of the Union, reported that that committee had had under consideration the Canadian reciprocity measure (H. R. 4412) and had come to no resolution thereon.

TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1911.

CANADIAN RECIPROCITY.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H. R. 4412, the Canadian reciprocity bill.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the Canadian reciprocity bill, with Mr. Sherley in the chair.

Mr. McCALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield one hour to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Hill].

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I spoke on this subject in the last session of Congress at some length. I have no desire in any sense whatever to make a speech now, but I have some additional facts bearing on the matter which I desire to present, believing that possibly they may be of use in the further progress of this debate.

In discussing the question of reciprocity with Canada in the last session of Congress I tried to show that no harm would come to this country if the terms of the agreement were enacted into law, and that it would be in full accord with the practice of the Republican Party in the past and also with the provisions of the national Republican platform at the present time.

I pointed out

First. That in every case where we had made reciprocity agreements with other countries the result had been beneficial to both parties.

Second. That the pending agreement was in no sense a general tariff revision, but simply a straightforward business arrangement with a single adjacent country for the reciprocal exchange of such articles as the negotiators of both Governments believed, after most careful consideration, could be made, with safety to each other and for the mutual advantage of both, and that the special rates so made had no necessary bearing upon the general tariff relations of either Canada or the United States with the other countries of the world; and Third. That the racial characteristics of the respective peoples and the climatic conditions of the two countries fully justified an entirely different course of action of one toward the other from that which ought to control our relations with the peoples on the other side of the two oceans, where like conditions do not prevail. I laid down the fundamental principle that competition can not exist between the products of two nations except with reference to their exportable surplus, and showed the statistical position of the principal crops of Canada and the United States in this respect.

I think I demonstrated beyond dispute, for no reply has yet been made by anybody to the proposition, that the higher cost of living which now obtains in this country was due to an enormously increased demand for food products and a proportionately decreased productive power on our part, and that this great change, due largely to immigration and a transition from agriculture to manufacturing, had begun on the Atlantic coast and was steadily moving westward until now its influence was effective and controlling in the central West.

I pointed out, also, that the transference of millions upon millions of the foodproducing classes from the nations of Europe into the manufacturing industries of this country had made the tendency to a higher cost of living world-wide, and I expressed my sincere belief that the continuation of high prices for food products was inevitable, and that the only possible effect of complete freedom of exchange of all natural products between the United States and Canada would be to temporarily retard the rapid advances and to steady the fluctuations of the prices of the fast-diminishing export surplus of many of the food products of both countries, and that a considerable period of time would be necessary for a permanent readjustment of the present world-wide conditions of the cost of living.

I showed that the land values differed in the different Provinces of Canada as they did in the United States, but that taking all occupied farm lands in the Dominion, the average value was $38.60 per acre, as against a value of $23.38 of all occupied farm lands in the United States.

Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Connecticut yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma?

Mr. HILL. I will yield just for a question. I have only one hour, and I will take it all.

Mr. FERRIS. Where does the gentleman get those figures?

Mr. HILL. I get them, in the first place, from the Census Bureau of the United States, and in the second place from the census bureau of Canada. You will find the one in the Canadian Yearbook. Mr. Durand will give you the figures which he gave to me.

Mr. FERRIS. I only asked for information.

Mr. HILL. I quote now from the report of the Tariff Board of March 1 on that subject, specifying where the main differences are found, for the prices of farm lands are based on the yield per acre and selling price of the product: and that question is a vital one in the problem of the cost of living to all of our people.

I would be glad, if any of you have that report before you, to have you follow me in these quotations. These quotations which I shall read are summaries of the Tariff Board, not isolated extracts of prices across the border line, but the summaries of the whole investigation.

On page 84 of that report the board says:

In the great farming States of Iowa, Indiana, and Illinois the values of farm lands are very much higher than in any of the Canadian Provinces. In Illinois and Iowa they are a little more than twice as high as in Ontario.

