^T. 
 
 
 o^A^t 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 V 
 
 / 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 %' 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 IM 
 
 32 
 
 1^ li 
 
 1.4 
 
 12.5 
 2.2 
 
 M 
 
 1.6 
 
 V] 
 
 
 % 
 
 V 
 
 
 7 
 
 'V > 
 
 y 
 
 ^ 
 
 <i? 
 
 i^>;"^^ 
 
 ^^..i> 
 
 ^"^ *, "^^ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical Notes / Notes techniques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Physical 
 features of this copy which may alter any of the 
 images in the reproduction are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvertures de couleur 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Certains 
 ddfauts susceptibles de nuire d la quality de la 
 reproduction sont notds ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Tl 
 
 o 
 fi 
 
 Tl 
 
 C( 
 
 Ol 
 
 ai 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages ddcolor^es, tachetdes ou piqu6es 
 
 Tight binding (mav cause shadows or 
 distortion along interior margin)/ 
 Reliure serr6 (peut causer de I'ombre ou 
 de la distortion le long de la marge 
 intdrieure) 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured plates/ 
 Planches en couleur 
 
 Show through/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Tl 
 fi 
 ir 
 
 IV 
 in 
 
 u| 
 b( 
 fc 
 
 □ 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires 
 
 Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques 
 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 D 
 
 Pagination incorrect/ 
 Erreurs de pagination 
 
 ^ 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 D 
 
 Pages missing/ 
 
 Des pages manquent 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Plates missing/ 
 
 Des planches manquent 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires 
 
 D 
 
 Maps missing/ 
 
 Des cartes g6ographiques manquent 
 
The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in Itee^^ing with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each '"•croflche shall 
 contain the symbol — ► (meaning CONTINUED ). 
 or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever 
 applies. 
 
 The original copy was borrowed from, and 
 filmed with, the Itind consent of the following 
 institution: 
 
 Library of Parliament 
 
 Maps or plates too large to be entirely included 
 in one exposure are filmed beginning in the 
 upper left hand corner, left to right and top to 
 bottom, as many frames as required. The 
 following diagrams illustrate the method: 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reprodu tes avec le 
 plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de I'exemplaire filmd. et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la der- 
 nidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le ces: 
 le symbole — •► signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbole 
 V signifie "FIN". 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grftce & la 
 g6n6rosit6 de l'6tablissement prdteur 
 suivant : 
 
 Bibliothdque du Parlement 
 
 Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour §tre 
 reproduites en un seul clich6 sont film6es & 
 partir de I'angle sup6rieure gauche, de gauche d 
 droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Le diagramme suivant 
 illustre la mdthode : 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
IM 
 
l^SBBB 
 
 <t 
 
 No. 12. 
 
 INFORMATION FOR THE ELECTORS. 
 
 »f=«K? 'i^yi g:i. roh '*p''>^'' rvf^ ,->; '^^'f' 
 
 ^.A. ^..rA .^ ^ 
 
 TPE EFFECT OF WESTIIItTEO BWin. 
 
 1A(« 
 
 <^ a. 
 
 ' Interviews, with a few manufacturei'B have been published by 
 the Opposition Press, and those interviewed have stated their 
 willingness to encounter the rivahy of United States manufac- 
 turers. Against these are the ma^s of the successful manufac- 
 turers of the country who affirm, that commercial union would 
 be disastrous to the industries of this country, closing two-thirds 
 of those now in existence. '^' ■*> ^•>' '^^ '•'* .y.if.';";Tq ?r, 'rtj'*iw^w 
 
 FOR THE WORKINGMAN ' 
 
 this means that two hundred thousand will be thrown out of 
 employment. Increased competition for employment means 
 reduced wages for those who can find something to do. . 
 
 It necessitates the removal from Canada of this vast army to 
 the factories, cities and towns of the United States, leaving 
 behind them the houses and lots which comprise the savings of 
 years. 
 
 Not only the factory operatives, but every artisan engaged in 
 building or trades that supply the requirements of the factory 
 and the mechanic will be alike affected. 
 
 The commercial class will suffer in the general ruin. The 
 retailer will have a decreased number of customei-s and keener 
 competition for the remaining trade. 
 
 The wholesale merchant will be equally affected with the local 
 trader whom he supplies. 
 
