IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

■- Ilia

" IIIIU

I::

m°

1 2.0

1.8

1.25 1.4

1.6

^ 6" —

►

/}.

c?:

<^^

% ^7^

<«>.

///,

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14S80

(716) 872-4503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHIVI/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

1980

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

□
n

□
□

□

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

Covers damaged/
Couverture endommag^e

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes g^ographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with othor material/
Re!i6 avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interio margin/

La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int^rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tai; possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 film^es.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppldmentaires:

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la methods normale de filmage
sont indiqu^s ci-dessous.

r I Coloured pages/

□

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

Pages restored and/oi

Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculSes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxe(
Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqu^es

Pages detached/
Pages ddtach^es

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of prir

Quality in^gale de I'impression

Includes supplementary materic
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

I I Pages damaged/

I I Pages restored and/or laminated/

r I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/

j I Pages detached/

I I Showthrough/

I I Quality of print varies/

I I Includes supplementary material/

I I Only edition available/

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de fapon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

10X

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film6 au taux de rdductior indiqud ci-dessous.

14X 18X 22X

26X

39X

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Douglas Library
Queen's University

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filminti contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending en
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol -^^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grflce d la
g6n6rosit6 de:

Douglas Library
Queen's University

Les images suivantes ont 6X6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — »- signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbole V signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent &tre
filmds A des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 6 partir
de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

T' o;?g, I %S

C &

(JllliiiuiJI— flUIr

COMMERCIAL UNION

BETWEEN

CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES.

An Address delivered before the Canadian Club of New York

Hon. B. BUTTERWORTH, M. C.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Canadian Club of New
York: ^

T ADIES AND GENTLEMEN : I have first to thank
-L-* you for the kind courtesy that calls me before you.

It is my purpose to discuss the merits of full and com-
plete reciprocity of trade and commerce,— commercial
union, if you please, between the United States and the
Dominion of Canada. Import and export duties are levied
for two purposes.

First.~To collect revenue to defray the expenses and
to pay the debts of the government.

Second.— To encourage, foster, and protect domestic in-
dustry.

The protective system, as it is called, has for its ob-
ject to do away with the inequalities which obtain between
competitors in the several industries in this country and
those of the old world engaged in the same field of em-
ployment.

23118a

Coimrie^cial Union between

It was not intended as an agency for the mere increase
of profits, the question for Congress to consider not being
simply the magnitude of profits resulting from manufac-
tures, but whether we should be able without the protective
duty levied on articles of commerce produced in the old
world, to engage successfully in manufactures at all ; the
established plants of the older countries, with the rare skill
acquired during the centuries gone, the abundance of cheap
labor, enabling European manufacturers to lay down goods
at our doors cheaper than we could possibly produce them.
Hence money invested in a shop, mill or factory must in
the nature of things, in the presence of such competition,
be a dead loss.

This did not apply with such force to the agriculturist
who can compete with the world in the growth of agricul-
tural products. Of course the protective tariff raised the
price of all the articles upon which this duty was imposed,
and the cost of most of the articles the farmer used except
such as he produced himself was enhanced. He found his
compensation under the protective system in this, that in
the building up of our industries under its influence great
cities and towns, centres of large industrial population,
grew up and provided a market for the product of the
farms. So that what the farmer lost in the increased price
of the articles he purchased, he more than made up by the
increased amount he received for the supplies he was
enabled to sell to those employed in the industries which
owed their existence to the protective system. As a tub to
the agricultural whale a tariff was levied upon farm produce
also.

The European manufacturer and merchant cannot land
a plow, a trace-chain, a knife or hoe upon our soil without
paying a large tax to our government for the privilege. Nor
could the merchant sell us a yard of cloth or silk, or a quin-
ine pill, until he had paid the duty levied by Congress. Of

l^V^

. i

fe-.-j'

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY UBRARy

Canada and the United States.

course all this is paid at last by the consumer, who finds his
compensation for the alleged burden in the prosperity of his
country brought about in the manner I have mentioned.
1 he tariff IS a tax levied arbitrarily by Congress-there is
but one party to it. It is a matter with which the nation
adoptmg the system has to do.

It should and does ostensibly deal with unequal condi-
tions in the field of competition, its mission being to equalize
them. It follows logically, and as a common-sense proposi-
tion, that when the conditions are equal, so-called protection
is disguised robbery, legalized filching from one citizen to
enrich another.

Reciprocity of trade involves an agreement between
two nations, according to the terms of which, trade and
commerce are to be carried on between the citizens of the
two contracting nations.

What is proposed in the present instance, and the
merits of which I propose to discuss, is full and complete
reciprocal trade and commerce between the United States
and Canada, by the terms of which, for all purposes of trade
barter and exchange, the two countrie sshall be as one- the'
arrangement having nothing to do with government matters
or po itical conditions, there being no necessary connection
or relation between the political institutions of a country
and Its trade and commerce. We seek by this arrangement
to remove all the custom-houses along our Canadian frontier
to withdraw the line of pickets that keep watch and ward
on both sides along 3,000 miles of our northern boundary
to see to It that the American farmer does not sell his
neighbor across the line some early potatoes or early corn
without going to the custom-house, paying a large part of
the value of the produce for the privilege, and compelling
the Canadian to submit to the same extortion before he can
sell to his friend who supplied him with the early corn and
potatoes a later variety of the same articles, that we-as the

4: (hffimenylal Union between

inhabitants of what is for all purposes of trade a common
country, being in race, religion, ancestry and tradition one
people, differing only in our political institutions— shall
throw down the barriers that now block every highway of
business prosperity and progress, and open all the courses
and channels of trade between the Gulf of Mexico and the
Northern boundary of the Dominion of Canada — that the
farmers, manufacturers and merchants shall seek out mar-
kets unhampered and unrestricted in every part of this vast
field of development, and thereby settle at once and in a
manner worthy of our race and civilization the petty squab-
bles, now more than a century old, about the fisheries. He
who appeals to the protective system as between competi-
tors in Canada and in the United States asks monopoly,
not equality. He seeks an unjusv advantage, not an equal
opportunity.

As against the old world, both Americans and Cana-
dians may invoke the protective system ; but as between
Canadians and Americans it has no proper place, unless to
authorize extortion in the interest of the monopolists is the
proper mission of legislative effort.

There is not a condition, there is not a worthy interest
involved in the proposition that does not cry out against
the present system and in favor of the fullest reciprocal
trade.

Careful investigation will disclose that the growth of
our industries and their values is in large measure the re-
sult of the patent system which has founded and multiplied
industries almost beyond computation. It is well to be
sure as to the actual sources of our prosperity. I have not
time to discuss this factor of the problem more at length,
but must proceed to the main question, the nature of which
I have endeavored to explain.

The adoption of the system proposed would involve an
assimilation of tariff rates and internal revenue taxes, rnd

Canada and the United IStates. 5

possibly an arrangement for pooling receipts from customs
and a division on some equitable basis-all of which as
has been fully demonstrated, present no serious difficulty or
embarrassing problem.

The details of the arrangement T do not propose now
to discuss. It is enough to say that the policy being de-
cided upon, the execution is easy.

The time and condition of the two countries force
this question upon public attention.

