V ' 13*) (V—t- 0' . «MO-‘COJA . Q ‘2“ J ’ . 0‘" '3 ‘ a“. 2‘ o..‘ -- ‘V'I . ~ ,. 0: V. f? ' . . ‘ u’q 3' ' ~ 3 - '7} 'z . . .' 7:51.13 4316-3 I 533?,- g‘. '33.- 3131,93... ’ _ .- . f , n ‘.. {A10 ‘ , I hgéé‘. ‘ ‘3‘ J.) 3 - - - ‘3 3 .3333 33 3 . 3.3- 4; I ‘ " t ‘ . Q _ ‘.'I_ . . '.‘ ""22 ”,3 (clghgffwhfl’ltmnéflg . . . k Vb.‘1«§‘é:§w _ .. l I,‘ n _ ‘Iv'.I.l o‘ , - . ,. . l '5 3 .. " 3.3.. 1;?1‘1‘ 335.1%. - 1&3 Di: I 8. . 35 prgzqymgmhh't ..: v } .3_ affix-13"?!“ a! 3:. 3‘ 1 i .' . ' Afig?fi?l ‘ “'1‘“ o . . D H I, 1 e ‘ - I. “ . . 2‘ .' ,. .: 5“” I ~ . 333733 33:33.3 333 3 .333. . 33.33 3-3., 33 I: ‘ ‘anLI. ' 5?...“ ‘ 'e‘QI. :“z‘; ‘I‘“?HI '1' :‘n‘: . "v, ,,1‘(\§? 0Q. 'le; t p I'.t§z.m’:.)‘0..I';. 3 . ~ '3 ~33 ; :33 3‘3. 3.3333333333333313. 3‘33“-3 3. 3:33 - ~ I - ' ‘ ' ' 3’2. l '7 Ye! 3- '43 .' '3.’ 73": W L.’ ‘ '3' "' '3 . "I ' f , , £5,133.33: 5"; 3‘33 33.33.- {ag’kzrgu' 3.15.3333 ‘* .. W33: 1.3%”, 33.3; ‘ '9‘?"':;' “.~:"' 0- ‘h‘f-‘édt 1‘ I ‘ . .5 ‘Af' '.."9AI-.h‘.:"‘_."~ ’f“ 9- 2.45"!“ “.3“: I ., : 1,}; , r31}. ‘;“"I-I::‘H. . '1' ‘ I‘;;‘#~I mfg . ‘ 6'::’-)r .q’lhu UN" 12")?“ ' o “1% \‘ D f , :.'§:.“)’;“.' ‘1‘.’ - . u x "o. ”:‘, . , . '0' ' - . ‘ .. I? _o ; . . ‘ ‘ .' ~ . x ‘ I . I '..O . . . , . ._ , . 3.. - N" I ”'1 _ .2“ -.'-\ ‘ “fix I ‘ 5.} n .' I 7'3: “’3 i“ . 5:1“,“u . _ 1’)“. :3 3 . . . ~33.-.~..'=§§3:3133~‘~;:3‘§3323.. '31'713333‘135‘7 . 33231343331’c.*§:-u_.~3£§33 7:33." 4'3 ' --73 ': .'.:.":fI..-3:37 3. 3.. 43:33.33? 33151313234333 113.33‘3:s,¢s:3?;;3§;‘n§1r43§33‘"3 I ‘2‘ - _ . .“‘.‘\;;z“;‘3;'f'iy~1§.t}Lr$‘w‘.‘g;‘un' ”,‘qszfil. . 1L? "‘I'Lttghzfiql‘tl‘vsvujaiéfi.‘ ’5’14" ‘) . - I II C".~..‘:IQ“.I.~ :2. k “‘.:l:: :I‘ ‘9“. f‘l’. :t4‘g?!“ 1Q"‘.!'r"i“:}{ll’f‘t ‘ti‘:".‘:tlh:1i>tzu;; b’g‘u'gl': 0‘ ~ _ . . 3 INL 3“... v’,' R}! .W Y. ‘fic:"-‘I$‘."V"1S{'v H -’:‘-\'U).; ":' 1:33, '5‘" z'fsvlkf‘u K ‘OS'PA Ian". “9’ Qunuo'li'; ‘53 ' ‘9 .‘33 . " o . ‘3 I v .3" * .3 \‘h’ . I , I 33.3; },t. Ni. *x.. If." o¢4gf:.‘3'~:;I‘-1§uuv&°’]« “huh... ."i :1‘ 33.63334 “- sicg fit‘“ . 331:, . 5 ._ .rw'. :1 rr’ *.‘A “I? , I \- . . I v vi . 4 a . 3 "‘ 1J.13:N"ESF'J.'. , . . . 3.. x33 mm. .3. 3 o. ‘ - . . . .m‘“ ‘31:}: “'th j‘o r" Q' fl .' t ' - , 3 - 3-1.. 33.". 753*? ' L, l” 3 . - , , . ‘ 0.. ‘I‘ ” l , ‘vn‘ I . . --"i."’. ' "b 3.3 ~ 33.3.3238 3:»; 75:3“ A" N. "0-,.°'v§‘1'.“'c'fi;‘fg D . . . . .‘1’ . ~--‘.L:.°.‘.‘w.3'::".‘-' .\ . - 3 3 - «,3, ~ 4: mihfiru‘tt -' . I . I. “3 O... " . ‘ .9 3.?!sz “3"?!3 2;“ “#"N‘F‘V "2 ., - ,o “h. '9‘ g ""3 ~ W- "‘ 3 . . . ‘3': v ‘ez-sz’fib-o ~~ ‘7‘...:'.‘,‘3's..3~"" «V3.39. I . . . "L“: s. I...‘_'Q'.I {2“ ‘4‘ ~‘ 5‘ W‘s)“. .‘u -":'- 3 N ' .M. .n..~. 3' - wufilvfiw: .9" . . 3 - ..ud...,l -/ .. ”s.’: ‘In'\ . . . . ‘ ‘ .' . '..‘ “l \‘ 3: ..‘ \v.-“.-I~u“" 1,3” ‘1“ .. “ ' 0' - ~13”.me .314. War-q- I??? “.i. .," ' pro. 1 J '3"; ‘5' “”3 ~ . ' - ‘ 1 ~ J, \I“ ‘u.’ A " §?§:f QV‘; . , . o N '4- '0 0‘ 343:2” {rm-1‘.” k 3.3.33.3..- .. \ 'M. . . 3"» ‘ "d‘ut‘cvkx‘ €‘V‘p‘..'3 .234?” "a. .o‘ ”9.. ‘q ‘ . 9..- s ,:~| 3“ ‘2 vuiw‘.‘ '3 . "“ g...Q' ‘I‘j‘ r “.3- 3 “ . h - ’ - ‘: ~ ~-.'..."‘-3-‘.": ‘3':- 4"":“1-‘313-13 ~ ~‘~7‘“--3‘r«. ‘5"433- ' fit‘wfi \. . ”‘5 yo, . . I- o . ‘90- ‘. . - . ' , v ‘ J . 6. -.u I Q. 7"I\ | 9 "b "g, ‘3. 'J u; u'. k 3?». 3' a?" “3”}? “' 4'.” "'t‘..'o‘ “‘23 I:.‘.‘"'-“.“"' " r1 - ‘ ‘ ' 3 5:.“ :‘lfi' w.” ég'u‘” A. W. ' “t "\..' . " ‘7’ l“~.'"“.‘ O. 'Y'N.‘ I». 00 ; c ‘sa . - I ‘ ‘. 3 u _ .0 ' ‘- o ' '0 c ‘ .;:'. ‘ Q.~ coat“... K“. 0o “‘v..v.!9"\‘:'".’p£:"\\~‘ ‘13, 3‘03“)“. 33:...‘N3- ”5.2.. ‘zl.:*£;'§‘.. ”Wt-"1's? "h‘ I Q' . u 3. 3_ ,I'. ”. ' . " 3. . - -.-' N '~.\ '0. “ .. - a. ". , _ M . .2 - mi)... .‘~ ‘O‘ I\- .v; .2; W‘sc‘.‘ Q...:?" ‘1;:\ ‘v-~ 1.. .3 ”‘0' .".‘ . H" _".I' .9. .‘.\‘ . - “‘4 ..' t “‘3. ' ‘ o ' . . . . ~ 3 ~\, ’u H. U.;‘~-i. “ 1. ~- _ . . . . t . I .I 3“. . . (Q- $131.33.." #1:" I! . , ‘ - a. -, :- . v 3 . w-;"‘. *‘ J1, . ‘ .I 3 . , , O ‘ . u - I 0‘ ‘ -. 3 ,' . . . o. v ..' . a 0?. .3 _ ' .. .' ,- N ' . 'Q ‘ .‘ ' '5' . . ~ ' ~. ~ '.“ .”'-‘ ' h‘ '1‘ ' ' '~I~_' I“ :“J.'-‘.‘-ts“-'. 'h‘ .‘§ I'v-J ' ‘ ‘-. ’5" ‘Q ‘. ‘ s: ."h A .. N .7 ~ , h ' ~ " h” ' . I N. "-3 5-. .' . 3 31- . - . 3 - . . . . . a . . . ".\ \v C“: "“‘~‘ a“; . ‘lv;5h'..‘: ‘. ' ‘."I~‘. D ’ ”I. s“ ‘4 :.\ “H. -.‘~‘. -*~ a," b. 'O ‘_ >4 . ‘- . ”3:3" '35.“: .., ‘I-,' ‘Qg..‘:"."v. ”‘3 I 3%;‘33 ’V‘“::L_4. °.' pal ‘ . v Q '- ‘ ~‘.~'Q:‘z-‘:.'; ."‘ . . 1 L4 . lu‘hi,l« 1, I 11.1!“ ..v. all t , ..1,..’ ' fir QJ;I“" '- \Jk'x‘ «w x K‘ '- 1. mm .5 . ' W< ‘ 5 14 I x: s" . ‘1- ~.'f 3,4 )3 3’} .3“ 4b“! Br}, 1; ”if“. .K ’ I V"; ,4.’ .' > ‘72-" ‘ #5 P‘aifiui --?’T$,£t<-.‘~ft~‘h‘.«x. ' x 3 k- ..".'u‘.'ig"&-;§‘3jfi*‘.i"'?’fi - " _ ;,. , We? . "fl 1,}, . f‘ . , ‘7}"4"'(\2 x . p. 3"‘1 ,fi‘.‘ 1! \ :L.‘.: '1 .~« -u " 7.. " A 91?: "W .. -t~ #31." | I'-- 1":3 2.5-", $1Jj3\;l~‘.’v kg «Mag 1 x» h ‘ ‘. ~ “91‘. :3!" 1' 3 'f ‘ “Cf: f I . . Kc,» .J ‘t J_ ‘ I . ‘ . a"’l"’\t¥‘l .. ‘ f‘ «r2 ‘h - "1' k 911.! 4. ”(W’W‘h 6" m“. , K {‘1 ‘ 31. . Y’: 1 T, \v. a)" ) 1L». V3 xv,- , 39“ i . ’yl’ I~ ‘,7&A:--.m.‘~¢ ‘a‘ - ¢_ ‘ ‘ 1 2-! N’- _: fj-M‘yf -J.‘T5’x:"7'~§‘.-’~ 1“LA~§§'..S‘:C?’E§§ ,.~. év‘. ""v‘iififi ,\\'“2'“._L 1! 133'“:- ‘.:"7Ir"’-“ I..\‘_" 1‘? {'1 ‘_ . ?.".'_ ‘ ‘ ‘ "4 _ .',_:’J.‘K€:, i". '4. Jxk‘h‘: ‘fi ‘.\' . t. ‘h- -_ _&,3' W .; v x k 1 _~‘_ 9’“ W: 351“" _ . 1 g .. ‘IN .2‘\ ;-.‘. J‘ - ' ‘. .‘r “ . _!'h\i3,loi’锑-‘~bk‘l_ i" .' .: H‘s; u’v. «‘x-,~ ,- - .11: «. HAN". up, -, ,‘I-W . I . ' J ‘ h l‘ -t - ' ”PM 1” I Q ‘ , t\ ”1' L“ '1. I: kt‘ “‘ 'q‘ "O."- ‘- ’1‘.“ *‘7' - ) o - l,.~,'- “f ,0, 3'1- . - 1. *~; ~. , - . .-_‘. ty‘?‘ , “’3'," ‘1’ ‘ ’ ’ . , .1 ...-_i I" . fl . "”9"" . .- .r.;'. :a. ‘ ’3 I ' ‘- 1. "3-""‘Iéh’f"«“ J14; " ., . ".41. f "'\.A‘."‘:‘.N .4L3}?_- t u h , ‘Vu . ' . o “o x" fi;"llx"‘y‘:!.’?"= . .. ,',~ ‘ .I, V;' Rica '1 ‘ IA . .-xy.- axis-"501'. I: 2....“ ';1.'~ , .' 1 _—.o 4 V"“p'",‘~n' d- =‘ £‘\"~"\’??<~"' a—rg-sxmxt .- 4"‘,.j.,;)‘o‘: '1‘ "4'“! ”I \"~:‘., 5 x. .‘u. \> , , .¢.' -‘-. .- u'. .:"h." .“I .‘b'V‘t-V. .- ~.._ ‘ vi," “33.4.3‘ ”,' t2“! ‘£_.)V-. _ fi .. . -. ”‘43:" . ,‘ ..' H) L .21.. '.4 ‘Y., I ‘ ' )3. .t.‘ z; ‘ -A ‘ ~ " ‘3 . , .- ‘ ' I‘ ‘ II-V A ’9-5 1&3, '._;f 3191;} l. ‘ 'o ‘J—l‘“ u'ql U!- \r 1" " ‘ 4.“. , k'c. |.". .' - 'r :‘Q'fflé ..'J .a ., J, ~15" 114'." ‘. ' «5-?— W‘ffig - . «‘q‘é'}-%f~ .-' ._. t. n» .I‘, 1-:n-‘...". .1 H . \Ov" ‘Y' ‘ t . . i I ‘3 {1.41 {“35 x 3?; _Z‘,x .-~-’}‘¥I:«,gf , ~75” 3. "31., 4f f 1" ’ u‘ A? ‘ .‘¥ 0%. V ‘l .3." 'fi'}‘kf“£§w 4' a1“ - :5 1;.)7'7.‘ JV ' 3, w'fi33 -"""-='in4?-« -7 "~13‘xf‘kq’324xae‘gpx.5, . " \h 3‘; 9~ '5 i“ s ‘ ’l’O, - v, s '33,. ‘ 1;. . 7 .4 -. . ,; ‘ .1 > '.'D I I“ . _t. ' " "f: . “buxéfim “’33; ,1 . 5‘ flit-2f} h‘x' .. . 'tt U. (ltk‘ M (‘91-‘43 . I ‘ 31¢ isms» 9W. ‘9 ‘n'. 9‘ {1- . xx _2 f {f 1; ‘fi '. "é :_:.~“II‘ .n". . 1.. ‘ '_ 1 ,c , v 1 ~‘l'f4' (. a . o, I, ’ ‘ ' p ”£3. 1 .‘4-u ,L|\'h‘p IN .' Na. ‘k. ‘ 34“".{s'i’ . ,1 '9 I. . '.[x:§'I;‘..,, .o'f“ ‘2 L 1:;‘5‘ J: ”Wt. v}? :- D. . -( . ,‘ , ‘ " .4: . 1». » ~ , .. ‘ J‘ _ j .1. .5 ~ 1! _ . ' ("Ix-5‘ 1% 6 V gr - c , 3“ *7” "ix, ‘1’?”‘3 <4», ’5‘. . #3 .be 34‘? 3* I «a. _ ‘ Y$~§ ~,'\ I ._‘,v | x3, s. [fiexfl- 1““ “a: J «n x” , ~..‘.-.zf,;x , r. $3,157,er Ji' «9% «L fid‘sP-‘fi‘ 3 .. 5&5}? y « TLiJDS IN UKIIJD STATQS IQICAES OF FARQ gametes no“; maxim, 1900-1932 A A Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 'c‘r , 4 ~ 1 ll--" U U of Arts In K *i Lichijan State College N John A. Downes s 1954 THESIS 143:1?le ‘9 31.42."? ZievelOpmez‘t of this study is owing»; to the tan: helpful suggestions and criticisms of Dr. Harald S. kitten, Head of the De- part; nt of Boogouics {3‘ «‘3 a? “JP; \«5‘2'314 4 C) 11m ‘ 4L " CF CCLIJJI’JS LTJJUAJ'LU'I'IQJ anffidd I lJLAQIVg diiJlEILuJJd 0F bfilflofl plaids iLPOfiTS ‘ V‘ '1' ~ "~‘ ‘ '1‘. ‘ ’\ ' ‘ 02 Man». rl..ul}obl‘u Elwm bfiLdlkallt Total +3 rude Trade in Firm Eroducts Cdnl‘ Dali I I fiv- - 1 1-61 '\~1-~.-.1 r x ' r" ' ' ‘H .3 j, «. \ J. - .- f 7' INJHLAIUALJ AJJAD-IMJ NIL—LiIUJkI Lu! Vic’s-JD blLUA-L U‘h‘uLJA 'Tg, "‘1‘:'/h,‘. ’3.) A safiuuaw Luv ct- r3 Tepogrep7v C 11¢th Tariff Costs of Transportation Temporary Shortages Cyclical Price Changes Jar-Time Demend dxchange Rates Capital Investzent Changing Domestic Acquirecents British gurkets culprix III £33945 lJ Cagnban—nmgiicnd fined olgci 1900 First Period, 1900-1313 second Period, l314-l920 Four h P31“ 10d, 1930-1932 116:8 «ann'e 10 10 ll 11 cgnrrsl IV 1-~ ~ - v1 '\ -,.' --~, .. -v~-. ,1. .LoflrM-ILth U2 b-5bJ-n’ I -LVJJuU LII) Greins, Floor ;41 Feeds «nest Flour Jhegt By-lroduct seeds Cuts Hay Other Grains and Feeds seeds Flexseed Clover, aliwlle, and Timothy ozed other see.s Pot‘fit *‘ D Dried Beans Burnigs ether T=9etflbles in Ketusal state Lther Vegetables Ire;;red or Ereserved Fruit” and Huts Agples Berries other Fruits Zfiits Miscelliueous Crop Eroducts flsgle sugar and Sirup 0th r Crop Proiucts CM? I EAL-i Y LJ'QLYL‘J bi“ milks-4.431; fliUJJUde amirgmls Rides and skins Cattle Aides Calf Skins Others 1 "/3 1WD“. or: UV C! 7 UU '1 u 41 '7 U 45 47 48 49 ,1 5a U1 01 .. on 0) Q) C) 60 61 ’3 r N 62 '7 U 64 64 65 65 65 67 Ch 03 7O 7O 74 75 77 77 79 79 Meet Products 1resh Jaef end ‘eu xraoh Pork Fresh Mutt on and Lamb Sausa;e Cisings C ‘ n : J. T. . 41 ‘3; lILeLx LI S Dairy Prods ts gilk Cream Butter ‘heese Miscellaneous animal Pr iucts Bones, Horus, a“: Mo Hal I‘ deal ‘4’ )3.) others L. Oli-U LUIS I ’ou' aroma '5N1‘ iJEQAJJCA SCDuou HI 5 mm L’} ‘(I o 0‘: U1 rb #- LC a: Table I II III I? VI VII VIII IX LI XII XIII XIV XV ,Avere.; e Arrual Values of Prod xcts of Farm Cri in in Totul United States Imports of Generul A or- chandise from Canada, 1900-1932. Average Annual Quantities and Percentages of Cer- tuin American Imports of F rm Products supilied b~r “M J ‘0 >1.“ . .3 J‘CDd. r) 19 l J DWI/wig. 1L iAA(_J U31vCUu PoriUdS, OU- 3&2. Statistical Canadian-Amsricen Congerisons. Are-a of Occupied and Jstinated Potential A"ricul- turel Lunds in tie Kine Provinces of Cxuuda, 1851, mid Jstilthued M). d. Area, 19:U. Yearl; Ave rA e chhanpe Rates of tile Canadian 13011561., 1315-1932. fistimated Investnents of the United States in Canada, Jununry l, 1931. Source and Disposition of Foreign Investments in Canada, l900-l913. Average Annual Yalues of Cr0p and Animal Products in Totul United States Agricultural Imports from Canada, l9CO-1932. Ave re e Annual Values of Constituent Groups in Crop Products Imported from Cunede‘by the United States, 1900-1932. Average Annual American Imports of Grains, b‘lour, and Feeds from Canada, 1900-1932. United states Imports of Canadian wheut for Con- sumption and for milling in Bond,1321- 93 Average Annual Values of Canadian Seeds Imported by the United States, 1900—1932 Average Annual Velu es of Potatoes, Dried 3e ens, and Dried Pens Imgorted from Canada by the United States, 1900—1933. Average Annual ulues of Liscellaneous Ve etuole Products Included in American Imports from Canada, 1900-1932. Average Annual Values of Fruits and nuts Bought by AmeriCun Importers from Canada, 13C 0-1952 Page 12 13 19 29 31 40 49 56 61 65 Tab le If I {VII AJIII -r -f AL AL XX yrs, 4‘“; XXII II III IV Average Annual .r1. lues of 1..iscella11eous Crop Products ImpOI‘tGd frOIn Cwlaua OJ tllg ulliug; yes-sues, 190 03-19 2 Ave- "u“e Annual 1a1ues of Constitue1t Grout-s of 1n‘1i11al Products Imported from Canada by the United states, NCO-1932. Average Annual Values of United dtwtes I1.1;s>ort of Live 11:11:.11'1‘18 from Canada, 1300-1332. Averufi Amual Values of Classified American Inigorts of Hides and Skins fro.1 I "anada, 1906-19152. Average Armual Values of Canadian Z.ieat Products Iz.1ported by th United Ct ates s, NCO—1332. Aver age Annual ".Alues of Liry Pro ucts 111,,crted from Canada by the United States, 1300-1932 Ave rs. 5e Annual V;..lues of ILiL'Icellaneous 1‘n1ilnal Pro- ducts Included in American; Laborts fro-1.1 Cane. da, 1900-11532. ‘7? ‘l “.113 1.:ove1uent of Farm Products in Total United States Imports of General ILercl-iandise from Canada. United 3t;.te s In orts of Grog and Animal Pr o;ucts frOA1 C's-1.1.1-1Ca, ldUWLngo Q 71” 1.1oI1':;..:-:t of drains, Flo... 1...:1Faeds, o—‘eds, Pota- toes, 33u11s and Peas, in Uni tei. States 1:11,.orts frOLfl Ca.“ film, 1903-1121112. A141ual‘ialuss of United St..tes Inoort of Live Aninuls, Aides and 51:11.3, heats, and Daim' Products from Canada, l‘302—l982. 7O 77 80 87 94 30 32 This study has been undertaken as an analysis of changes in the volune and commodity character of farm.products imported from Canada by the united States during the present centur~. The period selected has been taken for its remarkable significance in the de— velOpment of Canadian agriculture contemporaneously with unprece- dented American industrial expansion. Farm products are defined in the treatment to include those ; animal and vegetable materials whose chief value has come from.farm production. Such a criterion has proved satisfactory in all but a few cases, and in these the amount has been so small as to make little difference in classified totals. Statistical data for the investigation have come principally from statements of general merchandise imports contained in "Foreign Commerce and Kavigation of the United btates." Figures for the years prior to 1918 are not exactly comparable with those for subsequent dates, as the fonuer cover fiscal periods ended June 30, and the latter, calendar years. This discrepancy, however, has not seemed serious. A weightier consideration concerns accuracy of the data. So far as could be determined, changed methods of cOnpilation have not been the source of distorted comparisons, but there may be SOme error from original records. At any rage, provision was made in the Underwood Tariff not of 1913 for better collection and arrangement of import statistics, and several authorities have suggested the possibility of sons incorrect pre-war figures. Thus, Professor Taussig has 00mmented "There was ground for suspecting tiese (statis- tics of imports prior to 1915) of serious inaccuracies in the past." ‘45) p. 445. Special studies and reports have made up the remaining reference sources. For treatment of several commodities investigations by the United States Tariff Commission have been particularly helpful, and data from the Canada Yearbooks have had many uses. unit’hlfia E hill??bl~.| I ..yx.lln‘ h Pi 0C nouns The study proceeds from general to Specific examination. Its first three chapters are a discussion of conditions and in— fluences under which the trade has moved. This movement n xt is investigated in terms of individual cemnodities. wherever possible, the research has been Carried through in terms of quantities as well as values. It has been recognized that price changes more or less vitiate comparisons made over a number of years, But because of the difficulty of obtaining satisfactory index numbers, no attempt has been.made to state values in terms of base-period figures. Likewise, in view of the heterogeneous conditions, both as to time and as to constituent products, no trend lines have been inserted on charts. The analysis is primarily qualitative and secondarily quantitative. as such, it is subject to many lacunae. For to be complete it would necessitate first-hand knowledge of all the conditions under which trade in each product has been effected. As a library type of investigation'it may serve to introduce a part of Canadian—American trade for further study. Perhaps, also, it may suggest the complexity of interacting forces that limit international commerce. ‘P l. CHnBQJR I Relative Significance of United States Inports of Sarm Iroducts from Canada. J..( _.,. Total Trade Canadian-American trade constitutes one of the largest bilateral move— ments in world commerce. In fact, prior to its reduction by recent tariff rates and business depression it had become larger than that between any other two countries. Greatest develOpment of this exchange has come during the present century. Between the years ended June 30, 1900 and 1929 the value of United States general merchandise imports from Canada rose from h39,369,000 to lsos,495,ooo, whiil corresponding figures for exports were p95,320,000 and §948,448,000. with a single exception‘, since 1917 the Dominion has been the leading individual source of American imports, and the United States has occupied a similar position for Canada. In such.¢~relationship the Dominion's share in imports of its southern neighbor has ranged approximately from.only 5 to 13 per cent, as compared with receipts therefrom‘amounting to between 58 and 67 per cent of its own foreign purchases, But this share has included a significant trade in several products. Canada has been a leading source of United States imports of newsprint paper, pulp~wood, wood-pulp, lumber, capper, nickel, aluminum, asbestos, fresh fish, undressed furs, wheat, milk, cream, and many other items having smaller value in the trade. Of the goods enumerated, wood products usually have constituted the largest related group. During the last decade of the period studied they averaged about 50 per cent of the total American general merchandise imp ports from Canada, and contemporaneously, newsprint paper was the most it valuable single product. ‘ In 1920, largely because of the high price of sugar, Cuba held first rank. ** From a negligible amount in 1900, this derivative of cellulose fibers in- creased to 42 per cent of the aggregate value of 0.5. imports of general merchandise from Canada in 1932; and between 1914 and 1928 its annual quantitv 1 in tfle trade incre:sed from 310.000 to 2.041-000 tans mh41o an---e .3}, '&;._L $2.; m .3 °.- fir . -- .,1,., _ 1r; e in Jarm Iroiucts However, farm products at times have reached large prOportions in the movement; Table I - average Annual Values of Products of Farm Origin in Total v ° . “1., 1. 7- ‘ -q _ l - 1, , , ' ,1 ,-‘.... \ ,H‘ - ,.. United states inverts of General merchandise from Zanada, 1960-1932*. 3 Farm Products 3 Total : flrof Petal in ‘Period" : {000) z (000) a Farm Products 1900-1903 7,497 43,309 17.31 1303-1905 8,945 56,268 15.90 1906-1908 8,624 73,235 11.94 1909—1911 16,151 91,769 17.60 1913-1914 35,769 130,024 27.51 1915-1917 62,849 298,180 27.54 1918-1920 145,548 519,421 27.60 1921-1933 74,713 371,823 20.09 1924-1926 82,776 443,088 18.68 1927—1929 93,117 489,276 19.03 193 57,980 402,350 14.40 1931 28,077 266,268 10.65 1932 14,022 174,101 8.05 * Compiled from Foreign Commerce and.javi3ation of the United States. " Years ended June 30, 1900-1917; calendar years, 1918-1932. At their peak in this relationship - during the»year ended June 30, 1914 - they had a value equivalent to one-third of the total, and from 87,695,000 in the initial year studied, they rose to an absolute higi point of $184,197,000 in 1920. Moreover, their rate of change occasionally has been considerably greater than that for the total American purchases from.the Doxdnion. (Figure 1). This variation has covered a number of c0mmodities. In addi- tion to wheat, milk, and cream, mentioned above, Canada is the chief supplier of United States imports of‘cnts, hay, barley, buckwheat, wheat flour, by-product feeds, maple sugar, clover seed, potatoes, turnips, apples, horses, live poultry, dd fresh pork; and it has been an important source of imported cattle, sheep, cattle hides, ressed beef, butter, and flaxseel. 1“) 2a. .. . 1.1 .q3. J - 143 1 .- . L... .1.. $1.37.”. 3-H- _-:._L... _L i .1 ._ .1 _- 11.1% 1. L-Z .. 1 - . .vuv L. L .. I. ._ ._“_ ._L _ .ln-fi. . . .- nu _ Li .«lwlw 'nt- - n _..4 .«n—1 _ .3" 1 .1 1d - n 1 - 3 onw L .L.:+.1.w”.. .+Lv_\+lr-w+1d.fi1~‘ . .ol+q ..L. _uL L A LwL._L11L1L.1.HJLL.\“J “4‘.“ . film-flu LIL-mimlfll 1w3w3“3_113 .W.m....~_v W 1?* .... L 1 _1-114... «* 431MIH3L‘3.3.31—1 .{l‘lu' ..J.._L _... - M 1-1 .. ,- . . - ..1... 1 :1 ..1-1-..... -1.- . . _ _ . . ... . ......r. .. .I. LL-.1 1. L . . . -..1......_.LLL.-3 t ... .JL 1 . Li unfrir. _ _ . _ . . L1 .1 1-... .3131.--” ..L.. -..T .. ..1. . _ . L? -- f.vb_. -_ . P.” 1+uml9-fl o._* _ . u . ”IL-Aw... .r_-_. L.. «L ”_M- ”...“.W «.4. .- . I|-..I+1|..IH-Hllal-¢.|1LI3L 3 v. ”..., ...l _ ”L“ ..< ...-H .#*. w v .fi 31“ -w .3 I D ...-131 f: ..L L 1.. 1. ....p L1 ..1- .1.... : 1.. .... ...11-L..L._1L1.- 1P .. V L 1 - L L ... - . . . L L ... 1. L 1-.- . ..3 ..L.—.1. ._1.|o-.. . ..L. 3+3.....111. -lJl]l 413?. ..L. _ .1.. ...L L...- . L 1 .... ._ ..L.. .L 1 - .. .L L 1 . 1 .11L w. .5 .7 . u. u. ... - _... ... . ._.> my .L ....L . . 41411..Lm.. . 3%l'ull . . M < ~ PIN o OI. {H.411hII1HYI. .... . a . .. . . . 1--1 _ .3 . 1;. .41.; ... ..L.. - I. 5.. _ : 1... - ....Lq-L.L..-._T4-T3- ..-”!LLLLLT-Lrhp .... 1. . . _S. .1.-11.1.1- 43.3-3- 1111-L "-11.11 .. ... . .vul A.- IQIL .10.. . u“ _.. ..1. . 4 .n.~..b. o-LL _ «m . Llrn-‘I. _ _ . _L .. _ _Iw " q ...t . . _ .h .31. . . _ .. . _...- .. L _ . . ..L.-1.1.21.- ...-L 1 _ ..1 .1 L -..-31.1.-- . T... ...-..L.: - L .. -. L. . .L . . 1 . 1- - . LEL ; . .-.-1.1;... ...L up. .- 1. .1 s1... -.:- ..-.-.-;--.-1-..1 1 ..L. .. ..1. 1..-.-. ..1 1 1 . . . fifl. . . *.. . . LA I .L‘. . o 1. ..3. L. . ~ .. .— w. v. n o . n1 - 31 1a... ...41 1 1... L "L. _‘ .. . 4-. 1 ..1.- -...-....-L. 1 . L __ . q _- - 1 -- ... . - . . 4" ..L.... . t. 3 ‘2 — ..LL L..L _. . .914...» u. L .1. - .nu m ...- . .b. _ . L . L _ . . L .1 .. , ... . 3.x ‘1“.1 ..L_J1.1«1H.1.11L.1LIL-._L< .3 H H .. - ”L. _ L.L3L . LL311-.3.L . 1.*.1.-11-L 1 1- 1. ..1. . ..L. I+ ..L.“ .L . ..1-H111 .... 31......1L L ”1+...“ 2. U - .- .L- 1..-..1- .1... . ._1 L. $1.1 71L .1.-.3. +1-13 +41 3. h 11.1 (.9. . ”_- “ ...--- - m‘m ._ ‘41.|_I_‘L . +_... .- . c.— ..s-Lo 1 _3— .bl I. .1; vwllLV1l1 h. .L. a _.m. . . - . I..1w - h. u-flu- .Yl.lu.. -L.1-L . . ...-1.1L..-- LL. .1.-”AL-”- t. ...-...Lff..- .1.. . . L L .1 L ... 3- L .- L. 11 ..... - L _ r ,- 3.11.- .1- ...... -.. -. ..1 _ 1 . n... ..M- - .18 .... . H _M- _ .. .-.. .13. L... L. .31.? L111L «n . 23.3.1 3 .L111-. L1 -. ..L.-...: -.-_--L1L ...-..1 .... L. L7-1f.L1.1.LM-L- 1. .1_.L..L.L-..-L - . L -- 1 -.3- ._._ . - .. L-1..._.L1_._..1... .. ...1L31 1. ._L-L311L 1 .L ( _..-.LL... . . _ .... 1-- - 13 _ . . L . _ . ..-|'.1.. o. . 1L 1 -. lo! 1 It ” ...J .L . o L ._._ _. LL... “ +1.11. LIL-.1.. ...-L.- ... 1L1 L311L. _ . L1 1.1 -R.L1. ......d.fi-L1 7F . _... hm . 1 .. *1. o l. * ..N.a ... .- H _ .v... 41.”. +Lr+Lv.J1.l L.|.L'L-u-furl. 33.11310.. . n. -. Hid—Tll . . . 14.314 1.3 . c - II 1L L . «..».. .filffl- A L . T-rl-W‘l L L.v... 7-1.. Lan . . L _ . . . w H l - . _ . . . o . ... . ..Ffi... 1. w LII!!!- m a L4 1’. _1.3. L H ..1 _s.“ ..L. L. nu! ..1-119 «.-L.-11!). ”IITJ. FLFV. .3_-*-m1.. . .....- . -. -. .. .- .r ..1! - .. Ln... .- ...-1L... . ".1. . . 33. 1.. . 3 3. . L 21.1 _LHdr _..é _ . L. H - =1 _ 1 L .. -. LLLJJLWI.. L. ._1H-1J..L.J-._-WL-_.L-LL11-.-.L1L1..L1mA- . .3 - .- - .1 H .- .. Tum 3P 1 __ 1. . .1 -1 .. . 1 L. .- 1 .1 ._ 1. ....1 ...-.-.: _.-..-L-.-.1.- 1. .-L 1. ..1. _ (......L ..L.... -. 1:1. - . L L7U 15-13.; ......3: ..--... ._._.-. -. ...-“-..-.1-1. -31. _.....L- .-L....“T ...-“4111 - Lnr. 1 L L3 figt .... LILL‘ . 34.1w:- _..L _...L-_.:L .1.... -.-m - . L .L .. ..L Lil - .1.. ...... .51 .+ .4: ._ . 1 11r43.-1;11117L:.-3r; 1....111.U.LLrtT1.:1 .L L _ _- .z r... ...1 IL! .L .. L ‘t .. L. 1<......1 .L . ... T.) _ .L . .1 L .. . _ ..1 L . . - . 43- .... 1 . .... .1 .. -L - . 43H. . . 13L- .11 31.11.? - L ...... L . L. .1 ,-.3m- L1 ..1 1 1L L. 21‘. .r. .7 . .-...L .1.. - ...... L1..." «1 _-Jqlurhlnl 111.1... .1... ... “L .1. .... LL:- 1_ ..L - .1.-.-1L. .1 1 . 1tA..L f .- ‘- .-.. ..H 1 . L 1H “...-.1-. 1.11.1431. .L __ 1.. L1: . m . . ..Lh . L. _ n v . .u H ‘x ‘ ‘ 11. n. ... . ... . L.. . -r 111.1 .-|-.. 3.3 1 .. .. u ... L. L. L . _ 11. 1. .. 1L--- ..m- . 1 L . .1. j : ..--L 1 .. .. _ .. -- . . _ _ L. - - .. -. . - - .YA. m. ..L.. _ . 4'. -\J71 ’t'l '1.--“0"TJ.‘.’9'.II‘41 11W _ . . 3 .I'j m u . —1 II! [1.1 1 I L' L I“ ' _O . ~11. r5_~ . HmIL C . W. L. _ -. . l -. in . -.|.91 1 . . .0. n L . III I J. 4 .3 . F3. . . .- L . . . . . ... .-.-... ... .. .. _ _ ....- N-L L1.-. 1. .. -.. L 1. 1. _... fiL_ L . 1 J ... -1 . . . .. .. _ ... . {1-1L:§7-:.;_TL; .. i 1-.: -.as 24 _ -13.? ”...-L. .L. . 1-.- ....Ir.-1L .H.....L. . 1. ..1 _..-1:11L... ...-.11-...L .. . . H..1 .- 1“ . 1-1. SL173}! L LL ..:- ..1-.-. .1 .- 1 . .1 .1.. L1. L. .- ..L.._u.fi. L: 1 i... 1 11L- . . 1. : [.1.- ..,. .... .1. L . -. .1 -. ._ .. -_- H .... .. 14.3!43' 4.1-33. . I'Lonh I‘Llet-u.l.nvnn III-FM. L. If .. L . .o .rcliw .1 .leVI . L... .. .-.. u ...w... M - .n .. - ~ 14. .. .. .L .... 1. L. . ...: - L . 1. - .1 .h. . -. L. .. ...-.31L4JL3-11Lr..3-L1311. 411.1131. . -.11r1.Lr1.11-..+111._.-.3.A1u1 e . .1.- ._11 L 1 .L . . . — ‘43. v. ... .. .h a r - _. .1. 1a.. .. .. 4.. . n. s . I. . o . . _ . u. L 0 .0. 3|! {I11II. .Iod" -II _ L L . _ .L . L .L L . ...- 41-1 1.- .. 117 1 L». 1 . L L . .-. ..3. ..-.. L ..- .- _. ..m S . d3 31- IL L . . .... - .1 . -- L . 1.... - . . 1.».. L . _ . . . - - 1 1.-.. . . _.TL L2L1;.__LL .L . ..nwfifL .L 7.441r . f _ _ +:1-!Ls.;.11- 1P. ;_ . L . . . . . . u . . ”$1.071 .11 . -- . . u . . L v . .1 3-. 3 3.11 . 4 31. . v . . . _. _ . . . . . 1 h - a 4D 33.33. . ”3 b» _.nIll-I’. L . — . . .. . Lid-1 “1 r . .L L 3t .‘ov . . L . .. _A _ .O. L .. v 1 . — -_-..1_1_ _- : 3....-_-..-..- ..--113.--... _ 1 _ _-.1- _ . ...--17... L a-.f;:_:L-,_-_dr L . - L ... .1 .. 1 3.11-7 ...-1w . « --.L -L.-.. .. 31-. L - .- q-t .- _- 3mu *3. 1. .L “.9 .u .L ..1_|~ LL. 3+.-l.l+onllllt lull. 'Tv’IIOIJI OLE .—w fl-Ila - 1|... .- 3 JP..~ 1 fl.. _O-VJ. -. 1. .L . . —. - - L on! Tlani. L - .... _ _..... . 3,. . 7 ._11+1;.1; .. .....- LALI‘. “.t. . .. o .u 1.- . .h .13m3L 34.3. 1|. ..- . .v1 . . 1 . - L L ..1. 1L .. ...-1L. . L. -. .-.-..- -L...11.11 1. i ..1...- . - .. 1.1-1.1.-- . 1 .1.. .- .. .. ..:.-1: . . . J. ..L.. . 41L... .. 1-21 ... 21.3.... 1.... L- 1. 1-. ... 1 1. 1 --:-1 .... 1. 1... .. 111...,L-.. ... h .. ...... T 32-?-:-2--.L. :5_%«. .. .....LY.A..L-.L rho... "- . . _.. . _.L L ”IL-...: 1 . . 1 -. . . 1 1.- 1 1 . 3-” .. . lLl'n l...31r1.1 ...-7+. . _..-...... IQ m L . - . IL 19...... .111...an ....L .:. -21.... .1.-1. .1.-J .2. .1.-5.-.. - L1. _ L1 .11...- L-.1-1 ...- LML. .... ...L. .1.. ..L. HL. 1-..-.. . 13.11.31.111 . . .. v. . AvlLf~ ... .“L -_ wl. .lo- I . ._-.. 1..— .... IA. A-wl ”p.61 1. .1...A. n . -. W. _ 1 .11... .1.-1.....11L. .. _ -.L.- 4-.- ...-...... _..-..L.... __ ._ 2.1 _- .1. . 3.1L .1 .L LL. L...LLH1.«1L1_._- . .1 71.x”. .J.-l 1|..- _ 1 .. .m.“j+.. . .1. _L“5 +1LJ Ll”. .Il L . 3L . L - ‘0. 79...... L11-1 _1 L. . . ..ll - . _._WLLp-_1L.¢W..L.rL-.:L.L1L-1U. .- - .L _ . L111.-_.-..T .. ...-L -L1 ... ..1... .7 .-:-4... . .1.-.11. . .1 . 2... -H1 . 1.1 . 1 . LL: L1I.3. .hV. .. 1 .1 ...L. 1a». ”Io-N31 . .11.”? ..L.. .1411 31.1— .1 «..1.- .L U .. L- .-L -. .-.-l .1.-Iris; IL .1. L1. ..:L-_-?L-LLILL . LL .- .... .-._. .-.LL.-l. .. _ L 1 v? _ ..1 -L L-L f-.. ..Lnyur-fl .... . 1L 3LT .n .. L "3.4-.1 31-.-- 1411 ..........:_.:1 .._-111 1111111- _.m 3-. .. .-.-L1: -_ .- 4- .-1 1.1? ..1... .1.. 1.??va L.h L1.”- -v-1.-1 1 ...... ......1.-..: r..-L-...1TP ...-.1. ..:- .1 ...-1.. -..-L4-..1..-...1..-...-1..-L L t 3. 3 -. L. LL 1L1..11.1...-.....LI.-.L-.... ... .J ...-... _ ..e ..:. ..1-.1 ..1-11m-.