states belong to this latter class. Some prominent newspapers advocate the adoption of this agreement hoping it will utterly destroy the protective tariff.

That there is a general demand for cheaper food on the part of the consumer is not disputed, but the question to be met here is: Would it not be far better to reduce from the other end of the line than by depressing the price on the article as it leaves the farmer? Recent investigations of the Secretary of Agriculture show that on an average the farmer gets only 50 per cent of what the consumer pays for the product. If the farmer's price is materially reduced he will curtail production because lower prices will not justify the employment of labor at present high rates, and still larger numbers of farmers' boys will be compelled to engage in commercial and professional occupations and the rural population will continue to decline.

The chief reason for the decline in the rural population during the past ten years is the fact that the wages or profits of the farmer are less than those in other lines of business.

Those who read the market pages of our great newspapers will not deny that the prospect of reciprocity has reduced the prices of grain. The following from the Chicago Tribune market notes, May 26, helps to explain the marked decline in prices of farm products in recent months: "Wheat in this country from a supply and demand standpoint is legitimately worth $1. Canadian reciprocity talk knocked from ten to fifteen cents off the price." Now if talk alone will have this effect what will free interchange amount to ten years hence?

It is not what Canada produces today that we need fear but the products of future years when the vast areas are under cultivation. Not many years ago the Dakotas grew no wheat. The possibilities of wheat production in Canada are immense. It is said that less than 10 per cent of any of the Northwest territories is cultivated. These four territories have an area of over 400,000 square miles; they are gently rolling, mostly prairie, with a virgin soil, fully as productive as the Dakotas, and an area eight times as great as the state of Illinois.

The argument is advanced that free importation of Canadian

wheat will not reduce the price of corn; this is a mistake; nearly all of our wheat-growing land will produce corn equally as well; if the price of wheat is materially reduced the Kansas farmer as well as the Minnesota farmer will grow corn in place' of wheat, and the price of corn will decline because of excessive production. It is also claimed that because Canada does not grow corn it will not compete with us in meat-production; but Ireland and Denmark are famous for their pork and send large quantities to England, yet they grow no corn. Canada will produce pork with oats and peas and better than our own. It is true that Canada is taking large numbers of our horses; the demand would not be greatly increased because of this agreement, for every immigrant may take ten head, duty free, into Canada. at the present time. The inevitable result that is to follow the settling of Canada with its cheap land, producing an abundance of hay and oats, will be to make Canada a large exporter of horses within ten years.

Some persons urge this agreement because Canada is a near neighbor whose people speak a common language and have common motives and by this means they hope to promote closer relations. If this is the purpose why not have free interchange of all commodities; why limit it to farm products? This same argument will apply with equal force to England; the means of communication are such that England is closer to a large part of the United States than Canada.

There are no advantages offered to the farmers through this agreement; should it be adopted they will be compelled to continue to sell in the lowest market in the world and buy in a market greatly advanced by the protective tariff. The farmers of this country consume about 40 per cent of the manufactures sold. The decline of prices of farm products will compel the farmer to curtail his purchases. These products are over 30 per cent lower today than the average price during the three preceding years. The products of the farms of Iowa for these years were worth nearly $500,000,000 annually. The farmers of Iowa will have about $150,000,000 less to spend this year than last. If the merchants of Iowa are wise they will not purchase over 60

per cent of the amount they purchased last year; the same is true of other agricultural states. Thus the decline in price is sure to react upon the manufacturer and laborer. It will be seen that no class can escape the injury that is bound to follow an attack on the prosperity of another class. In this question there is a direct conflict of interest between the agricultural classes and the manufacturing interests.

If the manufacturers have reached such a condition that they must invade the world's markets and must have cheaper food and cheaper labor, as was the case in England sixty years ago, they ought to be fair and say, We are willing to abandon our fictitious basis of values and will surrender our advantages under the protective tariff in order that we may get cheaper food and cheaper labor.

If the manufacturer is to receive the benefit of a protective tariff on his product ranging from 50 to 100 per cent it is entirely unjust to say that the tariff shall be removed from the products of the farm, for this is the effect of this agreement, and that the farmer shall be compelled to sell in a free-trade market and buy in a highly protected one, while on the other hand the Canadian may sell in our market if to his advantage and buy from Europe or Japan as he chooses.

So long as we maintain a protective tariff it is manifestly unjust to say that the agricultural classes, over 35 per cent of our population, shall receive no benefits from this policy; that the reward of their labor shall be taken from them through an unjust tariff law and given to the more favored classes who enjoy protection.

If the measure of protection is to be the difference between the cost of production at home and abroad with a reasonable profit added, why not apply this principle to food products. This principle applied to Canada, because of cheaper land and a virgin soil, would give us a protective tariff on food products of fully 25 per cent.

The farmer in the production of grain or meat combines capital, skill, and labor, just as the man who manufactures steel

rails, cloth, or shoes, and is justly entitled to the same measure of protection.

We have just reached the point where the tariff will enhance the prices for farm products. The farmer is not getting as good pay for his labor as other classes. He does not create fictitious. prices for his products through monopolies. It would be far better to produce our food at home and have our own farmers prosperous consumers, than to pay our money to the Canadian farmer for his product with no assurance that he will spend any part of such money for American goods.

Our own farms will easily produce 50 per cent more food products than they are now producing if the consumer is willing to pay a reasonable price for them so that the farmer may expend a greater amount for labor.

The consumers should be patriotic enough to demand food grown by our own farmers; reduce the excessive toll taken by the middlemen and increase the wealth and prosperity of our own states rather than lending their energies to develop northwest Canada.

G. C. WHITE

NEVADA, IOWA

SOME PHASES OF TAX REFORM IN ILLINOIS

The report of the Special Tax Commission to the fortyseventh General Assembly of Illinois, last January, again brought before that body the question of revising the obsolete revenue laws under which the state now collects its taxes. The expectation of the people of the state-of the taxpayers, at least-was that the Assembly would take advantage of the opportunity to remove the out-of-date and hampering provisions of the state constitution which prevent the adaptation of the revenue laws to modern business conditions. That the present intolerable situation is largely the result of provisions in the constitution of 1870 which prevent classification of property is conceded, but before the situation can materially be altered the Assembly must first take action by submitting an amendment to the people for the removal of the restricting clauses. This the legislative body, in the session which came to a close in the latter part of last May, refused to do. On the other hand, while it is undoubtedly true that the cause of much of the inequality in taxation that exists today is the requirement in the fundamental law that all property shall be taxed in essentially the same manner, and by all of the taxing bodies that have jurisdiction over it, it is by no means certain that if the General Assembly were freed from these hampering requirements the state would be relieved of the evils of unjust taxation. The passage of tax laws that are theoretically just does not insure equitable taxation unless the laws are enforceable and the proper machinery is provided for enforcement. And it is with the administrative side of the problem that Illinois has failed most signally to deal.

The history of tax legislation in the state records a distressing series of half-hearted, ineffectual attempts to strengthen the revenue system at its weakest points without a serious attempt at thorough reconstruction. Not only have the lawmakers apparently been unwilling to make a systematic examination of the revenue system themselves, but they have