An Appeal to Baser Instincts. The Times of New York says: "We can tell the Republicans that there is a sure presidential victory for the Democrats in the Canadian Reciprocity agreement if they reject it." The Springfield Republican thinks this worth quoting, and adds that if it do not pass this Congress the Republicans will bear the blame. It does not seem to have occurred to either of these highly moral and independent newspapers that any such thing as a principle might be at stake, and such a threat is an appeal to the baser instincts in either party or man. The infamy of selling their votes in Congress for a partisan benefit would be only a little less than it would be to sell them for hard cash. If we are to have Free-Trade with Canada, even of this one-sided sort, let the Free-Trade party enact it, and be responsible for the harm it will do the country. America will never respect any party which deserts its convictions for a political victory. That was the suicide by which the Whig party died when the Republican party arose to avow and act on its principles.

Whatever the Democrats may do or fail to do, genuine Republicans have no choice. To vote for this Reciprocity plan would be to sacrifice the end for which their party exists-causa vivendi perdere

causas.

ROB'T. ELLIS THOMPSON.

Michigan Farmers Speak.

Cassopons (Mich.) Vigilant.

At yesterday's session the following resolutions were unanimously adopted by the Cass County Farmers' Institute, and a copy sent to Congressman Hamilton at Washington:

Whereas, the reciprocal treaty with Canada now pending before Congress is being urged for the express purpose of reducing the price of farm products, thereby lessening the income of the farmer, and inasmuch as we, the farmers of Cass County, assembled in our annual institute desire to be heard in this matter:

Therefore, We submit that the farmers should have in their homes those comforts and conveniences of life considered indispensable in urban households; that the farmers should be able to live decently, dress decently and educate their children properly. If these conditions are to prevail a sufficient farm income is a necessity. It should therefore be the duty of our government to aid the farmers in these matters instead of compelling them to sell in a Free-Trade market while they buy in a Protective Tariff market. Therefore,

Resolved, That we are opposed to the admission to this country free of duty of farm products from Canada or any other country unless all Tariff duties on commodities manufactured in the United States shall at the same time be removed.

WM. FIERO, President.

N. G. VAN NESS, Secretary.

Are We Forgetting the Protection Taught by Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, Blaine and McKinley?

The most remarkable thing in American political life at this time is the determined efforts of would-be great American statesmen and actual great political leaders to defame, discredit, disgrace and destroy great American interests by Tariff reduction, while pretending to protect the same. This, after 125 years of experience showing Protection to be essential to general American prosperity and after trying the opposite policy several times with sure disaster and general distress and ruin where prosperity had reigned under Protection. These leaders have led our people to demand another taste of cheapness accompanied by its usual poverty and dis

tress.

With a regular Free-Trade Democrat such folly and blindness are natural and expected, because it was born in him. Free-Trade was grafted on and instilled into his party some 80 years ago in behalf of American slavery as its only object of interest in this country; and they have never awakened to the fact that both of these protegees were long since dead and slavery buried out of sight. But with Republicans it is different, and they have no such excuse for ignoring the light and thus misleading their party following.

Are Republican leaders playing blind Democracy in Tariff matters? All we have to go by is their work. They filched their Tariff notions from the Democrats and beat them in reducing the Tariff. All this has been forced onto a Republican convention by the big stick and rich

pap. And now the administration digs up Democracy's old Canada reciprocity of 1855, under ten years of which our exports to Canada fell off 25 per cent., while Canada's exports to us gained about 400 per cent. The terms of the Taft and the Pierce treaties are almost identical on products. If this is not switching the Republican party onto a Free-Trade track, if present leaders are followed, there is no Free-Trade in the Tariff question.

If these leaders are not followed, then where are the men to lead and save Protection by teaching the true doctrine? A Hamilton to teach that Protection by competition lowers cost and production. A Jefferson to insist that all Tariff reductions benefit foreigners to the injury of home producers. A Clay to teach the necessity of Protection for our general as well as industrial interests. A Lincoln to teach that when we buy at home we have the goods and the money, but when we buy of foreigners we have their goods and they have our money; while the man that lives at home on Tariff protected home products pays none of the Tariffs thereon. A Blaine to teach that true

which we can ourselves produce. A McKinley to teach that Protection furnishes revenue and expands our foreign markets. Have we the teachers? It appears that all these lessons have to be learned over again by our people, and it is doubtful whether they will listen until they go through another period of Free-Trade disaster and distress from present leadership. J. W. ALLFREE. Newton, Iowa, February 22.