It is said that unsettled public questions have no pity for
the repose of nations. The truth of that saying is fitly
Illustrated by the presence with us for a century of an un
settled question between the United States and Canada
touching the fisheries. It stands, and has stood since the
treaty of Pans, a constant and threatening menace to the
peace and repose of both nations. It has been a barrier in
the highway of our trade and commerce. It relates to a
single industry, and the effort has been made repeatedly to
settle It without reference to other interests with which it is
in the nature of things inseparably intertwined As sug
gested, the question is not new, nor does it now for the first
time force itself forward and challenge the thoughtful con-
sideration of both nations. It relates to the rights and ob-
ligations of the fishermen of the two countiies to catch fish
in certain localities and to sell them in ,:ertain markets
Relating solely to the privileges of a few thousand fisher'
men engaged in a single avocation, it draws into the vortex
of the controversy all other interests pertaining to trade and
commerce between the two nations. Canada and the
United States are contiguous parts of the same territory
1 hey both formed a part of the Dominion of Great Britain
Ihe colonists of the now United States bore their share of
the burdens and endured equal hardships and fought to es
tabhsh the sovereignty of the British fiag in what now con-
stitutes the Dominion of Canada. The history of the Do

Commercial Union hetween

minion is much the same as that of the United States, so
far as her political relation to the mother country is con-
cerned. She has run, and is running the same course ; the
only difference being that England — wisely and justly, under
the influence of a ri[)er and more enlightened civilization,
under the inspiration of a broader statesmanship, in which
the sword plays a less conspicuous part than formerly — ac-
cords to Canada a prompt redress for every grievance, re-
cognizing the demands of the situation and the inexorable
logic of events. The careful student of history will dis-
cover that the demands of the Canadian provinces upon
the mother country for larger powers and wider jurisdiction
in the management of affairs that appertain and relate
solely to the rights and privileges of the citizens of
the several provinces have been of a character which pass
quite beyond what would have satisfied the American
colonist originally. Canada, while entertaining and cher-
ishing both respect and affection for the mother country,
has learned in the school of experience her needs, and has
in a manner which suggested something more than firm-
ness petitioned for relief which has at first or last been ac-
corded. The restrictions thrown around and the burdens
imposed upon the trade, commerce and manufactures of the
colonies by the mother country were intolerable. No peo-
ple fit to be free, and being at all worthy of their English
ancestry, would submit. They did not submit. Whether
they and the world are gaui •=: by their course results must
attest.

It is exceedingly interesting to note how like suppliants
the colonists approached the mother country and sued for
relief against laws and administration confessedly oppress-
ive and intolerable, and then observe the manner in which
our cousins on the North stand up and demand what their
experience has taught them properly belonged to a free and
enlightened people in the matter of self-government. Eng-

Canada and the United States. 7

land long since decided that free-trade was best for her in
terest but not until she became, under a different systen,. the
workshop of the world and mistress of the seas Her re-
stnct.ons upon the trade of her American colonies had little
of the flavor of free-trade about them, so far as the colonists
themselves were concerned. Virginia was required to ship
her tobacco to England and only in English vessels. Eng-
land mterposed her authority to paralyze every manufac-
turing industry in the country. That condition of things
could not last, and we were finally compelled to set up for
ourselves, but not until we had helped to establish the sov-
ereignty of the British flag over the country north of us
In 1763 England sent to Canada the first Governor-Gen-
eral. Durmg the latter part of the eighteenth century the
legislative bodies of Canada had little power ; but during
the last fifty years the provinces have not been slow to de-
mand such enlargement of the powers of the home govern-
ment as the necessities of the people required, and England
has acceded, though not always with good grace, until the
destiny of Canada, by common consent, is practically con-
fided to Canadians. If her past is England'.s, her future is
her own. The growth of Canada in the direction of sub-
stantial independence in the matter of managing her own
affairs has in no wise disturbed the filial regard if I may
use that expression, which naturally and inevitably grows
out of the relations which Canadians sustain to the people
of England. I say the people of England, not the English
government. I make the distinction because there is a
broad difference between an affectionate regard for the peo-
pie of a nation and unquestioned loyalty to the govern
mental policy which that nation may see fit to adopt I
was devotedly attached to my father, loved and honored
him I might not have enthused greatly over his ideas of
the discipline he would have regarded as necessary m mv
household after 1 had a home, roof and family of my own

j»f

Covimerclal Urnmi between

Canadians, for the best of reasons, must cherish the deepest
and sincerest affection for their English ancestors. So do
we all. But that does not involve in large degree a sur-
render of that independence of character and action which
is inseparable from decent, worthy manhood, as that quality
asserts itself in the concerns of the individual or the affairs
of the State.

I am addressing Canadians whose loyalty to their coun-
try and institutions cannot be called in question. I only
refer to the history of the course of the United States and
Canada toward their mother country to show that what has
been in the past, and what in the future will be sought is
the freedom, prosperity and happiness of the citizens of
each nation ; that they have in fact been treading the same
paths to attain the same end. Canada remains loyal to
England, very naturally and very properly, because the
latter has accorded to her those rights and privileges, a de-
nial of which to her children of the republic when they
were colonists drove them into emulating the example of
their English ancestors, namely, to sue for their rights ; if
need be, fight for them.

The controversy about the fisheries is our quarrel. It
is for us to settle and to adjust it in consonance with en-
lightened principles and a decent and just regaid for the
rights, duties, obligations and interests of all the citizens of
both nations. Such a settlement has hitherto been impossi-
ble because negotiations proceeded from the stand-point of
English ideas of what economic principle should govern in
the establishment of the trade and commerce between the
people most deeply interested. A permanent and lasting
solution of the question was and must continue to remain
impossible, so long as English as contradistinguished from
Canadian interests, are a matter of first consideration. No
full and final adjustment having reference to the prosperity
and lasting pe ' of the two countries can be had except

Canada and the United States.

the negotiations proceed from the stand-y)oint of the imme-
diate interests to be affected thereby, and they are essen-
tially the interests of the provinces of Canada and of the
United States. And beyond that, the adjustment must not
proceed upon the idea or theory that the fishing interests
are to be segregrated and treated as if they stood apart and
alone, free and disassociated from other interests, industries
and avocations. Any discussion or settlement that pro-
ceeds upon any basis except that of securing the greatest
good to the greatest number, is partial and unjust, as resting
upon a false premise. The controversy about the fisheries
grew up in this way. Prior to the American Revolution
the inhabitants of the English dependencies in America en-
joyed a common fishing ground in the neighborhood of
Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and in the bays and gulfs in
that locality. The treaty of 1783, which terminated the war
of the Revolution, in a vague way defined the rights and
privileges of the people of the United States in the fisheries.
Controversies innumerable were constantly growing out of
alleged trespasses by one party or the other, and armed
cruisers were maintained on the ground to keep the peace
and protect the rights of the citizens of the nation whose
flag the cruiser floated at the mast-head.

