AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
(The statement submitted by Mr. Taber, D4, is as follows:)

319

Effect of hioh tariff rates on total duty collected, pen or pocketknives, all types
[U. S. Tariff Commission]

520.
921.
Q929

1925.
926 eeee an
10927

my _

Value of
imports

585, 376
797, 543
036. 448

Duty
rollected

300, 706
362, 351
“RA AOR”

Equiva-
lent
ad
valorem
rate

51
56
63

5

Net loss in reventie. $354.784
Mr. TaBer. I have taken three schedules that I know something
about—butter, because I benefited as a dairyman and was for it.
Understand. the grange and farm organizations asked for this in-
-rease in the tariff.

Mr. Kincueroe. On butter?

Mr. Taser. Yes; on butter.

This Congress voted for the three schedules I mentioned. and each
me of them kept money from the Treasury.

But the point I am trying to make is, first, that this bill is no more
a subsidy than the high protective schedules in the tariff. It keeps
no more money out of the Treasury than the protective schedules of
the tariff; and itis no more a subsidy than the equalization fee con-
tained in one of the bills—I am not going to discuss that except just
to indicate it is no more of a subsidy than that. I had a friend count
up the other day the advance in railroad stocks and bonds since the
passage of the Esch-Cummins Act, and it looks like billions, not
millions. I am mentioning that not in criticism of Congress but to
show the effect of legislation. You can help agriculture in one of
two ways: Reduce the tariff, eliminate immigration restrictions, inter-
est charges on railroads, and other legislation that may be destruc-
tive and causes dislocation.

Mr. KincueLos. You think that if some of the provisions of the
Fordnay-Malhnnber. conpandities were reduced it would be destruc-
tive?

Mr. Taper. Some provisions could be reduced. I am not discuss-
ng the tariff. It is here as a part ofthe commercial fabric of the
country. Some schedules are too high unless we bring the farmer
under the system.

Mr. Kincueroe. The tariff that you mention in those schedules
was put there for the purpose of protection, not for the purpose of
vetting revenue. You do not think the people who are the benefi-
“iaries under the aluminum tariff had any idea about revenue when
they put the higher tariff on it? I agree with you on that propo-
sition.