The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-04-13

L
lard appeared in The Los Angeles
Daily Times
Reciprocity with Canada is wrong in
principle and will. IL accomplished, be
Injurious In fact. Wrong in principle
because an Invasion Of the doctrine of
full protection to home industries, to
capital and to work and wages by
which the yearly factory output of the
United States has been built up from
$1,SS6, 100000 in 1860 to $1T5000OO, 900
In 1870 an increase OF almost $1,000
100000 in fifty years. Wrong in prin-
ciple also because the inevitable in
fiux Of Canadian farm products (and
Canada Is mainly an agricultural coun-
try) will reduce the prices of Ameri-
can farm products and thereby lessen
the purchasing power Of the American
farmer, to the detriment of the Ameri-
can factory and of other lines OF
American business. Wrong also In
principle and in immediate fact as well
because 1t win open up TO Canada our
great market OF 100000 people in
exchange for a market of only 100000
people, practically only one-thirteenth
the size of ours.
the United States will be Injurious in
fact to this country is amply proven
by past experience along that very
line. During the fiscal years 1855 to
1865, inclusive, we had reciprocity with
Canada. It's advocates led us to believe
that under such a treaty our exports
to Canada would materially and perm
anently increase, at least during the
life of the treaty. Did they? The an
swer is furnished in the bureau OF sta
tistics record of such exports and of
our imports from Canda for the pur-
pose OF comparison.
In 1854, with reciprocity:
Exports to Canada .........$24 10000 GOO
Imports from Canada $500. 100000
With reciprocity, 1855 to 1866, twelve
years:
Exports to Canada ..... $500, 600, 900
Imports from Canada .... 283.000,000
Balance for twelve years in
our favor, only ...:.$ 100000
This SIT 900, 900, or less than $780,
600 year average, is all that we Melted
out Of the twelve years trade under re-
procity. The game was not worth the
candle, particularly as it left us in
years before, with exports Of only
"a, 900, 900, while in the period our inn
ports from Canada rose from $4,000, 900
to $4s, 100000, or more than FIVE times
as much. Which country gained by
that twelve years Of reciprocity.
Canada or the United States? The
answer is obvious and greatly to our
loss. Our sales to Canada did not in
crease in 1866 over 1854, under reel
procity, by a single dollar, while Cam
ada's sales to us In 1855 were 9,000,-
900 larger than in 1854 DO we want
that experience again?
Then (1s68) we dropped the reci-
procity hot iron, but our fingers had
been so badly burned by our people
having got in the way of using certain
lines Of Canadian products that the ag-
gregate commerce between Canada and
ourselves during the next six years
(1S67 to 1872 inclusive) went against
us to the tune of s30,O00,0O0, an aver
age loss of s5.0o0.00O year.
1S67-1S72. imports from
Canada -. .......... S1s4, 900, 900
1s67-1s72,. exports TO Can
ada .... ........ -. 154, 1000. 600
Trade loss by us.....$ 30,000,000
Thus in. six years we lost our trifiing
$4,000, 600 trade gain for trade twelve
years reciprocity and paid s1S,000,000
more for the privilege" Of losing it.
Beginning with 1873 fiscal year.
without reciprocity the tide turned In
our favor and has run our way each
year since. as witness the official
figures:
1s7S-1sO4. exports to Cam
ada ..... ...........$1,7 44,0OO.O00
1s7s-t904, imports from
Canada -. -. 49,. 1,1S6,000,000
Balance in our favor,
thirty-one years. .....$ 55S,000,000
This is an average for thirty
years Of $1S,OOO,0Oo year in our favor,
against an average yearly loss of
$4,000 year for the previous eight
cen years, twelve OF which were re-
ciprocity" years.
Now let us see how the cat has
jumped in the six years, still without
reciprocity, since 1904:
Imports
Exports to From
Canada. Canada
1905 .......s .140,529,5S1 s 62,469,s32
1905 $1,000. 156.736,2s5 6S,237653
aan- one ncz