No. 7. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 439 



a rake-off. The big wholesale house in turn sold the butter to the 

 retail grocers at a profit, of course, and to-day the citizens Of Ottawa 

 are paying 30 cents per pound for it, or 10 cents per pound more 

 than tile farmers realized. The farmer did all the hard work and 

 for his labor he got 20 cents per pound. The middleman charged 

 him 10 cents per pound or half what he got for finding a customer." 



The foregoing are actual facts because the newspaper man 

 followed the butter from the time it left the farmers' hands until 

 it crossed the retail counter. 



The second need we shall mention is that of freedom from tariff 

 burdens. The burdens of tariff in the form of Customs Duty fall 

 largely upon the consumers. As farmers form the bulk of the 

 consumers on the North American Continent, they have to carry 

 the big end of the stick. A Canadian thinking farmer, discussing 

 this question said, ''truly the farmer is an ass crouching between 

 two burdens — the protective tariff ^n one side and the bounty-fed 

 industries on the other." 



There are signs that the farmers are waking up. The farmers 

 of Canada by laying their case strongly before the tariff commission 

 undoubtedly prevented an increase of from ten to twenty-five per 

 cent, on the "protection" given to the Agricultural Implement Manu- 

 facturing Industries. They also prevented an increase of a similar 

 amount in the woolen duties. In both cases, had not a strong protest 

 been made by the farmers, the price paid for agricultural imple- 

 ments and woolen goods would have been increased considerably. 



We are pleased to see that in thte United States men who are 

 not farmers are pointing to the injustice of the tariff. American 

 farmers, however, seem very apathetic on the question. We read 

 the following account recently in an American paper: "Mr. Chas. 

 Francis Adams, before the House Ways and Means Committee, 

 divided protectionists into two classes — thieves and hogs. The 

 tariff thieves — among whom Mr. Adams classes himself — are those 

 who philosophically 'avail themselves of the license to steal which 

 the present rates give them under the broad seal of the United 

 States. The tariff hogs, are those who, not content with the scope of 

 their license, are clamoring before the Ways and Means Committee 

 for an upward revision of the schedules. These rush squealing 

 and struggling to the great Wiashington protection trough, and with 

 all four feet in it they proceed to gobble the swill." 



We read further that the great steel-magnate Carnegie says that 

 the steel manufacturers need no further protection. To many this 

 looks as if ''the stand-pat fetish seems to be tottering to a fall." 

 When on top of this we are told that one of the great agricultural 

 implement manufactuiing concerns of the U. S. announce that they 

 no longer need "protection," it looks as if the farmer might be 

 relieved of some of his burdens sooner than he had hoped for. 

 These are favoi-able signs of the times, but it would be too much 

 to expect that the robbers of the farmer would desert or that the 

 hogs would cease eating the "swill" from the protection trough, 

 without a strong effort on the part of farmers to stop the thieving 

 or to prevent the hogs from swilling. 



Closely connected with the foregoing is the need for the farmers 

 to be more directly represented in all legislation pertaining to the 

 farm. Ip too many cases farming constituencies are represented 



