f
OUR TRADE WITH CANADA.
ARGUMENT
OF
HON. SELWYN Z. BOWMAN,
OF MASSACHUSETTS,
IX THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATI^aiS,
TuESPiY, June 1, 1880.
"The care of our national commerce redounds more to the richew
and ]>ro8perity of the pnbliu than any other act of government."
AomsoN.
WASHINGTON.
1880.
OUR TRADE WITH CANADA.
ARGUMENT
ov
HON. SELWYN Z. BOWMAN,
OF MASSACHUSETTS,
IN THB
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Tuesday, June 1, 1880.
"The care of our national commerce redounds more to the riches
and prosperity of the public than any other act of government."
,; ; . • , .■ Addison.
WASHINGTON.
1880.
-h
'-;,■!■■•.'' '-"'■
ARGUMENT
or
RON. 8ELWYN Z. BOWMAN
tOnliM "joint resolntion (H. R. No. 149) for the Appointment of comiuiHaioners to
;Mueitain ami report a basin for a reciprocity treaty between the CTnited States
laadthe British proviuoes," (report Nu. 11S7.)
Mr. BOWMAN said :
Mr. Speaker: The queHtiona nnderlying this resolution and seek-
ing an investigation and a solution, are of vast magnitude, and di-
rectly or indirectly have had, and will have, a great effect upon the
iaterests of the people and the various branches of industry of our
430untry. Our commercial or trade interests are the mainspring of
our prosperity. To protect and foster these interests, in view of onr
enormously increased and increasing productions, to preserve for onr
oommerce all the foreign markets which it has had, to open up and
extend those markets to the greatest possible extent, to make our
powers of sale atlvaucn at au equal pace with onr powers of produc-
tion, these questions merit and will receive the earnest consideratiou
-of Congress.
However members may differ <« to the expediency of the proposed
. resolutioHj I am coutident that aey will agree as to its importance
and as to its being worthy of il investigation.
To show the ioiportauce p m extent of our commercial relations
with the Dominion of Cant .a, to demonstrate the necessity of their
careful investigation with a view to their protection and further
growth, is the object of this argument ; and if I am obliged to treat
of the subject somewhat at length, I am sure that members will par-
don it, if thereby I am enabled to throw any light upon these long-
discussed questions, which in one way or another at different times
have threatened the mutual prosperity and even the peace of the two
countries.
I shall present what I have to say upon this question according to
the following
AU8TKACT OF ABOUMBNT.
1. Resolution is for information only.
2. Reciprocity does not mean free trade.
A. Present idea of reciprocity is not of free trade.
B. Old reciprocity treaty did not mean free trade.
C. This movement does not mean the old reciprocity treaty.
'. 3. Is Canada worth treating with f
Importance of Dominion as to —
A. Location ;
B. Area;
C. Population;
D. Shipping aud transportation ;
JB. General commerce ;
F. Special commerce with thn United States.
4. Did the former treaty beuetlt iis f
A. What that treaty was.
B. History of former treaty and of repeal.
C. Eil'ect of fortner treaty.
D. Elttict of its repeal.
E. Immateriality of the question here.
ft. Is the condition of affairs at the present time such as to make
an inquiry advisable ?
A. The new Ciuiadiiin tariff. . .
B. Comparison of now iiud old tariff.
C. Results of new tarifi
D. Critical importance of question at present time.
G. Is there any need of extending or enlarging our markets f
Extent of our productions.
7. Is this the best way to meet these (piestions ?
A. Mngnitude of the question.
B. Why commission is necessary.
■''■., 1. To collect facts.
2. To ascertain law.
8. Is there any general doniiind for tliisT
A. In Canada. .
'-).'. B. In the United States. ■ '':
•» C. Immateriality of thw question.
9. Iiijustice and discrimination in refusing this investigation.
Investigation for coninit^rcial interests.
10. Are there any objection's to the resolution T
A. Feeling of hostility to Cantxla.
B. Desire to force annexation. iA'
C. Feeling as to tisht^ry questions.
D. Olvjections to former reciprocity treaty not pertinent here.
E. That it is impossible to agrt-e.
11. "Fishery" question.
A. A <iue8tion of money, not of feeling.
B. Desirability of a commission to settle this question.
12. Are there any legal objections to tbe proposed resolutions 7
A. Only a resolution tor information.
B. Treaty-making or tariff powors of differeu t branches of Gov-
■> ernment. - • ■ '
* C. " Favored- nations" clauses in treaties.
I.— KE80LUTI0N FOR INFORMATION ONI.Y
I desire to call the attention of the House particularly to the words-
of the resolution now under consideration. It reads as follows :
Joint reoohi tion for the appointment of cnmmisiioners to ascertain and report a basis
for a reciprocity treaty between tbe United States and the British Provinces.
Betolved by the Senate and Houtie of liepreientativea of the United States of America
inOmigrese agnembled, That the President of the United States be, and hereby is,
requested to appoint three oomuiissioners, by and with tlie advice and conHcnt ol
the Senate, to confer with other commissioners to l)e appointed by the government
of Great Britain, whenever it shall be the wish of tliat government to appoint com-
missioners on itt- part ; snch coujmissioners on the part of this Government to as-
certain and repom on vrbat basis reciprocal trade, for the mutual benefit of the
people of the United ocates and the said provinces, can be e8tablisbe<l.
This is simply and solely a resolution of inquiry. No powers what-
ever are given to the commissioners, except to investigate the ques-
tions referred to in the resolution and to report the tacts and their
oonolusions thereon to Congress for its action. Neither directly nor
by implication can Congress be regfirded as in any way adopting a
5
policy or giviug a pledge by the adoption of tliln resolution. It can
thereby neither deolare for or aguinat reci^irocitv with the Dominion
of Canada, or in any way exprew an opinion in reganl to tariff or
free trade with Canada or with other countries. By the adoption of
this resolntiou Congress will leave itself entirely free to act iu the
future as its judgment shall dictate, und simply says to the com-
mercial world and to all others interested in the important questions
referred to by the resolution that it in no way prejadices the case,
but before deciding it or in any way expressing any opinion upon it
desires to obtain the fullest pousible inforniatlou.
For my own part, 1 desire it to be distinctly understood that I do
not pledge myself to the support of a system of reciprocity like the
former one between this coiiutry and the Hiitish provinces, or before-
hand to any system of reciprocal trade which mav be advised by the
commission. I simnly say tliut tho Hubject is of great importance,
should be thoroughly and systoriiatically investigated by a cominis-
sion of competent experts, and that upon their report, either ao to
accepting, rejecting, or modifying it, I sliould act (if I tiad any op-
portunity to act upon it at nil) ax my judgment as to what is best for
the interests of our own country stiould dictate. Selftsh considera-
tions should and must govern nations. The first duty o): a nation is
to itself. In regard to this and similar questions the only thing to
be discussed is whether the proposed action will be a benetit to the
people of this country. If the building np of a Chinese wall to cut
ofFall commercial intercourse between this country and Canada would
be of benefit to our merchants, niantifacturers, laborerx, and farmers,
and to onr people generally, I Nhiuild feel it to be my duty to flo what
I could to l)nild up such a wall, whettier composed of prohibitory
tarifl's or any other maturiiil. Self-protection is u uatimi s tirst law,
and in regard to questions of our commercial policy with other coun-
tries it is inadmissible to discuss what the effect on the other coun-
tries will be until we have thoroughly considered and disposed of the
question as to what the etteet on our'own country will be.
In regard to the great questions of tariff in their broadest aspect,
the only question which carries weight in ray mind is, as to whether
our people are to be most benefited by tariffs which shall protect onr
industries and keep the wheels of business in active motion, or by
free trade, which shall open up our markets to the competition of
the world. I would therefore treat this question of reciprocity as a
practical business question, to be considered and deciden only as it
affects our own interests. It is simply a doUar-and-cent, or what
the Germans call a bread-and-butter question. These fine-spun and
pleasant theories of the fraternity of nations can well be considered
and have a place, when we are called upon by the cry to which our
people always nobly respond, for us to stretch out the hand of charity
and of loving sympathy to the poor and distressed of other countries;
bnt when the questions recur to us, as legislators for the country, of
making laws and adopting policies of trade or other intercourse with
foreign peoples, it is necessary for us to remember the vaet interests
intrusted to our ohaige and the multitudes of citizens who look to
their law-makers for protection. Where material interests are con-
cerned, and in the fierce struggle for existence, as strong between
nations as individuals, and while the doctrine of "survival of the
fittest " prevails, the old Ishmaelitish doctrine must govern a nation,
and for the protection of its people its hand must be against every
other man's hand, and every other man's hand against it.
If a reciprocal trade with the British provinces can be in such a
(i
maiiucr ohiiililiMlied that it will bo for the l)eu('lit ol' our iieoplu uh »
whole, tht'U It IN uur iliity to favor any miuL Nuh«'iii(' ul reci|>rooal
trade ; but. if it woultl iii.jme our couutry, it «ill be our duty to op-
pose auy Huch Holit-nu'. Our C'liiiiidiuu iifi^lil-orN nii);bt uh well thor-
oughly uu(1<-rHtHn<l that weNhall apiiioiicb tbiH (|ueHtion (JuHt m they
will cousitler ii) iu a buHiueHH way, aud oidy for the (lurptme of bene-
tltiug our (duuiry. It l» not a (|ue(<iiouof IteliiiK, of tteutluieiitality,
or of brotherly love or hatre<l between the two couutrieH, but Hiiuplv
a question of material beneiitH. Let it be deniouMtratod that ftiioh
trade will be of bcuetit to tliix country, and we ceitaiiily Hhall favor
it by all proper le^iHlation ; let it be deuuniHtrated that Huch trade
will not be a benefit to tliit* country, and we certainly will destroy it
by all proi)er legislation. That Ih the only (jueHtion in this case, aud
that is the question that we desire to have investigated in the most
thorough and complete manner by this commission. I may say here
that, the question being as I have stated, it is no argument whatever
against it to re])ly, as many have done, that a reciprocal trade will
be of more advantage to Canada than to thit# country ; for while that
might be true, it might also still be true that such reciprocal trade
would still be of advantage to this country. If Ireland was starving,
and wesold her corn, it would be of more advantage to her to get the
corn and relieve her sufferings and save her ])opnlation than to na to
sell it ; but thence no argument could be drawn that it was not an
advantage to us to have that trade. The question is, whether snch
trade would benefit us iu fact, and not whether it would benefit auy
one more than us. It cannot be laid down as an axiom ol political
economy that a trade between two countries which benefits one more-
than it does the other is an injury to the country which is beuefited^
the leaet.
I do not by any means admit that cither history or reason teacb ns
that a reciprocal trade between the provinces and the United Statea>
would be of more advantage to the former than to the latter, and I
think that the converse of that proposition can be shown to be trae, or
that it can be shown that no system ol reciprocal trade cau 1m de-
vised which will not be of less advantage to us than to them, Stat
still I submit that it is no argnment against a reciprocal trade, •▼aBi
if you admit it to be true. 1 have seen a boy " get mad " and ref inm'
to take any because he could not have the biggest part of the apple ;:
it wonld be singular to see a nation refuse to take any of the trade
because it could not have the biggest part. The boy should have rec-
ognized the political axiom that because he could not have the whole
apple it was injurious to him to take any. This is the argument
which has constantly been pressed forward by those who believe that
the idea of a trade with Canada is so delusive that it is not even worth
investigating, when they say with trinoaphant iteration that a trade
with the provinces will do them more good than it can accemplieh^ for
us. The conclusive reply to this is to enter a demurrer to ihe vropoe*-
tion. One of the chief-justices of England once said that a deuuirier
meant " what of it ?"
This, then, is the question to be investigated: Can any syster* of
reciprocal trade be devised between the United States and the Do-
minion of Canada which will-be an advantage to our country f All
that the advocates of this resolution say is that they want this qiiee-
tion fully investigated, iu order that Congress and the people may
have all the facts before them to enable them to judge intelligently
in so im][iortant a matter. All that the opponents of this resolu tion
can say is that they desire that no light shall be thrown upon thi*
qneHtion ; that CoDgrew* and the p«op1o Hhiill not olttain the facts,
ont shall be kept in the dark and away from any anthentio informa-
tion ; and that, ho far as they are concerned, they will refnse to allow
any information, instrnotion,or investigation as to the merits of this
case. Upon what ground they can possibly stand in maintaining so
extraordinary (^ proposition, I am nnable to conceive. •(
I am informed that a distingnisbed member of Congress, a most
bitter opponent of all ideas of reciprocal trade with Canada, replied
when asked abont this resohition, " Why, of course we can't oppose
» resolution for information an<i inquiry only ! " And it seems to me
that all members will come to the same conclnmon who will only
carefully rea<l and cousidi-r the ett'eot of the resolution under discus-
sion.
Will gentlemen state what there is in the resolution that is objec-
tionable ; what parts of it are open to criticiHm f It may be divided
into two parts ; in the first place, that which provides for a commis-
sion to consult with a similar commission to be appointed by Qreat
Britain ; and, in the second place, that part which provides for the
object of the commission, namely, to consider whether uny reciprocal
trade between the United .States and the British provinces can be ne-
gotiated. Which of these two parts is objectionable f Will any one
say that, if the question of the possibility of the establishment of re-
ciprocal trade is worth discussion, it is improper that it should be con-
sidered by a Joint commission of the kind proposed by the re'^olution T
If the object of the resolution is to examine the subject, and it is de-
sirable to have any trade at all with Canada, it is impossible that the
objectionable part of the resolution can consist of the subjects being
considered by a commission of experts who may gather the fullest
information possible and thus help to educate Congress and the peo-
ple. It cannot be this part of the resolution that can be considered
objectionable by any member. What, then, of the other part of the
resolution which provides for obtaining information as to whether
any reciprocal trade can be negotiated with Canada f Will any gen-
tleman present say that he is opposed to this doctrine of mutual trade
on principle, and from its foundation, and so much opposed that he
does not wish even to consider the question f Will any gentleman
present say that he is under any and all circumstances opposed to any
reciprocal trade with Canada, and that he believes all commercial in-
tercourse should be cnt otf between the two nations f Will any gen-
tleman present say that he believes that by years of retaliatory tariffs
all the great trade which has heretofore existed between these two
countries shall be absolutely destroyed, and the mercantile, mannfaot-
uriuff, and producing industries of our country shall be injured, to
which this reciprocal trade has been heretofore an advantage T If
gentlemen present take this broad ground, then they are i)erfectly con-
sistent in their opposition, and can legitimately face such opposition
upon the ground that the second part of the resolution is objectiona-
ble in that it provides for an investigation of the question whether
there can bo such reciprocal trade, whereas they are opposed to hav-
ing any reciprocal trade at nil, or under any possible circumstances
which the commission or any one else can devise. These are the only
two answers that can be made to the proposition under discussion,
and if there are any members here who logically, consistently, and
reasonably can occupy either of these two positions, I should like to
hear from them.
