New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-07-05
PRESIDENT TO HIS CRITICS
,o,tinued from first page.

,,.d bv our own people and tha at
those Idlsscielly Injurious because IL ~ 60
4 Is Is prejudiclally TO anect 'he i'''"
or ers Of the eonn,Ty p as in its last ma
Inc I,,ee,form declared in favor OF td,i.fl
uonaI Prhich would measure ohlN tne , E
a u.lpS in the cost Of producu9h u On other
here a1 no. sound Republican doctrine nas
words Inc imposition Of duties oii.'
becoin' he conditions are natulauS 4,
vhe,t and where duties are neces SSs ard
e evSsr TO enable our mahu,"e'"iev level the
orasr nroducers 10 meet on IeNe' TIE
oinsI ,stion of foreign producers; bae
conpsSta, recinrocity agreement WniCn nIs
Capao'an AZ s1uarcs exactly with tnis
doctrine
,,,hlioan Leaders for Reciprocity
oo,tention that reciprocity was
Inc oSyoCated by Republican leaders SO
90 include competing prp1uo,S Mr.
IS by the record OF hlStoTN W.
IIg,o;ns who is regarded as Ine aao ,,,,a,,S-
Rlslnc attempted 10 secure an amenu
redpIo.l',o rs of the tariff laws in which
reht biects for reciprocity menuone9 III
the onsndment were almost an Oh ~, nvi
me , Sr' in which foreign countries Wouiu
atLne.A with MS IN our own ludl ~, -
eonpeW on this Mckinley, who was me
More iesder as 10 reciprocity and VINO
teconu his last speech In its favor JUST
GER his tragic death, had neEotalvu
cG..r,ber OF reciprocity treaues' III dn VI
runpe' 49, duties were reduced or aboi-
NniCh ~ number Of products when
isheG, on,,nAte in our markets with those
Nouv own production The truth rs; IL
OF % .r;u rad the last speech or MchlhleH'
yoa will see that ne SPEAKS sa,.. ~ hoco,,9e mn.
neCuvn and that might well he abol-
nsetS Rv that he meant duties when
FnT,5 he taken off commodities foreign
..o,,re,ition IN which We couiu SdleiS meet
in our OWL lr eve, 70 the objection Of Re-
Anou' fyiends who denounCe Canadian
I.ngjn,-ocity as heresy Is That the amount
Ipe.ro,sfition which Is 10 take place IN
o. rnarkets between canadian productS
cur i nlo ~ the United states under this
snu .s,, is very much less than they
t.,,ld bv their general statements have
W.. h.Ilave In the first place. they say
YOU ~, free trade in agricultural products
tdl " r;,ine them a market of %. 00o 000
We e. ND taking only market Of 5000
r. rneoTia for the same things. and that
V,pso,iIy thew derive greater advantage.
neCeSs~.. ..ter of fact in the vast bulk OF
AS d nnrreS,s,S,Ytural products they can fur
on o.. cor,petition whatever. while this
l NE. admits all our products free
into Csnada .,i- C,,,.5tar -ao,rroc,+v
r..r,sn, Is made wholly at the expense
- ssy,,srs and only in the interest Of
go Who would have farm products a
isss n-ice 10 wit, the wage earners OF the
i.rr. cities II IS my own Judgment that
~. ~ Tecnrocitv agreement will not greatly
,e5ucs the cost Of living. II at all II VIII,
Iro,sr steady prices by charging the
,sssrvoir Of supplies for those things that
are raised in both countries; and II viii
r.ts more remote the possibility Of cor
,,-ir, commodities and eXtorting eXces-
Give nricss for them from the public.
