The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1895-03-08
BRITAIN
SAYS PRESERVE THE HOME
MARKETS.

editorial taken from q leading
paper of Toronto, Canada. to-
the attention of our readers, as
showing how some Of the people
of the Queens realm view the
matter
The advocates of free trade
ind it hard to tell the farmer
that his produce would turn into.
less money if his protection were.
swept away Instead, therefore,
they tell him it would not. This
is how they try 10 lull him INTO.
that error. They frankly Admit
and glory in the fact that the.
removal of the duties on agricul
tural produce would bring ia.
wheat, pork, beef, cheese and.
other farm commodities from the
United States. They do not deny
that the tendency and effect Of
this would be to lower prices
here. But they say the more
United States produce there is.
marketed here the less of il will
there be marketed in Britain,
Europe, the West Indies. and
elsewhere. Hence these foreign
markets will furnish demand
for Canadian produce equivalent
to the demand captured in the
home market by United States
produce If its not here it's.
there. And by this showing the
thing is made to appear as broad
as it is long. 10 justice to the
free traders it must be said they
have no great fancy for this.
argument themselves. 1t is all
they have, however, wherewith
to combat the farmers objection
to the loss of the home market.
This objection they would leave
alone if only II would leave them.
alone. and SO far they have treat
ed it, as a rule with studied neg
lect. They are aware that free
trade would work something like
this A certain proportion Of
any produce, say pork, consum
ed in this country would come
from the United States. AS, ac.
cording to the free trade theory,
it makesno difference how much,
let US suppose one half. This.
would be sold alta price-on the
basis of comparison between
prices on the two sides of the
line at present-from 81, % to
81. 30 per cwt. in the carcass be.
low what it now sells at. Thus,
the Canadian farmer will sell
only half the pork required in
the home market, and sell it at
81. % and S1,5o below what he
can get for it now. But he is TO
look for compensation to the
foreign market, with its fewer
buyers. There he may tind a de-
mand capable of taking up his
supply, but lit will be on the same
plane of value as that he was
forced to sell on at home. The
free traders are fond of telling
the farmer that the export price.
fixes the value in the home mar
ket, and truly it does fix the
value under their system. Uns
der free trade, then, the farmer.
would sell all his dressed hogs
at 81. % to Sl.5o per cwt. less
than he does under protection.
To bring him out even so well.
we have to grant that a vacuum
is left in the foreign market by
the diversion of United States
pork to our country. There may
or may not be. There is very
commonly a surplus stock of
pork carried over from one year
to another, and Chicago has gen
orally had the privilege of carry
ling it. Free ii ade might should
er part of it on us. The same
conditions attach to the trade in
beef and other agricultural pro
1 ducts. II is clear that the farm
er would have to be satisfied with
much lower returns on his pro
duce if free trade were the rul.
ing policy.
But there is another, and prob
ably no less important, feature
of the matter to be considered.
If United States pork, beef,
j cheese grain Honr and live.