The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-10-06
"RECIPROCITY WITH CANADA
Problem Reviewed by T. Nj. KNAPP
pen in Eugene Hays Place.

pen In Eugene Hays Place.
T. M. Knappen of the Minneapolis
Journal, took the. place of Eugent
Hay on the program, who is absent
from the city, discussing the subject,
Reciprocity With Canada" Mr..
Mr.. Knappen devoted some time to
presentation of the facts regarding
Canadian development and growth,
and also said in part: -. f
Americans may differ among them
selves as to the value Of the protective
tart ffthat confronts the goods of other
nations at our frontiers, but there is
and can be no difference of opinion
among them as to the value of free
| trade within the United States.
TO the American mind, American
rule and free trade under it are in
separable. Public opinion would not
tolerate the small tariff which con-
gress imposed -on exports to and i'm
ports from Porto Rico, and so strong
is the tendency toward free trade I'M
oer the f1ag, that it is only a question
OF comparatively short time until
congress will be compelled to grant
Tree trade with the Philippines. Our
nation is so large in territory that
most Of our citizens do not realize that
we nave any tariffs that interfere with
Iree trade. When they come to the
Mexlcan or SCanadian frontiers, they
SIODDGd
tarlff barriers raised where nature has
raised none. Especially unnatural to
americans. seems the tariff line that
ulVldes us from our Canadian neigh
oofs. They are. SO like us that a per
son SET down blind-folded in many Ca
ilaulan Ill towns, would not know that he
was without the United States
The theory of protection is that If is
! wise Tor a country to develop within
1tself as many industries as nossih1a
ana TO develop a high standard Of
ne by protecting itself against the
competition of lower standard in
otnef countries. The chief purpose If
I 11te pIoIectlVe tariff as applied in the
Onlted States. has been to protect orr
manufacturers and their workmen
AGAINST competition in the domestic
market, OF the products of the chean
! cap1tal and cheap labor OF El1rona
! lAs We nave for long time been The
s Moitq as greatest agricultural nation
i, lave nave apeen exporters rather. than
products as it is possible fo nro -, a..
Prontably In our climate, our aeric111-
lure mas not needed protection H.
to it. - oee1is Z accorded
Free, or freer trade in natnr.,
convenience and benefit rather t tha .o %
t trade invasion Of each country Nv o1
| the. products of the other. ny
1I,,i4 80 ' raS between Canada and the
t pintea states closely resembles tn at
:petMeen. states. In eighteen clas ess
~ la<<i ioe 1la. goods we sold to Canada
bought from her 100000 900 NJ ama
nations are not so placed eene ,r W. Nv,
a aca.i y, as to be naturally. separate
commercial organisms. When 80 ~
raise tariff at the Canadian ho,,nda
ary you undertake to impede precise-
=, ,iie same sort of mutually benefi-
= .sit - ssue !hat goes on between our
1nelghporlng states. The problem If
| tisde relations with Canada is en- ~
| 1ltely different from that of such re-
iatlons with any other country r is
| I'M portant to remember this.
Mr.. %Knappen regarded free +rodo
~ nsn' coal, lumber and timber. tha
products of the soil and Of the mines
allu some reduction in the tariff in
manufactures as desirable and 1 fa. e.
lble. On the subject Of lun1har ha
said: Es3 =. Vel ne
With our forests doomed IN a.
struction within thirty-fiye wears
what earthly reason is there that viii
appeal to the interests Of 8O.OOo 1on
people to keep beyond a. barrier of a,
TAX OF ~ a thousand the lumber Of
canada! 1t is estimated that the for
estS OF canada can supply the world
for 800 years to come. It is onlv =.
very short time until our BUILDING.
operations and our manufactures rec
curing timber and lumber will have
to draw heavily on Canadian forests,
Adseady we import s12,000,OOO worth
OF WOOD and lumber from Canada and
put a heavy and unnecessary tax on
IT. Our government does not need
the revenue, and our lumber manu-
facturers do not require the protec-
| ton. The tariff on lumber is a pre-
MUM to our lumber manufacturers to
destroy our forests even faster than
| at present. Why should we not have
! free trade in lumber? 1t would he a