The Irish standard., 1896-03-28

OF NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF countries Wnlcn
import great quantities Of manufacturer
goods, that American manufacturers
make no effort to meet the tastes and re-
quirements Of foreign customers. Even
in putting up goods in packages they do
not adapt themselves to the needs of such
customers arising from the conditions Of
transportation and from the practice in
many countries of laying duties upon
gross weight, including coverings.
The truth is that our manufacturers,
with few exceptions, do not seek for the
permanent foreign trade, They have no
tariff law to aid them in obtaining ex-
orbitant prices in foreign markets. There:
fore they-regard those markets merely as
convenient dumping grounds for an occa-
sional surp1uswhich they cannot dispose
Of at home without breaking down the
Unsupported, artificial prices they are
able ordinarily to exact from their own
couptrymen.. Armed with power to prac-
tice .extort;on at home, they have no de-
/ sire to build -up,a permanent foreign trade
and if they had the desire they would be
spoiled for. the work by congressional
pampering:,.c - a. ~
The Moline Company makes an eXcep-
ton CT the case Of Manitoba for the obvi-
gus reason that that province lacks the
iron and wood necessary for the econom-
ical production Of agricultural nipple
ments The company believes that some
thing can be done to make their trade
with Manitoba more profitable. They call
attention to the fact that Canada puts a
tax OF IS per cent on imported agricultural
implements. Then they express the be-
lief that "a reciprocity treaty could be
made with the Canadian government to
remove the tariff on implements, as the
large mass of the farming community in
Canada are eagerly seeking to reduce or
remove entirely the tariff on implements.
Why should the Canadian government
take this step? Why should it heed the
wishes Of farmers who wish to buy things
without being heavily taxed on them for
the: benefit of the manufacturers? Our
government never does when the republi-
can party. is, in power. 1t always as
,sumes' that the @.e manufacturer must be
taken good eare of, no matter what hap
pens to the farmer. Why should not the
Canadian government do the same? Why
should it subject the Canadian implement
maker 10 "luinous competition" from this
country? The Canadian manufacturer
has as much right to his home market
as the American manufacturer has to his.
It is as reasonable and just that the. Ca
madam manufacturer should be armed by
his government with powers to collect
tribute from Canadian farmers as it is
in like manner be enabled to rob Ameri
can farmers.
Our ilnplement -makers will probably
find when it comes to talking of a reci-
procity treaty giving their products free
admission to Canada that there is pow
erful though small body of implement
makers in Canada able to prevent an ar
rangement depriving them of their pre-
cious protection And so it is likely to be
;eISaMbh}ieAref, 8, Ills not probable that sin
gle; Latin American country could again
be bulldozed into anything like the Blaine
dickers.
What our mamufa ct21rers think about
the advantage that would accrue to them
from a restoration of the club policy is of
very little Importance. The material
question is whether that policy could sue
coed again. There is much reason to
think it could not