AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 741 



free-trade prices for what he sells, but for what he buys is com- 

 pelled to pay prices enhanced by a protective tariff. For exam- 

 ple, Mr. Lubin has said: "The producers of agricultural staples 

 under the present system must foot the entire cost of protection, 

 which, at a conservative estimate, must foot up to $ i ,000,000,000 

 a year." The object, then, of a system of bounties upon exports 

 of agricultural staples, Mr. Lubin tells us, is to restoi* to the 

 farmer that of which protection unjustly deprives him. 



The determination of the truth or falsity of Mr. Lubin's state- 

 ment as to the effect of the tariff on the farmer does not con- 

 cern our present purpose. Admitting it to be correct, however, 

 what is to be said of his remedy ? Were it to accomplish all 

 that Mr. Lubin claims, it would simply restore to the farmer 

 $I,OOO,OOO,CXDO of which he is annually deprived by protection. 

 When this has been done, who is the gainer by the transaction ? 

 To ask the question is to answer it. Mr. Lubin's argument 

 resolves itself into this : society is to bear the expense of the 

 administrative machinery necessary to a process by which one 

 class collects money from another only in turn to pay it back. It 

 is clear, therefore, that whether an export bounty upon agricul- 

 tural staples be wise or foolish, the argument used by Mr. Lubin 

 in its support may be dismissed without further comment. 



It is worth while, however, to consider the proposition itself. 

 not only from the farmer's point of view, but also in its political 

 and financial aspects, and in reference to its bearing upon eco- 

 nomic and social progress and upon the wisest adjustment of 

 the wealth-producing energy of the nation. 



The manner in which an export bounty is expected to benefit 

 the farmer is as follows: the bounty is to be paid directly to 

 the exporters of farm products ; competition among the exj> 

 will raise the price of the quantity exported to the extent of 

 the bounty ; the quantity bought to supply the home market 

 will command the same price; consequently, the value of the 

 mtire product will be artificially enhanced, and the profits of 

 the farmer correspondingly increased. 



It is a serious <|iiestion. however, \\hether this can be accom- 

 plished without so stimulating production as to defeat the avowed 



