The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-06-05

L
| In The Outlook:
| Editor Of The Outlook: I wish to
submit herewith reply to your edl''
torial on The Farmers and Reciprocity
trusting that the Importance OF the
subject may induce you to read the re-
ply even though you may not be able
to publish it.
The gist of your argument seems to
be that although reciprocity will be
some detriment to SOME farmers, yet
the damage viii not be so great as may
be imagined and that the benefits 10
the nation as a whole will be so great
that the honest and patriotic farmers
should submit and offer themselves as
the sacrificial lamb.
Your admission, however slight, calls
for the strongest proof possible of the
general benefits to be derived by the
nation as a whole. l am certain that
no class has been, or ever will be, more
patriotic than the farmers, nor more
willing to make real sacrifices in the
hour of need. And for this very reason
claim that the demands made upon
them now are reprehensible unless
thoroughly justified. Nor can see the
justification in anything that has ever
yet been offered on the subject.
Your reasons for favoring the agree
ment are given under two heads, those
involving benefits to the nation as a
whole and those involving compensa-
tory benefits to the farmers as class.
Now, to begin with / must give you
the benefit of a different classification
in this respect than you have made.
The importation of lumber and fish, If
a benefit to anyone, will be benefit
to the nation as a whole and not a
special benefit to farmers alone unless.
indeed, it is the purpose of The Out
look to make the farmers live in cheap
frame houses and on fish diet while
their lordly city cousins dwell behind
brown stone and dine on rare cuts of
prime beef. At any rate for the sake
of this argument will take the liberty
of putting the importation of these
articles under the head Of national
benefits and thus give them the great
est weight possible.
Let us consider first, now, the sup
posed special benefits to the farmers.
take the importation Of Canadian
manufactures first and note that with
the American trusts out-selling the
Canadian manufacturers in their own
markets Gas is the case now there is
small hope of any results from break
ing down Of the international tariff
walls other than that of the American
trusts taking advantage of the tariff
reduction and proceeding to put their
Canadian competitors finally out of
business.
The other supposed benefits to the
farmers as a class, according to your
editorial, are to be derived from an ex-
portation Of American farm products
into Canada. But the trouble with your
argument here Is that you have brush
ed the hair both ways. For, if the inn
portation Of lumber, fish, and manu-.
features is to be of any benefit to any
one in this country by lowering the
price, surely the expectation Of other
articles will be a detriment to every
body but the particular producers of
those articles. Thus the expectation Of
vegetables, fruits, cottonseed oil, poul-
try, eggs, dairy products, and horses
cannot help but raise their price in this
country to everybody, the farmers Of
the northwest included This seems,
indeed, a strange argument to advance
to North Dakota grain raisers. Why
should they be asked to take less for
their wheat and then be given as an
excuse for this demand that they will
be allowed to pay more for vegetables,
fruit, and cottonseed oil? Or what con-
ISOLATION can they derive from the fact
~,
the line are to get more than now for
their wheat and pay less than now for
their fruit and vegetables? This would
prove a splendid way of
booming Canadian land, but how does
it happen that North Dakota grain
raisers are in duty bound to sacrifice
for the benefit Of southern cotton grow
ers and Canadian real estate agents?
An awful mistake" has, indeed, been
made; but, you say, it is in the interest
of reform Let us see.
You state three reasons Of national
for favoring this agreement.
First, you say more friendly relations
with Canada are vital" This deny.
We are on the most friendly relations
with Canada today OF any nation on
earth. She is, in fact. about the only
nation with which we could possibly
get into war and yet with which
there is no possible danger of war.
foreign, relations can never
be of vital importance compared with
domestic prosperity. But If friendly
relations with neighboring nations is
your plea, certainly Mexico, and not
Canada, is the nation to which we
should look. and southern and not
northern farmers are the ones who
should be asked to make the sacrifice. |
Secondly, you say that the results
Of this agreement are greatly to be
desired in the interest of consumers"
Now, please, where are your consum-
suming more than they are produce |
ers? Who in all this country are con-
ing? The vagabonds, the paupers. the |
criminals the insane. the spendthrifts, |
and the money loaners--just these Ind |
no more. All the rest Of us are either |
actual producers in excess Of our con-
sumption or have our interests |
bound up In those OF actual
producers. Surely, the welfare Of vaga-
bonds and money Ioaners is not such a |
great and worthy industry like the pr A.
duction Of that cereal which has long /
held the proud distinction of furnish
Ing the stair Of life
Lastly, you say that it furnishes an /
example OF that reciprocal trade rela.
tionship urged by Mckinley Never /
has carefully worded public address
been more perverted from its true
meaning than those last words Of that
great and consistent protectionist. In
he very sentence upon which you rely