American Falls press. [volume] (American Falls, Idaho) 1907-1937, 1911-06-01

Senator bOraH, IN a letter to a
Boise friend. gives his views in oppo
sition to the Canadian reciprocity
treaty as follows:
My Dear Friend: l have before No
your letter in which you express the
hope that l will be able to stand
with the President in reference to
the proposed Canadian reciprocity.
Personally, of course, l should like
very much to assist the president in
all matters which he recommends.
It is far more agreeable to do so
than not to do SO. Furthermore, one
hesitates very much to differ with
a man of such large experience and
acknowledged ability.
have given to this subject as
much consideration as it has been
possible to give 1t for the last sev-
eral months in view of other pres
sing matters. When l observed last
summer the great gathering of Can
adam farmers and the demand they
were making for admission to our
markets ! naturally became curious
TO know what there was over here
that excited their cupidity and what
1t was they wanted removed in or
der that they might get into our
0u0A AOS0s AC0A0 SOuAC luCOTlSLS
say, in fact I had read many times,
that the tariff did not protect the
American farmer, and 80 l wondered
why the Canadian farmer did not
come over without asking to have
1t removed. I also became curious
to know what would be the effect
upon the American farmer if the
Canadian farmer was let into the
markets. l began at that time to
give consideration to and to make
investigation concerning the ques-
ton.
A short time after the Canadian
farmers had had their great gather
ing l read an interview with Sir
William Laurier, the keenest and
ablest diplomat in the Dominion, if
not on the American continent. l
quote his exact words: "The Domin-
ion government may find it possible
to have some measure of reciprocal
trade with our southern neighbOr
to the benefit of the farmer who
asks for it without injuring the
manufacturers who oppose it," l
became curious again to know what
would be the effect upon our people
If the Dominion diplomat should OPP
en- our market to the Canadian
farmer and keep the Canadian mar
ket closed practically to our manu-
facturers. thought then he could
not do it. 1 have since changed my
mind.
The Canadian agreement or the
principles it embodies, it seems to
me, are unfair and eminently I'M
wise. A trade agreement which
provides for absolute free trade be-
tween these countries in both farm
products and manufactured goods
might be justified, but even this,
in my judgment, would be a hazard
Gus experiment. But l am not will
ling to vote for a proposition which
puts the farmers products on the
free list and keeps what the farmer
buys on the dutiable list. l am not
willing to vote for a bill which puts
wheat upon the free list and leaves
a duty upon the wagon in which the
farmer hauls it to market; which
puts butter upon the free list n
leaves a duty upon the tin pail in
which the farmer carries it to the
store. l do not think it fair or
wise to enact a measure which puts
the farmers wheat upon the free
list and leaves the flour which he
buys back from the mill upon the
dutiah,e list. l am not willing to
vote for a proposition which puts
the steer upon the free list and
leaves the beef upon the dutiable
list.
When the farmer takes the prod
uct of his farm to market he finds
there his only comprehensive Cana
adfan former-bidding against him.
But he must sell, and sell in COM
petition with the Canadian farmer.
He turns around to invest his money
in things which he must have and
everything on earth which he needs
he finds upon the dutiable list. The
farmer is not permitted to go and
buy as he sold, in an open market,
but must buy in a protected market.
Now, l believe in a protective tariff,
with duties only sufficiently high
70 give necessary protection, and
ted in it's effects.
You say to me that the farmer
will never feel the effect of the i'm
portation of farm products from
Canada and that it will not force
down the price of his products. Then
I answer, what is all this cry about
reducing the cost of living. If there
Is no change in the price of farm I
products certainly the cost of living
not be reduced by the Canadian
If you say, upon the l
other hand, that it will force down ;
his prices and reduce the cost of liv- I
lng, then l answer that if the far !
mer must sell cheaper he must also I
permitted to buy cheaper. If he s
S not permitted to buy cheaper '
hen he Is compelled to sell cheap !!
r. then he must inevitably suffer. |
70 forced from the farm into more
sF0f1tabie business ard idaho whose /
,as,c wealth is her agricultural IN a
erests. her fruit growers and STOCK =
.aisers' must be one Of the first 10 q
mffer The same Sir Wilfred Lau- n