The treaty of Ghent, which witnessed the end of the
war of 1814— signed in December, 1814— was silent on the
oubject of the fisheries. Subsequently, England was dis-
posed to treat that omission as a surrender by the United
States of substantial rights in the fishing grounds theretofore
enjoyed by the Americans. This was not allowed by the
United States and so the dispute went on, threatening from
time to time to culminate in war. In 185 1 the relations of
the two countries were strained to the last degree— I speak
of England and the United States, Canada being treated as
the cause of the quarrel rather than a-, being a party to it.
Canada was the little boy whose big brother had stepped

Com m,er dial Union letween

on him. Statesmen viewing this question from only two
proper stand-points of observation and negotiation, to wit,
the United States and Canada maintained that the contro-
versy involved something beyond the interest of the respect-
ive parties in the fisheries. The question swept the whole
range of trade and commerce between Canada and the
United States, and it was maintained by the statesmen of
that day that the only adjustment which ought to commend
itself to the several governments was one which placed our
international trade on a different footing— that free reci-
procal trade between Canada and the United States was the
true solution of the difficulty. This could only be effected
by treaty with England. Canada stood by and waited, and
took what was sent, but grumbled the while. Such favor did
the idea of reciprocity of trade find that in 1848 the House
of Representatives passed a bill which had for its object the
establishment of that relation. John Quincy Adams was a
member of that House. Robert C. Winthrop and Abraham
Lincoln were also members of that House. The attitude
of the Whig party toward reciprocity may be inferred from
the fact that they had a majority of ten in the House which
passed the bill I have mentioned. The Senate was Demo-
cratic. The bill failed to become a law only because there
was not time before adjournment for its consideration by
the Senate. Wm. H. Seward was then Senator from New
York. Daniel Webster was Secretary of State, Millard
Fillmore was President. It had come to be recognized that
the only possible settlement of the controversy in regard to
the fisheries, which could be just and lasting, and which
would tend to promote the prosperity of the two parties
whose interests were immediately and most affected, was the
removal of the hampering restriction upon commerce and
the enlargement of the trade relations between the United
States and Canada.

»i»*i

Canada and the United States.

Mr. Seward, in closing iiis speech on the subject of
the fisheries, said:

" What the colonies require is some modification of
commercial relations which may affect the revenue. That
is a subject proper to be acted upon by Congress. Let us
no longer excite ourselves and agitate the country with un-
availing debates, but let us address ourselves to the relief
of the fishermen and the improvement of our commerce.
There is only one way that Congress can act, and that is by
reciprocal legislation with the British Parliament or the
British colonies,"

And he asks the (juestion whether or not there cannot
be some measure adopted of reciprocal legislation to ad-
just these difficulties and enlarge the rights of our fisher-
men consistently with all the other interests of the United
States.

The wisdom of those who adopted that view has been
attested by time and experience. Partial reciprocity came
in 1854, and only failed in its mission because it was par-
tial, unequal, and in a measure unjust. It is believed that
Canada had the advantage in that arrangement. However,
the treaty which secured a measure of reciprocal trade only
proved the adequacy of the remedy if properly applied.

In furtherance of this same policy. President Grant, in
1874, negotiated a treaty establishing in part substantially
what IS now proposed. The propositions embraced in that
treaty, which was negotiated by President (Jrant and Secre-
tary Fish on the one side, and Sir Edward Thornton and
the Hon. George Brown, commissioners for the provinces
and Great Britain, on the other, embraced the following
propositions, which I quote from a report semi-officially
submitted by Mr. Brown to the Canadian Senate :

" The draft treaty embraces ten propoi,itions • i The
concession to the United States of our fisheries for twenty-
one years, and the abandoni^ent of the Washington treaty

'■i

I'.^y'^-M^M'^.'i'

Commercial Union betiveen

arbitration. 2. The admission, duty free, into both coun-
tries, of certain natural products therein named. 3. The
admission, duty free, of certain manufactured articles there-
in named. 4. The enlargement of our Welland and St.
Lawrence canals. 5. The construction of the Caughnavvaga
and Whitehall canals. 6. The throwing open to each other,
reciprocally by both countries, the coasting-trade of the
great inland lakes, and of the St. Lawrence river. 7. The
concession to each other on equal terms of the use of the
Canadian, New York and Michigan canals. 8. The recip-
rocal admission of vessels built in either country to all the
advantages of registry in the other. 9. The formation of a
joint commission to secure the efficient lighting of the great
inland waters common to both countries. 10. The forma-
tion of a joint commission to promote the protection and
propagation of fish on the great inland waters common to
both countries." [The proposed Caughnawaga canal was
intended to connect the St. Lawrence river at Montreal
with the northern end of Lake Champlain. The Whitehall
canal was intended to connect the Hudson river at Troy
with Lake Champlain at Whitehall.]

It will be observed by reference to the list of articles
covered by this treaty that it is free from one of the objec-
tions suggested with reference to the reciprocity treaty of
1854, in that it admits into the Canadian markets the pro-
ducts of our factories and shops, which the treaty of 1854
did not. The list covered by the treaty is as follows: Ag-
ricultural implements, of all kinds; axles, of all kinds; boots
and shoes, of leather; boot and shoemaking machines;
buffalo robes, dressed and trimmed; cotton grain bags; cot-
ton denims; cotton jeans, unbleached; cotton drillings, un-
bleached; cotton plaids; cotton ticking; cottonacks, un-
bleached; cabinet ware or furniture, or parts thereof; car-
riages, carts, wagons, and other wheeled vehicles or sleighs,
or parts thereof; fire-engines, or parts thereof; felt cover-

Ca/nada and the United States.

ing for boilers; gutta-percha belting and tubing; iron — bar,
hoop, pig, puddled, rod, sheet or scrap; iron nails, spikes,
bolts, tacks, braids, or springs, iron-castings; India-rubber
belting and tubing; locomotives for railways, or parts there-
of; lead, sheet or pig; leather, sole or upper; leather, har-
ness or saddlery; mill or factory or steamboat fixed engines
and machines, or parts thereof; manufactures of marble,
stone, slate, or granite; manufactures of wood solely, or of
wood nailed, bound, hinged, or locked with metal materi-
als; mangles, washing machines, wringing machines, drying
machines, or parts thereof; printing paper for newspapers;
paper-making machines, or parts thereof; printing type,
presses and folders, paper cutters, ruling machines, page-
numbering machines, and stereotyping and electrotyping
apparatus, or parts thereof; refrigerators, or parts thereof;
railroad cars, carriages and trucks, or parts thereof; satin-
ets of wool and cotton; steam-engines, or parts thereof;
steel, wrought or cast, and steel-plates and rails; tin tubes
and piping; tweeds, of wool solely; water-wheel machines
and apparatus, or parts thereof.

It will be observed that the treaty embraced articles of
common daily use among the people and such as affect the
prosecution of leading industries. They also relate spec-
ially to the protection of branches of industry engaged in by
the citizens of both countries, and to articles in which con-
siderable traffic between the two may be reasonably ex-
pected.

Commenting upon the v/isdom of this treaty, one of the
leading statesmen of Canada, the Hon. George Brown, who,
as stated, was one of the commissioners on the part of
Great Britain, made use of the following language, which I
will adopt, as it presents the case with clearness and can-
dor, and, as I think, impartially, and suggests the advan-
tages which are to inure in case of a reciprocal arrange-
ment, which not only includes all that was covered by the

Commercial Union hetween

treaty of 1854, and proposed in the negotiations of 1874,
but removes every commercial barrier that now exists along
the line which separates the two nations.

Speaking of the ten propositions, Mr. Brown said :
"The first, second and seventh of them go naturally to-
gether, and they need no comment. They embrace simply
the conditions of the old treaty of 1854, which operated so
favorably for uS; and so much more favorably for the
United States. I v/ill leave it for the present and return to
it again. The fourth proposition — for the enlargement of
our existing canals — is one eminently for the advantage of
the United States, and involves a very large expenditure
on our part. It is impossible to estimate the enormous an-
nual gains that must result to the farmers of the Western
States, when vessels of 1,000 and 1,200 tons shall be able
to load in the upper lake ports and sail direct to Liverpool
— free from transhipment expenses, brokers' commissions,
way-harbor dues, and ocean port-charges, and return direct
to the prairies with hardy emigrants and cargoes of
European merchandise. Canada, no doubt, would have her
share of benefit from all this — but it could not be com-
pared for a moment with that of the great Northwestern
and some of the Middle States. The fifth proposition for
the construction of the Caughnawaga canal would be also
an immense boon to the United States. It would open up
to the dense manufacturing population of New England
for the first time, a direct water communication of their
own with the great West ; it would enable them to load
ships of 1,000 tons at their Lake Champlain ports with
merchandise for the prairie States, and bring them back
freighted with farm produce; and when the Whitehall canal
should be enlarged to Troy, and the improvements of the
upper Hudson completed to deep water, where in the wide
world could be found so grand a system of internal water
navigations that, stretching as it then would, in one con-

Canada and the United States.

tinuous ship channel from New Vork on the Atlantic to
the west end of Lake Superior, possibly ere long to the
eastern base of the Rocky Mountains.