The increase of land values between 1900 and 1910 has been marked in both countries. In certain of the Provinces the rate of increase has been higher than in any of the States. The highest rates of increase in the States are found where the highest land values obtain, namely, in Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa. But, on the other hand, Ontario, while reporting the highest Canadian land value, shows the lowest Canadian rate of increase. It is worth noting that Ontario is feeling the competition of western Canada, just as some years ago the eastern part of the United States felt the competition of our western lands.

It is impossible to make any significant comparative study of land values in western Canada and those in the United States. Western Canada is a virgin region; railroad lands have been sold to settlers at low prices and on liberal terms of payment; the Government has given away millions of acres under a liberal homestead law. In Manitoba the value of land per acre is $29, or $7 less than in Minnesota and Michigan; but owing to the recent settlement of Manitoba the rate of increase during the last 10 years is much greater than in those States.

Concerning wages in the wheat-producing sections, I quote from pages 85 and 86, as follows:

In general, it may be said that the wages of experienced season hands (hands employed for a period of seven, seven and a half, or eight months, beginning about April 1) are on the same general level in Manitoba and Minnesota, and also on the same general level in Saskatchewan and North Dakota, and they are higher in the last-named localities than in the two first named. Where North Dakota and Manitoba join each other the wages for season hands are about $5 higher in North Dakota than in Manitoba. The wages of harvest hands are practically the same throughout the two Provinces and the three States included in this investigation, with the exception of certain large farms in the States, where the rate is about 50 cents per day below the prevailing rate on the smaller farms.

So far as production per acre is concerned, the official reports show that of winter wheat, in which we excel, our land produced in 1910, 15.8 bushels per acre, and of spring wheat, in which Canada excels, her land produced 15.5 bushels per acre.

We produced 460,090,000 bushels of winter wheat as against 230,000,000 bushels of spring wheat. Canada produced 16,000,000 bushels of winter wheat and 133,000,000 of spring wheat. These are in round figures in both cases, for I am quoting from memory in this matter.

While these statements of land values, wages, and acreage product show clearly that there can be no appreciable difference in the cost of production, the fact of real importance is found in Tables 9 and 10, on pages 94 and 95, that in both countries, while the aggregate production has increased, the home consumption has increased still more rapidly-the United States exporting 6 per cent of its product in 1910 as against 10 per cent in 1909 and 15 per cent in 1908.

During the last three years of great immigration into Canada not only have its land values increased more rapidly than ours, but its percentage of wheat exports has fallen from 38.84 per cent in 1908 to 36.17 per cent in 1909 and 33.16 per cent in 1910.

I now call attention to the board's summary of other products. On page 107 it says of oats:

The highest American yields per acre, each about 42 bushels, are reported from the border States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington. This yield is not equaled by any of the Canadian Provinces. The next highest yields are those of the great oat States, Illinois and Iowa, each of which produces 38 bushels per acre. also the yield of Montana.

This is

The yields of Nova Scotia and Ontario exceed this by about 1 bushel. The highest American farm prices, 50 and 51 cents, are reported from New Hampshire and Vermont, respectively. The highest Canadian prices, 45 and 49 cents, are reported from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, respectively. Ontario receives 36 cents, as against 42 cents received by the New York farmer. The lowest Canadian price quoted is that of Saskatchewan-28 cents. The lowest American price is that of Iowa-27 cents. It is to be noted that the farm prices of more than half of the oat crop of the United States range from 27 to 35 cents a bushel, and that the farm prices of about the same proportion of the Canadian crop range from 28 to 36 cents.

HAY.

The highest American yield per acre, 1.4 tons, is reported by Montana. Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont each report a yield of about 1 tons per acre. The yields of the great hay States of the Middle West range from 1 ton to a little more than 13 tons. In Canada the average yields range from 0.87 ton, in Alberta, to a little more than 2 tons on Prince Edward Island.

What is Prince Edward Island?

I have been all over it, from one end of it to the other, and the crop of hay is insignificant, compared with the requirements of either Canada or the United States.

Ontario, which produces more hay than New York, reports an average yield per acre of 1.84 tons, as against New York's average yield of 1.32 tons.

