Knowledge that Transforms

I have been asked to say something about the effects on New England of the reciprocity arrangement with Canada. But I shall avail myself of the opportunity to consider also some of the larger aspects of the matter. It is the privilege and the duty of the economist to disregard sectional interests. A political representative usually finds it difficult to do otherwise than promote what is to the advantage, or is thought to be to the advantage, of his section and his constituents. The economist represents no constituency and holds no brief. His unqualified duty is to examine in what way the prosperity of the community as a whole may be advanced. The reciprocity arrangement now pending relates almost exclusively to agricultural products and the simpler materials. So far as these articles are concerned, the trade between the two countries is in the main a border trade of convenience. It is essentially an occasional trade, of the kind that springs up between any two adjoining regions, like New Hampshire and Vermont, or Ohio and Indiana. It is not based on a large geographical division of labor, like the trade between New England and the Mississippi Valley, or that between Great Britain and the United States as a whole. It involves no far-reaching political and social questions, no problems as to the way in which the industrial development of two differing regions shall be shaped. It is like the trade between adjoining farms, not like the trade between city and farm. Its restriction, though a possible source of annoyance and inconvenience, will cause no serious changes. Its freedom will promote good feeling and mutual accommodation, but will not seriously affect the course of economic development in either country. There are places where it is convenient for us to get some wheat and some meat from Canada and places where it is convenient for Canada to get them from us. There are seasons