 The capitalist will witness the sweeping away of over one 
 hundred millions of the capital invested in manufactories. This 
 was the estimate of Hon. John Macdonald, of Toronto, a man well 
 qualified to make an accurate estimate. 
 
 Every bank and loan company will suffer severely from the 
 loss of trade, and above all by the destruction of the value of real 
 
! . 
 
 ;>;. 
 
 2 
 
 «ui ' 
 
 JM 
 
 . I \ 1 , rif<.i. 
 
 ..!i,r 
 
 estate and other securities upon which large advances have been 
 
 made. i,-,- "" .■••■»j::r../rt -, w^^i -,\\ ^ ■,( ,•.•« >..•.;...?■; 
 
 The farmer will share in the general loss. His best market ie 
 his local market. Every farmer residing within five miles of any 
 town in which manufactories are situated knows the value as 
 fUmishing a market for his produce. 
 
 The closing of two-thirds of the factories means a loss to the 
 farmers of the Dominion of a market of fifty million dollars, four 
 times greater than the products now sent to the United States, 
 What profit can there be to the Canadian farmer in any policy 
 that opens one market to him by closing a nearer one four times 
 greater in extent ? 
 
 It will be contended that the farmer will be compensated for 
 this closing of a larger portion of his immediate market ; first, 
 by getting higher prices abroad than at home : and, secondly, by 
 buying cheaper than he now does. 
 
 As in the retention of the home market of the artisan and 
 operative of our factories lies the vital difference between the 
 policy of the Grovernment and Opposition, these two points 
 must be well considered by the Canadian farmer. As the policy 
 of the Grovernment includes the opening of the United States 
 market, the prices to a certain extent obtained at home must be 
 at least equal to those obtained abroad or our products would be 
 exported. The difference between the two is : Shall the opera- 
 tive who makes the farm implements, clothing and furniture, 
 live in Canada as he would under the reciprocity policy of the 
 Government ? or be driven to the United States as he would be by 
 the Commercial Union policy of the Opposition ? ... ^.„., ., ,^, 
 
 It is of the highest importance that he be retained as a citizen 
 
 <>f Canada. The Canadian and United States farmers will be 
 
 ' rivals for his trade. If he be driven across the line he becomes 
 
 the immediate customer of the United States farmer and the 
 
 'distant customer of the Canadian. To retain him at home 
 
 '^ enables the Canadian farmers to sell to him directly, and thus 
 
 ■' sell to him products of the farm that will not bear trans-shipment, 
 
 thus seoui'ing a large portion of the profits of the middle man. 
 
 Retaining him in this country ensures a permanent market for 
 ■ the Canadian farmer. Sending him abroad is creating a market 
 
 «J,WV ^o •— — , 
 
3 
 
 rizen 
 be 
 imes 
 the 
 lome 
 IthoB 
 Lent, 
 
 [tfor 
 Irket 
 
 that may be cloBed by hostile legislation at the latest at the 
 termination of the treaty. 
 
 Sending him abroad makes him a taxpayer of the United 
 States, whoso contributions to the revenue will assist in relieving 
 the burdens of the United States farmer, and will assist in 
 development of United States resources. Retaining him at home 
 retains his taxes to relieve the liabilities of the Canadian farmer 
 and assists to build Canadian railways and canals. 
 
 The Canadian farmer, under commercial union, will NOT 
 BUY CHEAPER than he now does. The two countries are 
 sufficiently near to enable the Canadian farmer to pereonally 
 know that he is buying just as cheaply at least as his neighboiu's 
 to the south. Taken as a whole, his farm implements are quite 
 as cheap, quality being considered ; his groceries are about the 
 same pricCj and his clothing on the whole much cheaper. In 
 cottons there is very slight difference in favour of the United 
 States farmers. In woollens, the staples of his purchases, the 
 advantage is very largely with the Canadian farmer. ; r; f A 
 
 There are certain exceptions, but these exceptions are unim- 
 portant, and will be found mainly to come under the following 
 
 classes. .v c,, .';-;■■(, 
 
 1. Goods, like forks and minor lines of hardware, made in 
 prisons near the Canadian border. These naturally would be 
 somewhat lower in price than goods made by honest labour. 
 
 2. Small lines of fancy goods and articles of high finish. The 
 Canadian who can afford to purchase these can afford to pay 
 duty upon them. 
 