The highest American farm price, over $15 per ton, is reported from New Hampshire and Wisconsin. The highest Canadian price, $14.58, is that quoted for Alberta. The Ontario price is $10.21, as against the New York price of $13.70. It should be noted that, owing to crop shortage, American hay prices were unusually high in 1910.

HORSES.

Prices of horses range from $106 to $125 per head in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. In Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota the range is from $111 to $126, and in Montana, Idaho, and Washington from $80 to $108. In eastern Canada prices of horses range from $107 to $139 per head, while in western Canada the range is from $107 to $156. In the great agricultural States of Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa prices range from $120 to $124. In all the Canadian Provinces, except Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia, the prices are higher than in any of our States.

As to horses, Canada has no surplus of importance outside of Ontario. The agricul tural development of the northwestern Provinces has put prices of work stock and heavy draft teams at a premimum in the territory tributary to Winnipeg. During the spring of 1910 it is stated on good authority that not less than 20,000 horses were sold out of Ontario alone for shipment to the market just mentioned, and prospective loss of this trade is giving Ontario some concern at this time. The five Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta combined have but 1,863,744 head, as compared with 1,600,000 head now in the State of Iowa alone.

DAIRY COWS (p. 109).

Prices of dairy cows range from $33 to $39 a head in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. In Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota the range is practically the same. In the western border States of Montana, Idaho, and Washington the range is from $41.80 to $46.50. In eastern Canada prices of dairy cows range from $32 to $48 and in western Canada from $39 to $41. The highest Canadian price quoted is $48, in Ontario, as against $46.50 in Montana, the highest American price.

CATTLE AND SWINE (p. 110).

Prices of other cattle vary in the United States from $14.30 a head in Minnesota to $27.40 in Montana, while in Canada the range of prices is from $31 in Saskatchewan to $34 in Ontario.

Prices of swine are slightly higher in Canada than in the United States. In our eastern border States, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, they range from $10 to $11.10. In the great agricultural States of Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, prices of swine vary very little from those already quoted. In eastern Canada the range of swine prices is from $10 to $13 and in western Canada, from $12 to $13. The highest American price is $11.80 a head in Wisconsin, as against the highest Canadian price of $13 a head, which is quoted for Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.

SHEEP (pp. 110, 118).

Prices of sheep are much lower in the United States than in Canada, due to the fact that Ontario specializes on pedigreed flocks, as appears later on. In the United States they range from $2.90 per head in Texas to $5.30 in Illinois and Iowa, while in Canada the range is from $4 in Nova Scotia to $7 in Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.

While the sheep industry in Canada at the present time is a minor one, the feeding of lambs for market has been an important business in Ontario, as many as 125,000 head having been exported as late as 1907 to the United States and 33,000 the same year to

Great Britain. The surplus has now dwindled, however, to such an extent that prac tically none was received at the Buffalo stockyards during 1910. In fact it is reported that a few American-fed lambs have been shipped from Buffalo to Toronto, indicating that Ontario at the present time is scarcely supplying her own wants in this regard. This is, however, an abnormal condition.

These are the general conclusions drawn by the Tariff Board from their investigations. So far as retail prices in various localities are concerned, comparisons are of no value as a rule, for they are almost always affected by local conditions, such as methods of distribution and business customs. But I call attention to the fact shown on page 128, that new-laid eggs retail at 30 cents per dozen in Burlington and 40 cents in Montreal; that milk sells at 7 cents per quart in Burlington and 9 cents in Montreal; cream at 45 cents per gallon in Burlington and 50 cents in Montreal; and that butter sells at 32 cents per pound in Burlington and 35 cents in Montreal.

I submit herewith also the table found on page 132, giving the prices on dressed meats both at wholesale and retail in Chicago, Toronto, and Montreal, showing in every case higher prices in Canada than in the United States:

Comparative prices of agricultural products, January, 1911-Dressed meats. WHOLESALE PRICES PER 100 POUNDS.

This investigation and report of the Tariff Board, published since I spoke in February on this question, fully justifies the claim I then made, that the treaty was in strict accord with the Republican national platform declaring that "the true measure of protection is the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad."

