The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1911-04-05
OPEN LETTER TO PAGE
H. C. conant Of Montpelier Writes
on Reciprocity

OF Montpelier has written to Senator
Carroll S. Page a letter in which he
supports the proposed reciprocity
agreement with Canada and has fur
nished the Morning Journal copy
which is printed below.
Hon. Carroll s. Page, u. S. Senate.
My Dear Sir In accordance with
your letter in the Montpelier Morning
Journal setting forth a desire to hear
from the people in regard to the pro
posed Canadian reciprocity treaty, |
beg leave to submit the following
comment on this important subject
That It is an important subject would
seem sufficiently to appear from the
fact that 1t causes its opponents to
lose confidence in the future If IT be
adopted, and its supporters to de-
mand its adoption as vital necessity
for the Republican party if not for
the economical salvation OF the great
mass of our people. AS regards the
political expediency of the adoption
of the measure, there apparently is
little difference OF opinion; for not
only did the last election express in
no uncertain voice the unpopularity
of high tariff, but also this particu-
lar measure is endorsed by the admin
istration and there seems no alter
native other than submission or div
ision.
There is also substantial unanimity
| believe, that the people of this coun
try who have increased by sixteen
millions in ten years must look more
and more to other countries for part,
at least, of the necessities of life.
Why should we wait until such other
countries can impose their own terms
il they see fit to take advantage of
our necessity? Aesop's fable of the
ant and the grasshopper should teach
us to prepare for the days of neces-
sity
Some of those who concede this ne
cessity fear lest the flooding of our
markets with Canadian goods will
slaughter the present prices obtain
ed by the American farmer for his
products. That this fear is in large
measure baseless is seen by an ex-
animation of prevailing Canadian quo
tations These people seem to me to
hoist themselves on their own petard
when they in almost the same breath
urge that prices will not be lower
under the treaty, inasmuch as the
duty proposed to be taken off will be
shared by the foreign producer and
the domestic importer without advan-
tage to the American consumer and
consequently it would seem without
harm to the American producer
Either prices will be lower or they
won't We cant claim that they viii
as an argument that the American
producer will be injured and then
claim that they won't as an argument
that the American consumer will not
be benefited. In the words of that
saying "hoary with the age OF over
four centuries as our Judge Taft
says, I'VE can't eat our cake and have
it," Perhaps such injury as there may
be will fall upon the capitalist and
Spectator who under present condit-
ions dictates to a certain extent the
price not only to the farmer but also
to the consumer.
There is expressed dissatisfaction
with the treaty because 1t does not
lower the duty on our manufactured
products which are shut out OF Can
adian markets. If we need the sur
plus of Canada's natural products and
are benefited by being freely able to
call upon her resources, should we
refuse this benefit because she won't
give us the further benefit of mar
ket for our manufactures? If Canada
were suffering from the want of a
market for her products which may
be doubted, we might well use her
need as a club to extend our export,
trade in manufactures before consent
ing to receive any of her exports But
our opportunity of using this method
of coercion ended over a decade ago,
if it ever existed This was the idea
of James c. Blaine, if | mistake not,
expressed in the tariff bill of 1890 by
which as amended the markets of the
United States should be free to all
the products of any nation of the Am
erican hemisphere provided that ma
ton should admit free of duty certain
products of this country Concern
ing this plan that would have estab-
lished free trade with Canada, that
lifelong and uncompromising advo-
cate of protection" as he is called by
his biographer, wrote to Senator Frye
in part as follows:
Here is an opportunity where the
farmer may be benefited primarily, un
aooiab1,, ricb1y heuafi+ad Here Is