and bridge timbers, to the telegraph and telephone companies free poles, and to the brewers free barrel staves, but it does not make free ordinary lumber used for building purposes. Sawed lumber, not planed or matched and grooved, is free, but a substantial duty is retained on all the grades used for ordinary building purposes. The lumber that is free is seldom handled by retail dealers. The planed lumber is so much lighter in weight that transportation charges are enough less to make it much cheaper. It is useless to argue that this reduction, which is a dollar and a quarter a thousand, will affect retail prices. Everybody knows that the lumber dealers are in a combination that absolutely controls prices. This was clearly illustrated a few years ago when the wholesale prices fell some $6 to $8 per thousand without affecting the retail price of lumber. This reduction will not affect the price any more than did the like reduction in the Payne tariff law. It will only increase the lumbermen's profit. Those who claim that this will not injure the farmers say no one can profit by a tariff upon any article of which we export large quantities. Theoretically, this is true, but it is not true that we export any large quantity of any of the farm products raised along the northern border. The United States has almost ceased to export barley, flax, oats, hay, potatoes, butter, eggs, cheese, or poultry, and we only occasionally export any wheat raised in Minnesota or the Dakotas or any flour from such wheat. It is nearly all consumed in the United States. Minneapolis, which received annually more than 100,000,000 bushels of wheat during the last three years, did not export in the aggregate more than $50,000 worth of wheat and flour all told, and the combined export of Duluth and Superior, cities that receive about as much wheat as Minneapolis, have been reduced to some $6,000,000 or $8,000,000 annually, including the export of flour. Minnesota and the Dakotas produce nearly all the spring wheat in this country, and as spring wheat has some advantages over fall wheat for milling purposes it has made it possible to secure the added price. To the north of Minnesota and the Dakotas is Canada, with a territory now producing more than 100,000,000 bushels of spring wheat annually, of which Winnipeg last year received some 71,000,000 bushels, besides some fall wheat. The price for Canadian wheat of the same character as ours has during a number of years been about 10 cents per bushel lower than Minneapolis and Duluth prices. This advantage to our farmers as against Canadian prices applies to flaxseed and barley as well. Our newspapers have repeatedly called attention to this situation. I notice by the report on this bill that we are going to have millions of bushels of Canadian wheat come into our markets without affecting prices. In explanation it is said that the price is fixed by the Liverpool price. This is not true, as shown by a statement from the Department of Commerce and Labor giving the prices in these different markets. This statement shows that from September 1, 1909, to September 1, 1910, the price of wheat in Minneapolis was, with the exception of a few weeks, when there was a large surplus of grain, about 10 cents higher than the Winnipeg price for the same kind and grade of wheat in store at the Lake ports; and that while this premium existed the price of wheat in Minneapolis was on an average less than 10 cents lower than Liverpool and for three months higher than Liverpool, though it would cost Minneapolis about twice 10 cents to put it on the Liverpool market. This statement also shows that during this year the flaxseed was about 20 cents higher in Minneapolis than in Winnipeg.

When the Payne tariff law was under consideration, some two years ago, the Minneapolis millers filed with the Treasury Department statements showing that Minnesota wheat was about 9 cents higher than Canada, and it was then freely urged that this difference was often greater.

The Commercial West, considered excellent authority, has lately published a statement showing that during the last six months this same difference has been maintained between the price of wheat at Minneapolis and Winnipeg. It has also been claimed that the price in this country would not be decreased by admitting Canadian farm products, but that Canadian prices would advance to our prices. This contention is contrary to experience. The Canadian price is nearly always the European price less expenses of transportation, and as they double and treble their production of wheat, as they claim they will do, the spread between Liverpool and our prices will grow greater. Tables in the 1908 and 1909 Yearbooks of Agriculture show that the difference in the average farm price of wheat between Minnesota and New York has gradually decreased as competition for the wheat has increased. Prior to 1875 the difference was 75 cents per bushel. Thas has been reduced, so that in 1909 it was less than half of the cost of transportation from Minneapolis to New York. As long as

wheat was freely offered the difference ranged between 20 and 25 cents, so as to permit export, and there is every reason to believe that as soon as the Canadian wheat creates a surplus in our markets the same condition will again exist. I will print the tables from the Department of Commerce and Labor. On examination you will note that during the thrashing season, when much grain is rushed into the market, Liverpool was about 30 cents higher than Minneapolis and Winnipeg, clearly showing the effect of this temporary surplus, and that even Winnipeg for a few days after having disposed of its export wheat was a trifle high for export. It may be urged that this is an unfair condition, but if you will examine the figures you will find that the farmers of the Northwest are only gaining by the tariff about one-third to one-half of the expenses of placing their crops upon the Liverpool market.

In this connection I desire to call your attention to the report of the Select Committee of the Senate on Wages and Prices of Commodities in the United States, dated January 23, 1910, which says, page 13:

Witnesses agree that farming operations were conducted at a loss, or at best with only a slight margin of profit, for several years, and that only during the past two or three years have farmers been able to secure a fair return on their labor and investments. The wealth of the farmers has increased largely through the increase in the value of their land.