Don't Want Reciprocity. The fight against the reciprocity treaty with Canada has been taken up in the legislature through a concurrent resolution introduced in the Senate by Senator Watkins. This action comes from the country members, who are thoroughly aroused against the treaty and who have been declaring they would enter a protest in the legislature. The general belief around the capitol is that while the house will probably have enough votes among its country members to pass such a protest, it is hardly likely that the Senate will concur. As a matter of fact the legislature is divided with a sharp distinction over this matter. All the city members are shouting for the treaty, while all the country members are strongly opposed to it. It is practically possible to call the roll on the question now because of the drawing of the line so sharply. Senator Watkins' resolution is as follows:

Whereas, The Canadian exports are very largely agricultural, and it is proposed to open the great American markets to the agriculture of Canada and to allow the vast and growing production of this great domain to come into active and unrestrained competition with the products of the American farmer, who has only recently come into his own and begun to receive some share of the benefits to be derived from the long-fostered industries and markets of the country; and,

Whereas, Believing that there is no possible adequate advantage to come to the American farmer from such reciprocal trade arrangements, but only agricultural stagnation, since we believe it is the ultimate purpose of this measure to materially reduce the price of the farmers' products; and,

Whereas, It is universally admitted that the general welfare and prosperity of the country is most intimately related to the prosperity and success of the American farmer; now therefore, be it

Resolved, by the Senate (the House concurring), That we deem the passage by Congress of a measure that will result in throwing open the markets of this country to Canadian agriculture, a menace to the American farmer and a violation of the policy of Protection to American industries; and further be it

Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to each member of Congress from Michigan.

Michigan does not want Reciprocity— Free-Trade. Neither do the farmers of Osceola county, nor the people of Reed City, nor the Clarion. The Protective Tariff to the farmers, and Protection to American industries are good enough for us. Reed City (Mich.) Clarion.

Within a week oats have reached the lowest price on the Chicago market in years. We wonder why.-Des Moines Capital.

SOME SOUND CANADIAN OBJECTIONS.

No Halfway House Between Commercial Union and Independent Tariff Systems.

Canadian Textile Journal for February. We are giving elsewhere the first instalment of a review of the history of the old reciprocity treaty between Canada and the United States, in order that some light may be thrown upon the proposed agreement now before parliament.

We may anticipate the conclusions of those articles by observing that, although the Canadian commerce affected by the old treaty was practically confined to lumber, fish and farm products, and presented a comparatively simple proposition, it took eight years of discussion and negotiations before that treaty was concluded. Now it is proposed to deal with a vastly more complex range of industry and trade, and an agreement, framed by two gentlemen on each side, after six months of intermittent study, revolutionizing the economics of a hemisphere, is presented to both countries in the form of an ultimatum, which must be accepted or rejected in its entirety.

When we reflect that the first great outcome of the abrogation of the old reciprocity treaty in 1866 was the creation of the Dominion of Canada in 1867, and that, after years of unexampled prosperity, this country at last sees its direct commercial connections establishd with the great nations of the world, there is something uncanny in great leaders turning their backs on the view of this promised land and inviting their followers to go back to fatten on the flesh-pots of Egypt.

Of Doubtful Advantage to Either Side. While it may be admitted that, if trade was absolutely unrestricted between these two countries, many individuals, and even many classes, would be convenienced thereby, yet, taken as a whole, the advantage to the United States is as questionable as to Canada, if each country is to maintain its national freedom unhampered. As will be seen by a study of the history to be given in next and succeeding numbers, the necessities of the Tariffs of Canada, and of the United States as well, brought about the cancellation of the old contract, and, so long as each country maintains its own Tariff, it will be found, as before, that there is no half-way house between complete commercial union and independent fiscal systems. Unhampered and independent action by both countries is better than the tying of knots, which only have to be undone later on, with more trouble and vexation than if each went its own way as a friendly neighbor.

