April 22, 1914

LIB

George Perry Graham

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

There is some litigation pending in the Exchequer Court, I think, as to the rights of the provinces and the Dominion concerning these water powers.

I could not see how the water powers could be handed over in the face of a suit pending.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY CANAL.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN:

That is my recollection, but I am not fully advised.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   TRENT VALLEY CANAL.
Permalink

THE BUDGET.


Consideration of the motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, resumed from Tuesday, April 21.


LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):

Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure of hearing the hon. gentleman who preceded me in this debate, and therefore I shall make no special reference to his remarks, but shall immediately apply myself to a consideration of the Budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance. Any remarks I shall make will be purely personal, and I do not wish it to be thought that they bind any one else.

The Minister of Finance, in reviewing the economics of the present money stringency, said:

There is no doubt that the severe and prolonged financial stringency through which the business world has passed and from which it i3 only now emerging marked the culmination of one of those so-called trade cycles well known to economists. The phenomena of these cycles are well known. First a surplus of loanable capital attended with easy money conditions and low interest rates, next commercial activity promoted and sustained by abundant supplies of such capital resulting in profitable trade and rapid extension of enterprise, next, in consequence of such rapid extension, an undue proportion of the money supply of the world finding its way into fixed capital, then shortage of liquid resources among financial institutions, followed, as a matter of necessity in order to rectify conditions, by advancing rate of interest with curtailment of credit and consequent restriction of trade. When this last condition is reached and has prevailed for such time as is necessary to permit of the accumulation of loanable capital in sufficient surplus to bring about easy interest rates another cycle.

That is the position in which we are at present. Considering the views held by the Minister of Finance with reference to economic cycles, I cannot understand why he, last year, when these loans fell due and it was necessary to borrow money to carry on the capital expenditure of the country, should have made such long-date loans at high rates of interest. I quite agree with him that after the stringency takes place,

[DOT]2790

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Foster Cockshutt

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCKSHUTT:

Will the hon. gentleman please tell me how much the Woodstock post office cost under the late James Sutherland?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT:

It cost $37,000. And that is the kind of a building that ought to be built in every case-in accordance with the population and the revenue.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Foster Cockshutt

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCKSHUTT:

And how much did the drill hall cost?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT:

Fifty thousand dollars.

And the other night an estimate of $120,000 was up for the construction of a building in the town of Amherst, N.S., a place about the size of Woodstock. It is represented by a very excellent supporter of the Government, and a very nice fellow; but that is no reason why the expenditure on a drill hall should be made $120,000 instead of $50,000. And let me tell you, the armoury in Woodstock will be good enough for Woodstock when it has a population of 25,000, if it ever gets there. There is no possible necessity or excuse for such expenditures. And here is an item for a drill hall in Port Arthur, $99,000 voted last year, and $100,000 to be voted this year. Now, with all due deference to my good friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Carrick), I ask the members of the Government, I ask the Finance Minister if he does not think that $199,000 for a drill hall in Port Arthur is simply absurd. In my opinion no other word applies to it. And I tell you that the people of this country will not stand for such silly and extravagant expenditure by any Government, whether it be Liberal or Conservative. There is reason in all things, but there is

none in that. This is where our money has gone, and this is why the Minister of Finance had to borrow money this year to pay his way, in the face of a surplus of $36,000,000 above consolidated revenue expenditure, which was ridiculous, and in the face of surpluses of $93,000,000 in two years. Now, whether the Finance Minister agrees with me or not, I am sure that the public agrees with me, and if he is to be the watch-dog of the treasury it is necessary for him to watch his colleagues and brother members on that side of the House more closely than he has done in the last two years. If he does not, it will be unlimited expenditure, expenditure gone mad, as we saw last year when the Estimates went through. Nobody could listen to the discussion on the Estimates and not agree that it was expenditure gone mad.

Now, I would like to say a word with reference to our immigration policy. I have thought for some time that while we have an excellent Immigration Act, and while that Act has been properly administered, yet it is wrong in some ways. We bring the unfortunate immigrant to this country and dump him at the port of entry, and that is the last attention we pay him. He does not know what to do; he does not know where to go. My idea is that the Dominion Government should make some arrangement with the several provincial governments-I do not know what it should be, this is only a crude idea of mine-and these immigrants should be taken in charge by the provincial government who should see to it that some occupation is found for him; and that as much as possible the Dominion Government should confine their attention to immigrants who are capable of going on the land.