 3. A small number of articles upon which the Canadian manu- 
 facturer has to pay a duty upon the raw material. But if the 
 article is advanced to the extent of this duty, the duty goes 
 directly into the revenue of the country, and what the Canadian 
 purchaser loses in the price is made up in the lessened tax which 
 he would otherwise be necessitated to pay in some other form. 
 
 It is sometimes urged that if the Canadian manufacturer can 
 sell as cheap as his United States rival, he need not fear com- 
 mercial union. The Canadian manufacturer will then have a re- 
 duced Canadian market, without being able to get into a new mar- 
 ket across the line upon equal conditions ; but more particularly 
 because he will be working under new and burdensome condi- 
 
 m 
 
tiottH. Lot this be illustrated in the case of woollen goods. All 
 wool clothes are ho mach cheaper in Canada than in the United 
 States that they can be bought here at almost the price of a mix- 
 ture of cotton and shoddy there. The reason is mainly because 
 the fine wools of which they are composed, not being produced in 
 Oanada, are admitted duty free, while in the United States a duty 
 of from ton to twelve cents per pound is levied. This is 
 done to benefit the fine wool growers of Ohio and Texas. 
 As it requires from four to four and a half pounds of gi'oased 
 wool to make a yard of cloth, every yard of such in the United 
 States is increased in price from forty to fifty cents. Under the 
 common tariff of commercial union or unrestricted free trade of 
 Laurier and Cartwright, a similar state of things would prevail 
 here, and the Canadian farmer would find the clothes on his 
 back taxed from one to one hundred and twonty-five per cent, for 
 the benefit of southern wool growers, in whom he has not the 
 remotest interest. 
 
 THE VALUE OF RECIPROCITY. 
 
 That the full opening of the market of the United States to 
 «ome of our pror' '$< would be a good thing, has always been 
 held by the Domin. Government, and their policy from the be- 
 ginning has been tose^^are it, if it could be had on fair terms; 
 but they do not deem it to be of such value that it would repay 
 us for the loss of our fiscal independence, our connection with 
 the mother country, and the destruction of a large portion of our 
 home market. 
 
 The advocates of commercial union, on the other hand, are de- 
 ceiving the Canadians by wilful exaggeration of the value of 
 the United States market. They pretend that it will restore the 
 <3ondition of things that prevailed under the Reciprocity Treaty 
 of 3854. During the early years of that treaty, (1854 and 1855) 
 this country was remarkably prosperous, but that prosperity 
 was the result of the Russian war and the opening up of 
 railways in this province. During the last years of the treaty 
 there was even greater prosperity, but this was attributed to the 
 rebellion across the border. Over there they were fighting in- 
 stead of farming, and had to have our products, treaty or no 
 treaty. Right in the midst of the reciprocity treaty this country 
 
saw a financial panic such as we never had since. Prices were 
 
 low, but that did not account for it. Wo were confined in our 
 
 business to the United States, and New York was our custom 
 
 house, our seller and our banker. In that financial panic every 
 
 bank in the city of New York went down. Here in Canada 
 
 American money was comparatively worthless. We could not 
 
 sell the grain we had, and could not get the money for what had 
 
 been sold. The reason that panic swept over us was because it 
 
 had struck the United States. All our trade wus like eggs in 
 
 one basket, and when the basket went down all were smashed. 
 
 No reciprocity treaty will bring back the calamities that 
 
 caused the high prices of those years, and no one can wish that 
 it would. .... .. ,, , .. , 
 
 They also deliberately misrepresent the consequences of the 
 abrogation of that treaty. The word deliberately is used ad- 
 visedly. . \ 
 
 In 1878, Mr. John Charlton in a speech in the House of Com- 
 mons as reported in the Hansard of that year, answering 
 the query whether the people of the United States had gained 
 or the people of Canada had lost by that abrogation as much as 
 reported, said : "No, it simply drove from American channels 
 the business which they enjoyed under the free trade system 
 which prevailed when the reciprocit}" treaty was in force ; for 
 their surplus f-rops of grain as well as ours found a market 
 abroad. He desired to call the attention of the House to the 
 average prices which were obtained for various kinds of produce 
 when the reciprocity treaty was in force and the prices which had 
 been obtained since its abrogation. The general idea was that 
 the abrogation of that treaty had reduced the price of produce 
 sold by Canada. Whether it did or not the average prices had 
 been higher since the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty than 
 they were during its continuance. For instance, from 1854 to 
 1864 we received an average of $71.50 a head for horses. From 
 1866 to 1876, since the abrogation of the treaty, we had i-eceived 
 an average of $94.63 for horses. During the continuance of the 
 treaty the average amount paid for sheep was $2.75. Since the 
 abrogation it has been $2.76. During the continuance of the 
 treaty the average amount paid for wi>ol was 30c. During the 
 period since its abrogation it was 34|c. The average amount 
 
H 
 
 6^ 
 
 < • • • 
 
 paid for wheat during the continuance of the treaty was $1.13^ 
 and since it had been SI. 24." 
 
