The Columbus journal. (Columbus, Neb.) 1874-1911, 1911-04-12
SAYS THE FARMER IS THE
GOAT.

tlnucT lnuTSuaS hSHt, y. N"S,
editor of The Northwester Agricul.
turist, attempted to Introduce re
solution protesting against reciprocity
which did not affect the manufacturer
as we'll as the farmer. He did not
have an opportunity to express HIM
| selfas fully as he desired and accord
| ingly he issued today the following
formal statement:
In Mr.. James J. Hills arguments in
behalf of the Taft reciprocity with
Canada, he conceded that he spoke as
a frce-Trader, for he had never been a
dyed in.thc wool Protectionist. Nire
out of ten who stand with him must
make the same confession.
From the standpoint ofthe long haul
| Mr.. Hills position is readily compre.
hended. He is a traEsportationist, not
ProtectioniSt. He argued that
Tariff does not protect prices anyhow,
as witness the fact that harley is sold
| at forty-five cents in those states where
barley is produced and sixty cents in
in state where they have no barley
for ale, hut must import all their
b?rt,.y. HENCE, he argued, since there
| j, no tariff bctwecn these states, Tariff
does not affect prices. IL. defied ans
wer to his argument: it answers itself.
Mex, he concludes, in spite Of his
barley argument, that reciprocity
with CannIa Mill lower the price IF
farm products in the Northwestern
states, and thus injure our farmers,
but his answer to his own concession is
that our farmers know so little about
good farming that they don't deserve
protection.
He proves the bless .,lness (.lofFree
Trade on agriculture, hu: the engineers
of his meeting were prompt to smother
a motion, by me, to extend the bless
ings Of Free Trade with Canada on
everything, SD rs {" he consistent. If
it is good sauce for the goose-the
iarmer-why not equally good for the
| g, "A,
MIR. Hill quoted official statistics
proving that in 1910 ~ per cent, of
our popula!i,n were agriculturists and
now only -. Yet as stimulus for
the popular back to the farm" cry,
he proposes to open competition for
! American farmers with the occupants
of the cheaper, newer lands of Canada.
Mr.. Hill, Publicity Club Of Minnea-
polls and miIers, all this Free Trade
attack Oh the agricultural producers
o: the Northwes: may seem right and
easy. here in the Mill City, but have
been i'm clnsc touch with Northwestern
farmers for twenty years or more and
| am neither the 'igEoramus nor the
,ien,agu.ue" into which two classes Mr.
Hill cautiously consigns all who
stand for agriculture against this out
ragcous schedule. register on be-
half of Northwestern farmers my ear
nest protest against this want"n attack
Oh our farmers. Even Mr.. Hill, with
all of his great interests in transport
Ing Canadian crops, defends the treaty
only from the standpoint of a Free
Trader. | am an Amcrican-nOt a
Free Trader.
You can smother an amendment
intended to expose the absurd incOnsiS.
tencies of Free. Trade for farmers with
Protection TO manufacturers-you can
smother it in biased assembly, but
vou cannot smother the voice of North
western tarmesr ut the polls. Nor are
our farmers either ignoramuses or lie
magOgucs.
This is more than party question.
| honestly believe in the Mckinley
Blaine reciprocity principle, but this
is moi reciprocity, it is Free Trade
betrayal of agriculture for the further
upholding of transportation interests,
at farmers expense.
There was not single argument
presented by Mr.. Hill! in behalf of
Free Trade on farm praducts, which
would not be just as logical if applied
to every kind of manufactured article
in trade between Canada and the
| United States.
Why in the name of justice and
equity, the square deal and common
sense, mus: the American farmer be
the last to be directly benefited by
Protective Tariff and the first to loose
that Protection, and be forever and
always the goat.-Minneapolis Daily
| News.