Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-04-28

, | gave Ut any other nation. This claus
| has hcen construed by our statesme
| not to involve Us in an obligation t
extend a privilege to all nations whicl
we confer upon one nation in consid
| Grafton Of an equally valuable priv
! lege received from that one nation.
In other words 1t has been held nc
to include special bargains or contract
where there is a consideration movin
| to each side for the obligation of tn
other. But the serious question tina
would arise is whether, il now that tn
=, contract has been tentatively agree
upon and is about to be confirmed b.
Canada. we should grant TO Canada NOR
than the contract requires. we coul,
claim that this extra concession was no
a pure gratuity and one which wal
necessarily extended to all other nations
under the favored nation clause Their,
are two objections, therefore, to insert
ing in the bill confirming this Canadian
contract, additions to our free list from
Canada. The first is that they are a con
cession that is of no value to those whom
| IT is proposed to propitiate by adoptins
it: and the second is, that it may in.
volve us indirectly in a doubtful obliga.
1 llOU III ItSptCl " II duV with ollttF C0diI-
tries. If we desire to put meat and flour
and other commodities on the free list for
| the entire world, that is one thing: we
can do it with our eyes open and with a
knowledge of what it entails, after an
Investigation; but to put such provision
| in a Canadian treaty, and then have it
operate as a free list for the entire world
| is legislation necessarily ill-considered.
More than this. these proposed gratui-
tous concessions are in the nature of an
admission that in some way or other we
have done an injury to a particular class
bv this Canadian reciprocity agreement.
/ deny it. 1t is said that it Injuries the
farmers. I deny it. 1t is strictly in ae-
cordance with the protective principle
that We should only have a protective
tariff between us and countries in which
the conditions are so dissimilar as to
make difference in the cost of produc-
ton. Now if is known of all men that the
general conditions that prevail in Can
ada are the same as those which obtain
in the United States in the matter of ag-
ricultural products. Indeed, if there is
any advantage the advantage is largely
on the side of the United States, because
we have much greater variety of pro-
duct in view of the varieties of our eli
mate, than they have in Canada.
We raise cotton as no ether coun-
try does: of course they raise none
in Canada. We raise corn. and hogs
and cattle feed on corn ard with the
exception of very small part of
the acreage of Canada, in Ontario. it
is not possible to raise corn at all in
the Dominion.
With respect to wheat and barley
and cats, conditions differ in different
parts of Canada and in different parts
of the United States. Chasing them
together as one. the whole, the con
ditfens are substantially the same. In
the prices of farm land the differences
are no greater between Canada and
the United States than between the
different states in the United States.
In the matter of farm wages. they
differ IN different parts of Canada
as they do in the United States; but,
on the whole, they are about the same,
higher in Canada at some places than
in the United States, and less IL
others. But there is no pauper class
of labor III either country and the
only difference between the TWO eoun-
tries is that Canada is farther north
than the United States, q difference
which, as already said. give the adj
vantage agriculturally to our side of
the border 1t is said that this is
an agreement that effects agriculture
products more team manufactures.
That is true. but il we fare to have
an interchange of products between
. Of oil
amounts, the chief part Of it must
necessarily be in agricultural pro-
ducts As it is, we export to Canada
more agricultural products than we
receive from her and so it will be
afterwards. The effect is not going
in my judgment to lower the specific
prices of agricultural products in our
country. 1t is going to steady them.
1t is going to reduce the rapid fiuctua-
tons and it is going to produce an in
tercEange OF products at a profit
which will be beneficial to both coun-
tries.
II objection can be made to the
treaty on the ground that particular
class derived less benefit from it than
other classes, then it is the manufac-
turer of the country who ought to OBJ
ject. because the treaty in its nature
will not enlarge his market as much
as ii will that of the farmer.
| an quite aware that from one mo-
tive or another a great deal of effort
and money have been spent in send
ing circulars to farmers to convince
them that this Canadian treaty, if
adopted. will do them injury. l do not
know that it is possible to allay such
fears by argument, pending the con-
sideration of the treaty by the SEN
ate. But there is one way-and that a
conclusive way of demonstrating the
| fallacy and unfounded character of
their fears to the farmers, or any 9TH
er class that believes itself to be I'M
| Justly affected by this treaty, and that
| is to try it on.
There is no obligation on either ma
tion TO continue the reciprocity ar
| rangement any longer than it desires
| and If it be found by actual practice
| that there is an injury, and perma-
| nent injury to the farmers of this
country everybody knows that they
can sufficiently control legislation ia