 This agrees precisely with the report made by Mr. G. W. Brega 
 to the United States Government in 1868. He had been sent by 
 that Govei-nment to investigate into the effects of the abrogation 
 of the reciprocity treaty upon Canada. In his report he gave 
 the tables of imports and exports, and prices of Canadian pro- 
 duce in Toronto markets before and after the repeal of the treaty, 
 and commenting on them, said : — 
 
 " An examination of these tables shown the remarkable fact 
 that large as were the sales of produce by Canada to the United 
 States under the free admission to our market, yet the prices 
 obtained in Canada, after the termination of the treaty for such 
 articles, were in almost every instance higher than when the 
 treaty was in operation. It cannot be denied, that whatever 
 amount of this produce was purchased for consumption in the 
 United States since March, 1866, was purchased at as high prices 
 in the Canadian market as before the abrogation of the-treaty, or 
 that the American consumer was compelled to pay the American 
 duty as well. There can be no doubt that from the returns just 
 given, that up to this time (1868) the abrogation of the treaty 
 has not aflfected Canadian interests injuriously. These results 
 are unexpected in the general belief which prevailed, that a dif- 
 ferent exhibit would be presented consequent upon the imposition 
 of duties on our northern frontier." . i 
 
 . , QUE MAEKETS. 
 
 They as widely exaggerate the quantity of our produce to be 
 sold to the United States. The advocates of commercial union by 
 dwelling so much upon the sixty-five million market of the 
 United States, and speaking of it so frequently as our " Natural 
 Market," " Our Principal Market," and sometimes as " Our Only 
 Market," have grossly misled the farmers of this country. As a 
 matter of fact it is neither the pi-incipal nor the natural market 
 for most of our products. The total production of the farmers of 
 the Dominion may be set down at three hundred and fifty mil- 
 lion dollars. Of this amoupt three hundred and fifteen millions 
 are consumed at home, twenty-two millions sent to Great Britain 
 and her colonies, and thirteen millions to the United States. Of 
 
tho latter quantity it is not easy to say how much is consumed, 
 and how much transmitted abroad. Supjiosing the whole thirteen 
 millions are consumed in the United States, it simply means the 
 consumption of less than throe hundred thousand people, or of the 
 city of Buffalo. As a matter of fa«t tho market of the city of 
 Toronto is of greater value to-day to the farmers of Ontario than 
 the Avhole sixty-five million market of the United States. The 
 first great market of the (^anadian farmoj* is tho homo market, 
 not only because it is many times larger than all other markets 
 combined, but because in it he obtains a higher price than he 
 gets when his products ai'o sent abroad. The next best market 
 is Great Britain, not only because it takes one-fourth more of his 
 products than do tho United States, but because animals and 
 their products, of which Britain takes throo-fourthH of all we 
 produce, are the articles which the partially exhausted lands of 
 portions of this country most need to produce. While appre- 
 ciating to tho full the value of the United States market, and 
 willing to extend it by fair trade relations whenever the United 
 States are ready to negotiate, tho Dominion Governmont believes 
 it to be the first duty to take care of tho home market. This the 
 National Policy has done by protectmg the Canadian farmer in 
 its possession, and by enlarging it by increasing the number of 
 operatives in our factories who become his best customers. Tiieir 
 next is to promote trade with Great Britain, the next largest and 
 best market, by promoting tho production of tho articles which 
 are there required, and by cheapening the rates of freight and 
 by taking care of tho product after it reaches tho English 
 market. The result of this, as particularly^ witnessed in the 
 cattl nd cheese trades, is that tho Canadian farmer has the 
 preference by one cent, per pound in those articles over his 
 United States rival. The adoption of Commercial Union would 
 sacrifice the advantages we thus possess. No man believes 
 if we put on a discriminatory tariff against British goods, 
 that Canadian cattle would not be placed on the same footing 
 in the British market as those from the United States. This 
 would reduce their value by one cent per pound, — a dii'oct loss to 
 the cattle feeders of this country of one and a half million dollars 
 per annum. Lnrr. at?: 
 
