ONE-SIDED, UNFAIR AND INIQUITOUS.

Why Several Millions of American Farmers Oppose the Canadian Tariff Agreement.

The letters which we print below, with the writer's permission, are interesting and significant at this time. They are written by John M. Stahl, editor of the Farmers' Call and the Illinois Farmer, president of the League for Rural Welfare, and legislative agent for the Farmers' National Congress. We are not advised as to the reply of Vice-President Sherman to Mr. Stahl's letter of February 18. but have no doubt that it is in harmony with his statement of the preceding

September, that

The legislation which most vitally affects the farmer's interest is the Tariff, and it would seem to me that their interests were best served by the continuance of the present Protective Tariff law.

Farmers Indignant and Bitter. Mr. Stahl writes as follows regarding the attitude of the farmers toward the proposed Tariff Agreement with Canada:

Editor AMERICAN ECONOMIST: Referring to your favor of 16th, I enclose copy of letter I wrote to Vice-President Sherman. I have not received any reply and hardly expected any. You are at liberty to use as much of it or as little as you see fit.

By this time I have been able to hear from hundreds of farmers in the great agricultural States and with but one exception they have most indignantly and bitterly condemned the proposed reciprocity arrangement with Canada. One thing can be counted on as quite certain: If this iniquitous arrangement goes through the farmers will see to it that if what they sell is on a Free-Trade basis, what they buy will be put on the same basis. We have enough votes, with the Democratic votes that believe in that sort of an arrangement, to make it effective inside of three years. The farmers always have been the independent, conservative voters. They have been very sadly misrepresented and misunderstood. There has been a revolution among farmers in the great agricultural States during the past five years, and they are now thoroughly intelligent and independent voters. They are capable of taking care of their own interests. Respectfully yours,

JOHN M. STAHL, Legislative Agent Farmers' National Congress. Chicago, February 25, 1911.

"One-Sided, Unfair and Iniquitous." League for Rural Welfare for Farmers by Farmers With Farmers.

Office of the President, Chicago, February 18, 1911. To the Vice-President, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: Last September, as the time for the annual session of the Farmers' National Congress approached, I wrote you as well as the President and other public men of much prominence, asking for suggestions as to the legislation of most importance for farmers to consider.

You kindly replied under date of September 19 last, and the second paragraph of your letter reads as follows:

"I have no suggestion to make other than that it is to me so clear that it would seem unnecessary to offer argument to any farmer, that the legislation which most vitally affects the farmer's interest is the Tariff, and that it would seem to me their interests were best served by the continuance of the present Protective Tariff law." On behalf of the Farmers' National Congress and the millions of farmers in the great West which it represents, I respectfully ask you to consider the foregoing quotation in reference to the proposed reciprocity agreement with Canada.

The farmers have always been the backbone of the Republican party. The Democratic vote has been in the cities and the Republican vote in the country.

If you will look up the election statistics you will see also-and I mention this because it is so contrary to the general belief-that the populist vote was never in the country, but always in the towns and cities, and that the farmers always voted against the rag baby, free silver, etc., and for sound money.

For decades they have voted consistently and persistently for the Protective system, although it was of practically no direct benefit to them and certainly increased the price they had to pay for many lines of manufacture.

Now it is proposed, when the Protective system may be of some direct benefit to them in the immediate future, to remove that Protection altogether where it will be effective in their interests, without touching in any way the duties on manufactured articles.

If you or any one else thinks that the millions of farmer voters will not at future elections pronounce a proper verdict on any proposed action so one-sided, unfair and iniquitious, you certainly are far from knowing the American farmer of 1911, who has been reading the daily paper and enjoying the rural mail delivery for some years.

We are not making any noise, for that is not the way of the farmer, but during recent years we have learned well some very good matters about voting. Certainly I am not so foolish as to write that with the least thought of a threat, but I do write it as a Republican firmly believ ing that in the continuance of real Republican principles and policies, among which the Protective system is probably the most important, lies the solid and substantial prosperity of our people.

Lay after day it is stated in the daily papers that if the present Congress does not pass the McCall bill to put into effect the "reciprocity" arrangement with Canada, the President will call an extra session of Congress to force Congress to adopt this measure.

I am familiar with the Constitution of the United States, and I have never been able to find therein any statement of the duties of the President of the United States which included forcing Congress to enact legislation that he may think wise.