"Canada, too, would have her share of profit in all this.
Her great lumber interests on the Ottawa and its branches
would find full advantage from it, and the enterprising
far'-<ers of the midland and Eastern counties of Ontario
w Id have the New England market, with it: three and a
half millions of manufacturing population, open to their
traflfic. The sixth proposition is the concession to each
other of the inland coasting-trade, and nothing could be
done more sensible or more profitable to both parties. Our
season of navigation on the lakes is short — the pressure for
vessels in particular trades at special times is very great on
both sides of the lakes, and freights advance to unreason-
able rates. Cheap transportation is a foremost question in
this Western industrial world, and what can be conceived
more absurd than to see, as is often seen, large quantities
of produce lying unshipped for want of vessels, because
foreign bottoms cannot take freight from one port to an-
other in the same country ? What the United States could
fear from the competition of our limited marine with the
5,576 vessels of all kinds and an aggregate tonnage of
788,000 tons, it is difficult to imagine. The eighth proposi-
tion — for the reciprocal admission of vessels built in either
country to registry in the other— is generally regarded as
highly advantageous to this country, and no doubt such is
the fact. But I confess I cannot see why it ought not to be
regarded as infinitely more advantageous to the United
States. During the civil war the merchant vessels of the
Republic were sold in large numbers to foreign owners, and
acquired foreign registers, and notwithstanding that ship-
building had almost disappeared from the United States in
consequence of an extreme protectionist policy, the law
absolutely forbade their being brought back or vessels of

]:'.-mfw^'y.<k~'*iW''!wm^''

Cemmereial Union between

foreign build being purchased in their room. The conse-
quence is that, at this moment, nearly the entire passenger
traffic of the Atlantic is in the hands of foreigners— a vast
portion of the freight of merchandise from and to foreign
countries is also in the hands of foreigners-— and only two
months ago we had the startling statement made officially
by Mr. Bristow, the very able Secretary of the United States
Treasury, that no less a sum than $100,000,000 is paid
annually by the people of the United States to foreign ship-
owners for freights and fares. Now, a large portion of
these ships, which the people of the United States require so
urgently, can be as well built in St. John and Halifax and
Quebec, and at less cost than in any other country. Why,
then, deprive the American citizens of the privilege of buy-
ing them from us and sailing them as their own ? We
are told that American shipbuilding is reviving ; but were
it to revive with all the rapidity the most sanguine could
desire, it could not keep pace with the wear and tear of the
present reduced marine and the annually increasing de-
mands, much less begin to supply the vacuum created since
the war. The ninth and tenth proposals are for the appoint-
ment of joint commissions for the care of the lighthouses
and the fisheries of the inland waters common to both coun-
tries ; but as to these there is no difference of opinion, and
no doubt of the great mutual advantage that might flow
from the proposed concerted action in regard to them."

This treaty did not fail by reason of its not finding
favor with the Senate. It was not transmitted to that body
till the 17th of June, 1874, and so near adjournment that
there was not time for its consideration. The propositions
as stated show how broad and sweeping the contemplated
arrangement was to have been. Had that treaty been com-
pleted it would have been the most brilliant achievement of
President Grant's administration, and before this the last
barrier that intercepts the natural and healthful flow of

Canada and the United States.

trade between Canada and the United States would have
been removed. The advantages of siicli a reciprocal rela-
tion would have become so manifest that not a vestige of
our svstem of custom-houses and tolls levied upon com-
merce would remain as witnesses of a system which had
nothmg to commend it, and had its origin in the strained
relations which obtained between England and the United
States.

As a step in the right direction, during the last days of
the Forty-ninth Congress, I introduced a bill which pro-
vided for securing full, complete and unrestricted trade and
commerce between the sixty millions of people of the Uni-
ted States and the five millions of Canadians, who are not
only our kinsmen, but are our nearest neighbors—in fact,
to all intents and purposes, of our very household. The
bill was somewhat crude, but presents clearly the highway
to the object to be attained.

It is suggested that there is some doubt as to how this
proposition would be received by the American people—
I speak of the citizens of the United States. First, it is not
a party question. It has been received with general favor
by the leading journals in all parts of the land. It is one
that rises above the dead level of mere partisan expedi-
ency, and appeals to a higher motive and nobler ambition.
It IS a question of public policy as affecting all the people
of both sections, and will so be viewed by our people. It
involves, of course, a revision of the tariff, and this may
suggest a party aspect, and the proposition may encounter
opposition from those who are reaping large benefits from
having the industries in which they are engaged specially
and extravagantly protected, and on the idea that a com-
mercial union might militate against their prosperity. But,
fortunately, it involves the abandonment of neither free-
trade nor protection theories. But whether it be made a
party question or not, the party lines cannot be drawn

;>*^f?Msr

Commercial Unimi hetween

closely when the question is presented for action. There
are times in the United States even when party feeling runs
high — when the whippers-in detailed for the service are in-
capable of either muzzling their partisans or absolutely con-
trol their votes. 1 have every reason to believe that the
policy adopted by our government in the matter of estab-
lishing reciprocity with Canada will appeal to the independ-
ence of our law-makers, and that caucuses, which have es-
pecial reference to mere party advantage, will not be allowed
to control the action of Congress adversely.

In discussing this question we will of course bear in
mind the physical conditions with which we have to treat.
The territory of Canada is interlocked with our own. The
rivers and lakes cross the boundary lines and are our com-
mon highways of traffic and trade. Their public highways
are ours. The relation therefore of our territory to theirs,
the location of our rivers, the facilities for conducting ex-
changes, all suggest and protest in favor of unhampered
reciprocal trade. The resources of Canada, in that which
constitutes material wealth, her supply of materials needed
in the various avocations which employ our people, are
boundless. On the other hand, we have infinite variety and
exhaustless supply of things largely indispensable to the
comfort and enjoyment of our Canadian neighbors. All
these suggest the advantages to be derived from free com-
mercial intercourse. We are not dealing with a people
across the ocean, but our neighbors and kinsmen.

It is not my purpose to read statistics. They are dry,
and unless studied with care are apt to mislead. While fig-
ures do not lie they^ may ,be made to prevaricate most
abominably. It is chiefly with the philosophy of the situa-
tion I purpose to deal to-night.

Now, proceeding from the stand-point which views the
prospect and measures it wholly by dollars and cents, I
propose to canvass the situation. And first, in that behalf,

Canada and tlie United Statex.

V.»

