The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-12-28
cAHAnA Asp PaorEcrlon

Tn The Toronto World we find this statement relative to matter that is exciting considerable interest both in that country and in the great wheat region of the United States:
 At the present time and for a long time past the United States has im- posed a duty of 25 cents bushel on wheat coming into that country. Ow- ton. the impoverishment of their wheat fields, and the existence of this protection against Canadian wheat. the price of wheat in the United states Is 10 cents or more a bushel higher Tn the States than 1t is in Canada. Uni lowed a drawback edGai to the duty on sp tnsy a make ss. ssd hsDy asDers wss SSt have the drawback allowed on the ex- port of the flour equivalent of the wheat they import from Canada In nadian wheat, min 1t and sell the flour product for consumption in the states. but to be allowed 8 drawback equal to the duty they pay on this wheat n milied from United States wheat. Un- actual -four product of Canadian im- ported wheat; now % they s.is wish to ,ss sa, , they import from Canada. To put 1t stili another way, the United States millers want the job of grinding our it. with their lower grade wheat, and to this end they would gladly see the duty on wheat abolished But if they tha that : viii viii is iet them grind % our wheat and mix 1t with theirs.
 It must be borne in mind just here that Canadian wheat of best quality is selling at home at prices consider ably below the price for good wheat in the United States. It must also be remembered that the stock of wheat in this country is not large enough to supply the demands of our millers and keep their mills running at their full capacity. Naturally, they want some of the Canadian grain, and what is equally natural, the import duty of 25 cents per bushei Is practically prohibit tive. because our millers who buy the Canadian grain and pay the duty on it cannot sell flour at prices to com pete with flour made from home- grown wheat.
 The premises considered, as the law yers say. 1t is easy to see why the Northwestern millers want the duty removed. or why they want a rebate on Canadian wheat ground in our mills and the flour. or any part of it. ship ped back to Canada. It is also plain to see why The World and other Ca- nadians insist on the tariff. That paper declares itself in favor of pro- tection. and argues in favor of a Ca- nadian export duty on wheat. should the United States remove the tariff Replying to Messrs. Greenway and Sifton. of Manitoba, who oppose the export duty, The World says 1t would be sound national policy to compel the grinding. of Canadian wheat in Ca- nadian mills. with power developed in Canada, by Canadian workmen using Canadian made machinery. handled by Canadian railways and exported to Europe in Canadian ships. The scheme that Mr. Greenway and Mir. siftou l favor would in effect let the Ameri. cans grind our wheat in United States mills with United States workmen supplying traffic for United States railways and United States steamships and what Is most valuable of all, al.
 lowing the shorts and bran to be uset
 to feed cattle in the United States
 thereby assisting them in maintain
 ing their control of the dead meal
 trade, and as a consequence also sup.
 plying 8 large quantity of fertilizer:
 for the improvement of the used-ur
 wheat lands of the United States"
 All this, 1t seems to us, Is thorough.
 ly consistent, and in line with the doc.
 Urine of protection elsewhere. The
 World is arguing for It's own side and
 its own people, just as all believers ir
 the protective policy do, and we sup
 pose no protectionist in the United
 States can find fault with them for SC
 believing. And we suspect, too, that
 our own farmers would seriously ob
 ject to the removal of the duty, a.
 that would open the door to an inrust
 of Canadian wheat. After all, is no
 the whole policy of protection based or
 selhshness7