New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-10-11
THE M'K[NLEY TARIFF
ITS EFFECT ON CANADIAN TRADE IN WOOL,
BARLEY AND FISH

COVERED THAT THE CONSUMER DOES NOT
PAY THE DUTY-INCREAsE IN EMI-
GRAFTON SINCE THE PASSAGE
OF THE M'KINLEY BILL.
Toronto, Ont, Sept ls.-The Liberals Of Canada.
who are Tariff Reformers and Free Traders, are
considerably astOnshed at the contention OF the
Democrats that the agricultural schedule OF the
Mckinley act, which Affects Canada more than
any other country, tends to the injury OF the
American consider. The Democrats OF Buffalo,
Detroit. Rochester, Cleveland and other frontier
cities are aware that the only person really hurt
bv the agricultural schedule is the Canadian far
mer. Many Of them do business with Canada and
this is their everyday experience.
Take the case CT wool. The province Of Ontario
raises combing wool. During the Southern Rebel
lion the Ontario farmer got as much as go cents
nor pound for IT, 1t was admitted free under the
Marcy Elgin reciprocity treaty Of ls54-'6 For
some time after the war the ruling price IN
Canada was 30 cents. The United States is the
only available market for Canadian WOOL for Eng
land grows and exports the same variety This
city is the Headquarters Of the Ontario trade, and
between June and October, the buying season,
large quantities shipped to Philadelphia,
Lawrence. Mass, Providence, R. l., Lowell, and
Of the Mckinley bill the duty was 10 cents per
nound which was paid By the Canadian producer
The Mckinley duty is IL cents That went into
force in October, 1890, and wnen the buying
se.son Of 1891 opened the Toronto wool mer-
chants notified their purchasing agents that owing
70 the increase Of cents in the duty, it would
be necessary TO reduce the price 10 the Canadian
farmer by cents. The Canadian farmer also
pavs the freight charge TO the United States. The
result is that he is getting ID to Is cents Tor
his combing wool The dealers in Toronto sell
il to the American mills at IS cents. The other
day a buyer from Lowell came here and bought
60 900 pounds from John IIallam & Co. and 4O,OoO
pounds from other firms at that figure. Inc
duty brings the cost to 30 cents and the railroad
rate from Toronto Is AZ cents per 100 POUNDS so
that the gross cost Of Canadian wool laid down
M Lowell is about 30 IL cents. OF which, as has
been said. the Canadian farmer gets only 16. A
Democrat may say: THAT the Canadian farmer
can afford TO sell his wool for only 10 cents Is
proof that if the Mckinley duty were repealed
the American manufacturer could buy at 10 IN
stead OF so or 81 - II IL not so. The CANADIAN
farmer cannot afford To sell at Is. lhere Is no
money in it, He cells at Is simply because the
United States market is the only market he has
and he cannot help himself The drop to Is has
duclnQ the supply. Dealers say the number OF
sheep in Ontario is diminishing. Rather than
raise wool for cents the farmers prefer to send
their sheen TO the butcher in the United States and
Britain We're the Mckinley duty repealed to-
morroyy the price Of wool in Canada would at
once lump up and it is doubtful if the Masea-
chusette ard Rhode Island mills would get 1t
cent cheaper. Mr.. IIallam, the largest wool
dealer in the Dominion, is an Englishman,
Liberal and an ardent Free Trader. He was one
Of those who sent out circulars warning the lar
mcrs that the increase of duty by the Mchlniey
hill obliged them 10 reduce tho Canadian price.
let US leave the farmers for moment and
look AZ the effect Of the United States duties on
fish During the existence OF the reciprocity
treaty the Nova Scotia fish merchants and vessel
owners made a heap OF money. Their fish was
admitted free into the United States. and they
had marked advantage over American vessel |
owners in paying lower wages and being able tn
,uild cheaper craft. Nova Scotia vessel OF
ninety tons, the average size, can be bullt Tor
hlly 90 per cent below the cost OF similar
vessel at Gloucester, ard wages-somc Canadian |
fishermen are paid by the month and some work
on sharcs-arc from Is TO 20 per cent lower. |
When the reciprocity treaty was abrosated IN |
$50 and Congress clapped duties on Canadian
fish. the industry in Canada suffered accord
ingly. II doomed again during the existence Of
the fishery clauses 81 the Washington treaty Of
1871, which repealed the duties, and took another
bad turn in 1888 when those clauses were termi-
mated The Canadian Government, Interpreting
Article Of the treaty OF 1918 In literal and |
ba rharous fashion, refuses American fishermen the
liberty, which il grants TO the French fishermen
OF tie Mqucl0n Islands, Of transshipplng their
cargoas in Canadian ports Of buying supplies
from the halfstarvcd Inhabitants Of the Canadian
coasts. and of shipping crews; and why Be-
cause, on its confession. il inagines that by
haras-ing American citizens in that manner II can
coerce Congress into removing the duties on
fish. Bus. If the Democrats are
right, what fools the Canadians must be to de-
prive themselves Of valuable commerce in the
hope OF securing the repeal OF AZ impost borne
by somebody else
The whole argument OF Canadian Liberals in
behalf Of complete free trade with the United
States. which Is their party platform,
10 that the Canadian fishermen, miners.
lumbcrmcn and farmc:S would get Just
so much moro for their products If The
United States duties were abolished The
Canadian Tories used & say the same thing when
thoy were seeking, not complete free trade, but
reciprocity in natural products alon" They were
80 anxious for reciprocity IN natural products
that when the Mlrcy-Elsin treaty was about 10
he terminated they offered q pay a bonus II 1t
were continued At that time the Internal revenue
and other taxes created 10y the war hcrc heavily
upon the American farmer. commission APP
pointed by the United States had reported that
under the treaty the products 81 American In
dus,ry subject 10 high rates Of "NclS' were
brought into frc, competition with similar
products Of provincial industry which are sub
Iect,~l 10 little or no excise. and recommended
that, il the arrancment were 10 he maintained
Mt ALL the United States should impos" duties
equivalent 10 the American excise duties upon
Canadian produces. while Canada should, as
before, admit American natural products free. y
Canadian vor,. Government not only agreed to !