The State University of Minnesota has since 1902 kept in the greatest detail record of a number of farms in that State. Allowing the farmer, his wife, and children pay at current rates for all labor performed, the net profits during the three years 1905 to 1907 was only 4.09 per cent, and this profit advanced to about 6 per cent during the years 1908 to 1909. The profit during the past two years approximates the average interest on farm mortgages in the State.

Is there any industry that pays less?

It is claimed that there is no difference between the United States and Canada that will justify a protective tariff. For 50 years or more the American farmer in the North has steadily supported protection to build up a market here, and has consented to pay higher prices for manufactured commodities, so that it might be accomplished. Now, when this market has been built up and the farmers are reaping some advantage in prices by reason of protection, the advantage is to be denied and he is still to go on and pay the price of protected goods for what he is to purchase. If a person should in a private transaction do what is proposed to be done by this treaty, he would earn the contempt of all his neighbors. But there are economic reasons. Our lands are old and in need of fertilizers, while the lands of Canada are new and rich in plant food. This will make it impossible for our farmer to raise as large crops with as little expense as his Canadian competitor. Then, our lands are on an average more than $30 per acre higher in price. This difference in price at 6 per cent means a difference of more than 10 cents per bushel on the grain raised per acre. Canadian grain is likely to be placed upon our market at as low a rate for freight as our own, because the railways crossing the international boundary are not subject to regulation under our laws.

This unequal competition will probably have much the same effect, though I hope not so serious, as did the opening of our grain fields in the West upon the eastern farmer. When the Middle West commenced to develop these fields the eastern farmers were enjoying prosperity, but they soon found it very difficult to compete. Their farms gradually decreased in value, and much land was entirely abandoned. Take, for instance, the six States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maine, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Their farm lands and improvements lost in value between 1880 and 1890 about $207,000.000, between 1890 and 1900 another $99,000,000, making a total loss in 20 years of some $306,000,000. Over one-third of the farm land that was improved in Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont in 1880 was unimproved in 1900, and one-half of the area of improved farm land in Massachusetts and New Hampshire in 1880 was unimproved in 1900. During this same time many millions of acres of land were abandoned as farms. But this does not represent the total loss due to this competition, because while it was going on great cities were being built in their midst that prevent much of this loss by making the land valuable for gardening and other purposes in which competition was not so severe. This matter is of vital importance to the farmers of this country, not only to those of my section, but throughout the United States. If the farmers of the Northwest are driven out of grain raising they will be compelled to compete with the farmers of other sections in other lines of agriculture. The expenses of growing grain have steadily increased, and unless a fair price is maintained the margin of profit will disappear. One of the largest milling concerns at

Minneapolis, the Washburn-Crosby Mills, in an interview opposing this treaty expressed the fear that Canadian competition will drive our farmers out of grain raising, and thus compel their mills to depend entirely on Canadian wheat. If you expect agriculture to prosper, you must allow it fair compensation for its products. You can not expect to keep the boy on the farm if he can only hope to eke out a mere existence.

Those who contend that the conditions in Canada are such that there is no justification for protecting our markets against their products have a curious way of showing the sincerity of their professions. With one or two minor exceptions, for which there are political reasons, they are careful to leave ample protection upon any article manufactured or produced in our cities, and single out the farmers and fishermen as the ones upon whom to practice the creed. If they were sincere they might as well have tried this theory upon some of the articles controlled by a trust. But, oh no, that would not do. These trusts must not be disturbed. It is argued that because of their existence this legislation is justified. Not because the farmers have formed a trust, but because people are up in arms against the extortions of the trusts and that something must be done to satisfy the people. Of course it is not necessary to prevent this extortion; let the farmers make up for the unconscionable profits of these trusts. That was the argument that put hides on the free list and is now used to put other farm products on the free list. If you imagine that you can convince our farmers that your love for the Canadian and not your own love of gain is your reason for supporting this treaty, you will awake to find yourself disappointed. If you think that you can cajole them into the belief that they are not hurt, you simply insult their intelligence. There is no good reason why one class of our producers should have their markets protected against foreign competition while others equally deserving are denied such protection. Protection can only be fair if all are treated alike. The protected countries of Europe recognize the justice of this claim and freely accord protection to their farmers. If this treaty is adopted it will mean a loss to the Northwest of millions of dollars annually, not only to the farmer, but also to the cities and villages. The money received by the farmer for his products goes back to your merchant for his supplies made in your mills, your shops, and factories. You can not injure the farmer without injuring the cities and villages.