I have carefully read the Constitution of the United States and also what records are available to show the intentions and ideas of those that framed that Constitution, and I am certain you will agree with me that it is plain that the duties of the President are properly executive, and that any Congress that will be moved by the threats of the President is too imbecile and cowardly for respect, and is certainly unpatriotic.

In conclusion, we have done as you suggested in your esteemed favor of September 19 last. We have always upheld the Protective system. Now is it not a fair question for us to ask you what you are going to do about the proposed Canadian reciprocity?

With most profound respect and having all regard for your great attainments and the dignity of the great office you hold, I must respectfully request your frank reply to this query.

I have the honor to be very respectfully yours, JOHN M. STAHL, President of League for Rural Welfare and Legislative Agent Farmers' National Congress.

Honest About It.

The New York Herald is making a hard campaign for reciprocity. The Herald is honest about it. The other day it printed a big picture showing the following signs on the packages shown: "Cheaper Poultry," "Cheaper Vegetables," "Cheaper Meats," "Cheaper Wheat," "Cheaper Foods." In New York they are making no secret of the fact that they expect everything that the farmer grows to be cheaper in the United States. All the things that farmers grow and sell are marked "cheaper." But when they come out West they argue that, after all, things will not be much cheaper. Somebody, as we have remarked before, is going to get left in this jugglery.-Cedar Rapids Republican.

THE PRESIDENT'S CANADIAN POLICY.

It Is the Worst Blow that American Protectionism Has Received in Fifty Years.

(Bulletin American Iron and Steel Association.)

To the Editor: I was very much amazed at the President's proposal of the reciprocity agreement with Canada. In my opinion it is the worst blow Protectionism has received in fifty years. It was more easy to combat an open foe like Cleveland and his followers than it will be to defend the cause against attack in our own party. I would not expect a perceptible reduction in the price of farm produce immediately arising from its free admission from Canada. The great harm which the agreement would inflict on the country would come from an increasing displacement of American produce during a long term of years. Every dollar's worth of such produce brought into the country would displace the same amount which should be produced here and thereby diminish the purchasing power of our agriculturists. The great damage, however, which would be inflicted upon us would be found in the effect on future Tariff legislation. The agreement is based upon the most fundamental principle of Free-Trade-that the people should buy where they can buy the cheapest. If the manufacturing and urban population of the country remove the duties from the produce of the farm for the purpose of buying farm produce where they can get it the cheapest, the farmer will take the duties off from manufactured goods and insist that he should be accorded the same privilege of buying his clothing, etc., in the cheapest market.

It has taken hard and persistent work to convince a majority of the farmers that by building up a system of manufacturing through Protective duties we would raise up in America a great home market for their produce and secure to them adequate rewards for their toil and an increased value of their farms. Within the last twelve years American farmers have reached that happy state which has been held out before them ever since the formation of the Government. Now, just as they begin to enjoy and see the actual results of our system of Protection, they are to be stricken down.

This means that every Protectionist in the country must take off his coat and go to work. The whole battle must be fought over again; the present generation must be educated. We may have a depression in business; we may have a severe panic; but in my opinion the logical end will be as it has been in the pastafter a short experience with low duties the people will return to the support of that cause which has made America the richest, most prosperous, and greatest nation in Christendom.

REPUBLICAN.

At this writing, March 1, it seems certain that the Canadian agreement bill will not be passed by the Senate. For its failure to pass the Republican party will, we believe, have occasion to be thankful. It is a fortunate escape from the worst situation in which that party has ever been placed. Nothing which threatened to be so destructive of party solidity, nothing so certain to prove destructive of every chance of party success at the polls in the next election of President and Representatives in Congress has ever occurred in the history of the Republican party.

A measure so completely non-Republican that its passage by the House was made possible only by the solid support of the Democratic minority in the House, and which was opposed by a majority of the Republicans whose votes are recorded, deserved to be killed by a Republican Senate. Once more the Senate has demonstrated the wisdom which the fathers of the Republic exercised when they made the Senate a really deliberative body.

In refusing to be swayed by administration pressure or influenced by administration threats of an extra session the Republican leaders of the Senate have earned the gratitude of their party and the approval of the whole country. They have saved the party from demoralization, disintegration and defeat. In so doing they have saved the business interests from the disastrous consequences of bringing into complete control the party of Free-Trade and bankruptcy.

