The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-02-21

/
|
| 1t seeks to give our millions of wage
earning consumers the benefit of
drawing upon the surplus food sup
| plies nearest at hand. 1t seeks, by
| providing for the freest interchange
of commodities across a political
boundary which, when 1t comes to
| production and commerce, is an arti-
| fetal boundary to prevent those man
uplations and those speculative flur-
tuations in prices which are harmful
both to the producer and to the con-
sumer." The foregoing leaves no room
for misunderstanding The cost Of
living is to be reduced. Consumers
are to have the benefit of free impor-
tation of Canada's surplus. The saw
ing to be confiscated entirely by law
from the American farmer. The saw
ing made to be divided, part going
to the consumer, part to the Cana
dian farmer and the balance, probably
the larger portion retained by those
who change the raw material into a
finished product or act as a middle
man. A nice solution to be proposed
by republican president.
Twenty five Years a Protectionist,
For twenty-five years / have been
protectionist, therefore a worker in
the republican ranks, producer of
small grain. Sometimes a complain
ing republican but always a protec-
zionist, believing that the principle of
protection intelligently applied would
ultimately make this the greatest
country on earth for all classes of
people. When wheat sold for 40 cents
a bushel ! understood that I was
selling in an open market and buying
in a protective market getting no
benefit direct for my product and pay
ing toll to the protected manu-
facturer. / understood all this
and was still protectionist. I
voted protection to the manu-
facturer to build up manufacturing
business and to eliminate unfair COM
petition. l voted protection to manu-
featured articles so that the maker
of those articles could pay high wages
to his employed. l thought / knew
that high wages meant a larger con-
sumption Of manufactured and natural
products. That this artificial stimula-
ton Of consumption by law would
rapidly bring together our consump-
tive requirements and productive abil-
ity insuring to the farmer more speed
lily market for what he might be able
to produce, thereby creating, that best
market of all a home market for
American production. I thought this
spelled the greatest good to the great
est number and meant American pros
perity for Americans, So far as legal
enactment and governmental policy
could insure such prosperity.
All this time / have paid knowing
ly without complaint higher scale
of wages to those / employed. because
of protection to American laborer. and
most Of the time have sold my prod
uct in competition with the pauper
and underpaid laborer of the world.
and still I believe in protection and
waited for the dawning of the day when
i as producer should receive direct
my share of the nations prosperity, the
result of protective policy.
Worked Away From World Price.
An examination of the markets of
the world for, three years past will |
prove that we have to a large extent |
worked away from the world setting |
their own price on our agricultural |
products. The time seems past when |
Liverpool could set the price and |
make us take ii on our grain without /
any thought of what it cost US or what /
should be reasonably worth, And /
now 1t is proposed by a republican
president to turn back the hand of /
time and progress and force the I
American farmer to again pass
through another period of financial /
forced economy, to compete
if not with pauper labor at least with
the newer and cheaper lands of Can
ada which will bring the same result.
We must buy in a restricted market
and sell in competition with a coun-
try not our own whose ultimate pro-
duction will be enormous. No one
claims that we do not produce enough
for our own needs. When that time
comes, it will be soon enough for our
statesmen to let down the bars. Can
1t be that President Taft or anyone
else thinks that under our protective
policy the agricultural interest of the
nation should have to compete with
Canada or any other country of low
and values or low wage scale? Is 1t
1ur duty as a nation through legisla-
ion to increase land values of our
country or better the con-
litions In any country at the expense n
IF our own citizens? Is there any
aw of political economy or common
sense or fairness that warrants or
would excuse such national action? /.
The advocates of this programme
nave the virtue of being bold about
t. Read this suggestion from rail-
'oad president as to what You and
should do with our farm land-forced )
o do 1t by law-the medicine admin
sired by our friends: ".Galesburg, i
H., Feb. 1S-Pres. w. C. Brown of the
llready in shape for use the white