It is perfectly plain that some of those favoring this treaty are doing everything they can to misrepresent its nature and effect. You may call their attention to the fact that the threat to put it into effect has already materially reduced the price of farm products, and that under every known law of trade further reductions are inevitable. It is all to no purpose. Many are eager for this reduction; others regret this, but see personal advantages that dominate their course. The millers and elevator men are assured of fortunes in an abundance of cheaper grain; the railroads anticipate added tonnage and added dividends from Canadian products; the newspaper men are promised free print paper, but all in chorus protest that they are not selfish. These thrifty patriots. hugging a hope of gain from the farmer's loss, assume a haughty air of su periority and extol themselves as great, enlightened statesmen, whose hearts bleed for suffering Canada. In the flush of present triumph they threaten and browbeat all opposition. But let me suggest to them, this is the Cobden corn law. When it is adopted, what further interest has agriculture in protection, and what justification is there for preserving to other industries our markets? If America is willing to get down from its high standard of living and take its chances in the fierce contest of a world competition, good and well.

Quotations of flaxseed at the Minneapolis, Duluth, and Winnipeg markets from September 26, 1910, to January 23, 1911, as reported by Commercial West.

Minneapolis cash wheat quotations of Nos. 1 and 2 northern (track), compared with Winnipeg quotations of No. 1 northern "in store," Fort William or Port Arthur terminal elevators, and Liverpool quotations of No. 2 northern Manitoba.

Mr. SULZER. Mr. Chairman, reciprocity is an American doctrine, and in harmony with the commercial spirit of the times. I shall vote for this bill to promote reciprocal trade relations with the Dominion of Canada because I'believe it will be in the best interests of the producers and the consumers of our people and the people of Canada, and to some extent it will materially reduce

the cost of some of the necessaries of life. The only fault I have to find with this reciprocity agreement is that it does not go far enough to meet my views regarding genuine reciprocal trade relations.

However, I desire to say this measure is a step in the right direction and to that extent meets my approval, and hence I reiterate the hope, so often expressed by me, that something will be done substantially ere long to bring about freer commercial relations with our neighbors on the nerth-the Canadians— and with the progressive people of our sister Republics, in Mexico and in Central and South America.

Here is the true field, it seems to me, for our legitimate expansion of trade, for broader markets, for our industrial endeavors, and for our commercial extension; and now is the time for an exhibition on our part, as the representatives in Congress of the people of the United States, of a little political sagacity and the exercise of good business foresight in the enactment of this legislation that will mean more and more commercially as the years come and go to our producers, to our consumers, to our merchants, to our manufacturers, and to all the people of our country.

For years I have been advocating true reciprocity with our sister countries north and south. As I view the situation, we either attempt to go too far afield on the one hand, seeking trade at great expense in distant lands, or we display a lack of business knowledge and exhibit a narrow provincialism on the other hand, declining trade at our doors, that is as detrimental to our best interests as it is deplorable in our statesmanship. Canada, Mexico, Central and South America are our neighbors and our real friends, and they should be our best customers; and they would be our best customers if we only had the commercial sense and the political wisdom to deal with them aboveboard, in the spirit of trade equality, and treat them fairly and reciprocally along lines mutually advantageous.

Sir, the statistics conclusively show that this trade at our very doors is growing more important and becoming more valuable every year. Why should we ignore it? European countries are doing their best to secure it, and the facts prove that they are getting the most of it at the present time, very much to our detriment and to our disadvantage. Why will our people always be blind commercially to their own best interests and to their own greatest opportunities? Why spend millions of dollars seeking trade in the Orient when the commerce of the Occident-richer than the Indies is knocking at our door? Let us obliterate the obstacles, tear down the barriers, and open wide the doors to welcome the commerce of North and South and Central America, on land and sea, ere it is too late and the opportunity to secure it be lost forever. Now is the accepted time. These countries are anxiously awaiting the outcome of our deliberations. They are watching the enactment of this legislation. They long for some evidence of our friendship and sincerity. They want to trade with us. They will meet us more than halfway. Shall we disappoint their most sanguine expectations? Shall we ignore this most valuable trade, these great commercial opportunities, and give these splendid markets wholly and entirely to foreign countries? I trust not; and so I say again that I hope, ere we adjourn, the pending bill will become a law.

Mr. Chairman, the people of these countries to our north and to our south are the true friends of the people of the United States; they look to us for protection, for sisterly sympathy, for a reciprocal exchange of products; they need our help in their industrial progress; they desire our aid in the marketing of their exports; they appeal to us for financial assistance in the development of their great natural resources; and their resources and their products are greater and richer than those of countries far away across the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans. We should aid them in their struggle for better conditions. We should extend to them a helping hand in their onward march of progress. We should glory in their prosperity. Their success is our success. They are rapidly forging to the front: their exports and their imports are increasing annually; their trade is becoming more and more important, their commerce more and more valuable; and instead of closing our doors by tariff barriers against these countries and their products, in my opinion, we should open them wider and do everything in our power to facilitate closer trade and commercial relations. We want their products and they want our products. and all restric ions to prevent a fairer and freer exchange of goods, wares, and merchandise should, in so far as possible, be eliminated. It will be for the best interest of the people of the United States, of lasting benefit to our