The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-06-04

those mills. These by-products are now
scarce and so high priced that many
farmers are unable To procure them.
What is true Of wheat Is true OF the
other cereals. The trade between Can
ada and the United States cannot but
across the border both ways TO nearer
markets than they now reach in many
instances. The trade will he beneficial
10 both tho seller and buyer IT will not.
In my Judgment, reduce the price OF
wheat or other farming products for our
people In any marked way, IT WILL how
ever. by enlarging the source cf supply
prevent undue fluctuations, and II VIII
and ought TO prevent an eXorbitant in
crease in the prices of farm products.
which. as they have been Tor the last
70 the profit OF all engaged in agricul-
ture.
The Cost of Living.
Il have been attacked on the noor of
the house and elsewhere as occupying
an Inconsistent position. II has been said
ment with the Idea OF lowering the cost
OF living, and then have asserted that
the farmers would not be injured by re-
duction I'm the price al which they sell
their products II lis asked, Is 1t possible
To reduce the cost Of living and maintain
the present price of farm products? My
own impression is that the cost OF farm
products Is determined by the worlds 5
supply, and not by local conditions, or
tariff or otherwise, and that so long as
The movement toward manufactures and
away from the farms continues. the sup
ply Of farm laDorers is reduced, q con-
tinuance Of high prices for farm prod
ucts is inevitable. But / do think that
reciprocity will enlarge the supply OF
iarm products for our people. and thus
prevent undue enhancement OF prices be
yond the present standard.
IF this be the case, then neither the
farmer viii be injured nor will prices in
crease. The argument is made, how
ever. that 10 give free trade to the Ca
madam farmer is TO give him an advan-
behind high tariff wall. have TO pay
a great deal more for the cost of living
than do Canadian farmers. With respect
TO this argument. all ] have TO say is
living in the United States is not higher
Than II is in Canada. This is conclusive
ly shown by two facts-hrst. that in
spite Of the preference given TO English
products imported into Canada, the duty
being 33 l-3 per cent less than that i'm
posed on goods from other countries.
s22o,0OoO0o of goods OF the widest va
riety Of manufactures, all of these en-
tering into the cost of living, while Can =
ada. with preference in favor OF Eng
land imports from England goods to the
value OF only S93. 600. 900. In other words,
despite tile protective tariff maintained
by Canada against the United States.
Canada in the matter OF articles entering
into the cost OF living OF her people, buys
two and ono half times as much from
| the United States as she does from Eng
| land.
Again, in our negotiations over this
Canadian reciprocity treaty, | directed
our commissioners TO secure as great a
| cut In the duties on manufactures in
Canada as they could. but they were un-
| able 10 secure any more than appears
| in this treaty, for the reason that Can
| ada would not expose her manufacturers
TO the competition OF United States man
| ufacturers. which is a conclusive proof
that the manufactured products that en-
| ter into the cost OF living are higher
| In Canada than they are In the United
| States: as otherwise they would not feaI
| facturers.
Cost of Farm Lands.
"But. il is said, the Ohio farm land. and
| in illinois, Iowa. Wisconsin and in other
| states. is much more valuable than the
| land in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and AL
! free entry of products on cheaper lands
will be certain to lower farm lands In
value In this country.
Nothing could be further from the
| fact The Canadian lands are farther re-
moved from the Minneapolis and Chicago
markets than the lands OF Minnesota
Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois. and proX-
| unity TO market is most important eIe-
ment in the value of farm land.
| Then the natural change in farming
| in this country is from the raising ol
| gram tor I3rTn consumption ana develop
ment of the secondary products In the
form of cattle and hogs. The live cattle
are bought and fattened. The hogs are
raised and fed. II 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 s1l:15 an acre; in South
Dakota. s9,92; In Kansas, s1217;. in
the value OF farm lands I'm Iowa
was S36.35. In Illinois, Sd6.1I; in Indiana
S3l,6l; In Michigan. s24.12: in Wisconsin
s26.71. and in Minnesota, s2I.3l.
| IF the argument as TO the disastrous
effect OF admitting the crops OF the
| Canadian northwest TO our markets upon
The values OF our farm land is correct
| then the opening OF lands in Kansas
| Nebraska and the two Dakotas in the
decades from 1890 to 1910 should have
| had similar effect upon the land OF the
| older states. Now what was the fact
| What was the effect on the farm lands
in the older states of the competition
OF these newer states? The Land in the
older states became devoted TO corn. CAL
| tie and hogs. while the wheat and the
other cereals were left TO the new lands.
! The effect WAS that the value Of the land
| in the older farming states was in most
cases more than doubled. and the census