The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1865-08-01
TIE Rno1pRoo1rY rRpArY.

The Chicago Tribune has taken pains to
collect some interesting statistics to show the
workings Of the reciprocity treaty, how un
equally it has operated, and how unjustly il
has borne upon the Western producers Be
fore giving the figures from the Tribune it may
not be improper to remark, that nearly all pro-
ducers in cur country, except the farmers-the
primal producers-receiye some kir.l of pre-
lection, rightfully or wrongfully, against for
eign competitions The ironmongers Of Penn.
sylvania are largely protected, in addition tc
the protection afforded by the distance of for
eign FORCES; the sugar of Louisiana and Texa.
is also protected, and so is nearly every art
Gle manufactured in our country. True, om
tariff is not primarily for protection of the
home product, but for purposes of revenue
1t ia nevertheless protection to the home pro-
Queer to the extent of its levies, quite as much
as though these levies were not needed fer
revenue. FE co "
But the producer of agricultural products
has no such protection. He needs none
against the transatlantic producer. The cos
of transportation is of itself sufficient rea
son why the wheat from the Black Sea and
the Danube cannot come in competition will
the more easily raised cereals of our Westerr
prairies, in the markets of orr country.
But by the operation of the reciprocity tre-
ty the wheat growers of Canada West have al
the advantages of our markets that are enjoy
edby the producers of the West, and are thu
brought in direct competition with those pro
ducars in our own markets. 1t may be sale
that this is no reason for objecting to the ope-
ration of the treaty, because it makes the brea6
of our people so much the cheaper. But
this is sound argument in favor of absolute
free trade in agricultural products, why is il
not sound when applied to iron, sugar, hemp
and all manufactured articles on which imposi
duties are now levied? Absolute free trade
may be the best thing for our country. Thit
is not the question, however, which we are
considering. We only contend that if othei
producers are to have advantages in their owr
markets, there is no good reason why the
farmer-whose interest mderiies all Others
should not have the same advantage against
the foreigner whose wheat fields lie contiguous
to his own. s.F
At any rate the Western farmers have thi
feeling, and knowing that the reciprocity trea-
ty denies them this privilege without render
ing corresponding equivalent, they oppose it,
and demand its abrogation, or that it be sup-
planted by an arrangement that shah be in
fact as well as in name, reciprocal. The pa
per to which we have alluded, says that Cana
da has sold us of her grain, lumber, &c, five
millions more per annum than she has taken
from US; and that to just that amount the
treaty has been the cause of foreign CONNECT
tition with our own farmers in our own marx
cts.
From 1855 to 1868 the United States export.
ed to the Canadas, under the reciprocal treaty.
to the am pant of S73,215,613, During the
same time the reciprocity exports from Cana
da to the United States amounted to S115,54s
$50: balance in favor Of Canada, $42,333257.
The agricultural articles exchanged undel
this treaty from 1859 to 1868 inclusive, are
given as follows, and the Tribune claims that
the fl2ura3 are off oiaIIu oarroct.