Feb. 7.-The Dominion Cattle Breeders Association at Toronto discuss but express no definite opinion upon Reciprocity. Feb. 10. In a Toronto interview G. P. Smith, M.L.A. (Lib.) for Camrose, Alta, declares Reciprocity "the greatest thing that ever hap pened," and thinks the British preference should be doubled. Feb. 18.-W. A. Black, General Manager of the Ogilvie Flour Mills, claims that the United States will never be a serious importer of wheat. "If the United States on a yield of 15 bushels and an acreage of 49,000,000 produces 735,000,000 bushels and has out of this 100,000,000 bushels or more for export, and with improved methods increases her yield to the lowest average of England (30 bushels) on just the same acreage, it means a crop of 1,470,000,000 bushels and an exportable surplus to swamp the entire importing countries of the world." Feb. 22.-At Buffalo, N.Y., Mr. James Wilson, United States Secretary of Agriculture, makes this statement: "The advantages that will come from Reciprocity to the people of the United States will be, first, access to the Canadian woods. Then there will be access to the Canadian markets for our fruit with free fish, free trade in seeds, free trade in flax, free barbed wire fencing, free trade in horses. This last will give us a market for our draft horses in those new Provinces that are being opened up. The citrous fruit grower of California will have the northern market open to him. The producer of grain north of the line will have the southern market open to him. Those in the corn belt of the United States can look to the north for the stock steers. The settlers who are developing Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia will get cheaper farm machinery from us, and cheaper draft horses from us. I am firmly convinced that it would be to the advantage of both countries for us to take the export wheat of Canada, mill it and send the flour to the markets of the world, because the dairymen of the United States would then get the by-product of the mills and, as the population of the United States increases, the dairy market will be greater." Mar. 1. The Report of the Tariff Board of the United States Senate (Document No. 849) indicates in an elaborate statement that (1) grain prices are generally higher in the United States than in Canada but vary greatly at different centres and in different States of the Union; that (2) prices for horses and dairy cows are better in Canada; that (3) live animals generally range higher in Canada than the States and higher in Ontario than in New York State. Mar. 15.-The Weekly Sun, a determined agricultural advocate of Reciprocity, describes the issue as one of the magnates and protected interests on the one side and farmers on the other. "Like the silversmiths of Ephesus they (the Interests) fear that their whole craft is in danger. They see that the promised success of the agitation by farmers for the opening of the American market to farm products may be a prelude to an assault on the whole citadel of Special Privilege. They see that with the first concession secured, railway subsidies must go, bounties must be ended for good and all; the general tariff under which water-logged combines have been built up will be scaled down. They see, in short, the end of a system under which wealth created on the farm has been diverted into a few great city reservoirs." Mar. 17.-In an address before the Economic Club, Portland, Maine, John Ball Osborne, Chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the State Department, and a Member of the Reciprocity Committee, estimates that Canada's total imports in 1915 should be about $540,000,000 and that the United States will supply $350,000,000, or sixty-five per cent. of these imports. This is said to be an extremely conservative estimate and would be augmented to $400,000,000 by assuming that the United States share will be at least seventy-four per cent. Mar. 22.-The Grain Growers Guide, organ of the Western farmers under the heading of "Reciprocity; Then the Rest," says after reference to the reduction of duties in the Agreement: "The farmers are not satisfied with this, but they are sensible enough to take what they can get at present and then force the Government to give them more when the Agreement is ratified. The farmers of Canada accept the Reciprocity Agreement only as a part of their demand. They are thoroughly aroused to the injustice of the Protective tariff and no Government will live long in Canada that does not recognize it." Mar. 24.-Lewis Wigle, ex-M.P., an old-time Conservative, writes to The Globe from Leamington that Reciprocity would be an immense benefit to Canada. On the Fruit question he says: 'There is no doubt in my mind but what the good, fresh, solid, well-flavoured fruits grown along the shore of Lake Erie would run the southern American fruits out of the markets of Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo and make the farmers in the States who now supply these markets pay freight to Winnipeg instead of our farmers doing it as at present." Apr. 3.