New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-06-04
to gentlemen interested in lumber. IN the
manufacture Of print paper and in other
manufactures, cannot escape the alton
ton of the public.


to gentlemen interested in lumber. in the
manufacture Of print paper and IN otner
manufactures, cannot escape the alton
ton Of the public.
How is the farmer 10 be affected by
Canadian reciprocity and free trace III
agricultural products? Canada is so lai
north that her agricultural products are
limited to wheat rye. barley. oats po-
tatoes, live cattle. horses and dalr! plou-
nets She cannot and does not raise
more than one-sixth of | per cent OF tne
corn crop OF the United states. ohe
raises no cotton. she raises OUT te"
vegetables, she raises but few hoes, De
cause she has not the corn to feed thehi
with. she is al present a great importer
Of all fruits, citrous and otherwise, lfoil
the United States. and also imports
large amount of cottonseed oil, Whlch
Nv the cotton reciprocity treaty now Is
made free; she cannot fatten cattle as
thev are fattencd in the Uniteo STATES
and. therefore. it has become prohtapie
for farmers 10 import young cattle from
Canada even with duty on them. ana 10
fatten them for the Chicago market.
United States Exports.
The United States exports into Canada
a great many more horses than she inn
Canada a much larger amount Of pota-
toes than she receives from her. The
United States exports into Canada about
ten times as much meat and dairy prod
acts than Canada imports into the
United States.
TIE only real importation Of agricult-
ural products that we may expect from
Canada of any considerable amount VIII
consist of wheat, barley. rye and oats.
The world price OF these four cereals is
fixed abroad. where the surplus from the
producing countries is disposed OF and
is little affected by the place from which
The supply is derived. Canadian wheat
nets perhaps 10 cents less bushel to
q producer than the wheat grown
in the Dakotas, or Minnesota, due 10 the
fact that the cost of exporting that
wheat and warchousing it and market
ing il in Liverpool is considerably greater
than the cost to the Dakota farmer OF
dlspOsng Of his wheat TO the millers OF
Minneapolis or sending II abroad.
If. now the duty is TO be taken off of
wheat and the Canadian wheat can come
to the nllers of Minneapolis and other
places. it can and will he made into
flour. because the capacity Of the United
States mills is 80 per cent greater than
is needed to mill the wheat of this coun-
try Canadian wheat can be imported
and ground into -four without mate
rally reducing the demand for or price
Of United States wheat, and the surplus
will he sent abroad as -four. The price
OF Canadian wheat doubtless will be in
creased few cents, but the access to the
market nearer at hand will not reduce
The price of his wheat 10 the United
States farmer for the reasons stated.
Benefit to All Farmers.
A material benefit to all the farmers
Of the country, especially the stock and
cattle raisers and the dairy farmers. Will
be the by-products of bran and shorts
from the flour mills likely to follow the
free export OF wheat from Canada TO
those mills These by-products are now
so scarce and so high priced that many
farmers are unable TO procure them.
What Is true Of wheat is true OF other
cereals. The trade between the United
States and Canada cannot but increase
the sale Of agricultural products across
the border both ways to nearer markets
than they now reach in many instances.
The trade will be beneficial 10 both the
seller and the buyer. II will not. in my
judgment. reduce the price of wheat or
other farming products for our people
in any marked way. II will, however by
charging the source. Of supply, prevent
OlOut UucludtlOHS. dltu IL VIII cAit'i
TO prevent an eXOrbitant increase in the
prices OF farm products which, as they
have been for the last three or four
years. have Injured greatly to the profit
of all engaged in agriculture.
| have been attacked on the floor Of
the House and elsewhere as occupying
an inconsistent position. 1t has been
said that have urged the reciprocity
agreement with the idea of lowering the
cost Of living on the one hand, ana then
have asserted that the farmers would
not be injured by reduction in the price
at which they sell their products. on the
other hand. 1t is asked. is it possible TO
reduce the cost of living, on the one
hand. and maintain the present prices Of
farm products, on the other? Ny own
impression is that the cost of farm
products is determined by the worlds
supply and not by local conditions. or
tariff. or otherwise. and that 90 long as
the movement toward manufacturing
and away from the farms continues. and
the supply Of farm laborcrs is reduced.
continuance Of nigh prices for farm
products is inevitable.
But do think that reciprocity will
ENLARGE the reservoir or the supply Of
farm products for our people, and thus
prevent undue enhancement Of prices
beyond the present standard. II this be
the case, then neither the farmer will
be injured nor will prices increase.
The argument is made however. that
10 give free trade TO the Canadian
farmer in farm products so as to permit
him TO enjoy the markets Of the United
States is to give him an advantage over
our own farmers, who. living behind
high tariff wall. have to pay a great
deal more for the cost of living than do
Canadian farmers, whose protective sys-
TEN is not SO prohibitivo
Living Standards the Same.
With respect 10 this argument. all
have 10 say is that il Is not true The