It is absurd to bring to this country persons who know absolutely nothing about farming; the cities and towns do not want them, because they would have to face the possibility of providing for them if the winter weTe long and cold. It would take such persons all the rest of their lives, perhaps, to learn all they ought to know about farming; a farmer does not want to employ that sort of help. I know from experience that immigrants of this kind are of absolutely no use to the farmer, who would rather pay a man who is accustomed to farming, and who does not have to be instructed, $25 a month than pay another, no matter how able-bodied he might be, $5 a month. If it is impossible to avoid bringing that kind of people heTe, I would advise that the provincial and

27 aa

Dominion Governments establish some sort of farms where these people eonld receive a smattering of education in farming processes before they hire out to the farmers in various parts of the country.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN:

Does my hon. friend not understand that the policy of the Government is to assist only domestic servants and those who go upon the farms?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT:

I do not know; that may be the general policy of the Government, but it is not followed out in practice. It does not matter what a man's policy may be; it is what he actually does that counts.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN:

I understood my hon. friend to be condemning the Government for bringing to this country what he regarded as a poor class of immigrants.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT:

I was not condemning the Government; I was suggesting that they should improve their immigration policy by looking after these people in some way after their arrival. I do not believe, of course, that the Government is purposely bringing such immigrants to this country, but they take charge of a great many of them after they do come here. However, I was not specially finding fault with the Government in the matter.

I now come to the question of the tariff. We on this side of the House have listened to hon. gentlemen opposite telling us that we closely followed and did not change the National Policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. Let me point out that the introduction of corn, free binder twine and free fence wire resulted in a saving to the farmers of this country of millions of money. Large quantities of these goods are brought into Canada, so that the tariff saving in this regard would assume enormous proportions. If the late Administration had done nothing else but that, they would still deserve the thanks of the country. But, as has been pointed out many times during the course of this debate, they also introduced the British preference. I quite believe that the English manufacturers did not take as much advantage of that preference as they could have taken if they had sent men over to see what they could do under that preference. I am pleased to see, however, that during the last few years they have sent men into the field, and the result has been that we have bought more English manufactured goods.

My hon. friend the Finance Minister said that speaking generally it is not advisable that one nation's tariff should be so ar-

[Mj\ Nesbitt.]

ranged as to fit into the particular features of that of another nation. Speaking generally, that may be quite true, but let me point out to the House that you cannot very materially change nature by tariffs. I mean that it is natural for us to trade with the United States. Even with the tariff our business with the United States has increased constantly for a number of years. Our friends on the other side tell us that after we came into power we upheld the protective tariff principle as against the United States. It was as natural and proper for us to do that as it was for us to breathe, for the simple reason that the United States had a very high tariff against us and owing to our close connection with the United States we could not be expected to lower our tariff and let the United States put up a high tariff against us. But things have changed in the meantime; the Government of the United States have seen fit to lower their tariff against us. No matter what we do, we naturally follow the course pursued by the United States. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to say that we should have no truck or trade with the Yankees, but, as a matter of fact, we copy the Yankees even in the matter of dances and ladies' dress- and, so far as I have been able to judge, they are not a bad sort of people to copy, after all. The tendency in the United States is to have lower tariffs; recently that tendency was so pronounced that the Government of the United States were forced by the people to lower the tariff. The tendency in this country, if I read the signs aright, is to lower tariffs. We are forced to have due regard to the raising of revenue, because, whether or not it is proper to collect revenue by imposing tariffs, that is the policy we have been pursuing for a number of years; that is the policy that we are likely to pursue, so far as I am personally concerned, that is the policy that I am going to advocate that we should pursue. At the same time, having due regard to the revenue of this country, which we have to raise, and having due regard to all interests that may be affected, we should make our tariff as low as possible; we should make it as nearly as possible a revenue tariff.

I quite appreciate the statement of the Minister of Finance that we should pay regard to infant industries and assist them in getting started in this country. The minister says that that is a policy which we should pursue to as great an extent as *ve can without hurting other industries. But there aire industries in this country that

