Coulee City dispatch. [volume] (Coulee City, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1935-12-12
Was (l|:E}:(!| !
|aI|2 i. ~ I|l |!|;|| n SFzX|

from other sections. Thus, from the
political standpoint we see developing
a fine old fight over the tariff.
Tariff questions are and always
have been sectional questions. Indus
trial communities want to be protected
against inroads Of foreign competition
where labor is cheaper. Agriculture
wants to be protected against imports
from bountiful producing lands in those
countries where vast open spaces and
high productivity exist at the mini
mum of cost. Importers and consum-
ers Of imported products always have
fought and always will fight to have
low tariff rates so that the things they
buy may enter this country at the low
est possible price. With reference to
the Canadian treaty, these same con-
ditiOns exist.
Early outbursts indicate that cattle
raising communities and dairy produc-
ing sections are up in arms because
the treaty reduced tariff protection
accorded against imports Of cattle and
cattle products and the products of
the dairy.
Lumber interests are upset. 1t
is true that the lumber market in the
United States has been In the doldrums
for several years and naturally the
lumber people do not want to have
Canadian shipments absorb what little
market they have.
These are just few Of the COM
plants. They are offset partially at
least by the praise and the hopes of
some other phases of agriculture such
as fruit and vegetable growers who
feel that they can now market their
products in Canada. Without even q
careful analysis of the more than seven
hundred items involved in the treaty.
it is to be seen that there will be pos
sible markets available after January
l to a number of agricultural lines and
to some industrial interests. Yet 1t
remains, as I said earlier, for the pas
sage of time to disclose exactly wheth-
err the net result will be favorable to
us commercially or whether the Cana
dams have put over fine bargain
from their standpoint.
All of the discussion about the Cana
dian treaty. however, brings back
memory. AS result
Political Of these recollec-
Dynamite lions, dug back the
other day into the
congressional debates of 1911 when a
Canadian reciprocity agreement was
under consideration, backed by the
late William Howard Taft. After read.
ing those debates, particularly the OBJ
servations of the late and distin-
guished Champ Clark of Missouri and
Representative George Norris, now a
senator from Nebraska, l could not
fail to realize the political dynamite
embodied in the new course of inter-
national trade relations adopted by
President Roosevelt. 1t was the Cana
dian reciprocity proposal that defeat
ed Mr.. Taft for reelection to the Pres
idency. 1t was indeed, that controver-
sy that caused the organization Of the
Bull Moose party and that sent Mr..
Taft into political oblivion.
I am not predicting here that the
same consequences are in store for
President Roosevelt but it is fair to
recall, it seems to me, that the reci-
procity proposal of 1911 burned the
fingers of every political leader who
touched it. The cases are not exactly
comparable nor analogous. Mr.. Roose-
welt has retained number of tariff
duties which were swept aside in the
proposed Taft reciprocity arrange
ment. He is therefore fortified to that
extent. But you may be sure that
those who sponsor the present Cana
dian agreement are going to meet the
same sort of fight that was made
against the Taft proposal.
Then there is in the current treaty
circumstance another factor to be
considered. 1t links back to the Champ
Clark observations which were made
on February IA, 1911. At that time,
MIR. Clark was expressing the view that
the reciprocity agreement constituted
q step at least in the direction Of uni
versal peace. In the debate just men,
toned, Mr. Norris asked Mr. Clark to
elaborate on his view concerning the
value of the agreement as an instru-
ment Of peace.
II wanted to ask the gentleman a
question along the line of universal
peace" said Mr.. Norris. "As l under
stand it, the gentleman favors the bill
for at least one reason-that it will
have tendency to bring Canada into
the Union"
yes" Mr.. Clark replied. II have
no doubt about that. L do not have
any doubt whatever that day is not
far distant when Great Britain will
joyfully see all of her North American
possessions become a part of this re-
public. That is the way things are
now tending"
SO, if the controversy over the pres
ent Canadian tariff agreement becomes
violent, / think it is fair to expect that
again we will hear the question dis.
cussed whether the United States is
seeking to annex Canada-to make
Canada part and parcel Of the United
States. OF course, as far as anyone