The Columbus journal. (Columbus, Neb.) 1874-1911, 1911-02-22
THE REAL ISSUE OF REClPRO.
CITY.


CITY.
If the congress and people Of the
United States are At this time capable
Of thinking nationally and with far
sighted craftsmanship the presidents
reciprocity measure will he passed
without delay.
lift is defeated it will he because
We are pusilanimous and purblind.
Senator Beveridge yesterday placed
the larger aspects of this issue emphati.
cally before the country in q notewor-
thy speech in the senate. The issue
he declared was this.
Shall the United States and Canada
begin the policy Of mutual trade con-
cessions and commercial friendliness!
Or shall We make permanent the poll.
cy Of trade obstruction and CONNER.
cial hostility between the countries?
And more important still is the con.
sideration he urged in declaring that
The beginning of freer trade relations
between these two people who are i'm.
mediate neighbors and who are Of one
blood, language, and religion. is the
large phase of this question"
1t has been said that the tariff is .
moral issue. 1t may be said that the
Canadian reciprocity compact involves
IN issue of civilization on the North
American continent.
There is involved not only the larg-
eat material good Of two great peoples
but likewise the largest social and NOR
a good. We know, or we ought to
know, in this twentieth century that
civilization and social advancement
move on the great current of CONNER.
&c. There was . time when there was
much talk of the political unity Of the
North American continent. The con.
ception was as nothing to that Of the
commercial community offered by the
principle Of recripOcity.
In England they see this, and the
tremendous eventual possibilities Of
the reciprocity compact are in the
foreground of the British discussion.
Our congress and our people should be
equally clear visioned. Yet up to this
time there seems to be not adequate
national comprehension Of what the re-
ciprocity Issue profoundly involves.
Against the large national view, the
continental view Of the two peoples e.
sentially one in race. in law. and
broad Political and social ideas, in
economic conditions and commercial
needs, .gainst this view Of the largest
unity, We have the guerrilla warfare
Of selfish privilege and local interest.
The most influential opposition tn Ike
feared on this side Ofthe line, and the
most respectable, because it is popular
and direct aud not corporate, is the
opposition among the farmers. But if
this is legitimate, it is also erroneous.
That the farmer is to be injured is not
to be concluded from the known facts.
The value Of protection to the farmer
always has been challenged by our &C.
onomic students, but the further fear
that reciprocity will overwhelm him
under a torrent Of Canadian surplus
product in his own market is obviously
impossible.
For example, the United States
raised last yeor 16O, 900 bushels of
barley. Canada exported in all l, 1O7,.
600 bushels. Even if every bushel of
that were to be turned across the line,
would the effect be worth the rumpus
that's now being made over this details
Canada's total export Of cereals is
about one. 6ftieth Of our cereal crop.
IL there promise ofruin in that.
Of butter, Canada's exports were
81 .OlO,274. and the butter production !
If the United States is estimated At %
cents . pound At $3.50, 100000. Her
egg exports were $40, 900, and our pro- |
estimated at . cents the doz.
en-, Was $500. 100000.
Canada's export of bacon and ham
was last year one.fifth of ours, and her
export of cattle 90 the hoof only about
$4,000 head more.
The farmers are deceived by . bug.
hoo which they should examine with
are. They will make . grave mistake
fthey lend themselves to the obstruc.
ion ofs great national measure ofeen.
raj and far-reaching benefcence.
1t may be shown BY experience that
'ertain details If the agreement are
nd. But, Is Senator Beverage point.
Il out, the agreement Is subject to