have been assisted by the tariff for a number of years and are now in such a position that they oan compete with the rest of the world; it is on the products of such industries that the tariffs should be decreased to a certain extent. The infant industry starting off in this country has a veTy great handicap. In the first place, we are a country three thousand miles in length with only eight million people. Thus we are not very thickly settled, and the consequence is that to establish an industry from end to end of this country, to get it on its feet and make it a paying proposition, takes a great deal of work, a great deal of time and a great deal of cost; and in making a tariff I think we should consider that to a very large extent. I quite appreciate that it is a very difficult thing to make a tariff suitable to all sections of this vast country. Then, too, our interests personally clash. I regret the feeling that sometimes arises in this country .and is assisted sometimes even by members of Parliament, the class feeling. There is also a locality feeling that should not arise in this country. The interests of all are the same. But I particularly regret the class feeling that it is sometimes attempted to work up by newspapers. Class feeling, in my judgment, is far worse than party feeling although too much party feeling, that is blind party feeling, is a great injury rather than a benefit. The class feeling and class discussions in the newspapers are a great curse, speaking very strongly, to a country, and should not be encouraged by members speaking in this House or by the newspapers of this country. After all there is no difference of interest between the farmers and the manufacturers of this country or the middlemen. The so-called middleman gets a good deal of blame that he does not deserve. We must have the retailer in this country just as we must have the professional man. It will not do for us all to be farmers. A good many of us would starve to death as farmers and many of us would take the rest of our natural lives to learn to be good farmers if we tried ever so hard. But there are a lot of people in this country engaged in other occupations which are just as legitimate, although I confess I do not think are as nice as farming; but these people have as much right to a living as the farmer and that is why I deprecate this class discussion which sometimes arises in this country and for which there is no possible necessity. So far as I understand there is no difference between the farmers west of Port Arthur and those east of Port Arthur

in reference to the tariff. The farmers, so faT as I have heard from them and so far as my personal knowledge goes, are quite in accord, the farmers of Ontario 4 p.m. are quite in accord with the requirements of the farmers of the West. I think that the Government, in framing the tariff, should endeavour to satisfy the bulk of the people as far as it is possible to do so, at the same time paying due regard to the interests of all classes and all established businesses.

I would like to comment for a moment or two on some of the changes in the present tariff. Take the steel duties. I suppose that the steel duties were changed at the solicitation of the steel corporations of Canada. We must bear in mind that while we are anxious to help all industries, we cannot help any of the industries too much at the expense of the whole country. I understand that we paid the steel industries of this country in bounties something in the neighbourhood of $16,000,000 in the last few years. That should have been quite sufficient to have established this steel industry, if it is at all natural to the country, on a paying basis. Take the Dominion Steel Corporation. I am not one of those who are opposed to corporations by any manner of means. This blind antagonism to corporations simply because they are corporations I have no sympathy with, because the industries of this country have largely been built up by corporations. That is to say, few individuals in this country have means enough to start a business of their own, and they employ the corporation agency by bringing in the money of the various people to whom they can sell stock, and by that means build up a strong corporation. I am opposed absolutely to over-capitalization of corporations, and I would like to see some system adopted by which all corporations would have to submit their propositions to some power that could find out what the capitalization * was going to be used for. Take the Dominion Steel Corporation. It is in the minds of everybody here who has followed commercial industries in this country, that it was in two separate companies at one time, the Dominion Steel Company and the Dominion Coal Company. We know that both companies issued very large amounts of stock. I am not saying anything against them, I wish them all success, and I would not have any criticism to make here this afternoon excepting that they are coming to the Government

of the country for favours. I am not a stockholder of these corporations, and therefore it would be none of my business how they were incorporated or what they did, but when they come to this Parliament and ask for favours, it becomes the business of all of us to investigate, and at least we have the right to criticise. After the merging of the two corporations, with an enormous capitalization, we continued to pay them bounties for some years, and they paid a dividend on their common stock. Now I say that if the company had been properly managed, with due deference to the position of the shareholders in the company, they would not have attempted to pay a dividend on their common stock until they had accumulated a sufficient reserve to warrant them in doing so. If they had pursued this course no criticism would have been made this spring when they did not pay a dividend on their common stock. But they had no right to do it before because they must have used the bounties to a certain extent to assist in paying dividends in place of putting them in an operating position capable of competing with the rest of the world.

Let us now look at the Steel Company of Canada which, as we all remember, is a very recent amalgamation of several wire and nut companies and smelting companies and similar corporations in this country. They also started with an enormous capitalization. I will not go so far as to say that the capitalization is more than may be required in the interests of the business at some future time, but it was certainly an enormous capitalization for the genuine assets that they held when the amalgamation took place. Let me read their annual statement which was published in the press and is fresh in the minds of all. They did not do so badly, as you will aee, even without any assistance from the tariff:

Steel Company of Canada report for 1913 shows net profits, after expending $516,084 for repairs, maintenance and improvement of $1,640,011, Which compares with net profits of $1,547,039 at the end of 1912, an increase of about $93,000.

So they could not very well come to this Government with a poor mouth. In my judgment they were doing fairly well. The report goes on:

Of this amount $480,000 was taken by bond interest, $454,741 by dividends on the preferred stock, $137,500 was credited to the fund for depreciation, renewal and improvement of plants, $56,738 was written off plant account, and $511,621 was carried to credit of profit and loss.