Tariff Treaties and Annexation. It is worth noticing in regard to the history of reciprocity treaties of the United States that of the dozen treaties framed with other countries within the

past sixty years, beginning with Canada, the only two that were not economic failures ended in annexation. The first was the treaty with Hawaii, and the other with Cuba and Porto Rico. It is true that Cuba and Porto Rico are not annexed in name, but it is a fact that they are completely separated from Spain, their mother country, that the Spanish-American war was the logical outcome of the commercial influences created in Cuba by the treaty which preceded the war, and that no Tariff could be framed by Cuba today which would not be censored by the United States. In every other case these treaties presented no real advantages to the United States, because the equivalents asked by the other countries, though only fair, involved the sacrifice of large commercial and industrial interests at home that were justly entitled to their share of the Protection of the Tariff. Reciprocity Diminishes Independent Control. President Cleveland, though a low Tariff man, considered reciprocity an illusion, and one of his objections to such treaties was that it is evident that Tariff regulation by treaty diminishes that independent control over its own revenues, which is essential for the safety and welfare of any government." He approved of the treaty with Mexico only because there was then a prospect that it would be made unlimited; in other words, that Mexico would become fiscally a part of the United States.

It is curious that the rock on which the whole series of proposed reciprocity treaties between the United States and the South American countries visited by the reciprocity commissioners from Washington some years ago, split was the question of free wool. In some cases sugar was an element of the equivalents asked, but wool was the pivotal point, and when it was found that wool would not in any case be admitted free into the United States the South American republics would have nothing further to say.

Cleveland and Free Wool. Now it is remarkable that Cleveland, who finally discarded the reciprocity idea, and who had a fad for putting certain so-called raw materials on the free list, himself put wool-and not only wool, but flax and hemp-on the free list, and thus gave without hope of favor or without bargaining for concessions, what was vainly sought to obtain through reciprocity. Our readers already know what folloved Mr. Cleveland's attempt to provide cheap clothing for the people through free wool and free "raw materials." During his free wool regime ten to twelve million sheep were slaughtered, half the mills of the United States were closed, and the blessing of cheap fabrics could not be enjoyed by the people because they had no money with which to buy them. No such period of adversity was ever suffered by the citizens who were dependent upon their wages for a living.

Why Not Free-Trade in Canadian Wool? By the way, it is singular that in the new reciprocity arrangement now proposed between the United States and Canada wool does not appear in the schedule at all. Is it because too many millions of the wage-earners of the United States have such a vivid recollection of those bitter experiences that the present cry for "cheap clothing" does not excite the sympathy of those who went through the mill? Or has President Taft learned that the very proposal of wholesale revision of the woolen and worsted duties has sent a tremor of uneasiness into every part of the industry and the trades dependent on it, and has contributed to conditions by which millions of cotton spindles have been put on short time? Whatever the cause, wool-as well as other fibres and fabrics-is conspicuously absent from the free list in the proposed arrangement, but it is conspicuously present in the special message of the President in introducing the proposed Tariff agreement to Congress. He says:

"Reciprocity with Canada must necessarily be chiefly confined in its effect on the cost of living to food and forest products. The question of the cost of clothing as affected by duty on textiles and their raw materials, so much mooted, is not within the scope of an agreement with Canada, because she raises comparatively few wool sheep, and her textile manufactures are unimportant."

Why Canada Raises Few Sheep.

It is a sad fact that Canada has become insignificant as a sheep country, though rasing the finest sheep in the world and it is true that the woolen cloth branches of her textile manufactures have become "unimportant" as the logical outcome of reversing the conditions which have developed the United States' industry to colossal proportions. But wheat is on the free list, and if getting Canadian wheat free will enable United States millers to produce cheaper flour, and so cheapen the cost of living, as is expected; and if getting free pulp and pulp-wood will enable the United States newspaper proprietor to get his news print under free trade conditions, why are these advantages not handed around to all classes? There appears to be a screw or two loose in the mechanism of this reciprocity.

President Taft, in remarking that Canada "raises comparatively few wool sheep," probably supposes that Canadian sheep wear buffalo hair, or are fitted with the semi-ready clothing made from the all-wool textiles of Batley, Dewsbury, and the other manufacturing centers where flocks have wings and not legs.

President Taft in another part of his address says that "a source of supply of raw materials as near as Canada would certainly help to prevent speculative fluctuations, would steady local price movements, and would postpone the effect of a further world increase in the price of

leading commodities entering into the cost of living." That seems reasonable, and, since Canadian wool cannot find a market in Canada, because there is practically no worsted industry to use it, and has to be sold at 12 cents a pound less than the same wool brings in the United States, why does he not with one stroke put the Canadian sheep industry on its feet and furnish the United States' consumer with cheap wool to "steady local price movements," etc.

