Omaha daily bee., 1911-04-29

OF either country, manufactured or nat
ural, but the Canadian commissioners did
not feel justified In going 30 far. II Is
only reasonable to infer, therefore, that
with respect to those articles upon which
they refuse free trade to us, they felt that
the profitable price at which they could
be sold by our manufacturers In Canada
was less than the price at which their
manufacturers could afford to sell the
same either to their own people or to us.
Removal of Duty No object.
Hence It follows that their refusal to
agree 20 free trade in these articles as we
proposed is the strongest kind OF evidence
that II we should take off the existing
duty from such articles coming into the
United States IL would not affect In the
slightest degree the price at which those
articles could be furnished to the public
here.
Thus the reason why meats were not
put on the free list IN this Canadian agree
ment was because Canada felt that the
competition OF our packers would injuri-
ously affect the products OF their packing
houses. II that be true, how would It help
our consumer or lower the price Of meat
In our markets If we let their meat in free
while they retained duty on our meat ,
Tho same thing is true OF flour, and yet
gentlemen insist that the farmer has been
unjustly treated because we have not put
Canadian flour and meat on the free list
And it is proposed to satisfy the supposed
grievance Of the farmers by now doing 80
without any compromising concession from
Canada
This proposal would be legislation
passed for political platform use, without
accomplishing any real good.
Favored Nation CIauser Involved.
I'm another aspect however the effect
| OF the proposal might be serious. OF
course a mere reduction OF our tariff, or
the putting OF any article on our free list
without insisting on a corresponding change
In the Canadian tariff will not interfere
| with the contract as made with Canada;
but II we do make such concessions. with
out any consideration on the part Of Can
ada, after the contract has been tenta-
| lively agreed upon by those authorized to
make contracts for ratification in both
governments, then we are in danger OF
creating an obligation against us in favor
OF all the other foreign countries with
whom We have existing treaties containing
| what Is called the favored nation clause
There are two objections, therefore, &c
/
Adian contract additions to our free LEI
from Canada The first is that they are {
concession that Is of no value TO those
whom 1t is proposed to propitate BY
adopting It, and the second Is. that 1t may
involve US indirectly In doubtful obliga
ton with respect TO trade with other coun-
| tries.
More than this. these proposed graf.
uitous concessions are in the nature Of al
admission that In some way or other. W,
have done an injury to a particular elas
by this Canadian reciprocity agreement.
deny It. 1t Is said that It injuries tn
farmers. 1 deny II. 1t is strictly In accord
anoe with the protective principle that ",
should only have a protective tariff be
tween US and countries in which the condi
lions are so dissimilar as to make a differ
ence In the cost Of production
u Farm Conditions Similar.
1--WE raise corn. and hogs and cattle fs,
on corn. and with the exception OF q SINAI
; part OF the ACREAGE Of Canada. IN Ontario
It Is not possible 10 raise corn AZ all In tn
dominion.
with respect to wheat and barley AM
oats. conditions differ in different parts o
Canada and in different parts OF the Unite
States. CHASING them together as on tn
whole the conditions are substantially tn
) aAna@- 10 ~riA@z az laDA 49, difference