The National Government has almost entirely relieved the farmer from income taxes by successive tax reductions, but State and local taxes have increased, putting on him a grievous burden.  A policy of rigid economy should be applied to State and local expenditures.  This is clearly within the legislative domain of the States.  The Federal Government has also improved our banking structure and system of agricultural credits.  The farmer will be greatly benefited by similar action in many States.  The Department of Agriculture is undergoing changes in organization in order more completely to separate the research and regulatory divisions, that each may be better administered.  More emphasis is being placed on the research program, not only by enlarging the appropriations for State experiment stations but by providing funds for expanding the research work of the department.  It is in this direction that much future progress can be expected.

THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF

The present tariff rates supply the National Treasury with well over $600,000,000 of annual revenue.  Yet, about 65 per cent of our imports come in duty free.  Of the remaining 35 per cent of imports on which duties are laid about 23 per cent consists of luxuries and agricultural products, and the balance of about 12 per cent, amounting, to around $560,000,000 is made up of manufactures and merchandise.  As no one is advocating any material reduction in the rates on agriculture or luxuries, it is only the comparatively small amount of about $560,000,000 of other imports that are really considered in any discussion of reducing tariff rates.  While this amount, duty free, would be large enough seriously to depress many lines of business in our own country, it is of small importance when spread over the rest of the world.

It is often stated that a reduction of tariff rates on industry would benefit agriculture.  It would be interesting to know to what commodities it is thought this could be applied.  Everything the farmer uses in farming is already on the free list.  Nearly everything he sells is protected.  It would seem to be obvious that it is better for the country to have the farmer raise food to supply the domestic manufacturer than the foreign manufacturer.  In one case our country would have only the farmer; in the other it would have the farmer and the manufacturer.  Assuming that Europe would have more money if it sold us larger amounts of merchandise, it is not certain it would consume more food, or, if it did, that its purchases would be made in this country.  Undoubtedly it would resort to the cheapest market, which is by no means ours.  The largest and best and most profitable market for the farmer in the world is our own domestic market.  Any great increase in manufactured imports means the closing of our own plants.  Nothing would be worse for agriculture.