President Taft's "High Plane." Rising with the grandeur of the outlook, President Taft says:

The geographical proximity, the closer relationship of blood, common sympathies, and identical moral and social ideas, furnish very real and striking reasons why this agreement ought to be viewed from a high plane.

"High plane" is rather a tame phrase; it suggests only a plateau above the prairie, or at most the foothills of an economic Utopia, whereas President Taft and his fellow-negotiators, who have learned so well the diplomatic lessons taught by Lord Elgin in 1854, seem now to stand on the very summit of their Mount Nebo, viewing the promised land in the north, "where their possessions lie."

The "identical moral and social ideas" which have inspired these statesmen to accord to the proprietors of newspapers the inestimable advantages of Free-Trade in the raw materials of their particular business while denying the same benefits to many more needy classes of the community is a very promising basis on which to build that consciousness of moral equity which one associates with the word Reciprocity in its primary and general sense.

And yet, Heaven help us all, President Taft as sincerely believes he has advanced the cause of international amity as the members of the Canadian government themselves. Alas! that so much of our fruit turns out to be Dead Sea apples.

Joe Cannon to Blame.

A paper in Western Oklahoma recently printed an account of a citizen who sent two loads of Alfalfa hay to town and received $18 per ton for it. The same day this farmer rode to town in an automobile and took with him twenty dozen eggs for which he received 25 cents per dozen. He also, the same day, marketed 18 pounds of butter for which he received 30 cents per pound. This farmer incidentally stated that he had already sold $2,000 worth of wheat this year and had the money in the bank.

After attending to his marketing, he met the "fellers" on the corner and entered into a heated political discussion. He said that the present "hard times" (with $2,000 in the bank and still selling produce at big prices) are the result of "the Tariff, Cannonism and the house rules." Nothing but a Democratic Tariff bill, five-cent butter, eight-cent eggs and thirty cent wheat will cure such fellows. -Purcell (Okla.) Republic.

SHOWED UP A SOUND PROTECTIONIST.

George B. Curtiss on the Questions of an Extra Session of Congress to Reduce the Tariff.

Some

EDITOR AMERICAN ECONOMIST: time ago I received a circular letter from the New York World asking for any opinion upon the advisability of President Taft calling an extra session of Congress. I herewith enclose copy of the letter which I sent to the New York World. I have watched their paper from day to day and the replies from others which they have received, but do not find that they have thought it advisable to use the one I sent. If you desire to use it in the ECONOMIST, you may do so. Very respectfully,

GEO. B. CURTISS. Binghamton, N. Y., January 29.

The Questions Asked by the World. Do you favor a special session of the newly elected Congress in March to reform the Tariff and reduce the cost of living, thus responding as promptly as possible to the popular verdict of the November election?

Or do you believe that Mr. Taft is justified in deferring lower duties and a decreased cost of living until the first regular session of Congress in December, 1911, in which case the work cannot be completed before the summer of 1912, a year and a half after the election of last November and in the midst of all the party passions of a presidential campaign?

An expression of your opinion is earnestly desired. Enclosed you will find stamped envelope for reply. Very truly yours, THE WORLD.

The Unpublished Reply of Mr. Curtiss. BINGHAMTON, N. Y., January 20, 1911. Editor The World, New York City. Sir.-In your circular letter of the 11th instant you call for an expression of my opinion on two questions. You say, "First: Do you favor a special session of the newly elected Congress in March to reform the Tariff and reduce the cost of liv. ing?" I do not, for the following reasons:

In my opinion the President of the United States could not commit an act which would be so sure to completely upset the business of the country and bring about another panic as the calling of an extra session of Congress for the purpose of accomplishing a Democratic revision of the Tariff. The Democratic party is committed to a downward revision. It has already decided that Mr. Champ Clark shall be the Speaker of the next House, and substantially settled that Mr. Underwood, of Alabama, will be the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Clark and Mr. Underwood will, in a great measure, control the legislation of the next House and determine how far the Democratic party will carry its downward revision. Mr. Clark is committed to a Tariff for revenue only, but has recently suggested that it should be accomplished for gradual reductions similar to the Compromise Act of 1833. Mr. Underwood is committed to the policy of a Tariff for revenue only. Other prominent Democrats, and I think Mr. Champ Clark, still adhere to the old Democratic policy expressed in the deceptive words of "imposing high duties on luxuries and low duties on the necessaries of life." This means low duties on manufactured commodities. It means disruption of the industries of the United States; it means the introduction of a leveling process to bring the United States down to the European basis of production. This is not an untried plan. It is conceded by some of the most eminent Free-Trade writers that the execution of such a policy must necessarily cause a panic and a long period of depression in business, until at least the country becomes, if ever, adjusted to the new conditions. If the Democratic party represented in the next Congress is to undertake this work, it should have all the glory there is in it, and at the same time be held to answer to the American people for all of the injury that is inflicted on the country.

I do not criticise the Democratic party, from its past experience, for desiring to form a co-partnership with a Republican President in such a hazardous undertaking.

Your second question: "Or do you believe that Mr. Taft is justified in deferring lower duties and a decrease of cost of living until the first regular session of Congress in December, 1911?"

My answer is that Mr. Taft is not only justified, but it is his duty as a representative of the Republican party and the people who elected him to defer lower duties, especially when "lower duties" are those proposed by the Democratic party. You incorporate in your question the most deceptive expression, "referring to a decreased cost of living." This sounds like the recent Democratic battle cries: "Tariff Reform" and "capturing the markets of the world." The decreased cost of living to result from a Democratic revision of the Tariff is the most undesirable thing that the American people could possibly wish for. Low prices and low wages have existed during every low Tariff period we have had since the formation of the Government. This was the case between 1817 and 1824; again between 1837 and 1842; again in 1867; again between 1893 and 1897. During each period the industries in the country were disrupted; labor was thrown out of employment; prices fell; the country flooded with foreign wares; wages reduced; prices fell; the markets glutted and the people in the midst of plenty and an abundance of the necessaries of life were bankrupt and starving. Precious metals were exported to settle foreign balances of trade; spendable incomes of the people were reduced, and under the natural laws of supply and demand when competition between sellers was thhe greatest the cost of living was the lowest and the greatest hardships and sufferings were experi enced by the people. During these periods the speculator alone thrived.

With the unmistakable lessons of history before him, in my opinion President Taft should do nothing to hasten the day of such calamities. Very respectfully,

GEO. B. Curtiss.

It Out-Herods Cleveland.

Editor of Rochester Democrat and

Chronicle:

I am glad to see you have touched the reciprocity question very lightly. It is the most astounding thing ever sprung on the farmers. It out-Herods Cleveland. New York State produces more hay and potatoes than any other State, and if Congress ratifies the agreement it means ruin for those industries.

Pretty generally the shop keepers are in favor of it, saying that it is a good thing for the consumer and in the next breath are asking us farmers not to patronize the catalogue houses. They simply do not think deeply enough to realize that the farmers are the largest consumers of all and that the villages are wholly dependent upon the crops of their vicinity. But I suppose there is no use kicking, for when we get direct primaries, referendum, recall, direct election of United States Senators, then representative government is done away with. This Tariff legislation by executive order is but a commencement of what we will have. J. J. BACHMAN. Prattsburg, Feb. 11, 1911.

The Democrats in Congress have caucused on the President's Canadian reciprocity measure and have agreed to support it. This is the most unanimous action the Democrats have been able to take in many years.-Bath (N. Y.) Courier.

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS PROTEST

Against Allowing Canadian Cream Separ

ators to Come In Free of
Tariff Duties.

The following memorial, protesting against the unfairness of the proposed Tariff agreement with Canada, has been forwarded to Senators and Representatives in Washington by one of the largest concerns in the United States engaged in the manufacture of centrifugal cream

separators:

To the Members of the Senate and House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:

A protest against the placing of Centrifugal Cream Separators on the Free List under the proposed Reciprocity Treaty with Canada, and the reasons why this would be unjust, inequitable and unreciprocal, rather than reciprocal, without amendment of the agreement as it stands, as well as a very serious menace to the protec tion of American industries generally.

We beg to respectfully place the facts herein contained before you because personal inquiry has shown a lack of understanding and appreciation of them, as was manifestly the case on the part of the American negotiators of this proposed trade agreement, and because these phases of the subject are of much greater sig nificance and importance than casual consideration of it could well suggest. The Objection to Cream Separators Being Put on the Free List.