Considering the tremendous storm of protest and resentment that has been stirred up among the millions of Republican farmers by the astounding proposal to abolish Protection for what they have to sell, while retaining Protection on all that they have to buy, there is, we think, no shadow of doubt that at the election of 1912, these angry farmers would go to the polls and vote to "make it unanimous"; that is, vote for Free-Trade for everybody.

more

The American farmer is slow to wrath, but a mighty force when once aroused. Never has he been thoroughly aroused than when he became aware of the proposed betrayal of his rights, the sacrifice of his interests, the repudiation of his claims for justice and a square deal that were involved in the scheme of Free-Trade for the farmer and his products and Protection for everything and everybody else.

In last week's hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance, numerous representatives of the farmers appeared and voiced the protest and the warning which have been expressed by the National Grange, the State and county granges, the Farmers' Congress, the rural leagues, and

For half a century the Republican party has been kept in power by the farmer vote. Without that vote the Republican party could not have carried a single national election. Through the farmer vote the policy of Protection has been maintained. The farmer has learned, after many years of doubt, that he is helped by Protection, and so has been willing to reciprocate by granting Protection on what he buys while receiving Protection on what he sells. That is the farmer's idea of reciprocity, and it is the only kind of reciprocity that he stands for. Therefore, now take notice that if the Republican party deserts the farmers in the matter of Protection, the farmers will in their turn desert the Republican party. Better Free-Trade for all producers, industrial as well as agricultural, than Free-Trade for farmers only and Protection for manufacturers.

Messages of this purport have been pouring into Washington in great numbers in the past fortnight. They have only begun to come. Most fortunate it

is that there is enough of common-sense and political sagacity left in the Republican ranks in the Senate to hear and heed these messages and to defeat the proposed Canadian Tariff agreement.

Done in Ignorance.

The haste, the incompleteness of inquiry and the lack of important information which characterize the draft of the Canadian Tariff agreement are plainly indicated in the memorial of protest forwarded to Senators and Representatives at Washington by a business concern engaged in the manufacture of cream separators. For some reason these articles, of which $15,000,000 worth a year are made and sold in the United States, are placed on the free list. Probably not a single one of the American negotiators could give any good reason for slaughtering this American industry. There is no good reason. It was done in ignorant disregard of the rights of American labor and industry.

Strange Bedfellows.

American Farmers Intensely Aroused.

February 21 was an illuminating day in the record of the Canadian Tariff agreement. In the seven hours which the Senate Committee on Finance devoted to the hearing of testimony concerning the effect certain to be produced by the working out of the proposed Free-Trade agreement with Canada much was developed of an illuminating character. It seems unfortunate that the illumination could not have taken place before the unwise agreement was determined upon by the negotiators representing the two countries. But

it is very evident that the negotiators on the American side were not greatly desirous of being illumined.

One of the most interesting witnesses before the committee was Representative Gardner of Massachusetts, whose constituency is largely made up of Gloucester fishermen who are in danger of being entirely put out of business through Free-Trade in Canadian fish. Mr. Gardner drew attention to a fact which our American negotiators seemed to have been totally unaware of, namely, that the Canadian Government pays bounties to Canadian fishermen and subsidizes the fish warehouses of Canada. That of course makes it so much harder for American fisherman to do business under Free-Trade in fish. Being asked by Senator Hale whether he had ever been consulted by any one about the effect the

to be injuriously affected was permitted to present a statement before the negotia

tors.

In the hearing of February 21 some strong and significant statements were made relative to the attitude now taken and hereafter to be held by the farmers of the United States. One of the witnesses was Aaron Jones, for eight years Master of the National Grange, and now at the head of the Indiana Grange and chairman of the executive committee of the national organization. Mr. Jones

farmers, by the Eternal, we will have it for everybody before another two years roll by." Mr. Jones added: "I have not seen the people in the agricultural districts so thoroughly aroused since the day Fort Sumter was fired upon."

Numerous other farmer witnesses, heads of state and county granges, appeared before the committee and testified to the intense feeling of opposition and resentment which prevails among American farmers with reference to the pending Tariff agreement with Canada.

proposed agreement would have upon the New England fishing industry, Representative Gardner replied:

I called at the office of the Secretary of State, but I was unable to see him. I was told that I could have one minute if I saw the President. He told me he was interested in my statement, but was not able to discuss it. He gave me to understand that the question was a closed issue.

