Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1911-02-03
Congressman DIAGNOSES
Proposed Agreement
With Canada
By 6. A. Lindber9h.

arc no" W0nld work injury to the
greatest wealth producers OF this
country, the farmers, and especially
the northern farmers. Their p-oduc.
tion IN 1910 was nearly s.. QUO 600. coo.
Our pro perity or the lack OF it in the
past Or future Is summed up In farm
and labor production. We cannot long
prosper without having the farmer and
the wage Garner in reciprocal relations
cannot believe that we gain by
tariff that is, In effect, LOCAL or
individual In it's benefits. What is
gained IN one form IS lost IN another,
1t Is this false idea OF giving preference
that has bronght about uneconomic
conditions. It Is wrong to remove the
1afmers protection Oh what be sells
and retain protection to the mo-
noplies tnat sell to him.
Protection has lost its original value
since monopoly secured control of the
industries. Unfortunately. when 1t Is
proposed to revise the tariff to meet
conditions that have been brought
about ty monopolists, those are not
the first to be considered. but it is
proposed to begin with the farmers
who have no monopoly. An lnvestiga-
tion of the agreement shows that it is
the farmers, and especially those in
the north, whose protection is taken
away.
It is proposed to put wheat, barley
dairy products, live animals, poultry,
eggA potatoes, fresh vegetables and
several other farm products that the
farmers sell, on the flee list, but when
meats get into the hands of the
packers they are to be protected. Of
the things that are to be on the free
list that farmers buy are lumber,
when not further manufactured than
sawed, fruits. cream separafors, fence
wire, and few other articles. The
things the farmers have to sell, as
wheat, which 10 affected by the cash
milling market of Minneapolis, barley,
cattle, dairy products. poultry. eggs,
potatoes, ETC., would all be depressed
by Cadadian competition. The things
the farmers have to buy, like lumber,
cream separatOTs. fence wire and other
commodities referred to, included IN
tAe free list and controlled by the
the trusts, the farmer would get no
benefit from, because Canada cannot
compete. Sawed lumber, not further
manufactured and used by the farmer
wall not be made cheaper by this be-
cause it is SO much heavier that 1t has
to be planed to have freight charges,
which is we'll known to those with ex-
perience; but when planed, it is
subject to tariff. Timber that railroads
use is to be free. The fact is: On all
that the northern farmers produce in
abundance for sale that is likewise
produced by the Canadian farmers our
northern farmers Will lose by the
agreement. and on those things that
our northern farmers buy that are to
be admitted free the Canadians do not
compete with the monopolies here
So, ON what he bugs he is left to the
mercy of the monopolies. That would
be the first effect of the agreement.
The farmer will gain nothing IN
the purchase of his clothing, for, as
we'll said by the president. ''The
q"estion OF the cost of clothing as af-
fected by the duty on textiles and thei
raw materials, Is not within the scope
of an agreement with Canada because
she raises comparatively few WOO
sheep and her textile manufactures are
uninportant. If we do not beglr
revising the tariff first ON monopols
production, we ought at least to do il
simultaneously.
It is my belief that the district
should register its opposition to tht
agreement, unless the monopoly pro
d0otion IN this country that tht
farmers are compelled to buy, is at tb(
same time made free.