The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1911-05-05

uSiShu HiluSStl IiOHi tue dItdCkS uldue
on him. He has planted too many
y good seeds in Iowa
PRESIDENT TAFT's MOTIVE.
A Leading Republican Finds the Maxi
mum and Minimum Clause the
Reason For the Proposed Canadian
Pact.
To the Editor of The Gate City:
Following the passage of the Payne.
1 Aidrich tariff of 1909 President Taft
in number of speeches, pronounced
1t the most complete measure of the
kind ever enacted Therefore we
We're not surprised to hear the cues
ton asked: Why did he, an avowed
protectionist, repudiate this measure
and voluntarily open negotiations with
Canada for free trade agreement
or treaty. b. which Canada is to
! receive all the advantage? This fact
is apparently conceded, for in his
message of transmission and. numer-
Gus speeches on the subject neither
he nor any of Its advocates have been
able to specifically designate one de-
partment of business in the United
States which is even likely to receive
a benefit from its passage Moreover
BE must have known by abandoning
the principles of protection he would
nut hasten the disruption of the Re-
nhflpan f1 <ho%
Gene an ally Of Bristow. Murdoch,
Mccall. LaFollette, Cummins & Co.
Who fly one flag but fight under an
ether.
The above is certainly a reasonable
question to ask, and is entitled to a
reasonable answer if We can give one.
To my mind Sec >, Maximum and
Minimum Provision of the 1909 act.
explains the motive for this peculiar
action, although the President gives
an entirely different reason in his
message. This so-called Reciprocity
agreement. manned such to avoid
trouble with other nations), in which
! challenge any man to find the least
semblance of reciprocity as advocated
by Blaine and Mckinley, or find in
and speech delivered by the Presi-
dent or members OF congress one
single item which they claim is re-
cfprocal in theory or fact, is the only
method left by which we could avoid
imposing the penalties provided
in Sec. 2 on all importations from
Canada, the imposition of which would |
result in the Inauguration of a COM
mecial war between the two coun-
tries, with the probability of involv-
ing England in the controversy.
Our factories and labor would suf. /
fer most by this act, as Canada nov |
buys more of us than of the balance {
of the world. No one knew of this /
condition and the Importance of it I
to Canada in this controversy better
than the Canadian ministry, except /
our own, and because of 1t our COM
missioners were helpless. At no stage
OF the negotiations were we in a po-
sition to dictate terms This fact is
manifest in every line of the treaty.
to-wit, that Canada must receive more
in gross for her 100000 people than
she would allow US for our $4,000, 900
people; in addition we are compelled
TO pay 100000 in cash revenue and
entail a loss of s72,O00,000 per annum
on our farmers for the privilege of
making bad bargain This treaty as
a voluntary give away has no parallel
in history with the exception of that
of 1918. In which without any consid-
GRAFTON We surrendered all fishingf
rights secured by the treaty of 1882.
If l remember correctly. it was Poin-
dexter Of Washington when speaking
in advocacy of this measure said that
while he should vote for it, yet as far
as any benefits were to accrue to the
United States 1t might as well all
have been written in Canada. Other
Democrats advocated its passage as
the most effectual method of destroy
ing the Republican party. This latter
reason seems to have been the con-
trolling one with about 1877 Democrats
FOR its enactment.
Whenever our experienced but help
GOD NOulu luoL
me United States was entitled to
some minor benefits for dozen larger
ones granted by them 10 Canada all
discussion was closed by an imperative
MOI No was the sum total and the
end of argument to all our pleadings
No was the Canadian symbol of power
IN this controversy. Canada had not
forgotten our victory over England
On the Venezuelan question. Nor the
award of the Alaskan boundary com
mission. Nor had she forgiven the
abrogation by the United States In
1855 of the one-sided reciprocity
treaty OF 1854. BY that treaty Cana
Ia transformed trade loss of $1,000
as9 into profit OF s3s,00o,000 at our
expense, but she has not overlooked
the fact that since the abrogation OF
that treaty her exports to this coun
try had increased but 100 per cent
while during the same period our ex
ports to Canada had increased j 800
per cent, which figure measures our
advantage TODAY and Is evidence of