Our opponents may allege, however, that the subject is not of suf-
ficient importance, and the chances of benefit under the resolution or
8
in oonsequeuce of reoiprooal trade with Canada great enongh to ja«-
tif^ U8 iu going to the trouble and expense of the appointment of
this commission. This is, to a certain extent, a legitimate argument,
and I shall consider these two allegations hereafter more in detail ;
but in reference to them let it be remembered that all we have to do
is to show what is called in legal phraseology " probable oanae."
When they allege that the snbjeot is not of sufficient importance, or
the chances of benefit sufficiently great to even justify an inquiry, we
are only obliged to show that the probabilities of benefit from an in-
vestigation are sufficiently great, and not to go beyond this and dem-
onstrate to an actual certainty that the desired results would follow.
If the latter were the case and we could demonstrate to such cer-
taintv that a reciprocal trade conld and should be established, and
by what means, there would be no need of a commission at all, as this
is the very subject that a commission is called upon to investigate.
If we can make out the " probable cause ; " if we can show by the
past history of the commercial interoonrse of the two countries and
by the present condition of affairs and by the probabilities of the
future that there is reason to believe there is a chance that a recip-
rocal trade in some way or other can be established which ma^ be of
benefit to this conntry, then it is our duty to have an investigation
made^ and not to set aside and lose even a possible chance of great
benefits being secured for onr country. In a word, we need not dis-
cuss the question itself but the probabilities of the question. But I
think I shall succeed in convincing all unprejudiced minds, open to
conviction and to argument, that at any rate this subject has suffi-
cient impuriauce and sufficient probability of some success to render
it unpatriotic, unwise, and absurd to reject this resolution.
II.— KECll'HOCITV DOES SOT MEAV FREE TRADE.
Nearly all the arj^uments against the resolution or the idea of
reciprocity which I have heard have been based upon the assump-
tion that reciprocity means free trade, whereas this is by no means
true. The opponents of any trade with Canada assume that free
trade is meant, and then proceed to argue against it. They build up
by ingenious devices and at great pains and trouble and with great
skill a man of straw, entirely a creature of their imagination and of
their prejudices ; and then they proceed to a! tack him with great
vigor and with ingenious arguments and with statistics, and to tear
him to pieces. They construct from the fertile soils of their fears
an imaginary treaty, such a treaty as they^ think might be open to
objection, and with all kinds of articles in it which may be made
legitimate subjects of criticism ; and then they pick this imaginary
treaty to pieces, tearing it limb from limb, with cries of rejoicing,
and shout out to Congress and their constituents that they have de-
stroyed all the ideas of reciprocity. They assume that the humaiv
mind is incapable of evolving a new system which shall not be in
all respects free trade, and that it is beyond the mental powers of a
mercantile community to devise any system whatever of sending
goods to and f):o across the border which shall not consist in wiping
out on both sides all duties on those goods.
The present idea of reciprocity is not one of free trade. Advocates
of this resolution are not free traders. I am free to say that I do not
believe, at this stage of progress in this country, in free trade. It
may come when we can manufacture our goods and produce the crops
of this country so low as to defy the competition of the whole world.
And when we arrive at that point at which England arrived many
years ago, when it seemed to be proved that her labor and material
were so low that no other oonntry could carry them down to a lower
point, then free trade may turn ontto »e an ad vantage to as as it was
an ad vantat^e to England iu many respects. We cannot now compete
in all directions with the labor and sapplies of other countries. Our
sreat maniifactaring and producine industries are the life-blood of
the nation. If these are injured and trodden down, not only are all
capitalists of the country injured, (in which term I inolade not only
those popularly known as capitalists, but the widows and orphans
and poor men with capital invested in the savings-banks and all those
who otherwise have money invested in these manufacturing enter-
prises,) but also the laboring-men who are employed in all ports of
the oonntry almost wholly in work which is only carried on and can
only be carried on by means of the money furnished by the capital-
ists of the country.
It is foolish iu this country to talk about the contest of capital
against labor. The stocks of our large mills are to a great extent held
by poor people — widows, children, and poor men who have laid up a
little for a rainy day and invested it in stocks, and by many people
in general, to whom the loss of the dividend means a loss of the com-
forts and necessities of life. Our labor and our materials, the cost
of which depends on the cost of labor, have not dropped to the low
point to which they have sunk in foreign countries. When onr labor-
ing-men, our workers in the mills, our toilers on the farms, and our
workmen on the railroads can live as those live in England — eat meat
only once a week, and not be sure of that; live in dirty and nasty
hovels, have no education, and have neither rest nor recreation, men-
tal or otherwise, will toil early and late, and give up all eight-hour
ideas and other ideas of comfort or of beuetit to theraselves, then
they can afford to work at tht same wages paid to the English work-
men, and in that time 7e can compete iu the markets of the world
with the English manufacturers. None of us want to see that day
come. The people of this country, in my opinion, will prefer, as a
whole, to pay a few cents more for the articles which they eat or
otherwise consume thau to see our whole laboring population leveled
downward to the condition of those iu European countries. Our
laborers themselves, who complain, perhaps, the most of the tariff, if
they will consider this question and reason about it will see that by
the removal of the tariff they themselves will suffer more than any
other class, because the removal of the tariff would make one of two
things necessary : either the giving up of all our manufacturing in-
dustries oi- the reduction of wages to a point which will enable us to
compete with the English, Belgian, French, and other manufacturers.
A modification of the tariff is uecessaiy ; its wiping out is unwise
and suicidal. But let me tell the high-tariff men and those who be-
lieve iu the protection of American industries that it is wise and in
the interests of both producers and consumers that some wise, sys-
tematic, scientific, and well-considered modification of the tarifi' should
be made. Aside from the propriety of this measure at the present
time and the ^ood results which it will have upon the country, an
equitable modification will save the tariff; stubbornness and stupid-
ity in objection to all reductions of the tariff may destroy it utterly.
By damming back all the waters of the rushing stream they will rise
against the barrier, fret and chafe and whirl around within their
narrow boundaries, constantly re-enforced by fresh currents rushing
down from above, until finally the force of the angry waters becomes
so great that it sweeps away utterly all the dams and barriers which
10
kepfp tbem back. If tliuse who are interested in the protection by a
proper tariff ot our Auiericau IndnstrieM iibsolutely refuse to treat
with those who look toward free trade, nfuse to consult with them
noDcerniug any reduction at all, and insist on maintaining the tariff
at the highest, iignres, they will dam back the force of public opin-
ion, which will gathur and ^row and increase in force and in angry
vehemence until it will rise to a point when it may sweep away all
the barriers and utterly destroy the tariff. I woulcf suggest to those
who are inclined to oppose this resolution that this doctrine may
apply to them, and that it will be well for them to consider whether
it is not best now to have a commission to consider these questions
fairly, impartially, and patiently, rather than to run a risk at some
future time of some reciprocal trade with Canada, which may be a-
scheme of free trade, rushed through by hot-headed impulses and by
crude and unconsidered laws.
PKE8ENT IDEA OF BECIPROCITY IS NOT OF FREE TBAHB.
What we mean by reciprocity is simply this : that there is at the
least a chance that a reciprocal trade may be established with Can-
ada which shall benefit both countries, while it may protect by its
proper tariff any peculiar industries of either country which shall
need protection. There are soiqe things that Canada wants to sell
and that we want to buy, and there are other things that we want
to sell and Canada wants to buy ; and the question is, whether mat-
ters may not be so arranged between the two countries that those
goods may be in some way transferred which both countries desire
to have transferred. For example, both countries will agree on this
EropoKition : that it is for the interest of our country that we should
ave tlie right of fishing in Canadian waters, and It is for the inter-'
est of the Canadians that they should be allowed to sell their fish in
our markets, and that their vessels should be allowed to have what
they can get of our carrying trade. The question in regard to this
subject to be investigated is whether it is possible to meet the wishes
of both coantries. It may be impossible, but certainly it is worth
while to make the trial and find out whether it is not within the
powers of the human mind to make some satisfactory mutual arrange-
ment. I only use this as an illustration at the present time, as I shall
refer to this fishery question hereafter.
There are some thin^ proposed which cannot be agreed upon be-
tween the two countries, but those things we can leave out. The
question will be, is there not some common ground upon which the
two countries can stand, some common trade upon which the two
countries can agree, and which shall be for their mutual benefit f Is
not full protection of our interests compatible with some trade with
Canada f And, if so, with what branches of trade ? Here is a part of
the vast question which this commission will settle : To look over the
whole ground, to look to the fishery interest, the lumber interest, the
manufacturing, the iron, and the agricnltural interests of onr country,
to keep their eyes on the East and West and South, to consider Maine,
Massachusetts, and Michigan, and, having looked over this vast field
to see if in concert with the Canadian commissioners it cannot pick
out something which can be agreed upon, and at least some of these
great interests which will be benefited by a commercial union of some
kind with Canada — this is the duty of the commission. The com-
mercial interests between these countries have been of vast ext«nt.
Can anything be done to help them, or shall we abandon them in de-
spair and proceed to cut each other's throats in all political and tariff
■ways? Here is tlie (inestion which confronts us, unrl it is of special
importaure at the preseut tiuie, as I shall show hereafter. Let one
thin^; be fully nuderstood in all discussions of this kind, that the in-
terests of our country are to be fully protected, no matter what the
sacritlce shall be to Canada, and that the first object we have in this
resolution is to endeavor to beuetit the manufacturing and producing
industries of this country.
TMR FOIIMEII nKClPROCITY TIIEATY WAS XOT FOR FIIF.E TRAt'E.
I shall describe more particularly hereafter what the provisions of
the former reciprocity treaty were. The opponents of all ideas of
reciprocal trade constantly argue that the proposed resolution looks
toward a treaty identical with the former treaty, and then proceed
to argue tliat the former treafy was for free trade and therefore o])-
posed to all our ideas of a tariff for either revenue or protection. It
18 sufficient to say under this heading of my argument that only cer-
tain specified articles were admittecf under that treaty free of duty,
and these may be broadly described as mostly natural articles, and
generally in a crude or unwrought state. They were mo.stly produc-
tions of the soil or animal productions. In regard to the most of
these the United States could compete with Canaaa on equal grounds,
as the results of the treaty and the statistics of the time it was in
operation prove. The manufacturing industries, the coal and oil in-
terests, and various other mercantile interests of the country were
not affected either in one way or the other, and in fact the treaty had
DO operation whatever upon any articles or branches of trade, except
those expressly specified, which were comparatively very few in
number. So that the operations of the treaty were exceedingly lim-
ited in extent. The framers of that treaty only picked out certaiu
articles of trade which they thought might be made free ; all others
■were untouched. On the consideration of the treaty hereafter, it will
therefore be seen that the argument against this resolution as tend-
ing toward a free-trade treaty is entirely fallacious and falls to the
ground.
THIS KKSOLUTIOS 18 NOT ONE FOB TUB OLD BECU'ROCITY TREATY.
Here again the arguments of the opponents of this resolution ut-
terljr fail ; they proceed to argue at great length against the old reci-
procity treaty ; they assume that the new treaty, if any is to be made,
must be the same as the former treaty, whereas there is no connec-
tion whatever between tLis subject and the old treaty. Even if they
prove that the old treaty was aa injury to this country, which I am
prepared to deny, their argument is utterly worthless in this discus-
sion. They have no right to assume that the new treaty will be the
same as the old treaty, or that it will even be founded upon the old
treaty as a basis. Some of the evil efiects of the old treaty have
been recognized, and it is incredible that they will be restored in the
new treaty. This question is now taken up as an entirely new one,
and the subject is to be investigated by this commission as a new
subject, with all the light thrown upon it during all the years elaps-
ing since the expiration of the former treaty, and by the operations
of the former treaty. The difliculties of the old treaty are to be con-
sidered by the commissior:, tliC evils of it avoided, and out of all the
materials made ready for their hand by the experience of so many
years, they are to try to find something with which they can build
up a new and unobjectionable treaty.
It is useless to argue now whether such a reciprocal treaty has been
or can be of benefit to the country, or to argue for or against the re-
12 ■■
suits of the appointment of this oommission. There is no possibility
of foretelling the resnltii of a commission. For all that we know, it
may tum out to be an anti-treaty commission, and may demonstrate
that no reciprocal treaty of an> kind can be made between the two
conntries. The opponents of this resolation might in fact favor it
on their oWn assunaptions, and on those assumptions their only log-
ical position would be to so favor it. Why do not they iVason in this
way, and crystallize such reasons into votes : that they desire a oom-
missioD to be appointed, because it is abuolutely certain that there
can be no reciprocal treaty between these countries, and that a com-
mission will be sure to so report; and, therefore, they wish to use
the influence of the report of this commission to finally and thoroughly
crush out all idea^ of a reciprocal treaty with this country. For all
that this resolution now shows, it may be iu point of fact regarded
npon the arguments of the anti-treaty men as an anti-treaty resolu-
tion. Therefore upon any doctrine it seems impossible that any one
can o£Fer any opposition to the adoption of this resolution.
III.— IB CANADA WOBTII TREATINO WITHl
This is a legitimate inquiry in regard to the resolution. Oar op-
ponents may say that Canada is not worth treating with under any
circumstances; that she is of very small importance, almost worth-
less; that her exports exceed her imports, so that she has not any
trade worth anything to supply ; that the same may be true of her
special trade with the United States, so that under no circumstances
shall We find a market in that country, while she will find a market
iu this country. If all this is true and is demonstrated as a fact, there
may be iiu need of a commission. It is undeniable that it is not worth
while investigating a worthless subject, and if our opponents can
show to us in the commencement of this investigation that the ques-
tion of a commercial treaty with Canada is a worthless subject, that
there is no trade there to seek, that there is no importance there either
in a commercial or other view to be found, that Canada is a frozen
country of the North without any goods to sell that can benefit us,
and without any money to buy which can go into the pockets of our
merchants, manufacturers, and farmers, then the question is ended,
and we need not trouble ourselves with the delay and expense and
trouble of a commission. Our opponents will not be so foolish as to
formulate such ideas in such a way, and 7 et such an argument would
be almost their only one against the resolation, and is in substance
used. Canada is of great importance in a commercifjl point of view,
either as regards her location, area, population, shipping, transporta-
tion, general commerce of the world, or the special commerce of the
United States, and I ask the attention of the House to a consideration
of the question of her importance in these respects, for I am sure it
is not understood or appreciated, except by those who have made a
special investigation of the subject.
LOCATION OF THE DOMIMON OF CANADA.