 We should not sacrifice the British market in our eagerness to 
 
 N, 
 
secure the United States market, because it is a growing market 
 while the latter for years has been a waning one. A careful 
 tabulation of the exports of Canadian farm products for the 
 past twenty-one years gives the following results:—, , , 
 
 ,, „,.„, , EXPORTS OF FARM PRODUCTS. " ' ' * 
 
 . : T . , To To 
 
 ',t 'i t'.i «•",-.«' ' fi;-* ' . ' United Groat *• ' 
 
 , Year. , , States. Britain. 
 
 "' ' 1870 $14,927,313 $9,723,870 '' 
 
 . 1871 13,213,506 8,083,338 
 
 1872 14,117,844 10,529,086 
 
 1873. 13,000.244 14701,947 
 
 1874 14,450.036 18.364,139 ,.( 
 
 1875 13,097,985 15,459,692 
 
 ' 1876 16,641,401 li),281,730 
 
 , li 1877 12,630,957 14,765,991 ».. 
 
 , 1878 11,460,144 19.147,608 
 
 "1879 13,144,385 19,168,773 ' ' 
 
 • 1880 14,103,783 23,746,084 . 
 
 1881 16,178,318 24,818,858 
 
 1882 24,783,186 24,609,551 • 
 
 1883 18,556,867 22,632,934 ; '• 
 
 1884 13,870,813 20,044,131 ^ 
 
 1885 15,184,903 23,482,658 
 
 1886 15,495,783 22,543,936 '- 
 
 ,1887 15,257,617 25,753,882 ,,ri 
 
 1888 17,902,021 20,863,712 
 
 1889 16,262,713 19,901,115 
 
 r 1890 13,485,727 22,240,548 „=.♦, 
 
 This i.s still more clearly manifested by the return of th» 
 exports of animals and their products, which is as follows : — 
 
 !•! .;^ ;• To To 
 
 '' Great United 
 
 Year. Britain. (States. 
 
 1870 $ 4,345,909 $7,326,983 
 
 1874 8,559,764 5,703.366 
 
 1878 9,060,279 4,483,106 
 
 1882 13,365,399 6,592,068 
 
 1886 14,814,672 6,742,789 
 
 1889 16,227,060 7,137,006 
 
 1890 18,578,722 5,960,474 
 
 No policy can be in the interest of the Canadian Farmer that will 
 injure this market. The free admission of our products into the 
 United States would somewhat increase the demand for them, 
 but not to the extent promised by the advocates of commercial 
 union ; nor wonld it increase the prices over what are now 
 received, as they allege. The great problem of the United States 
 Government to-day is to tind better markets for the products of 
 their own farmers, not markets in which to buy such products 
 
 •'. " ',,■'''' "■."■ '- .' ' .;■ '■ ■■' ■■ .■',■■' 
 
 ■ - ^_ .',■■'■ ■ ■ '• 
 
 
HM 
 
 ill 
 
 |al 
 [\r 
 
 leB 
 lof 
 Its 
 
 « 
 9 
 
 fbr home conHuraption. ' If the Canadian farraoi' were to receive 
 thel doty now levied by the United States, the prices in that 
 market would not ho more than now, and there could be no 
 increased demand. It is orly by a considerable reduction in the 
 prices through a remission of the duty, that the market could be 
 enlarged : but this leaves but a small advance in price for the 
 Canadian farmer, and in*many articles there would bo none at all. 
 
 It must be fui-ther remarked, that even reciprocity in natural 
 products necessitates the incoming of certain United States pro- 
 ducts into Canada to the detriment of prices here. Commercial 
 Unionists quo*^e prices of high grade articles, as fancy brands of 
 butter, and prices in cities wherein the markets have been made 
 exceptionally high through corners in grain and accidental short 
 supply ; but if the average of a whole year, or better still a series 
 of years, be taken, it will be found that upon the whole the prices 
 of products of Canadian farms have not fallen behind those ob- 
 tained for them, as a whole, across the border. The markets as 
 officially given, are to hand only for the Province of Ontario . 
 These returns, and those obtained from those given for the United 
 States by the Bureau of Agricultur o at Washington, show the 
 following to have bee the prices lor the year 1888 — the latest 
 year for which full reports are given : — 
 
 United States. Ontario. •' 
 
 Wheat $0.92 $0.99 
 
 Barley. 59 .60 
 
 Oats 27 .40 
 
 Eye 58 .60 
 
 Potatoes 40 .31 
 
 Hay 8.76 17.28 
 
 THE CONDITION OF CANADIAN FAKMERS. 
 
