a. 



trvi 



Wait and see how it works out. 



That seems to be the sensible attitude 

 for farmers to take after studying and 

 listening to arguments pro and con on 

 the Canadian Trade agreement. 



What President Roosevelt said on the 

 subject at Chicago recently was reas- 

 suring. "We export more agricultural 

 products to Canada than we have im- 

 ported," said he. 



Every one who heard him agreed that 

 Secretary Henry A. Wallace made a 

 strong case for the agreement in his ad- 

 dress at the Farm Bureau Convention. 



On the other hand, farmers know that 

 George N. Peek, who has criticized the 

 treaty, is sincerely interested in advanc- 

 ing and protecting American agriculture. 

 They can never forget his leadership and 

 driving force that counted so heavily in 

 the McNary-Haugen fight which resulted 

 twice in the passage of that legislation 

 by Congress. 



If, as Secretary Wallace insists, the 

 concessions made by this country on 

 Canadian farm products were necessary 

 to gain the larger ends of more trade, 

 more production and lower industrial 

 tariffs, then agriculture has every chance 

 of gaining by the deal. For, as he 

 pointed out in his carefully prepared 

 statement, "If agrirnl'ure is to be really 

 helped by the reciprocal tariff policy, in- 

 creased imports must consist largely of 

 manufactured or industrial products, 

 first to build np dollar exchange abroad 

 and secondly to lower the prices of 

 things farmers buy." 



It is obvious that Canada being largely 

 an agricultural country and generally 

 self-supporting as to its food supply, has 

 little in the way of industrial goods to 

 offer this country except lumber, whisky, 



wood pulp and a limited number of 

 manufactured articles. That being the 

 case, it is logical to ask. "What does the 

 farmer get out of it?" 



Agriculture should benefit by the 50 

 per cent reduction in lumber. Certainly 

 farmers need cheaper lumber. Mr. Wal- 

 lace is of the opinion that we will benefit 

 by the reduction in the Canadian duty on 

 live hogs, lard, fresh meats, citrus fruits 

 and some other items; that we may even 

 regain a larger part of the British bacon 

 market thru Canada. 



But in the main it appears that farm- 

 ers must look for most of their benefit 

 to increased payrolls and buying power 

 of American industrial workers who may 

 be re-employed manufacturing goods for 

 Canadians on which Canada has cut its 

 import duties. When the administration 

 uses this argument, however, Mr. Peek 

 very properly, is "led to observe that this 

 is precisely the theory upon which three 

 Republican administrations acted during 

 the twenties when American agriculture 

 progressively declined." 



tive ways I can think of to enforce th« 

 anti-trust laws." 



The strongest argument perhaps ad- 

 vanced by the Secretary in asking farm 

 support for the agreement with Canada 

 is that by so doing farmers put them- 

 selves in a position, in negotiating future 

 treaties with industrial nations, to go to 

 industry and say "we've taken our medi- 

 cine, now it's your turn to come down 

 from your high horse and either let us 

 buy foreign goods or else lower your 

 prices." 



If the Canadian pact is the forerun- 

 ner of future trade agreements with in- 

 dustrial — not agricultural — countries, 

 then American farmers may feel that 

 the new agreement is an all around good 

 trade. For "lowering of_tariffs on indus- 

 trial products would restore competition 

 where monopolistic conditions now pre- 

 vail, and would bring more production 

 at lower prices," as Mr. Wallace points 

 out. "In fact lowering of tariffs," he con- 

 tinues, "would be one of the most effec- 



Criticisms of the Canadian Agree- 

 ment by the politicicns and the partisan 

 press can be dismissed lightly. If such 

 critics were intellectua'ly honest and 

 consistent, they would laud the President 

 for reducing the duties on limited quan- 

 tities of such Canadian products as cat- 

 tle, cream, cheese, poultry, fruits, vege- 

 tables, and fish, for the reductions will 

 tend to lower food prices to consumers. 

 But in this case the attempt was made 

 in most of the adverse publicity we have 

 seen to inflame farmers rgainst the ad- 

 ministration, not to appease the con- 

 sumers. 



The prediction that the trade agree- 

 ment will undermine farm prices in thi« 

 country undoubtedly has been greatly 

 exaggerated. In fact the extensive de- 

 bate that has been aroused has all the 

 earmarks of a tempest in a tea pot. It 

 doesn't make sense to assert that imports 

 of 155.000 cattle, 50.000 calves, 20,000 

 dairy cows and a few cans of cream per 

 year from Canada and other countries, 

 under the new schedule, will greatly en- 

 danger our farm nrice structure. 



.■\ny doubts corn belt farmers may 

 have over the Canadian Agreement are 

 tempered by the knowledge that the 

 present administration at Washington 

 has demonstrated in many ways its fair- 

 ness and friendship to agriculture. How- 

 ever, agriculture will be just-fied in in- 

 sisting that the good work continue, that 

 the next trade agreements be made with 

 such industrial countries as Germany, 

 England. Japan. Sweden, and France, 

 who can use our surplus cotton, pork, 

 lard, wheat, fruits and vegetables, and 

 who may be in a position to help Amer- 

 ican farmers buy wire fence, steel posts, 

 farm machinery, fertilizers, cement, tex- 

 tiles, electrical appliances, water sys- 

 tems, and a lot of other things for leas 

 monev. — E. G. T. 



Modern offices of Menard County Farm Bureau, Petersburg, which are headquarters also of the service company, production control associa- 

 tions and farm loan association. . - . 



JANUARY, 1936 