It was brought out in the course of the testimony that no Senator and no Representative was consulted in any way regarding the negotiations. It is also true that no person whose interests were likely

stated, what is an unquestionable fact, that for many years the farmers have been the main support of the Protective Tariff; that without their support no Republican President could have been elected, and that if they were now to be "rewarded" for their devotion to Protection by the installment of Free-Trade in their products, then they would cease following the Republican party. "I voted for the party because I believed in the Protective Tariff," said Mr. Jones; "but if we are to have Free-Trade for the

It is rather late in the day to bring out such testimony. It should have been brought out while the negotiation was in progress. Instead the policy seems to have been to rush into a Tariff bargain with Canada blindfolded so far as any consideration was concerned that affected injuriously important interests on the American side.

That is one of the faults and defects of carrying on Tariff dickers in secret.

But better late than never. The testimony given February 21 should serve to strengthen the opposition to the Canadian agreement and make its adoption by

the Senate impossible. In any event it is a standing record of protest against one of the most remark

able economic and political blunders in the history of the American people.

What Counts.

Republican Congressmen from farming districts were mastered by the groundless apprehension that reciprocity would work harm.-New York Mail.

Is the apprehension groundless? The Mail thinks it is; the farmers of the United States think otherwise. It is what the farmers think that counts in this country, not what a Broadway editor thinks. It is the farmer vote which determines the political complexion of Congress and the administration. No one knows this better than Republican Congressmen from farming districts. Not even a sap-head Broadway editor knows it better, or so well. Some people had best be looking as far ahead as 1912.

They Will Better the Instruction.

Representative Morse of Wisconsin has an entirely logical and consistent idea regarding the proper development and operation of the Free-Trade doctrine embodied in the proposed Tariff agreement between the United States and Canada. Rightly he contends that if there is to be Free-Trade in the products of an American industry, then common sense and common justice require that the industry thus deprived of Protection on what it produces should and must have the benefit of buying in the cheapest market everything that it uses in the manufacture of its product. Accordingly Mr. Morse has introduced the following bill in the House of Representatives:

61st Congress, 3rd Session, H. R. 3275 In the House of Representatives, February 13, 1911, Mr. Morse introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed.

A BILL

Placing articles imported into the United States for use in the construction and equipment of pulp and paper mills and in the manufacture of the products thereof on the free list. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following articles, now dutiable under the Tariff Act of August fifth, nineteen hundred and nine, whenever imported for the purpose of being used in the construction and equipment of pulp and paper mills, or in the manufacture of the products of such mills, are hereby made exempt from all duties and are placed upon the free list: Sulphuric acid, alum, chloride of lime, aniline products, dyewoods, glue size, blanc-fixe, chrome colors, ocher earth, ultramarine vermilion reds, pigments, bichromate of potash, prussiate of red, prussiate of yellow, sal soda, soda ash, silicate of soda, sulphur, fire brick, brick (cement), tiles, cement (in packages,) lime, china clay or kaolin, grindstones, pig iron, bar iron, steel beams, boiler or other plate iron or steel, forgings of iron or steel, cast-iron pipe, castings of iron or cast-iron plates, tanks or vessels, wire nails, cut nails and spikes, mill saws, circular saws, dextrin, starch, cotton waste, cotton belting, cotton duck, woolen felts and jackets, leather beltings, machinery, brass or copper wire cloth, bituminous coal, leather harness, and crosscut saws.

what he uses in producing the print paper.

So obviously correct and just a complement of the principle laid down in the McCall bill seems to have escaped the attention of the American negotiators of the agreement and of the Republican minority which assisted the Democratic majority in forcing the bill through the House. Assuredly it must have been overlooked by President Taft, whose eminently legal mind and correct perceptions of equity would naturally revolt against the gross injustice of Free-Trade in all that the manufacturer has to sell and Protection for all that he has to buy. The undue haste with which the Canadian agreement was formulated by the negotiators and rushed through the House of Representatives may be said to explain the Presidential oversight.

But there will be no such oversight when the Democrats get their chance. They will see to it that there is no halfway business. They welcomed the Canadian agreement for the Free-Trade there was in it, and they will take good care that, as Shylock said:

The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction.

