12 The Tariff and the Farmer. 



To try to exclude Canadian products from the United 

 States is mere foolishness. Take wheat to illustrate the 

 matter. Suppose Canada had a hundred million bushels 

 to export. The cost is said to be about the same to send 

 to New York or to Liverpool by way of the St. Lawrence 

 Biver. Suppose further that, because of our high duties, 

 instead of this increase coming into the United States 

 and directly competing here, it goes to England and com- 

 petes with our wheat there. So long as we have a great 

 surplus to send abroad, how much more will the Ameri- 

 can farmer get for his wheat by meeting the competition 

 there than here? His market there would be taken to the 

 extent of the 100,000 bushels, and it looks as if in conse- 

 quence that number of bushels would remain this side the 

 ocean. 



What other countries besides Canada are in position 

 to compete with the American farmer? Surely, not the 

 populous nations of Europe who are now receiving the 

 bulk of our immense agricultural exports ! They cannot 

 even supply themselves with a sufficiency of agricultural 

 products. 



On the same occasion the passage of the McKinley bill 

 in 1890, when Mr. Dingley was doing his best to protect 

 our farmers from ''disastrous" trade with Canada, we 

 also hear from Mr. McKinlev. He was as much con- 

 cerned about the danger that threatened the farmer as 

 Mr. Dingley — the tvheat grower he seemed to have par- 

 ticularly in mind. He said : ' ' The agricultural condition 

 of the country has received the careful attention of the 

 committee, and every remedy which was believed to be in 

 the power of tariff legislation to give relief has been 

 granted by this bill. The depression in agriculture is not 

 confined to the United States. The reports of the Agri- 



