Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1898-09-29
KICKING.
People of the United States
Opposed to Reciprocity
With Canada.
HOT PROTEST FROM FARMERS
DO Not Want tho Duty on Canadian Bar
ley, Eggs, Vegetables aud Fruits Re-
ton Protests-A Memorial From
American Lumbcrmcn.

quebec, Sept 22.-The people of the
United States are evidently beginning to
awaken to the great Importance of the
results which may come from the work
of the international Joint nigh commission
now in session in this city. 1t has become
known that the Canadian repre- sentativcs
are urging that the treaty emhodyinC
commercial reciprocity he made and such
n treaty If made would seriously affect
nearly all the great Industries of the INT
ted States These industries are now be-
ing heard from in a very emphatic way.
During the past "A hours the American
commissioners have been besie-cd by
Populations Of Americans, praying and
demanding that no ironclad treaty be en-
tered into which would disturb and in
many instances destroy the present pro-
tcctivc tariff laws of the United states.
The farmers of the United States put
I'm their protest and it was very strong
one. They We're represented by Aaron
Jones of Indiana, the worthy master of
the National Grange and y. J. Bachelor
of New Hampshire, chairman Of the ma
tional executive committee. They We're
were given fun hearing and will
have another audience before the commits
soners act.
After the hearing Mr.. Jones said: we
speak for the farmers Of every State OF
the Union ana in all of the States they
are opposed to any change being made
in the present duties on agricultural pro-
! ducts. With the farmers this is a very
serious question. The agricultural indus
try represents about GO per cent. of the
! total wealth of the country. This is an
Interest which should not be sacrificed |
have official expression from all the States
IN the Union and all are opposed to
changing in any manner the duties now
imposed on tdadil agricultural products.
IhS H. as true of the Western. South
crn. Central and New England States as
Of the States along the Canadian bord,r +.
As | understand the situation. the Cana
dams are asking Ger = commercial rcCi-
prucity treaty TO be made by this Joint
/ commission ana IN that treaty they want
/ tho duty on Canadian barley. eggs. vesc-
tables, fruits and other products removed.
/ That thing the American farmers will
never consent tC. \ national convention OF
/ the Grange mas been called to he held i'm
| Concord, y. H., in November and unless
| the question Is settled before that time II
| will be taken up there. In many years
tho farmers of the United States have
not been so well satisfied with conditions
| as now. They see the light of better DAYS
| breaking through the clouds They ar,
satisfied with the DnCley tariff law as IL
| Is and they desire to see II tested for a
| longer period of time before changing it
| Even the free trade farmers: those who
believe in the FREQ trade policy, say if they
must have protective system, they be-
| leNc under the present system the farm
erS are faring better than most of the
other Industries. To open up the free i'm
portations from Canada now would have
the same depressing effect upon the farm
| erS as when wool was placed on the free
] list. We have been told since coming
here that certain manufacturing inter
eStS IN the United States have asked for
commercial reciprocity with Canada. Tha,
| Is no doubt true, but so great an inter
| ost as that of agriculture should not be
! SacrlhcSd Tor some less important manu-.
| featuring interest. The farmers present a
| solid 'front.' against reciprocity with Can.
| ada"
| Following Mr.. Jones came another carn-
| est protest from Mr.. Albert Clarke prcsi.
| dent of the Home Market club of Boston
/ Mass. He said the organization he spok,
for had upwards of Zoo members. mostly
manufacturers and represented a totaI
capital interest of sos, CVOO UO He opposed
commercial reciprocity. He said that he
tween two countries having the same pro.
/ ducts for exchange each had sometime
the other did not have it would be 4 DIFF
fcrent proposition
| Col, Aldace Walker, formerly Of the in.
IicrState commerce commission. hut now
chairman of the board of directors of the
Atchlson, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad
spoke concerning the traffic bonding syS.
TEN. He believed the Canadian railroads
should be subject to the interstate com.
iccrce laws and in case OF violation Am.
erlcan traffic over the lines should be SIS.
pended instead of imposing a fine as is
done in case of violation on the part Of
| the American roads
| Hon. G. ). Hamlin of the Boston Ner.
chants association opposed Col. Walkers
scheme vigorously. He insisted that the
present bonding system by which the Uni.
! ted states products were carried over
Canadian roads from one point to another
| in the United States without duty VA,
entirely equitable and satisfactory. n,
desired no change from present condi
lions,
LUMBBRMEN'S PROTEST.
In addition to the protests lodged viii
the American delegation, came another
from Congressman J. A. Tawney of Min
nesota in behalf of the lumbermen of IN,
United States. He presented to the Am
trlcan commissioners a printed memova
signed by 80 of the principal lumber firms
In n States and protesting most earnestly
against the reduction OF the duty on "a
madam lumber. on the cover OF the mo
mortal these figures are printed in larg,
black type: Total value forest products
| United States. census 1880, 81. 0S5 Oisl, COO To
tai value mineral products. including golt
and silver, report 1896, s5la.3 5i6,"
/ Following are extracts from the memo
rial:
IF to secure an extension of American
trade with Canada you reduce the pres,n
duty on lumber. you thereby sacrifice
part of our home market for that produc
and injure the future prosperity of Il ma
tional industry In return, what do yo'
receive? Nothing but ii speculative ad
vantage for few local industries in Ger
tain sections of our country by securn,
for them the privilege of competing IN
market of only five millions of people OF
an equality with the manufacturing IN
dustrles of Great Britain. This would no
he American reciprocity. 1t would b
commercial imbecllty.
The proposition to admit CanadIal
agricultural products, lumber ana othc
Canadian products free OF duty, or to ad
init them at greatly reduced rate u
duty rests entirely upon the assumption
% That this would benefit American
trade IN Canada, and (2) that as to lum
her, the product of Canada. compare
with that Of the United States is so sma
as to preclude the possibility OF injury I
the American industry. Our expo rienC
as practical lumbermen from 1882 TO lSy
under tariff concessions such as are EN-
bodied IN the above proposition, prove
- 49, "t~e - tho huhC