The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1911-06-03

FRAMED FOR THE FEW
/. AT ExPENsE or MANY
Bill in It's Present Form Means
Blow to Entire Country
Especially the West.

Hon. Moses e. Clapp, in replying to
g letter urging him to support the
Canadian reciprocity bill now before
congress, says that he cannot support
the bill In its present form.
IT, f@':3 His Reasons. &.5
In the first place there is not
enough reciprocity in it to serve as a
label. OF course you realize that ex-
ports are made up Of of two great
groups, natural products and manu-
factnred articles. Now in manufac-:
tured articles We can compete with
Canada even against the preferential
which she gives to England, but in
natural products we cannot compete
with her. Canada has persistently
refused to lower her duties on manu-
factured articles, nor do blame ner
for this, as she is anxious to build up
her factories. She has pursued this
course until a vast amount of Amer
build up factories in order to get
over the tariff wall. Now this bill
does not materially modify that situa-
ton. i It is true that this bin makes
g. very slight reduction In some farm
machinery. but so little that the
Canadian officials openly declare to
their own people, in defense of the
bill on their side, that ''the only in
dustry affected is that Of agricultural
implements, on some Of which the
duty has been reduced from 17h
per cent to Is per cent and others
from 40 per cent to Is per cent" In
pursuing this course in protecting her
own manufacturer, they simply ad-.
here to the policy they have always
pursued. j. :. rs ;g3i
Former Canadian Agreements.
55ssS In 1886, we had ak so-cal|ed reci-'
sproeity agreement with Canada, and,
was along praet tical llYs the same
lines as this. They then insisted.
as they do now, IN keeping the tariff
up against our manufactured arti-
.cles. When we started in with that
arrangement, the balance of trade in.
our favor was $4,000, 100000 At the
end Of eleven, years, when it was
terminated, it had swung over against
us to $30.000,00. When we started
In with them, our exports to Cana
d. were $20,000,000 a year and their
exports to this country were $4,000:
900. At the end of the eleven years.:
Notwithstanding the. growth Of the
two countries, our exports to Canada
had actually shrunk from 100000.
600 to $15,o00,000. while the Cana
dian exports to this country had
swelled to $46,000,000. 'a... !.
Present Measure Unfair. ~
While In this bill Canada makes
practically, no y concession to the
American along the line of manu-
factured, articles, she does ask us to
take down the wall at "a point where
she can successfully compete with US:
Our balance of trade last year
against Canada was about $119.O00,-
900, but taking the articles that are
grouped in the additional free list
made by the pending bill, and on
that group the balance last year
against us was $22,000,00O. How any
body expects we can increase our
trade materially with Canada while
she keeps up her wall against us on
manufactured articles and we simply
take it down at a point where she
always successfully competes with u.s..
is beyond my comprehension. III (
ff@5s: f@5s n Effect Of Present Bill. .55. /
II this bin should pass in its pre-
sent form, It means a blow to the
entire country and especially to tne.
west. This blow primarily, Of course,
falls upon the farming interests, be-
cause the proposed free list in which
they have now a balance Of trade
and which balance would swell with
the removal of the duties, is com-
posed largely Of farm products, but
you cannot strike down the farming
interests without in the end affect
ing all business. The cities Of the.
northwest have been built up on the
prosperity of the American farm and
no more disastrous blow could be
administered on the cities than q
blow to the farming interests. II
$ Ia addition to the foregoing. the
bill is manifestly unfair as between
our own people and unless the bill
could be amended. I certainly could
not support 1t. Il is the same old
.story, framed in the interest Of the
lev ut the expense OF the many. For
this reason fought the Payne-Al-
drich tariff bill and could not turn
,9Found and. s,l lpport this bill.
With regards, i am, ~.
II III E Very truly yours,
'.f.S f.7 NOSES D. CI4APP.
81 s5 SHOWING THEIR HAND. 4. 81,
The National Association of { Manu-