- The Manitoba Free Press in a voting contest on Reciprocity receives 2,451 votes for and 551 against. Apr. 4. The Toronto News makes this statement: A United States Government Report shows that in the last decade farm land values rose much more rapidly in the Dominion than in the Republic. Between 1900 and 1910 the prices of land advanced as follows: Apr. 10.—The Canadian Farm of Toronto takes a post-card vote on Reciprocity all over Canada with 1,588 in favour and 840 against. Apr. 12.-The Ingersoll Packing Company, Ltd. (C. C. L. Wilson, Managing-Director) publishes the following statement of prices for Hogs paid by Boyd Luneham & Company, Chicago, and by themselves at Ingersoll: Apl. 17.-—A summary of articles published in the Montreal Star show that farms sell at $31 per acre in Nova Scotia as against $25 in Maine, at $32 in Prince Edward Island as against $24 in Vermont, and at $43 in Quebec as against $25 in New Hamp Apl. 24.-The Manitoba Free Press publishes statements from a letter widely distributed in the Northern States and signed by N. Merriam, President of the Merriam and Millard Elevator Co. of Omaha, in which Reciprocity is freely denounced and Canada's advantages under the Agreement pointed out: "In a word Reciprocity places the Canadian farmer not only in direct competition with the American farmer in the latter's home markets, but gives the Canadian farmer the advantages of the superior quality of grain and shorter distances to our eastern markets. These markets, which we now propose to give away to our Canadian neighbours for nothing, have been the largest factors towards the building up of our Western country. It is estimated that the depreciation in the values of wheat, oats and corn since Reciprocity has been agitated in the United States will exceed 60 million dollars ($60,000,000). As grain depreciates in value so will the land on which it is raised. The lessened values of farm products will be felt by nearly all manufacturing industries. This will in time affect labour because necessities and economy will be the motto." Apl. 26.-The Globe publishes the figures of Canada's barley exports to the United States from 1876 to 1892, when the McKinley Bill hurt the trade, and shows a shipment in those 17 years of $90,323,453. From 1893 to 1909-another 17 years-the total export was $2,908,171. "With barley on the free list it is certain that our old market for this grain would again be fully restored. Ontario with its greater capacity would grow more than ever before to supply a larger market for consumption and Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta would join it in the same American market, increased in population by close upon 29 millions since the McKinley Act destroyed the trade twenty years ago." May 15.-The Toronto News addresses the following argument to farmers: "Under scientific methods the agricultural output of the United States is rapidly rising. Last year the Republic produced 737,000,000 bushels of wheat as against 664,000,000 bushels the preceding year. Last year the United States exported $133,191,330 worth of breadstuffs and $347,442,923 worth of all kinds of farm products and animals. Of this output the exports to Canada totalled $33,755,743." June 7.-The Board of Directors of the B. C. Fruit Growers' Association, meeting at Kamloops, declares by Resolution that "the proposed reduction in duties will have the effect of reducing the prices of our products in Canadian markets and is detrimental to the Fruit industry of British Columbia." June 24.-The following figures are quoted from the United States Senate Report-Document 849-to prove the better position of the Canadian farmer without Reciprocity: July 3. Mr. J. E. Johnston, ex-President, Ontario Fruit Growers Association, in an interview at Simcoe, declares himself in favour of Reciprocity. "Our gain from the business standpoint is clear. More customers mean more trade. For fifteen hours' run we have only a population of 5 millions to consume our products, while in the event of Reciprocity the same run would place us within reach of 60 millions more. The fact that Canada's northern position renders her capable of growing a hardier class of fruit, especially apples, coupled with the certainty that the American fruit market will never be subject to sudden fluctuation, convinces me that in the wider competition that will follow the enactment of Reciprocity, Canada has nothing to fear." July 26.