Annexation or Flapdoodle.

The San Francisco Chronicle seems to think that there is rather more than mere "sound and fury, signifying nothing," in the talk about annexation. It

says:

It will be seen that this bill places on the free list articles which are the products of many different industries. proposition of Representative Morse, who is a Republican and a Protectionist, and whose constituents in thirteen Wisconsin counties are interested in supplying material for wood pulp and in converting the pulp into finished paper, is an absolutely necessary sequence of the Free-Trade in pulp and paper that is provided for in the Canadian agreement. It is an entirely sound contention that if the American producer of pulp and paper is to be exposed to Free-Trade competition in the partly manufactured material which enters into his product and also in the fully manufactured product itself, he must not be required to pay Protection prices for the articles used in the construction and equipment of his factory and in the manufacture of paper ready for the printer. Certainly, if the publisher is to have Free-Trade in what he uses to produce his newspaper, so must the manufacturer of paper have Free-Trade in

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

Now, if this didn't mean closer political ties, at some future time, what did it mean? If the same sort of talk had proceeded from a less distinguished source, we should be tempted to say that it either meant annexation, or else it was flapdoodle. The fact that it has "set two peoples into serious discussion" proves that it is anything but a joke.

What the Farmer Would Lose.

We are asked by an Iowa newspaper editor, one who does not believe that Protection for the American farmer is a fraud and a delusion, for some information relating to the difference in market prices of certain farm products on the American and on the Canadian sides of the border. The United States Collector of Customs at Pembina, N. D., furnishes the following figures:

Wheat.

December 31, 1910, wheat sold at Pembina for 89 to 91 cents a bushel, while at Emerson, just across the American border and scarcely a mile distant, the price was 79 to 81 cents. Practically the same disparity in price prevailed at twelve different points on the American side of the border as compared with nearby points on the Canadian side. In some instances the difference was even greater-being 93 cents on the American side, and 77 cents on the Canadian side.

January 10, 1911-the prices were as follows: United States: Pembina, 97 cents a bushel; Neche, 96 cents; Walhalla, 97 cents. Canada: Emerson, 82 cents; Gretna, 81 cents; Haskett, 82 cents.

Wheat prices again to-day went to new low levels, the quotations of May being the lowest since August, 1909. The possibility of the adoption of reciprocity with Canada was largely responsible for the big break of to-day and yesterday.

These figures, which are entirely official and reliable, will serve the purpose of pointing out to the farmers of the United States what they have to lose through the removal of Tariff Protection on equivalent products coming from the cheaper lands and lower priced labor of the Canadian Northwest.

If the United States needs more agricultural products, why not develop more fully our own lands instead of those of Canada?-Des Moines Capital.

An Ungracious Assumption.

Considering the benefits and the opportunities which the Democratic party has acquired as the result of blundering mismanagement on the part of its political opponents it would seem rather ungracious for the New York Times to censure President Taft for his hesitancy in calling Congress into extra session because the Democrats will then control the House of Representatives. The Times should be grateful for such favors. It ought to be glad to be able to state, as it does in a recent issue, that

We do not suppose that Mr. Taft can be blind to the fact that, if elections had been held last November for President, or could have been held for Senators, he would in all probability have bid good-bye to the White House a week from next Saturday and his successor would have been a Democrat with a good working majority to sustain him in both branches of Congress.

If surface indications may be taken as a guide, we are inclined to believe that President Taft would demur to the uncomplimentary assumption that if he had been a candidate last fall's election would have gone against him. Evidently, he does not see things that way. Evidently he is of the opinion that he is on the high road to greater renown and increased popularity. Perhaps he is. But neither his judgment nor that of the New York Times can settle that question a year and a half ahead of the actual test. Many things may happen between now and the next nominating convention, to say nothing about the next presidential election. For example, if the farmers of the United States should become convinced that Free-Trade in farm products was a good thing for them. Or if they should discover that it was a very bad thing for them! Much depends on that.

How Business Men Feel.

One of the most prominent members of THE TARIFF LEAGUE from Connecticut, writes us as follows:

In regard to Tariff matters will say we regret that there is no more stability in the matter. Business suffered greatly during the framing of the Payne-Aldrich bill, on account of the uncertainty about it. Now we hardly get our breath before there is another bill in the wind, and business is depressed, and, strange to say, it is being fostered by a considerable number of men heretofore considered good Republicans. Your humble servant would rather see a lower Tariff consistently and steadily maintained, than so much agation kept up in our own house, so to speak.