No logical reason has been discovered or suggested, from the American viewpoint, why centrifugal cream separators should have been placed on the free list, under the classification of "cream separators of every description," or why they should have been singled out for exclusive treatment in this way, apart from any other kind of machinery or anything else of a comparative class of manufacture, with the sole exception of "typecasting and typesetting machines adapted for use in printing offices."

There is scarcely a more highly refined piece of machinery made than the centrifugal cream separator, the revolving bowl of which requires to make from 7,000 to 15,000 revolutions per minute, and the machine to be so well designed and constructed that it can be run easily by hand and will at the same time last from ten to twenty years under the use of the unskilled farm operator.

The construction of the cream separator involves the use of iron, steel, tinplate, brass, bronze, glass and other materials of the highest qualities and the employment of the most skilled machinists and other classes of workmen. The industry is not an unimportant one.

Some 225,

ooo separators are sold in America every year, amounting to $15,000,000, and at least 10,000 employes derive their livelihood from the American separator industry.

Nor has any piece of machinery ever made conferred greater relative benefits upon its buyers-for-use than the centrifugal cream separator, which has revolutionized dairy methods, eliminated the intolerable drudgery, saved millions of dollars a year to the dairy farmer in quantity and quality of product, and, in fact, been the very keystone of modern dairying.

From the competitive standpoint there could surely be no reason for taking the duty off cream separators, as there are more than twenty entirely separate and independent American manufacturers, and in nothing else is there greater competition, without suggestion of trade combination of any character; while apart from the sale of separators in the usual way the large "mail order" concerns have for several years made a special "leader" of them at very low prices.

There can be nothing "reciprocal" in the American admission of cream separators free of duty from Canada, as with them separators have always been free, not only from the United States, however, but all other countries as well, as would continue to be the case. Hence the only possible new result would be the sharing of the American market with the Canadian (and probably European) manufacturers. Whatever that share might be must mean just so much less American manufacture and American skilled labor so employed.

If the fair and equitable rate of duty upon anything is to be inquired into and passed upon by the proposed new Tariff board certainly such consideration should be given to centrifugal cream separators, before the present duty of 45 per cent. may be reduced in favor of Canada or any country, much less altogether removed. The Probable Reason for the Extraordinary Inclusion of Cream Separators in the Free List.

In view of all this, some reason must be sought for the extraordinary inclusion of cream separators in the free list, and there is no doubt in our own minds that it is to be found in the fact that several Canadian manufacturers of separators, more particularly a very large one of harvesting and other farm machinery, the head of which, as well as that of another Canadian separator concern, is a Canadian Dominion senator, were instrumental in causing

it to be accomplished, through the Canadian negotiators, without appreciation of its significance on the part of those representing our own Government.

These Canadian concerns are now manufacturing separators in a comparatively small way for the Canadian market, which it does not pay them to do, because of the comparatively small sale of probably 30,000 separators a year in Canada, for which trade they have to compete with several of the American as well as a number of European manufacturers, because of cream separators being already on the Canadian free list from all countries, so that the possi ble sale of any one concern is very limited.

Hence the importance to these Canadian manufacturers of having the much greater American market opened to them, enabling their manufacture for sale in both countries to much greater advantage, especially the one large concern referred to, which has within a few weeks, and presumably while the reciprocity negotiations were pending, obtained control of the largest independent American harvesting machine company, chiefly, no doubt, because of its established agency organization.

The Unreciprocal Requirements of the Canadian Patent Laws.

Anyone owning an American patent has full protection under it regardless of whether the thing patented is made in the United States or elsewhere, or when made, if at all. On the other hand Canada prohibits importation under a Canadian patent after one year from its date of issue and requires manufacture in Canada to begin and be carried on continuously within two years from such date of issue; otherwise the patent lapses,

Therefore the placing of cream separators or any other American article of manufacture covered by Canadian patents on the Canadian free list means comparatively little to the American manufacturer, since he must nevertheless continue to manufacture in Canada in order to protect his patents there, while the Canadian manufacturer may have all the American patents he pleases and do his manufacturing at home, in one plant, for both countries.