-The Weekly Sun argues for Reciprocity as follows:-" The cities of Chicago, Port Huron, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Rochester and New York have, meantime, multiplied their population over and over again. The great iron and coal industries of Pennsylvania have been developed. All these great centres are within reach by 'phone from Canadian farms. The produce of these farms can be collected one day and turned into cash the next. In the face of a duty of 25 per cent. the most valuable car of horses taken out of Durham County last year was sold in New York. A slight reduction in the duty on cream caused Ontario's export of dairy products to the United States to jump from a mere nothing to some $3,000,000 in a few months." Summing up the situation from the agricultural standpoint, as the Elections loomed on the horizon, it would seem that there were, as usual, many sides to the question. That many farmers would find trade greatly facilitated and the export of their products simplified was unquestionable; that Canadian natural resources, including agricultural products, would be more readily available for United States exploitation was obvious; that the United States in its current export to Canada of over $50,000,000 a year worth of coal, raw cotton, corn, lumber, hides, furs, etc., already gave some of its natural products to the Dominion was, also, clear; that there were enormous possibilities of increased export and competition from the 90,000,000 people of the United States and the Favoured-nation countries was as obvious as the contention that a 90-million market might, in itself, be desirable; that the facilitating of wheat transportation to the South would be a convenience to the Western farmer was probable though the claim of an increased price was at the least a doubtful one and it was quite certain that the high grade reputation of Canadian wheat would be injured; that the Millers had reason to fear United States competition was undoubted but the existing American rebate of 99 per cent. on Canadian wheat, ground into flour by American mills for export, somewhat weakened the force of the argument; that the Canadian export of barley, oats, flax, to the United States, would increase was probable and so with dairy products, fruit and vegetables but it was obvious that in most of these products Canadian imports would also increase; that the effect in all these lines of trade was more or less dependent upon United States conditions, demands and prices seemed clear as did the fact that United States Trusts would prove a vital element in the situation. To the Canadian farmer the Meat Trust, the Flour Trust, the Fish Trust were only names—perhaps hardly that. Under Reciprocity they would be serious factors. British and The farmer's first thought in the Reciprocity controversy and that of the manufacturer or artisan was naturally as to his own business interests or labour conditions at the moment and his increased returns or otherwise under the Agreement. After that came other considerations-national and Imperial, political and personal. The question of loyalty to the Empire or the Flag was not involved as a principle; it might, of course, be concerned as a matter of underlying currents in a policy which was declared to mean commercial alienation from the Empire. The issue appeared to involve and was claimed to involve vital indirect results to the future of the Empire but this claim did not and could not assert that those who disbelieved it were deliberately disloyal to British and Canadian unity. One direct result in an Imperial direction Reciprocity did undoubtedly insure a serious if not fatal blow to an Empire fiscal preference policy. But this was essentially a party issue. The English Radical settlers of the Canadian West were at one with their Liberal friends at home in denouncing British Tariff Reform and the Imperial Preference -even for their own products-which was an essential part of that policy. Moreover, many Canadian Conservatives were not prepared to go very far in meeting such a policy, if it became practicable in England; with them protection to Canadian industries came first and foremost. That President Taft and J. J. Hill and the United States press saw the issue clearly as it affected British tariff policy and the dreaded British duties upon United States farm-products was an incident, though a serious one, in the elements which enabled Reciprocity to be negotiated and to pass Congress. Hence the deep interest of British politicians and Canadian Imperialists in this question; hence the inevitable and strongly felt loyalty cry of the ensuing Elections; hence, perhaps, the special pleasure of some free-trading elements in the Liberal party such as the Toronto Globe, thousands of Western grain growers, politicians such as the Hon. S. A. Fisher, and others who had never concealed their theoretical beliefs in this respect. President Taft as a foreigner and an exporter wanted Tariff Reform killed in Great Britain; many Canadian Liberals felt the same way and hoped, vaguely, to strengthen Britain as the last citadel of Free-trade policy in the world; while British Liberals expressed undisguised satisfaction over the negotiations and the Agreement. The Cobden Club in an official communication to the Manitoba Grain Growers Association dated Apl. 4 and signed by its Chairman, Lord Welby, expressed enthusiastic pleasure over the arrangement: "We are glad to think that there appears to be every prospect of the important Reciprocity agreement being |