Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1911-06-06

lother hand 1t is asked, is 1t possible
to reduce the cost of living on the one
hand Ind maintain the present prices of
7 farm products on the other? MY own
impression is that the cost of farm pro-
/ ducts is determined by the worlds sup
piy and not by local conditions or tariff
/ or otherwise and that so long as the
movement toward manufacturing and
away from the farms continues and the
supply of farm laborers is reduced, a
continuance of high prices for farm pro-
ducts is inevitable But / do think that
reciprocity will enlarge the reservoir,
or the supply of farm products for our
people, and thus prevent undue enhance
ment of prices beyond the present stan
dard If this be the case, then neither
the farmers will be injured nor will
lprices Increase. The argument is made,
however, that to give free trade to the
canadian farmer in farm products so
as to permit him to enjoy the mrkets of
the United Sites is to give him an adj
vantage over our own farmers who. liv-
ing behind a high tariff wall, have 10
pay a great deal more for the cost OF
living than do Canadian farmers whose
protective tariff system is not so prohib-
litive.. with respect to this argument,
all have TO say is that ii is not true.
The average cost of living in the United
States is not higher than it is in Cam
ada. This is conclusively shown by two
facts-first, that in spite Of the pref
erence given to English products i'm
ported into Canada, the duty being SO
l1-3 per cent less that that imposed on
goods from other countries, the United
States exports into Canada $225, 1000, 900
of goods of the widest variety of manu-
facture, all of those entering into the
cost of living, while Canada, with pref
erence in favor of England, imports
from England goods to the value of only
$4,000 In other words, despite the
protective tariff maintained in Canada
against the United States, Canada, yet
in the matter of articles entering into
the cost of living OF her people, buys
two and one-half times as much from
the United States as she does from
England.
Again. in our negotiations over this
Canadian reciprocity treaty, I directed
our commissioners to secure as great
cut in duties on manufactures in Can
ada as they could, but they were unable
to secure any more than appears in this
treaty. for the reason that Canada would
not expose her manufacturers to the
competition Of United States manufac-
turers, which is a conclusive proof that
the manufactured products that enter
into the cost of living are higher in
Canada than they are in the United
States, otherwise they would not fear
the competition of the United States
manufacturers.
"The only real importation Of agricul-
tural products that we may expect from
Canada of any considerable amount will
consist of wheat, barley, rye and oats.
The world price Of these four cereals
is fixed abroad, where the surplus from
the producing countries is disposed of,
and is little affected by the place from
which the supply is derived. Canadian
wheat nets perhaps ten cents less a
lbushen to the producer than wheat grown
in the Daxotas or in Minnesota, due TO
the fact that the cost of exporting that
wheat and warehousing it and market
ing it in Liverpool is considerably
greater than the cost to the Dakota far
mer of disposing of his wheat to the
millers of Minneapolis or sending it
abroad
IF now the duty is to be taken off
of wheat and the Canadian wheat can
come to the millers of Minneapolis and
other places, it can and will be made
into flour. because the capacity of the
United States is 33 per cent greater
than is needed to mill the wheat OF this
lcountry. Canadian wheat can be inn
ported and ground into flour without
materially reducing the demand for, or
price of United States wheat and the
surplus will be sent abroad as flour.
The price of Canadian wheat doubtless
will be increased a few cents by access
to the market nearer at hand, but the
access to the market nearer at hand will
not reduce the price of this wheat to the
United States farmer for the reasons
stated.
"A material benefit to all the farmers
of the country, especially the stock ana
cattle raisers and the dairy farmers
will be the by-products of bran and
shorts from the flour mills likely to
follow the free export of wheat from
Canada to those mills. These by-pro-
ducts are now, scarce and so high
priced that many farmers are unable to
Il procure them.
what is true of wheat is true of the
other cereals. The trade between Can
ada and the United States cannot but
increase the sale of agricultural pro-
ducts across the border both ways to
nearer markets, than they now reach in
many instances. The trade will be BEN
eficial to both the seller and the buyer.
1t will not, in my judgment, reduce the
price of wheat or other farming products
for our people in any marked way. II
will, however. by charging the source
of supply. prevent undue fluctuations,
and it will and ought to prevent an ex-
orbitant increase in the prices of farm
products which, as they have been for
the last three or four years, have in
CURED greatly to the profit of all en-
gagged in agriculture.
But it is said that the farm land In
Ohio. Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin
and other states is much more valuable
than the land in Manitoba, Saskatche-
wan and Albert, the great western prov
inces of Canada, and that to give Ca
madam farmers free entry of products
on cheaper lands will be certain to lower
farm lands in value in this country.
Nothing, it is believed. is further
from the fact. The Canadian lands are
further removed from the Minneapolis
and Chicago markets than the lands Of
Minnesota, wisconsin, Iowa, or Illinois,
and proximity to market is a most inn
portant element in the value of farm
lands. Then the natural change in
farming in this country is from the rails
ing OF grain and other cereals for ex-
port to the raising of grain for farm
consumption and development of the sec
ondary products in the form of cattle
and hogs. The live cattle are bought
and fattened The hogs are raised and
fed. 1t is farming of this kind that
explains the high value of farm lands
lin Iilfnofs and Iowa and other states