The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-06-04

yet In the matter of articles entering into the cost of living of her people, 1 buys two and one half times as much from the United States as she does from England"
 Again, in our negotiations over this Canadian reciprocity treaty directed our | commissioners to secure as great a cut in duties manufactures in Canada as they could, but they were unable to se- cure any more than appears in this treaty l for the reason that Canada would not expose her manufacturers, to the compe- tition of United States manufacturers. I which is a conclusive proof that the manufactured products that enter into the cost of living are higher in Canada than they are in the United States, other wise they would not fear the eompeti- | ton of the United States manufacturers.
 But 1t is said that the farm land in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin and other states is much more valuable than the land In Manitoba, Saskatche- wan and Alberta, the great western prov inees of Canada, and that to give Ca- nadian farmers free entry of products on cheaper lands will be certain to lower farm lands in value in this country.
 Will Not Cheaper Lands
 Nothing, I believe, Is further from the fact The Canadian lands are further removed from the Minneapolis and Chi
 
 sota Wisconsin, Iowa or Illinois and proximity to market is most important | element in the value of farm lands. Then the natural change in farming in this country Is from the raising of grain and other cereals for export. to the raising of grain for farm consumption and de- velopment of the secondary products in the form of cattle and hogs. The live cattle are bought and fattened. The hogs are raised and fed. It is farming of this kind that explains the high value of | farm lands in Illinois and Iowa and other states. In 1900 the farm land value in
 North Dakota was S11.t an acre; in South
 Dakota &. .92; in Kansas 1T; in Nebras- lka, $l6.27. At the same time the value
 of farm lands in Iowa was $36.35; in Illinois s4617; in Indiana sSl .61; in Mich !, igan s24.12; in Wisconsin S26.n, and in
 Minnesota s2l .S1- a
 .sTha argument as to the disastrous eff feet of admitting the crops of Canadian
 northwest to our markets upon the values
 of our farm lands letting in Canada's products Is wholly unfounded. I always
 feel an impatience, perhaps an unreason- able one, in having to argue the ques-
 tion of schedules with reference to the
 advantage of the reciprocity agreement
 with Canada because 1t seems to me that
 the reasons for adopting it are deeper and wider than are to be found In com
 parison of percentages and rates with re-
 spect to special localities and special bus inesses.
 "The general conditions are these:
 "We have a people numbering 9O,- 000.Co0, occupying the best part of the North American continent with the widest variety of products and with an unexcelled fertility of soil. To the north of us are a people just like ourselves in descent, in wealth per capita, fin education, in traditions. In ambitions and aspirations. They have a country nearly equal to ours in area, not so fertile generally and certainly not so rich In the wide variety Of agricultural products. There are seven millions of people there. With them we have a trade of S325,0O0,000 year. We export to them s225,0 900 a year. If we deduct from out export to Ger many, which is nearly twice as popu- lous as Canada, the value of cotton and the copper we send there, 1t will be found that we export more of our manufactures and agricultural products to Canada than we do to Germany and that England is the only foreign GUS toner we have that takes more of our goods than this comparatively small population of Canada.
 | What of the Future
 | "If that be true and Canada con tinues to grow, what may we expect to sell her if we reduce the tariff wall, introduce as nearly as we can free Il trade and she increases her popula- ton from 1000, 900 to 30.000, 900? Shall we not be flying in the face of Provl- dence to maintain a wall between us and such a profitable market as she will furnish us? The conditions be- tween Canada and the United States are } the same In the point of labor cost, Tn the point of cost of living, in point Of the general conditions prevailing in both countries. If either country has
 the advantage the United States has
 it. and yet for both the opening of the markets of each to the other is certain to introduce a measure or pros perity that we have never seen equaled in the trade between the two countries,
 q do not advocate this treaty In view of it's benefit to the United States alone, bus because l am sure it will be beneficial to Canada also. If I did not think so my , earnestness and enthusiasm for the treaty would be much abated; not that have as much interest In the people of Canada as IT had in the people of the United States, for I have not reached that altruistic point but because no such agreement can become permanent unless it does result in the common benefit to both countries; and if this were jug-handled arrange ment, if all the benefits were to accrue to the United States and none to Canada, then as the treaty might be repealed at | early abrogation by the Canadian authori- : lties.
 , Tt is because am confident it will be seen on both sides to be a great states man-like measure only looking to the
 beneficial interests of both parties to the 3 contract that so urgently press its adop- ! tion upon the Congress and the people of . the United States.'
 5 Tn conclusion President Taft said the prospects are the measure will De reported out next week, probably without recom- , mendation. He believed amendments i, would be offered and said some doubtless ! would be with view to improving the present bill and others attempting rs- . vision and reduction of duties on certain z articles from all countries.
 7, MT. Taft mentioned the Root amend q ment, saying it was in accordance with the agreement but did not offer the in-
 ducement to lifting Canadian restrictions
 which the present provision in the bill
 does. Some of the probable. meat and f flour amendments, he thought, would be n gratuitious concessions to Canada. The objection he had to the faruers' free list