--.LJL-1 :- L P . L. 1 .1 L 32 [0.99.0 ,l .agldvlvifl FEE (hr-x I‘ll- I V dost of these inserts have been small relative to domestic arcduction r 1 9 But several of them including milk and cream have come almost entirelv , , > 0 from Canadian sources; and others, similarly originating, have been large portions of total American imports of such commodities: Table II - Average Annual Quantities end Percentages of Certain American Imports of Form Products Supplied by Cannda During Selected Periods, 1900-19 '71 003’. ()3 Import unit 3 1900-1904“ : 1914-1918“ : 1926-1930 : 1951-1932 :Qnmntity : 45» gQudntity : 7’ :Qnentity : ‘g aqunntity; fl Wheat, 1,000 bu. 419 98.8 11,268 93.2 15,857 100.0 12,859 100.0 Wheat flour, bbl. 9,710 98.6 222,117 83.5 4,020 87.5 108 41.0 Oats, 1,000 bu. 77 96.7 5,356 99.5 202 98.7 518 100.0 Hey 1,000 tons 146 99.9 139 99.4 133 100.0 42 100.0 Flaxseed 1,000 bu. 0.8 0.2 6,178 51.7 2,006 10.1 867 7.7 Potatoes 1,000 bu. 572 24.4 1,125 67.3 4,528 94.1 2,549 96.3 Cattle, heed 41,292 41.2 209,054 41.6 209,934 54.2 19,426 19.3 Horses " 2,470 57.6 4,857 30.8 2,075 67.0 1,739 87.8 Sheep " 299,62 98.6 71,772 37.7 10,912 43.2 263 14.9 Fresh beef 1,000 lbs - - 14,269 15.0 19,151 55.2 426 51.1 Fresh pork " - — 5,253 98.9 7,207 98.3 1,205 100.0 Butter " 99 51.6 66 22.4 286 5.4 402 27.8 * Compiled from Foreign Commerce and Havigdtion of the United states. '* Data for 1900-l9l4 and 1914-1918 are for years ends: Jane 30. It will be at once apparent that there has been much fluctuation in the trade. to examine conditions that have affected the general movenent. Before proceeding with detailed analysis, therefore, it is advisable CJAPJJA II o A ' ‘ ' .v- -~ I - .~ 1'. Influences Azfecting Americnn Imports from canudu Canada and the United states are well situated for mutual gain from exchange of yoods and services. This joint Opportunity arises from many sources, description of which'becomes essentially a partial exposition of factors affecting truie between both nations. Ahwng these influences, facility of communication has combined with differences in national economic progress to make development of commerce quite inevitable. For more than 3,000 miles the two countries are con- gr 0 ‘ 11' 1 .. o ‘ tiguous along a line that-is "a geOdic rather then s geOgrephical boundary", (7. U3 I q I g Q 0 I o ( ). From either side of the oorder - unique among territorial demarca- tions of the world for its extent - goods move easily to the other. In fact, natural overlund trunscontinentul routes for Canada swing southward into 0 . . the United states. Thus situnted, the juxtaposed nations have unequal development that favors their interchange of products. Linited in the pest by natural in- fluences, the country with the larger area has less then one-tenth as much wealth and population es its neighbor. * nerican ports are conveniently situated for Canadian use. During the years ended Lurch 31, 1921-1928, for exdnple, they obtuined an average of 26.2 per cent of Canada's trade with countries other than the United states. On the other hand, the St. Lawrence provides a natural senson- al outlet for nmerican products of th Grent Ldkes region to North European markets. 5. Table III - Statistical Canadian-American Comparisons. : a Continental 2 Canada 2 United States Area (square miles) 3,690,043 3,026,789 Pop ulstion (1931) 10,376,781 124,070,000 Population density 2.96 41.3 Numbers of cities with population exceeding 100,000 7 93 Miles of highways (1930) 394,372 3,024,233 Miles of single-track rsilroud(l930) 42,075 249,052 Estional wealth (1929) @30,840,210,000 5351,837,000,000 wealth per capita 3,148 2,977 National income (1929) 5,500,000,000 85,200,000,000 ‘ Sources, ex xcept of American weelth and income date, (5) and (55). The exception is an estimate of the notional Industrial Conference Board. Several factors have effected this trede-promotive situation. Cf these, topography and climate are outstanding. TOpo r41h1 - There is a marked difference in physical lay-out of the two countries. Althou5h the Appalachian highland continues from the South- ern Ste-tee through Jew York and Sew Anglnnd into Quebec and the hnritihe rovinces, and the v.estern cordille re reuch British Columbia, an unusual contrust ap rs in the intervenin* area. Central United stutes is, for the most part, a broad interior plain - a region that hue been described as "the greatest storehouse of farming wealth in the world", But except for two extensions of this division — one into Southern Ontario and guebec, end distantly westward, one into the Prairie Provinces - the CANADW‘J intervening4territory is fer from being a counterpart of the fertile a». o I o -, c , o .. . m1351951pp1 Valley. Instead, it forms tne Lsurentiun Ilsteeu, a former barrier extending some 1,000 miles between eustern and western provinces. Leurentiun uplands have greatl; influenced the direction of Canadian firogress. Cccupying more than half of the Doninion in "a huge irregulur triangle with its apex neur the Thousand Islands in the St. Luwrence, from * Also hn0.7n as the Luurentisn Lighlsnd, the urchnc en bl 11s ld, the Canadidn Shield, end .he ‘recumbriun shield. ‘ 6. which point one arm on ends northwesterly to the mouth of the finchenzie giver and the other n ortheasterly «iv the st. Lawrence .1111, to inclcas , . . 5 , . . the Labrador reninsula"( ), tnese tracts lon; retained an almost insurnount— able obs t1cle to national exfi11s1on. alth successions 100 to 200 feet high having shallow soil, nunbsrless patches of bare, granite rocks, sons heavy forest gro: .th, 1nd maiv inte-neli ry 11kes aid rivers, the; discouru 3d settlement and made travel across t1 e country arduous. Consequent v, the fecundp rairies of the western provinces lay algwst inacces siole at a time when American pioneers were deployed, on a front running the full north and south length of their country, to build tier after tier of rich .ew agricultural s:;;es o at of the easily approachable . - . a V o 1 a s o . west. Can1d11ns still lacned a su1table route 191d1n3 beyond Lune sugerior when settlement in the United States was movin3 forward on a frontier stretching from.hinnesota to Texas. Themselves deflected at the Laure itian barrier, they entered the adjoining country in large numbers prior to 1900. milJ153 finally penetrated the northern imp edLnent. The Canadian Pacific transcontinental line, be 3un in 1874, Jas congleted in 1885 ;and when the next year its first through train pushed from hontreal to Vancouver, the way was open for westward advance. fig ..1 as late as 1900 the main stage of Dominion develOpnent was east of Lake huron in Southern Ontario. Jven at present, p0p ulation densities of from 50 to 75 per square mile quickly diminish at the Laurentian border, and fall to less than one within large parts of the area. ‘ Later, when such route was provided, the Great lakes became an important means of communication between Cannda's Just an nest. *‘ This achievement reflects the progressive Spirit of Canadians. Their number was less than 4,000,000, as COmpared with 40, 000,000 in the United States for a similar venture, wheii they undertook to span the continent with steel. 7. Clinmte - Jointly with unfavorable surface features, teipereture differentials have limited most Canadian settlement to the southern third of the country. Large tracts of the remainder are practicallJ uninhabited. The Horthnest Territories, for exanple, covering 1,309,682 square miles, or 55. 5 per cez 1t of Canada, in 1931 had, with 7,133 inhabitants, a population density of only 0.006 per square mile.. In this relationship, pproximately 70 per cent of the Dominion's population are residents of the five eastern provinces, and a stre 3ht line drr wn from the no ofl‘tiern bounce ies of Heine and hinnesota xould sernrate nesrl;r all of the Mos populous parts of the two largest provinces - Untario and Quebec - from Gene a. Climatic influences also have restricted Canadian expansion by causing the absence of a South comparable to that of the United states. Jher see the latter absorbed northern farm products and New England manufactures, aided expansion of the American Jest, and gained a firm place for its cotton in nurOpean ma kets, its counterpart in Canada was coupletelg lacking. under the conditions just described, Canadian production hes been less diversified than that of American enterprises. While Canada has had a large output from.its mines, farms, and forests exceeding domestic requirements, it has had to exchnnge the surplus for go oods prod aced more advantageously elsewhere. The significance of this commerce is evident in the fact that ultil recently the Dominion has ranked as the world's fifth trading nation and as the second most il‘ iniortsnt country in foreim trade per capita. In this situation, than, natural conditions have been fnvorable for the movement of fnrm products. At the same time, they nave inposed limitations u;)on the nature of Canadi: :n SQJLlj aVaila le for export. ’ Yukon, with 4,230 persons for 206,076 square miles, had a population density of 0.02. dxcluding Yukon end the northwest Territories, tre number of persons per square mile in Canada in 1951 wee 5.06. ** In 1928 the per cagzite for eign trade of Canada was $263 as compared with $75 for the United states. 8. Thus, climate has restricted crops in the northern provinces to those of a cool countrv. In 1920, as an example, fully 95 per cent of Canada's area in field creps was planted to wheat, oats, barley, flax- seed, hay, and potatoes. n1;r limited sections outside the heriti1e Provinces, Southern Lntario, and the coast of? itis h Columbia have frostless sensons exceeding 100 days. I/flllrLulC a;d tepo r: hica 1 conditions have 3 :utl’ restricted the Dominion's a 3ricu1tural area. It hes be en estimated that but 560,000 of the country's total 3,510,008 square miles of land are suitable for agricultural or pastoral purposes. Besides the undeveIOped Iorthwest Territories, t1 1ere is a large Bart of the provinces unsuitable for farms A Table IV) Tc‘l‘lff Jithout artifical interference United States imports of Canadian farm products mijht have been much lnr3er. Tariff restrictions have definitely ‘ dcei the tr1de. dheceas the group TCn hed 1ts hi3host value, and con- red st ituted nearly 30 per ent of totsl “meriCan expenditures for Canadian produ ts during the period of lightest tariff restrictions - i.e. while the Underwood not re nined effective7- its cor sen/1.111.U avera :e share for 1931 and 1932 111d: r the restrictive duties of the Smoot-nawley measure was .094. 30th countries seen to be definitely connittei to a pr ive policv. Canada sponsors a creed of economic nationa sh - modifie1,hooever, by Imperial preference,—snd the United states appears to advocate "America for the gmericens" in an econonic sense. The latter's policy has given of returning little doncstic benefit while adversely affecting ev11:.ce Ceiadian prosperity. There have been man; cases when the qunntity imported has been small relative to domestic supply, yet large enough to have an 9. } .sesdoo .pofinmw:H mo uncapnemma .hm>psn asofixmeHmeog hp doposflpma e. .nnma .xoonheow unsung Scum emafimsoo o .mn omem n.5m moa.msm.fl ema.wmn m.nm mom.mmH e.me mmm.nwa fleece m.m Hom1nmm moo.mm n.em doo.ma “.ma mem.n sfisesaoo emepusm m.em mnm13ma ome.em «.mm nee.me o.ee bem.@n sptmpas e.mm eon.mmfl eeo.om m.on Hoe.em m.mw nem.mm seemeopsemsn o.nm nmm10eH omn.mn n.mm mem.ea p.me mnfl.ma spopfless n.mm oom.mn enm.mm n.me 0mm.m p.en Hem1mm afloepeo H.nH moo.mnm mee.me H.oe oon.mm m.mn mee.ea omsmsa e.om eme.efl was.oa m.He mon.m n.0n mma.e Muesmeson see o.am mum.na mmo.m m.oe oas.m m.mm mom1e ewpoon seam 0.00 mmm1H mmm.H n.m he .e.em HmH1H eenfimH eyes 1 magnum “Ammpoe Qua.“ ~ Huma.sox «Hmoa .emmd u a u mama .sopcuammuos coo.» stucoaom «Ammpoe coo.“ HsHonpom «Amopom 000.“ $3531 1 913 33.... 2103111311,: ”1... «esueqfihm. a u u u u modfieoam « dung Handpasvwnp4 u scaveasooo new a cmwmsooo some a « ..Haueesssa H5199 a massafisea see: u u «£64439 mo moona>osa odes esp :H r mentq asMSpHSowpmi Hsflpeowom dope" .numa .emna ease ewes Hume use .Hmma Japan use emfimSooo mo send I 5H mansm unfavorable effect in the Dominion when subject to exclusion by pro- tective duty. Some of Canada's most severe depressions have followed imposition of new tariff rates in the United States. The Congressional Act of 1930 has been especially prohibitive; and from.an economic point of view, it has had practically no justification. “8 Professor Tnussig has commented, “Some faint pretense there was ----- that this was a good measure, or good enough, or not so bad, But the judgment of sober men of all parties, and even of the staunch protectionists, was that there had been a sad exhibition of political ineptitude."(45)p. 500. Under such restriction Canada has sought to replace lost American markets with other outlets. Granting of new or increased margins of preference for some 220 products of the United hingdom.at the Ottawa conference in 1952 marked an effort in this direction, and it is signi- ficant that since then British imports of several Canadian goods have tended to increase. Costs of Transportetion As a result of tariff interference, much cf the trade in farm pro— ducts has been reduced largely to a border movement. Cther thin3s being equal, importing logically follows when products for given uses can be transported short distances across the international line more economically than from farther removed domestic sources. It has happened quite fre- quently that goods of superior quality have been imported as cheaply at border points as comparable products Could be purchased in domestic mar- kets, and when this situation has not been present, imperfect conpetition has affected buying. 'Denporarjf Short-.338 Another offset to tariff restriction has come from crop shortages in areas south of the common boundary. Axunination of individual commodity movements reveals considerable fluctuation in trade from this cause. Like- ll. Wis e, sho;t supplies of ai;inal .-oiuots have influenced interts. Canada, convenientlu loo -ted, has be3n turnel to in tine of special need for additional products. C'rclioal Price Chan V ...v. U] dffects of certain duti s also hale varied with the course of the an 1.. ,7 1 ”1*, .. ‘ ’ ' fir .. ,.“,_ V .: ,_ ‘ “J. - , business cycle. onanbe in the gens-wl level of prices - SOLthMCS ’.-.~ /. exceedirs loC per cent — have altered the burden of specific'r; tes. Moreover, recurring Moveunnvs from prosperit" to depression, with DJ their attendant changes in emaud andp rices, have affected both value and volume of imports. The trade has reached its largest preportions in ' rv expanding markets, and its lowest points in tines o1 business stagnation. nmlus under tar-time condi— U: C? P 1 Expansion of markets received special tions. Heavy extra0~d1nar" de:.and sti mlated ooth Canadian and AmeriCan exports to Juroge; but it ulso brou it increase -d United states in.;orts from Canada whenever tlie latte rhad supplies that could as taken for supplementary use. nxch a 33 int 9 s Less noticeable influence h;.s come from vari ation in exchange rates. Since 1914 the re have been rio ds when Canadian funds have been at cor siderable discount in the United States; * See appendix Table I. 12. Table V - Yearly Average Archange Katee of the Canadian Dollar, 1915-1932* : : z : a Year 31_ Rate : Year 3 late : Year : n-te 9 3 v 3 v 1915 .9957 : 192 .8955 : 1927 .9997 1916 .9980 : 1922 .983 z 1928 .9991 1917 .9982 : 1923 .9804 a 1929 .9925 1918 .9834 : 1924 .9873 : 1930 .9984 1919 .9560 a 1925 .9996 a 1931 .9632 1920 .8928 : 1926 .9999 : 1932 .8809 * Source, U. 3. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce: "Handbook of Foreign Currency and chhange", Trade Bremotion series 102, and survey of Current Business. It is according to economic theory that under sudh conditions, other things remaining equal, American importers are encouraged to buy Canadian goods, But it is difficult to ascertain whether other things have remained equal in these circumstances. In recent years, especially, conclusive evidence regarding the effects of depreciated currencies on foreign trade has been difficult to obtain. Capital Investment A more evident influence on Canadian-aneriCan commerce has been the flow of foreign capital into the Dominion. Outside investments totaling more than v6,300,000,000 as of January 1, 1981, have pro- 1 ’Pj aiding in that country's development, and by giving rise to Canadian sales in pay— moted trade by causing increased exports to Canada ment of service charges. This inflow has been largest from the United States in post-war years. At the beginning of 1931 the latter had about 30 per cent more capital in Canada than it had in Great Britain, Germany, France, and Italy combined, and nearly twice as much as in Cuba, its nex ranking single field for investment. evidently these american in- vestments have been widely distributed in productive enterprises; l". U. Table VI - istinnted Investments of the United states in Cannda, Jnnunr;r 1,1J31’ .. . .L. 3 ‘Lubk‘t—tll. u I“V‘“t‘:nts (59301 .0 Government securities 8 5 Raiernds 808 Ct11br lJoLbliC 1.1+] 1.1111133 5 3 Pulp, paper and lumber r hinin; 233,500 Let 1 iidus‘a ries 501,396 All other industries 287,715 ire ing establishnents 170,000 Finance and insurnnce 151,113 Lend and morQ ma5 es 97,958 Total 4,107,803 * Source, Canada Ienrbook, 1933, page 879. H) |--# vaieusly, it is difficult, i not infossiole, to m;.-.s.re txe e°fect of this cupitnl plac nent on Unite. statcs iu5orts of Canadian farm products. But it arpears to ane contributed to exrnnsion of Domir ion sug.1ie some of which inve been made available for engort in 5redtw .nnntities; and other indirect influences from it are observ- able. Thus its use for raierads hns aided in providing transportdtion 4.1 t facilities necesszig for trade bet.veen tie two nations. J. Chnl‘i”: Do estic Wequiremenus Moreover, while production in Cannda has been enidn11n5, done stic requirements in the United btates have 5ro.xn lar5e r. In some instences these have been met from augmented domestic production, out in 0th: rs they have not. for several products, therefore, the Dominion hes served es a supglementnry source of suyyly. Furtlermo;no , a more rapid rate of increase in urban than in rural pursuits has onused 1ar5or demand for ‘ Between 1895 and 1921 the number of railvuv lines cros sin5 the inter- national oordor increns ed from 6 to 64. gnificnnce of these routes can oe sujgested from trade statistics for11932, when n nrl; 73 per cent of the value of total Uni ten states 5enorn1 merchnzdise imi. rts from Canada was includei in those brou5ht in ours. ingorted farm products, at least in localised industrial erees. For while American agricultural production increusel 48 per cent between 1899 and 1939, corresponding figures for physical volume of manufactures and for mineral output were, respectively, 216 end 285; and contempor- aneously, although population of the United States increused 62 per cent, * its rurel percentage declined approximately from 66 to 44 per cent. British.hnrkets Quite frequent‘y, however, British requirenents have provided better markets for certain Canadian products than hes anericsn demand. Ordinarily a much larger percentage of Canada's total exports of farm products ;oes to _ . It. Great 3ritnin then to the United states; as ratios conputed from values of the trade for selected periods indicate: 191q~l919 lCnZ-l926 l926-l9u9 Fer cent to Greet Britain 69 64 58 Per cent to the United States 18 13 13 In this situstion wheat has been the principal source of difference. 0n the other hand, there have been several commodities more evenly distributed - e.g. cattle, beef, and cheese - for which the Dominion has had considerable range of sales between the two outlets. This alternation of movement has resulted principally from differences in price levels and in tariff rates. The former have reflected stronger demand in one market than in the other, while the latter usually have tended to offset lower transportation costs. In contrast to the United States, Grout Britain, after long allowing free entry, has encouraged Canadian sales since 1931 by its preferential treatment. Less tangible influences also may have uffectei trade. Sinilnrity of language and well develOped financiel institutions are cases in point. The principal influences have been more directly related than these to ennnd and suppl§¥mgnd one of the chief problems of analysis is the deter- mination of changes in such relationship. ’ The two latter f'gnres are for 1900 and 1930. They include the population of incorporated places havirg less than 2,500 persons. It annA 43-:io— — 7-- 0— . ._-_.1-.1 11----1, r71 p; 151 . CHAPTJR III Phases in Canadian-American Trade Since 1900 Analysis of American import trade from.Canada since 1900 may be divided into four rather distinct periods marked by the years 1914, 1920, and 1929. Special forces have influenced the volume and character of Canadian goods sent to the united States before, during, and after the World War. Examina- tion of influences dominant in each of these periods provides suitable back- ground for more detailed study of commodity movements. First Period, 1900-1915 The pro-war years marked an era of rapid economic development in Canada. Thus, in 1911 there were 48,375,000 acres of improved land out of 109,777,000 acres occupied in the Dominion, as compared with corresponding acreages in 1901 of 30,166,000 and 53,422,000. Likewise, between 1900 and 1910 the capital invested in Canadian manufactures increased from $446,916,000 to $1,247,584,000; and the value of’the country's external trade per capita rose from $64.19 in 1900 to $156.43 in 1913. Such growth was promoted by a large influx of settlers. Immigration into Dominion territory during the decade preceding the war has been one of the most remarkable population movements of the present century. In 1901 the vast Canadian area west of the Great Lakes - almost equivalent to that of the Louisiana Purchase in addition to the total of European Russia - supported a pepulation of little more than 645,000. The Canadian Pacific Transcontinental railway had been completed in 1885.. but the expanse thus opened could have little chance then of attracting p0pu1ation until the more easily accessible lands of’the united States had been settled. In fact, the latter drew considerable numbers of emmigrants from Canada. The ‘ Its completion was the fulfillment of a pact in which British Columbia had become a province of the Dominion. 16. number of Canadian-born persons in the United States increased from 495,000 in 1870 to 1,181,000 in 1900; and contemporaneously, the membership of this groip residing in the neighboring country was nearly one—fourth that of (19) It was not until about 1901, when the best the same class in Canada. American lands had been occupied, that large numbers of immigrants began to enter the northern prairies... The movement, once started, gained force; and by 1911 the p0pu1ation of western Canada had increased to 1,742,000, and In average of 100,000 persons entered that part of the Dominion annually. The total number of immigrant arrivals in all sections of the country from 1900 to 1913 was 2,545,039.” From 49,149 in 1901, the figure mounted to 402,432 in the period's terminal year. Between 1901 and 1911 the number of American-born persons in Canada increased by almost 175,000. In the years, 1900-1910, Canadian p0pulati0n, with a gain of 34 per cent, had a greater relative growth than that of any other country during the same time. The ingress was especially large during the first three years of the succeeding decade, when nearly 1,142,000 persons entered Canada for purposes of settle- ment. But with outbreak of war in Eur0pe movement of emmigrants to the Dominion was checked;and since that time it has been much smaller than before the conflict. V Immigration,then,was an influence specially characterizing the pre-war period. It stimulated economic deve10pment largely through settlement of the Canadian West so as to make that region a great wheat producing division of the world and an integral part of the Dominion's national wealth. This expansion brought important concomitant activities, outstanding among which was the construction of raierads. Canadian railway mileage " In this situation immigration was encouraged by a vigorous policy of advertising on the part of Canada's Minister of Interior, Sifton. Descriptive stimuli concerning "The Last and Best West" were particularly dffective in the British Isles, where unsatisfactory labor conditions followed the Boer War. " However, it is estimated that 1,753,000 persons ermigranted from Canada during the same period. increased from 17,657 in 1900 to 24,731 in 1910, and to 35,582 in 1915. A line of the Canadian Northern from.Port Arthur to Winnipeg, finished in 1902, was extended in b00m.years,following westward to Vancouver and east- ward to Montreal. Building of a third transcontinental railway, undertaken in 1903, was cempleted in 1915. Throughout 1912 nearly 20,000 men were at work constructing railroads in the western provinces. Another factor that gave considerable stimulus - indirectly at least - to Canadian deve10pment, was American tariff policy. For more than twenty years after abrogation in 1866 of the twelve-yearbold Elginémarcy reciprocity treaty, the first and only Canadian-American general reciprocity agreement, Canada had hoped to establish mutual concessions in its American trade. But the United States was then uncompromising in rejecting overtures for reci- procity;and in 1897 Congress enacted the Dingley tariff that had higher rates than any of its previous measures. Duties were placed upon foodstuffs and raw materials that were among the chief imports from the northern neighbor. There were few changes in the next general tariff legislation of 1909. That year the average American rate on dutiable goods from the Dominion was 42 per cent, and on both dutiable and free goods from the same source it was 24 per cent, in comparison with rates on American goods in Canada averaging 27 per cent and 16 per cent, respectively. This policy gave rise to a feeling of national consciousness among Canadians. Confederation for establishment of the Dominion was effected in the year following abrogration of the ElginAMarcy treaty. In view of re- peated failures of negotiations for reciprocity Sir Wilfred Laurier, then newly elected Premier of Canada, was led to declare in 1896, "There will be no more pilgrimages to Washington." Soon thereafter Canada extended a tariff preference of lag-per cent to British goods;and in.1900 this was increased to 33-1/3 per cent. Eleven years later Canadian voters rejected a prOposal for reciprocity with the united States that had resulted from belated efforts of certain American statesmen. Without artificial interference commerce might easily have continued to develOp more along routes that ran to the south, and the need for trans- continental railways in Canada might have been almost abviated by lines that crossed to the States. As it was, however, Canadian peOple turned their efforts to develOpment and unification of the productive sections of their own country. The fruition of plans for inter-provincial expansion could not have been realized without a large supply of foreign capital. Producers' and consumers' goods far in excess of domestic supply were indispensable to the industrial enterprise, railroad building, and public works required in pushing the Dominion's frontier of settlement westward. With its effect both upon expansion and upon foreign trade, continued movement.of foreign investments to Canada, therefore, appears to have been one of the most important single influences of the period. The amount invested within Canada's borders by other countries from 1900 to 1913 has been estimated at $2,546,454,000, as compared with a total foreign investment there of approximately $1,200,000,000 on January 1, 1900(69). Except for a temporary check occasioned by a disturbance in world money markets of 1907, the inflow showed a steady rise in volume throughout the pro-war years, with little or no liquidation of old debts. The estimated annual increment of foreign-owned capital in Canada rose from $31,720,000 in 1900 to $546,699,000 in 1913. Great Britain, an industrial nation in search of a cheap food supply, provided nearly three times as much of this capital as the United States: ‘4 1C An}. Table VII- Source and Disposition of Foreign Investments in.Canad§, 1900-1913* : Great 3 United 3 Other : . 