Plentywood herald. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1908-current, 1935-11-28
TRADE WITH CANADA
COST OF DEPRESSION
BUSINESS PROFITS IN 1885
SUPREME COURT BUSY
VOICE OF BUSINESS
ELECTION AFTERWARDS
POLICE GUARD ROOSEVELT

n hOOSeV6Il
The reciprocal trade agreement be
tween the United States and Canads
will reestablish a system Of tarif
reciprocity which existed for ter
years from 1855. and is expected tC
accelerate trade between the two
countries which has o dropped tC
about one-third of the S1,400, 900 600
total Of 1929. The president viewed
the pact as an instrument of peace
and an example to the rest Of the
world in the way Of a friendly deal
lbetween nations along the lines OF
lbarter and trade.
Canada will stabilize its tariff sys.
tenn In regard to the products of the
United States simplify its customs
collections and in addition, give out
right concessions on several hundred
~expOrtable commodities of this coun-
try. The United States will maintain
on the free list the main items of
export from Canada, including news
grant concessions in the duty on
whiskey and possibly make redhc.
lions on certain other items.
The old set-up in Canada had a
high ~f1exibility so that duties could
be raised or lowered within a few
hours. Consequently, exporters in the
United States were never sure of the
duty to be paid on any particular
ttnm prnho hly tho noip ol,o.too M
OF the arrangement is the set-up of
machinery to handle the flow Of trade
between the two countries and, at
the same time, provide the mechan-
ism to fight off the attacks Of self
seeking tariff advocates in both
countries.
The four cOmmodities-newsprint,
pulp wood, wood pulp and whiskey-
accounted for more than one-half OF
Canada's 1922, 900, 900 exports to this
country in 1884. While complete de-
tails OF the terms of the agreement
are not available as this is being
written, it is generally understood
that officials regard the Canadian
agreement as by far the most i'm
portant trade treaty made by this
country. Upon its success may de-
pend the future policy Of trade re-
ciprocality with other countries. Gen
orally, on account Of the territorial
contiguity OF the two countries, it is
assumed that such an agreement is
rightly considered in a different sta
tus from tariff agreements with 9TH
err countries.
Many Americans have wondered
what the depression cost the United
States and have specialized as to
whether the huge expenditures of the
government would be justified by re-
covery, assuming for the discussion,
that the activity Of the government
bears a direct relationship to recov-
cry. Statistics as to government
spending sometimes vary as present
ed by advocates and antagonists Of
the administration policy and there
Is room for argument about many sta
t~istics presented in relation to re-
covery.
INV CfClt IL 10 NOllU uOliuS lldl
all stocks listed on the New York
stock exchange increased in value
two and a half billion dollars in the
month of October thus increasing the
enormous enhancement of stocks in
the past year or so. Along the same
line, the department of commerce has
made public a statement showing
that the depression has cost business
in the United States $26, 631 900, 900.
The loss represents the difference
between expenses and the value of
the goods and services produced. The
staggering difference has been TAX
en- out OF savings.
Beginning with 1929, when the in
come produced was $2,402, 0OO, 900
greater than the income paid out,
American business left the prosper
Gus years and entered into a FIVE
year period Of losses. In 1880 the
figures show that business lost five
billion dollars, in 1881, 81 billions:
in 1892, S.S billions; in 1888, three
billions, and in 1894 1.6 billions. Fig
ures for 1885 are not yet available
but it is possible that losses have
been eliminated and that savings
have begun again. Interesting is the
income paid out each year by bust
ness which dropped from 1923 billion
in 1880 to a low of 44.9 billion in
1888. Last year showed an increase
of about ten percent and this year
should show additional gains.
No vital decision has been rem
dered yet by the supreme court,
which has before it a number Of inn
portant cases affecting New Deal
legislation. True enough, the public
utilities have secured a decision
from a federal district judge holding
the utilities bill unconstitutional, but
this Ease Is under attack by the gov
eminent. On the other hand, the gov
eminent won several points last
week when the court refused to pass
upon cases involving the validity Of
the amended AAA processing taxes,
the Guffey coal control law and at
the same time allowed the. depart
ment OF justice to interv in a
test case involving the Bankhead
cotton control law.
The first two cases mentioned in