In consequence the proposed new law would not relieve us, for instance, from the necessity of maintaining separate Canadian shops for the manufacture of all the patented parts of our machines as well as their final assembling there, with the extra investment and cost that this involves of divided factory and overhead expenses of all kinds, which extra cost amounts to from 10 to 20 per cent. of the manufacturing cost, and would place us at such a disadvantage in comparison with the Canadian manufacturer required to maintain but one factory. In fact, the new agreement would make some point in Canada between Buffalo and Detroit the ideal place of manufacture of cream sepa. rators for both countries, and if the agreement should be adopted and we could be assured of its permanency and were establishing a plant today we can think of no business consideration why we should not so locate it.

new

In respect to separator patents it should be explained that while they are no longer sufficiently basic to afford the different manufacturers material protection in a competitive way, they are nevertheless very essential, to the prin cipal manufacturers, in the protection of the details of construction of their particular types of machines, and so important to protect in Canada as elsewhere.

Surely it was an oversight on the part of our negotiators in placing reciprocal duties on any kind of manufactures the subject of patent rights in either country, or the mutual waiving

of duties, not to have required of Canada the same privileges in a patent way that the United States grants to the citizen of Canada; and it would not have been novel in any way to do so, since it was done by Germany, having patent laws similar to Canada, under our trade treaty with Germany of February 22, 1909, and it has been proposed should be done by Great Britain under our suggested copyright treaty with that country.

The Danger of Free Importation of EuropeanMade Cream Separators Under the Guise of "Canadian Manufacture."

Bad as all this may be, a further objectionable and inequitable probability is that any of the numerous Swedish, Danish, Belgian, German, British and other European manufacturers of separators will now be free to establish an assembling and finishing plant in Canada, somewhere near the American border, bring in free say four-fifths of the European made parts of their machines, there being no Canadian duty on separators or parts of same, make the other one-fifth in Canada, and then ship the complete machines into the United States free of duty, as of "Canadian manufacture."

It has not, of course, been the intent that such a thing should be possible, but with the phraseology of the agreement as it now stands we can see no reason why it would not be the result, since any other interpretation of it would require anything brought into the United States from Canada or into Canada from the United States to be of the absolute production and manufacture, down to the last detail, of the country from which imported.

While that should be the case we seriously doubt that such a construction can be placed upon the present language of the treaty or that such an interpretation is usual, from a Tariff standpoint, between different countries as to what is termed the "manufactures" of one or another country.

The Importance of Deliberate Consideration of Such a Measure. One needs but to discuss the proposed treaty with Senators and members of Congress to find that they have had practically no opportu nity for consideration of it. It will be seen how many important questions are involved directly and indirectly concerning cream separators alone. There must necessarily be many more as concern various items of the treaty, and still more as to its scope and practical working.

To those who believe in the principle of Tariff Protection to American industries it must readily be apparent that what we have pointed out as to cream separators can scarcely prove other than the entering wedge for its destruction, and, in conjunction with the manifestly unfair discrimination against the products of the farmer, means as certain as anything can mean the crumbling of the Protective system, with all that implies in the way of industrial and economical readjustment.

No one need go further for the most authoritative verification of this opinion than to have observed the characteristic smiles of satisfaction that so frequently illumined the countenance of the Honorable Champ Clark and the gleeful glances that he exchanged with Free-Trade colleagues during the hearings upon the measure before the Ways and Means Committee of the House, as, either voluntarily or in candid response to the question of some Democratic member, one point after another was made by those who appeared, all of them professing Protectionists, that if we are to have discriminatory Free-Trade in some things, we must speedily have it in many, if not all, others. On the one hand, some of those Republicans who stand for this measure for mistaken political reasons and frankly concede some of the objectionable features we have cited, say that it is not a "treaty" but merely an "agreement," the inequities of which can be remedied by later legislation, while on the other hand they tell you that it must be adopted or rejected as a whole.

If it can readily be amended later, it can certainly be amended now, and it must be easier to amend it now, as to any manifest inequity, than at some later time, when, conceding the right to do so, it would certainly be suggestive of bad faith on the part of one government or the other to have made such a treaty or agreement, call it as you will, and then quickly proceed to change the details of it.