3 Britain 3 States 3 Countries: Total : s x : :(millions):(milli0ns):(millions)x(millions) ‘ t? a Dominion and Provincial Governments 175 4 - , 179 municipal Governments 200. 60 - 260 Railroads 670 50 47 767 Industrial Investments 420 180 50 650 land and Timber 80 145 80 305 Mining 65 60 - 125 Insurance Companies 52 50 ~ 82 Miscellaneous 111 81 6 198 Total $1,753 $650 @163 $2,546 ‘ Source‘sg) page -/u3 Despite large inflow of BritiSh capital, Canada's trade with the United States increased to a greater extent than that with Great Britain. Dominion statistics show that in the fiscal year 1901 the former had a value of $135,677,000, and the latter, of $175,562,000, while in 1913 corresponding figures were $576,515,000 and $308,905,000. The average percentages of total Canadian exports sent to the United States and Great Britain in the order named, during the period 1901-1913, were 35.8 and 52.4; while similar ratios of imports were 60.0 and 24.6. In 1913, when its borrowing from British investors reached a maximum, Canada bought only one-half as much goods from.the United Kingdom.as it took from there as capital; but at the same time it purchased nearly four times as much from.the United States as it received therefromrthrough in- vestments. much of the capital borrowed in.the United Kingdom was used to buy gmods that the united States could conveniently supply. Included in these purchases were such heavy items as railroad material, iron and steel goods, agricultural implements, coal, and raw cotton. r) ’~. («kl . So it is not surprising that United States exports to Canada during the period were from two to three tines as large as exports in the other direction of the bilateral trade. Between 1900 and 1913 the percentage of total American exports that went to Canada rose mm 5.9 to 16.9 But United States buying of Canadian products also increased con- siderably. In 1913 the Dominion supplied 6.7 per cent of American imports, as against 4.6 per cent in 1900. Ebst of this trade included raw materials for manufacture and foodstuffs. In 1907, for example, its chief items were logs, lumber and wood pulp; c0pper and nickel ores; hides, skins, and furs; fish and animaIS. Agricultural imports, although increasing nearly three times in value, remained about one-fifth of the total. The gain in value was significant, however, as it occurred contemporaneously with a rapid decline in American exports of suCh foodstuffs as were later available in Canadian surplus. American importation of Canadian farm products was limited by tariff restrictions of the period. Canada's exports of this class to the United States averaged only one-third as large as in 1866, the last year of reciprocity. 0n the other hand, in a rising American import market for unmanufactured goods, demand was increasing more rapidly for inedible raw materials than for foods, the largest class of farm products imported. In 1913 indexes of physical volume of production of raw and processed non- foods and of raw and processed foods in.the United States, on a 1901 base, ‘28) file in Canada a large part of the were 175 and 132, respectively. demand was for capital equipment rather than for edible products. Larger manufacturers were required to supply the needs of a rapidly increasing population.fbr during this period the number of persons in the United States rose by some 20,000,000, an absolute gain nearly 10 times that in the Dominion. n'c .f (Nb. Expansion in both countries was attended by generally rising price levels. Except for transitory setbacks, as in 1901 and 1908, the trend was continually upward until 1913. Gold supplies, enlarged through new discoveries and through application of the cyanide process to lowgrade ores, as well as increasing demand, contributed to the rise. Prior to the war, currencies of both countries remained identical in mint value, but fluctuated slightly in exchange. Although the "balance of trade" was consistently against the Dominion, until 1912 New York funds in Canada were generally at a discount averaging between 1/64 and 1/32 of one per cent. This condition resulted principalky from effecting through New York the exchange Operations relative to the flow of foreign capital into Canadian use. For a few years after 1912, with increasing remit- tances to Europe for service charges on debt, the position of the exchange market tended to reverse. Second Period,_1914-l920 Another set of conditions prevailed during and.after the war that made the years 1914-1920 quite a distinct period in Canadian economic history. Industrial, financial, and commercial changes occurred during Canada's participation in the conflict that gave rise to problems of analysis quite unlike those of the preceding period. This was a time When the Dominion was tending to pass from.a capital-constructing to a capital-using era; and.when a change in volume and source of foreign in- vestment, a more liberal American tariff policy, and a rapidly rising price level were affecting its trade. Toward the end of the pre-war years develOpment of towns, cities, and railroad facilities in Canada appeared to be out-running agricultural progress in surrounding areas. European investors began to restrict their leans, and many Canadian enterprises were left in incomplete or relatively unproductive condition. There was a reaction in other dependent industries' and stagnation and readjustment in trade began to be evident after 1913. This situation might have continued but for the outbreak of War. Then, however, disruption of industry resulting in European countries from.the spreading struggle hastened industrialization in Canada. As a result of foreign demand for war supplies of all kinds - augmented by the Dominion Government's policy of bearing the expense of equipdng, transporting, and maintaining its entire force of 600,000 men overseas - and a reduced supply of foreign factory products that previously had been imported, there was a veritable revolution in Canadian manufactures. Attention now tended to be centered upon the enlargement of factory pro- duction and power supply, where previously it had been concentrated in meeting the capital requirements of newly settled territory. Even without a large increase in foreign demand there would.have 'been some shift in productive activity because the war checked the move- ment of papulation into Canada,'thereby making settlement a less important fiehi of activity than formerly. There were but 57,702 immigrant arrivals in the Dominion during 1919 as compared with 402,432 in 1915. But this shift could not have reached the proportions it did without the extra- ordinary stimulus of war-time demands. The value of Canada's partly or fully manufactured goods exported increased from $54,000,000 in 1913 to $191,000,000 in 1915, and to $779,000,000 in 1920. This increase took place under conditions of greatly inflated prices. Between 1913 and 1920 the index of wholesale prices in Canada, as computed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, rose from 100 to 243.5. Yet, in terms of the base-year price relative, Canada's exports of processed goods in 1920 were nearly six times those in 1913. with competing.3uropean demand, a smaller percentage of total Canadian exports went to the united States than formerly. This ratio for the second period averaged 53.5, in comparison.with 35.8 during the pro-war’years. at the same time, the average percentage of Canada's total imports supplied by her southern neighbor changed from 60.0 to 74.3. The cur- tailed supply of’EurOpean goods was stimulating trade in other directions. Mbreover, there was a change in.the flow of Capital to Canada. After 1913 the United States began to displace Great Britain as a source of funds, although at that date there was only about one-fourth as much American as British capital invested in the Dominion. Because the war caused a heawy financial burden, the United Kingdom was forced to check its ordinary commercial loans to other c0untries.80 Canada had to find new sources of capital. Quite inevitably, Canadian borrowings from.the United States increased. The latter country had developed sufficiently to change from a nominal net debtor position of $2.5'billion to a nominal net creditor position of $18 billion within sé-years of the war period. Before the end of 1917, inflow of gold had increased the American gold stock and credit base by 62 per cent. united States investment bankers loaned Canadian enterprises some $1,450,120.000 between 1914 and 1922, in contrast to $182,401,000 in the period 1907-1914. It was to be expected, therefore, that attendant en— largement appeared in.the volume of United States exports to Canada. On the other hand, American purchases from the Dominion, although re- presenting a smaller percentage of the latter's exports than in the earlier period, became a larger part of‘the lending country's total imports. Whereas befbre the war an average of only 5.7 per cent of total United States general merchandise imports came from Canada, the proportion was 11.2 per cent for the second period. Several influences were Operative in stiumlating the movement of goods southward. Among such countervailing forces upon the effect of capital exports were a lower schedule of tariff rates and a discount on Canadian exchange. Tariff revision became effective October 3, 1915, after President Wilson had called to special session a Congress com» pletely controlled by democrats. For the first time since the Civil War there was a general downward movement of American rates. The measure, designed to place foregin and domestic goods on a competitive basis, removed or lowered duties on many raw materials that were taken from Canada. Tariff levies on cats, hay, barley, flaxseed, butter, and cheese were reduced. Simultaneously, cattle, sheep, meats, lumber, shingles, coal, and wood pulp were placed on the free list; While granting of free entry for wheat, wheat flour, and potatoes was made cone tingent upon similar action by the Dominion. Partly as a result of these lighter restrictions, agricultural products became increasingly significant among united States imports from Canadian sources. They increased in value more than seven times between 1915 and 19205 and in the latter year they amounted to 30.1 per cent of total United States imports of general merchandise from Canada, in compari- son to 19.6 during the former. Encouragement of importing'also resulted from'mde prevailing foreign exchange situation. Shortly after the outbreak of war both Canada and England left the gold standard. Hith their country on a gold basis, Americans were able to secure exchange on Canada at a discount. dhile the difference averaged about two per cent, it had a wider range of fluctuation. Thus, in 1919 the yearly average quotation for the Canadian dollar in New York was 95.60 cents, and 89.28 cents in 1920. While exchange and tariff conditions remained favorable for importing, demand itself continued strong. The United States, enabled to sell in markets vacated by belligerent countries, was in turn able to buy in- creasing amounts of foreign goods. Besides, its domestic production re— quirements were large. Apparently, output of manufactured goods, stimu- lated by foreign demand, increased more rapidly than that of raw materials. In 1920, on a 1913 base, the former had an index of 124, and the latter of 130.‘28) The general activity of the period was attended by rising prices. Wholesale prices in the United States advanced 127 per cent between 1914 and 1920, whereas between 1900 and 1914 their gain had been 21 per cent. With'this increase, the values of both United States general mer- chandise imports from and exports to Canada in 1920 were the largest of any year in which Canadian-American trade has flowed. The former reached a peak of $611,863,000, and the latter, of $971,852,000. Third Period! 1921-1923 The period following 1920 has been similar to the preceding phase in some respects, but quite different from it in others. Points of similarity include a continued placement of American investment and an increase in importance of exported Canadian manufactures. Points of con- trast appear in tariff rates and in the movemeit of general business con- ditions through a depression. Annual flotations of Canadian securities in the United States during most of the period continued at a rate ranging from 10 to 20 times that effective before the war. Values of such transactions rose from $183,878,000 to $289,694,000 between 1920 and 1929, in contrast to a 1914 total of $13,419,000. Besides, American direct investments were large. Under these circumstances, estimated total United States capital investments in Canada increased from some $2,500,000,000 to $3,470,087,000 between 1923 and 1928. While the Dominion continued to receive capital, its sales to the United States amounted to nearly 40 per cent of its total exports. This situation resulted partlv from use of foreign investments in deveIOping processing industries that were able to export increasing quantities of their products - e.g. wood-pulp and newsprint paper. Between 1922 and 1930, as an illustration, total capital in Canadian manufactures ex- panded from $3,244,302.000 to $5,205,517,000; and during the same period the percentage of Canada's total exports consisting of raw materials de- clinsed from 44.5 to 58.2. Meanwhile, tariff rates had changed. In the spring of 1921, follow- ing severe decline in United States farm prices, an "emergency"measure restored high duties on wheat, wheat flour, cattle, meats, dairy products, wool, and potatoes, and increased levies on beans, fruits, and flaxseed. The Fordney-LicCumber enactment of the following year brought a higher general rate level than had been established either in the act of 1897 or in that of 1909. This legislation, reflecting a rising feeling for national self sufficiency, and a hope of agricultural interests for farm relief, adversely affected Dominion producers without accomplishing its projected result“. Increase of duties over those established the year previously, as well as new additions, tended to prolong the Canadian depression of 1921 until 1925. At the same time these increments were generally ineffective in contributing to domestic prosperity; Prior to 1930, the trend in value of American general merchandise imports from Canada had been upward. Although falling from $611,868,000 in " Its Effect on Canadian cattle producers was especially severe. 1920 to $335,441,000 during'the depressed conditions of 1921, they rose to $503,496,000 in 1929. Most of the increase occurred in items subject to least tariff restriction. Agricultural products, dutiable as a group, had little gain in the trade. From 30.1 per cent of its value in 1920, they decreased to 16.6 per cent in 1929;and.their maximum rise in value as imports during the period was from $67,422,000 in 1923 to $98,875,000 in 1928. The increment could not have been effected, however, without favorable demand conditions. Except for a recession in 1924 and a slight fall in 1927, general prosperity prevailed in the United States between 1922 and 1929.. Until the latter year, American wholesale prices, although averaging some 35 per cent less than in 1920, generally were more than 40 per cent above those of the pre-war period. Contemporaneously, the country was reaching greater development than in any preceding period. The volune of goods produced per capita increased at a yearly rate of 2.4 per cent, in contrast to 1.1 per cent before the war. By 1929 output per worker had so increased that 70 men could do work that required 100 men in 1919.3nd while production of manufactured goods rose at the rate of 4.5 per cent a year, that of raw materials lagged with an annual gain of 2.5 per cent.(28) pp. 2493530 Fourth Period, 1930-1932 Conditions since 1929 have been less homogeneous than.those prevailing during the seven years prior to that date. By 1932 wholesale prices, as measured by the’United States Bureau of Labor Statistics had declined not less than 32 per cent. Value of Canada's external trade per capita in approximately the same interval fell from.$262.23 to $110.92. In the 12 months ended march 31, 1933, only 30.2 per cent of total Canadian exports went to the United States as compared with 46.0 per cent in 1930,And although the percentage share of Canada in total American imports of general merchan- dise increased from 11.4 to 13.2 between 1929 and 1932, agricultural products * Farmers were one of the least prosperous groups. in this trade shrank to 8.1 per cent of its total value. Other differences, in comparison with.the preceding period, in— cluded increase of tariff duties and an unstable exchange situation. In 1930, after continued agricultural depression, upward revision of the tariff by the Smoot—Hawley measure brought the highest general level of American rates yet enacted. Levies on agricultural imports in many cases were made almost prohititory. Synchronizing with business depression, the new schedule caused Canada's total exports to the United States to fall about 33 per cent in value between 1930 and 1931. Con- currently, the value of agricultural products in this movement declined by more than 50 per cent. Fluctuations in exchange appeared in the last two years of the period. The Canadian dollar had remained practically at par While Canada was on the gold standard from 1926 to 1931, But after suspension of gold payments by the Bank of England on September 21, 1931, it soon drapped to about 90 cents, and in the following December reached a discount of 20 per cent.. In 1932 its average New York quotation was 88.09. I Likewise, in 1931 and 1932 the flow of American capital into the Dominion was much reduced. Business inactivity discouraged such expansion and investment as had occurred in Canada prior to 1929 . 'bther changes also have influenced Canadianpamerican trade during 1930-1932. But these can be observed in analysis of individual commodity movements. ‘ This drOp followed the decline in sterling largely because the latter induced heavy sales of Canadian securities held in England to Dominion- buyers, thereby causing a large increase in demand in Canada for foreign funds without a corresponding increase in supply. Other influences were the prohibiting, In OctOber 1931, of exportation of gold from.Canada except under government license, withdrawals from Canadian banks by American depositors, and short selling of exchange. 2:}. CHAPDSR IV Immorts of Crop Products movement of the trade studied perhaps can be explained best in terms of its constituent items. These, classified as cr0p and animal products, show wide variation: Table VIII - Average Annual Values of Crap and Animal Products in Total United States Agricultural Imports from Canada, 1900-1932' 3 x 3 Total : s ,, 3 Crop : Animal : Agricultural 8 Per cent 3 Per cent Period 3 products 3 products : imports s from s from s (500) : (1)00) : (“0001 : crOps : animals 1900-1902 2,740 4,757 7,497 36.5 63.5 1903-1905 4,447 4,498 8,945 49.7 50.3 1906-1908 2,585 6,039 8,624 30.0 70.0 1909—1911 8,303 7,848 16,151 51.4 48.6 1912-1914 20,635 15,134 35,769 57.7 42.3 1915-1917 34,957 27,892 62,849 55.6 44.4 1918-1920 73,189 70,159 143,348 51.1 48.9 1921~l923 48,553 26,160 74,713 65.0 35.0 1924-1926 48,410 34,366 82,776 58.5 41.5 1927-1929 43,006 50,111 93,117 46.2 53.8 1930-1932 24,524 8,836 33,360 73.5 26.5 9 Compiled from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States “ Years ended June 30, 1900-1917; calendar years, 1918-1932 Whereas the crop group accounted for as little as 30 per cent of the aggregate value of farm products imported in certain pre-war years, it increased to more than one-half the total during European hostilities, and to nearly'three-fourths between 1930 and 1932. Its changes in relative significance are evident further in Figure 2. Such variability has resulted from shifts in several c0mponent goods: O - o . . . b.- ..-. -‘—--_ -. — u l . ¢ - 0. \ . . oh“ :3 h ‘ 4.1 .J ...-i". 1" l I...’ l u u . _ :3" , El? 3 3' -3- ..L....“ ... dmawepou monfidwwnnamnp mo Sosa .n madman aw haflsownmsam neogm one mnemEmeos omen» mo pedofimwcmfim pmoa one r .mnmanmama masoa asaqoaao ”aHmHnoomH .00 made eoeao anew» .. mopepn 0000:: can mo eefipsmwpsz 0:0 00908800 umfionom Scam dwaageoo » ema.¢m 0.0 000 0.0 000 0.0 mmo.fi 0.HH mom.m «.0 Hmm.H n.ma 00a.aa mamanonmfl 000.04 0.0 000.H 0.0 nHH.a 0.0 0a0.H v.0 00H.0 0.4H 00m.0 0.00 n¢a.mm mmmfluammfl 0H0.00 m.H mun 0.m 00m m.m nam.a 0.0 000.e 0.4m 000.HH m.a0 0H0.mm mamaxemma ”00.00 H.H «mm H.e 00m.H 0.H 0H0 0.0 00¢.a 5.0H a00.e m.ea 500.00 unmasflmmd 00H.na 0.4 000.0 0.H 0H4.H ¢.H H40.H a.0 000.5 0.0H amn.0 0.m0 000.00 0mmH:0H0H amm.en 0.H men 0. mam 0.0 0H0 0.0 nem.H ¢.Hn 000.0H H.0m 000.00 pamanmamfl 000.0m a. 00H 0.0 aom a.H amn 0.0 H00 0.me 000.0. N.am 000.0” «amaamflma 000.0 a.H and 5.0 000 m.a N00 0.0 00m p.00 0N0.n m.H0 mae.n Hflmflnmoma 000.0 0.0 man ”.ma 0H0 0.0 mam n.0a 40m «.mm mam 0.00 nN0.H womanwoma pee.a 0.0 new 0.0 mum 0.4 baa 0.0H 000 0.a 040 0.00 ma0.m momannomn 045.0 0.m new e.0H 000 a.0 awn «.mH «mm 0.a 000 e.ae 000.H m00H.00mH 000. a we a 000., . a . 000. . was a 000., u .47 u 000. . w u 000. . v3 u 000.. . a u u a a u u u a u a u u uofiaom upodvonm «ascendaaoomfiau «use was a moapepmmm> u namm a «Gamma acmmm «edema use Hsoamu so mono Hepoeu a muflsam u 90:00 . mmopspom u a «manna . .mnmanooma .mmpspm wmpfinz men an dengue Seam umphoqu mausdoum mono aw mmsouo pdmdpwpmnoo mo mmdad> Headed mmeam>4 I NH manna go.) '000001 iOOOO ' I001 loco n f E 7 f 5 4 7‘ “I .‘C '0— 9. amt- 53 fob! ILA Firezre 3 :52. GIEHIN - .17 ‘ POTAT mm. ed Stat s Impo s from , 1 02-1932 bl; 1‘5 I 1'6 [000 mND loo GINO [3" I.- C177 ‘1‘1. 0Hmdow>mnm 00:00 00 00000000 000010000 .00000_00000000 0000010000 .00 0000 00000 00000 a...» ..1. 000000 0000s: 009.00 c0000M0>0Z 000 mogmfifioo 0mwmnom Scum UwHHQSoo 0 000.00 0.00 000.0 0.0 000 0. 00 0.00 000.0 a 0 0.00 000.00 0000:0000 000.00 0.0 000.0 0.0 000 0. 000 0.00 000.0 0. 00 0.00 000.00 0000:0000 000.00 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 0.00 0 .000.0 0. 000 0.00 000.00 0000:0000 000.00 0.0 000.0 0.0 000 0.0 000 n n 0.00 000.0 0.00 000.00 0000:0000 000.00 0.00 000.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 n n 0.0 000.0 0.00 000.00 0000:0000 000.00 0.00 000.0 0.0 000 0.0 000 x a 0.0 000.0 0.00 000.00 0000:0000 000.00 0.00 000.0 0.00 000.0 0.00 000.0 x a 0.0 000 0.00 000.0 0000:0000 000.0 0.00 000 0.00 000.0 0.00 000 n n 0.00 000 0.0 000 000010000 000.0 0.00 000 0.00 000 0.0 00 n n 0.00 000 0.00 000 0000:0000 000.0 0.00 000 0.00 000.0 0.0 00 n a 0.0 000 0.00 000.0 0000:0000 000.0 0.00 000 0.00 000 0..) 00. n u 0. 0 0.00 000 000010000 000. a %0 000. u 0 a 000.. 0.0 0 0000 . .00 a 000. a 3. 000. . fl 0 000. 0 00009 0 000000 0 00m 0 0000 0 mummm 0000 a 0:000 #0002 0 00003 0 00000m « 0 u a taunthm awash u u u no .000010000 .000000 0000 00000 000 .00000 .000000 00 0000000 00000000 000000 0000000 1.0 00000 00300000 00 0000 00: 00000009000 090 .pnamagmmnda 0 050000 op 000000 00: #0 I 0000 G0 m.om 0» 0000 00 0000 000 mm 8000 I 00000 om0enmopmm 0000.00 000000000 0000 00: 00: 00 00002 .00000 map 00 00001000 000» 0000 000000000 05d0> 0 £003 .00000>00 000.00 9000000 000 0000 000 000000000 NH 00009 00 000000 macaw #0000 009 00000 000 0000010000000 In pre-war years hay was the largest single item in the trade here classified, but since 1914 wheat and its products have far outranked the others. To understand this relationship, it is necessary to examine the conditions under which commerce in each product has been effected. (a) - 21:12 Most of the wheat buying has developed during the present century, when western Canada has become famous both for the quantity and quality of its product. In this period the world's greatest producing area of hard spring wheat was established within a belt extending roughly as a triangle with its apex north of ddmonton and its base on the international boundary between the Red River and Calgary. Whereas in 1900 territony included in the Prairie Provinces - which now produce about 90 per cent of Canada's total - had some 2,000,000 acres of the crop, 500 grain elevators, 5,000 miles of railroad, and 400,000 inhabitants, by 1925 it had approximately 21,665,000 acres in corresponding use, 4,200 elevators, 19,000 miles of railway, and 2,000,000 pOpulation. As one authority has observed, ”within a generation the Dominion advanced from ninth to second place among wheat producing countries, and from fifth to first place as an exporter of wheat. In the decade from 1905 to 1913 the Canadian acreage, production, and exp ports more than doubled, and between 1913 and 1923 they doubled again, a record approached by no other country in this period. Expressed in rounded numbers, the area devoted to wheat was 4,000,000 acres in 1905, 11,000,000 acres in 1913, and 22,800,000 acres in 1923. Production increased from 78,000,000 bushels in 1903 to 252,000,000 bushels in 1913, and to 474,000,000 bushels in1923. The amount exported advanced from 24,000,000 bushels in 1903 to 113,000,000 bushels in 1915, and in the crop year 1922-1923 to 275,000,000 bushels, when the exports from Canada first exceeded those from the United States."(16) p. 124 (Q U] 0 With such expansion, the country usually has had to export about 75 per cent of its crop. Two-thirds or more of the amount thus sold ordinarily has gone to the United Kingdom, but a varying market has been found in the United States. There have been several reasons for the latter's buying Canadian wheat While exporting from one-fifth to one-fourth of its own production. Out- standing amcng these has been the northern product's qualitative superiority. Practically all of the “heat produced in western Canada is a.hard spring class that constitutes a much larger percentage of'the total crOp than is present in the American yield.‘ On an average, subject to seasonal variation, it is about 2 per cent higher in protein than is the spring wheat of’the United States... Moreover, it generally has greater regularity of protein content. Thus, during 1925-1926 elevator-run No. 3 hanitoba Northern, averaging 13.5 per cent protein and 61 pounds to the bushel, could be pur— chased on grade contract at Fort William and Port Arthur, whereas No. 1 Dark Northern of’the same percentage in Minneapolis or Duluth had to be searched out by samples that did not average more than 58 pounds per bushel, and as just suggested, it tends to be the heavier per volume bushel. Average No. 1 Manitoba Northern may yield from ll to 15 pounds more straight flour per five bushels than is secured fron.average No. 1 Dark Northern Spring.