The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1911-04-08
CONGRESS HEARS
FROM FARMERS

OrOuS expressions OF opinion frOm
rural constituents on the Canadians
Reciprocity question.
Canada gets the jug and the United
States the handle, is the way one of
the most Influential farm weeklies in
the Easr, The American Agricultur-
ist, (New York;, sums up the recipro
city plan. Closer trade relations with
Canada are in every way desirable,
but. asks this paper, why throw the
whole burden on the American far
mer?
The trouble wit hthe whole tariff
question lies i'll the growing senti-
ment at Washington that the United
States is a manufac turing nation and
not an agricultural country. Anything
to promote manufactures, regardless
OF the effect on farming. seems to be
the tendency at present. This is based
on the idea tina. everything the far
mer produces is raw matrial, while
finished goods that deserve protection
are only factory produces Any states
man manufacturer. or factory em-
ployee only needs to go to farming
for year, and thus learn from ex-
perience what il means % make crops.
ed goods quite as much as are factory
products"
Mr. Taft has not adhered in this ii-
stance to The Republican platform de-
claration in favor OF duties equalizing
the cost oi production al home and
abroad, declares N. J Bachelor, Mas
ter OF the National Grange, for
''the cCst OF producing the staple farm
products which are to be admitted free
OF duty under the pending bill, is ma
terially higher in this country than II
Canada. Canadian arm lands are
much cheaper than ours; wages ~
Canadian farm labor are lower; the
cost OF living is lower in Canada ow-
ing to that country's lower tariff taxes
on manufactured articles; and the Jar
mcrs OF this country are compelled 10
pay out annually immense amounts for
fertilizers, which, owing to their great
areas OF virgin soil, are not required
by the Canadian farmers
Nor is it intended aS an honest mea-
sure to reduce the cost OF living, in
sists another prominent Granger Mr..
Aaron Jones, OF Indiana. Ii it were,
he asks, why does it impose tax OF
so cents per barrel on -four, while put
ting wheat on the free list
why are cattle sheep and swine on
the free list, while meats, fresh and
cured, are taxed l 81 cents per lbs
Are not the farmers as much entitled
to protection as the millerS or the
great meat packers: The consumers
do not eat wheat. or cattle or sheep
They consume flour and meat. But
this bill puts the farmers products on
the free list, and taxes the articles in
the form in which they reach the con-
sumner"
In The Wisconsin Equity News,
(Madison). the organ OF farmers
association. Mr.. J. R. Mauff sets forth
and lortities with figures Severa! rea-
sons for protesting against Congress
sional ratification oi The agreement.
He notes that our farmers are bur
dened with an enormously increased
price OF labor and h CHER necessities
OF life, which will be tnreleved by re-
ciprocity. The Canadian farmer, on
the other hand, enjoys cheaper land
and a cheaper cost OF living through
the favorable tariff relations between
Canada and Great Britain. We "a
ready have an overproduction OF farm
products in the United States, says
Mr.. Mauff, but under reciprocity Can
ada would pour in still more and open
tip new larm lands To increase the
amount, TO our detriment AMI serious
financial loss Remove the tariff
protection aud allow the cereals from
these vast areas to compete with the
products OF our farm lands he de-
clares. and you will bring about a
situation amounting to almost crisis
as far as farm mortgages are con-
cerned"
The objection that the reciprocity
proposal trades off the rights of the
farmers for the benefit OF the manu-
facturers is also urged by The Michi-
gan armer (DetroiD, The Ohio Far
mer (ClevelandD, The National Stock
man and Farmer (Pittsturg). and The
Farmers and Drovers Journal (Chi-
cago). The Rural New Yorker New
York;, one of the many papers to
print letter alter letter from farmers
condemn:ng "rhis so-cal led trade agree
mcnt.' says that ii it goes through as
planned, American farm history will
repeat itself" Our farm population
has drlfted from the East to the West,
and thence to he Canadian north
west:
with the tariff removed on farm
products the rrickling stream OF i'm
migration away from this country will
swell to a food The man in Alberta
or Saskatchewan will be as near the
wheat or cattle marker as he who
lives in Iowa or Kansas, yet the for
mer can find land at $50 even superior
to that lor which the latter must pay
$I5o. Yet with free trade the products
OF the two farms meet on equal terms.
Again the Canadian farmer finds a
government ready to lend him money
tor drainage or to build railroads and
storehouses which belong to the peo-
pie. The American farmer on the
ether hand, must pay higher rent AMI
taxes and finds that money. transoorta-
ton and storage are controlled bv
monopolies
Nor will the consumers in town