 The advocates of commercial union grossly misrepresent the 
 condition of the farmers of Canada. There has been in some flec- 
 tions some decrease in the value of land, and in a few localities a 
 oonsiderable^decrease. This must be the temporary result of the 
 opening up of the vast fertile lands of the Norlh-Wetit and a 
 partial failure of crops. Commercial unionists allege that what- 
 ever depression there is found to exist is owing to the burden of 
 taxation imposed by the Dominion G' '-nment. As a matter of 
 
 11 
 

 • ! ' 
 I ! 
 
 
 \l\\ 
 
 \% 
 
 10 
 
 fret, the increase of such taxation has not averaged one dollar 
 per farm throughout the Dominion. At other times theae advo- 
 cates give a totally different cause. Thus the Toronto Globe of 
 January 2nd last says : — '<; ;'•-•. i)i * ;;•;.'' '-'^v li j ^ ; lj4». 7 
 " Bad and slovenly farming '^which the possession of too much 
 land encourages and creates, is responsible in some degree for the 
 unhappy plight in which the farmer finds himself to-day." 
 
 And on the 5th of the same month, the Globe says of the 
 farmers of the Pjovince of Quebec : — 
 
 " A Quebec contemporary on the Tory side asserts indeed that 
 the absence of mortgage indebtedness shows that the farmers of 
 that province are not suffering. There are very few mortgages 
 in Muskoka and none at all in Greenland, but that does not prove 
 that agriculture in those parts is prosperous. Every one knows 
 that in Quebec ecclesiastical taxes are the first charge on the soil and 
 that money lenders do not care to make advances on land already 
 encumbered with a prior lien, besides being exhausted by two cen- 
 turies of clumsy and wasteful farming." 
 
 If this view of the Globe be true, no fiscal policy, least of all 
 commercial union, can make up for slovenly and wasteful farming. 
 If our lands have bf/come exhausted, it is mainly by growing too 
 much grain and hay, which are the chief articles demanded by 
 the United States markets. The Globe's wholesale slander of 
 Canadian farmers is not true. Faulty farming to some extent 
 there is and always will be, but our farmers have been compelled 
 to face a series of partial crop failures through unfavourable 
 seasons. The prices of agricultural produce have been gradually 
 declining for the past fifteen years, and Canada has shared in the 
 downwaixl tendency, though not to the same extent as other lands. 
 This is illustrated by the prices of wheat in the markets of Mont- 
 real, London, England, and New York for a series of years, as 
 given by the official returns of our own, the British, and the 
 United States, Grovernments. ;p . , , ., : >:> 
 
 They are: 
 
 Montreal. London. New York. 
 
 rii',Nn^j874 to 18t8 $1.19 $1.52 $1.25 
 
 '•" 1880 to 1884 1.13 1.27 1.13 1 
 
 ' '^'*' 1884 to 1889 89 i'' .95 .81 .;/ > 
 
 From 1874 to 1878 the Canadian prices were six cents below 
 
 the New York prices, and after the national policy went into 
 
 effect they were, from 1880 to 1884, precisely the same ; fVom 
 
 1884 to 1889, eight cents higher. 
 
u 
 
 into 
 Iflrom 
 
 
 The difference between the prices in Montreal and London 
 was thirty-three cente from 1874 to 1878, but only six cents from 
 1884 to 1889. Thus the Canadian farmer has for a long series of 
 years been relatively getting better prices than his rival in the 
 United States or Great Britain ; but no price will avail if through 
 an untoward season he has not the products to sell, luoodj h ■/ ' 
 
 If in certain sections the Canadian farmer is not so prosperous 
 as his labours entitle him to be, his position is an enviable one 
 as compared with his nfiic^hbour to the south. ^ nrur <■ 
 