(22)pp.10-12. The higher protein wheat makes the stronger flour. It has been in demand, therefore, to strengthen softer American Wheats in flour milling. Such blending improves the capacity of'the product to give an even—textured and well raised 10af of bread. ‘ Of an average production of 800,000,000 bushels in the United States, some 200,000,000 bushels are hard spring wheat. *‘ This superiority may come partly from.the newer land and the more common practice of fallowing in Canada than in.the United States. C\ C‘. o Other qualitative influences, also, have affected demand in the United States for Canadian spring wheat. The latter tends to mill better than American on account of higher percentage of vitreous kernels and heavier proportion of the marquis variety. Moreover, it is cleaner, because of less weed infestation and less admixture of rye, durum, and durum-hybrids. Factors of location and transportation likewise have promoted trade. The principal commercial route for Canada's wheat crop leads through Winnipeg, the chief marketing and inspection point, to Fort William and Port Arthur, the chief terminal and storage centers, thence down the Lakes to Montreal or New York City.’ It is not fortuitous, then, that the largest preport ion of United States imports of the Canadian product are milled in *’ so. Buffalo. Besides its technical facilities, that city has the special advantages of low cost of lake freight, proximity to the stream of exports, and nearness to large consuming centers. However, Operation of most of the influences outlined above has been checked by heavy tariff levies. To understand this restraint, one must turn to the movement of imports. Between 1900 abd 1913 average annual ‘ fixing the three years 1920-.21 to 1922-25, for example, about 90 per cent of the shipments of wheat from Western Canada moved out by the lakes, and 56 per cent of these lake shipments were billed to American lake ports. In the six years beginning August, 1925-1950, an average of 49.1 per cent of Canada's total exports of wheat and flour was handled by railroads, grain elevators and shipping agencies of the United “states. Cost at time of shipment influences the route. Thus, in the crap year 1925-26 more American wheat was exported through Montreal than through New York, and more Canadian wheat was sent out of New York than out of Montreal. " Variable quantities have been imported for seed and milling by other areas in states near the international border and some have been sent as far south as Baltimore. ”‘ By 1926 the flour output of Buffalo was about 7,000,000 barrels per year. At that date harbor improvements had been undertaken to place the port in position to provide elevator-storage for some 40,000,000 bushels of grain and winter-storage in vessels for an additional 20,000,000 bushels. (.3 quantities of Canadian.wheat purchased in.the United States were small, although ranging from 4,000 bushels in the year ended June 30, 1904, to 3,100,000 bushels during the ensuing 12 months, after a very short domes- tic crop. In this period, approximately 94 per cent of Canada's wheat exy ported as grain went to EurOpe. The Dingley tariff rate of 25 cents per bushel.imposed in 1897, was almost prohibitive upon sales to American buyers, as it was five times greater than the pre-war ocean rate to Liverpool.(56)p.56 The Underwood Act of 1913 offered reciprocal free trade in Wheat and lowered the duty to 10 cents per bushel on imports from countries not granting free entry fer the Opposite movement. Canada's product remained dutiable until April 17, 1917, when an order—in—council removed the Dominion tax from wheat and flour. By amendment of July 7, 1917, this exemption was made con- tingent upon similar treatment for Canadian wheat exports. Partly as a result of the reduced restrictions, United States imports of northern grain increased to 5,673,000 bushels and to 25,715,000 bushels in the years ended June 50, 1916 and 1917, respectively,flbut part of this gain resulted from special war-time influences. There was some incentive to purchase wheat for re-export, either in grain or in flour or for replacing exported supplies, as foreign demand was especialky large. With the Russian surplus cut off at the Dardanelles, European countries were compelled to seek wheat from the nearest areas that could ship over relatively safe routes. At the same time, Canadian production - as that at home - was increasing. The Dominion had 15,370,000 acres of wheat in 1916 as compared with 11,015,000 in 1915, and in 1915 it had harvested a record crOp of some 393,542,000 bushels., an amount that was nearly 150,000,000 bushels in excess of its yield in any previous year. So although the volume of re-exported wheat sent out by the * It has been estimated that in 1915 an average of 1,000 cars of wheat were handled through Jinnipeg every working day. That year also brought a cud crop of’approximately 1,011,000,000 bushels in the United States. United States was relatively small - 621,000 bushels in 1916 and 64,000 bushels in 1917 - it is possible that larger quantities of Dominion grain served to replace exports of the domestic product. For the greater part of the period after grant of dutyafree admission to Canadian wheat there was virtually no Opportunity for free trade in the product. Imports were under control of the United States Grain Corporation, approximately, from September 1, 1917 to Lay 31, 1920. However, that body arranged for large purchases from Canada "chiefly with a view to filling local shortages, and with the understanding also that equivalent quantities of flour would be released to the Allied Governuents."(56) p. 34 In the fiscal year ended June 30, 1918, this supervision permitted imports of 24,690,000 bushels from Canada. Apparently, urgent needs in Europe again had affected the trade. nearly 73,000,000 buShels more than would have been left as surplus from.normal home consumption of’a crOp the size of that of 1917 were exportei from the United States by the end of the 1917 grain season. Some of the wheat imported was used in American re-exports of 1,412,000 bushels of grain or its equivalent, and some, in areas of disturbed local conditions. With cessation of war, United States purchases of wheat from.the Dominion declined to 10,338,000 bushels in the calendar year 1918, and to 5,345,000 in 1919. In the 1919-1920 crop year a shortage of the higher grades of AmeriCan wheat caused increased buying from.Canada. Contexmoraneously, the discount on Canadian exchange in New York ranged from 8 to 15 per cent. Continuation of demand cauSed the Canadian Wheat Board to Open offices in the United States for sales in premium markets. I Large gains in purchases following termination of federal control re- sulted in a record American importation of 34,957,000 bushels of wheat from Canada during 1920. Between July 1 and November 30 of that year 21,553,000 bushels of’the total were imported. Since in the same months 175,000,000 bushels (IQ LO 0 were exported. from the United States in response to strong dezrand in war- scarred European countries, it is likely that the farmer's purchases of Canadian wheat served in part to free equivalent quantities for export. Termination of free aitry by the emergency tariff levy of 35 cents per bushel, effective hay 28, 1921, marked the begirming of changed con- ditions in the trade. The Fordney—llcCumber Act of 1922 retained a duty of 30 cents per bushel. On April 6, 1924, following the United States Tariff Commission's investigation of comparative Canadian and American costs, this tax was raised by presidential proclamation - under the flex- ible provision of the Fordney-LIcCumber law - to 42 cents. The latter rate remained in the Smoot-Hawley measure. These restrictions - whose limited benefits have gone chiefly to farmers in Montana, Minnesota, and North Dakota - have caused a striking decline in the quantity of Canadian wheat imported for consumption in the United States: In the crop year 1923-24, for example, reports of merchant flour mills to the United States Bureau of the Census showed that of 486,000,000 bushels of wheat ground, about 2.8 per cent was the Canadian product intended for consumption of flour and mill feed, and the corresponding percentage of 483,000,000 bushels during the crop year 1925-26 was 0.36." ”mp”? . By 1928 less than one-tenth of one per cent of total wheat consumed in this country was importedgund since then the proportion has been even smaller. "' Occasionally small imports have resulted from seasonal situations. Thus in the crop year 1924-25 the Canadian crop of hard wheat was small and poor, while that in the United States was large and of excellent quality. ” This volume of Canadian wheat probably had a large relative influence on the quality of flour and on domestic wheat prices. Illlut'l‘lllll Most of the wheat now imported is taken under an arrangement whereby it is exempt from duty when withdrawn from government bonded warehouses and converted into flour for re-export: Table XI - United States Imports of Canadian Wheat for Consumption and.for Milling in Bond, 1921-19319 8 Imports for : withdrawn for Year 2 consumption : milling in bond : (000 bushels) : (000 buShels) 1921 21,698 2,190 1922 10,561 10,426 1923 8,930 9,988 1924 6,896 9,480 1925 1,288 10,459 1926 452 15,430 1927 21 11,154 1928 223 19,767 1929 26 13,736 1930 20 19,947 1931 42 15,628 'Source(9) p. 18 Milling of Dominion wheat at Buffalo, therefore, is practically confined to this diversion from.the stream flowing'to export. Such trade is likely to continue unless checked by Canadian restrictions - e.g. export duties on grain or by withdrawal of milling-in—bond privileges, - as it increases volume of mill operations and aids in maintaining flours in export markets.’ Qualitative superiority of the Canadian crOp will be utilized where economically possible. wheat and its products probably will continue as the largest part of the group of grains, flour, and feeds purchased from Canada by the United States. ‘ 0n the other hand, the United States Tariff Commission estimated in 1924, that milling costs were lower in Canada than in the United States. If that is true the trend may be downward. (b) - wheat Flour However, in this relationship wheat flour appears to be losing significance. (Table K). In recent years its movement has all but ceased. as in the case of wheat, there have been certain qualitative differences that have resulted in American buying. Most of the imports for consumption have been taken by bakeries specializing in products that are best made from some strong patent flour, and to some extent the Canadian flour has been used for blending to produce certain brands. Without tariff interference, United States imports of flour from Canada probably would have been considerably larger. when dutiable at 25 per cent from 1900 to 1913, they ranged from 391 barrels in the year ended June 30, 1902, to 158,286 barrels during the 12 months to June 30, 1912. For a corresponding period ended 1916 they totaled 329,577 barrels, dutiable at 45 cents per unit. Having free entry in 1920, their number in barrels reached a peak of 965,034, only to decline to 267,000 in 1923, following imposition of the Fordney-McCumber rate of 78 cents per hundred- weight. Falling to 65,000 units in 1924, after presidential proclamation, effective April 6 of that year, had raised the duty to $1.04 per hundred- weight, they have continued to diminish under the same prohibitive levy. In 1931, their annual total of approximately 86 barrels was the smallest of the aitire period studied. Part of this decline has occurred contemporaneously with an increase of Canadian sales. In the crop year 1925-26, for example, exports of Dominion flour first exceeded those of the United States, But the latter remains far in the lead as a producer‘, and probably will continue to import only a minor part of its flour from Canada. * Thus in 1929, its output was approximately 120,040,000 barrels, as comp pared with Canada's 19,756,000 barrels. 92. (c) - wheat By—Product Feeds On the other hand, purchases of the by-products Obtained in flour- milling appear to have possibility of increase. Table X indicates that in recent years prior to the current depression they have constituted as much as one-fifth of the total value of Canadian grains, flour, and feeis included in American imports. A large part of the demand for mill feeds has come from.the dairy industry. This huge enterprise ordinarily consumes more by-products than those resulting from domestic flour production. There have been two sources of extra supply from Canadian wheat. Dominion mills are one, American mills handling'bonded product are the other. Because Canada's production of mill feed is in excess of its domestic requirements, the resulting surplus must be exported at what- ever price it will bring. Likewise, mills that grind wheat in bond have an excess product. About 30 per cent of the grain processed remains as offal. Despite the hindrance of a 7% per cent duty’, imports from the combined sources rose steadily from 141,000 tons in 1923 to 431,000 tons in 1950. During this period about 50 per cent of the purchased amount came from bonded mills. With increasing domestic supplies, low prices, and a 10 per cent tariff since 1950, buying has been much reduced. In 1952 the United States imported a total of only 90,653 tons, But it appears, in view of the trade conditions outlined above, that this reduction may be only temporary. ' Imill feed obtained from.wheat in bonded mills is dutiable When not re-exported. (<1) - 93.33 united States imports of oats, like those of'wheat, have come princi- pally from Canada, But unlike the latter, they were of greatest relative significance prior to the war. By 1911 the United States had become the world's leading producer of cats. Its acreage of the crop had increased from.a yearly average of 30,953,000 during 1901-1905 to 38,703,000 in the quinquennium 1911-1915. Nevertheless, its production and consumption were subject to annual varia- tions ranging from 100,000,000 to more than 400,000,000 bushels. Thus, in 1912 approximately 1,564,000,000 bushels were produced and consumed within the country, as compared with 922,000,000 bushels during the previous year. In view of this changing market, one might have expected fairly large imports from the neighboring Canadian provinces, especially as the varia- tion in domestic quantity taken was at times amost as large as the whole Dominion crop. Besides, exports from the tter were several times those of the United States between 1908 and 1914. While American purchases of Canadian cats were relatively nmst sig— nificant before 1915, they exceeded 1,000,000 buShels in only three of the 15 years preceding that date. Between the years ended June 50, 1900, and 1908 they varied from 19,000 to 274,000 bushels. In the following 12 months, as a result of local crop shortages, they rose to 5,048,000 bushels. After declining to 97,000 units in a corresponding period ended 1911, their number expanded the next year to 2,609,000 and two years later reached a peak of 22,266,000. Maintenance of a duty of 15 cents per bushel on United States imports of oats between 1897 and October 3, 1915 was virtually prohibitive, except in relation to a variable border trade arising from local shortages. The duty of 6 cents per bushel fixed by the Underwood not was still higher than the pre--.var ocean freight charge to principal trans-atlantic markets. Tariff reduction then was not the chief cause of the record import occurring in the fiscal year 1914. A short done stic crop of oats and of other feed- stuffs including com, barley, and hay, appears to have been the principal influence affecting imports. In the three fiscal years 1915-1917, war demands absorbed Caniada's surplus of oats. United States imports of the latter drOpped to an average of 659,000 bushels. A year later their amount was 2,591,000,and in 1920 it rose to 6,389,000 bushels. Although the quantity taken in 1923, under a. duty of 15 cents per bushel, was only 282,000 bushels, it increased, with special local requirements, during the next year to 6,904,000 bushels. Since then it has ranged from 59,000 in 1932 to 576,000 in 1931. ri‘he 1931 amount, dutiable at 16 cents per bushel, was but 0.05 per cent of domestic production. Except for varying trade in deficit areas conveniently situated with reference to Dominion supply, imports probably will continue small. The North Central states - leading grain and livestock producing region of the world -- generally appear to have an advantage over the Prairie Provinces. in supplying deficiency sections, and triff restrictions probably will limit sales to eastern markets from the surplus-producing divisions of Ontario. " One of these, Saskatchewan, is Canada's leading; producer of the crop. 9:3 Ln 0 (e) - Egg Jhile imports of oats have tended to decrease in relative signi- ficance among the items included in Table X, these of hay also have be- come relatively less important. Thus, from an annual average of 64.8 per cent of the total group's import value during the fiscal years ended 1900-1902, hay declined to a corresponding percentage of 2.9 for the period 1930-1932. Before the war, large quantities of hay were needed in urban mar- kets of the hast. In the year 1910-11, for example, New York took 359,500 tons; Boston, 159,250; Philadelphia, 91,775; and Baltimore, 61,226(5§)p. 184. Regardless of variation in domestic production, this demand remained comparatively uniformuand usually the cr0p of the Eastern States was insufficient to meet requirements. In this situation Canada whose production of the crOp was less than one-fifth that of the American, had a surplus of the timothy and clover demanded. ioreover, approximately three-fourths of its hay was produced in Ontario and Quebec. Such location favored its competition.as a source of supply. For while in both the Dominion and the United States hay ordinarily ranked as the second most valuable cr0p, the former's surplus was closer to the eastern deficit area than was the latters. By far the largest part of the american surplus was produced west of Columbus, Ohio, whereas the Canadian encess was grown east of Toronto. Freight rates from Montreal to New York and Boston were considerably lower than I from Columbus or from Chicago. This nat¥8ha1 advantage in ecumetition was partly offset by a tariff ‘ This relationship can be judged from.freight charges in 1920, when rates from Montreal to the cities were $1.30 and $2.80 per ton less than from Columbus, and $4.20 and $5.70 per ton less than from Chicago. that was maintained at $4 per ton from 1897 to 1915, But with varying domestic supplies, the amount of Canadian hay taken in the United States ranged from 6,651 tons in the year ended June 50, 1909, to a peak of 698,578 tons three years later. The 1912 figure resulted from a small crop. United States production of tame hay had fallen from 69,578,000 tons in 1910 to 54,916,000 tons in 1911. Likewise, the limited amount taken in 1909 followed a large domes- tic crop of 70,050,000 tons. Between 1914 and 1920 the largest annual quantity imported was 408,148 tons in the 12 months ended June 50, 1918. Although.the tariff act of October 5, 1915 had lowered the duty to $2 per ton, war demands absorbed Canada's surplus and checked exports to the United States. In the three years ended June 50, 1915-1917 yearly American imports from Canada averaged only 40,000 tons. By 1920 the Dominion remained the only competitor in domestic markets for hay. In addition to its natural advantages, it had the benefit of American quarantine regulations, which, designed to prevent the entry of infectious diseases of animals, prohibited imports from countries other than Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom.by Specifying:that imports fronmsuch sources had to be disinfected on board conveyance at the owner's expense and stored in quarantine for three months. Under a tariff of $4 per unit'between 1922 and 1950, United States pur- chases of Canadian hay varied from 5,000 tons in 1922 to 554,000 tons in 1926. The larger amount followed a decline in total domestic production between 1924 and 1925 from 92,478,000 to 78,608,000 tons, and the smaller importation occurred after tonnage grown at home rose from 85,529,000 in 1921 to 94,211,000 during the next year. 47. The trend continued downward after the Smoot-Hawley duty of $5 per ton became effective. In 1952 imports of 14,000 tons were less than 0.02 per cent of American production. Declining deuand, as well as tariffs, have restricted the trade. Largely because of the substi- tution of mechanical for animal power, the estimated number of horses in the United States decreased from 20,092,000 to 15,684,000 between January 1, 1920 and 1950; So it appears likely that American imports of hay from Canada, except on occasion of crop shortage, will remain only a fraction of one per cent of domestic production. (f) — Others It remains to note the changing movaneit of other items of the group presented in Table X. These include a number of miscellaneous items, such as oatmeal, oat hulls, corn, buckwheat, barley, rye, and by-product feeds other than those fronxwheat. In line with the general increase , in importations of the latter, their trend seems to be moving slightly upward. Imports of each constituent product have been quite small; and it is unnecessary to trace the movement in detail. However, one of the pro- ducts, barley, deserves special mention. Prior to 1890 malting barley was one of the chief United States imports from Canada. American maltsters, finding the product of Ontario and Quebec especially suited to their needs, purchased from 8,000,000 to 11,000,000 buShels annually, but after that year, when the duty was raised from 10 to 50 cents per bushel, the trade practically disappeared. In the 12 months ended June 50, 1900 Canadian sales across the border amounted to only 189,757 bushels. Six years later this total was 18,049 bushels. Recently, however, barley, entering as malt, has been gaining sig- nificance in the trade. Whereas the United States for many years pre- viousyYhad imported no barley malt from Canada, it took 95,491 bushels in 1930, find in 1931 its imports of 1,145,559 bushels from.the Dominion were equivalent to nearly 7 per cent of its domestic consumption.‘ The increase occurring under an unchanged tariff of 40 cents per hundredweight, appears to have resulted partly from.growth of demand for malt sirup and extracts.‘. Part of it also may have followed reduction of the United States or0p of'barley from 304,601,000 bushels in 1950 to 198,965,000 bushels in 1931. In these circumstances future direction of the trade in barley re- mains quite uncertain. Possibly the American repeal of‘prohibition will cause it to move in an ascending trend. Seeds While imports of the various products outlined thus far continued as the largest part of American expenditures for Canadian crop exports, those of the second group presented in Table IX, declined in relative importance. However, this downward movement did not appear until after 1915. Between the years ended June 30, 1900 and 1910, imports of seeds rose from 2.5 to 46.4 per cent of the value of crOp products purchased from.Canada by the United States. Five years later this percentage reached a peak of 67.8. Thereafter, it declined to 20.4 in 1919, 9.3 in 1929, and 4.5 in 1932. Flaxseed has been the largest constituent of the group; 9 Most of the imports were taken in New York and Chicago from Toronto and Winnipeg. ** Evidence of increase is the rise in value of'malt sirup and extracts produced in the United States from $19,439,000 to $36,946,000 be- tween 1925 and 1929. 49. Table XII - Average Annual Values of Canadian Seeds Imported by the United States, 1900-1932' ‘. a : Clover, alfalfa, : : Period : Flax seed a and timothy seed***: Others : Total 3 (000) : ;g x (000) , 5% :(000):_p% : (000) ~35 if 33 =35 1900-1902 2 1.0 - - 198 99.0 ' 200 '1903-1905 81 23.5 - - 264 76.5 345 1905-1908 7 1.2 - - 566 98.8 573 1909-1911 2,834 78.1 600 16.5 194 5.4 3,628 1912-1914 8,119 91.6 579 6.6 161 1.8 8,859 1915-1917 10,439 95.0 404 3.7 141 1.3 10,984 1918-1920 6,731 72.2 2,194 23.5 402 4.3 9,327 1921-1923 5,570 73.2 1,525 20.1 512 6.7 7,607 1924-1926 8,914 75.5 ,2,074 17.6 820 6.9 11,808 1927-1929 4,050 64.9 1,680 26.9 514 8.2 6,244 1930-1932 1,168 76.8 185 12.2 168 11.0 1,521 ‘ Cempiled from Foreign Commerce and Eavigation of the United States “ Years ended June 30, 1900—1917; calendar years, 1918-1932. *** Included in Others prior to 1909. (a) - Flaxseed .As the source of linseed oil, flaxseed has had a large American market. -9-r'rhis oil, usually constituting from 30 to 35 per cent of the seed, is used in a number of industries. Superior for drying qualities, about 65 per cent of its production in the United States is used in paints and varnishes. The remainder goes into sudh varied products as linoleum, waterproofing materials, rubber substitutes,80ap and printers' ink.‘ While demand in these uses has expanded, American production of'the oilébearing seed has lagged relatively. Prior to 1909 yearly production of flaxseed in the Uhited States normally exceeded domestic requirements and made a fairly large surplus available for export. For example, in.the fiscal years ended June 30, 1902 and 1907 the country sent out 3,874,000 and 6,636,000 bushels, respectively, Whereas its imports for correspond- ing periods were 477,000 and 90,000 bushels, But two years later its ere ports had fallen to 883,000 bushels as compared with 594,000 units imported, 8nd in.the next 12 months it exported only 65,000 bushels while buying 7; moreover, the by-products, linseed cake and linseed meal,have been in 5,002,000. In fact, the United States harvested most of its largest crOps of flaxseed in the decade preceding 1909. During that period production averaged about 25,000,000 bushels but declined from a peak of some 29,000,000 bushels. Between 1902 and 1909 estimated American acreage fell from 3,740,000 to 2,083,000. This changing product ion resulted partly from inherait characteristics of the flax plant. The latter had moved with the frontier as a favorite crop on newly broken sod, especially in wheat producing areas, where a good wheat cr0p could not be had on such land until the second year. It was also used in the spring wheat section as a catch crop on fields pre- pared too late for grain. To some extent, then, its use was either ante- cedent or supplementary to wheat production. Moreover, expansion of its yield was checked by wilt that resulted from soil becoxrdng infested with parasitic diseases following continuous cropping. Contemporaneously, by 1909 Canada was just beginning to appear as a large source of supply. Opening of new lands in lianitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta brought remarkable increase in production thereafter. Between 1908 and 1911 Canadian acreage of flaxseed rose from 139,300 to 878,900, and only one year later a cr0p of 26,130,000 bushels on 2,021,900 acres was by far the largest ever harvested in the Dominion. While increasing in size, the northern cr0p remained conveniently situated with reference to United States markets. Approximately 99 per cent of the record production of 1912 was in the Prairie Provinces, and 88 per cent of it was in Saskatchewan alone. It had access, therefore, to the land-and-water route fran 'dinnipeg to Fort William and Port Authur down the Lakes to Buffalo. 