When we are in the hands of the Democrats we know what to expect, and prepare for it; but to be continually harrassed by those we consider friends, makes us feel like getting out of all connection whatever with the matter. Of course, a good, fair Protection is what we want, if it can be steady, but to be put to so much trouble by a shifting policy is worse, I believe, than to have a lower rate, adjust matter to it, and take a steady pace.

This, we believe, is the view entertained by the great majority of business men regarding Tariff changes. Tariff stability is one of the most vital needs of American business. It is undoubtedly true

that business would fare better with a lower Tariff steadily maintained than with a higher Tariff at the mercy of "reformers" and so-called "experts" and continually subject to change. The ideal condition for business is an adequately Protective Tariff that is not exposed to the whims of every crank and theorist who thinks he could "improve" it.

Has Had Its Chance.

In reporting without recommendation the bill for the ratification of the proposed Canadian Tariff agreement the Senate Committee on Finance did the right thing.

The bill was opposed by a clear majority of the committee, and it was in the power of the majority to either refuse to report out the bill or to present an adverse report. The inclination to do one or the other of these things must have been strong on the part of the loyal Protectionist majority, and we are not going to say that the wretched, blundering, vicious measure did not deserve precisely

that treatment. But in such case the muddleheads who favored the bill would have been certain to say that its opponents dare not risk laying it before the Senate for action. As the matter ended the Senate had the option to pass, to defeat, or to refuse to consider the bill. Either of the three courses of action would be equally significant. President Taft cannot now complain. His bill has had its chance.

Is It Not Time?

We highly value the following expression of approval and encouragement from Professor George Gunton, for many years recognized as one of America's deepest thinkers and ablest writers on the subject of Protection:

HOT SPRINGS, Va., Feb. 16, 1911.

Editor AMERICAN ECONOMIST, Dear Sir-THE ECONOMIST is to be congratu lated upon its firm stand against the onslaught of Free-Traders under cover of "Reciprocity." And still more for its clear exposure of the "Voice of Jacob" in that "one-schedule-at-a-time" trick upon the nation. Is it not time to be looking for a Protectionist for 1912? Yours truly,

Charles Heber Clark on Reciprocity.

It is of especial interest to reproduce at this time the able and effective address on the subject of reciprocity, and with especial reference to a Tariff arrangement with Canada, which was delivered by Charles Heber Clark before the reciprocity convention in Washington on the 19th of November, 1901. Additional importance attaches to this strong presentment of facts and figures and logical conclusions on the question of favoring some industries at the expense of other industries, owing to the circumstances surrounding the convention of 1901. It was held under the auspices of the National Association of Manufacturers. At that time the association was under the domination of interests which were greedily anxious for such a scheme of reciprocity in competing products as should secure for themselves valuable Tariff concessions upon their exports of mining and milling machinery, agricultural machinery, farm implements, plows, etc. To gain better Tariff terms for themselves from foreign countries these interests were willing to see our own Tariff so reduced as to enable foreign manufacturers to undersell American labor and industry in the American market.

In furtherance of this selfish and unfair policy the reciprocity convention of 1901 assembled in Washington. The exporting crowd seemed to be in full control. So certain was it considered that they would carry their measures with a high hand that THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE, invited to send delegates, decided that it would not, as an organization, take part in the proceedings of the convention.

But it turned out otherwise. The Middle West reciprocity shouters suddenly found themselves in a hopeless minority, and a resolution restricting reciprocity arrangements to "articles which we do not ourselves produce" was finally adopted by an overwhelming majority.

For this gratifying result the splendid speech of Charles Heber Clark was in the main responsible. Several speakers had preceded Mr. Clark, among them Mr. A. B. Farquhar, the Free-Trade manufacturer of farm implements, all of them advocating wide open reciprocity in competing products. It looked as though it was "all over but the shouting." Charles Heber Clark, by sheer force of logic and truth, upset the "kettle of fish." The convention declared for fair play and equal Protection for all forms of American labor and industry.

Read Mr. Clark's speech, which we reprint. It is true today as it was ten years ago, and it has a direct bearing upon the false and vicious propaganda which is endeavoring to bring about FreeTrade in Canadian products.