The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-04-16

Mr.. Harris scheme is to give all these
countries preferential terms in the
British market and thus secure a wheat
supply independent Of us. "The conse-
quence would be-" he says, "that the
United States farmers would lose this
market, unless they could put their
wheat alongside other supplies at the
same price after paying the duty. OF
course they might ship their wheat to
French and Mediterranean ports, and
sell ii, but the extra freight and insur-
ance would be a very heavy charge
against them as compared with what
they now pay to London and Liverpool.
The only protective precaution we
should need to take against other
countries would DO to place a sufficient
ly heavy duty on the import of flour
coming from Belgium or Holland in
order to prevent the American wheat
from being turned into flour in either of
these countries and ~re-exported to us
in that shape.
Roumania, Turkey and Argentina,
under like discriminating laws, could
furnish England's supply of corn and
meat and the American farmer would
find his greatest market cut off.
What would be the result? Mr..
Harris says: "The American agricul-
turist has never received the smallest
advantage from the protective tariff.
His expenses of living must be some
what enhanced thereby. and directly he
feels the shoe pinch in the way I have
described he will rebel. With all these
facts in view, permit me to appeal to the
common sense of your readers, and to
ask them how the American voters
would be likely to use their franchise at
the next e%lection?" Mr.. Harris thus
concludes:
Some will argue that our action would
simply provoke tiercer retaliation on the
part of the United States. simply refer
those who think so to the board of trade
returns of the trade which passed between
the two countries in 1889, which is the last
year for which we have complete returns.
By these returns it will be seen that the
United States exported to the United King
dom produce and manufacturers to the
value of sos, 500, 900. Deducting from this
the raw material of manufacture such as
cotton and wool, amounting to nearly t333,
100000, VIC have e62, O00.0 900 as the value of
their exports to US, on which we could,
without any serious damage to ourselves,
impose import duties. On the other hand,
we only exported to the United States
British produce and manufactures to the
value of $50, 800, 600. Consequently, if we
were to enter into a war of retaliation
our power of hurting them would be double
their power of hurting US, if we started
even. But We should not start even. They
have already retaliated by imposing wha'
might almost be called p%yohibitory duties
and they are still obliged to take $50. 00O,
900 worth of manufacturers from US. VIZ
have, therefore, at least n four-fold poweI
of retaliation, as compared with them, an,
in order to do us further harm they mus
prohibit imports from England altogether
which would simply have the effect OF di
vertinR our ships from their ports, an,
would thus raise the ~freights enormousl
against the shipment of their agriculture
produce.
This may be looked upon as buster o
idle speculation, but it is interesting a
showing the spirit in which our cut
throat policy of legislation is received
in the greatest commercial center of tn
world.