51. Under the conditions described above, American imports of Canadian flaxseed expanded rapidly. Amounting to only 370 and 7,000 bushels in the years ended June 30, 1900 and 1908, respectively, they rose during annual fiscal periods beginning July 1, 1908 and 1909 to 479,000 and 1,410,000 bushels. In the same units, their consecutive numbers for the next three years were 2,251,000; 3,511,000; and 4,732,000. Trade of the ensuing 12 months resulted in their highest yearly total of 8,647,000 bushels. fVI'his peak.was reached partly because of reduced supplies from Argentina. after 1910 Canada's surplus had not been sufficient to meet the deficiency in the United States. In the 12 months ended June 30, of that year, some 3,209,000 bushels of flaxseed imported by American purchasers cams from.the heavy clay loam soils of the Parana River Valley, and in the following year 5,021,000 bushels in the trade had similar origin. However, in the two succeeding years corresponding totals de~ clined to 1,211,000 and 429,000; while the next 12 months brought dis- appearance of such imports. Temporarily, Canada became almost the sole source of flaxseed imp ported by the United States, But although moving about 80 per cent of its average crOp southward acress the border, it decreased in relative sig— nificance as a source of supply between 1914 and 1920. In the fiscal- year 1915 resumption of American.inportation from Argentina caused a movement of 3,928,000 bushels, as ccmpared with 6,630,000 from Canada. A year later the relative quantities taken were 11,468,000 and 3,095,000. During the war period the Canadian crOp decreased greatly. Competi- tion of wheat and,to sons extent, declining yields from repeated crepping reduced Dominion acreage of flaxseed from 2,021,900 in 1912 to 1,084,000 in 1914 and to 463,000 in 1915. While five years later this total was 1,428,000,its production was but 7,998,000 bushels as compared with the record crop of 26,130,000 bushels in 1912. Argentina continued as the leading'source of flaxseed imports for the United States after 1920.‘ In the ten years 1918-1927 it supplied about five times the amount entering from Canada.and American imports of Argentina seed in 1927 amounted to 19,566,000 bushels as against 2,411,000 bushels fron1the northern provinces. Corresponding quantities in 1932 were 7,400,000 and 519,000. Canadian acreage of flaxseed has remained relatively small during the past decade, declining from 1,277,000 in 1924 to 453,700 in 1932. It is this reduction that has been.the principal factor in causing downward trend in Canada's sales of the product to the United states. Tariff restrictions in most of the period seem to have had limited influence on the trade. A rate of 25 cents per bushel was kept in effect by the acts of 1897 and 1909. Reduced to 20 cents by the Underwood measure, it was raised again to 30 cents in 1921, and to 40 cents in 1922. By presidential proclamation, effective June, 1929, it became 56 cents.and in the act of 1950 it reached a high point of 65 cents, But at least until 1929 the duty was more a source of revenue than a protective measure. The United States, being dependent on foreign sources for about one-half of its flaxseed requirements by 1914, continued to import large quantities - more than five times as much in 1927 as in 1910. Moreover, effects of the tariff have been partly offset by drawback provisions. Under the act of 1922 producers 0f goods made from flaxseed were entitled to a draWback equivalent to 99 per cent of the duty paid on seed used in making the exported product, provided that all of the products thus obtained were exported. In following years refund of duty ranged from 18 ”3 to 25 per cent of that col1ected.(D ) p. 43. ' In the period 1923-1927 Argentina furnished 45.9 per cent of the world's production of flaxseed. Future of the trade remains quite uncertain. It may be that the higher rates of 1929 and 1930 will eicourage production in the concentrated flax area of Minnesota, the Dakotas, and northeastern MOntana. With the introduction of wilt-resisting varieties after 1913, the AmeriCan crOp has tended to increase. Between 1919 and 1929 its acreage rose from 1,293,000 to 3,047,000. 'Jhether its increase to 3,732,000 acres in the next year was influenced by tariff provisions is difficult to Judge, but the fact remains that in 1931 this acreage fell to 2,313,000. Likewise, the decline in total innerican imports from 24,243,000 to 12, 662,000 bushels between 1929 and 1930 may have been affected by higher rate levies, as perhaps was that from 14,480,000 to 7,919,000 bushels in the two years following. However, loss of markets for linseed oil through slump of building activity was the principal retarding influence. It is possible that with business recovery Buffalo and other large market; will require as much of Canada's diminishing surplus of flaxseed as that country can send. (b) - Clover, Alfalfa, and Timothy Seed Less significant than the movement of flaxseed, but important, never- theless, American imports of hay seeds from the Dominion have served to supplement domestic supply. In this relationship, their volume has varied with the size of the cr0p at home. Such fluctuation is eSpecially noticeable in imports that had free entry prior to 1922. Thus, between the fiscal years ended June 30, 1907 and 1910 these purchases of Canadian seed in the United States changed from 1,742,000 to 3,711,000 pounds. Mounting to 9,751,000 pounds in the next 12 months, they dropped two years later to 2,887,000, ind after falling from 10,870,000 units in 1919 to 4,379,000 in 1920, they rose to 13,145,000 during the following year. " After 1912 Buffalo took about one-half of the Canadian flaxseed imported by the United States, while increasing amounts went to Chicago, and some +n TIi'IrH-M .23.“. +kn 1n1rn “nae-fin n-P (“Ck-3n Despite imposition in 1922 of duties ranging from one cent to four cents per unit, their peak was reached in 1925 with 19,466,000 pounds. This number decreased to 9,975,000 during the second year thereafter, Iut following an increase of 100 per cent in duties by the act of 1930, imports in 1931 and 1932 totaled only 274,000 and 273,000 pounds, re- spectively. Host of the seed purchased has been alsike.‘ Thus, of the 1925 record quantity, approximately 59 per cent was the fine clover. There has been special demand for its use under conditions where red clover fails. However, its importation ceased in 1932 under a duty of 8 cents per pound. Variable in quantity, alfalfa has at tines been a significant variety imported. In 1925 it was nearly 12 per cent of’the total volume of hay seeds and in 1927 its percentage share was .35, but in 1929 it was little more than.one per cent of the aggregate. Its importation, as that of alsike, probably will continue very small as long as a duty of’8 cents per pound remains in force. Seed of timothy, the most important hay grass in the United states, has had irregular movement. Except for a.negligible border trade under a duty of 2 cents per pound, it has almo$t disappeared as an American inport from Canada. ‘ Domestic production of alsike has had wide variation, For emwuples, from.43,000,000 pounds in 1929 to 21,300,000 pounds in 1931. (c) - Other Seeds Relatively small quantities of several varieties have constituted the remaining imports of Canadian seeds taken in the United States. Of these, the principal kinds have been grass, turnip, and sugar-beet. Considerable fluctuation is observodudn the purchases of grass seed. In 1925 the amount taken from.the Dominion was 676,000 pounds. Two.years later this total was 1,556,000, but by 1950 it had fallen to 855,000 and in 1952 was only 528,000. Canadian bluegrass has been the leading grass seed imported. In 1929, for example, it included 912,000 of 1,070,000 pounds entering the United States from Canada. withstanding drought, cold, and wet soils, its plant has been in demand.to some extent as a pasture and lawn grass on infertile land in the Northeastern States. However, following increase of duty from two cents to five cents per pound, only 295,000 pounds entered the trade in 1952. Likewise imports of turnip seed have declined in significance. From 525,000 pounds in 1925 they increased one year later to 814,000 pounds but. fell to 207,000 in 1929 and to 81,000 in 1952. The latter change occurred after raising of tariff charge from four to five cents per pound. .A similar movement occurred in buying of sugar-beet seed.’ american imports from Canada amounted to 996,000 pounds in 1918. Seven years later the quantity was 143,000, and although rising to 475,000 in 1929, it drOpped to 548 in 1952; yet in contrast to that of other seed imports, the decrease appeared under duty-free entry for the product. ' Germany is a principal source of American imports of this seed. Potatoes, Beans, and Peas Jhile United States imports of seeds from Canada have tended to decline in relative significance among the crop products purchased, those of the third group shown in Table IX appear in recent years to have become a larger part. Most of this gain has been.in potatoes: Table XIII - Average Annual Values of Potatoes, Dried Beans, and Dried Peas Imported from Canada by the United States, 1900-1952.‘ lit 3 3 8 It!!! : Period : Potatoes : Beans :Dried.Peas ; a Total : (000) x g; z (000) a 163 x (000) g 3% z (000) ‘73 $3 3 5 1900-1902 145 27.4 579 72.6 - - 522 1905-1905 288 50.7 280 49.5 - - 568 1906-1908 71 26.9 195 75.1 - - 264 1909-1911 198 69.5 87 50.5 — - 285 1912-1914 210 41.9 16 5.2 275 54.9 501 1915-1917 1,599 75.9 72 5.9 572 20.2 1,845 1918-1920 5,885 85.4 682 9.7 490 6.9 7,055 1921-1925 919 62.8 127 8.7 418 28.5 1,464 1924-1926 5,525 86.2 104 2.5 462 11.5 4,089 1927-1929 5,596 86.0 401 9.6 185 4.4 4,180 1930-1932 2,650 95.8 102 5.6 73 2.6 2,805 ‘ Compiled from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. ** Years ended June 50, 1900-1917; calendar years, l918~l952. ‘*' Grouped with beans until 1912. (a) - Potatoes Several factors have influenced demand in the United States for Canadian potatoes. Short domestic crops, localized deficit areas, desirable seed qualities, and reduced foreign supplies have affected the trade. Besides, factors of location have made Canada a convenient source of supply. The bulk of the Dominion's crOp is grown in its eastern provinces. fixtensive producing areas in new Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario, adjacent to similar sections in Maine and New York, have freight rates to large eastern.narkets n that cempare favorably with those from centers of American production. * USually most of the Canadian potatoes purchased in the united States have moved by rail through Kaine and New Hampshire customs districts. 57. In pre-war years deveIOpment of this buying was limited somewhat by a tariff that was kept at 25 cents per bushel. horeover, European com- petition was especially strong. Under these conditions, quantities brought in from the Dominion changed from 46,000 bushels during the year ended June 50, 1900 to 1,584,000 in the fiscal year 1905L and to 11,000 tucuyears later, Ind in a similar period for 1912, while 12,650,000 bushels were purchased from the United Kingdom to supplement a Short domestic crep, only 145,000 were taken from Canada. ”However, a reverse situation.began to appear after 1915. In the latter part of that year the Secretary of Agriculture, under authority previously given, imposed a quarantine against potatoes from the largest producing countries of straps. The regulation, designed to reduce danger of importing potato-wart disease, at first applied also to Canada and Bermuda; but it was removed fronlthe two areas on July 1, 1917, thereby offering them an indirect preference. Furthermore, by the Underwood act of October 5, 1915, potatoes were given free entry when such treatment was allowed the American product, and the general rate was changed to 10 per cent (about four to eight cents at pre-war prices). On November 7, 1918, chiefly to aid in marketing a crop some 50,000,000 bushels larger than that of any previous year, the Dominion availed itself of the reciprocal free trade offered, by removing its own general tariff levy of 20 cents per bushel. In the fiscal year 1914, during 9 months of which the Underwood Act was in force, 1,026,000 bushels of Canadian potatoes were purchased by_the United States, whereas the corresponding quantity for 1915 had been onLy 119,000 bushels. Because of short crops in Canada during the two following years, such annual amounts declined to 211,000 and 188,000, But their next successive totals were 5,051,000 and 1,171,000. U] C) 0 As a result of war conditions and the Opening of markets across the border, the Dominion's acreage of potatoes in 1918 was 756,000, in con- trast to 475,000 in 1916, and one year later it reached a peak of nearly 819,000. Concurrently, the Canadian crop became about one-third that of the united States as against one-fifth in pre-war years. This expanding production was the source of imports of 5,507,000 bushels into the United States during 1919, when the domestic crap of 298,975,000 bushels was apprOXimately 113,000,000 less than.that of the previous year, and in 1920 it supplied a total of 5,049,000. After restoration of a duty of 25 cents per bushel by the emergency act of 1921, and its increase to 50 cents per hundredweight the following year, American imports of potatoes from.Canada in 1922 fell to 1,656,000 bushels. Totaling but 555,000 bushels in 1924, they rose to 2,508,000 in 1925, and to a record of 5,527,000 fer 1926. Demand for seed potatoes and for the food product in nearby markets of the United States continu- ing, their amount in 1927 was 5,009,000. Remaining at 4,440,000 in 1951, despite a tariff of 75 cents per hundredweight, they drOpped abruptly in 1952 to 657,000 bushels. Apparently, the high tariff of the 1950 act will cause considerable fluctuation in this volume of imports. Unless demand for such special uses as seed remains quite strong, it is likely that the heavy duty will cause substitution of domestic for Canadian supply. Further likelihood of such displacement appears in the relative crOp stability of the two countries. Whereas between 1919 and 1951 acreage of potatoes in the United States changed from 5,295,000 to 5,582,000, that in Canada fell from 819,000 to 584,000. (b) - Dried Beans Only in the early pre-war years were American imports of potatoes from the Dominion less valuable than those of the other pro-ducts listed in Table VII. Beans and peas usually have been a very minor part of the total purchases. A small Canadian production of beans: centering in Ontario, has been the basis of a limited border trade with the United States. Dutiable at 45 cents per unit in the y ear ended June 50, 1912, only 4,000 bushels were sent from Canada to purchasers across the border. Under a tariff of 25 cents per bushel after 1915, this quantity remained slight until 1918, when it amounted to 90,000 bushels. Exceptionally high prices had stirmilated production in Canada. Deminion acreage in beans rose from 52,500 in 1916 to 92,000 in 1917, and to a peak of nearly 229,000 in 1918. with this increase, United States imports of the product reached their highest annual figure in 1919, a total of 550,000 bushels. But in 1921 acreage in the northern provinces declined to 62,000. At the same time, the emergency tariff of two cents per pound contributed to a fall of annual importation to 6,000 bushels. After the duty was kept at 1-5/4 cents per pound by the act of 1922, the volume of trade remained small. In 1927 the quantity bought from Canada was approximately 12,800 bushels. ts largest yearly amount under the duty was 156,100 bushels in 1928. Between 1950 and 1951, following increase of duty to 5 cents per pound, imports fell from 102,100 to 56,500 bushels. Concurrently, Canadian acreage declined from 98,700 to 81,000. In 1952 it fell further to 66,600, and Inner ican imports from the Dominion were but 7,900 bushels. By that time the trade appeared to have been almost wiped out by tariff and low prices. " In 1950 Canada had only 98,700 acres of beans as compare-d with 2,091,000 in the Uni ted states. Corresponding yields of that year were 1,458,600 and (c) - Dried Peas until recent years United States imports of dried peas from.Canada averaged sonewhat larger than those of beans, But like the latter, they have been small relative to domestic production.. In the fiscal year 1912 they amounted to 260,000 bushels. Although tariff rates had been lowered from 25 cents and 40 cents to 10 cents per unit by the Underwood Act, their annual total decreased to 201,000 bushels in 1919. Three years later, under a duty of one cent per pound, their quantity was 151,900 bushels. It rose to 217,500 in 1925, but declined steadily thereafter to 56,700 in 1929. These reduced amounts after 1912 were partly the result of a decline in Canadian acreage from 295,000 in 1911 to 125,000 eighteen years afterward. With their tariff increased to 1-5/4 cents per pound by the act of 1950, sudh imports continued on low trend to 48,400 bushels in 1952. miscellaneous Vegetables American purchases of other vegetable products from Canada also have been relatively small in.the total import trade. Whereas total Canadian exports of fruits and vegetables to the United btates before 1950 amounted to between é2,000,000 and $5,000,000 annually , in the other direction corresponding importations of vegetables were some $7,000,000iand of fruits,approximately §50,000,000. Recently turnips have been the most important single iten.in this group; * In 1929 Canada's average in.peas was 125,200 as compared with 1,051,000 of the United States. Production fromtthe former was 1,979,000 bushels, and from.the latter, 6,555,000 bushels. Table XIV ~ Average Annual Values of hiscellaneous Vegetable Products Included in American Imports From Canada, 1900-1932* ‘. z “’ 3 Others in :0thers prepared : Period : Turnips : natural state :or preserved : Total 8 (000) t A% z (000) : _jg : (000) : 1% z (000) as t t 5 1900-1902 — - 147 78.6 40 21.4 187 1903-1905 - ~ 184 93.4 13 6.6 197 1906-1908 - - 226 97.4 6 2.6 232 1909-1911 - - 575 95.5 27 4.5 602 1912-1914 - - 346 96.9 11 3.1 357 1915-1917 - - 774 85.1 136 14.9 910 1918-1920 - - 889 85.4 152 14.6 1,041 1921-1923 - - 731 79.6 187 20.3 918 1924-1926 675 55.6 454 37.5 84 6.9 1,213 1927—1929 798 47.6 611 36.5 267 15.9 1,676 1930-1932 592 57.9 274 26.8 156 15.3 1,022 ‘ Compiled from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. *’ Years ended June 30, 1900-1917; calendar years 1918—1932. 9" Included in Others in Natural State prior to 1924. (a) - Turnips With its principal production of turnips in Ontario, Canada has been well situated to suppLy large markets across the border. Moreover, the Canadian product has won demand for its quality. This demand resulted in a peak importation of 153,733,000 pounds in 1925. While its duty remained unchanged at 12 cents per hundredweight, the quantity taken during the next year fell to 96,400,000. After rising to 150,196,000 pounds in 1928, it drapped to 118,671,000 in 1930. In 1932, following tariff increase to 25 cents per hundredweight, it was 95,207,000 pounds. Variation in the movement probably will continue, But it is likely that demand will remain quite inelastic for amounts at least as large as that taken in 1932. Ola. (b) — Other Vegetables in Natural State Trade in the other groups classified in Table XIV, usually has been seasonal and somewhat local in character, and it has included a large number of items. The limited movement has resulted partly from.special demand, and partly from supplementary use of northern crops where donestic supplies have matured earlier or have been insufficient. An example of special demand is that for sugar beets. Imports have been limited to purchases by factories near the international border, and have fluctuated with sugar prices and acreage requirements of the plants concerned. Like others of the group, they have been relatively small. From a high point of approximate v 75,800 tons in 1927, their quantity decreased to 10,235 tons in 1932. "Since 1930, under increased tariff restrictions and continuing business inactivity, purchases of the several items have been reduced. It seems probable, however, that because of its diversi- fied nature, the trade will gradually increase. to) - Other Vegetables Prepared or Preserved Ordinarily, American imports of prepared vegetables from Canada have constituted but a snall movement to points near the common boundary. Only once in the entire period examined did the value of these purchases exceed $500,000. That occasion was in 1929, when of total expenditures of $672,000, those for canned tomatoes were @621,000. Inasmuch as the latter were only $28,000 and $36,000 in the years inmediately preceding and following, they appear to have resulted largely in anticipation of a duty increased from 15 to 50 per cent by the act of 1930. (T) L»: 0 Fruits and Huts Quize similar in value to imports of miscellaneous vegetables have been those of fruits and nuts. at times, however, they have been con! siderably larger. In the past several years their chief constituents have been apples and berries; Table XV - Average Annual Values of Fruits and Nuts Bought by american Importers from Canada, 1900-1952' “ 8 ... : .... 3 ‘*‘*:Prepared or x 3 Period 3 Fresh :Apples :3erries :preserved : Huts : Total :(000) z % :toool; _% rLQOO): pg :(000): pp :(ooo): ,% x (000) t t :2: its is e 190091902 255 89.2 - - - - 28 9.8 5 1.0 286 1905~l905 195 86.5 - - - - 26 11.7 4 1.8 225 1906—1908 505 95.5 - - - - 9 2.8 6 1.9 518 1909-1911 214 95.0 - - - - 11 4.8 5 2.2 250 1912-1914 185 88.4 - - - - 12 5.8 12 5.8 207 1915-1917 179 88.5 - - - - 26 12.1 10 4.6 215 1918-1920 941 66.7 - - - - 94 6.7 575 26.6 1,410 1921-1925 1,769 90.1 - - — — 81 4.1 115 5.8 1,965 1924-1926 225 25.0 152 15.7 455 44.6 - - 162 16.7 970 1927-1929 155 12.1 528 29.5 570 55.2 - - 280 25.2 1,115 1950-1952 114 18.5 155 24.8 299 48.1 - — 55 8.8 622 ‘1 Compiled from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States “ Years ended June 50, 1900-1917; calendar years 1918-1952. “* Includes Prepared or Preserved after 1924 toot Included in Fresh prior to 1924. (a) - Apples Imports of apples have resulted largely from border trade or from demand for special varieties. Their total has been quite insignificant relative to douestic production. Thus, in 1929 when 126,455,000 bushels were produced at home, 265,000 bushels were purchased from.the Dominion,' End in 1951 the United States exported 519,000 bushels to Canadian markets while purchasing 36.000 therefrom. with apples its most important fruit, Canada has supplied variable amounts to points along the border. Home of the Llclntosh and ’ Canadian production in 1929 was 5,870,580 barrels. oz #5 Fameuse or snow varieties, and noted for the delicious Gravenstein of Hova Scotia's annapolis Valley, it has offered desirable products. American imports reached one of their highest yearly figures in the year ended June 50, 1920, when approximately 708,000 bushels of} Canadian apples entered the country. This quantity followed a short domestic crop of 1919.. In 1924, after change in duty from 10 cents to 25 cents per bushel, these purchases totaled 95,000 bushels. Falling to 55,000 in 1926, they increased to 265,000 in 1929 after a decline in domestic production. Under the same tariff in 1952 they were but 54,500 bushels. (b) - Berries While apples continue to move in irregular volune southward across the border, berries likewise vary considerably in the trade. A large part of this group consists of strawberries and blueberries. The former enter American markets in periods beyond the normal season for domestic supplYo The latter - which included about 50 per cent of the total group during 1951 and 1952 - also supplement production in the United States. Dutiable at 1-1/4 cents per pound, these imports have been shifting in quantity. Amounting to 5,640,000 pounds in 1925, they fell to 3,262,000 in 1928, rose to 6,835,000 in 1930, and two years later were but 2,465,000. (c) - Other Fruits american imports of other fruits from.0anada usually have resulted from a limited border movement,and have varied with local needs. For example, purchases of fresh Cherries, totaling 545,500 pounds in 1929, ‘ The total crop for that ear was 156,561,000 bushels as compared with 175,652,000 in 1918 and 225,677,000 in 1920. whereas the Canadian crop was slightly in excess of that of new York State in 1919, it was about 56 per cent as large in the sear following. 55. were but 51,000 pounds in 1951. Small at best, the group seems to have no significant trend. (m-gggg Similarly, imports of nuts have been a'very minor part of the trade. Walnuts have been the largest item, including 71.5 per cent of p172,000 spent in 1922, and 91.5 per cent of $71,000 in 1951. miscellaneous Crap Products 0f the remaining crOp products imported by the United States from Canada, maple sugar and sirup have been far in the lead: Table XVI - average Annual Values ofjhiscellaneous Crop Products Imported from Canada by the United States, 1900-1952' x ‘ Maple Sugar 3 3 Period" 3 and sirup*** 3 Other 3 Total : (000) x 3% ‘ : (000) x f; x (000) ‘5: 75 76 1900-1902 - ~ 245 100.0 245 1905-1905 - - 242 100.0 242 1906-1908 - - 175 100.0 175 1909-1911 - - 159 100.0 159 1913-1914 - — 145 100.0 145 1915-1917 226 64.8 125 55.2 549 1918-1920 1,520 58.9 2,075 ' 61.1 5,595 1921-1925 402 72.6 152 27.4 554 l924~1926 614 85.0 108 15.0 722 1927~l929 1,655 99.1 15 .9 1,650 1950-1952 819 99.2 ~ 7 .8 826 * Compiled from.Foreign.Commerce,and Navigation of the United States ** Years ended June 50, 1900-1917; calendar years 1918-1952. *" Included in Other prior to 1915. (a) - maple sugar and Sirup As the source of nearly the entire world supply of maple sugar and sirup, Canada and the United States have a large bilateral trade in these products. The movement is principally to American markets, where a variety of uses render domestic supply insufficient to meet require— ments. Besides arising from.direct consumption, suCh demand accompanies manufacture of blended sirups, candy and.other confections, and cigar— ette and chewing tObacco. Canada has been well situated to supply the anounts needed. Pro- duction of maple sugar and sirup is one of its oldest native industries.. modernization and extension of methods learned from the original Indian occupants give it an output which at times has exceeded that of the United 1‘ States. The trade centers in New England. About 70 per cent of the Dominion's maple sap products are made in the province of Quebec, and approximatexy that percentage of the .funerican production comes from the states of, Vermont and New York. In this relationship St. Johnsbury, Vermont, is the largest wholesale market of the United States for both domestic and imported maple sugar produced on farms. There has been much variation in the quantity purchased. From a total of 5,928,000 pounds in 1919, dutiable at three cents per unit, it rose, under discounted Canadian exchange, to 8,555,000 in 1920. Although falling to 1,906,000 during depressed conditions of’the next‘year, its number of pounds totaled 4,802,000 in 1925, and 12 months later was 6,700,000. After reduction in dtmestic output, this figure reached a peak of 15,284,000 in 1929. Following increased american production, and change of tariff from four cents to 5fi-and eight cents per pound, it drOpped to 7,555,000 in 1950. With continuation of business depression it declined to 2,697,000 in 1951, but rose to 5,410,000 during 1952. ‘ Journals of early explorers referred to use of maples in the St. Lawrence River Valley as far back as 1675. “ During 1928 and 1929, for example, Canadian production, stated in terms of sugar, amounted to 27,291,000-and 29,092,000 pounds, respectively, as compared with 26,575,000 and 20,112,000 for the United states, But in 1950 corresponding quantities were 25,691,000 and 51,510,000. 