The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-07-17
Claim that Farmer Cannot Produce as Cheaply as Those of Canada,He Says, Has Little to Recommend It.
Calls Attention of Farmers to the Fact that They Are Paying Enormous Prices Because of Tariffs on Manufactured Articles.


 York American. The interview fol-
 lows: Some thirty years ago I visited
 Canada, and in going through num-
 Der of hardware stores l was lm-
 pressed by the fact that they were supplied with American goods almost entirely. On a recent trip over the Canadian Pacific and the Soo Line
 derful agricultural development and that the towns were increasing With great rapidity, and that at every one of these stations there were great quantities of American agricultural | machinery lying around. It was ap- parent to even the casual observer | that a tremendous amount of Amerl- can goods finds it's way into Canada. Now, of course, this is as 1t should | be- First, because Canada and the United States are virtually one coun- | try, geographically considered. The mere fact that man has drawn a poll | tical boundary line at forty-n1ne de- grees north latitude doesn't alter this: Canada is our nearest relative ana closest neighbor. She is still a strict ly agricultural country and IS destln- ed to remain so to a great extent. Since she does very little manufac- turing, she is our natural and leg1ti- mate market for manufactured goods and equally a source of supply Tor the raw material which we are not pro- | ducing in great enough quantltles or at a low enough price.
 To attempt to draw q commercial boundary line between Canada and l the United States is as absurd as It would be to draw one between Indl- ana and Illinois. Canada affords an immense market, and it seems to me that it was an exceedingly short sighted policy to have done anything in the past calculated to antagon1ze that country.
 Reciprocity has been attempted with Canada in the past. Canada has several times made overtures. only to
 be rebuffed. Instead of cultivating
 Canadian trade, we have erected bar riers in the shape of tariff wall. The result of our treatment has been to make her more independent Of us and to give to England a. preferential tariff.
 Yet, in spite of these facts. Canada, with her S,000,000 people, bought in 1910 5,990,021, or 60 per cent: of all her imports. from the United this amount, mostly raw material, ire of duty. We, with our 100000 900 people. bought but s95, ,128,31s. or 30 per cent of Canada's exports, and allowed but one-third thereof free &C.,
 cess to our country. This does not
 
 with us, or would do so if she could avoid it, but just the contrary.
 It illustrates most forcibly what we said above--that we are virtually one country, that we are commercial kin: whatever we may be politically, and that commerce buys and sells to the best advantage regardless of senti- ment.
 With this volume of trade because of our natural situation, and in spite
 lz ,< I.14 I4 iyor protectionists have been able to de- wise, what might reasonably be ex- pected if the barriers were removed and our manufacturers were to re- ceive their raw material free of duty, and Canada our manufactured goods in the same manner.
 The Mckinley Tariff bill provided that reciprocity treaties might be negotiated, and surely no one would accuse Mckinley of not being an ardent protectionist. He was one of the high priests of protection, yet his dying words were in advocacy of re- ciprocity.
 No stauncher defender of protec-. ton has been known than James G. Blaine, the father of reciprocity. His this provision of the Mckinley Tariff law was one of the two acts for which his record as Secretary of State was conspicuous
 Evider.'v Z. the great apostles of protecti., and the men of farseeing statesmanship saw what every intel ligent person must see-that the day of high protection is gone, that the time has come for modification of that policy by cutting the tariff or abolishing it altogether in certain cases, and which they termed reel procity.
 Blaine's new doctrine of reciprocity seemed to meet with almost univer- sal approval in the United States. Canada up to the present has always met us more than half way. Blaine's attempts, however, were largely null lifted by the following administra- tion When the tariff was next re- vised, instead of rates being reduc- ed they were boosted outra geously; but as before stated. authority was given to negotiate reciprocity treaties.
 Reciprocity has always been the victim of the tariff sharp practice men. The plea is made that a tar if against Canada is necessary to protect us against her wheat and other farm products. This is evident ly a ruse of the high protection man ufacturers to secure the agricultural vote in Congress and out. They tried to make the farmer believe they were trying to do something for him. The farmers claim that free entry of their products into Canada would do no good because none are shipped Dur ing the nine months ending March 31 last we sold Canada $5,000, ,0O0 worth of corn, $1 ,000,O 900 worth of wheat s1,600,> 900 worth of horses, together with ba- con, ham, lard and pork The remov- al of the duties on some and the low ering of those on others will sell more, unless history does not repeat itself.
 The claim that the farmers can not produce as cheaply as those of Cam ada has little to commend it. It was recently pointed out that freight charges added, Winnipeg wheat prices were higher than in any of the prin- cipa1 grain centres of the United States. That may not prove much in regard to cost of production, but it does prove that the American farmer has nothing to fear from being brought into competition with Cana