{

who are the T)ar«:ies to the controversy ? with whose inter-
ests are we dealing ? Leaving out the question of an
argument in regard to the revenue for the support of the
government I insist that unless it be the mission of both
governments to sacrifice 'he interests of the many for the
aggrandizement of the tew, the present system which com-
pels our Canadian neighbors to pay fifty millions of dollars
a year for the privilege of supplying to the citizens of the
United States articles indispensable to their comfort and
prosperity, and which compels the citizens of the United
States to pay a like sum into the public treasury of Canada
for the privilege of doing like service for Canadians living
across an imaginary line, is absolutely defenseless and wholly
without excuse. It is not enough to show, if it is a fact,
that certain lines of industry prosper under such a system.
It m st appear that on the whole it promotes the general
good. In other words, the prosperity resulting from any
governmental system must be of that character in which
all our citizens can share. If defensible at all, it is solely
from a basis of needed revenue.

To illustrate the character of the trade between the
United Stales and Canada, I have procured a statement of
the impCits from Canada and the exports to the Dominion
from the year 1850, to and including the year 1878, cover-
ing the period of partial reciprocity as established in 1854,
and which terminated in 1866. During that period Canada,
of her products, sold to the United States, in round num-
bers, $700,000,000 worth, the larger per cent, of which con-
sisted of lumber or timber. During the same period we ex-
ported to Canada $848,000,000 worth of our stock in trade.
I should be glad to learn how either Canadian or Yankee
prospered by reason of the immense tax levied upon the
goods so exported or imported. I should be glad to learn
just how any blessing that attached to paying one-third of
the value of the goods so exchanged inured to the benefit

dnninercial Union between

of any considerable number of our people. The men who
used these goods, both in this country and Canada, paid a
price largely in excess of their value, and only because they
were produced across an imaginary line drawn from East
to West, and which marks the Northern frontier of the Uni-
ted States and the Southern frontier of Canada. Certainly
the philosophy of the doctrine of protection has no applica-
tion here.

I am a protectionist. To that system we are in large
measure indebted for our marvelous development in the in-
dustrial arts. One article in my political confession of
faith declares in favor of protecting infant industries, in
order that they may become strong enough to stand alone
and be independent in the great field of competition; but
that article refers, mark you, to infant industries, and not
to such as are full-grown and wear overcoats and No. lo
boots, and are capable of maintaining themselves against
all competitors, certainly upon this side of the water. To
protect industries without reference to the conditions which
invoke protection would be to create monopolies, the over-
weening influence of which would be, nay is, more danger-
ous to liberty than the crown of a queen.

Our countrymen would merit contempt if they sought
protection against competition with Canada, ^nd with all
due respect for the worthy gentlemen who met at Toronto
to speak for the manufacturers of Canada, I have as little
sympathy with the Canadian who insists that his country-
men lack the ability, or enterprise, or resources, to enable
them to hold their own against competition in the United
States in any field of industrial effort. In my judgment,
protection to the industries of the United States against
Canada means no more and no less than taking the money
out of the pocket of one citizen and putting it into the
pocket of another, the latter belonging to the protected and
favored class. As stated in my opening remarks, protection,

Canada and the United States.

as T understand it, relates to and deals with unequal con-
ditions, and has no other just mission than to equalize
them. It certainly is not intended to make hard the lot of
the many that we may rejoice in the prosperity of the few.
To protect one class of citizens against competition with
another class, in any field of effort where the conditions are
the same, is wholly defenseless. In my judgment, nothing
is easier than to defend the system of protection in the Uni-
ted States as against competition with the old world. It
certainly would be difficult to successfully defend a similar
system as between the Eastern and Western sections or the
Northern and Southern sections of the United States; and
equally defenseless to protect against competition with
Canada and for a like reason.

I refer to this matter at this time because my position
on the question of a commercial union is in perfect har-
mony with my convictions upon the subject of protection,
being a protectionist of a somewhat ultra school. I insist,
and it is too clear to need argument, that there is as little
reason, as an abstract proposition, in restricting or in
any wise hampering the trade between the citizens of the
United States and the citizens of Canada as there woulc' be
in imposing the same conditions and burthens upon the
trade between the inhabitants of Ohio and those of Illinois
and Iowa, and for like and obvious reasons. I have already
suggested that a tariff, if levied for protection, relates
solely to unequal conditions which it seeks to equalize.
But if it be true that prosperity comes simply through a
protective tariff, without reference to conditions, and we be-
come rich and prosperous by levying duties upon all we
buy if produced elsewhere, and are by the same token
fenced out of every market to which we should sell, ')y a
like system of duties, it is impossible to see why each S, ite
in this Union may not speedily become rich and prosper-
ous by simply erecting a tariff fence as between itself and

Commeroial Union hetween

the other States of the Union. It is true the Constitution
forbids this, but I am discussing the abstract proposition.
It is perfectly clear that if it is justifiable in the case of
Canada, as a measure which insures ])rosi)erity to the i)eo-
ple adopting it, it is etpiaily clear that each State might be-
come prosperous by adopting the same system as against
the other States, and, since ])rosi)erity is one of the high-
roads to hapi)iness, we have found out how each State and
all the citizens thereof may become prosperous and hapj)y
by taxing themselves and recognizing the right of their
neighbors to tax them also, and thus, what according to my
understanding, has been esteemed a burden, becomes at
once a help and support. Thus Quebec and Ontario and
the other provinces can speedily become prosperous. It is
what Mr. Wiman described as a process of taxing oneself
rich.

Unless it can be shown that there is something in *he
situation and condition of Canada which makes the case ex-
ceptional, and takes it out of the comparison I have instituted,
the system we have pursued as against our neighbors and
they against us, is as defenseless as it would be for Pennsyl-
vania to seek the prosperity of all her people by a tariff
system as against Illinois — Illinois being more largely an
agricultural State than Pennsylvania ; or, to put the case
more strongly, as defenseless as it would, be for Illinois to
establish a tariff for the benefit of all her citizens as against
Connecticut and Massachusetts, the latter being manu-
facturing States while the former is a great agricultural
State. Every careful student will observe that the law of
compensation operates constantly, that trade and commerce
seek natural channels, that manufactures will ultimately,
other things being equal, locate nearest the base of supplies,
since it involves an absurdity to ship material a thousand
miles to be manufactured and then reship the finished pro-
duct over the same line to find a market.

■>«<Mte^'^__

; *%^j.:' t>;^jy^>-* •>?^fV*^^n'-«*«s|*|.

Canada and the United Statm.

will thus be seen that the markets of the country are
..car the source of suinjlies for all practical purposes. Now,
what are the objections presented so far as the citizens of
the United States are concerned ? I hear of none except as
they relate purely and solely to some other interest. It is
proper to call attention to the fact that one of the leading
statesmen of the day, one who has ♦"died possibly a larger
place in the public view than almost any other man of our
day — I allude to James G. Blaine— has advocated, and most
ably, a commercial union between the United States and
the South American States. His proposition has met with
general favor, nor has it been treated as a party question.
If great advantages are to be derived from such a union,
how much greater and more important are the advantages
to be gained from an intimate trade relation with those im-
mediately upon our border, to whom we are allied by ties
stronger than those which relate merely to commerce, and
with whom our trade, although they number but five mil-
lions, is more than the trade with the forty millions lying
south of us and with whom the commercial union is pro-
posed. I submit a statement which indicates how much
more valuable to the United States as a market Canada is
than all the realms lying south of the Rio Grande, inclu^l-
ing Mexico and the South American States.

During the year 1885 the United States sold to all the
Central and South American States but $27,000,000 in
round numbers, and to all countries south of the Rio
Grande, in the aggregate $64,000,000. To the 45,000,000
of people in the South we sold $64,000,000, while to the
5,000,000 of Canadians we sold over $50,000,000.

If our hampered and restricted trade with 5,000,000
Canadians is over $50,000,000, what will be the magnitude
of our commerce in that direction when the blockade is re-
moved, and when our neighbors shall number 25,000,000 of
people ?