57. Before 1950 most of the imports were of sugar. Thus, during 1925- 1926 purchases from.Canada supplied about 46 per cent of the estimated consumption of maple sugar in the United states, but less than 0.5 per cent that of maple sirup. This difference was influenced by the tariff of 4 cents per pound, which, being the sure absolute amount on both, was relatively heavier on sirup. A slight Opposite tendency has since appeared. The act of 1950 placed a duty of eight cents per pound on maple e ear and 5; Cents per pound on the other maple derivative. These rates,reduced by presidential proclamation, effective March 7, 1951, to six cents and four cents, respectiveLy, remained such.as to cause imports of the first mentioned product to decline relativeLy more than those of the second. up However, maple sugar is still by far the more significant import, and it probably will continue in this position as demand returns in better times. (b) - Gmher CrOp Products Throughout most of the period covered United States imports of other crOp products from Canada have been insignificant. a.sizeable increase occurred in purchases of flax fiber between 1917 and 1920, when annual Canadian production had risen from 2,800,000 to 7,440,000 pounds, But because of the large amount of labor required in preparing the textile raw material, its production in the Dominion declined thereafter, amount- ing to only 25,000 pounds in 1951. Trend of this group remains, therefore, on very low level. ’ In 1952 total United States imports of maple sirup were valued at $5,000, whereas those of maple sugar amounted to $466,000. Cbhf'fldli V Imports of Animal Products As stated previously, United States imports of Canadian crop products have tended to increase relative to those derived from animals. This down- ward movement of the latter has included several groups: Table FVII - Average Annual Values of Constituent Groups of Animsl Products Imported from Canada by the United States, 1900-1932’ ‘. 2 Live : Hides and : LBat : Dairy : hiscellan: Period 3 animals 2 skins : products 2 products : eous : Total :(000) : 3% :(000) :jZ :(000) a $5 :(000) L9; :(oookjs : (000) 5’53 a? v 3 $5 3 1900-1902 2,580 54.2 1,580 33.2 65 1.4 28 .6 504 10.6 4,757 1903-1905 1,677 37.3 2,150 47.8 93 2.1 53 1.2 525 11.6 4,498 1906-1908 1,856 30.7 3,423 56.7 93 1.5 45 .8 622 10.3 6,039 1909-1911 1,398 17.8 4,666 59.5 140 1.8 969 12.3 675 8.6 7,848 1912-1914 4,415 29.2 7,231 47.8 1,060 7.0 1,521 10.0 907 6.0 15,134 1915-1917 11,867 42.6 7,274 26.1 3,165 11.3 2,274 8.1 3,312 11.9 27,892 1918-1920 35,525 50.6 11,763 16.8 8,692 12.4 8,036 11.4 6,143 8.8 70,159 1921-1923 6,543 25.0 5,290 20.2 4,943 18.9 7,011 26.8 2,373 9.1 26,160 1924-1926 8,147 23.7 6,464 18.8 5,418 15.8 10,969 31.9 3,368 9.8 34,366 1927-1929 16,600 33.1 9,371 18.7 11,103 22.2 9,727 19.4 3,310 6.6 50,111' 1930-1932 1,967 22.3 2,203 24.9 1,922 21.7 1,696 19.2 1,048 11.9 8,83L. * Compiled from Foreign Commerce and Kevigution of the United States '* Years ended June 30, 1900-1917; calendar years, 1918-1932. Figure 4 shows the varying inter-relationships of these classes. Be- tween 1903 and 1914 hides and skins were relatively most valuable in the trade. Dairy products occupied this position from 1923 to 1926, and in most other years live animals were the leading group. Likewise, there has been considerable instability within each class. Discussion of the movement, therefore, may well proceed in terms of in- dividual items. or. {co (A '5‘ Na) '1‘ ’4 -_ -- o—.. 2; _ ‘ : - may 13,133,: .Doiry? 9 All, 6’5 +4... ; M5975 l 1 .oducts from 10000 1600 mum no ON“? 6! w Live Animals The first division shown in Table XVII, has moved as follows. Table XVIII - Average Annual Values of United States Imports of Live Animals from.Canada, 1900-1932* : z a z 3 Period" : Cattle 3 Horses : Sheep : Other 3 Total : (000) : :4 :(000): it x (000) z j; z (000) s j; x (000) "J v v v 3 1900-1902 983 38.1 338 13.1 1,164 45.1 95 3.7 2,580 1903-1905 195 11.6 429 25.6 830 49.5 223 13.3 1,677 1906-1908 270 14.5 441 23.8 1,022 55.1 23 6.6 1,856 1909-1911 173 12.4 609 43.6 481 34.4 135 9.6 1,398 1912-1914 3,270 74.1 444 10.0 96 2.2 605 13.7 4,415 1915-1917 9,544 80.4 692 5.8 475 4.0 1,156 9.8 11,867 1918-1920 32,362 91.1 563 1.6 1,737 4.9 863 2.4 35,525 1921-1923 4,879 74.6 323 4.9 395 6.0 946 14.5 6,543 1924-1926 4,524 55.5 290 3.6 216 2.7 3,117 38.2 8,147 1927-1929 13,905 83.7 310 1.9 114 .7 2,271 13.7 16,600 1930—1932 1,523 77.4 34 11.9 23 1.2 187 9.5 1,967 ‘ Compiled from.Foreign.Coamerce and Navigation of the United States. ’* Years ended June 30, 1900-1917; calendar years, 1918-1932. (a) - Cattle It is evident that since 1912 imports of cattle have usually amounted to three-fourths or more of the total expenditures here classified. Special influences have given rise to this trade. 711though having no pastural region comparable to the arid and semi- arid western area of the United States, Canada ordinarily produced beef cattle in excess of its domestic requirements. Thus, in 1924 the number of cattle other than milch cows in the Dominion was approximately 620 per 1,000 persons, in comparison with a corresponding figure of 377 for the United States. The natural outlet for this exportable surplus is south- ward across the border. marketing a larger surplus from western.than from eastern provinces because of greater production relative to pepulation,‘ ' For exarpde, in 1931, the three Prairie Provinces, although having approxi- mately 42.3 per cent of he nuMber 0 Canadian cattle other than milch cows, had only 22.7 per cent of the Doninion's pOpulation. the country is in a position to sell in nearby American markets. This location is especially favorable, as it permits an outlet to the great feeding industry of the Corn Belt, with which Canada cannot compete as a source of roughage and grain for fattening animals. Consequently, in peak years as much as 15 per cent of the market- able surplus of Canadian herds seems to have moved into the United States; and most of the buying has been at mid-western markets where lightweight cattle have been taken for fattening. During the four‘years ended 1920, for example, their cattle constituted 53 per cent of the total other than calves; and 86 per cent of the stoclcers and feeders came from western provinces.‘ (61) Prior to 1912 American imports were very irregular. The number of cattle purchased from.Canada in the year ended June 30, 1900 was 104,116. During the next 12 months this figure declined to 49,780, and five years later it was 4,546. The large number in 1900 appears to have resulted partly from a deflection of exports formerly gping to Great Britain from eastern provinces. Such exports were handicapped under a law of 1896 stipulating that all cattle sent to British markets be slaughtered at points of entry. During the six.years following 1900, however, Canadian sales to Great Britain increased. Their decline thereafter, in competition with exports from.Argentina, may have influenced the increase to 25,899 head that occurred in Dominion exports to the United States during the years ended June 30, 1908, But with expanding domestic markets, this number fell to 10,463 in the fiscal year 1909, and in that ended June 30, 1912 was only 1,350. * Of the total number shipped from.Canadian stockyards to the United States in 1920, 21 per cent was calves; 29 per cent butcher cattle; 19 per cent stockers; and 31 per cent feeders. St. Paul took.38.8 per cent of the total in 1919, and 55.5 per cent in 1921. A change appeared during the ensuing 12 months, when the number imported was 29,186‘. Supplies in Canada, increasing relative to domestic demand, moved southward in larger volume. Trade continued to gain in this direction under powerful stimulus of the 1913 tariff act. Following re- moval of duties ranging from ;2 per head to 275-per cent,“I the number of Canadian cattle purchased in the United States in the fiscal year 1914, rose to 241,331. Averaging 206,283 during the next three years, this figure increased to 249,316 in 1918. Part of the increased buying accoxmanied expansion to satisfy European war demands. Between 1914 and 1918 the total number of cattle as of June 1 in Canada rose from 6,037,000 to 10,046,000, while that in.the United States mounted from 56,592,000 to 67,422,000..“ In the immediate post-war years the trade reached its peak. american buyers took 550,004 cattle from Canada in 1919, and 316,559 in 1920. The Dominion, on an export basis, had increased its herds relatively much faster than the United States during the conflict, and now was beginning to liqui- date some of the expansion. Interference of the Fordney Emergency measure, effective may 21, 1921, caused the number imported from northern.provinces to fall to 179,408. This figure probably would have been smaller had not a large supply re- maining in Canada at the close of the grazing season forced prices down to a point where the Canadian producer absorbed the newly-imposed 30 per cent duty. Whereas average prices for stockers and feeders for the first five months of 1921 were $7.37 at Chicago and $4.97 per hundredweight at dinnipeg, corresponding averages during the next six months were $5.78 and $2.95. ‘ In the same year imports fromifiexico were 591,477 head. “ ‘ *' Rates had been: g2 per head if less than one year old. 93.75 per head, one year old or over, valued at not more than $14 per head. 275-per cent if valued at more than §lé per head. *" Imports remained small relative to domestic supply. while an average of 15,463,500 head per year were slaughtered in the United States during the fiscal years 1916-1920, American imports averaged 426,000 head annually [of which 296,800 were from Canada and 122,500 from hexico). High tariff restrictions were maintained in the act of September 21, 1922. The duty was fixed at li-cents per pound on cattle weighing less than 1,050 pounds each, and at 2 cents per pound on those weighing 1,050 each or more. Under these lindtations the number brought as imports from Canada to the United States decreased from 206,419 in 1922 to 124,932 during the following year, and in 1926 was 164,805. meanwhile, Canada had obtained relaxation of British restrictions on imports of Canadian cattle. Owing largely to the emergency tariff, the Dominion sent more than 33,000 head to Great Britain in 192 , whereas be- fore it had sent onLy a few hundred. After 1923 this overseas trade deveIOped rapidly. During years ended march 31, the number eXported to British markets rose from 25,758 in 1923 to 86,245 in 1925, and to 117,819 in 1926.ghising prices thereafter attracted exports to the United states. Between the Dominion's fiscal years 1927 and 1928 the number of Cattle exported from Canadian sources to the United Kingdom fell from 61,671 to 1,222, while the corresponding figure for sales in American markets rose from 89,033 to 200,013. During this period, American prices were tending to move inversely with the swing of the beef cattle cycle. Between 1920 and 1928 the estimated number of cattle other than dairy cows in the united States, as of January 1, moved steadily downward from 48,870,000 to 34,572,000. The cycle turned upward again after 1928, reaching a total of 38,028,000 head at the end of 1931. Consequent declining prices influenced the fall in number of cattle imported from Canada by the United States from 283,895 in 1928 to 254,214 in 1929. This declining movement was hastened by the tariff of 1930. Cattle, other than breeding, now were made dutiable at 2fi-cents per pound if weigh- ing less than 700 pounds each, and at 3 cents per pound if of more than this weight. The number imported fell to 58,796 in 1930, and during the next two years to 26,089 and 12,763. The figure for 1932 was the lowest since 1912. Under such prohibitive restrictions, Canadian exports once more moved toward the United Kingdom. Encouraged also by a British penalty on unvement of Irish cattle, these sales included 26,734 head during the year ended March 31, 1932, as compared with 6,223 in the preceding 12 months. This altered commerce seems likely to continue as long as the present high tariff interferes with the natural advantages to be had from bringing western Canadian stocker and feeder cattle into the Corn Belt. (b) - Horses Except in the years 1903—1911, American imports of horses from Canada usually have been much less significant than those of cattle. The trade, confined largely to a border movement,.has been more stable, however. Between 1900 and 1913, under a tariff ranging from.g30 per head to 25 per cent,‘ approximately 2,500 Canadian horses were purchased annually by the United States. The greatest variation in yearly importation was from 4,794 animals in the period ended June 30, 1910 to 1,828 for that of 1912. Imports were largest after lowering of tariff rate to 10 per cent by the Underwood Act. Stimulated further by war—time expansion, American buying increased from 4,435 head during the fiscal year 1914 to a peak of 6,348 three years later. Declining subsequently it amounted to 4,084 head in 1920. From 1922 to 1930, under duties fixed at $30 per head and 20 per cent on the basis of classification employed prior to 1913, the number imported varied from 1,491 in 1925 to 2,349 in 1928. This reduction as compared with the previous period perhaps was due partly to increased domestic use of tractors. It might have been greater had not the number of horses in Canada declined less rapidLy than that in the United States. While the former * $30 per head, if valued at not more than $150. 25 per cent, if valued at more than $150 per head. 75. changed from 3,610,500 to 3,129,100 between 1921 and 1931, the latter decreased from approximately 19,366,000 to 13,165,000. Under the same tariff schedule since 1930, imports were 1,318 head in 1931 and 2,159 in 1932. Bvidently, the border trade will continue as a necessary exchange. It is noteworthy that American imports of Canadian sheep were more valuable than either those of cattle or of horses between the fiscal years 1900 and 1909, But they declined steadily from a peak of 371,440 head in the first mentioned annual period to 98,457 in the second. Tariff rates remained unchanged at 75 cents per head on animals less than one year old, and $1.50 on those one year old or over. The decreas- ing imports in this situation may have been influenced by reduction in Canadian supply.‘ Between 1901 and 1911 the number of sheep in the Dominion £911 from 2,510,200 to 2,174,300." The number imported declined to 48,901 in the fiscal year 1911, and two years later was only 11,912, But after grant of free entry by the Underwood Act, this annual total increased to 46,901 during the period ended June 30, 1915. Under stimulation of war-tine expansion, it rose to 96,552 for the next year. Influenced by immediate post-war adjustments, it was 190,718 in 1919, and 165,455 in 1920. According to the Dominion census of 1931, there were 3,608,300 sheep in Canada, as compared with 3,204,000 in 1921; yet in this decade United States imports of Canadian sheep fell from 76,590 to 377. A tariff of $2 per head between 1922 and 1930, and of $3 per head following'the Smoot- Hawley measure, effected part of the change; and part of it seems to have ‘ On the other hand, the latter reduction may have resulted partly from smaller exports to the United States. ** Cattle tended to displace sheep in Canada during this period, when their number increased from 5,576,500 to 6,526,100. In 1911 Ohio alone had more sheep than all of Canada. 7' /. resulted from the contemporaneous increase in the number of sheep in the United States from 39,578,000 to 52,745,000. In 1932 American imports from the Dominion included only 148 animals, while there was an increase of 1,167,000 over the previous year’s estimated number of domestic sheep. For the present, at least, the trade has all but ceased. (d) - Other Animals united States buying of Canadian live animals other than cattle, horses, and sheep has been subject to wide fluctuation. Ordinarily the group has included less than 15 per cent of the total value shown in Table XVIII,'but during 1924-1927 its relative share increased more than.three times. This change can be explained in terms of the three principal constituents, hogs, silver foxes, and live poultry. Normally the imports of hegs have represented a small border trade. The United States, as a leading producer of swine has itself been a large exporter of pork products. However, largely because of higher domestic prices than those in the Dominion markets, American purchases of Canadian hogs increased markedly after 1925. In 1926 this trade took 17,798,000 pounds valued at $2,166,000. Corresponding peak figures one year later were 85,870,000 and 4,040,000. dith lower prices in 1928 the quantity purchased fell to 3,596,000 pounds, worth $316,000. The decline continued in 1929, when 615,800 pounds were imported. Since 1930, under a tariff changed from one-half to two cents per unit, buying has practically dis- appeared. In 1932 only 28,900 pounds went southward to markets across the border. .A smaller, variable movement has been.the importation of silver foxes. Fur farms of eastern Canadian provinces have supplied stock for similar American enterprises. In 1926 these exports included 4,232 animals valued at $898,000. The trade declined thereafter, so that in 1930 it consisted of 316 foxes sold for 255,000. Cemparable figures for 1952 were 212 and 10,000. Likewise, imports of live poultry have been relatively small. Their largest annual amount was in 1926 when 2,096,000 pounds were bought from Dominion markets for $463,000. his quantity, which was less than 0.2 per cent of domestic production, declined to 1,487,000 in 1929; and in 1932, after change in tariff from 3 to 8 cents per pound, it was scarcely 75,000 pounds. Hides and Skins Next in significance to live animals among'the groups classified in Table XVIII, at the beginning of the century were imports of hide and skins. Constituent items of the animal raw materials for leather have since moved as follows. Table XIX - average Annual Values of Cfilssified American Imports of Hides and Skins from Canada, 1900-1932* —?eriod*' : Cattle Hides : Calf Skins*“ : Other : Total : (000) z j: z (000) z % a (000) z 3!. : (000) $1 e 3' ‘5 1900-1902 989 81.3 — - 811 38.7 1,580 1903-1905 1,253 58.3 - - 897 41.7 2,150 1906-1908 2,155 83.0 - - 1,288 37.0 3,423 1909-1911 3,145 87.4 - - 1,521 32.8 4,888 1912-1914 5,817 77.7 1,129 15.6 485 6.7 7,231 1915-1917 5,450 74.9 988 13.3 858 11.8 7,274 1918-1920 8,041 88.3 1,738 14.8 1,988 18.9 11,783 1921-1923 3,754 71.0 1,045 19.8 491 9.2 5,290 1924-1926 4,278 88.2 1,248 19.3 942 14.5 8,484 1927-1929 8,810 70.5 1,802 17.1 1,159 12.4 9,371 1930-1932 1,551 70.4 311 14.1 341 15.5 2,203 ‘ Compiled from Foreign Commerce and Nevigation of the united States. ‘* Years ended June 30, 1900-1917; calendar years 1918-1952. “‘ Included in Other prior to 1912. (a) - Cattle Hides Cattle hides comprise at least 60 per cent of’the world's total inter- national trade in hides and skins. Apparently this relationship has been almost invariable in United States imports from Canada. “J C) o The latter movement has resulted as a supplement to domestic supply. Although the United States is the meet important source of hides and skins, its production falls far short of its manufacturing requirements. as the largest leitlier-nuiking and leather-using nation, tanning at least 50 per cent of the world's leather, it imports nearly one-half of the cattle hides needed for its industry. In pre-war years Canada supplied from one-tenth to one-fifth of these purchases, jén.increase of nearly 1,000,0C0 in its number of cattle contri- buted to the trade. The movement was encouraged further by cancellation of a 15 per cent duty through the tariff act of 1909. During the fiscal year 1914, approximately 11 per cent of the total cattle hides imported by the United States came from Canadian markets. Three years later, however, this share was less than 4 per cent, Ind.the annual quantity bought from the northern neighbor had declined from 919,700 to 457,100 pieces, although corresponding figures for total imports were 7,220,400 and 12,384,500. Expansion of Dominion leather manufactures under stimulus of war demand had absorbed part of supplies formerly exported. In- creasing sales of live cattle also affected the movement. Poet-war years brought an increase in the trade of’the two countries. The number of hideupieces moving southward rose from.400,500 in 1918 to a peak of 942,500, worth $13,058,000 in 1919. Although declining to 592,970 in 1921, it was nearly 16 per cent of the total imported as compared with 9 per cent two years previoussx ‘ Growth of the Dominion's leather industry since has kept the quantity of Canadian.hides purchased by the United States below that taken in 1919, But between 1921 and 1929 this amount increased to 869,200 pieces, equiva- lent in the latter year to nearly 16 per cent of the total imported. In 1931, under the Smoot-Hawley duty of 10 per cent — the first since that of the Dingley Act - American imports from Canada fell to 362,700 pieces, and a year later their corresponding number was 179,200. Business recession and tariff had checked the trade, while domestic supplies were increasing. (b) - Calf Skins The next most significant group in Table XIX, as been imports of calf skins. The latter, chiefly a.by-product from veal calves, has gained in the trade with develOpment of the Canadian dairy industry. In the fiscal year 1915 American purchases of these skins included some 760,100 pieces in a total of 16,194,500. moving downward with imports of cattle hides, their number was only 118,000 in 1918. But they increased from 550,000 pieces in 1920 to a record of 1,061,000 in 1928, thereby including nearly 17 per cent of the total imported. Subject to duty after 1930, they decreased to 311,400 pieces in 1951, and to 125,300 during the following year. (c) - Others Constituent imports of other hides and skins normally have been small; and it is unnecessary to trace their movement in detail. They have'been, for the most part, purchases of sheep and lamb skins, horse hides, gOat skins, deer and elk skins, and kipskins. Meat Products Another influence, not observed previously, that affected Canada's supply of hides and skins was the country's develOpment of slaughtering and meat-packing. Capital invested in this Dominion industry, for establish- ments employing five hands and over, rose from §5,595,000 in 1901, to $15,521,000 in 1911. A decade later the total investment was $58,459,000; 80. and in 1929 it amounted to $67,778,000. Such development also influenced American importation of meats: Table XX - average Annual Values of Canadian Meat Products Imported by the United States, 1900-1952* .‘ 3 Fresh : Fresh :Fresh mutton: sausage : 2 Period 3 Beef'*' : Pork**' sand Lamb'** 3 casings z Cther : Total :(000) a 4% :(000) a 4% :(000) : ‘4 :(000) z ,% :(000) : ,% :(000) 4 *5 5 5 5 5 1900-1902 - - - - - - 27. 41.5 58 58.5 65 190591905 — - - - - - 25 24.7 70 75.5 95 1906-1908 - - - - - - 18 19.4 75 80.6 95 1909-1911 - - — - - - 64 45.7 76 54.5 140 1912-1914 - - - ~ - - 146 15.8 914 86.2 1,060 1915-1917 1,210 58.2 854 26.4 52 1.0 247 7.8 842 26.6 5,165 1918-1920 4,750 54.5 409 4.7 1,252 14.5 525 7.2 1,545 19.0 8,692 1921-1925 2,478 50.1 172 5.5 811 15.4 802 15.2 680 15.8 4,945 1924-1925 1,455 21.5 1,409 25.0 258 4.8 1,459 27.1 849 15.5 5,418 1927-1929 4,045 55.4 1,714 15.5 215 1.9 1,499 15.5 5,529 52.7 11,105 1950-1952 208 10.8 194 10.1 5 .5 901 45.8 514 52.0' 1,922 2 Compiled from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. " Years ended June 50, 1900-1917; calendar years, 1918-1952. "* Included in Other prior to 1915 It is observable that these imports were largest as investment in the Canadian industry apprOached its peak. At the same time, changing relationships are evident in the trade. (a) - Fresh Beef and Veal Until about 1907 the United States, besides exporting many live cattle, practically dominated the world's export trade in'beef. During 1900-1907 the country's foreign sales of fresh beef and of live cattle amounted to about 10 per cent of domestic slaughterings. Concurrently, its imports of beef and veal averaged less than 5 per cent of the amount exported. In the seven.years subsequent to 1907 changed conditions began to appear. A gain of nearly 52 per cent in population of the United States between 1900 and 1915 caused increasing competition between production of meats, cheaper cereal foods, and dairy products in humid regionsrand in sub-humid areas I homesteaders curtailed the range. The acreage of unapprOpriated and unreserved lend fell from 917,155,000 in 1900 to 290,759,000 in 1914. Besides, the cut- ting up of better tracts reduced the value of remaining lands to cattlemen. Moreover there was growing competition in world markets with Argentina, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand, where conditions were similar to those formerly prevalent at home. As a result of these several influences the United States changed from a heavy export to a small import basis in the trade.. Production of beef and veal in domestic slaughtering plants declined from 7,946,000,000 pounds in 1907 to 6,072,000,000 in 1914. Although this 24 per cent decrease was partly offset by a decline of 17 per cent in domestic consumption, 461,271,000 pounds of imports of beef and cattle were required to supply the remaining deficit.(59)p. 1 In this situation imports of both beef and live cattle from Canada in- creased. Between the years ended march 51, 1915 and.1914 Dominion exports of fresh beef to the United States rose from.19,500 to 12,657,800 pounds. Removal, by the Underwood Act, of a. duty of 175— cents per pound on fresh beef and veal also influenced buying. Under free trade conditions thus es- tablished the gain might have continued but for war-time disturbances. Expagencies of the conflict developed an extraordinary strong demand in Europe for American meat products. here distant sources were unable to supply these needs because of the current difficulties and dangers of conveying ocean freight. Consequently, fresh beef exports of the United States increased from some 5,000,000 pounds in 1914 to more than 514,000,000 pounds in 1918." Similar diversion of Canadian supply caused decrease in .unarican pur- chase from the Dominion. Between the years ended June 50, 1915 and 1917 United States imports of fresh beef and veal from Canada fell from 15,505,000 ‘ Seasonal drought and feed shortages also influenced the gain in imports. 