The location of Canada in reference to the United States is worth
being considered in regard to this question of whether we could or
should have any trade with her. Here is a great country stretching
across the continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, separated
from us mostly by imaginary boundaries, with the most intimate re-
lations between the two countries, with a border which it is impossi-
ble to have thoroughly gnarded, and with peoples who are neignbors
in language, sentiments, and to a great extent in commercial inter-
eats. The boundary between the Eastern States and the Dominion
consists of small rivers and mostly of imaginary lines. Then come
the boundaries between the Dominion and this country of the Saint
Lawrence and the great lakes, and beyond the lakes the only bound-
ary is the imaginary one of the forty-ninth parallel. Nearly, if not
quite, one-half the whole boundary -line between the countries is an
imaginary one existing only on the maps. The railroacl connections
between the two countries are most intimate. Many of our great
railroads connect with the West by Canadian connections. Their rail-
road systems mostly connect with foreign countries, and with the
ocean by roads within our boundaries. The water communications
by canal and lake are similarly intimate. All the vast commerce of
our great lakes only reaches without transshipment the ocean through
the Canadian territory. Witli a country thus situated, contiguous
to ours, with intimate connection of rail, of canal, and all other water
communications, we should havefriendly commercial relations if pos-
sible. A constant commercial war between the two countries, the
endeavor to see which country can injure the other the most, this con-
stant smuggling across the border and trying on the part of either
country to break up the commercial relations of the other is to bo
avoided by all meanscompati'tle with the true interests of this country.
The countries touch each other at every point. Our railroads re^h
out into her all along the line. We can supply her morecheaply than
any other nation if we have an opportunity. England must send
her ffoodsacross a wide ocean to Canada, paying the charges on freight,
while we can, within twenty-four hours, and, in cases where there is
direct connection between commercial centers, within twelve hours,
place our goods in Canada ready for delivery and use. The mere
difference in ocean freightage would give us the markets of Canada
in preference to foreign countries, |)rovided the Canadian markets
can be thrown open to us on just and equal terms, and xuch as for-
eign countries enjoy. Especially at the present time is our connec-
tion with Canada of importance in securing her trade if possible.
The Dominion formerly extended only to the eastern end of the great
lakes ; now it is pushing itself forward across the continent. It is
building up just across the border from us its territories, which are
becoming settled throughout those sections of the country. It is
opening up settlements, and before tifty years we may, perhaps, see
the southern borders of Cauada nearly as thickly settled as the adja-
cent northern borders of our country. Tliis question, then, looking
at it from the point of view of location alone, of hostile or harmo-
nious, of reciprocal or adverse trade, of helping each other or fight-
ing each other, is a question of great importance and cannot well be
exaggerated. In the case of a country like France, which has also
been desirous of reciprocal trade, these considerations will be wholly
eliminated. Either as to the " favored-nations" clause in treaties or
otherwise, the position of Canada is utterly different from what that
of any other country can be. No other country has, or can possi-
bly have, the same comparative value to us in regard to this question
of reciprocal trade, and any basis upon which reciprocal trade with
Canada will be established must be on the ground of its peculiar con-
nection with and relations to us, and entirely independent of reasons
which might apply to any other country.
AHEA OF THE DOMINION.
The Dominion of Canada comprises the entire region embraced be-
tween the northern boundary-line of the United States and the Arctic
14
Ocean, with the exceptions of Alaska and the islands of Greenland
and Nenrfonndland. It includes the territories formerly, and in some
instances at present, known as Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Sco-
tia, Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba,
Brttish Columbia, VanoouTer's Island, and the Northwest Territories.
The area is estimated at 3,580,310 square miles.
The following table shows the area in square miles of provinces in
British North America :
Ontario 107,780
Quubeo 193,355
l5<)vaSootla 91,731
Nuw Brunswick 97,333
Prince Edward laUnd 3,100
Newfoundland 49,000
Manitoba 14,000
Brltisli Columbia 356,000
The following tabular statement, compiled from the census of 1871,
shows the quantity of land owned, occupied, and improved iu each
of the provinces named therein :
Provinces.
Owned.
Occupied.
Improved.
Ontario
Acres.
19, 605, 019
17, 701, .589
6, 453, 969
6, 607, 4.59
Aerea.
16, 161, 676
11, 09.5, 786
3, 897, 731
5, 031, 317
Aerei.
8. 833, 696
Quebec
5, 703, 944
Irew Brunswiclc
^ova Scutia -
i, 171. 157
1, 637, 091
Total
49, 368, 039
36, 046, 410
17, .335, 818
POPULATIO>f OF THE DOMINION.
The following table, showing the population of the United States
and British North America for the years therein named, may be found
interesting, as showing not only the comparative population of the
two countries, but also their comparative growth since the first dec-
ade before the beginning of the present century. It will be seen
that, starting from the population of 1790 as a standard, the popula-
tion of the Dominion has increased in about an equal ratio with that
of the United States, and that, iu other words, as to the United States,
the population of the Dominion was about as large proportionallv in
1871 as in 1791 :
United SUtes.
British Nortli America.
Year.
Population.
Year.
Population.
1790
3, 996, 914
5, 3C8, 483
7, 939, 881
9, 6;i3, 892
19, 866, 090
17, 069, 453
93, 191, 876
31, 443, 391
38,558,371
1791
379,000
349, (100
479,000
790 000
1800
1801
1810
1811
1891
1890
1830
18:U
1, 300, 000
1, 656, 700
8, 487, 855
3, 394, 654
1840
1841
1850
1860
1851
1861
1870
1871
3, 730, 774
Including Indians, British North America contained 3,833,133 per-
15
(SODS in 1871. The foUowinK table shows the population of the prov-
inces named therein for 1851, 18B1, and 1871 :
Karnes of provinoes.
Popalatiod.
1851.
1861.
1871.
OntArio ..-.-
953, 004
890,361
876, 854
193,800
63,678
103,600
1, 396, 091
1,111,566
330, 857
859,047
80,857
188,850
1, 607, 873
1 184 538
Qaebeo .*....
Nova Scotia
New Brnnawtok ....
386,134
864 101
93,6S8
146,536
Manitoba
13,338
British Colombia
10,38«
Thus, whether you look at the great area of the Dominion, the in-
habited and cultivated and productive portions of which are increas-
ing from year to year, or at her population, which keeps equal pace
in its increase with that of oar own country, it will be found difficult
for the opponents of this resolution, as against these facts aloue, to
shuffle this question aside with the sneer that Canada does not
" amount to an'ytbing " — that her trade cannot benefit us in any way,
and that we do not want, commercially or otherwise, to have any-
thing to dc with her.
SHIFFINQ AND TBANSPORTATION OF THE DOMINION.
Statement nhowin^ the number and tonnage <4 vetieln buUt ; also the total number and
tonnage of saiUng-vemeU, canal-boats, and barges owned by the United Stateii and
Canada in the years therein given.
1874.
United States :
Number of vesseU built
Tonnage
Total number of Teasels owned.
Total tonnage owned
Domioionof Canada:
Number of vessels built
Tonnage
Total number of vessels owned .
Total tunuage owned
8,147
432, 785
496
190, 756
6, 9.10
1, LW, 3f.3
1875.
l,3ill
S97, 6:)8
480
151,012
6,959
1, 205, 565
1876.
1,113
303, 5S5
25, 934
4,279,458
420
130, 901
7,198
1,360,893
1677.
1,029
176, 591
25,386
4, 242, 599
43']
127, 2!)7
7,3Ca
1, 3t0, 468
Of the provinces, Nova Scotia owneil 541, S7fl tons; New Brunswick, 3*.i9, 4.57 j Que-
bec, 348,309; Ontario, 131,761 ; Prince Ed^vard Island, 55,547; British Columbia and
Manitoba. 3,735 tons.
When compared with the leading maritime nations of Europe, these oompara-
tivoly young onuutiies occup,v an iniportaut position in rojjanl to merchant ship-
ping, Hfl th« following statistics show :
In 1877 the tonnage of Great Britain. incluiliDg her colonies, was 7.677,021 ; Nor-
way, 1,391,877; Italy, 1,360,425; Germany, 1,0.53,229; and France, 870.205 tons. These
figures do not incliine the inland tonnage of the sailing-vessels of these nations, or
01 steamers under one hundred tons register, or barges.
The United States take rank as thesttcond; and we feel safe in placing Canada as
fifth among the ship-owning countries of the world.
In the provinces, the drst rallwiiy opened was in Canada proper, in 1847. In 1861
British North America bad 2.162' miles constructed; and in 1876 the aggregate
number of miles of railroad owned by the Dominion of Canada was 5,494, ezo Insive
of double track. — The United Slates and the Dominion of Canada, by Alexander
Mnnro, esq.; Saint John, New Brunswick, 1879.
As was stated by J. C. Bates, esq., of the Boston Board of Trade,
16
in a very valuable arffiiineut on this subject before the Committee on
Fore.gn Aifaira of the House —
To-day in tho mntter of tonnnco Cannda has onp-nixth of the tonnagn of the Brit-
ish Empire. lu 1)^77 the Canadian tonuaue wafi 1,310.468 tona ; the tonnage of the
Biitigh Enitilre 7,667,094, and that of the UuaedStateB, exclusive of the lalies and
rivers, 9, 564. 980 tons. •
As an intlication of its transport trade in .me direction alone, the tonnage pass-
ins the Welland Canal in 18*7 was 1,916,659 tons, and the Saint Lawrence canals
1,341,156 tons.
OKNBRAl. COMHBROR OF THB DOMINION OP CANADA WITH OTIIBR COUSTIIIRS.
This question is especially pertinent in this discusBion, for the rea-
sons V )iich I have stated. If Canada has a great general oommerce
it cert II inly is useful to ns to consider how wh uiay obtain a fair share of
thatcmnmerce in competition for it with other nations of the world.
But il such commerce of Canada is insijjniflcnnt, we need not pay
any a1 lention to the question of how to obtain a share of it. Any one
who will consider the facts and flgnres in relation to this branch of
the su))ject cauuot fail to come to the conclusion that the commerce
of Canada is large and growing, and that we cannot afford to set it
aside us insignificant and allow it to be monopolized by other nations
to our exclusion, if by any means compatible with our interest a fair
share at least of it may be obtained for this country. I think any
man unfamiliar with the snbject and investigating it in an unpreju-
diced way, and with a desire for information, will be surprised at the
importance not only of the general commerce of Canada with other
oountiies, but of the special commerce of Canada with the United
States. Her commerce is large and gron-ing. It will increase as her
territory tills up, and it is as hard to tell what the Dominion will be
£fty years from now as to prophesy what the United States will be
as to it« extent of cultivated laud, its industries, and its population.
Let it always be remembered in the present discussion ot this ques-
tion that the only point is whether •(Lis subject is of suflflcient im-
portance to investigate. We maintain that we have made out our
case if we show that the commercial importance of Canada is of so
great extent as to justify us in the appointment of a commission to
consider it and its bearing upon the interests of our country. The
following table gives some indication of the commerce of the Domin-
ion of Canada from 1872 to 1878, and of its importance :
'fahle of imports and exports of the Dominion of Canada.
Tear ending June 30—
Exports.
Imports.
Excess of im-
ports over
exports.
1872
1873
$89, 630, r>63
89, 789, 989
89,351,998
77, 886, 979
80, 966, 435
75, S7\ 393
79, 393, 667
$111, 430, 597
188,011,281
128, 213, 5H2
123,070.383
93, 810, 346
99, 387, 969
93,081,787
138,790,864
38. 891, 359
1874
38, 861, 659
1875
45, 183, 304
1876
13, 343, 911
1877
3.1, 453, 569
1878
13, 758, 180
Total
900, 51), 786
It will be seen by this table that the annual aggregates of the
exports and imports of the Dominion are very large, and that every
year the imports into Canada were very largely in excess of the ex-
,. ■ ' 17
porta. Canada hiiM ulwajin bought more tliau she has sold. She has
been a piirobaHer to a much larger extent than she has been a seller,
and thus she comes into the markets of the world, not upon the
whole as a seller, trying to take away from other countries their
markets and to compete with them, but as a buyer, with money in
her pockets to speud for the purchase of goods for the use of her peo-
ple. I believe that even on a small scale the traders are much more
anxious to make the acquaintance of buyers who oome to them to
spend money for goods than that of those who desire to sell, and it is
a question with us whether we cannot afford to make some terms with
Canada as a buyer every year of a very large amount of articles prin-
cipally for domestic use. For every year in the preceding table there
is shown a large excess of imports over exports. The largest excess
was in 1875, and amounted to the sum of $45,183,304 ; and the small-
est excess was in 187G, and amounted to $1'2,243,911 ; and the total
excess of imports over exports for tlie seven years from 1872 to 1878
amounted to the onormons sum of ^200,511,786. Canada, then, is cer-
tainly to be regarded as a purchiwer— and a very large purchaser —
in the markets of the world.
As was stated by Munro in the book hereinbefore quoted, referring
to the last table, " it will be noticed that the Dominion imports are
comparatively large according to population, being one- fifth that of
the United States, while her exports are only about one-ninth of the
latter country. Hence, what is called the balance of trade is largely
against tbe Dominion. In tlie three years named in the table, the
excess of imports amounted tu j;i)9,000,000," Canada, then, has to an-
nually buy, according to the average, goods to the value of some-
where from 193,000,000 to Jll2H,0(X),000, a large part of which are man-
ufactured articles. The question is, where shall she buy them and
how much of that trade can we get f Shall we set it all aside as not
worth striving for and allow it to go to Euglivud, France, or other
nations, or endeavor by all proper means to secure a fair portion of it
for our con ntry ? The natural market of supply for Canada is clearly
in the United States. The disadvantages of trade with England are
the delay in obtaining goods and tbe consequent uncertainty of the
state of the Canadian markets when the goods shall arrive, the im-
possibility of personal inspection of those goods before purchase, the
increased cost by reason of insurance, aud the cost of ocean freight-
age ; all these disadvantages give to the United States the power of
controlling to a large extent the purchasing trade of Canada, provided
we can have equal terms, or terms not so unequal as to balance the
increase of cost of obtaining goods from foreign countries. Here is
this great country with this great purchasing power, just across our
borders, connected with us by most intimate connections of rail or
water all along the line. Is it not true that the question of obtain-
ing our share of this great trade lyiug at our very doors is worth care-
*ful and full consideration 1 Is a purchaser of goods to the value of
$200,511,780 over and above what she sells in seven years worth try-
ing to secure by honorable and fair means! 1 put this question on
the practical ground of commercial expediency, England has been
called a nation of shopkeepers aud is said to look out for the almighty
dollar.
It may be of advantage to us to consider ourselves a nation of shop-
keepers, and to treat these questions from the point of view of com-
mercial usefulness and fiuaucial gain, rather than from the point of
view of mere political expediency, or of hatred or prejudice against
2 BO
18
onr Canadian neighbors. Shall we have intercourse with that coun-
try, or allow a thick barrier to be built up between the two nations,
shutting us out from her great trade and shutting her out from ours T
erRCIAI, COMMERCE IlETWEEN THE DOMINION AND TUB UNITED STATES.
I have shown the great general commerce of Canada with foreign
coantries, and the above question of her special importance, as trad-
ing with the United States, is worth careful consideration. If history
and figures and statistics are to be believed and are productive of
information, the magnitude of this special question can hardly be
appreciated and is little understood. The following table shows the
extent of this special commerce during the years therein stated :
Commtrcc of the United SMes with Dominion of Canada and other British
Xorih American poswntiiona.
raded
30—
Exports.
mporta
ports.
' ^ a
— M
_ *
•i S
Domestic.
Foreign.
