Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-11-16
M'COMBER SPEAKS
Continued from page IL

!! CONTINUED from page ID
the spirit of Canadian Nationalist
that won over the desire for mer
commercial advantage. But the &C
ton of Canada has not abated the agi
ton in this country against presen
food prices, an agitation which ig
! nores the real causes and seeks t.
hold the food producer responsible TO
them.
! The great question which now con
fronts the American food producer i:
not, Shall the Canadian food produc
come into this country free. but Shall
we permit the whole worlds product
including that of Canada, to pass ou1
custom houses without the payment Of
a cent of duty? Let no one deceive
himself with the idea that this ques.
ton will not have to be met and met
soon.
Those who complain of the prices
paid for food for the most part fail
to Comprehend that the farmer re-
ceives but a meager share of the
amount paid by them. do not think
! the farmer receives four cents for the
food which constitutes an average
meal. After the food product has left
the farmers hands It increases in
price from hundred to several thou
sand per cent by the time it reaches
the consumer.
That portion of our population who
know nothing about raising food pro-
ducts, but who eat them three times
a day, do not generally appreciate
this condition, and they are therefore
persistently demanding that our own
food producers shall compete with the
food producers of the world.
Will We Be Injured.
There is no use of any one, Demo-
crat or Republican, attempting to de-
Jude either himself or the public with
the idea that free trade in food pro-
ducts will not harm us. 1t will harm
US, and greatly harm us. No informed
man could have failed to observe the
effect OF the reciprocity contest upon
the market price of our cereals. Dur
ing the many months the subject was
under discussion before the American
Congress the markets responded to
every prophecy of success or failure
of the project. Whenever it's passage
looked encouraging, our grain prices
went down; whenever its prospects
looked doubtful, prices went up.
When the 61st Congress adjourned
without its passage. grain pricestook
a great leap upwards. and when 1t be-
came certain that it would pass the
62nd Congress, our pr.ces declined
and continued to decline, although we
had a very poor crop in the great
wheat states, until the day succeeding
the Canadian election. 1t had reached
it's lowest point the day preceding.
Then came the word that the Canad-
ian electors had declined our propos-
al. Within two days wheat advanced
six cents per bushel; barley, already
very high, from, five to ten cents per
bushel; and since that day both have
advanced. With shortage
of wheat crop in Minnesota and the
Dakotas and large crop in the "a
madam Northwest, our northwestern
markets would easily have been
glutted in case the reciprocal arrange
ment had been carried into effect.
On October 81, this year the differ
ence in the price of grain between
Fort Williams and Duluth, one as fav-
orably situated as the other, was
wheat IA cents, barley average about
30 cents; oats Z cents: flax Is cents
Had we full reciprocal arrangements
today at points equally distant from
centers, these products
would command the same price
in Canada or the States.
The Canadian market price is the
Liverpool market price, less cost OF
commission, insurance,
etc. With free intercourse our prices
would, of course, find the same level.
that free intercourse, the
home demand makes our prices 80
much higher that We do not export
any of our best milling wheat from the
border states.
Meager as are our crops this year,
the loss that would follow free trade
in wheat, barley, fax and
bats will be manifest when we COM
quite this difference in prices on the
1911. crops of two border states alone,
North Dakota and Minnesota. Thus:
North Dakota.
Wheat, 64,447,0O0 bushels; differ
,nce in price ii cents; loss $9,022,5SO. !
Barley 18,36O,0OO bushels; difference
n price 80 cents; loss $5,5O8,0OO.
Flax (estimated) 14,00U,000 bushels; |
Inference in price Is cents; loss
52,1OO,OOO.
Oats 40,S53,0OO bushels; difference
n price cents; loss $2,86O,41O.
Total loss S19,190,990.
Minnesota.
wheat 62,953,0OO bushels; difference
n price IA cents; loss $S,S13,420.
Barley 24,273,OO0 bushels; difference
n price a. cents; loss $72S,190.
Flax (estimated) 100000 bushels;
Inference in price Is cents; loss
$4,000.
Oats 61,765,OOo bushels; difference
n price Z cents; loss .4,323,54O
Total loss $21,170,870.
Grand total loss to these two states |