THE EMBARGO ON CANADIAN CATTLE. [TO THE EDITOR OP THE
" SPECTATOR.") Si—The fact that your correspondent, Mr. A. Herbert Eckford, has had thirty years' experience of ranching in Canada, only retiring in 1914, will enable him no doubt to clear up several points as to the attitude of Canada in this con- troversy. He will certainly recollect the Tariff changes of the United States as regards cattle. The Tariff was much reduced in 1897, increased to 27% ad valorem in 1904, and abolished in October, 1913. 'Canadian cattle exports to the States responded tO these Tariffs. and for the fiscal year ending April, 1914,
increased to 206,000 head as against 28,000 the previous year. In 1916 the Dominions Resources Commission, comprising amongst others Sir H. Rider Haggard, visited Canada and examined ranchers and others all over the Dominion. Mr. george Lane, one of the leading men in the ranching industry, was examined in October, 1916, at Calgary, part of his evidence being to the effect that it was far more profitable to sell in Chicago than it had been to ship to England. "Our cattle went to the Old Country—live cattle—and our trouble started when we started them and it never got through till we got our money back. The shipping people and- the railway people and the Commission people put us to a lot of trouble. It is a long way —5,000 miles." • At that time (1916) it looked as if America would take all Canada's surplus cattle and, in fact, some witnesses complained that far too many cattle were being exported. Many witnesses gave their reasons for believing that the beet method of developing Canada's meat trade was through chilled beef. Miss Corn Hind, the well-known agricultural editor of the Manitoba Free Press, stated: "No one wishes to see the trade in export cattle on the hoof revived as a permanent enterprise; it is an enormously wasteful method, but a permanent export trade in chilled meats and finished products is essential." The same lady in another passage states : "Distances from seaboard demand marketing of products in concentrated form."
What some of us cannot understand is why Sir R. Borden, at the War Conference in 1917, made such a point of the export of Canadian store cattle in view of the fact that not a single witness throughout Canada in the autumn of 1916 expressed any wish to have the so-called " embargo " removed? Perhaps Mr. Eckford can explain?
There is another point which your readers should know. We have, as is well known, kept our ports open, for cattle for immediate slaughter. With the rise in the price of cattle in the United States and especially after the removal of the tariff on cattle in October, 1913, Canadian exports of fat cattle to us, and, it may be added, American exports also, fell off sharply in 1910 and ceased in July, 1913. What would have been our position if we had relied on Canada for store stock? Would they not also have ceased owing to the same cause? It is unnecessary to labour the point further !
With regard to the "injustice." At a time, 1892, when infected cargoes of (fat) cattle were constantly coming from different countries supposed to be clean, our veterinary authorities diagnosed a cargo of Canadian cattle to be suffering from the deadly disease of pleuro-pneumonia, whereas it was subsequently discovered that, in fact, they were affected by broncho-pneumonia. Agricultural interests constantly pressed for the total exclusion of all cattle, as they had suffered so much from disease traced to imported stock. Hence the Act of 1896, which is a sanitary one of universal application.
Reverting to Mr. Eckford's letter, if the cost of carriage, 212-£16, on a stare beast worth not more than £25 is a protective Tariff, I suppose this Tariff is no exception to the rule that it falls on the consumer. It is one of the ,puzzles of the question that Canadian stockbreeders wish to engage in a trade protected by a Tariff of at least 50% ad valorem.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