Commercial Union hetween

Do American manufacturers fear co'i^petition ? Cer
tainly not. Do they and our merch::- ; desire the Cana-
dian market with the great possibilities that open up before
them in that direction ? Certainly they do. Does the
American farmer fear competition with the Canadian farm-
er ? It is simply impossible. There could be no conflict
of interest. On the contrary, experience abundantly attests
that with every avenue of trade and commerce between the
sources of supply in the United States and the markets of
Canada, and between every source of supply in Canada and
markets of the United States opened up, and uninterrupted,
a new impetus would be given to every branch of trade and
industry, and a new era of prosperity for both nations
would dawn upon us. In this connection it may be well to
note that we are accustomed to explain to the agriculturists,
and those interested with them in tilling the soil, that their
prosperity has been secured by the protective system in
that it furnished markets for their grain and other produce;
and that is in large measure true; but if we pick up the
statistics which disclose the range of prices of farm products
during the last sixty years, we will find that whatever may
have happened to other branchc of industry, the prices
which farmers have received for their products have not
substantially advanced, and to show that I am not mistaken
in this behalf I read a list of the prices obtained at various
times during that period of sixty years.

I quote New York prices taken from Trade Reports:
Take an article of flour. In 1825 the price of flour in New
York ranged from $3.50 to $4.25 a barrel. At the close of
the next five years, that is in 1830, from $4.75 to %6 a bar-
rel. In 1835, from $5.37 to $7.87; and in 1840, from $4.62
to $6.50; and in 1845, from $4.31 to $7; in 1850, from
$4.93 to $6.25; in i860, from $4.25 to $5.25; m 1870, from
$4.50 to $6.05; in 1880, from $3.75 to $5.75; and in 1885,
from $2.90 to $3.70; and in 1886, from $2.65 to $3.50.

Canada and the United States.

Turning to mackerel, which seems to be in point, the
price in 1825 was from $5 to $5.75 per barrel. In 1835, it
was from $6 to $8.25; in 1845, from $11.50 to $14; in 1855,
from $18 to $22; in 1865, from $15 to $25; in 1875, from
$7 to $24; and in 1885, from $14 *o $24; and in 1886, from

$15 to ^2().

So it is difficult to see how, compared to the farming
industry, the fishing industry has suffered. The range of
prices has been decidedly in favor of the fisherman. Take
the subject of beef, mess beef, by the barrel. The range
of prices has been about the same. In 1825, from $8 to
$10; in 1835, from $8 to $13.50. In 1845 it was lower—
from $5.50 to $9.75; in 1855, from p>.2K to $14; in 1865,
which was during the war, it ranged from $9 to $14; in
1875, from $8 to $10; in 1885, from $10 to |r6; and in
1886, from $5 to $12. The range in the price of hams has
been about the same.

*Jorn has ranged about the same for the last sixty
years. All these figures relate to the market in New York.
The great commercial channels opened up — I mean the
railroads and canals — have tended to equalize prices, so
that it is no longer necessary to burn corn in the great
West.

The range of prices in wheat has not been more favora-
ble to the farmer. The price ranging from 75 cents to
$1.06 in 1825 ; from 83 to 953^ cents in 1886.

Mess pork ranged from $12 to $14.75 i" 1825 ; to
from $9 to $14.50 in 1885, and $10 to $12.50 in 1886.

In the meantime, farmers and producers generally of
the thip^s upon which we live have had to pay largely in-
creasea prices for wages. Of course, it must be remem-
bered that the facilities for farming have greatly increased,
so that one man can do the work of two or three. There-
fore, relatively, wages have not beeri greatly increased.

It must not be forgotten that there are affecting the

CommerGi.U Union between

farmer certain conditions which no system of production
can control — the rain and the sunshine. His crops depend
upon the earlier and the latter rains, nor can any system
of law increase the yield of his ground in the presence of a
drouth or a superabundance of rain ; but the products of
the factory can be controlled, the output limited and the
prices fixed. His competitors for the European market
a/e not in Canada, but in India and Russia. Canada only
produced the past year about seven per cent, of the wheat
giown in this country. There are special interests which,
of course, Avill be affected. That the fishing interest will
be seriously crippled, I do not believe, nor can I agree that
that nursery of seamen and school which supplies the army
or the militia of the sea will suffer by reason of fair com-
petition between the Canadians and the men of New Eng-
land who go down to the sea to catch fish. If with similar
conditions and fair competition we cannot hold our own
on sea and land the trouble must be found in conditions
and fair competition; if we cannot hold our own on sea and
land the trouble must be found in conditions which are not
to be righted by the levying of a tax which ? ■> nases the
price of every codfish ball and every mackerci which is
placed upon the table for food. So far as the timber inter-
est is concerned it has no proper place in our system of
protection, the object of which is to build up industries,
but unfortunately for the timber industry in this country
the more it is protected, the more it is cherished, the more
speedily it dies, and we are and have been taxing ourselves
upon every shingle we use and every beam that we require
to construct a dwelling, not to make strong an industry
that will flourish and grow and furnish a more ample yield,
but simply to pay a bonus to certain individuals who have
prospered beyond measure, and without any corresponding
benefit to the great mass of the people of this country upon
whom the tribute was levied.

Ca/iiada and the United States.

The Canadian forests are limitless. Their timber is
rotting and going to waste, while the citizens of the United
States are paying enormous prices for a supply to construct
houses and make shingles to cover their heads, and thou-
sands of merchants are idle for want of the material— lum-
ber— to enable them to prosecute their calling. Idle men
on both sides of the line are the direct and necessary result
of our absurd system. It is not only absurd, but an out-
rage upon our people, when one or two industries are per-
mitted, nay authorized, for their own benefit, to tax every
other vocation, trade and calling in this count cy, and thus
impose needless burthens. The time has come when both
burdens and blessings should be more equitably distrib-
uted, and what is proposed here is a step in the right direc-
tion.

Now, with your indulgence, I will consider for a mo-
ment the objections raised by our friends across the line
to the consummation of full and complete reciprocity.
They are, first, that such a system would be destructive to
the manufacturing interests of Canada ; second, that it
would be treason against the mother country ; that it is, in
fact, the essence of disloyalty, and that it means in its last
analysis annexation to and absorption by the United States.
Lastly, it is urged that the mercantile interests of Canada
would suffer, and that drummers from New York and Bos
ton would absolutely destroy the trade of Montreal, Quebec,
Toronto, Hamilton and t'le leading cities of the Dominion ;
that the ..'enues of Canada would be lost.

I notice, Mr. Chairman, that a leading journal of
Toronto suggests that you and I were born twenty-five
years too late for all purposes of reciprocity and commer-
cial nuion between Canada and the United States, and in
the same article it is suggested that a quarter of a century
ago this matter might have been favorably considered, but
now it cannot be. And attention is called in that connec-

Oommercial Union hetween

tion to the fact that there must be borne in mind " the ex-
penditure of the past twenty years in railroad construction,
in acquiring territory, and in various ways having in view
inter-provincial trade and the development of Canadian
national sentiment through closer inter-provincial commer-
cial relations, the purpose being to do away with unnatural
barriers, and allow each province to cultivate tne trade ad-
jacent to it. The argument submitted by the learned editor
defeats itself. The only purpose of iruproving the railroad
system of either country, and improving the water-ways, is
to enable the producers to reach the markets of the world.
If they serve any other proper purpose it is difficult to un-
derstand what it is. It is also suggested as a part of the
criticism of the policy of reciprocity that the system and
efforts before referred to, of improved agencies for commer-
cial intercourse, were made to do away with the unnatural
barriers between the provinces, and to cultivate the trade
adjacent to them. This is j^ertinent and suggests that all
barriers that block the natural highways of trade and com-
merce should be removed. It suggests also that it is natural
and proper to cultivate the trade which is at hand rather
than seek a market in the distance when a better one is
near our own doors. That is precisely the thing for which
patriots on both sides of the line, in Canada and America,
are struggling, and with a view to securing advantages to all
who have a right to share in the prosperity which grows out
of unselfish patriotism and attaches to proper individual
effort.

