The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-08-07
A Mutually Satisfactory Bargain.

A Mutually Satisfactory Bargain.
The Waterloo, Iowa, Courier, thinks that
the last word has been said on the ques-
ton of reciprocity with Canada because
The journal stated the other day
that 1t would be good thing for the On
tario farmers. That is all the Courier
wants to know@ of the subject. If rec
procity Is going to be good thing for the
Canadians, we want none of 1t; we want
all the good things for ourselves.
This sort of talk can be matched by
arguments against reciprocity in Canadian
papers. The Americans hope to benefit
by freer access to our markets, they say;
that settles it for us. On both sides Of
the line the nearsighted are looking for
a bargain with good side and a bad side,
the good side for US and the bad side for
the other fellows. The simple truth of
that a fair reciprocal tariff arrangement
would benefit both countries The people
of Minnesota don't get poor by doing bust
ness with the people of Illinois, and 1t Is
not rea sonable to suppose that the people
3 of Minnesota will get poor by reason of
freer trade with the people of Manitoba
I and the rest Of Canada. It is conceivable
that, certain persons in Minnesota would
welcome a protective tariff against Illinois
or Wisconsin, say, but the ma sses Of the
people know that it would be a calamity.
AS the friends Of fairer trade relations
with Canada have a thousand times
demonstrated, Canada occupies position
that puts her outside the usual application
Of the principles of protection. There is
; nothing in Canada against which it does
this country any good to raise a protective
wall.
The American farmer has nothing to
fear from reciprocity with Canada be-
cause it will benefit the Canadian farmer.
Both nations are largely agricultural; even
tho the United States Is now the greatest
manufacturing nation in the world, it Is
the greatest exporter Of agricultural prod
ucts To say that it is the greatest ex-
porter of agricultural products is to say
that it has a great surplus Of those
products over its own demands for con-
sumption. That means that, sometimes
directly and sometimes indirectly, the
price of agricultural products is largely
determined by the foreign demand for
them and that comes near to being the
British demand. The more Britain buys
Of other countries the less will she demand
our products.
Now, we can keep the Canadians out o.
our markets If we wish to, but we can
keep them out Of the British market
The result is that Canada sells much tt
Britain and little to us. Does that g
to prove that we have protected oul
farmers? Not at all. Every time Can
ada sells dollars worth Of farm prod
ucts in England we sell g. dollars worth
( less; that is, the British demand for oul
products Is reduced. So the Canadian
farmer completes, with the American
= farmer, regardless Of the tariff. The only
Z effect of the tariff Is to subject the Ca
2 madam to some inconvenience. He L
often better located than some of our owl
farmers to supply some Of the demand!
Of some Of the local American markets
Being kept by the tariff from supplying
them, he loses profit by selling in the dis
tant market. If freer trade would diver
to our markets some Canadian produce
there would be larger hole in the Eng
lish market to fill with American goods
that Is ALL
But now suppose Canada, finding her
self barred from the natural and econom
ical outlet for her products, is forced tt
make the best of the situation? VIVA
then? Why, she will strive for prefer
entail tariff at the hands Of Britain. Can
ada now supplies 20 per cent of the Brit
1sh demand for foodstuffs. Suppose b.
means OF a tariff that Disseminated
against American products in the British
markets, this percentage is increased t
* 3d. What about the American farme
then? His market will be greatly re
stricted and he will get less for what h
sells than the Canadian.
Viewing the question entirely from tn
standpoint Of self-interest, we ought t
have reciprocity with Canada. If 1t wi
also benefit the Canadians, there Is NOR
cause for desiring 1t, for every man like
to be party to bargain that Is mutual
satisfactory.
Our statesmen do not yet understan
1t, but the fact Is that at the present mo
rnent there Is nothing that they could d
that would be Sc universally beneficial t
the United States as to secure the frees
possible trade with Canada. And we ma
add that there is nothing Canadian states
il men can do for their people that woul
be better for them than to open up tn
doors Of trade with the United States.