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.