Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1911-04-28

the existing duty from such articles
coming into the United States it would
not affect in the slightest degree the
price at which these articles could be
furnished to the public here.
Thus the reason why meats are not
| put on the free list In this Canadian
agreement was because Canada fell
that the competition of our packers
would injuriously affect the products
of their packing houses. If that be
true, how would it help our consumer
or lower the price of meat in our
markets, if we let their meat in free.
while they retained a duty on our
meat
THE same thing is true of flour,
And yet some gentlement insist that
the farmer has been unjustly treated
because we have not put Canadian
| flour and meat on the free list. And
| it is proposed to satisfy the proposed
grievance of the farmers by now do
ing so without any compensating con-
cessions from Canada.
''This proposal would be legislation
passed for political platform uses
without accomplishing any real good
I'm another aspect. however, the
effect of the proposal might be seri-
Gus. OF course a mere reduction OF
our tariff, or the putting in of any
| article on our free list without insist
ing on q corresponding change in the
Canadian tariff, will not interfere with
the contract as made with Canada.
But If we do make such conces-
sions, without any consideration on
the part of Canada. after the contract
hac been tentatively agreed upon by
those authorized to make contracts
for ratification in both governments,
then We are in danger of creating an
obligation against us in favor of all
the foreign countries with whom we
have existing treaties containing what
is called the favored nation clause.
This clause has been construed by
our statesmen not to involve us in an
obligation to extend a privilege to all
nations which we confer upon one
nation in consideration of an equally
one nation. But the serious question
that would arise is whether If now,
that the contract has been tentatively
agreed upon and Is about 10 be con-
firmed by Canada, we should grant to
Canada more than the contract re-
quires, We could claim that this extra
concession was not a pure gratulty
and one which was necessarily ex-
tended to all other nations under the
favored nation clause.
There are two objections, there
fore, to inserting in the bill confirm
ing this Canadian contract, additions
to our free list from Canada. The
first Is that they are a concession that
is Of no value to those whom ii Is
proposed to propriate by adopting it,
and the second is that il may involve
us indirectly in a doubtful obligation
tries.
IF we desire to put meal and flour
and other commodities on the free
list for the entire world, that is one
and with a knowledge of what II en-
tails after an investigation; but to
put such 4 provision in Canadian
treaty and have 1t operated as a free
list for the entire world, is legislation
necessarily ill considered
More than this, these proposed
gratuitous concessions are in the ma
ture of an admission that in some
way or other, we have done an in
jury to particular class by this
Canadian reciprocity agreement
deny 1t. 1t is said that 1t Injuries the
accordance with the protective prin-
ciple that we should only have a pro-
tectlve tariff between us and countries
in which the conditions are so dis
similar as to make a difference In the
cost of production.
"Now, it is known of all men, that
the general conditions that prevail in
Canada are the same as those which
obtain in the United States in the
matter OF agricultural products.
IL 10 otilu tildl tltlS ID an
that affects agricultural products
more than manufacturers That is
true; but If we are to have an inter-
change of products between the two
countries, Of any substantial amount,
the chief part of it must necessarily
be In agricultural products.
''As 1t is. we export to Canada more
agricultural products than we receive
from her and so it will be afterwards.
The effect Is not going, IN my Judg-
ment, to lower the specific prices of
agricultural products in our country.
1t is going to steady them, and it is
going to produce an interchange OF
products at a profit which will be
beneficial to both countries.
IF objection can be made to the
treaty on the ground that a particular
class derived less benefit from it than
any other class, then II is the manu-
facturer of the country who ought to
object, because the treaty in its ma
ture will not enlarge his market as
much as il will that of the farmer
"But there is one way-and that a
conclusive way--of demonstrating the
fallacy, the unfounded character of
their fears, to the farmers or to any
other class that believes itself to be
unjustly affected by this treaty and
that is to try 1t ON.
There is no obligation on either
nation to continue the reciprocity ar
rangement any longer than IL desires,
and IL II be found by actual practice
that there is all injury, and perma-
nent injury. to the farmers of this
country, everybody knows that they
can sufficiently control legislation to
bring about q change and q return 10