Total.
|1
1851
to OfiO .187
13 954 ^^36
113,014,933
t6 693 122
1859
6, 655 097
3, 85;), 919
10, 509, 016
6,110,399
7, 550, 718
1853
7, 404, 087
5,736,555
13, 140, 643
1854
15, 304, 144
15, 830, 643
9, 362, 716
34, 566, 860
8, 937, 560
1855
11,999,378
87,806,030
15, 136, 734
1856
23, 714, 697
6, 314, 653
39, 029, 349
31,310,421
1857
19, 936, 113
19, 638, 959
4, 326, 369
4. 018, 768
34, 363, 468
22, 184, 296
1858
83, 651, 727
15, 806, .519
1859
81, 769, 687
6, 384, 547
88, 154, 174
19, 727, 551
147, 881, 735
1860
18, «67, 429
4, 038, 899
33, 706, 338
23, 851, 381
46, 557, 7119
1861
18,883,715
3, 861, 898
33, 745, 613
23, 062, 933
45, 808, 546
1663
18, 653, 012
2, 437, 103
81,079,115
19, 299, 995
40, 379, 110
1863
28,629,110
3, 651, 980
31, 381, 030
34, 081, 264
55, 303, 894
1864
86, 567, 831
8, 419, 936
38, 987, 147
38, 983, 015
67, 909, 168
1865
30,033,883
1, 809, 863
31,843,145
37, 308, 468
69, 150, 613
1866
26,874,888
3, 481, 684
29, 356, 573
54, 704, 959
84, 061, 531
1867
80, 548, 704
.3,774,465
34, 333, 169
33, 604, 178
57, 937, 347
1868
83,600,717
8, 661, 555
36, 363, 278
30, 362, 221
56, 634, 493
1860
30, 891, 786
3, 305, 446
24,197,232
32,090,314
56,387,546
1870
22, 570, 439
4,378,885
26, f49, 324
41, 089, 801
67, 939, 135
1871
29, 790, 894
4,711,838
34, 502, 726
37, 424, 351
71, 987, 077
1878
27, 774, 091
4,984,989
38, 759, 080
40,961,432
73, 730, 513
1873
34, 368, 811
4, 303, 745
38, 578, 556
43, 809, 070
83, 381, 686
1874
43, 505, 914
4, 589, 343
47,095,157
38, 158. 004
85, 853, 161
1875
34, 309, 761
3, 986, 770
38, 396, 531
32, 763, 870
71, 060, 401
ltn'6
33,583,831
3, 477, 716
37, 060, 947
30, 930, 607
67,991,554>
1877
38, 131, 706
3,698,030
40,829,728
36, 046, 090
66, 875, 818
18T8
35,740,494
3,355,349
39, 095, 843
87,971,191
67, 067, 034
For the term of twenty years, from 1859 to 1878, the total imports
and exports between the Unit«a States and the Dominion of Canada
amounted to $1,282,106,384, the total exports being $625,996,689 and
the total imports $656,109,695. I call the attention of tne House to
the fact th^t these figures only apply to the special trade between
the United States and the Dominion of Canada. The following table
10
showfi tLe excess of exiiorts over imports, and the reverse, from IBTil
to 1^78 :
Yrar.
Excess of exports
from tbe United
States to Can-
ada over im-
ports.
Excess of imports
into tbe United
SutesfrtMu Can-
ada over ex-
ports.
1851
15,381,801
4, 3nH, 717
5, 580, 1184
15, 630, :ioo
19, 66!l. 386
7, 718, l»88
a. 138, 1H6
7, 845, 808
8, 483, 683
ISVJ
18,'i3
18.'i4
1H!55
1856
1857
18,18
lew
18rt<)
il, 145.053
IfeMl
317, 3S0
]8tl8
1. 779, 180
7, 859, 760
1863
1864
9,934 868
1HR5
5, 466, 323
1866
25, 348. 387
1B67
U, 381, 009
1868
4, 099, 949
1869
7, 893, 082
1870
14, 340, 477
1871
9, 981. 645
1078
8, 305, 358
1873
5, 836, 514
1874
8, 937, 153
5,638,661
6, 130, 340
14, 783, 638
11,184,658
1875
1877
185,308,303
94, 189, 979
It will be seen from the above table that dnring the years when
there was an excess, the excess of imports into the United States
from Canada over exports amounted to the sum of $94, 18t),i)79, while
the excess of exports from the United States to Canada over the im-
ports for the years stated amounted to $125,308,303 ; so that the bal-
ance in favor of the United States dnring this term of twenty-eight
years as an exporter of goods rather than an importer araonnted to
$31,118,324. The great magnitude of this question becomes at once
apparent on a study of there tables, and demonstrates that it is not
tone decided superficially, hastily, or on account of prejudice, but
only after the most careful investigation. It is apparent that the
normal condition of trade between the United States and Canada is
that Canada should be a buyer rather than a seller and that the bal-
ance of trade should always be against her. Under natural oondi-
tions this is always the case, and it is onl^ when annatural condi-
tions come in to disflhrb that balance that it tnms against us and in
favor of Canada. From 1851 to 1859 the balance of trade was largely
and invariably against Canada ; then in 1860 and 1861 she had a com-
paratively small balance in her favor, while in 1862 and 1863 the
balance came again in our favor. From 1864 to 1873 the balance
20
(anil in hoiiio yonrs to n vflryliirnoextent) turned in fiivorof CanRfbi,
while ninoe 1873 tlie balance lias been vnry lar{;t)ly in our favor,
anionutinK in 1877 to the siun of $14,7«;»,('>:W.
I say that the normal condition of trade makoH a balance in our
favor, and a balance u)j;ainHt im may be directly tnicod to unuHual cou-
ditionn of trade. The regular balance ngaiiiHt uit coniineuced in 1HU4,
and the reanon is eany to underHtand. A groat rine in the price of
goods and of labor, the inimenBe conHuni]ition of articles in this coun-
try, the enorniouH intlation of prices, the turning of hundreds of thuu-
Bands of raou into consuuierH inutcad of ]iroducerH, the great waste
of material, and all the usunl results of war, combined to carry
up our goods to a ])rice at which Canada could not aiTord to pur-
chase. Canada remained in a state of peace; her wages were not
much increased; her conimerco was not interfered with, and she
could att'ord to manufacture goods and create natural productions at
a price which would give her a groat profit by selling to the United
States. The natural condition of alt'airs could not have been other-
wise, and the proof is shown from the tables. When jur afl'airs began
to return to tneir normal condition, and the communities ha«l set-
tled down to the natural works and industries of peace, and the gold
premium had disappeared, and business began once more to be on a
tlrm and stable specie basis, then tra<le began to How into its old
and natural channels, and the balance of trade with Canada began
1 ran steadily in our favor.
A farther proof that the natural condition of trade with Canada
is a balance in our favor, is the conclusive argument that Canada
must buy somewhere more than she sells ; that somewhere or some-
how she mnst buy every seven years, according to the average from
1672 to l878j goods amounting in value to $'200,.511,7HU more tTian she
sells. And it is a further self-evident proposition which needs only
to be veritied by an inspection of the maps, that this is her natural
market to buy in. In other words, there must always be a great trade
in our favor, except under unusual circumstances, provided we can
have a fair chance. I have shown that there is, then, a natural and
great general trade to be obtained by us from Canada, and I desire
for a ^w moments to refer only to the special products of that trade,
and the special articles which we have heretofore sold to Canada iu
large amounts.
Munro, iu his said book, page 111, writes as follows in regard to the
coal trade :
In 1877 the proprtntorn of coal-mlnns in Xova Sootin petltionod Parliament to im
pose a duty on cnal imported into tlie Dominion. Tiio amount Canada imported
trom tlie United States in that year was 780,696 tons, including; 415,g6ft tons of
anthracite and 20.032 tons of coke. The whole was valued at (3,170,154 ; wliile the
exports of coal to the United States only amounted to 178,772 tons, worth |e81),663.
So far as known there is nu anthracite coal in the lower provinces, henco the im-
portatiooN of this class of coal into the Dominion are very large. Even Nova 8cotia
and Now lirunswick imported antliracite coal from the United States to the value of
$137,363 in 1877. Of the iinportiitious Ontario imported coal from the United States
amonntiuc; to 623,187 tons, valued at $2,506,244, and Quebec lSi>,0U7 tons, worth
•510,550.
I quote also the following from Munro's book :
T'ie United States coal-ilelds are immense ; much larger, it is said, than those
of r.ll the w(nld put tojjuther. A well-inforuuHl writer says : " There are two hun-
dred thousand sqnare miles of ooal-Iands in the country, ten times as much as in
all the remaining world." Between the Atlantic and the Kocky Mountains her
coal-Uelds are scattered here and therein all directions; and near the Pacific coast
she has abundance of coal.
And the means of transit by rivers, lakes, canals, and railroads are so wide-
spread that both the States and the Domiuion can be readily supxdled.
Oiitaiiii liiui to (li'|i«u(l upon tlio rutou fur nil livr con) ; nnil tlin (Mnvi-lniid nntl
Et jo KnilcoiKlH liavi> liroiii;lit >{<>iitri<Al nml ollinr imrtHof Cmmilu into iu<ar conneo-
tlon with tho Hiitliiai^ito coal-HulilH of tlio Unitml H(at«H.
And Hgnin, an followH, oh to the triulu in breadHtufFH:
Hut tbfli'O in Aiiotliur Hide to tlie Hul>|»ct. Ontario linH Hour to hi-II, iinil t)in lower
provlnc.i'H of tlio Diiinlnlon aiu piircliaHiirM of l)i oiulHtii ttVt from tliu Uuitnl Statoii
to thu valiio of |I,87H,146.
Heiiiu), If Ontario liaH to pay a duty on coal, It would only bo fair play to protect
lier l)r(ia<lNtiin'H by InipoHlii): li duty (in ini|inrtatlnnH from tbu Stati<H, wliieh duty
tlie nuirttlmv provlncoH would liiivo to pay Into lliti ('anadinn triMwury.
In lr<77 tbu Uunilnlon imported wbvat, Hour, rnm, and nipal of all' klndit to the
valuK of ti:i.'^U«.''H4 : of tbffi tlin value of tl3,lins,IMri wm from th» United Slitten.
Of thlH lar^e uninnnt the wheat Imported waH valued at I^I.UU-i.TH:), and Indian corn
at #3,a;)il,8(14. In the throe yearn pruvlou* to lf7H the Dominion imported wheat,
wheat Hour, porn, and corn'moni to the value of |:t(i,01H.7-J7, or an averaneof twelve
mlllionN of dollai'H' worth pt^ iinnum, and exported of lireadHtiiirit to the value of
#.'l'l.33'i.4n4,nr eleven and a naif inillbrndollarH worth per annum. Kut a lari(e|iart
of the ('anailliin exports conHisted of barley, oatH, peane. and beumi, valued at
#7,438,7012. In IhlH year Ontario exporte<l of theno and other coatHe grains to the
value of |.'i,4'j:i,774. Of barley alone Hhe exported H,U4'.2,<l3'.i buHhelH ; and Imported
of breadHtutfrt from tho States to tho value of ♦2,!Wt!,.5«.'5 more than she exported.
The year previous to tlie Dominion tariff of 1874 we exported to
Canada l,lKM,il45 gallons of petroleum aooording to the Canadian re-
tunm of iinportH. An stated hy Mr. Bates, in hix argument before re-
ferred to, " our exports to Canada up to the time the tariff went
into operation, in breadstiiffs alone, were some ten to twelve million
dollars per annum; in sugars, some four millions, and in coal, some
three millions of dollars." A few other articles or items of our trade
with Canada may be referred to, taken from the statement of trade for
1879. In that year we sold to Canada agrionltural implements worth
#127,447 only, according to the imperfect returns made to the Treas-
ury Department, but of the value of ^227,745, as more correctly given
by the tratle accounts of the Dominion customs. We made also the
following sales, namely : 3;S5,210 tons of anthracite <>ad 1U5,542 tond
of bituminous coal to Canada, according to our Treasury statement,
but 408,827 tons and 3iK),65li tons, respectively, according to theCaua-
dian returns ; $21,24.3 in brooms and brushes ; $103,579 in carriages,
carts, &c. ; l,381,8:{:iponndsof cordage; $l:i8,()52in drugs, &o. ; $146,295
in fancy articles; $3,3:)8,777 in iron and iron articles, more than one-
fourth of our whole sales, Canada being om best customer ; $158,851
in India rubber, &o.; $142,982 in leather, and $299,04!lin mannfacturea
of leather ; over 9,000,000 pounds of unmanufactured cotton ; 4,700,000
bushels of breadstnffs ; 355,975 barrels of wheat flour ; 7,293,275 bushels
of Indian corn ; 2,219,315 bushels of oats ; 3,500,000 pounds of bacon
and hams; 12,7.50,000 pounds of pork ; 12,408 bushels of onions, and
8,.')00,000 pounds of tobacco. These are a few of the articles in which
we have a special trade with Canada. Next to our trade with Qreat
Britain is that of Canada, and Canada trades more with us than with
any other country.
As was stated by Mr. Bates in his argument, " of the imports in 1877
$37,000,000 came from Great Britain, $48,000,000 from the United
States, and $8,300,000 fn)m all other countries. It will thus be seen
that much the larger amounts of the imports made by Canada were
from the United States, and that the importance and magnitude of
this question cannot well be exaggerated. Of all the exports of Can-
ada in 1877, for example, $45,500,000 went to Great Britain, while
only $25,000,000 went to the United States, and $9,000,000 to all the
other countries."
According to the Report on Commerce and Navigation for the year
ending June 30, 1879, our trade with the Dominion of Canada ranks
22
at) tli«4 fifth iu the HhI, and amounted to $30,843,702 in exports and
$2(),133,544 iu imports, making a total commerce with Canada for the
year of if5(;,9T7,256, or 4.9*2 per cent, of the whole foreign commerce
of the United States. The value of the commerce with Canada was
only inferior to that with Great Britain, France, West Indies, and
Germany, and exceeded that with Brazil, China, Italy, Russia, British
East Indies, Japan, Turkey, or Mexico, and was very greatly in ex-
cess of most of them.
Let it also be remembered that correct tables would make the ag-
gregates of exports from the United States to Canada much larger
than the above amounts, and would materially, and in some years
perhaps wholly, change the apparent balances against us to our favor.
The Canadian accounts show much larger aggregates of our exports
to Canada than do our accounts. The reason is easy to understand.
Our authorities do not keep accurate accounts of goods sent across
the border, as it is of no pecuniary interest to them to do so. It is
not the exports but the imports that we get a revenue upon. Hence
uien may, so far as we are concerned, take goods across the border
without any reference to entries or custom-houses.
Here, for exam])le, is an account taken from the Commerce and
Navigation Report of the United States for 1879, showing the diii'er-
ence between the accounts of the United States and Canada as to the
exports from this country into the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and
Manitoba, for year ended June 30, 1879 :
ExportH iuto Slid provinces, as per Cannilian accounts , 837, 935, n22
Expoi'ta Into said proviucus, as per United States accounts 24, Tfiti, 41?
Here in one year is a difference of $13,157,504 between the accounts
of Canada and the United States.