The point made in the same article, that drummers
from New York and Boston would destroy the mercantile
business of Canada, is hardly worth considering. The argu-
ment has been m.et and answered a hundred times, and the
experience of everyday life absolutely shows how fallacious
it is. If the objections mentioned were well taken, it must
follow that there would not be a healthful mercantile busi-

Canada and the United States.

ness carried on in any of the cities of the great West. Cer-
tainly New York and Boston would have no advantages
over Canadian cities that they do not have over the towns and
cities of the great West. To suggest that the rival compe-
tition of New York and Boston would destroy the mercan-
tile interests of Canada would be to assert that the mer-
chants of Canada and Canadian enterprise belong to a for-
mer century, and to a people who do not possess the aggres-
sive energy and merit to compete with all comers in an
even field of business venture.

It will be remembered, in this same connection, that
there was at one time, among men representing large East-
ern interests, much opposition to the enlargement of the
facilities for transportation along the line of our Northern
frontier, whether by our Canadian friends or our own peo-
ple; it being urged that it would open up a line of travel, a
commercial highway if you please, which would cripple the
middle and Southern lines of trade and commerce. Time
has demonstrated how thoroughly untenable the position
was. Men only have rightly to considf r the elements that
enter into a solution of these various problems to observe
that the law of compensation operates everywhere.

It is urged by certain honorable gentlemen in Canada,
and by some in this country, as an objection to the meas-
ure, that the move in the direction of commercial union
seeks ultimately, and has, in fact, for its prime object, the
annexation of Canada to the United States. Do gentlemen
believe that annexation would follow commercial union ?
If so, upon what do they base their conclusion ? Does
Canadian prosperity involve annexation to the United
States ? Does Conadian rosperity involve disloyalty to the
British crown ? If so, why ? Is there anything in the re-
lation of Canada to the mother country which suggests that
prosperity can only come to Canadians by severing their
connection with the English government ? It would seem

QUEEN'S UNIVERSn^ UBRAKY

. ■*-«,^!i^;*>y..-^"--v^^,r!J3|p|,a,p.

Commercial Unimi between

that gentlemen who insist that prosperity means annexa-
tion must conclude that annexation is indispensable to
Canadian prosperity and happiness. I do not agree with
them. Canadians are satisfied with their form of govern-
ment. There is no desire on this side to change it, nor yet
to have them adopt any phase of our own. We can work
out our destinies side by side. That we must and will have
one common destiny in many respects I have no doubt.
We are one people to all intents and purposes, so far as
Christian civilization and the end it seeks is concerned; and,
so far as the things to be attained by the growth and exten-
sion, as that civilization require a common purpose and a
common effort, we will, whatever the respective form of
government under which we live, be one people. Com-
mercial union is in no wise inseparable from annexation.
One does not suggest the other, unless the fact that such a
union banishes a^.l possibility of attrition between the two
countries, and puts the seal to a bond of perpetual peace
between them, is evidence of a desire for annexation.

I may stop here to call the attention of the honorable
members of this Club to a few facts bearing upon the his-
tory of Canada and her relations to Great Britain. I have
already alluded to it. Gentlemen are, of course, aware
that the tie which binds us to Canada has little relation to
commerce — the tie that binds ourselves and Canada to
Great Britain — I speak not now of political relations, but
those that grow out of kinship, similar language and simi-
lar religion — have little relationship to commercial inter-
course. If Canada finds no closer tie between her people
and those from whom they are descended than that which
is born of trade and commerce, it is a matter of little con-
sequence how soon those ties are severed. The history of
Canada and of the United States, so far as England is con-
cerned, is the same. The record of the history of Canada
during the last half century discloses the fact that her com-

r''"«p»R^

Canada and the United /States.

plaints against the mother country have been similar in
character to those which compelled the colonies to petition
for redress of grievances. Canada complained of the navi-
gation laws so far as they appertained to her. They were
modified or absolutely changed. She insisted that it was
her right to regulate her internal policy by representatives
chosen by the people who were to be affected by the laws.
IMiat too was conceded. She demanded also that she
should collect and disburse her own revenue, according to
her own idea of correct internal policy. That too was con-
ceded. She asked in effect that she should be sovereign,
within her borders, touching all matters pertaining to her
civil administration. That too was conceded, and these
just concessions have above all else to-day — barring the
mere matter of kinship and the ties of common ancestry,
of a common religion if you please, and those which grow
out of similar institutions, and as 1 believe a common des-
tiny — preserved among Canadians the spirit of perfect loy-
alty toward Great Britain.

The fenr thnt Canada will be absor')ed by the United
States, or that she will lose her independence and dignity
as a sovereign nation, strikes me as absurd. Whether she
shall stand among the nations of the earth, great, rich and
independent, will turn upon the character of her people
and the manner in which she utilizes her vast resources.
Her mineral resources invite the most healthful character
of immigration. Her vast forests are only waiting for
hardy pioneers and adventurous spirits to prosecute the
various avocations which depend upon a supply of timber.
It is so with reference to her various resources.

I observe also that it is suggested by some writers for
the Canadian press that such an arrangement as is contem-
plated would be in the nature of an alliance offensive and
defensive with the United States as against Great Britain,
This is so far from the fact that it must be regarded as in

Commercial Unimi between

the nature of an appeal to unenlightened patriotic sentiment
rather than to the intelligent judgment of our Canadian
friends.

It is not for the mere advantage which is to be counted
in dollars and cents that, as an American citizen, I urge full
reciprocity with Canada. It is to secure, not a bond of
political union, but nevertheless a bond of union which v.ill
keep the English-speaking race now and for all time one
people in fulfilling the mission of the highest and best form
of civilization the world has known.

The resolution adopted by the gentlemen who met in
Toronto, asserts " That unrestricted reciprocity in manufac-
tured goods would be a serious blow at the commercial in-
tegrity of the Dominion and would result disastrously to
their manufacturing and farming industries and other
financial and commercial interests. The farmers, at least,
had spoken for themselves, and their resolution was ^^tainly
the outgrowth of intelligent investigation and a just appre-
ciation of what was essential to create prosperous conditions.
I doubt if the honorable gentlemen in the resolutioi. repre-
sent the sentiments of any very large portion of the people
of Canada who, in the last analysis, are to bear the burthens
of what is dubbed the N. P., or national policy of protec-
tion.

Did it ever occur to our manufacturing friends in
Toronto that the resources at their command, which are
almost illimitable, must attract to their borders the active
energy which, after all, makes a country great and prosper-
ous ? That such would be the case all history abundantly
attests. Possibly, Mr. Chairman, if reciprocity had obtained
twenty-five years ago, we would not have been honored by
your presence and masterly enterprise in New York. In
fact, this Club might not have been in existence. The energy
which you have put forth here would have found such pro-
fitable employment on the other side of the line that you

■I

Canada and the United States.

would not have come among us, but your friendship for us,
nor ours for you, would have been a whit lessened by the
fact of the prosperity which waited upon each country.

