Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-03-25
FREE LIST TOO SMALL
More Canadian Products Should Come
60 VI Without Duty.

We are dealing with Canada upon
the hypothesis that there Is no mater
ial difference between the cost OF pro-
duction there and here. II that be true.
and believe 1t to be substantially true.
what reason 10 there for not admitting
the rema inder Of Canada's natural pro-
ducts free, ana what reason IL there
for not admitting large part Of her
manufactured products free? under
stand perfectly that in many manufac-
tuFed products Canada can not now
compete with US. but the privilege Of
free entry from the north, even In man
ufactured products, will tend to curb
and restrict the power and avarice OF
combinations and monopolies at home
II the farmer sells his cattle in free
market. who can gainsay his right to
buy his lumber in a free market? The
proposed arrangement makes rough
lumber free. but stu maintains bur
densome duty upon laths. shingles and
planed or finished lumber. insist that
the farmer shall have the privilege Of
buying ALL OF his lumber. rough or
finished. free Of duty. The farmer will
sell his wheat in free competition. Why
should he not be permitted to buy his
coal in the same free competition? Can
any one tell me why iron ore should
not come into the United States free
upon exactly the same hypothesis that
agricultural products come in free?
Why Not Free Flour?
Again. this arrangement admits
wheat rye. oats. barley. and buck
wheat free. and 1t proposes a duty of
so cents barrel upon wheat -four and
rye -four; 80 cents per hundred pounds
- 10
a cent per pound upon buckwheat -four.
and 17h per cent ad valorem upon
other cereal foods: that is to say, II the
price of these grains is reduced at all
1t Is for the beneht OF the miller and
not for the benefit Of the people. The
farmers Of Iowa have a right to buy
their -four. their oatmeal. and all other
such things made out OF agricultural
products. free. and 1t is absurd to put
grain on the free list and the manu-
featured product under duty.
But this is not all! Cattle, sheep,
and hogs are to be admitted without
duty. but meat Of all kinds is to pay
a duty OF IN cents per pound. We
do not eat cattle. sheep. and hogs. we
eat meat, which is the manufactured
product of these animals. and II we
put the farmer into free competition
upon the raw material. why should we
be solicitous about the packer who Is
already over-strong and over greedy?
The suggestion that the animal should
come from Canada to the packer free.
and that the meat should come from
Canada to the people with a duty Of IN
cents q pound upon It is monstrous, and
ought not to be tolerated for a mo-
ment
,,,al1 ,o< -o l,,.AA>a a.A> a. .,A.,
Of specific things. I sum II all up In
saying that every manufactured pro-
duct which enters into the cost OF a
farmers work and living should come
free from Canada for his benefit With
regard to some things there will be no
advantage to him now. but In the days
to come there will be great protection.
Protection Helps Farmer.
Heretofore the farmer has, with alb
solute truth. been told that altho tariff
duties upon agricultural products were
of no considerable advantage to him
directly, yet the system OF protection
was OF great advantage to him indi-
rectly in that it increased our manu-
features. and thereby furnished him
with a market that he otherwise would
not have. This argument will not
avail in the future and we might as
well admit It now. for when the far
mer Is in free trade with Canada with
respect to agricultural products it
makes no difference to him whether the
men who eat or use the things he pro-
duces live in the United States or in
Canada. and therefore there IL but one
thing to do. and that Is to put the far
mer Of the United States upon the
same plane with the farmer Of Canada
with respect to the things that they
both buy and put him there now. thru
the arrangement we propose to make.