Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1911-05-05

the Liverpool market. This wOrrle
lower the price of wheat at Liv'
erpOOl and react adversely upon
the farmers Of the United States.
Snow it occurred to me that
this treaty has been coneOcted
either by or for the benefit of
the manufacturers. Why should
We protect them with a duty on
flour, oatmeal, planed lumber,
meat, malt, hardware, etc. etc.
and remove the duty on raw ma
terial? I believe in treating all
classes alike, and with fairness
and justice. Let. congress either
amend or reject reciprocity in
its present form. As if is now,
it is an inconsistent farcical blud-
era misnOmer.''
The price of wheat is fixed in
liverpool, not by any arbitrary
standard, but by the law of sup
ply and demand. The word " fix
ed" here is not a very happy one,
as it gives the idea Of something
permanent and stable, and prices
are invaribly unstable on ac-
count of the variation in supply
and demand.
As stated in the article which
our correspondent critics. when
the American crop Of is unequal
. our local demand, then the
American farmer would receive
benefit from a tariff on Canadian
wheat, because. the price here
would be higher than in Liver
pool. Bnt the benefit from such
a tariff is small as long as we
have: a surplus to export. When
we have an excess of wheat, we
ship to Liverpool, and there meet
Canadian wheat. If Canada
should increase her yield three or
four times, with or without recip-
rocity this excess would tend to
lower the price of wheat in the
foreign market. At the present
time, wheat is about eight cents a
buShel lower in Winnipeg than in
Chicago, and we are no doubt
getting some benefit from the tar
if.
The provoking thing about
this whole business is that the
representatives of the western
farmers in congress have been
content to accept paper tariffs
in exchange for real tariffs on
eastern manufactures. We have
pointed out to them for years ,
that the moment these paper tar
ifs became real tariffs, they
would be repealed or otherwise
rendered ineffective. Congress
will not resist the cry of THE
hungry stomach.
The Canadian reciprocity treaty
Is open to two objections. One
objection is that it is a sort of
jug-handled affair, supposed TO
reduce the cost of living, which
to. the labOrer is largely the price
of food, but does not tend to re-
duce the cost of living to the
farmer, which is largely the price
of manufactured products. This
however, can be remedied by the
action of congress, by taking
the tariff off steel and iron in
its more common forms, taking
off the specific or color duty fren
sugar, and lowering the wool and
cotton tariffs. This could be
done with advantage to every
body except those who make
these tariffs the means of ex-
torting higher prices from the
common people.
The main objection, however,
is not so much to the Canadian
reciprocity treaty itself, but to
the precedent it affords for bring.
ing in sO-called natural products
free from other countries as the
hungry stomach needs them,
while retaining tariffs that allow
the American manufacturer to
sell his product to the foreigner
cheaper. than he sells it at home.
The reciprocity treaty with Can
ada will not, in our judgment,
seriously lower the prices of farm
products in the west; but the e1-
tension of this principle to the
Argentine would bottle up. the
farmers of the west, for the rea-
son that the wwhole Atlantic
and Gulf coast could be supplied
with fOodstuffs by water cheap
er than thew could he brought