Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1888-10-30

FREE TRADE IN LUMBER.
What a Former Canadian Member of Par
Lament Saws About 1t.

"hhL "a FORMER Canaulan llemDer or par-
lament Says About It
Francis Wayland Glen, of Brooklyn, for
many years q member of the Canadian
parliament, furnishes an interesting tariff
talk.
Before the reciprocity treaty of 1854
was ~abrogated | resided in Canada and
manufactured saw mill machinery |
therefore understand the views of lum
bermen on free trade in lumber Many of
them were in parliament with me, and |
therefore am able to say that there is not
o manufacturer of lumber in Canada who
does not believe that If lumber We're put
on the free list in this country the price
of lumber in Canada would advance nearly
or quite the full amount of the duty taken
off, and that the convertible value Of
timber limits would be enormously in
creased.
"As the increase in the value of lumber
in Canada would be clear profit, all lumber
men, without distinction of party, favor
free trade with the United States in that
product The amount of lumber sent
from Canada to, this market is not suf
nclent TO control the price, and conse.
quently the Canadian producer, and not
the American conaumer, will reap the
benefit OF the removal of the American
duty.
"The day after the free wool clause was
adopted by the lower house Of CONGRESS-
the leading journal of Canada reported
the wool market as being VERY much ex-
cited and quotations suspended" holders
believing that if the duty were removed
the price IN Canada, like that of lumber.
would be advanced nearly or quite as much
as the amount of the duty taken off.
The journal referred to advocates a
,tarl1t for revenue only and would not
nave SO reported the wool market unless
compelled to do so as a faithful reporter.
The Canadians believe that reciprocity in
national products will add millions an.
nuaily to the value of their exports to
THIS country. They are quite willing to
ABANDON their fishery claims for a much
less aluable consideration. Canadians
KNOW q good thing when they see it, and
are, therefore, anxious to havo lumber
ana wool admitted to this country free of
duty, knowing that it will increase the
value of these products in Canada.
"A short time since q Dominion narlia-.
mentary election was being held in nm
Ontario riding. In advocating the claims
OF the Liberal candidate the LEADING ioI1r.
nal (anti-protection), to show the farmers
OF the riding the value of reciprocity ms
advocated by the Liberal candidate. In an
editorial, quoted from a late return the
Quantity OF grain Il the number of cat
tie raised III the riding, and added the
Amerlcan duty to each class, and declared
tnat h total sum (some hundreds of
thousands OF dollars) represented the
value OF reciprocity to the farmers of the
riding for a single year, although this
1ournai Tor the past forty years has in.
sisted that the consumer pays the DUTY.
Leading Tories resident in Canada
durlng war times always argued that If
England recognized the Coafederacy she
w9uid nave q permanent FREQ trade aliy.
because the government would be founded
upon the theory that the laborer is n chnt.
tel. and therefore there could not be- onv
industrial Developments or any CONNER.
clal marine, consequently English shins
would carry the raw products of tbe
south to England and return in avmen
the products of English manufacturers.
And that further, England, having
Ier Canadian provinces on the north and
her free trade ally on the south, could se.
riously cripple, If not crush, the indus.
trlai development of the then loyal states.
what England failed to accomplish at
that time it is now proposed to secure
thro1gh a united south and such north.
ern Democrats as prefer party to indus.
trial independence.
II consumers in this country will study
the condition of the markets and not the
'maxims and theories of john c. Calhoun.
reiterated by Messrs, Mills, Carlisle and
the B~reckinridges, and automatically re-.
peated by President Cleveland, they will
soon be convinced that competition among
producers fixes the market price hi
country of manufactured goods, and
not the amount of duty placed upon i'm
ports, and that they are safer in the hands
OF home manufacturers under a protective
tariff than hey would be ut the mercy of
q foreign manufacturer under a tariff for
only"-New York Press.