The Sentinel=record., 1911-07-05

country and that the reciprocity of former republican leaders was in- tended to include only lowering or abolition of duties to products or this country.
 Therefore, it is said that the Canadian reciprocity. as now pro- posed is nothing but democratic measure reducing or abolishing the tariff on goods or products from Canada that compete with those raised by our people and that it is especially injurious because it is so drawn as prejudicially to affect the farmers of the country as a class"
 The president declared that the last republican platform which he said advocated the imposition of duties only where the conditions are naturally unequal and where duties are necessary in order to enable our manufacturers and other producers to meet on a level" squared exact ly with the Canadian reciprocity agreement. He cited James G.. Blaine's advocacy of reciprocity to show that republican leaders had in times past favored reciprocity theor- ies which included competing pro- ducts and he quoted William McKin ley as further evidence that still am other noted advocate of reciprocity had favored the reduction or abcii- tion of dues, also in products which compete in this market.
 He denounced as heresy the statement that in the Canadian pact this country is giving the dominion a market of 90,0o0,O00 people in ex- change for market for only S,O00,- 900 inhabitants.
 "As a matter of fact" said the president, "in the vast bulk of our agricultural products they can fur nisl no competition whatever, while this agreement admits all our products free into Canada.
 'It is said that this Canadian re- ciprocity agreement is made wholly at the expense of the farmers and only in the interest of those wlo would have farm products at a less price, to-wit. the wage earners of the large cities. It is my judgment that the reciprocity agreement will not greatly reduce the cost of living if at all. It will, however. steady prices of enlarging the reservoir Of supplies for those things that are raised in both countries and it will make more remote the possibility Of cornering commodities and extort- ing excessive prices for them from the public.
 Tt Is a mistake to say, however, that this agreement is not in the interest of the farmers. Let us ex- anime the statistics and see. The free list is male up almost entire ly of agricultural products" Tho speaker quoted figures show | ing the imports and exports as re- lated to Canada and he thought that the remission of duties under tae proposed reciprocity agreement for the next fiscal year would amount to about $4y000,000. Had the agree ment been in effect for inc year ending March 31, 1911, the duties remitted would have amounted to about $3,400,0d0. $2,000.000 of which would have been on agricultural products.
 "The truth is," said the president, i that when tine complaint made CT
 behalf of the farmer is analyized it will be found to be limited to an ar gument that by the admission of free wheat into the United States the price of wheat will be reduced iu ACntn DQoHtA. hC dASHct " the argument is that this cannot be, for the reason that the price of wheat in the United States and in Canada
 both is ultimately fixei by the price of wheat in the world and that the
 worlds price is adjusted and made
 at Liverpool by the relations of the
 supply of the exported wheat to the demand for 1t by countries which do
 not raise enough to supply their
 people.
 .It may be that the free admis-
 sion of wheat from the unltei
 States into Canada will increase to
 some etxent the price to the Cana
 dian farmer, but it not decrease the price to the American fgarmer, because 1t will not decrease the
 world demand upon the American farmer for his wheat
 "Wherever the probably course of
 trade under reciprocity is analyized nc to itc offart m farm prOducts, in