9* The estimated number of cattle, other than dairy cows, in the United States as of January 1, increased between 1914 and 1918 from 59,807,000 to 50,208,000. C) i v to 9,436,000 pounds at the same time that the total drOpped from 184,491,000 to 15,217,000 pounds. In 1918, following an annual increase of 1,788,600 in the estimated .number of Canadian cattle other than milch cows, a larger supply was available for export to the southern neighbor. The latter in that year purchased 20,788,000 pounds of fresh beef and veal from the adjoining provinces in a total of 25,452,000 imported. From Canada’s large post-war surplus this quantity in Canadian-“merican trade rose to 31,124,000 pounds in 1919, and to 37,488,000 in 1920. A downward movement followed imposition of the Fordney emergency tariff and.the Fordney-IcCumber rates of 2 cents and 3 cents per pound, respectively. The number of pounds inpo:tei from the Dominion'by the United states de- clined to 26,459,000 in 1921, and three years later to 9,574,000. Hewever, the period of prosperity and rising prices following 1924 brought the trade to its peak. 0f 42,574,000 pounds imported for American markets in 1927, a record of 37,780,000 came from Canada. Perhaps the largest single influence affecting this gain was the swing of the beef cattle cycle, which apparently reached its low point in 1927 before turning upward.’ The estimated number of cattle other than dairy cows in the united States as of January 1 for 1928 was onLy 34,572,000 as compared with 45,285,000 for 1923. at the same time, Canada, with growth of its slaughtering and neat packing industry, and an increase of 546,200 in the number of its cattle other than m11Ch cows over the 1925 figure, was able to send larger supplies across the border. Since 1927 American purchases of fresh beef and veal from the Dominion have declined abruptly. Contemporaneously with a drop in per capita consump- tion of beef from 58 to 51.7 pounds, and a gain of 27,831,000 pounds in im- ‘ Another influence was a sanitary embargo, effective January 1, 1927, which virtually limited imports to meat from Canada and How éealand. P i ( h C C u 7‘ , \ Q r f l ( p\ a , l G Q Q !\ - ex 0 ex 4 Q .C o. r, F\ r\ K r. C ok I A t I\ T rt 0. t P. ,\ o v rx I C T o C r, o i.e.}: . val I u. u. I :14. O USJ. ports from New dealand, they decreased to 25,255,000 units in 1928. Their corresponding figure in 1929 was 15,470,000. A year later, after enact— ment of the Smoot-Hawley duty of 6 cents per pound, it was 3,226,000; and limited by this duty throughout the year in 1932, it amounted to but 435,000. Future of the movement appears indefinite. Undoubtedly the present tariff will keep imports at much less than one per cent of domestic pro- duction. Under the restrictive duty,exports have exceeded imports. Further- more, donestic requirements have declined relatively. Whereas the country's average per capita consumption of beef and veal was 86.8 pounds in 1907, it was 63.3 in 1914, and 56.5 in 1931.‘ In these circunmtances upward course of the beef cattle cycle — from 34,548,000 head On January 1, 1928 to 38,028,000 on January 1, 1932 — may further limit imports, and increasing Canadian population may require nearLy all of the Doninion's supply. In fact, Canada now has practically no beef surplus. (b) - Fresh Pork Similar to the present movement in beef, United States imports of fresh pork from Canada have resulted principally from border trade. Most of such trade seams to be between Eastern Canada and the northeastern States, But their annual quantities have varied wide v. Their peak was reached under free entry in the year ended June 30, 1915, with 16,182,000 pounds. Two years later, influenced by competing European demand, this figure fell to 1,651,000. In 1920 it was 1,073,000;and in the next year under a duty of 2 cents per pound it totaled only 806,000. Aft er reduction of duty to 3/4 cent per pound, the quantity purchased tended to increase steadily until 1927, amounting in that year to 14,472,000 pounds. Apparently, rising prices of both pork and beef affected the trade. Thus, between 1926 and 1927 the estimated number of swine in Canada rose from 4,359,600 to 4,694,800, and in the same period while the number of pounds of * This decline influenced the drOp in total American imports of fresh beef. and V9231 from 194 491- 000 hounds: in 'hnn {31:01:11 van“ 101R +_n Ann Ann 84. beef and veal consumed per capita in the United States decreased from 71.6 to 65.4, that of pork increased from 65.7 to 68.5. However, higher prices evidently caused inc2eased domestic supplies for points near the international boundary. The estimated number of swine in the United States on January 1, 1928 was 61,772,000 as compared with 55,468,000 for the preceding annual date. after this increase, American imports from.the Dominion amounted to but 7,811,000 pounds for the year. Their decline, continuing, was accentuated by the duty of 2§~cents per pound stipulated in the act of 1930. In 1931 they totaled Only 759,000 pounds; yet a rise in this figure to 1,650,000 in 1932 indicates that they may continue in amounts varying with local conditions. (c) ~ Fresh button and Lamb Even more variable than American imports of fresh pork from Canada have been those of fresh mutton and lamb. Ordinarily the latter have been con- fined to a small border trade. The United States, not a large consumer of mutton, has normally had a very small foreign commerce in the neat.* An exception to this general situation in the trade with Canada occurred in immediate post-war years. Under free entry, these imports had ranged in annual amount during the fiscal years 1914-1917 from 41,000 to 479,500 pounds, Int with liquidation of the Doudnion's war-time increases they rose abruptly from 607,900 pounds in 1918 to 6,792,000, in the next year. Encouraged further by current discount on Canadian exchange, they reached a record of ' t t 9,209,000 pounds in 1920. ' Its per capita consumption of mutton is only about one-fifth that of Great Britain, and its total imports of the meat during 1914-1919 were less than l§~per cent of domestic production. ** An additional indication of the unusual conditions of that year was the American importation of some 65,000,000 pounds of mutton and lamb from war-time accumulation in New Aealand. :5 84. beef and veal consumed per capita in the United States decreased from 71.6 to 65.4, that of pork increased from 65.7 to 68.5. However, higher prices evidently caused increased domestic supplies for points near the international boundary. The estimated number of swine in the United States on January 1, 1928 was 61,772,000 as compared with 55,468,000 for the preceding annual date. After this increase, “merican imports from the Dominion amounted to but 7,811,000 pounds for the year. Their decline, continuing, was accentuated by the duty of Bg-cents per pound stipulated in the act of 1950. In 1931 they totaled only 759,000 pounds; yet a rise in this figure to 1,650,000 in 1932 indicates that they may continue in amounts varying with local conditions. to) ~ Fresh Iutton and Lamb Even more variable than American imports of fresh pork from Canada have been those of fresh mutton and lamb. Ordinarily the latter have been con- fined to a small border trade. The United States, not a large consumer of mutton, has normally had a very snn11.foreign commerce in the meat.. An exception to this general situation in the trade with Canada occurred in immediate pest-war years. Under free entry, these imports had ranged in annual amount during the fiscal years 1914-1917 from 41,000 to 479,500 pounds, Int with liquidation of the Doudnion's war-time increases they rose abruptly from 607,900 pounds in 1918 to 6,792,000, in the next year. Encouraged further by current discount on Canadian exchange, they reached a record of ‘ so 9,209,000 pounds in 1920. ‘ Its per capita consumption of mutton is only about one-fifth that of Great Britain, and its total imports of the meat during 1914-1919 were less than lfi-per cent of dumestic production. ** An additional indication of the unusual conditions of that year was the American importation of some 65,000,000 pounds of mutton and lamb from war—time accumulation in New Zealand. Subjected to a duty of 2 cents per pound by the emergency tariff, their quantity decreased to 5,960,000 pounds in 192 . Two years later, when fresh lamb and mutton were dutiable at four cents and 2L-cents per pound, respectively, this figure dininished to 1,566,000. Although in- creasing to 2,070,000 in 1925, largely as the result of demand for lamb, it fell to 963,000 in 1928, and to 422,000 in 1929. The amount purchased from Canada under the Smoot-Hawley levy, which increased rates of 4 and ZL-cents to 7 and 5 cents per pound, has been negligible. The total of 47,000 pounds in 1932 Siegests extent of present tariff interference in the movement. (d) u sausage Casings Imports of another product, sausage casing, have been at times unre valuable than those of any other group listed in Table XX. The United States, lacking a sufficient domestic quantity of the several kinds of containers needed, must seek outside sources. In 1928, for example, it drew from 43 countries a total of more than 17,000,000 pounds, or approximately 1,000,000 miles, of casings. Although exporting those from hogs and cattle, it has to import others of sheep and goats. In this commerce, arsentina, Australia, Canada, and China have been among the principal exporters. The trade with Canada has developed quite steadily since 1914. In the 14 fiscal years prior to that date annual values of imports from.the Dominion ranged between $13,000 and $122,000, But with development of the Canadian slaughtering and packing industry during and after the war, these values moved upward, changing from $284,000 for the fiscal.year 1915 to $706,000 in 1919. Continuing under free entry, they rose from $603,000 in 1921 to a peak of $2,075,000 in 1927. In that year, the purchases from t Canada amounted to 3,777,000 pounds in a total of 20,755,000 imported. ’ In 1927 purchases of sheep and lamb casing represented 69 per cent of the value of casings imported from.0anada. (3’? UL). Thereafter they moved downward to $327,000 in 1932; but as the correSponding quantity was 2,012,000 pounds, it seems that some of the apparent decrease is attributable to lower prices. (6) - Other heats United States imports of other meats — chiefly other pork and beef products - from the Dominion have constituted principally a border trade. In pre-war years the value of these purchases was relatively small,:ranaing from $62,000 in the year ended June 30, 1901 to 6243,000 in a corceSponding period for 1913. But in the fiscal year 1915, under stimulus of free entry, they amounted to $1,771,000. Checked by sales to Europe, they decreased two years later to $364,000. In turn, following*ending of war, their value increased to $2,491,000 in 1919. Their movement since 1920 has been unsteadyn Having declined in that year to pl,285,000, they fell further to $347,000 in 1924, under Fordney- McCumber rates rarying from two cents per pound to 20 per cent. However, under these same rates their peak was reached in 1928 at $4,148,000. The chief constituent purchases for this record were pickled or cured beef and veal, $428,000; pork-hams, shoulders and bacon, $713,000; porkppickled and salted, $593,000; other fresh meats, $574,000; and other prepared meats, $1,667,000. In 1932 imports of all of these products except hams, bacon and shoulders had greatly decreased, when.the latter group included $489,000 of imports totaling $684,000. High quality of the Canadian pork products apparently maintained them in the trade, despite an increase of duty from two cents to 3-1/4 cents per pound,‘ for their quantity was 2,541,000 pounds as omn- pared with 2,066,000 in 1928. Imports of most of the other meats seem to ‘ This superior quality is made possible by Canada's specialization in production of bacon~type hogs. have been reduced by a tariff rate fixed at six cents per pound but not less than 20 per cent. Dairy Products Soxewhat more significant than nmerican imports of meats from Canada have been those of dairy products. Although during the first 10 years of the period studied the share of each of these groups in the tote presented in Table XVII, was less than 5 per cent, thereafter it averaged 17.2 per cent for the latter as 00mpared with 14.7 for the former. In this move- ment there has been much change in the relationship of milk, cream, butter, and Cheese. Table XXI ~ Average Annual Value of Dairy Products Imported from.Canada by the United States, 1900-1952‘ t 8 8 a 3 Period"' 3 Milk 2 Cream".’ : Butter : Cheese 2 Total : (000) 2 g :(000) {94% :(000) :_;z ,:(000) 2 Ag 3 (000) as 4' a 42 0 1900-1902 1 3.6 - — 21 75.0 6 21.4 26 1903—1905 7 13.2 - - 33 62.3 13 24.5 53 1906-1908 3 6.7 - - 28 62.2 14 31.1 45 1909—1911 22 2.3 910 63.6 112 11.5 25 2.6 969 1912-1914 170 11.2 1,181 77.7 110 7.2 60 3.9 1,521 1915-1917 932 41.0 1,169 51.4 145 6.4 29 1.2 2,274 1918-1920 4.132999 51.4999 - - 3,391 42.2 513 6.4 8,036 1921-1923 4,973999 70.9999 - - 1,381 19.7 657 9.4 7,011 1924-1926 2,166 19.7 7,256 66.2 791 7.1 766 7.0 10,969 1927-1929 1,334 13.6 6,222 64.0 113 1.2 2,058 21.2 9,727 1930-1932 393 22.6 973 57.4 76 4.5 263 15.5 1,696 ‘ Compiled from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. " Years ended June 30, 1900-1917; calendar years 1918-1932. "‘ Includes cream. **‘*Not stated separately prior to 1910. —_ — (a)-_'Iii_l_‘§ Imports of milk were relatively insignificant in a small pre—war trade. Dutiable at two cents per gallon by the tariff acts of 1897 and 1909, their annual total usualLy‘was less than $10,000 prior to 1914, But with removal of this duty by the Underwood act, their value rose to $1,178,000 during P» the year ended June 30, 1915. After falling to $483,000 in the next 12 months, they tended to increase, and although subjected to a duty of 2g-cents per gallon by the Fordney-McCumber act, they reached a peak in 1925 of 7,422,000 gallons, worth $2,423,000. This develOpment was concomitant with expanding Canadian production near areas of large American demand. Between 1910 and 1925 the estimated number of milch cows in Canada had increased from 2,854,000 to 3,850,200. Nearly 60 per cent of the latter number was distributed in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which have some of their principal dairy sections near the inter- national border.. 80 although.the number of Canadian dairy cows was small in comparison with the estimated 22,505,000 as of January 1, 1925 in the United States, the Dominion was more favorably located to sell in large eastern markets than were some surplus—producing states. In fact, its St. Lawrence Valley, within the natural milkshed of New York and 303t0n, had much lower shipping rates than those of the Middle Jest. It could serve, therefore, as a supplemental source of supply for the congested industrial region that reaches north, west, and south of New York City to include 1/6 of the popula- tion of the united States within three per cent of its area. Under these circumstances, during the year beginning May 1, 1925, 37 per cent of the milk imported from Canada by the adjoining country was shipped to the largest American metrOpolis, and three per cent to Boston and nearby cities.‘*‘64)p. 23. However, under tariff restrictions the natural advantages to be had fr0m this movement were greatly curtailed. Imports were only a fraction of one per cent of domestic production. Host of them.came in over the barrier as surplus supplies during the period of heavy milk production - may to September. Their ‘ These include in Quebec the region extending from.the border of Maine to the St. Lawrence River and in Ontario, he tier of counties bordering the St. Lawrence, besides the area west of Hamilton and north of Lake Erie. *’ These figures are based on a study of nearly 90 per cent of total U. S. imports of Canadian milk. C) 15 o origin was confined practiCally to a 20—mile zone north of the border. After being taken to neighboring American plants they were used more for cream, condensed milk and other products than for direct consumption.. The trend since 1926 has been distinctly doxmwal . From 7,409,000 gal- Ions in that year, imports fell to 5,652,000 gallons in 1928. ”art of this decline was attributable to a milk importing and inspection act that was made effective Kay 15, 1927. In accordance with.the measure, following inspection and recommendation by Canadian veterinary and sanitary officials, the American Secretary of agriculture issued permits to DOminion producers and shippers, allowing them to export milk and cream to the United States. Be~ sides these requirements, the act barred imports of sour cream and milk for buttermaking. Another influence in effecting the decrease in 1928 was the federal embargo imposed from March 25, 1927 to September 4, 1928 on all milk and cream originating in the vicinity of antreal, where there had been a typhoid eamdendc. moreover, this embargo was continued by New York State for several months after September. In 1929, when presidential proclamation, effective June 13 of that year, changed the duty from 2% to 5-5/4 cents per gallon, the quantity purchased declined to 4,246,000 gallons. One year later, under the Smoot—Hawley rate of 6fi-cents per gallon, this amount decreased to 1,857,000, and in 1932, as a result of the prohibitive duty, it was only 105,600 gallons. (b) - Cream Considerably more valuable than nmerican imports of milk from Canada have been those of cream, But the two have tended to move togetherjand the cream.imported seldom has been equivalent to more than 0.2 per cent of domestic production. ‘ A considerable quantity imported was converted to condensed milk for ex- port under provision for draWback. Like milk, cream.has been largest in the trade during summer months, when demand for it has been affected by increased consumption of ice cream and of cream for berries. Evidence of this special demand is present in data collected by the United States Tariff 00mmission which indicate the following distribution of imports according to intended uses: 59 per cent, ice cream; 21 per cent, fluid cream; and 15 per cent, butter.(64)p. 53. According to the same investigation, "of the Canadian cream, 20 per cent goes to Boston, 18 per cent to metrOpolitan Haw York, 12 per cent to Philadelphia, and.the remainder, 50 per cent to cities in the milk sheds supplying cream to these markets."(64)p. 40. ‘ Prior to the war imports were variable. Until 1910 these purchases were not stated separately in Foreign Commerce and Kavigation. Omitted likewise in Canadian compilations examined, they were apparently small, But in.the fiscal year 1910, under a duty of five cents per gallon their value was $558,000. after rising to $1,873,000 one year later, it de- creased to $924,000 in the next 12 months. There was similar variation after grant of free entry by the Underwood Act. Between the fiscal years 1915 and 1917 the annual total changed from $1,800,000 to $666,000. Thereafter it tended to increase along with imports of milk. In 1924, despite a duty of 20 cents per gallon, this amount had in- creased to $6,137,000, through purchase of 4,195,000 gallons. Continuing to expand, the latter quantity reached a peak of 5,572,000 in 1926, with a value of $8,047,000. A differential of about 25 cents per gallon between Montreal and New York prices during the year probably encouraged the trade. After 1926 influences similar to those noted for milk restricted imports. The quantity of Canadian cream taken by american markets in 1928 declined to 3,614,000 gallons. One year later, when presidential proclamation had in- ‘\ w 1‘ I u‘IIIrILI .I II 1 i ‘1‘ r a r r, c f r o\ 5. 0., r (\ C n‘ o I o ( C o .x p I 4 .1 O s V .. i I. g n t C 3 r\ .. r\ O t d O f. 0 OK . _ o ' creased the duty to 30 cents per gallon, the corresponding figure was 2,964,000. Further limited by a sharply increased duty of 56-6/10 cents per gallon, it fell in 1930 to 1,580,000, and in 1932 the effect of the protective duty was evident when a mere 117,200 gallons moved to United States buyers. (c) - Butter Similar tariff restriction is observable in American imports of butter from Canada. Under a duty of 6 cents per pound, these purchases ranged in annual quantity during the fiscal years prior to 1914 from 10,000 to 980,000 pounds.‘ Following reduction of the rate to Zfi-cents per pound by the act of 1913, imports rose to 1,278,000 pounds during the year ended June 30, 1915, but with diversion of Canadian exports to EurOpe, this figure was reduced two years later to 311,000. with ending of war, a reversed movement appeared. In 1918 the quantity bought from Canada was 1,152,000 pounds, and it reached its highest point in the next year with 9,438,000 pounds valued at pd,784,000. Part of the in- crease was influenced by an average discount of some five per cent on Canadian exchange; and part of it followed a decline in Canadian exports to Europe. Thus, between the years ended March 31, 1919 and 1921 the Dominion's exports of butter to the United Kingdom decreased from 9,915,100 to 2,098,700 pounds, while those to the United States had a corresponding inp crease from 2,918,700 to 5,993,800. The latter figure suggests the beginning of decline in United States imports from Canada after 1920. From 9,236,000 pounds in that year they fell to 2,846,000 in 1921, under the emergency tariff of 6 cents per pound. However, requirements of a widely diffused border trade for high quality, * During the 20-year period 1894-1913, total annual xmerican imports of butter did not reach 1,400,000 pounds, whereas in 1909 domestic pro- duction was at least 1,619,415,000 pounds. fill-IIL‘OIILII'I h .. 1 V. . n k0 government-graded Canadian butter brought their total to 5,932,000 pounds in 1923,. notwithstanding the Fordney-thumber duty of 8 cents per unit. After this rate was increased to 12 cents by *residential proclamation, effective April 5, 1926, the trade was greatly dixrxinished. The quantity purchased decreased from 3,626,000 to 340,000 pounds between 1925 and 1926. On the other hand, the higher duty had an influence on purchases of milk and cream that is deserving of notice. Rates on milk and cream under the act of 1922 were equivalent to about 7 and 6 cents per pound, re pectively, on butter. 30 there was some incentive for Canadian producers to send these two products across the border for manufacture into butter, rather than to send an export dutiable at 12 cents per pound. The trade was limited additionally in 1930 by an increase of duty to 14 cents per pound. “S a result, imports of 140,000 pounds in 1932 were the shallest annual quantity since 1906. (d) - Cheese Until 1926 United States imports of cheese from Canada ordinarily were less significant than those of butter. Although the Dominion was a large exgorter, its production was a type of which domestic supply was sufficient except at border points.‘* While total annual American imports of cheese during the fisca1.years 1900-1913 ranged from 13,456,000 to 49,388,000 pounds, those from Canada had corresponding totals of only 29,000 and 163,000, and after change of duty from 6 cents per pound to 20 per cent by the Underwood not, there was a similar small range prevalent during the war. With disruption of BurOpean trade, the annual quantity entering markets of the United States from northern provinces rose from.100,000 to 4,732,000 ' During the period 1920-1924 imports from Canada averaged about 21 per cent of the total American imports of butter. *' These inmorts have been mainly cheddar (American) cheese. ,ll'l I'll. |.Dll!ll‘l lvl'lll'i (O (21 0 pounds between 1918 and 1919. One year later, following a decline of some 17,220,000 pounds in Canadian factory production, the quantity decreased to 813,000. It rose in 1921, under a duty of 23 per cent, to 2,498,000 pounds. Border demand increased this amount to 6,351,000 pounds during the next year when the duty was changed to 5 cents per pound, but not less than 25 per cent. Three years later, however, after annual production of domestic factories had increased by approximately 64,434,000 pounds,’ only 210,000 units moved southward in the trade. In 1926, American imports from the Dominion rose abruptly to 11,835,000 pounds; and their corresponding figure a year later was a record of 13,268,000 valued at $2,556,000..' The change followed an extraordinary depression of London prices during 1926-1927. As a result of the latter, Canada's exports of cheese to the United Kingdom declined from 133,836,000 to 89,218,800 pounds between the years ended march 31, 1926 and 1928, while comparable figures for its sales to the United States were 195,800 and 12,533,500. With improvement in the British market, Canadian exports to American buyers decreased to 7,488,000 pounds in 1928. After rising to 8,279,000 in 1929, this figure was reduced to 3,143,000 in 1930 under a tariff rate fixed at 7 cents per pound but not less than 35 per cent. Continuring to decrease, it was only 606,000 in 1932. 9 The estimated production of American cheese (whole milk) by factories in the United States during 1925 was 347,240,000 pounds, as compared with 282,806,000 pounds in 1922. ** Even this peak was small in comparison with total imports amounting to 79,796,000 pounds. IN ' f\ _ \ K I (s I. b t O f. f. fr 9| ( (x f. o ( Q 3‘ ‘ W r ..\ .K rs ( b a r ~ n\ a\ Du '\ .\ IL r I t r\ 9‘ rs '\ r r N ( c Q P f. K'.‘ “’5 o hiscellaneous Animal Products Imports of the remaining group listed in Table XVII have been a re- latively small part of the total. In a varying relationship wool has been their principal constituent. Table XXII - Average Annual Values of hiscellaneous animal Products Included in American Imports from Canada, 1900-1932* .. sBones,Horns: : z s 3 Period sand Hoofs 2 Hair : 2001 3 flags : Other a Total :(000): ,% :§000)3,4§ : (000) : 1% :(000): 4%' :(000): 4% a (000) ti 4.5 ‘4? q; a 5;. 