Whatever may be said to the contrary, I take it from
the discussions in the English Parliament that England will
not feel greatly disturbed over a commercial union between
Canada and the United States. Able discussions in that
body as to the effect of protective tariffs indicate that it is
the opinion of English statesmen that whatever advantage
may accrue to the protected country, if any, no disadvant-
age will result to England. Such is the statement made by
Mr. Chamberlain, and his statement is supported by figures,
cited in his speech of August 12, 1881, in reply to an
address from the throne, which urged retaliatory measures
as against nations exacting high duties on goods imported
from England. I have here the speech of Mr. Chamberlain,
and have been interested in observing how thoroughly his
conclusions are sustained by the statistics he cites. I regret
that I have not time to read portions of it.

I think careful investigation will disclose that any indus-
try which should be protected in Canadr as against
European competition would require an equal protection
in the United States, and that protective system which in
its operation would be of benefit to Canada would be equally
beneficial to the United States, and vice versa. In large
part, of course, duties would be levied with refv°rence to
the revenue to be derived, the protection in large part being
merely incidental.

It is suggested by certain gentlemen, and I speak of
this because I am addressing Canadians, that the proper
thing would be an arrangement of reciprocity between
England and Canada in which the former should discrimi-
nate against the farm produce of other countries. That
would be a very remarkable proceeding— to add to the
price of the food on every laborer's table in England in

Commercial Union between

order to obtain a market for the output of British factories.
Such a scheme would not be defensible for one moment.
Nor would England be content to tax the bread and
potatoes and meat of her workmen to attain the possible
advantage of a new market in which to sell the products of
her shops.

So far as the agricultural interests of this country and
Canada are concerned it must be conceded that they are
not as able to secure a hearing as the manufacturers, the
merchants and financiers, who are more immediately con-
nected with the active business of trade and commerce.
The cities are centres of political influence, and also the
centres of trade and financial ventures, and hence the in-
terest in competition with agriculture not only have more
ready access to the public ear, but the sympathies of those
who have the most ample means to control the current of
public thought are lodged in the quarter which promises
most remuneration.

I would call the attention of the speakers at the manu-
facturers' convention at Toronto, and the editors who echo
che sentiments expressed, that the prosperity they would se-
cure to Canada as a result of defeating all reciprocity that
is not onesided, is of a character that will not be shared in
gent rally by the mass of people on either side of the line.
Th*^ time has come when the burthens and blessings inci-
dent to national development and healthful growth must be
shared equally by all as nearly as may be, and I think we
may rejoice in the fact that the farmers, artisans and pro-
ducers generally of Canada and the United States will no
longer permit those who alone profit by a protective system
which does not deal with and correct unequal conditions,
without rebuke to assume to represent and speak for all
who have a right to be heard on the question. It is impos-
sible to see how any interest of Canada or the Unied States
could suffer by reason of an active, healthful trade be-

Caiwihi and the United States.

tween the two nations. It is equally difficult to see how a
growing tide swelling every artery and vein of commerce,
reaching from every part of Canada to the markets of the
United States and from every part of the producing sec-
tions of the United States to Canada to meet the demands
of the people, could injure any business interest that is fit
to survive. The suggestion, to my mind at least, is absurd,
and I greatly doubt if it has its origin in a patriotic love of
country. There is about it a savory, if not a positive sug-
gestion of selfish interest to be served by securing profits,
escaping burdens imposed upon others as a means to secure
those profits.

I note what is said touching the destructive influence
in international free commerce upon the fisheries and some
other industries. It is asserted with great force, and seem-
ingly the assertion is sustained by statistics, thai free fish-
eries for instance mean the destruction absolutely of the
American fishing interest. In reply to that I have to say
that if on equal terms the American fisherman is unable to
compete with the fisherman of Canada it does not prove
the former inferior in any respect, or that he lacks the ca-
pacity to accomplish what, under the same circumstances
the Canadian can accomplish, but it does prove that there
IS something wrong in our policy, in some part of our gov-
ernmental machinery, that any business is so oppressed
that with even chances in the arena of competition Yankees
are driven from the field hopeless and crushed; and the
remedy must be sought otherwise than by driving such com-
petition from our midst by oppressive legislation. If we
feel we are unequal to the task of holding our own in the
field of open, free and equal competition, we had better im-
prove our stock. I am for America and American institu-
tions and interests first, last and all the time; but that ques-
tion ,s not mvolved here. It is only of doing that which
Shall build up every American interest that is worth cher-

3«

Cmiwieroial Union between

ishing, and we will not build up one at the expense of
another, since by such means our industrial growth would
be neither healthful or permanent.

If any industry of the United States carried on within
our own territory or along our coast cannot survive compe-
tition with that of our immediate neighbors divided from
us on!y by an imaginary line, the reason for such failure
upon our part must be sought in some unwise feature of
governmental policy, which hampers our citizens in their
efforts, and not in the mere matter of superior merit on the
part oi our competitors to conduct the industry or enter-
prise. Until I am satisfied of my error, for one I am un-
willing to admit that we are not equal for the emergency of
holding our own with any nation in the world that competes
with us under circumstances substantially thi; same, and I
would be ashamed of the Canadian who would not make
the like assertion concerning his countrymen.

I have already commented upon the proposition that it
is the mission of the government on this earth to provide
such artificial conditions that it shall be as profitable to
farm thin, impoverished soil in New England as it is to cul-
tivate the rich valleys of the Mohawk or the Scioto and the
Wabash. I have only to say that when the government es-
says to do that I am earnestly in favor of revolution. We
are not wanting in rich soil in this country sufficient to feed
the world, and that part of the country winch is not fit for
profitable cultivation can be abandoned, nriched by pri-
vate enterprise, or used for other purposes than farmmg.
Our transportation facilities are sufficient to feed the locali-
ties where the manufacturing industries are located. The
law of compensation applies, and if New England finds it
not profitable to farm, she still finds it prof table to engage
in manufactures of various kinds, and her people, if not the
producers of corn and wheat, are nevertheless producers of
plows, hoes, trace-chains, and thousands of other necessary

Citnnda and the United States.

articles, and the genius of her sons has made them very
rich; in fact, they are the bankers of the United States, and
Eastern ihrift has been so great that their capitalists hold
mortgages on a large part of the farms in the West. I trust,
if the time has not come, it is not far off when the govern-
ment will be engaged in some other mission than that of
multiplying the blessings of the few by an inecpiitable dis-
tribulion of public burthens.

This measure should be considered by every board of
trade, every chamber of commerce, every agricultural asso-
ciation, every society composed of manufac'.urers and pro-
ducers generally. Congress has and will have no official
judgment about it. The boards and associations I have
mentioned must do the legislating— Congress is only a
sounding board, a cave of echoes, an assemblage of un-
patented graphophones repeating what is talked into them
by the people.

They are engaged for the most part in formulating into
law the popular will, and I by no means use the term popu-
lar will as synonymous with intelligent public judgment.
As mdividuals. Congressmen have intelligent convictions,
are capable, conscientious men; but as Congressmen they do
not attempt to form or direct the public mind. They re-
spond to your will. It is their business to agree with you,
for by this they live, and they will not consciously commit
political suicide.

It follows that you will determine for yourselves and
the country whether the immense volume of our trade shall
be damned up and rolled back upon ourselves, and whether
a system which smacks of an earlier period and a ruder and
Jess advanced civilization, will continue to dwarf our enter-
prise and retard our development.