The record., 1911-02-23
Reciprocity and the Farmer.


lie is being assured on the one hand
by numerous politicians, most of
whom care more for his vote than
his welfare, that the reciprocity
agreement with Canada will ruin
him. Other men, among them such
e old and stanch friends as Secretary
Wilson, arc assuring him that not
only can i. do him no harm but that
il will be of service TO him in that ii
will give him better market for
some of the things he produces and
cheaper the price of some he has to
buy. Fortunately, the farmer is in
a position to consider the question
dispassionately. lie has been do
ing remarkably we'll for several years.
lie is not worrying where the money
is to come from TO pay the interest
on his mortgage. He has paid it
off and has money in bank.
II should be an easy matter to
convince the average American
wheat grower that the free admission
OF Canadian wheat cannot injure and
may benefit him. If he does not
know that the price of wheat for the
world is fixed at Liverpool he cannot
have read The Tribune closely dur
ing the last forty years. The price
would not be affected by the free
admission of Canadian grain. There
would simply be a more extensive
interchange of wheat. American
millers would buy more Canadian
hard wheat foI mixing purposes,
and Canadian millers would buy
more American soft wheat. Last
year Canada took a million dollars
worth Of wheat of the United States.
But for the Canadian duty, which il
is proposed to repeal, more would
have been taken.
The reciprocal removal of duties
would make a broader and steadier
market for both countries. There
would be no more attempts to run a
wheat corner in Chicago. The most
daring speculator would regard it as
too desperateFp underiakiDg when
ne had the Canaaan supply to
reckca with. While the price OF
wheat would be steadied the value
of farm lands would not be affected
That Is a delusion which the presi
dent has made clean work of in hi:
recent address.
1t happens occasionally that iht
Dakotas have a bad harvest year
That enables those who have saved
their crops 10 get higher price TO
their wheat. If Canadian whea
were let in free they would not gel
the higher price. The momentary
advantage of few men should no
be allowed to outweigh the genera
gain to the farmers and the miller
through reciprocity in wheat.
Take other grains barley, oats
and buckwheat. The exports ia
exceed the imports. Therefore thr
farmer would have nothing to fea
if the Canadian products which cos
as much to raise as his do were le
in free. The malsters would bu,
more Canadian barley, because i
answers better their special purpose
but the Canadians would buy NOR
American barley. Both sets of con
sumers would be benefited becaus
there would be no duties 10 pay.
Consider the farmer as a live stocI
raiser. The free admission of Can
adian cattle and hogs cannot harm
him. They can be fattened NOR
cheaply and to better advantage her
than in Canada. AS President Tai
says, vThe farmer who has cor
will have his raw material in abund
ance, and will fatten them for th
Chicago market at profit"
A word about corn. 1t is, as III
president says, the greatest crop W
raise, while in Canada little is grown
So the American duty of 10 cents
hundred pounds on corn meal is a
absurdity. The American cor
grower wants a better market fo
his corn and its products. Tn
reciprocity agreement reduces tn
duties on corn meal and the Cana
dians will cat more corn bread.
How is it with the farmer as
fruit grower The other day Speal
or Cannon said, "Ask the fruit grow
ers of California what they are &C
ing to do when Canadian fruits al
free" A California paper answer
him thus; "rhey are going to sen
enormous quantities of their greer