I take the following from the United States Commerce and Navi-
gation Report for 187G :
TRADE WrrU CANADA.
Diiiinstbe year endeil June 30, 1870, the total value of domestic merchandise
and produce exported to Canada, and which was omitted in tlie returns of the
United States customs ofUcers on the Canadian border, as appears from the ofllcial
statements furnished by the commissioner of customs of the Dominiim, amounted
to 110,507,563. as against $lS,5nr),.524 in the preceding year, and |ll,4-J4,.5(i8 in 1874.
I'he following statement shows the character of the articles exported to the
provinces of Ontario and (iuobec during the last fiscal year, of which no returns
were made to this bureau from the United States collectors of customs on our
northern border:
B'.atement, (uxording to Canadian aeeountt, showing the importg into Canada from
the United States in except of the domettic exports from the United Statesto CaiiMia,
as returned to the Bureau of Statistics by United States collectors of customs, mir-
ing the fiscal year ended Jwxe 30 , 1 876.
Blacking 111,394
B joks, pamphlets, maps, and other publications 345, 8.54
Brass and copper, manofactnres of S38, .500
Bricks 14,8.53
Brooms and brushes of all kinds 86,913
Carriages, carts, and parts of 102, 128
Cars, railroad, passenger and freight 21,598
Clocks, and parts of, (IncludinK watches) 1.51, 436
Coal 538,508
Cordage, rope, and twine of all kinds 32,538
Cotton, manufactures of '. 1,593,285
Drugs, chemicals, and medicines 60,904
Dye stuffs 85,768
Fancy articles 268,320
Fruits 60,264
Furs and fur-skins.' 31,975
Gas-fixtures and chandeliers 42.791
Jewelry and other manufactures of gold and silver 63. 008
23
Hair, and mauiifactures of 130,976
Hats, caps, and bonuetn 346,869
Hides and skins, other tliau fiir 728,695
ludia-rnbbnr and gutta-perclia mannfactarea , 82, 969
Iron and steel, and manufactures ol: i S, 22), 947
Leather, and manufactures of 158, 153
Boots and shoes 110,466
Musical instruments :
Organs, melodeons, &c. 81, 448
Piano-fortes, and all other 225,696
Naval stores 11,943
Oils:
Mineral 34,733
T^ hale and other flsh 84,959
Linseed 11,186
Ordnance stores, gunpowder — 28,187
Paints and painters' colors. 63,777
Paintings and engravings 45,739
Paper and stationery 279,833
Printing-presses and type 87,959
Provisions :
Fish, including oysters 410,688
Potatoes and other vegetables 73,108
Rags 71,883
Seeds, clover, timothy, garden, and all other 10,906
Sewing-machines, anil parts of 41,966
Spirits of turpentine 24,317
Tobacco, and manufactures of :
Leaf 75,519
Cigars 17,179
Snuff', and other manufactures of 19,434
Varnish 28,096
Wine 16,498
Wool, raw and fleece Ici9, 512
Wool, manur'actures of 349,439
All articles not enumerated :
All other manufactured articles 541, 139
A 11 other unmanufactured articles 363,467
Total 10,507,563
It will be observed that the greater portion in value of these articles exported to
Canada, of which no official returns are made to this bureau, consists of manufact-
ures of cottnu, wool, iron, copper, &c., which require in their production the em-
ployment of no inconsiderable amount of capital and skilled labor. Where such
important interests are involved it lit highly desirable that our accounts of exports
shall show as completely as is poi^.tihle the amount and character of the surplus
produce and manufactures sent out of the country, and the exact amonnts taken
1)y each country. Especially Is it iiupurtant that in all legislation aifecting our
friendly business intercourse with Canada our accounts of commercial exchanges
with that country stiall be of such a character as to furnish a safe guide to ynao
legislation, instead of being liable to mislead, as they now may by reason of their
incompleteness.
In the reports for the fiscal years 1874 and 187,5 attention was directed to this
subject and the defective legislation, which rendered it almost if not quite impossi-
ble to obtain full and accurate statements of our exports to Canada piinted out.
As no legislation has since taken place providing a remedy for this defect, the un-
dersigned again respectfully but earnestly requests that the facts already sub-
mitted be brought to the attention of Congi-ess at the ensuing session, and that
legislation lie asked for extending to railroad cars and other land vehicles passini;
from the United States iuto ad,iaceut foreign territory, requirements in regard to
the filing of lists or manifests of their lading similar to those now provided ny sec-
tion 337 of the Bevised Statutes with respect to vessels clearing for foreign coun-
tries.
Will it bfl arfiued that the subject is not of sufiSoient importance
for iuvestigation f
IV.— DID THB FCRHEB TREATY BENEFIT VBI
[ii regard to this resolution the favorite arganient contra is that the
forinef treaty was au injury to us, and therefore we do not wish to
hear anything further of a commercial treaty with Canada. This
24
arcnnient is not pertinent here and bas not the sligliteat weight or
retevancy, as no one bas ever expected or claimed that the new treaty
shonld be the same as the old one. It, however, is pushed with so
mnch persistPTicy that it is worth our while to inqnire into the state-
ment and see if there is any foundation for it.
WHAT THE FC'BMEU TREATY WAS.
The old reciprocity treaty, so called, was made between the United
States and the government of Oreat Britain June 5, 18.'i4, and was
terminated March 17, 18(jti, under notice given by the United States
March 17, 18C.5, pursuant to article 5 of the treaty. The principal ob-
ject and result of the treaty was the settlement of the fishery qnes-
tion, which unfortunately, however, proved to be no settlement of it
at ail. It gave to the fishermen of the United States liberty to fish
on the sea-coast and shores and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the
Doninion, with permission to land for the parpose of drying nets and
oaring fish. The principal part of the treaty had reference to fishery
qnestiona, but article 8 is as follows :
Abticle hi.
It U agreed that the articles enumerated in the schedule hereunto annexed,
being the crowth and produce of the aforesaid British colonies or of the United
States, shall be admitted into each country respectively free of duty :
Sehedtile.— Grain, flour, and breadstum, of all kinds; animals of all kinds:
fresh, smoked, and salted meats ; cotton, wool, seeds, and vegetables ; undried
fmits, dried fruits ; fish of all kinds ; products of iish and of all other creatures
living in the water ; poultry, eggs, hiaos, furs, skins, or tails, undressed ; stone
or marble, in its crude or unwronght state ; slate, butter, cheese, tallow, lard,
horns, manures ; ores of metals, of all kinds ; coal ; pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes ;
timber and lumber, of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed, unmannfaotuied in
whole or in part ; firewood ; plants, shrubs, and trees ; pelts, wool ; iishoil ; rice,
broom-corn, and bark ; gypsum, ground or unground ; hewn or wrought or un-
wrought burr or grind stones ; dye-stuffs ; flax, hemp, and tow, unmanufactured ;
unmanafactured tobacco ; rags.
It has been said in the argument against this resolution that the
object of this treaty was to force the annexation of Canada or to lead
up to annexation. The immediate object of the treaty, on the con-
trary, was the settlement of the interminable questions of the fishery
dispntes. The preamble of the treaty was as follows :
The Government of the United States being equally desirous with Her Majesty
the Queen of Great Britain to avoid further misunderstanding between their re-
specuve citizens and subjects in regard to the extent of the right of flshiag on the
coMtM of British North America, secnred to each by article 1 of a convention be-
tween the United States and Oreat Britain, signed at London on the 30th day of
October, 181R ; and being also desirous to regulate the commerce and navigation
between their respective territories and people, and more especially between Her
Hi^esty's possessions in North America and the United States, in such manner as
to render the same reciprocally beneficial and satisfactory, have respectively named
plenipotentiaries to confer and agree thereupon — that is to say.
On account of the commercial relations between the two oonntries
and the desire of our fishermen to fish in British waters, and of Cana-
dians to sell fish in onr country free of duty, and in order to foster
and build up a trade between the two oonntries, and to promote ami-
cable relations between them, this treaty was made. It was made
purely for commercial purposes and because the mercantile interests
of the country demanded it. The treaty, by its provisions, was to
remain in force for ten years from the date on which it was to go into
operation, and afterward either of the high contracting parties could
t«rminate it by a notice of twelve months to the other of its wish to
terminate the same. Taking advantage of this clause, the treaty was
terminated as hereinbefore stated. The question will be asked why,
if the treaty worked well and it was desirable to have commercial
25
relatiouB with Canada, there should have been any toroiiuation of it f
Vario. i causes oontribiited to its repeal. One reason was, as stated
by Hon. Elijah Ward, member of Congress from New York, in a speech
delivered in the House of Representatives in May, 1876, when he said
that it (the treaty) " was for several years mutually satisfactory,
but, under the pressure of debt and the need of increased revenue,
the Canadians raised the duties on manufactured goods to such an
extent as to destroy its natural effects in promoting the many brauohes
of industry of onr people."
The treaty only applied to natural productions, and the raising of a
tariff on manufactured goods, thus excluding them to a considerable
extent from Canadian markets, was a great cause of the discontent
of our people. Still, the principal moving cause of the mpeal of that
treaty was undoubtedly our feeling of hatred against Canada. The atti -
tude of Canada toward our people during the civil war cannot be either
apologized for or satisfactorily explained. As a nation, their feel-
ings were against us and with our enemies, and where we had ex-
pected the brotherly sympathy of our neighbors across the border,
we found only hostility and harsh criticism. On account of their
attitude and actions a just feeling of indignation grew up among
onr people, which culminated finally in the abolition of the treaty
as one means of cutting off communication with them and of punish-
ing them, as was desired, for their action.
I take the following extract from the said speech of J. C. Bates,
esq.:
Its commorcial bearings were not recognized at all. It was shown conclnslvely
that the balance of tra<lo and tl;e baliince of advantage in the workings of the
treaty were not against the United States. It is enough to say tliat they prtxluced
no Impression npon the minds of those who songut the abrogation of the treaty.
One ot the cousideratious whiuU manifested itself at almost every stage of the pro-
ceedings had reference to the conduct of the Canadian aathorities and Canaaian
people daring onr civil war.
Two extracts from the CoDgressional GrIobe.wiU illustrate what I mean. On the
11th of December, 1864, the day following that on which the vote adverse to the
treaty was taken in the House of Kepresentatives, a member who had been absent
rose and asked for permission to record his vote, when the following conversation
took place :
" llr. Stkvens, of Pennsylvania. I would like to inquire whether It is trne that
the Canadian authorities have discharged all the rebels whose cases have been
under investigation }
" Mr. Wabhiiuunr, of Illinois. It is so stated In a dispatch from Toronto.
"Mr. Stkvbn'B. Then I hope that all gentlemen who vote against the bill will
change their votes, and make the passage of the bill unanimous."
When the resolution was reported back to the Senate by the Committee on For-
eign Kelations, Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, spoke against it, as follows :
This is a step that the Senate ought not to take, and particularly ought they not
to take it under an excite<l state of feeling which exists now in consei^uence of
what we conceive to be a great wrong inflicted on us by the authorities ot some of
those provlnceB that are particularly affected by this treaty. I know that when
this treaty was negotiated, when the reciprocity principle was established, it was
looked npon by the enlightened statesmen of this country and of England as an
advance in the social progress of society, and as a step in tne onward march which
should nndo the shackles of commerce, and give greater liberty and greater prog-
ress to commercial interooarse between this country and those provinces. • * *
The nation is about to retrace its well-considei-ed steps from a position which it
took go long ago ; and at whose instance ? X ot at the instance of the Committee
on Commerce, although the commercial interests are those that are to be most
vastly affected by it. Not at tlie suggestion of the Committee on Finance, from
which it shonld have been appropriately advised, if the real reason for the measure
was the one that was hinted at by the honorable Senator [Mr. Sumner] — that the
treaty ought to be abrogated at a time like this, when we are looking about us to
find subjects of taxation to replenish and to aid our exhausted Treasury.
" If that was the ground on which this resolution was placed, I wonld not say a
word against it. If it had originated from a purpose and a desire to aid the na-
tional Treasnry in this hour of the country's peril, to supply men or money for the
26
rgantic eflfort which we are now making for iiatloniil oxintence and national lionor,
nevur would liavo said one word or one syllable against it. But thot is not the
i^oinid. The Committee on '/oraraerce have not been heurd from ; the Committee
on Finance have nut been beard from. It conies from the Committee on Foreign
BelatinuH, and therefore I think it maybe considered as coming, not from the com-
mercial nor from the financial interests, nor from those who represent those inter-
ests. * • • If you abrogate this treaty, it will be looked upon in Canada, it will
be looked upon by Great Britain, and it will be looked upon in this country by
some certAinly, as a measure of retaliation springing out of a resentment which, I
grant you, is just, for some wi-ougs we have suffered at the hands of these colonies."
Another reason of the repeal was the desire to force auuexation.
It was thotight that if we cut off reciprocal trade with Canada, and
thereby injured her trade and took away from her the business which
bhe could not afford to lose, the people of the douiiaiou would be-
come anxiom for annexation with the United States as a remedy for
all their woes. As au iudica \ou of this feeling, the presiding officer
of the commercial convention which met at Detroit in 1865 to con-
sider our treaty and commercial relations with these provinces re-
ceived a telegram from Washington, from one formerly in high offi-
cial position at the capital: "Establish reciprocity, and you will
permanently establish a monarchy in British North America; defeat
It, and you will insure the triumph of republicanism over this con-
tinent." Our then consul-general for Canada went to Detroit and
exerted himself in every way to prevent action for the renewal or
modification of the treaty.
I shall not under this heading consider the question of whether it
is wise to have annexation, even if we could, of which I have very
grave doubts, or whether the i>ioi<.us proposed were useful to that
end. I only say here that the repeal of the treaty was not a com-
mercial, but a i)olitical measure. Many commercial interests of the
country desired a modification of the treaty, and the British govern-
ment desired to have it modified rather than repealed, and, so far as I
know, none of the commercial organizations or interests of the coun-
try ever asked for the absolute repeal of that treaty. The repeal
grew entirely out of the feelings and passions engendered by the war,
rather than out of any fancied mercantile demand for it.
THE EFFECT OK THE FOBHEB TREATY.
This treaty continued from June 5, 1854, to March 17, 1876. I claim,
and I think that it will be amply proved, that that treaty, with all
its imperfections, was not a disadvantage to the United States. The
opponents of all ideas of reciprocal trade with Canada assume as a
self-evident proposition that the former treaty was injurious to this
country and of more advantage to Canada than it was to us. They
assume this as a fact, and then proceed to found long arguments
upon it, whereas I think that this House by a study of the question
will be convinced that the^ exact opposite is the fact. Even the de-
lusive standard of the balance of trade shows this to be the case. I
call the attention of the House to the table which I have before re-
ferred to, showing the excess of imports from the Unit«d States to
Canada over exports, and vice versa, from the year 1851 to 1878. From
1854 to 1859, both inclusive, the balance of trade was very largely in
our favor. In 1860 and in 1861 it turned against us by a small
amount, while in 186*2 and 1863 it was again in our favor. From
1864 to 1873 it was against us, and from 1874 to 1878 it has again
been largely in our favor. The treaty continued substantially for
twelve years. Of this twelve years, eight years showed a large bal-
ance in our favor, while during only four years was there a balance
against us. According to the tables, the balance in our favor for the
•einlit years auioniiteil to the sum of 4(i:?,470,417, whilB the balnuce
against us during the four years iiuiouuted to the sum of ^16,863,564,
sbowiug as a difference in our favor between these two. balances the
BUiu of i46,6l5,8r)3. The Can:idinn accounts of importations and ex-
portations differ somewhat from tliose of the United States, for rea-
SOHH which it is not now necessary to detain the House by explaining,
and hence these iigiires may vary to a limited extent; i)ut in what-
ever way the calculations are made a very larj^e balance of trade in
our favor and against Canada always appears daring the years of
the treaty. The foregoing tigures I have taken froi. different re-
ports or official statistics.
