The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1911-04-12

must be protected as long as mani
, facturers receive the benefits of
. protective tariff. More than twent
years ago the National Grange adopl
ed resolutions declaring that it wa
the position of the order that so Ion
as protection was to be the nationa
policy, the farmers must receive TIL
same degree of protection on thei
products that was given on manufac
tured articles. This is the Grang,
position today, as shown by state
ment of Hon. n. j. Bachelor, ma
tional master, before the senate com
mittee on finance, February 81, last
in opposition to the Canadian rec;
lprocity arrangement. AT that hear
ing more than forty farmers, repre-
senting fourteen states, appeared t
protest against the measure. Mr.
Bachelor showed very clearly tha
the reciprocity arrangement would in
jure the farmers of this country b,
putting all their staple products or
the free list, while making no ma
lterial reduction in the high duties
imposed on all the manufactured ar
Iticles that they buy. Mr. Bachelors
statement was as follows:
We are here to protest against the
Canadian Reciprocity bill, on the
ground that its effect will be to es
tablish free trade in farm products
while continuing protection. We are
here as representatives of the great
agricultural industry OF the United
States to state clearly that the farm
ers of the country will not submit
to legislation that so manifestly dis
eliminates against their interest, and
to assure you that without exception
the farmers stand for the principle
Protection for all, or for none
need not occupy your time with ar
guments to show that this reciprocity
measure means free. trade in farm
products. Canada is the only country
from which we have at present any
reason to fear competition, and if we
have importation of Canadian farm
products, we will receive no benefit
whatever from the tariff The prin
ciple of protection laid down in the
Republican party platform of 1908 Is
that the tariff rates should be
equivalent to the difference between
the cost of production at home and
abroad, together with a reasonable
profit to American industries. We are
willing to submit the whole question
as to wisdom of the reciprocity bill to
the standard fixed by this, the latest
National Republican declaration on
the subject.
Is it, or is it not, a fact that the
cost of growing the great staple crops,
such as wheat, barley. oats and eggs,
poultry cheese, apples, etc, is greater
in this country than in Canada? We
affirm that such is the fact, and would
state in support of our contention the
further facts that Canadian farm lands
are much cheaper than on this side of
the boundary line; that the wages paid
farm labor in Canada are much lower
than in this country; that the Cana
dian farmer buys his manufactured
articles cheaper because of lower tar
iff rates on foreign goods; and that
the farm lands of Canada are chiefly
virgin SOIL requiring no fertilizers,
while our lands have been cropped for
many years, SO that we must use an
nually immense qualities OF fertile
ers
Does any one deny that the average
price of our farm lands is from two or
three times that of Canadian lands9
Is it not a fact that hundreds of thou
sands of farmers in our Northwestern
states have sold their farms and emf
grated to Canada, because of the great
areas of cheap lands to be had In that
country? 1t is notorious that SO many
farmers have left Iowa, where land is
worth from $4,000 to $4,000 per acre,
for the Canadian Northwest, that the
population of that great and fertile
state is now less than 1t was ten years
ago.
The statements in regard to the 9th
er conditions which show the cost of
production to be lower in Canada than
in the United States are equally cap.
able of proof, SO that there is no escape
from the conclusion that if protection
is to be afforded to any domestic in
dustry because of the higher cost of
production in this country, agriculture,
the greatest of all industries, which is
the very foundation of this great ma.
tons welfare and prosperity, is clear
ly entitled to protection equal to the
difference between the cost of produc.
ton at home and abroad.
The two principal arguments nut
forward on behalf of this so-called
reciprocity proposition, are, first, that
1t will reduce the cost of food stuffs
to the consumer; and, second. that it
will not decrease the prices received
by our farmers for their products. Both
of these statements can not be true
and it is our opinion that neither of
them are. The newspapers of the cit
les have been filled with glowing prom
ises of cheap food, which they claim
will be the result of the free admis-
c;a