While the first great claim for immediate adoption was the importance of reducing the

cost of living, Senator Beveridge in his speech in the Senate a few days since on behalf of the measure, presumably with the Administration's endorsement, abandoned the pretense of present reduction of the cost of living and laid stress instead upon the importance of warding off a still further increase at some future time. Be that as it may, it can involve no menace so great as to justify the adoption of this halfbaked measure, without the curing in advance of its manifest defects and inequalities, and its thorough and deliberate consideration by the legislative branch of our Government to that end, as well as by the people as a whole in one way or another affected by it.

Nor should the just and rightful interests of those who are unfairly affected be ruthlessly sacrificed by the jamming through of this measure as a political play to the masses of the cities, to whom any suggestion of reducing the cost of living naturally appeals, upon the theory, as a prominent Administration member of the Ways and Means Committee of the House has privately remarked within a day or two, "that the Republican party was going to h-l anyway and that this was the only thing he knew of that might possibly save it."

On the contrary, with nearly a million of the best and most influential farmers in America among our own patrons, and in close touch wi agricultural, grange and dairy organizations as we are, we respectfully submit that nothing could make that eventuality more certain than the ratification of the proposed Canadian treaty as it now stands.

THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY,

T. J. AREND, Treasurer.

165 Broadway, New York, February 14, 1911.

May Involve World-wide Tariff Quarrels. The keenest people after trade today are the Germans. It is predicted that Germany will be the first to put in a claim under the "most favored nation" agreements which govern commercial relations of this kind. If the United States should make reply that Canadian reciprocity does not establish new minimum Tariff rates, and that, therefore, Germany would not. be justified in applying maximum rates to the United States, the controversy would not end with such reply. There would be nothing to restrain Germany from negotiating new commercial agreements with her neighbors and denying to the United States the same advantages because we had reserved the right to make similar agreements with our neighbor on the north.

From such comparatively small beginnings might easily develop a general controversy that would result in a world-wide Tariff agitation and consequent disturbance in business affairs. In the olden days of territorial conquest a much less significant cause of irritation was sufficient to base acts of reprisal. The activities of nations today are confined almost exclusively to conquests of trade. The very nomenclature of commerce-"captains of industry," "war of rates," "fighting for markets," etc. indicates that these latterday battles, even if bloodless, are as disturbing in their consequences as those of old.-Pittsburg Gazette-Times.

If Senator Lodge had known in advance that the terms of the reciprocity agreement with Canada would include codfish, would he have committed himself to Canadian reciprocity when his election was in doubt?-Painsville (Ohio) Telegraph.

BAD ECONOMICS AND BAD POLITICS.

Free-Trade in Farm Products a Dangerous Tool for Republicans to Meddle With.

Washington Post, February 18. Regarding Canadian reciprocity, Wilbur F. Wakeman, of New York, treasurer and general secretary of THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE, said last night at the Arlington:

"I believe the bill passed by the House is ill advised, lacks thorough consideration, is indefensible, dangerous to American industry, and politically stupid. Let me quote a letter from the largest Canadian exporter of New Brunswick. This letter says:

What do you think of the chances of FreeTrade on potatoes coming into force on this year's crop? It is my humble opinion that the Maine and New York potato growers will work hard against the bill. Are you aware that we New Brunswickers will be in a position, with potatoes on the free list, of putting our stock into your market at a price that will give us the trade? In other words, look out for New Brunswick when it comes. We are having March weather here in St. Johns, and it is what we like for handling potatoes. Our Munson boat left here last Thursday with 23,000 bushels on board.

"I am reliably informed that potatoes can be delivered from New Brunswick to the Atlantic coast and gulf ports for less than one-half of the freight rates on similar products raised within fifty miles of any port of entry. I do not believe potatoes would be any lower to the ultimate consumer than now, for the middlemen would largely absorb the increased profits. This statement would apply with equal force to all leading agricultural products.

Politically Dangerous.

"From a Republican standpoint, Canadian reciprocity is equally dangerous. On the Canadian border we have thirteen States, with 26 United States Senators. There are only three or four Senators in all these States who have declared in favor of the trade pact, and, in my judgment, if the present agreement is passed, the Republican party might as well omit making any nominations next year in nearly all the border States. From an industrial standpoint, this country receives practically no advantages from the agreement. I hope and believe it will be defeated."

Billings Improved Sportsman's Knife

Smith &
Dove
Mfg. Co.

Manufacturers of

Threads

FLAX AND TOW YARNS,
SEWING TWINES, ETC.

(Cut Size)

blade. Strong