Mr. Bates, in his argument hereinbefore referred to, sums up the
results of the old treaty as toDows:
Under its opei-atloiis the aggregBto intercliange of coininndltios rose fioin an an-
nual avorase uf |l4,3:i0,76:i In tlie provions ei^Ut yearn to g.!3, 4!hJ,754, ;;olfl oiineucv,
ii! die first year of the treaty ; to !j4-i.!(-12,7,'i4, jjolil, in the second: to«.'jn,3;i9,770.
gold, in the third : and to no less than $84,070,9.^5, at war prires, in the thirteenth
and final year. The civil war, during a considerahle portion of the existence of
the treaty, <ircatly increased the rohiiiie and value of imports from the provinces,
(and the exportn to the provinces as naturally reduced,) and .vet the l>iilance of trade
for the entire periml of thirteen years was'larjioly in favor of tlie United States.
Tn that time the provinces purchased from the United States $Mii. 180.3(i4, and the
United States pni-chaHed from the pi-oviuces 8t2.'),720,.520, Icavinir a balance in favor
of the Uuiti'd States of #20,4.")4,24li. IJiit the real balance Is probably lartjer than
these H^jures from the United States returns, as the first ten years of the treaty
showed a clear balance of i(i2,0l3,545. That balance appears by our Government
returns to have been reduced by tlie opei-ations of the three following yeai-s to the
sum before stated, namely, t20,454,'.24li. Due allowance, however, should be made
for infiatt^d war-price values of importations. The returns of British provinces
make the balance t'>.'i,7Uti.!(r<t in favor of the United States.
Such, then, weie the results from the old treaty. Let us glance one moment at
the character of the traffic :
Total purchageg by the proviiices, of the United States, domestic and foreign, articles in
bond.
Animals and their products $33,4.13,213
Breadstuffs 118,0.')a473
Other farm products 3,242, !)83
Timber 8,511,4S«
Manufactures 88, 649, ftM
Miscellaneous 24,044,977
Total homo productions 271 940, 988
Foreign commodities bought iu bond from merchants iu United States
and imported into Canada 62,379,718
Total 334,320,706
Showing not less than il5l, 029,573 of maaufactnred goods purchased by Cana-
dians from the United States under the treaty. These figures are taken from the
United States otHcial returns, as quoted in proposa' for treaty submitted by Great
Britain in 1874, to which reference will be mftde further on.
The tables show a rise in the balance of trade in our favor from
$5,559,924 in lf553, the year before the treaty, to $15,039,300 in 1854
and $12,()69,'286 in 1855, and the rise iu the value of our exports to
Canada from $13,140,642 in 1853 to $24,566,dO0 in 1854, and $27,806,020
in 1855, and $29,529,349 in 1856, which certainly must be regarded as
ft very extraordinary increase and can only be attributed to the effect
of the treaty.
I take the following from Munro's book, heretofore referred to :
During the operatiou of that treaty, when international commerce was allowed
tn follow its natural bent at least in a measure, the domestic trade between these
two countries rose from 120,691,360 in ln53, the year before the treaty, to $33,491,420
in the following year.
In 1865, when the treaty wiis abrogated, the total imports from and exports to the
^nlon amounted to 171,374,816 ; and iu 1866. believing the treaty would be renewed,
28
the trade l)etween the two countries rose to |84.07ii,055. But in 1868, when all liopo
of II new treaty of reciprocity failed, the trade fell to 150,387,546, ghowing a decline
of twentyeiirlit niillionH in two yearB.
The total trade between theHe countries in the eleven years previous to 1855 was
|163,59:<,4;)5, while in the following eleven years, when the effects of the treaty were
felt, their total trade rose to t554.6:M,9l6. And the ratio uf increase was greater in
the last than In the tlrst years of the treaty.
The liniiteil compass and slow in'uwlh of their trade previous to 1854, its unprece-
dented expunsiou from that period to the close of 1866, when the effects of the
treaty had reached their maximum and the sudden decrease which followetl the
abrrgation of the treaty, are sii^iiiticaut resulllb, and cannot fail to impress the in-
habitants of both countries with the importance of closer free-trade relations.
And the triide between the Uuniiniou of Canada and the United States did not
exceed the value of |78,003,4!ia in lf!76, and one million less than this sum in 1877.
During the opeiatinn of the treaty the chief part of the trade between the prov-
inces and Great Britain bei^ame gindually transferred to the United States. And
now. witiiout the advantages which that treaty afforded, the trade between the
provinces and the States, even in the face of an almost prohibitory tariff, is com-
paratively large.
The following is from the speech of Mr. Ward, In Congress, May 18,
1864:
The treaty was dated Jnne 5, 1854, and its salutary effects were partially experi-
enced during that year. Our exports to the pi-ovinces during the seven preceding
years have been multiplied nearly threefold In the seven years which have elapsed
since the treaty, having been t6!i,6H6,107 in the former and 1171,628,779 in the latter
period; while our imports from the same regions have increased more than four-
fold, having l>een (34,81.'),885 in the former period against (145,183,096 in the seven
years since the treaty went fully into effect.
It was said by the honorable member — he repeated the remark several times —
that the balance of our trade with the provinces is against us. The statement ap-
pears slightly moditied in his remarks as printed in the Globe ; biic is substantially
retained there. Did he mean during the last year of which we have otflcial informa-
tion f It was then nearly two millions in our favor. Did he mean during the whole
time since the treaty went Into operation 1
In that time it was more than twenty-six millions in onr favor. There is nothing
vague about this. There is no mystery in the figures. There is no need of passion
or declamation. The solution is as easy as that of any school-boy sum in arithme-
tic, or of any ordinarv settlement of accounts between individuals.
I find my 'data on the sixth page of the letter from the Secretary of the Treasury
In answer to the resolution of this House on the 17th day of last December, asking
for information as to the operations of this treaty. We asked him for information,
and it is furnished to us. Shall we ignore it, ami substitute for it such conclusions
as our several fancies may suggest i We may iu this way point a paragraph or
lend some illusory brilliancy to a speech ; but that is not statesmansuip. It does
not accord with our duty to the nation. The balance of gold on which so much
stress has been laid was not paid by us to the provinces bnt by them to ns. It
amounted to (36,445,693. This is the state of affairs as to which the honorable
member says he " would, if necessary, use force to put an end to an alliance so in-
jurious."
Meeting upon their own ground the theorists who regard " a balance of trade in
our favor" as the chief test of the benefits of commercialexchanges with any single
country, I find that, according to the reports of the Secretary of the Treasury, there
appears to have been during the thirteen years when a treaty for the reciprocal ex-
change of grain, lumber, and many other natural productions existed, a balance in
our favor amounting to some {83,000,000 and that ever since the termination of the
treaty until 1874, when the pressure on onr affairs tended to force sales at low prices
there has been a balance against the United States in the tra«Ie with the Dominion.
So much for the present exclusive policy iu comparison with the more liberal
but incomplete system under the treaty, judging them from the ordiuary stand-
point of many protectionists.
Regarding the balance of trade as a test of the benefit or disad-
vantage of the commerce with our country, it was in our favor, but
the balance of trade is by no means a conclusive test ; and if it could
be made to appear that such balance is against us, it would not prove
that the treaty waj a disadvantage to the United States. The argu-
ment of the balance of trade being against a country is always a fa-
vorite argument with those who desire to prove that such a trade is
of no advantage, but it is in the highest degree delusive. Suppose,
29
for exuiii)i1e, that the balance of trade in cereal products was agaiust
our country and in favor of Canada, it by no means follows that that
trade whs injurioun to os, but the natural assuuiption wouhl be that
it might be a benefit, for if we did not need those cereals from Can-
ada for our own consumption we could either sell them to foreign
countries and thus increase our foreign trade, or they would release
to the same exteut the cereal producto of our own country to be sent
abroad. It will need no argument to prove that if any portion of
our productions are replaced by foreign importations, just so much
of our productions may be released to be sent to foreign countries.
So a balance of trade against us might still result in a benefit to this
country, irrespective of the qnostion of our merchants, shippers, and
handlers of freight having these goods puss through their hands and
through our commercial ports.
It is alwnj'8 to beveineniberod tliiit tlio trade between that country and the United
States is to a consiilerable extent one of transit or carryinji t« other countries, and
thu8 \rbat is called "a balance" against us, which Is really an advautaKe, may
exist, becauHe it may merely represent what wo have bought fiom one country to
sell at a profit to others.
If onr merchants buy the bulky productions of Canada to the extent of irany
millions and carry them tbrouKli our own country to our sea-]>orts, tlioy givi^ t iii-
ployment to our laborers, create a demand for the pi-oilucts of our tanners, -iiid
cause the expenditure and employment of vast sums of money anion); our trailers
and capitalists, while the articles thus carried and exported stand to our credit aud
profitably swell the balance in our favor in other countries, beine at least as val-
uable in our oxcb: .ngcs with the rent of the world as if they were sold and silver. —
Hon. E. Ward') speech in Home of llepregentativeg, May 18, 1876.
I therefuie claim that even by the test of the balance of trade or
otherwise the treaty was a benefit to us. If it is to be. argued that
the fact of the balance of tnulu being against us is an absolute injury
to the country, and any trade should be shut off and destroyed which
shows a balance against ns, why does not Congress endeavor to pass
some law actually forbidding all trade whatever with Canada or
France or any other country in regard to which the balance may
be against us f If ■we purchase goods aud thus produce a balance
against us, it is because as a people we want to purchase thode goods —
because we need them, because we think it will be a beuelit to us
as a people ; and hence a country may be benefited if it purchases
goods from another and sells to that other country no goods what-
ever. The argument travels around in a circle, because it is to be
supposed that if it was of no benefit to our people and our merchants
to purchase such goods, they would not purchase them.
EFFECT OF ITS KEPEAL.
After the repeal the balance of trade was steadily against us until
1874, at which time it agaiu turned in our favor, wheu, on account
of the prostration of business aud the low value of material and
labor, our goods began to be man ufactured at so low a cost and our
other articles to be produced so cheaply that wo could sell to the
Canadians at lower rates than they could sell to us. WhateVer the
raason, the fact is, as shown by the figures, that after the termination
of the treaty the balance of trade with Canada turned and remained
against us until recently.
Mr. Ward, in his speech of May, 1876, said :
Since the termination of the treaty the proportion of the trade of Canada with
this country, in comparison with the whole foreign trade, has been reduced from
S5 to 35 per cent., until the necessities of our people compelled them to part with
the proiluota of their labor at reduced prices.
As was said at the hearing before the committee :
I propose now, Mr. Chairmau, to show the results following the repeal of the
30
trcftty. Customs, duties were, of course. inipoMci) on nonrly all nrticlos tinporteil
{nun the pruvinccs. The provincial tAriff whh but little cbaneeil, and a largo pre-
]«>utlerance of articles from the United States were still admitted free. Tlie use
of the Canadian canals and the uaviKation of the Saint Lawrence were still left
open to American shipping. Under lullaence of the peremptory notice given by
United States in 186S of a termination of the treaty the confe<leiation of the British
provinces was hastened, and became an accomplished fact within fifteen months
after such terminatioa. The intercolonial railway connecting the maritime prov-
inces with the province of Quebec was undertaken at a cost of over ('20,000,000.
Commissioners were dispatched to the Krilisli and otlior Went Inilii's Islands and
to South America, to promote and extend trade. The subsidizing of ocean and river
steamships, the promotion of the great ship-building and Ushery interests, ail these
received fresh and energetic advancement.
The export trade of the provinces with other countries largely increased. Be-
ing shut out from our markets they were compelled to liud otlier outlets for their
products. Their business with the West Iniiies increased, and ho increased too
in the very merciuuidise shut ont from our markets by the operations of onr tariff.
It enable<l them, Ut a large extent, to shut out our people from that trade because
they could supply their pnidiicts So much cheaper.
In other words, they built up a West India IJusiness with the very merchandise
we hod excludeil and which, but for this, our merchauts mieht have received and
distributed profitably in those very markets where their Canadian cnmpelitors
were now ftuced to undersell them. Not only this, but Canatlian vesHcls secured
a large share of the carrying trade, the bulk of arrivals of sut^ar and molasses at
Boston (I should say fully three-fourths) being brought in British bottoms. This
has been the situation for several years.— Ari/tonrnC »/ J. V. Bates, esq.
The repeal of the treaty was not only of effect in tnrninf; the bal-
ance of trade against ns, but in inducing Canada to enter upon a
career of self-prudiiction and of fostering her own industries and man-
nfactnres, which effect will be briefly discussed hereafter. When our
opponents claim, then, that the old treaty was of no benefit and that
its repeal can be demonstrated to have worked benefit to our country,
and that therefore there is no use in considering this subject at all,
I deny both their statements and their conclusions.
TUB (QUESTION OF THE EFFECT OK THE FORWF.It THEATY OR OK ITS REl'EAL IMMA-
TERIAL.
But, after all, this question is wholly immaterial, although onr op-
ponents lay 80 much stress upon it. I beg to remind the House again,
because onr opponents by their arguments persist in refusing to ac-
cept it as a conclusive statement, that this is only a resolution for
information and that these complicated and vexed questions of the
effect of old or of new possible treaties is one of the very questions
which we want a commission to investigate and thoroughly examine.
It is entirely irrelevant when we ask for information on a subject for
gentlemen to argue that the facts are as they state, because it is this
very question of fact which we want the commission to investigate.
v.— 18 THE CONDITION OF AFFAIRS SUCH AT THE PRESENT TIME A8 TO MAKE AN IN-
<jUIRY ADVISAULB?
A permanent policy in regard to onr trade with Canada should now
be adopted, and if possible the long-standing controversy between
the two countries ended. It is for the interests of each country that
it shoald now know what to expect in the future, and should avoid
doubtful and shifting legislation. A nation, like an individual, can
adapt itself to a policy, even if a bad one, if it knows it is to be per-
manent. If an exclusive one of non-intercourse between the two
conntrieH is to be adopted, Canada will go to work and build up manu-
factures and other industries and put herself under pledges to her
manufacturers to protect them. If this policy is adopted it cannot
well be changed in the future, because when Canada has allowed her
citizens to expend large sums of money in building up manafactnring
industries under the influence of a prohibitory tariff against this
31
country, and a protective tarirt' for her own citizens, she cannot after-
ward abtiudou them and leave them to the mercy of open uud free
competition with other coiintriefl. At the present time she is under
no such pledKes or oi)ligationH, but the people of Canada desire tu
purchase their goods in the cheapest market. In one year, five years,
or ten years, under a non-intercourse policy, she may be under such
pledges and cannot, without a gross breach of faith, treat with the
Unit«d States for reciprocal trade. This seems to be^ as it were, an
interregnum between dead policies of the past and policies of the fut-
ure of the two countries as to the respective questions of interest.