In the Interest Of Farmers.
fr Is 2 mistake to say. however. that this
agreement is not IN the interest OF the
srnsrs let rs examine the statistics
sr5 Gee The free list is made up almost
entirelv Of agricultural products. The
amounts Of expectation from TINS country
% canada AZ present In the articles Gov
sred and affected by the reciprocity agree
-srt were for the fiscal year ended March
a fei0 $4,000 and the duties paid on
those articles were something more than
$4,000 The expectation ~ these same
articles into Canada for o t6e 6,iy year en9 Sa
duties levied and collected were Slo.5o0WO
The increase. IN other words, was about
100000 last wear. and the additional dutN
coiecte6 was about =. 100 00. There seems
LITTLE doubt that for the current year the
limited States trade covered by reciprocity
-sll reach $500 00 and the remission Or
duties would be not less than 100000 IN,
dsr the agreement What 7 wish 10 call
Toyr attention 70 is that Of This remission
~ approYimatelv g. $4,000. which would
tsvs been made on the imports into Can
sds from the United States " the reel
rrocitv agreement had been in effect,
i,,s less than g mi. 000 would have hesn
on agricultural products.
The truth IS that when the complaint Is
made on behalf OF the farmers and is an
slyzed II viii bA found 70 he limited 10 an
sr-uuent that bv the admission Of free
wheat into the United States the price or
wheat will be reduced 10 cents a bushel.
The answer 10 the argument is that this
cannot be for the reason that the price
ff wheat both In the United states ana
canada is ultimately fixed by the price OF
wheat in the world and that the world s
rrice is adjusted and made AZ Liverpool
ty the relation Of the supply OF the eN-
ported wheat 70 the demand Tor ~ pN
countries which 40 not raise enough 70
supply their people
viii Not lniure Wheat Growers.
I, NAV - that the free admission Of
wheat from the United states into CANADA
vii Increase 70 some extent the price 10
crease the price paid 10 the American
farmer because it will not decrease the
demand Uron tho American farmer for ms
wheat
Inc diversion from British and European
markets 10 the markets OF the United
Bates n 1000 000 70 10000. 000 bushels Of
Canadian wheat annually would not only
strengthen the wheat market abroad, but
q
needed complement Of wheat which the
world would require Just as il has IN the
past, bot II would then be i'm tho shape
Of Auericsn-r0ade -four
The effect OF increased wheat supplies
would be n reduce tho cost or mdnufdCt-
urag -four I'm lust the ratio that the mills
were abba thereby 70 increase their output:
This reduced cost Of production "oud
enable the mills 70 regain IN the foreign
rarket the 1900 IN TO 100000 barrels OF
four sold in foreign trade annually ten
years aeo bat which in recent years mas
fallen - less than 100000 barrels
The American grown wheat Wouid no'
b decreased i'm value i'm the slightest but
IN tho cortra-v because Of increased mar
fe'ing facilities and fuller time operation
-he mills would no in better position 70 an
tt,h increased quantities Or American grown
wheat
Wherever the probable course Of trade
under reciprocity is dnalyzed As 10 it's effec'
o. farm products IN which Canada can com
lsie, the conclusions vary but slightly IRON
tlose reached with respect 20 wheat As tc
harley and oats, the next most important
grains likely 10 enter into our international
exchange under reciprocity. the quality oI
canadian products viii commend them u
oH use Their appearance in the Ameri'
tan market may cause their substitution r.
,ome extent for our own similar products
nt such substitution would mean Just 81
much elimination Of Canada ! products from
ne markets If the world. Their place need'
p ce nHed. and the supply TOT TINS puTpoSt
solio most naturally come from the United
States thus charging our own foreign out
lN Tor these grains
Benefits Overlooked by Farmers.
Farmers who have not broadly consid
veg the subject I'm all It's bearings have
uerlooked The benefits arising from q more
.snoed held Of supply which will accrue
ne small farmer throughout the Contra
~ eastern states whose expanding pos
soAues in dairying fruit raising. stocl
,SnAuonlng and other specialized forms 81
IN NE have reduced his productive ca
,,I.y IN the raising Of grains and hay anc
s, ~ = becoming among the best Of custom
~, Ne ioi nay, corn. oats and mill feeds-th'
s..tcS o. the farmer Of the West anc