Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1911-03-15
TERMS
VERMONT AND RECIPROCITY.


nents of Canadian reciprocity since 1t
was first proposed. 1t has argued
that the Vermont farmer would
suffer. We are not ready to say POSI-
lively that none of his products will
be touched. But the Herald makes
many statements regarding the
effects OF this treaty that will not
hold water, the following of which is
a fair sample.
Poultry and their products is An in
dustry that responds very quickly to
stimulation for depression. Give the
Canadians five cents net more dozen
for their eggs and the production
would increase tremendously. BY
turning toward the more profitable
outlet offered in the states, the Can
adian farmers would be immensely
benefited, but at whose loss? That
reciprocity means advantage to agfl-
culture in Canada is the strong arga
ment for it on that side of the line.
The reverse must be true on this side.
There is no question regarding the
statement that IF we should give the
Canadians five cents per dozen more
for eggs than they now get they
would increase the production. But
let us look at the facts. Eggs are
today, and have been for some time
past, several cents higher in Canada
than here. Our esteemed contem-
porary could ascertain this readily by
comparing Montreal markets with
ours.
The further Inference that Canadi-
an agriculture was demanding this
treaty because it would benefit the
Canadian farmer is hardly water
tight, at least so far as the eastern
Canadian farmer is concerned, and
from the trend of the Herald's argu-
ments we understand it is dealing
with the supposed effect of the agree
ment on the Vermont farmer. Does
not the esteemed Randolph Herald
know that many of the farmers of q
section of the Province of Quebec re
Gently met and believing that reel
procity would injure their agricultur
al interests laid plans to fight it.
This group of men are buying space
in Canadian papers where they cannot
get it given them, to lay before the
farmers of eastern Canada their be-
lief. The Stanstead Journal, an ex
cellent weekly published across the
line, comes to our desk. Introducing
these articles the Journal editor says
ga group of men who believe that
our commercial interests are imper
lied by the recent reciprocity agree
ment have arranged for the publica.
tion of series of articles expressing
what in their opinion will be the &C.
tual results of reciprocity. This ar.
ticle is one of a series, and is received
by the Journal as paid matter.''
Allowing the Monitor to quote from
the article we read:
We fear that the Canadian farmer
does not sufficiently appreciate his
home market-the market preserved
for him by the Canadian tariff.
This home market is taking eighty
per cent Of his produce and at good
prizes.
The demand of the market is in
creasing and it will continue to in
crease as the country grows.
1t has the advantage of nearness.
stability, cheapness of transportation
and quickness OF returns.
The Canadian farmer is familiar
with its conditions and requirements
Let US remember that there are at
least ten times as many farmers in
the United States as there are in
Canada, and so while one Canadian
WI Ont
markets Of the United States ten
American farmers will get into our
home markets. They have already
succeeded in selling immense quanti-
ties of farm products in Canada in
spite of the duty. They have sold
much more in Canada than Canadian
farmers have sold in the United
States.
With reciprocity in farm products
the ten American farmers will crowd
the one Canadian farmer pretty closely
in his own home market.
1t will cost the American farmer nc
more to bring his farm products tc
Canadian towns and cities than it will
cost the Canadian farmer to carry his
to the United States.
These American farm products are
pretty we'll kept out now by the tariff
wall. With this removed they will
enter ten to one.
We must remember, too. that the
Americans have the earlier season ant
that their products will therefore b.
upon our markets before our products
are salable.
Reciprocity means to the Canadian
farmer the loss of the Canadian mar
ket.
What will he get in return for tn
home market which he will lose?
He will only get the opportunity tt
compete in the markets of the Unite
States with the United States farm
err, and the ratio of competition Their
will be the same as it will be here
ten to one.
The odds are always against tn
Canadian farmer.
The proposed arrangement is nc
equally reciprocal. The Canada
Of Hoo1