Those questions remain in abeyance awaitiug a settlement.
The question now vexing the Canadian authorities is as to what
tariff policy they sh.all adopt, whether of protection, or of retaliation,
or of free trade. AH these questions of commercial intercourse be-
tween the two countries are now in an unsettled state, and there never
was a time when the people were so anxious to have them talien up
and settled and when they could be treated with such freedom from
outside complications of law or otherwise. The new tariff of Canada
went into effect March 15, 1871). This tariff was intended by the Ca-
nadian authorities for two purposes : first, to foster the industries of
their own country ; and second, to punish the United States. By tlio
same law they hoped to keep out United States productions front
their country, and under the iutlueuce of their strong prohibitory and
retaliatory tariff to build up manufactures and to increase productions
in Canada. It is at the same time a prohibitory, retalii.tory, pro-
tective, and revenue tariff, and the object is boldly announced to be
to shut off American trade unless mutual arrangements can be made,,
and to cut our goods out of the Canadian markets. Now, if their
tariff was 'permanent, even though harsh against us, our merchants
could anticipate and make their calculations concerning it ; but under
their peculiar mode of tariff legislation they can change it at almost
any time, and whenever they see a new trade is growing up betweea
the United States and Can.ada they can almost instantly crush it out.
The long delays in enacting our tariff laws and the careful con-
sideration which such laws receive in our Congress or in committee
do not prevail in the Dominion. The mode of legislation in the Ca-
nadian Parliament differs widely from that followed in the United
States. In Canada the finance minister exorcises the duties of our
Committee on Ways and Means, prepares and submits a tariff to the
council, and sifter an approval it is submitted to the House of Com-
mons by the finance minister as a government measure. All the mia-
istArs are members by election or ex officio, and the government having-
a majority in the house (or they cannot obtain power) are able at
once to secure the passage of the bill. To illustrate : The customs-
tariff act of 1879 was sul)mitte(l on the afteruoon of March 14 by th&
fin:^co minister, Sir Leonard Tilley, when he made his budget speech.
He was replied to by his predecessor, agreeably to custom. Other
speeches were made by ministers and ex-ministers, and at about five
o'clock on the next morning the resolutions affirming the expediency
of many of the provisions embodied in the bill were passed. The new
tariff went into force on the opening of the custom-house on the 15tb.
If Canada chooses to carry on this tariff war, are we to meet her in
warfare of that sort f Canada can harm ns, it is true, but we can do
them infinitely more damage than they can possibly inflict on us. A
comparison of the new and old Canadian tariffs is worth ooDsiderin^,
as snowing the object of the new tariff and its possible resalts. It is
impossible to give here a fall list, bat below is a table of the articles
principally affected.
32
Dominion of Canada,— The new tariff and, the old.
Articles.
Agricultural implementa
ArtiHclal HowerR
BookbiuiinrH' toul8 aud implements
Burley-buiins
'Wheat
Oats, pease, and rye
Buckwheat
Inilian corn
Oatmeal
Wheat flonr
Bye Hour
Com-meal
Brass, in bars or shoots
BrasH tubing
Brooms and brushes
Cania);es, wagons, sleighs
Cenicut, raw
Cement, burnt
■Wttter-llme
Olocks. or parts of
Coal, anthriiolte
Coal, bituminous
Copper— pig, scrap, bar, bolt, ingot, and
sheet.
Copper tul)ing and wire
Copper rivets and I>ar8
Copper, manufactures of
Cordage, if for ships' purposes
Drain and sewer pipes and tiles
Brown, earthen, and stone ware
White granite or ironstone ware
Electroplated ware
Fish, except those free by treaty of Wash-
ington.
Apples
Peaches
Plums, qninces, and cranberries
Oranges and lemons
, Furniture ,
Gas or kerosene fixtures
Gutta-percha, manufactures of
Boots, shoes, and leather manufactures . . .
Iron, pig ,
Iron, old and scrap.
Iron— slabs, blooms, and billets ,
Iron — bars, band, hoop, sheet, galvanized,
boiler, and Canada plate.
Iron and steel wire, up to No. 18
Iron car- wheels
Locomotive engines
Iron machinery
Hardware— liuilders", cabinet-makers', sad-
dlers', carriage-makers', upholsterers'.
^^^oA — pig, block, bar, sheet, old scrap
Leather, upper, also sole and belting,
tanned but not waxed.
Oil, linseed or flax
Organs, specific aud ad valorem,
Paper-hangings
Envelopes
Whisky, (on imported gallon)
Brandy, (on imported gallon)
Steel — lngo*;i, bars, sheets...
Steel — edge-tools, farmers' implements,
snades, shovels, axes, saws, scythes, me-
chanics' tools, and skates.
New tariff.
8.1 percent
30 percent
l^ percuut
15 c. per bush . . .
10 0. per busli . . .
10 0. per bush...
10 c. per bush . . ,
TJ c. per bush . . .
i cpor lb
50 0. per bill
50 0. perbbl
40 c. per bbl - . . ,
10 per cent
10 percent
95 percent
US pur cent
11 per ton
li 0. per 100 Ills .
4t) 0. perbbl
'J5 per cent
50 c. per ton
50 c. per ton
10 per cent
10 per cent..
30 per cent..
30 per cent. .
15 per cent..
SJOper cent..
35 per cent..
30 per cent . .
30 per cent. .
1 c. per lb...
40 0. per bill . .
40 0^ per bush.
30 0. per bush .
30 per cent....
35 per cent
30 percent
33 per cent
35 per cent
t2per ton
ti per ton
131 per cent...
17| per cent...
35 per cent . . . .
35 per cent
35 per cent —
35 per cent....
30 per cent
10 per cent
15 per cent —
35 c. per gall..
tlOto 130
30 per cent
35 per cent —
tl.32i per gall.
$1.45 per gall..
10 per cent
30 per cent —
Old UrifT.
IT^ per cent.
17} per cent.
Free.
Free.
Free.
Free.
Free.
Fiee.
Free.
Free.
Free.
Free.
Broe.
percent.
per cent.
- . , per cent.
Free.
Free.
17i percent.
1T{ per cent.
Free.
Free.
Free.
Free.
Free.
17^ per cent.
5 per cent.
Free.
per cent.
per cent.
. per cent.
Free.
KTOf.
17* 1
"Si
17ji
17|i
per cent,
per cent,
per cent,
per cent,
per cent.
Iter cent,
per cent,
per cent.
17. r
Free.
Free.
Free.
5 per cent.
5 per cent.
17} per cent.
17} per cent.
10 and 17} p. o.
17} per cent.
Free.
10 per cent.
17} per cent.
17} per cent.
17} per c«nt.
17} per cent.
tl.30 per gall.
$1.30 per gall.
Free.
17} per cent.
33
Dominion of Canada,— Tlie new tariff and the oM.— Continued.
ArtiolM.
Sugar, alwve Ko. 14 Batch itandard
Sugar, No. OtoNo. 14
Sugar, below No.
MoIas'ieHnotforreflaery, if imported (Uroct.
Tin~blnol(H, pigfl, and bars
Type, priiitiug
Type metal
Glaag — bottloH, jars, phials, lamp-chiuinoys,
and colored window.
Cottons — HiieotiiiKs, drill, duck. Canton Uan-
nel, uncoiored.
CottoDH— Joans, denlma, ginghams, drill,
&o,, if coloretl.
Cottons, not biuacbod, colored
Cottons, bleached or dyed or colored
Cotton shirts, drawers, hosiery, and cloth-
ing.
Cotton thread, in hanks
Cotton tlirend, on spools
iVooiens— hIiawI.s blankots.flannels, tweeds,
coatings, clotliH, felt, yarn, knitted sliirts,
drawers, and hosiery.
Ready-made clothiue, wholly or mostly
wool, except knittuu.
Carpets, ingrain, three and two ply
New tariff.
1 c. per lb. and3.^p.c
} 0. per lb. and 30 p.c
i c. per lb. and 30 p.c
15 per cent
10 percent
30 percent
10 percent
30 per cent
15 percent
3 0. per sq. yd. and
18 p. 0.
3 o. per sq. yd. and
15 p. c.
3 c. per sq. yd. and
15 p. c.
30 percent
13i percent
30 percent
74 c. per lb. and 30
p.c.
10 c. per lb. and 35
p. c.
10 c. per sq. yd. and
SO p. c.
Old tariff.
1 c. per lb. and
83 p. c.
} 0. per lb, and
35 p, c.
t 0. per lb. and
83 p. 0.
33 per cent.
Free.
17} per cent.
Free.
17J per cent.
17i per cent.
17} per cent.
10 per cent.
10 per cent
17} per cent.
" per cent.
15
17} per cent.
They are still chanffing the tariiF from time to time as they think
it may help them and hurt us. For example, on March 10, 1880, they
increased the taritf on billiard tables, organs, and piano-fortes from
10 to 15 per cent.^ on blank books, &c., 30 per cent.; bitnminons
coal from fifty to sixty cents per ton ; china from 20 to 25 per cent. ;
ruled paper 25 per cent. ; and removed guuny cloth and bags from
the free list, and made many pther changes. Let us consider for a
moment a few of the results of the new tariff, which results it is en-
tirely imposs'ble in an argument of this nature to consider in detail.
Coal, formerly free, pays a duty of fifty cents per ton, and as our ex-
ports reach 870,682 tons, the question is one of no mean importance.
Flour, formerly free, now pays a duty of fifty cents a barrel. The
imports from the United States into Canada of petroleum amounted
to 1,034,1)54 gallons, and this is now practically shut out from the
Canadian markets. The duty on cotton and cotton manufactures has
been carried up from about 17^ per cent, to from 15 to 20 per cent.,
besides a specific duty (in general) of two cents per yard ; and on
woolen manufactures from 17^ to 20 per cent. The duties ou sugar
are practically prohibitory, and sugar refineries are commenced or in
contemplation in different parts of the Dominion. The result of this
policy, if persevered in, will be the stimulation of Canadian indus-
tries and of manufactures, the building of mills, and the rendering of
Canada to a certain extent independent of us.
It may be claimed that this is just what Canada wants under any
circumstances, and that we cannot prevent it. But nothing is more
certain than that Canada or the people of Canada do not desire this
unless forced into it. Canada does not desire a protective tariff, and
3 BO
34
'will throw it off, nnlcM it is forced npou ber by onr conduct. Tbey
underHtaud well that Huch a protective tarff, even if it does build up
their manufactures, would be of no advantage to the conanmera.
they cannot compete with ua, with our great reitonrceR, in manufact-
uring. Tlieir manufactories cannot turu out goods aa cheap as we
cau sell gjods to them, and already there are deep and loud uiutter-
ings of complaint by the people ngainst the new Canailian tariff sys-
tem. A protective tariff cannot lie devised there which is satisfao-
tory to the different sections of their great Dominion. If coal is pro-
tected, Western Canada complains because she cannot buy her coal
at cheap rates from the United States ; and if wheat is protected for
the benefit of Western Canada, then the eastern provinces complain
of it as a discrimination against them. It is no advantage to them
to build up a great manufacturing power at the cost of suffering to
the people, and it is certainly no advantage to us to have such a com-
peting power grow up Just across our border. As an example of this
growing discontenc I shall, under the nest beading of this argument,
quote a few extri.otsfroin newspapers and booltH published in Canada:
(illTlt'AI. IMl'OHTANCK OF TliK KlIl.lF.t'T AT TIIK I'HKBRNT TIME.
If the present policy Just inaugurated of non- intercourse is persisted
in, Canada must eventually build up competing interests against
ours, whether it will be for her present interest or not, and will be
obliged to stand by them for the reasons which I hav j before stated
and which are also shown in the following quotations:
Encouraged by the government, as in the States, cnpltaliNta would luvuxt large
smonnts In certiilu inaiigtiieB which coiiUl nut fail to liulld up a powei-ful interest
in oppoNitlon to reciprocity an it has done in the Union.
Men who have innirrod' vast expense on the faith of protective legislation, will
JORtly claim that the government has no right to sacritico their interests by a sud-
den change of policy.— Jfunro, page 116.
The tendency of the newCana<lian tariff, if continued for a few years, is to build
np interests which the government cannot afterward abandon without a viula-
tion of Justice.
There will never be a period when a reciprocity treaty can be negotiated on a
basis so favorable to the United States as at present, while as yet the new Canadian
tariff has not caused large investments of capital in manufactures which the gov-
ernment of the Dominion will be compelled in justice to foster after having called
them into existence by its own action.
We call the attention ( . President Hayes and Secretary Evnrts to the fact that
a new reciprocity treaty could bo negotla'te<l this year without enoounteiinga tithe
of the opposition it would have to meet aftdt' the new Canadian tariff shall have
produced its natural effect of creating interests which the government of the Do-
minion cannot honorably abandon.
" There is a tide in tlie affairs of men," and Secretary Evarts will miss a great
opportunity if be does not take advantage of the present situation to obtain for our
producers tree access to the markets of Canada. — JVeto I'oril: Herald, March 19, 1879.
While wo have now in Canada a most valuable and iucroasing market for our
manufactures, it is quite certain that its continnanco depends on the duties levied
by the Canadian tariff. A largo proportion of the manufactures we export so
extensively to the Douiluion, conspicuously those of iron, copper, brass, lead, cot-
ton, &o., are admitted free of duty or at almost nominal rates of 5 or 10 per cent.,
and those charged at higher rates than 17} per cent, are few in number and insig-
nificant in quantity. The Canadians have it In their power, and it could bo no Just
oanse of complaint to us, to adopt our own scale of duties. The effict of such a
step could not fail to intlict serious injury on our manufactures, many of whose
Eroanots would soon be excluded from the Canadian markets, which it is for our
iterest to open yet more widely.— .S^«ecA o/ Son. E. Ward in Mouse, May 18, 1866.
I have said that this protective system of a high tariff, and conse-
quent increased cost of goods to consumers, is one that cannot be
adopted as a permanent system by the Dominion, unless it shall be
forced to it by our refusal to have any commercial intercourse with
Canada. The people are restive under it and indisposed to accept it,^
even as a necessity or a temporary measure — or at least a very large
30
portion of the peoplo are onpoHiMl to it ; and as tlie ovils Hliall be more
and more felt, the oppoHitton will increaH«>, and the people will ulti-
mately compel the Qovornment to agree upon any fairsyHtem of trade,
and nnder Huch asyitteni to remove, as against tlio United States, tbeir
prohibitory taritl's. The following (inotationo are some indication of
the Htate of feeling :
Tlie imnoxltlnii of n duty nn aiilliraclte coal of flfty ceut* per ton by the Oor-
oriiiiKMit fiiiH tJiken ovcrylxMly by ttiirprUe.