Over and over again since this treaty was made public the reduction in the price of wheat has been quoted as proof that the coming of reciprocity was casting its shadow before, and some Members on this floor wore into shreds and tatters telegrams tending to prove that wheat would soon become almost valueless, because Canadian restrictions were not taken off from logs and pulp wood to be manufactured on this side of the boundary at what has always been claimed to be a higher cost of production. As a proof that the law of supply and demand is still in operation, I quote from the market reports of the New York Tribune of March 27 concerning wheat:

Exports of wheat and corn are growing, and as the price of flour has reached an export basis, increased shipments may be looked for. The visible supply of wheat in the United States is 10,000,000 bushels more than at this time last year, while the world's supply is 20,000,000 bushels larger, the two factors, with favorable prospects for the crops in the current year, apparently precluding the possibility of a return of quotations to the high levels of 12 months ago.

I also quote a dispatch from Chicago, published in the New York Journal of Commerce, with reference to barley:

BARLEY HITS RECORD HIGH LEVEL.

CHICAGO, March 23.

Barley made an entirely new price record in Chicago to-day. Up to $1.13 a bushel was paid. The rise to-day reached 2 to 4 cents, making a total gain of more than 20 cents in the last couple of weeks. Scarcity of the grain has developed sharp competition between malsters and brought about a boom excelling anything of the kind previously known in the trade.

Is it not manifest that if the proposition for reciprocal trade in these commodities is responsible for these changes, it is working both ways at the same time?

But that is not all, for it is claimed by some gentlemen here that the policy of reciprocity in competitive products is not only a wrong economic one, but that it is "un-Republican" and "ruinous to the protective system." And yet only two years ago the bituminous coal interests of Pennsylvania petitioned the Ways and Means Committee for complete reciprocity with Canada in one of the great products of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois-bituminous coal-and every Republican on this floor who voted for the Payne bill as it passed the House was guilty of this heresy to Republican principles, for if it is a heresy now, it was just as much so then.

But agricultural implements, which are also competitive products and essential to farming, furnish a still more glaring inconsistency. Our Democratic friends have just reported a bill which will be acted upon in a few days putting these things on the free list, and yet every one of them who voted against the Payne bill voted against not only Canadian but world-wide reciprocity then, and our Republican friends who voted for the tariff bill and now oppose reciprocity with Canada in other competitive articles will have much difficulty in adjusting their conscientious scruples, for paragraph 468 of the Payne bill puts plows, tooth and disk harrows, harvesters, reapers, agricultural drills and planters, mowers, horserakes, cultivators, thrashing machines, and cotton gins on the free list from any country in the world which will admit ours free.

If any American farmer chooses to pay a higher price for any of these things than he can buy it for at home and so put himself on a parity with the Canadian farmer, he can get them to-day in England, as the Canadian does, and import them here absolutely free of duty.

The only trouble is he can buy them cheaper at home, and so far as these things are concerned the proposed Democratic bill will be of no benefit to him. It is only fair to state that this challenge to a world-wide reciprocity in the Payne bill was flung out to all nations at the request of the manufacturers themselves. I defy any Republican or Democrat to gainsay that.

Mr. MOORE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a moment?

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

Mr. HILL. Yes; I will yield-if the interruption is short-for a question. Mr. MOORE of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman inform us whether or not agricultural implements are produced in Canada?

Mr. HILL. Oh, yes; a few; but I guess not so many as we send over there. Mr. MOORE of Pennsylvania. Can the gentleman give us a comparison of wages paid in that industry in Canada and the United States?

Mr. HILL. There is no difference between the wages paid in Canada and the United States. I will stand upon that.

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him just a moment?

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Butler]?

Mr. HILL. I can not yield. Of course there are different rates of wages. One employer will pay liberal wages, while another will squeeze the life out of his employees. But in a general way I will state that there is no difference in the wages between like people, living in a like climate, under similar conditions.

Mr. MOORE of Pennsylvania. But the gentleman has just stated that in some respects the cost of living is higher in Canada than in the United States. If