1900-1902 85 16.8 59 11.7 324 64.3 12 2.4 24 4.8 504 1903-1905 38 7.3 84 16.0 363 69.3 - 17 3.2 23 4.2 525 1906—1908 69 11.1 129 20.7 392 63.0 8 1.3 24 3.9 622 1909-1911 94 13.9 158 23.4 371 55.0 14 2.1 38 5.6 675 1912-1914 116 12.8 209 23.0 441 48.6 11 1.2 130 14.4 907 1915-1917 149 4.5 322 9.7 2,597 78.4 10 .3 234 7.1 3,312 1918-1920 252 4.1 307 5.0 4,502 73.3 653 10.6 429 7.0 6,143 1921—1923 98 4.1 267 11.3 1,626 68.5 180 7.6 202 8.5 2,373 1924-1926 89 2.6 447 13.3 2,384 70.8 58 1.7 390 11.6 3,368 1927—1929 116 3.5 341 10.3 2,285 69.1 18 .5 550 16.6 3,310 1930-1932 33 3.1 158 15.1 258 24.6 23 2.2 576 55.0 1,048 ‘ Cempiled frOm Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the Unitei states. *' Years ended June 30, 1900-1917; calendar years, 1918-1932. (a) - Bones, Horns, and Hoofs The first group listed in the table has resulted from.purchase of by-products of the Canadian slaughtering and meat-packing industry. With development of the latter, increasing amounts of waste products formerly exported have been utilized at home. So although tariff restrictions have been absent, the annual value of these imports declined from a record of §286,000 in 1920 to 823,000 in 1932. m as. Likewise, ityorts of hair have been by-products having free entry. Most of them have been cattle hair from tanneries. This product has been required as a binding for mortar and plaster, as a material for roofing felt and steam- pipe covering, and as an ingredient for certain types of upholstery work. Under such demand the trend of imports was gradually upward to an annual peak of $526,000 in 1925. with increasing requiremc.ts in Canada, they diminished steadily thereafter. Reduced further by declining American con- sumption during depression, they fell to $51,000 in 1932, their lowest yearly figure for the entire period. (c) - Wool In marked contrast to imports of the two groups Just m ntioned have been those of wool. annual values of the latter have ranged from £63,000 to $8,385,000. Between 1900 and 1925 estimated yearly production of wool in the ’nited states varied from 270,109,000 to 328,111,000 pounds. qith its average close to 300,000,000 pounds, this quantity failed to meet the needs of a steadily increasing population. To supply the deficit, therefore, the country imported annually amounts varying from 124,964,000 to 447,426,000 pounds. During 1909-1913 about 40 per cent of its wool available for con- sumption was of foreign origin; and in the period 1919-1923 this percentage was nearly 56,fihut Canada, normally exporting only a negligible quantity of wool, has had small part in the trade.. Under duties ranging usually from 3¢ to 12¢ per pound prior to 1913, United States imports from the Dominion had annual values varying only from $152,000 to 3479,000. After removal of duty in 1913 imports rose to $1,992,000 in the fiscal year 1916, and in the next 12 months they were $4,075,000. Following accumulation of supplies in Canada, they reached a high point of $8,385,000 in 1919. Even this amount was relatively small in total imports, representing but 12,811,000 pounds of 438,782,000 purchased. In 1921, under a general tariff of 15 cents per pound, American expendi- tures for Canadian wool were only $785,000. Thereafter, dutiable for the most part at 12 cents per pound, they rose gradually to 32,964,000 in 1925.“I * Large imports have come from.Austra1ia and South America. " Part of the imports were of the better grades, which Csnada.. found could be profitably exported. ‘II. It. _ av L’) U; o rE'heir dovmwerd trend since that dnte have been influenced both by tariff and by expanding domestic production. while the letter increased from 299,632,000 to 435,415,000 pounds between 1925 and 1931, total United States imports were reduced from 536,646,000 to 157,600,000 pounds, and in 1930 duties were increased to a range of from 22 to 37 cents per pound. Consequently, the value of Canadian wool in the trede shrunk from 42,740,000 in 1928 to ,74,000 in 1952. For the present, at least, the norxally limited movement is practically st0pped. id) - sue Imports of the fourth group listed in Table XXII, ordinarily have been insignifiCunt. Tariff restrictions seem to have kept them smell. Prior to imposition of a duty of five cents per dozen in 1890, these purchases from Canada amounted to as much as $2,250,000 during a single year; but reduced thereafter, their annual totals ranged only from 05,000 to @28,000 during the fiscal years 1900-1913. After removal of the duty of five cents in 1915, they regained slight during war years; and in 1918 their total of 473,000 dozens was negligible, a. relative to domestic production of some 1,654,000,000 dozens. In the following year, however, shipments of dried and frozen eggs brought their value to $1,379,000. This movement was temporary, and in 1921 the value of imports fell to $351,000. The decline continued under a duty of eight cents per dozen, imgosed in 1922; and after incresse of turiff‘rute to 10 cents per dozen by the act of 1950, the total purchssed in 1932 amounted to only $7,000. (e) - Other Animal Products host of the other imports have been inedible sniunl products, including such items as bristles, grease and glue stock. Unrestricted by turiff, they have moved upward with expansion of Canadian production. ‘ 'his figure includes only chicken eggs. \ JILL: C“ '1 (It 'i C From the foregoing salysis it is evident that United states in— ports of Canadian furm products have had wide r;n;e of eXpsvwsi1und contraction. Jith annual amounts vnr wi 3 from ;7,056,000 to Vlaé,197,000, they have fluctuated between 8.1 and 83.6 per cent of the total value of United ststes imports from Canada. Duri mg the first 21'ye1rs of the period examined the group of fnrm prod 1cts moved in undulatizi3 fashion along a trend uscend din3 to its peak. Such rise wns mu;e possible, on the one hund, by Canadian national de- velopment, and on the other, bv favor e‘sle American L rket conditions. that were influenced in later ye rs bye extraordinary our dennnd. while the Dominion vr s experiencing a period of settlement and 3rowth resemblin3 that of the Un'tedo utes in post-Civil zur decode s of the nine nth century, t1e lstter' s population srd consumption were ov rtsking domestic production in several fields. Certuin commodities, includin3 beef and fluxseed, therefore, be ;un to enter the import trade in incr e sing quantities. Reduction or removal of tariff levies by the Underwood not pr'slsr ed the day for a ditionul co:1u2rce oi .d the nozcn-nt wus encoura 3-9d further by var-ti;rne re cuirements Alt_1ou ooth countries expended their (D a3ricult urel production and eXports in reSponse to 3~r0peen dennnd, th *nit ei states one able to absorb increasing amounts of Cunsiinn products in its own markets. From its posh fi3ure the trade fell abruptly under depressed business conditions and renewed tariff restrictions. Interference of duties, how- ever, wus not sufficient to keep it from resuming an upvurd course nftor t 1923; ud the next five yours brou3ht high points in impor s of SL v.r rel items, incluxlnb cheese, credo, fresh beef, and potatoes. l C 0') «1.1.1.. -1 1.. .-. ,. ~ --1 ~11 ~- :3 .. a v1 : Anooner reVsrse novetent a33sare1 fo11o41h3 ibgu, when new tariff restrictions, accentuated in their effects by severe depression, reduced purchases. 111 138 2 farm pro ‘ucts constituted the einllest annual p; r- cen ta3 e of total American irports from Uanada in the 35 years covered. There have been man; variations and contrasts in component 3roups of the goods classified. «it.1 ex3iansion of Canadian ce real production, crop products have tended to become relati 1vel; more si3nificant than those of animal ori3in, But individual c011 odities from both sources have fluctuated rather widely in diei r_joint movement. Of these, wheat iuyorts have had gerhays the two t remarkable de- veloPment. Canada's rise to premier rank as the world's spring wheat produce r brought contempora11eous ex3; ansion in its sales to the United Ltates. The latter's inyorts of the superior northern wrain ran3ed from 4,000 bushels in the year ended June 30, 1904 to 34,957,000 bushels in 1930. Jhe t, like a number of other products,was kept from an ascending trend after 1920 by artificial restriction. In suCh cases, only ex~ cessive tariff rate have been able to offset the advant:.3es inherent in exchan3e of goods between the neighborin3 countries. In a sense, racticall; every farm product imported from Canada by the United states has been surplem.entar y to domestic production. Some, like flaxseed, maple sugar, and cattle hides, have supplied parts of continuing deficits; some, i1cluiin3 hvV, Oats, clover seed, and potatoes, have coopensated for temporarys shortage s; md besides tl1ese, some such as wheat, meats, dairy products, fruits, and live animals, have served either special qualitative heels, or sgecial localized require- ments. Like .1ise, in nearly everr case enumernted the amounts purchased, although small, relative to doaxostic cons mmption, have been lar3e re— lative to quantities immorted. ‘ Q '_,- €Eoreover, Canada, one of the leading nations in forei3n trade per capita, has been forced to seek outside markets for large production in excess of its own needs. while Greet Britain has been its largest outlet for goods of farm origin, the Dominion hes sent some of its ex;crts — e.3., flsxseed, milk and cream ~ chiefly across its southern border, and it has at times because of better demand and loxer trnns~ portation costs, found sales of other products more profits {ole in this direction. Although the trude has been placed in a precarious position by existing tariff pr wi sions, it he s an underlu11 potential movement upward. llrge markets and low frei3nt chs .r3e s favor its develOpment under unrestricted conditions. Canada may partially replace lost smericsn markets by its pre- ferential u3reeuents with the world's largest ifl :orter of foodstuffs. Alreedv its 39193 in British fields are incre1siug under arrangements effected by he Ottawa Conference. our There are in dicstionsthat tiles e outlets KB“ be re mined. 3e0suse of its supplementury nature the trade could urell i1 1duce reciprocal Canadian-American provisions for mutual gain from freer exchange. Furthermore, in establishing such concessions, the Lnited States mi3ht safeguard against undue rise in costs of living, and at the sane time obtain larger marl: ets for its manufactures. Perhaps present possibili— ties of need for extra supplies also will aid in effecting a more care— fully considered tariff polio; for an international commerce that has sound economic basis. 1 ’ \ .bUVO APrJJDIK.— TnSLJ I Index Junbers of Jholesule lrices in Dennis and the Lnited States 1913-1914; 1918-1332* Year : Canada : United otutes 1913 64.0 69.8 1914 65.5 68.1 1918 127.4 131.5 1913 134.0 158.6 1920 155.9 154.4 1921 110.0 97.6 1922 97.5 96.7 1923 98.0 100.6 1924 99.4 98.1 1925 102.6 103.5 1926 100.0 100.0 1927 97.7 95.4 1928 96.4 96.7 1929 95.6 95.8 1930 86.6 86.4 1931 72.1 73.0 1952 66.7 64.8 ‘ The Canadian index, constructed by the Dominion Bureau of statistics, includes 502 commodities. That for American prices is the United st tes Buresu of Labor Statistics index covering 784 commodities. APPAQQIA - Tnfihd II Annuul Values of United States Imports of Farm Products and of Total General herchundise from Canada, 1900-1952‘ *' : :jotel :j'of oenernl : : aflotel : g'of Generul Year: Farm. :Cenera :horchundise :Yeur“: Perm :Generul : Eerchundise : Productsgmerchsndisezin Farm 3 : Products:fierchsndise: in Farm 3 (000) z (000) :Prcducts : : (000) z (000) 8 Products if s; z ‘3 t3 1900 7,695 59,569 19.6 t 1918 95,886 451,706 20.8 1901 7,759 42,482 18.3 z 1919 151,961 494,697 50.7 1902 7,056 48,076 14.6 x 1920 184,197 611,859 50.1 1905 8,987 54,781 16.4 x 1921 86,950 556,441 25.9 1904 7,721 51,555 15.0 g 1922 69,768 564,025 19.2 1905 10,122 62,470 16.2 a 1925 67,422 416,004 16.2 x 1906 8,55 68,258 12.5 x 1924 70,497 599,148 17.7 1907 8,516 75,554 11.6 g 1925 90,797 454,255 20.0 1908 8,799 75,152 11.7 a 1926 87,054 475,881 18.5 1909 11,645 79,517 14.7 x 1927 96,925 475,029 20.4 1910 15,766 95,128 16.6 : 1928 98,875 489,505 20.2 1911 21,041 100,865 20.9 x 1929 85,552 505,496 16.6 : 1912 29,728 108,815 27.5 2 1950 57,980 402,550 14.4 1915 25,656 120,571 19.6 a 1951 28,077 266,268 10.7 1914 55,944 160,689 55.6 x 1952 14,022 174,101 8.1 : 1915 45,046 159,572 28.2 3 1916 44,057 204,018 21.6 g 1917 99,445 520,949 51.0 : : ' Compiled from Foreign Commerce and navigation of the United States. " Years ended June 50, 1900-1917; calendar years 1918-1952. APPSHDIXx~ TnBLJ III Annual Qunntities of Certain CrOp Products Imported From Cunuda bv the United States 1900-1952‘ a ’ : Fluxseed : Potatoes 2 1900 1901 1902 1905 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1915 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1925 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1950 1951 1952 Wheat x bets Hey Yeur“: (000 Bu) : (000 Bu) 3 (000 Bu) 3 (000 Bu) :(000 Tons) 516 41 0. 46 144 597 19 0. 242 142 102 22 2 885 48 1,076 155 0.7 105 295 4 169 0.5 1,584 114 3,100 37 207 30 46 55 21 5 421 67 575 75 10 11 61 559 274 7 177 10 32 5,048 479 1,182 7 152 946 1,410 97 97 505 97 2,251 24 557 2,675 2,609 5,511 145 699 764 708 4,752 119 155 1,892 22,266 8,647 1,026 169 571 602 6,650 211 19 5,675 618 5,095 188 45 25,715 758 7,015 5,051 58 24,690 2,554 5,501 1,171 408 10,558 1,444 5,240 1,005 598 5,545 608 1,279 5,507 202 34,957 6,589 1,658 5,049 208 25,286 5,565 3,095 1,678 58 22,642 1,288 2,254 1,656 5 19,500 282 5,008 629 143 15,528 6,904 2,750 333 289 13,901 177 5,917 2,508 192 14,140 154 3,043 5,327 354 11,755 79 2,411 5,009 115 18,847 485 2,599 3,471 62 14,575 109 1,063 4,052 28 19,968 182 915 4,780 104 15,690 576 1,214 4,440 67 10,027 59 519 657 14 it 1C2. 00mpilei from Foreign Commerce and fluvi3ntion of the United Ctstes gun . Years ended June 50, 1900-1918; calender years 1918—1952. Annual Quantities of Certain Animal Products 9 “r. 7 'rsI'r T2323 17 Inporte; from 01nids by the United States, 1900-1952* a : : xFrosh dsef: Fresh Yesr*‘: Csttle : Horses : Sheep 25nd 7051 3 Pork . (Heed) : (deed) : (Heed) :(ooo Lbs.):(000 Lbs.) 1900 104,100 2,412 571,400 - - 1901 49,800 2,45 529,700 - - 190° 55,700 2,560 262,800 - ~ 1905 2,700 2,620 296,900 - - 1904 4,100 2,520 257,200 - - 1905 4,200 2,644 180,800 - - 1906 4,500 2,711 220,000 - - 1907 4,800 2,556 221,200 - - 1908 25,900 2,019 187,500 - - 1910 5,600 4,794 109,100 - ~ 1912 1,400 1,828 17,600 - - 1914 241,500 4,455 17,500 15,919 4,602 1915 191,500 5,515 46,000 15,505 16,182 1916 258,000 0,250 96,600 9,918 2,017 1917 189,500 6,548 62,600 9,456 1,651 1918 185,100 5,756 156,200 20,768 1,815 1918 249,500 5,586 102,600 14,910 1,717 1919 550,000 4,495 190,700 51,124 2,408 1920 516,600 4,084 165,500 57,488 1,075 1921 179,400 5,199 76,600 26,469 806 1922 206,400 2,162 86,400 19,625 751 1925 124,900 1,985 25,800 15,800 914 1924 151,200 1,890 18,600 9,574 5,671 1925 149,700 1,491 57,100 11,041 7,255 1926 164,800 2,159 19,500 15,925 8,556 1927 288,000 1,747 14,700 57,780 14,472 1928 284,000 2,549 7,600 25,255 7,811 1929 254,200 1,879 7,500 15,470 4,125 1950 58,800 2,255 5,600 5,226 1,095 1951 26,100 1,518 577 417 759 1952 12,800 2,159 148 455 1,650 * Cowpiled from Foreign Commerce and Nevi3stion 0f the U. S. ** Years ended June 50, 1900-1918; calendar years 1918—1952 '9 I-lr‘. JIKJU. , f .\ -\ pk f Px P\ Px ( VV . 1 y ’\ C, .\ K . (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8} (9) (10) (ll) (13) «I ‘r ..L‘ao "; I!‘ . .' f 7," ‘ -.‘ ",T ”" ."“ _‘.L1411ult.1.uu UUUXLDAD Booth, J. F. Comparative Prices of Farm.Products in Canada and the United states Since 1920. Journal of Earm nconouics 15; 510~527, 1955. anada. Department of agriculture. Canadian Fruit, Vegetables and Honey. PubliCations Branch, 1924. Canada. Department of the Interior. Canada: Satural iesources and Commerce. Natural Re- sources Intelligence Branch, 1925. Canada. Department of the Interior. Natural fiesources of Quebec. devisei edition. Katural Resources Intelligence Service, 1929. Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The Canada Yearbook, 1955. 1955. fl J- Canada. Dominion Bureau of suatistics. Prices and Price Indexes, Vol. 12, No. 5, 1954. Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Drade of Canada, 1955. Condensed preliminary report. External Trade Branch, 1955. Canadian annual Review Canadian Annual Review, Volumes for 1902-1952. Passim. 1905-1955. Carr, G. J. International Marketing of Surplus Wheat, U. S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Trade Promotion Series 150, 1952. Charlton, John American.and Canadian Trade Relations. The Foru, 29: 471-480, 1900. coats, £10 :I. The Growth of Population in Canada. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 107; 1-6, 1923. 000per, J. A. The International Trade Situation in Canada. annals of the American academy of Political and social Science 94; 7-‘11, 1921. (13) (14) (16’) (17) (18) (19) (20) (23) (24) (25) Dawson, C. n. Population Areas and Physiographic Regions in Canada. “merican Jounral of Seciology 55: 45-56. 1927. Dickens, P. D. a new Sstimate of Amarican Investments abroe.d. U.S. Bureau of Foreign.and Domestic Commerce. Trade Infor- mation Bulletin 767, 1951. Foster, G. 3. Canada and the unite: States. North American Review hammatt, F. D. marketing Canadian Jheat. U. 3. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Trade Information Bulletin 251; 1-5; 72-91, 1924. Hibbard, 3. H. Reciprocity and the Farmer. American Sconomic neview 1: James, C. C. an Historical :F r 0 0p - the Canadi Jheat Crop of 1915. The Proceedings and Transactions, Boys 1 Societv of Canada Series 5; Vol. 10; Sec. 2, pp. 95—117, 1917. Keenlevside, H. L. Canada and the United States. Passim. 1. a. KnOpf, Inc., New York, 1929. Kitto, F. H. The Northwest Territories, 1950. Department of the Interior, Canada, 1950. Kitt 0, F. H. . hanitoba. Department of the Interior, Canada, 1951. Leland Stanford Junior University. rood ne search Institute. American Imgortation of Canadian “neat. dheat Studies 5; 1-75, 1926. hacaonnel, J. LL after the Ottawa Conference. Foreign Affairs 11; 551-546, 1955. Kackintosh, W. A. The Laurentian Plateau in Canadian 300horxnc Development. scononic roography 2; 557-549, 1926. lalétl‘Vill, D. 1.10 The Tariff Relationships of the Unite 1 States and” Caz da Annals of the American acadexr of 1olitica1 and Social Science 141: 227-255, 1929. k c. I...Inl.\u.fl.||l| 1 (3'3) (.237) ~ to C) H '7. o 'J 6d (34) ~~n a\. J. fi’h . ., _, ;1-J‘J‘AVA1, H. 0‘. ‘ ,‘ ' — .1.“ "j _‘ l. _ L .'S .-. , D - 1,1 .1“.._1J.Lf $71.31le 0f one L111. U351 ”S11113.) 5.5L [LLfC (311.1311.q U111“ 1w;— .“' . 1 . ‘1 - ’ '1 '?- " - ‘ l "P 1 - ' ' 1 f1 -.-IV ‘ 1St1ous with CSMSLS. “nnSlS c1 tne “Loricnn “CouLU of '1 \ ~I‘ ‘ ‘ I L _I ‘ . -.-. ‘ : -. O .5 ‘ fl A 1' k‘ :olioicnl .nd Socini Solencs 1&4; L-84,192S. 1 ' ‘1 .. '1 'IV 1:11 0113.1; 11. rm. 1.114.: ~ .- 1 '1; r .\,~, 4-1. ~_-_....7 .1. .-., co..1,1.-:‘-.Sive ISLCJ-‘a 1.1 Uukiuw.s.a 9....th 0.18 L-Jsl‘fJGKA y “..LLD. S u, .11, ' .‘ .-. a- S 1 -. .wwm ._1 _S -. 11.11-11.13 of one “hurlcun “(1.113111 of rc11'11c...1 S1111 Soon—11 I I‘ ~ '. ~ g -‘ .— 91313.163 JSLVZ; 1124-.Lu)4, lJIZQ . ._' "‘5‘ -.1 'y_ “4.5.3.0, 11‘. L. Scoionic Bendsnoies in t1e Unit;d St Ltes. Lassim. SSt 10 -S1 ur eSu of Sco1;onic ne1cS1cs, inc. S. 1., 1952. L1Uur'3 , 4’. ll. Sconomic Jeluticns cf United StS es and Sunnis Wibh Snooivl Reference to Lsriffs. Proceedings of the “stitnte of gnolic.nffdirs. 3eoruis Lniwsrsity Sulletin, J ” Jo. 42, op. 55-79, 1352. Entionsl Indust rial Conference Sourd. 1'rends in tile b‘oreign of the 'lited Stntec 1:..tiU1Au-l 111.4.u3tLAii'il (301113392503 1505.31, ILASC. L:. Y.’ 1339. bsoorne, J. 3. Com 1arciil Rel stions of the Lnited fit.&tCS with Canada. nnnnls of the unsricnn hosiery of :oiitiCnl end Social “cie 108 52, 550-542, 1908. L Patton, H. S. neci rocit; " with Sends. The CSS1S1111_n E’i-s'ulioint. mnmter— 13 Journal of Sconomics 55, 572-595, 1921. Pat t 011, H. £5 0 CrSin 3rowers' Coogcration in «ester n Canada. 1&58111 Knrvnrd .‘cononi studies, Vol. 52. hervnrd University Press, 1938. PLittOn, 11. 30 Discussion of J. B. Boo sh' s "Coxpsrntive Prices of ESrm Pro- ducts in Cnnnda and the United Stntes Since 1920”. Journal of Farm S001iomics 15. 527-550, 1955. Porritt, hznrd SrSin Growing and Canadian Sxpnnsion. 1he north nnericiin Robinson, A. G. Commerce and Industries of Canada and NewfoundlSnd. U. S. jureSu of Foreign and Domes Agents Series 76, 7-79, 1915. floss, Victor The Eoreign Brnde of Canada. Annals of the American Academy 1') (7 of roliticSl and Socinl Science 107; 155-169, 132S. Ix -\ IK. - I o I O l o C .K o C I o . . O I r. o I o D I o 1.1.I¢.I..»t.:ll1lnllfi1lil i 4 ,11. g. . S a 1. (41) (47) (48) (49) 107. Round Table Cunwdiwn—Anoricun Rel.tions. The nound -1. ale 35, 410-419, 1933. -lhbltt'flr, i“. 3. Tu 1ff Xe L tio:xs of Cunade. U. 5. Depertment of Cennerce p and Labor. Tariff eeries 2’3, 1911. oeuer, Jail lecent Treids in O‘Hadiun Foreign ”non.n e. U. S. Jureeu of Forei;1 :nd Conestic Commerce. Trude Infonuetion Bulletin 793, 1932. Scrogss, J. O. Derrecieted Currencies and Jorld Trude. Foreign yffn irs ll, 513-516, lva. Scro3gs, J. 0. ins AmeriCun Investment in Canada. Foreign Affairs ll, 716-7l9, 1933. SCCtt, F. it. The PerLLnent Eases of Cenui un Forei3n Policy. Forei3n Affairs 10, 617—631, 1938. “kelton, Alex ANorth American CustOms Union. The Ration 155, 482-484, 1951 Tuussig, F. J. The Tariff Kistory of the Uiited otntes. fiighth edition. Chatter 7-11. G. P. Putnnm's done, 3. Y., 1981. Taylor, K. d. and Michell, H. statistical Contributions to Canadian Aconomic History, Vol. 2. neonillan Company of Cunadu, Ltd., Toronto, 1931. United StWt es Departnent of A3riculture. Yearbook of Agriculture, 1935 1933. United States C mmittee on .lsys and Leena. Comparison of Tariff Acts of 1909, l9l3, and 1932. 1923. United states Con ress. Tu riff Act of 1930 7lst Con3ress, 2nd Session. Senate Document 155, 1930. T'nitei Stdtes Bureau of Statistics Fo orei3n Commerce end :1vi3nticn of the United stutes. .1nnual volumes for fiscal years ended June 50,19CO-l9ll, 1900—1912 United States Bureau ofr T reign and Domes tic Cozmnerce. Foreign Co;nmerce end Ravi; ation of the Lr ited otttes. Annual volumes for fiscal geurs endei June 30, 1912-1918; rrrr culendur years, 918-19 32. 1915-13Ju. .K 1;! ’I. . til-‘1’! ... v I I!- I l- »j u .0 IfOIuI i I ll: 4 in (53) (57) (58) (59) (54) [.4 (3 f ) o fixited Stzites. Bureau of Forei;n and Domestic Commerce. Bail; Consular and Trade Reports. Pessim. January 2, 1915 - Au3ust 31, 1921. United States. Bureau of Forei.:n and Domestic Connerce. Commerce Reports. Joekly numoers. rnssim. September 5, 1921 - larch 28, 1932. Ln ite d States. 3ure‘-u of E‘oreign and Domestic Conner e. C01 erce Year ook, 1932, Vols. 1 and 2, 1932. nited States. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Connerce. Stutisticnl Abstract of tile United States. Fiftg-fifth number. 1933. United States. Teriff Commission. Agricultural Staples and the Tariff. U. S. Tariff Commission. Tariff Infonmstion Series 20, 1920. ‘nitei States. Tariff Cenmission. Tariff Information Survey. On “1 ticles in the Tariff Act of 1913. Revised edition. Psssim. 1921. ’nited States. Tariff Cemmission. hides and Skins. U. S. Tariff Commission. Tariff Infor— mation Series 29, 1922. United States. T:-iff Cosmission. The nm=roexcy Tariff and Its dffect on Cattle and Beef, Sheegn dd Lutton,,Uool, Pork, and Liscellsneous nests. U. S. Turiff Coxm ission. Tariff Information Series 29, 19320 united States. Tariff Connission. Cattle and Beef in the United Stet es. U. S. Turiff Com- mission. Dariff Information SerriesSO, 1922. United States. Tariff Commission. The Cattle Industries of the Unit ei States and Canada. United States Tariff Commission, 1925. ‘nited States. Tariff Connission. Butter. deport of the U. 5. Tariff Commission to the President of the united States, 1926. United States. Tariff Commission. Flaxseoi. Retort of the United Scutes Turiff COmmiSSion to t1 1e President of the United S;etes, 1929. United States. Tariff Commission. Milk end Cream. Report of the Unitel States Turiff Comp mission to the President of the United States, 1929. (65) (70) 109. 1 United States. Tariff Commission. Uaple Sugar and Unple Sirup. deport of the United States Tariff Commission to the President of the United States, 1930. United States. Tariff Commission. Barley Kalt. deport 59. Second Series, 1955. United States. Tariff COmmission. . Aconomic nnalysis of Foreign Trade of the United States in Relation to the Tariff. Parts I, II, and III. 72nd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document 180, 1933. United States. Treasury Department. The Tariff of 1897 on Ignorts into the United States. United States Treasury Department Document 2279, 1908 Viner, Jacob Canada's Balance of International Indebtedness 1900-1913. Passim. Harvard Doonomic Series, Vol. 26. Harvard University Press, 1924. Urenn, J. s. International Trade in Heats and Animal Fats. United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Trade Promotion Series 26, 1925. ‘lyllll .34 Apr/1436 1012836 Mtg! 4 ' ( Aug 3,. —- (6611 use ‘o‘uLx. 'Doc15'30 v . . I I | n ' u i l I, . I I u. I . .I I I .- I ‘ a I . II. . ‘ . ‘ - I I I I .I. II n I I I I I . u p I l I. x. .1. I? I I . . . . . ... n I . . I I I. .I. . I I .... .V I . ‘ I _I I. . . I. I . . I Y I I I D I I. Q n I . . . Av I I I .I . I I. q ‘- I I v o. I . . . I I I. , I . . I II It 5 I I l I .. I I I I I I . t . ..III I , . \ u I . ... _ . I I I I I . I. . .. I . I I . . . . I I I I w I ‘ ‘ u I I. . I u 1 l 1 I I v C I O. h I I I I I s .4 I a ' I _ I I A I I . . I III . I I I . . I I. I . . I I . . . I .d I I I u U l .I I . II a . I I a I 'I . . . I _ . I y I . I I . \ . I I II I‘ I I l I I ... I I . I . . I I \ t I . ' . I I I I . I nl.’ I. A. I I I .. I . . . . I a l I. . I . I I "f I .I . I. . .. _I. in ~ I r. . I .I I. I. I v 3 7 4 4 9 s 8 8n 4w 70 DD 3 8 ,3 .. T I‘I‘III .I‘l I I l I O Gilli - .I I I C h I . I I . I ‘ l I I I . I I. . .I ..J. I. I I . .0 I . . . . II . . I I . I. I I I v. . . .. Ik . . I II . . I I. . I I a v4.1 5? I . I . .I I Ih'I I . I . I II I. .I .I I I . . . I I. I . I . . IL I .... I \I I I «I. I I I I I .I I. I IAI . . I .... . ... IO \ b I d. v .‘vn. l I I .I . \I r: . . I .I I I u I r . I . .. . I r I I I I I . I a I I .4 I . I l I . I OJ . .. Ir . | . ... . I I! , I I . I . I I I \ I I . I (‘ .Y I A I I H. .4 I .I I . I. .I . I . . I . I - - .. 2.. a I . .r I II I I IV . .I . c. I I . I I . .... , . I . , I I . ... . I A ._ IIfII. I II . a INA . I I I \ I. I a L. T . I I I I . . . u . I II I I . I II I .. I ... . . . I . . II I .I I . II . I . 4 D II I . I I . .I, I I I I \ I.. . I. I I I a I I . I I Ir ( . II . I I. . . I . . I .. . I I I I . ..( . I . . . III . I . I . , I I Inc... . K III n I I , I . . 0 II . . o .I\ \ I II I I O . c . .I I . _ . I . I .. I . . I I. I I I. {I I 1-: I O I I l . I I I II. I I I. I . .I I I . . I n I . .I .. I .v . I I . I S r .1 (.I I I I . a . O I I I I» . a I I .a. . I I I I . . I . . I III II I I .r I I: . I p . 1 II II I I I II 0 0 I I. . t I I I 0 r!\ l! .I I. . . I II . I I o v I. a I . I I v II. .. I I I I. I. I x . II I I I Q I ~ I . I. I I . . I - ‘ I I I I u . I I]. I I I. o It I In. I I v I . . . I I W . I . . . I I , . ,J . r I I _ I «I. I M I ‘ I v. .4 I I I , I t . s a In _ . . . .I .I \ I . I I I _ . I . .. v I I . I. I v I. .I I . — . I I I . . I II a I . I . I v I I. I. I I 'I I . I I . I ' ‘I I I ‘ h I . O I . a I I I 1. . . I I . I J I I 1 . I I . 1 t I D I. l a I u i I t I . I I I I ..I u I .I I u I . I . I - II I . I . O O IN I _ I I . II I I I I I . I . I . . III . I w I I I . I. \ I . . I III . I I I . I. I l nI I a l O I . II. . I I Q I II I I I II . I . . r . . I I I - I \ I I d I l . I I I I I - .I I J I ,l I a I I . I r I o . \I . I I a. . . . . . . I I . n I I, . . . . I I I . I ' I l . D I V I I I I I I I .1 I _ u r n I . . . H I I II . . I . I I I a v . I l 1' . I I I l . . . I I . I. I I . I In I III 4 I l I I I In I . ... I . I _ I I II . I . I I II. t In 9 I I I I I II «I I I I V.. . I. I I \ I I I k . If I I . I a I. I ..\ I . II I IV . I I . Q. I L \ I . . . _ I I .c I . I I I. I 1 I I .1 « A . I 4 I o l I I . . I I. I I I I a I l I ~ I I I I p f I . . MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY II II; Illlmnm'u” IIIIIRI'ES 3071 3576 III 3 1293