The report states that since December 31 the directors have disposed of $850,000 of the first mortgage bonds of the company, and the working capital has been increased by the proceeds of that issue.

I do not know what they are going to do with the proceeds of the $850,000 worth of bonds unless it is for betterment. The report, in my judgment, does not show that the company needed assistance to any great extent.

Let us look at some other items. I wonder why the minister put a duty on caustic soda. Every soap maker in this country uses caustic soda. We on this side of the House use soap, therefore we are interested in caustic soda. There is only one factory in this country making caustic soda and it is in the riding of my hon. friend from North Essex (Mr. Wilcox). I have nothing to say against that firm. I hope they will increase their output and make a profit, but I do not think they should be allowed a duty at the expense of the soap manufacturers and of the ordinary people in this country who use soap. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, there are several people besides the gentlemen on this side of the House who use soap.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURTER:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT:

I think it is poor tariffmaking to put a duty on caustic soda. I now come to item 546:

Jute cloth or jute, canvas, uncoloured, not further finished than cropped, bleached, mangled, or calendered.

The tariff on that is 74 per cent preferential, 10 per cent intermediate and 10 per cent general. Why is a duty put on jute cloth? Jute cloth is not made in this country. It is used in the manufacture of all kinds of bags, such as flour bags, cement bags, grain bags-I need not enumerate the whole list, but jute cloth enters into the manufacture of nearly all kinds of bags used in this country; so why put a duty on jute cloth? To me it seems absolutely absurd. If we are ever going to ship grain by the Panama canal it will have to be shipped in bags, not in the loose state. I understand that this duty on jute cloth will increase the cost of a carload of sacked oats by $10. I hope the minister will reconsider that item, also the duty on caustic soda, which would help one firm in this country, at the expense of the whole people.

As to the steel duties, possibly these people could not have got along without a9

high a duty as $3 on wire rods. But they could have taken other courses. I am quite -sure they could have reduced their capitalization, for instance, and they could have put their brains to solving how they could successfully compete with other manufacturers. Why should not the Dominion Steel Company compete? They have the ore almost at their door. They get it by boat from Newfoundland, which is practically at their door. Coal is actually at their door. I am sure that nobody in the world can beat them, so far as their proximity to coal is concerned. They get their ore cheaper than any similar industry in the United States. The ore used in the Cleveland and Pittsburg steel works is got from the lake Superior district. It has to be taken down there by boat, and ore destined for Pittsburg has to be transhipped; as regards Cleveland, the ore is taken right into their yard. In both cases, however, the ore has to be carried much further than in the case of the Dominion Steel Company. I do not think a concern of that size should be encouraged to come to the Government clamouring for' assistance. They have had assistance from the public for several years, and should now be in a position to compete with the *world.

That brings me to the question of agricultural implements. The minister has made a reduction of 5 per cent on mowers and binders. That means 5 per cent on the valuation of a binder or mower entered for duty. In the case of a binder, that would mean a reduction of about 3 per cent on the selling price and about 7 per cent on the material and labour cost.

Everybody in the manufacturing business knows that the manufacturer does not reduce or increase his retail price on account of a saving or an extra cost respectively of five per cent on his raw material. It would be too much trouble for him to change his price list. The minister could easily have strained his conscience to reduce the duty by at least seven and one-half per cent on these implements and I see no reason why he should not have reduced the duty on several other items of agricultural implements, such as cultivators, ploughs, horse rakes, seed drills and manure spreaders, without doing harm to the industry. Potato diggers are not manufactured in this country. Double corn-planters-I do not mean double corn cultivators-are not manufactured in this country.

Mr. -COCKSHUTT: I think they are

manufactured in Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT:

There may be some manufactured in Canada; but, if so, their manufacture has been commenced very recently.

