. A very large portion have come in free, professedly for breeding purposes, actually for the common markets, The duty has been changed to a specific rate and advanced to a point where it will protect the market, while the paragraph in the free-list on animals for breeding purposes is so framed as to only admit animals which are pure bred and properly registered.

WOOL.

But let us inquire what the pending bill proposes in the interest of the farmers of this country engaged in the business of raising sheep, and in turning out annually millions of dollars' worth of wool and mutton. This bill proposes to undo the great wrong done to the American farmer in the matter of duties on wool, by the act of March 3, 1883, and to virtually re-enact the wholesome provisions, or what will be their equivalent in effect, and correcting certain irregularities relating to combing and carpet wools of the former much more beneficial act of March 2, 1867, under which this industry revived and flourished

for some sixteen years. That such legislation will revive the waning sheep industry of this country, and increase the price of wool to the American farmer, all familiar with the subject will readily agree. Nor will the effect of this be to increase the price of the manufactured article of woolen goods, but by stimulating and building up a great diversity of manufacturing interests will have precisely the opposite effect, as the history of protective tariffs will prove since the commencment of our Government.

But concede for a moment that a high protective tariff did not have the effect of increasing the price of a pound of wool, that would not by any means be the end of the argument in favor of a protective tariff as applied to the one article of wool. There are other considerations of immense importance that must not be lost sight of, and which it is quite certain the great mass of intelligent sheep-raisers in this country do not fail to understand or fully appreciate. It is not merely the price of wool that is involved in the problem, irrespective of the questions as to the amount and kind of wool and the amount and kind of mutton produced by the American farmer.

Who will deny that under the operation of the protective tariff, not only the number but the breeds of sheep and their capacity to produce per head, not only a greater number of pounds of wool, but a better grade and quantity have been vastly increased, to say nothing of the increase not only in quantity but also in the quality of American mutton?

Thirty years ago the average weight to each fleece of the then wool product of the United States was less than 2 pounds, while to-day, under the fostering care and energizing influence of a protective tui, the average weight of fleeces is about 6 pounds. Thirty years ago the number of sheep in the United States was but 22,471,375, while to-day, notwithstanding the terrible and almost fatal set-back to the sheep and wool industry of this country by the reduction made in the tariff on wool by the act of March 3, 1883, and through which there was in the past five years a reduction of nearly 7,000,000 head, the number is now 42,599,079.

An historical object lesson on this subject that ought to be not only convincing but absolutely controlling in the mind of every true American who has the interest of the agriculturists of the United States at heart, is found in the effect on the wool industry in the change of the tariff on wool by the act of 1883. Although prior to that reduction the number of sheep in the United States had, under the fostering influence of protection afforded by the act of 1867 (March 2, 1867), although that act unjustly discriminated against combing and carpet wools, increased from about 24,000,000 head in 1867 to 49,237,291 head in 1883. The number of head in the five years succeeding the reduction of tariff rates of 1883, instead of increasing in like ratio, did not even maintain itself, but was reduced to the enormous extent of about 7,000,000 head, or to an extent equal to nearly 14 per cent., or nearly one-sixth of the whole number; whereas, under the ratio of increase that had taken place under the act of 1867, the number should have increased in that time to about 60,000,000 head.

The number of pounds of wool produced in the United States in 1867 was only 70,000,000, whereas in 1883 it was considerably over 300,000,000, or an increase in pounds of about 350 per cent.; and yet, by reason of the baneful influence of the reduction of 1883, the annual product now is considerably less than 250,000,000, not more, perhaps,