 In a lengthy article, in its issue of November 7th last, the 
 
 Toronto Mail, a paper not over friendly to the Dominion Govern- 
 ment, discusses the returns of the loan companies of the prov- 
 ince of Ontario, and shows that the farm loans in that province 
 are but nine per cent, of their value ; while the farms of the 
 State of Ohio are mortgaged for twenty-six and two-thii*ds per 
 cent, of their value, and the returns from Illinois and Michigan 
 show a still worse state of things. These are prosperous states 
 as compared with others. Three years ago the bureau of agri- 
 oulture at Washington thus reported of the State of New York : 
 
 " On the whole, farmers are more in debt than they were ten 
 years ago. There are a large number of farms which were pur- 
 chased a few years ago, and mortgaged, which would not now 
 sell for more than the face of the mortgages, owing to the 
 depreciation of the farming lands, which on an average is fully 
 thirty-three per cent, in ten years. Probably one-third of the 
 farms in the state would not sell for more than the cost of build- 
 ings and other improvements, owing to the shrinkage." 
 
 That there has been no improvement, but that the state of 
 
 affairs has since been getting woi*se in this banner state, the 
 
 report of the state assessors submitted to the legislature on the 
 
 29th of January last shows. It says : — 
 
 " Our investigations during the year verify the statement that 
 there is no improvement in the value of farm lands or the finan- 
 cial condition of their owners or occupants. Everywhere we 
 are confronted with the statement that farming lands are depre- 
 ciating, that sales are infrequent and that the industry continues 
 growing less profitable. In many instances, mortgage liens upon 
 farms represent their full value, and unencumbered farms are 
 unusual and exceptional." ,,w/ ,.„p-v ^,j* r^r, /. ,.. ,...^,1 
 
 ,iij While the returns of the Ontario government show that 
 
 despite the hard times the value of Ontario farm property has 
 increased one hundred million dollars from 1882 to 1889 — in New 
 

 II 
 
 12 
 
 York State, in the ten years from 1870 to 1880, the United States 
 census shows that the farm property of that State, w'ih the chief 
 markets of the nation within its boundaries, has diminished by 
 , two hundred and twenty-three million dollars. 
 
 In Vermont and New Hampshire the State authorities are en- 
 deavoring in various ways to re-settle farms that have been 
 abandoned by their former owners and occupants, and the State 
 Commissioner offers "Good farms with fair buildings and maple 
 '. sugar orchards at from $3 to $5 per acre, on easy terms of pay- 
 . ment." 
 
 , In the Western States it is not one whit better. The Boston 
 Beacon, which has given a good deal of att«entLon to the ^,iLbject 
 of Western farm mortgages, says: — r* - , . ,..,.."' 
 
 .|, "At a recent meeting of the Farmers' Alliance of Kansas, it 
 ^^ was shown that of 13,000 farmers in the State only 7,600 were 
 the owners of unencumbered lands, and of these one-half had 
 '^ given chattel mortgages. There were in the State 2,100 tenant 
 « farmers on land formerly owned by them, but which have been 
 '/lost by foreclosures, and 4,400 more who have deferred payment 
 i.of interest, and, conseq^uently, may have their lands foreclosed at 
 ^\^any time." """ **"?'5C /-*-J :^^ haumm. :>ae 
 
 The Farmere' Alliance for that State is the authority for the 
 statement that 5,000 farms have been abandoned in that State. 
 There is at this time an emigration from these western States to 
 our own North- West, and the Minister of Agriculture is being 
 importuned for assistance to leave those States and return to the 
 Dominion. It is understood why, when in a speech in Boston on 
 the Ist May last. General Butler said that on the farm lands of 
 the western States, exclusive of city and town property, there 
 were mortgages of $3,450,000,000. Commercial union would 
 place the farms of Canada under precisely the condition that has 
 proved so disastrous to the farmers of the United States, a con- 
 dition that aroused them to the revolt of October last. No sane 
 man can for a moment believe that, placed under these cii-cum- 
 stances, a similar state of things would not prevail here. Our 
 farmers would be limited to the same markets, taxed to the same 
 extent, under the burden of the same rings, and a like conrse 
 quenqo must follow from a common cause. 
 
 2--^ io aOfld'i6l|;?& '4 r. 
 
 ••-« Slum b&^-io(i:ax &d oc 
 
 
 
 08 m\iy& 
 
 '^