I was very much surprised first at the hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) and the other day the hon. member for South Pe^th (Mr. Steele) quoting what I said at a meeting at Woodstock. I did not think I would get any notoriety outside of Woodstock and I thought I had- very little there. They stated that I had said at a public meeting that we had in the proposed reciprocity agreement taken two and one-halif per cent off the duty on wagons and five per cent off other articles; that I thought the Bain Wagon Company could compete with the rest of the world with that two and one-half per cent taken off; that I did not think the Government would reduce the duties any further, and that I thought the farmers should be satisfied. I repeat that exactly this afternoon. If we were to take all the duties off all agricultural implements this afternoon, it would be only a circumstance in comparison with what the farmers would have received under the reciprocity agreement. There would be no cry in the West to take the duty off agricultural, implements if the reciprocity agreement had passed. The farmers of the West would have been perfectly satisfied to pay more for their agricultural implements if they had had an open market in which to sell their goods and they would have had the money to pay for these implements. I do not believe there would be any such agitation for the duty to be taken off agricultural implements if reciprocity were in deration. I firmly believe that the farmers of Ontario and the West would have been absolutely satisfied with the reciprocity agreement as it was framed. At the time of that agreement I, as a brother manufacturer, told the manufacturers, publicly and privately, that I thought they were the most short-sighted people in this country. They were the people who raised class feeling, because they made an unnecessary attack on the benefit that the farmer was to receive under the reciprocity agreement. The manufacturers of Canada were not affected by that agreement. I told them then, and 1 tell them now, that they made a great mistake when they opposed reciprocity, and they will sooner or later find out their mistake. I am speaking now as a manufacturer as much as a farmer. I am as much interested in manufacturing, according to my means, as any man in this House.

Under the reciprocity agreement we took 2$ per cent off the duty on some implements, but we took 5 per cent off the duty on a list of implements, which is more than my hon. friend has done. In addition to that, we gave the farmers the opportunity to trade with the world and, so far as I know from a farmer's standpoint, that is what they ask for and that is what they are going to have.

Mr. A. DeWITT FOSTER: Why was 24

per cent taken off only two implements and 5 per cent off others under the reciprocity agreement?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT:

Because the others had

a higher protection; and that is why some of the others could have stood a further reduction under the present proposition, because they have a higher protection and also because the manufacturers of some of these implements have recently increased their output in this country so much that they can compete successfully with the American manufacturers. It does not always follow that because a tool is cheap a man is going to buy it. Farmers exercise discretion in buying, just as a man will do when buying a suit of clothes. If I were going to buy a plough, I may say that I would buy a Cockshutt plough, even if I had to pay $5 more for it. I am not sure that I would not buy a Massey-Harris binder-I think I would. It does not necessarily follow that, because the duties are taken off, the manufacturer of agricultural implements cannot compete or that he cannot get a market in the United States. I am interested in a little industry that makes tools approaching agricultural implements, and we have sold them in the United States against a very high duty. Unless we get information to the contrary, I feel that, without hurting the agricultural trade, we can take the duty off certain classes of agricultural implements for the benefit of the farming community of this country.

I have no objection to offer as to the Massey-Harris people, and I have no comment to make on them, because, like the Cockshutt people, I am personally proud of them as enterprising Canadian manufacturers. I would be very sorry ,to see them hurt in any shape, manner or form, but I think they can compete with other manufacturers without any favours being extended to them. They are competing in Australia, in New Zealand, in Russia, in France, and

sometimes I believe they have even butted into Germany. I am endeavouring to speak in the interests of the country at large, without any prejudice against any human being or any industry in Canada, and I do not see why these people cannot compete in Canada against other manufacturers, when they can compete with them in the open markets of the world. It is said that the freight rates from Chicago to Winnipeg or Calgary are against the Canadian industry, but not having these rates before me I will not be certain as to that. We must, however, bear in mind that they get a drawback on their steel and iron, and that they have that advantage over other Canadian industries.

Let me refer to the question of free wheat. I must say that I was never more astonished in my life than when the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech that the Government would not give the western farmers free wheat. I see no possible reason why they should not be given free wheat. They have demanded it; they are the people interested, and in my opinion they should get it. I admit that there are some arguments against it, but so far as the farmer is concerned there can be no two opinions but that it would benefit him. If the farmer wants free wheat, I do not see why he should not have it. So far as I know the farmers of Ontario, they are perfectly willing that the farmers of the West should have free wheat.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

John Best

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BEST:

You do not know the farmers of Ontario very well.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT:

I think I know them better than you do, and I think I know them as well as any man in Canada does; and, speaking absolutely from the standpoint of the farmer's interest, and my own personal inclination, I am perfectly willing that the farmers of the West should have free wheat, and I raise some wheat myself. As a matter of fact, the farmers of Ontario may be selfish, because they do not grow much wheat for sale, and they do not care whether they sell the wheat they grow, or not. If my hon. friend (Mr. Best) lives in a section of the country where they are depending upon selling their wheat crop, I wish he would come up and visit me and I will take him around for a week and board him for nothing, and I will show him where farmers do not need to grow wheat for sale, and I will guarantee they are making as much money as are the farmers in his section of the country. We

grow wheat in our section of the country more for the straw than we do for the wheat.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink

April 22, 1914