The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-02-27
CONTINUED from Page Three.)


would injure the farmer are the dem
agogues." They are willing to make
their appeal in the hope of making po-
litical capital.
If did not know that reciprocity
with Canada would benefit greatly the
farmers OF the northwest, I should OPP
pose it. There is no gain from any
quarter which would compensate a
great transportation system for gen.
eral injury to the agricultural inter-
est. which is the basis Of its and of all
other prosperity. Perhaps the most
discouraging fact about this movement
for the enlarged prosperity Of the
whole northwest is that it has 10 en-
counter the opposition Of men like
yourself; sincere, disinterested, intel
ligent, but wrong as to the facts, and
! bound by a theory about the tariff on
farm products that is not supported
by a single commercial fact to cover
its nakedness.
I take pleasure in writing you this
in order that you and others, who, like
you, may learn the exact ruth about
1t as It relates to the American farmer.
Yours truly,
James J. Hill.
Maj. 5utzz's Reply to Mr.. Hill.
Washington, D. c., Feb. 10, 1911.
James J. Hill. Esq,
st. Paul, MINI.
Dear Sir: Your letter of the 7th in
slant, in answer to my open letter to
you Of the 31st ultimo, reached me
Sunday yesterday, having been for
warded from my North Dakota home
to this city.
I assure you that I was more than
pleased with the information you gave
me, and more especially was 1 pleased
with what you said on this same sub
1ect at the meeting Of the Publicity
club in Minneapolis on Thursday night,
Feb. 9, all Of which appeared in the
Minneapolis Journal that reached this
city yesterday; you certainly made a
good showing from your free trade"
statement Of facts. Nevertheless, l be-
lieve you reached a wrong conclusion
based upon the facts as you present
them.
In the letter addressed to you on
the 31st ultimo, in my humble, farm
er-like way, tried to give you at least
three reasons why that treaty of agree
ment should not become, at this time,
the law Of our country.
First, because 1t would financially
injure and discourage the farmers
tillers Of the soil--in our country by
reducing the income of the farm.
Second, because the land owner
would suffer by reason not only of no
increase for many years in the price,
but an almost certain actual decrease
in the selling price of his land.
Third, that the United States would
lose to the Canadian northwest many
hundred thousands of our best class Of
good American citizens, together with
many hundred millions of dollars in
cash and personal property that they
would take with them.
You have answered very deliberately
and intelligently the first proposition.
towit, as to the effect on the price of
the products Of the farm. However,
Yesterday Sunday The Minneapolis
Journal contained your more extended
views on this free trade" agreement
for the farm products only.
OF course, you state the true condi-
lions that will and do govern for the
surplus-the worldwide OiverpooD
price-of the one worldly wide cereal
(wheat) used almost exclusively to
feed the civilized inhabitants of the
globe. We also believe that harvest
ing the crop in some parts of the
world takes place in every month in
the year, and as the grain board of
trade at Liverpool have daily reports
as to the status of the wheat crop from
, all producing countries they are not
/. only in a position to fix, but do fix the
price Of the surplus, and the dealers
in this and other countries are govern
ed accordingly.
We have had, and may again have,
"a failure or partial failure of our crops
caused by extreme drought or other
,climatic conditions, with no surplus to
export
In many OF our new states (compara
Iatively speaking), to-wit, Wisconsin.
minnesota, North and South Dakota,
ErMontana Idaho, Oklahoma, and Wash
Eangton, the wheat lands that fifteen to
stwenty years ago always produced on
the average from twenty to twenty
i've bushels to the acre may be re-
lduced to from ten to fifteen bushels:
then there will be no visible surplus
ITO export. In that case / am inclined
ITO believe that with the 25-cent tariff
protection against our Sentimental
tneighbors, kin folks, and brothers
s1who reside just across the line. that
1--WE, with fourteen hours, a days work
on the farm, will hold up our heads
and say to Messrs. Taft and Carnegie
the transportation companies. the com
omission and middle men," organized
Eas commercial clubs" and boards OF
trade" that we have the products OF
our own hard work in our granaries
EWhat we ageroing to do to you is
what you have been doing to us for 10
these many years"-we will fix the
price Of our wheat for the consumers
DO you see? Though it may not come
to that
Yes; we farmers believe that to re-
move the tariff on the farm products
Will cause a great financial loss to us
You give us very interesting his
tory, going back many hundred years
and to farming conditions in Denmark
( You show that after many years OF
! "haphazard," unscientific farming that
they exhausted the productive qualities
OF the soil to such an extent that only
from ten to fourteen bushels Of wheat
to the acre was produced: that about
fifty years ago a new era set in, and
after fifty years of intelligent farming
they have been able to restore the 40
acre farm (small garden patches) so
that they now produce from twenty
five to forty bushels per acre on these
40-acre farms. / assume that fifteen
sixteenths Of the cultivated wheat
raising lands in the United States has