In tliH mean tlinu I think It U the uiity nf ovnry oitb.cn of Toronto and Hansil-
ton, and of thn otiipr cHIph, towuH, and vUlaKfii in Ontario to petition thoir repro-
RcutatlvoH in Parliament to oppoHH nnch an oniireHHive tax, aa it Ix a tax that will
hear hoavil v on only n Mrcllon uf tlm people eliletly in ritieN, townH, A.e., and la not
fairly dlHtrihiited over nil clanaeH in the Uominion. — Toronto (llobe.
Two days after tlio national pulicy ranie into fores coal was ailvanced in price
nfty centA u ton ; the thillnr which could have purchased ten pnuuda of Hiiaar on
Friday was only worth nine poniidn on Monday ; the poor nian'H xirnp foiindatax
auninHt it of H,"> per cent.; hl« tea was made to contribute heavily to the revenue;
the cheap llritiitli woolen fabiicfi whlili ho wai* aide to purchase for clothing were
firacticjilly excluded from the country ; the meal for hia ponldgo or niUHb became
Ittble to taxation : liix buckwheat pant^akeg were made more expensive ; hla furni-
ture, bifl rutlory, liis cotton overalls, hla dinner pail and tin cup, the very salt with
which he HCUHOUH hi« fare; hU Npnde, shovel, ax, drawinxknife, plane and tools
of all kinds, and in fact all the neccHHnries of his life were unhanced In price to an
amount conitiderablo on each article, but at present not exactly determinable. The
Cr souls who looked to the national policy with Intense faith In its iM>wer to re-
e their distresses can now «ppre(^iate tlie iid(|ulty of the men who never scru-
pled to deceive them with false '/.loniises. They bailed the advent of Sir John to
power with the enthusiastic conviction that he would prove their material savior ;
they have patiently waited through live months of unexampled depression for the
time when he sliuuid be ready to mature his plans for their lieneHt, anil now that the
scheme has been made public they feel with siukinit hearts that thoy are to be
made the contributors to a numl)ei- of fortunes to be presented to as many already '
prosperous manufaoturers.— rorniiJo Otobi. March 90, 187'.(.
VVo have now deliberately dared the Ameilcansto increase their duties till they
exceed our now^ duties by as much as our new duties exceed their exintinK rate.
Not further duties upon our manufactures, which would not Injure us at all, but
a BtlnulnK blow in the shape of such an increase in our lumber duties as would
give Michigan the control of the markets of Chicago, the Eastern Stales, and the
seaboard; total exclusion of our lumber from its l>eHt market; total shutting out
of our barley, poultry, eggs, hides, wool, sheep, pease, potatoes, and other agri-
cultural proJncta which wo now sell to them in vast iiuantlties, and perhaps even
a refusal to allow our products to pass through American' territory inland.
Nothing but the nuist reckless phase of luuocy could have induceil our Govern-
ment to wantonly invito the I'niteii States to intllct upon us the blow which they
have power to deal us. Their policy is bad in every one of its essential features.
In its uearing upon our relations with the 0nited States It is a bluiuler so vast aa
to amount to a crime.- T'luunto Otvhe, Starch "il, 1879.
* * • Although thedtttoof the national policy wasnunounced, ho steadily pur-
sued the policy of discharging his workmen, and altogether up to last Saturday no less
than seventy uf his em)ilo.\ in have Iteen dismissed, and it is probable that more will
follow in a few days ; others have been working a week on and a week otF. Where,
then, is the era ot' prosperity promised to be Inaugurated oven before the national
policy was introduced i Sir ./olui X. Maecbmald, at the amphitheater, wejit tears
over the condition of Sir. Hay's imfortunato workmen because they were threttt>
ened with lack of employment, ami yet this prince of hypocrites coolly increases
the price of their tools by l-.'J i)or cent.
The poor girls and seamstresses v.'ho are trying to obtain an honest livelihoo<l
have also been the victims of the government's oppressive legislation. While the
manufacturer or capitalist can lui|)ort bis machinery for woolen and cotton mills
free, the poor seamstress or tailor has to pay H on each machine, or part of ma-
chlno, and '20 per cent, ad va!oi'ein additional. .4. large number of these deserving
people have in the past purchased American machines ; aiul should they break any
portion of a machine, no matter liow large or how small, and send to the makers
for a new part, |-J iluty will be charged. Legislation more tyrannical or grinding
on the poor than this ban scarcely be cited.
Mr. Soiuerville, Toronto, w.tson this deputation. Mr. Mlllscbamp, Toronto, show-
case and mirror manufacturer, Is here also. He protests against the imposition of
the increased duties on the raw material.
He says if the new tarilf is maintained It will close his business. Mr. MoFar-
lane, Montreal, manufacturer of machine belting and cards, complains that the
tariff will, unless moditted, close his business. His raw material, wire. &c., has
36
been largely increased in cost by tbe tariff, anil unless a modification is made he
will have to suspend operations and rumove elsewliore.
An additional duty o{ 3^ per cent, lias been placed on the porcelain, china, and
glasb which the rich purchase, while 18} per ceat. increase has been put on the
crockery purchased by the poor. Truly this is the rich man's tariff. — Monetary
Times, Toronto, 1879.
It has been proposed in the Canadian Parliament to adopt a " national policy,"
or in other words a recipitKiity of tarilTs, as a means of compelling the United
States to adopt a reciprocity of trade with Canada.
There may be good policy in retaliations when two powers are about equally
balanced in recard to extent and variety ot available resources ; but as regards the
Dominion, sucTi a policy could hardly fail to be ruinous to her own interests.
Her sectional interests are so condiuting that she cannot adopt a system of pro-
tection which would be equally Just to all the provinces.— Jfunro, page 116.
Similar extracts might be multiplied to an indefinite extent to sliow
the state of feeling in Canada in regard to their new tariff system.
Another reason why the present is especially a favorable time for
entering upon the consideration of this question with Canada is that
it seems to be to a certain extent a crucial time iu regard to our own
tariff. A modification of our tariff is probable. Probably a commis-
sion will be appointed by resolution of Congress to take the whole
question of the tariff into consideration, and to report a systematic,
well-considered, and it is to be hoped a permanent and scientific plan
for a tariff. After our tariff is permanently established under any
new code it will be difficult to change it, and if reductions are to be
made in it we cannot use those reductions " after the fact " to obtain
concessions from other countries. If we expect iu any event to make
concessions or reductions of the tariff, we could use at the present
time those concessions to obtain other concessions from Canada, and
if Canada refuses we might make our tariff with entire disregard of
her wishes. For example, there is a groat pressure by certain Amer-
ican interests for free trade iu ships, or free registration of fureign-
bailt ships, and in behalf of many shipping interests of the country
it is claimed that this is the one tbiiig necessary fur the restoration of
American commerce. This free trade in ships is just what Canada
desires. If our people from American iuterest bring about free trade
in ships, we gain uofhing from Canada by the coucessiuu, but Canada
would undoubtedly be willing to make a very considerable conces-
sion in some way for the purpo.«e of securing from us that free trade.
So in regard to salt and some other matters. The folio wiug statement
was made in a recent argument by J. C. Bates, esq., before the Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs :
3. Again, you have not failed to note the signs of the times. The enemies of the
present tarin are gathoving preparing to attack it. Whetliar thuy will be siiccoss-
nil or not is another thing. Uut every whore the feeling exi^tts that tmoh a struggle is
near at hand. Probably this country will not see any higher tarltl'thau its present
one. Now, therefore, is the time to take the initiative In nrrauging her traile rela-
tions with other couutries Said Lord BeacoiiHfleld recently, when waited upon
by a deputation urging hiui to take measures to compel other couutries to adopt
reciprocal trade with Great Uritaiu, " To insist on reciprocity with other countries
would be impossible now that we have ])arted with our import duties." Again,
last spring a motion was submitted iu the House of Lorils that in all future com-
mercial ucgotiatlous with other countries toailvocnto a jK)licy of loeiprocity between
all ijter-trading nations ; also imiuiriug into the liest means of cuunternutiug the
injurious etl'ects of tbe excessive taritl's levied by foreign nations against the prod-
uce and manufiictures of Great Uritain. This resolution wai negatived. In that
debate Lord Ik-acousfleld made still plainer the reasons why Great Uritain could not
enter upon the jiroposud policy. He said: " Thirty ye.irs ago we hadalargenumbor
of articles on which there wore import duties. There were no such materials for
reciprocal trade now. The opportunity had been lost, the means were no longer
available, ami it was idle to talk of reciprocity as a cure for existing evils."
Will this nation allow its opportunity to be lost I Here is an interest clamoring
to have salt put on the free list, anotluir for the registration of foreign built ships.
Both of these, if they are to bo complied with, might bo used to advantage to tbe
nation iu any negotiations with Great Britain.
37
For these and other reasons, which I will not detain the Honse by
explaining, I believe that the present is the time when it is impor-
tant that we should move iu this matter and that delays will be
dangerous. I submit in regard to the subject concernine which I
have presented these arguments, that I have demonstrated that, in
the first place, the general commerce of Canada is of importance to
this or other countries, and , in the second place, that the special com-
merce of Canada with the United States is of value, and, iu the third
place, that a reciprocity treaty or a reciprocal trade with Canada ha»
been useful to the United States. I deny that the trade or the treaty
has been more for the benefit of Canada thau of our country, and I
refer for proof of it to the figures and statistics. I further claim
that even if the latter statement is not correct, and it is a fact that
Canada has received more benefit from the treniy and reciprocal
trade than the United States, it does not follow that the United
States was not benefited by the trade and the treaty. It is a com-
plete non aequitnr to say that because Canada was more benefited,
therefore the TTnited States was not benefited, and is as complete as
the famous one in the play of Box and Cox.
Box. Have you a strrwberry mark on yftur left arm ?
Cox. No.
Box. Then you are toy Ipog-lost brother.
VI.— 18 THERE ANY XEED OF EXTKXlllXG Oil ENLARQINT. OUR MARKETS !
It would seem to be a self evident proposition in the political econ-
omy of nations that, other thiugs being equal, the larger the markets
of a n&uii n the greater its commercial prosperity ; and in view of the
amazing productions of all climates iu our country, the asking of
such a question seems absurd. The hearer might reply, as did a dis-
tinguished judge to a couusel, instructing him in certain rudiments
of the law, that "the court must be presumed to know something."
Yet when gentlemen complacently argue that we do not care for
commercial intercourse with a country which in importance stands
fifth in our list of foreign countries, it may be useful for them to con-
template the facts for a moment and to consider the above question.
As the almost overwhelming tide of emigration rolls in upon our
country and our population mcreases our productions increase, even
faster proportionally than the population. Arms and fingers and
muscles of steel perform the former work of man and help on the
vast totals of production.
For the year 1878 our exports from agriculture alone
reached the enormous sum of >. .$336, 038, 951
While our entire exports from all sources, including
agriculture, for 1878, amounted to 695, 749, 930
Total exports, less agriculture 159, 710, 979
The total cereal products of the United States in 1878 were 2,302,-
254,950 bushels, of the value ot ;*!» 13,975,920.
In 1878 our exports of livin<; animals amounted to $5,844,653 ; of
animals and their products, to 88,422,554 ; of provisious, to $117,953,-
481 ; of bread aud breadstutt's, to .^181,777 ,'841 ; of textiles, to .^180,-
143,052.
Total value of our farm products in 1876 was ■$1,542,194,000 ; aud
production of coal iu 1878 was l>',275,000 tons.
In 1877 production of rolled irou amounted to 1,476,759 tons, and
of steel to 637,342 tons.
The value of cotton exported in 1879 was !J10,853,950.
The exports of uianufactniod couimodities lor the year 1879
amounted to $89,921,443.
38
The above are only a few of the statistics which mif^ht be cited.
The distingnished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
in his recent very interesting and instructive work, (" Free Land and
Free Trade : The Lessons of t]ie English Corn Laws applied to the
United States ; by Hon. S. S. Cox, lb80,") thus refers to our great
productions and need of enlarged markets :
The tlieais of this book is the necessity of enlarKed foreign niaTkctfl for the sur-
plus of production from farm and factory in the IJuited Stutes.
We are rapidly outgrowing the notion that a monopoly of the home market is all
we need, and tliat it would be as well for us if our borders were surrounded by
oceans of fire. The fatness of the land is forcing us to broader views ,- our amaz-
ing natural wealth is compelling us to the alteniatives of yielding the policy of
seiflshness or being choked with oar own abundance. * * * Our energy and skill
harness every appliance of mechanical force to plant, gather and garner the amaz-
ing result; and it is no exaggora'lon to say that the value of the direct product
aggregates 12,500,000,000 per year. * * * Here is the question : When our land
really shows its splendid opulence ; when our acreage is iucreased both for cattle
and grain, is the luevitabht surplus over the home and foreign demand to remain
with us to glut the market?
I say notliing now of our manufactures. These have risen from |44 per capita
in 1850 to 9in per capita in 1870, and there can be no doubt that the want of an
outlet for the heav^ surplus was one of the leading causes of the industrial dis-
tress which be^au in 1873. With scarcely any increase in the plant, the mills of
the country might turn out double and tnple their present product. What will be
the end of this amazing development of our native riches ( Will our surplus go
to other nations, carrying bcnehts and bringing benefits in return, or for lack of
those mutual conditions which make trade pDsslble, is the flood of good things to
be dammed in its passage and flung back upon us to destroy and be destroyed )
These are questions which vehemently press for answer.
Every farmer from the Ked River of the North to the Tcche is interested in
them, and not less, if he realizes the true relations of his trade, every manufact-
urer who has not the fortune to possess a monopoly,
\ai.— IS THIS THE BEST WAY TO MF.KT THESE QUEBTIONSi
But even if all the above statements are proved and the importance
of the commerce of Canada to the United States is recognized, the op-
ponents of this resolution may argue that the appointment of a com-
mission is not the best way to meet this question. But I submit that
for many reasons thepe vexed questions of the commercial intercourse
of the two countries, which have so long been disturbing elements
between them, can be in no way satisfactorily or permanently settled
excejjt by mutual consultation of the two countries through properly
appointed and empowered delegates.
MAGNITUDE OF THE QUESTION.
The magnitude of this question has been referred to in the preced-
ing part of my argument and cannot well be exaggerated. The ques-
tion is BO large, and the field is so great, and the interests are so di-
verse, there are so many different kinds of productions and of manu-
factures which may be vitally affected in one way or another by the
results of legislation on this subject, that it is impossible that the
question can be properly considered by a committee of Congress. A
committee of Congress has other things to attend to, and is entirely
nnable to devote all its time to the consideration of great questions
so involved and so important as are these. To j)roperly consider and
report upon this question of reciprocal trade with Canada will take
the most patient and skillful investigation, and will employ months
at least of the time of the most industrious experts. It is a task of
no small importance and responsibility to look over the whole vast
field of the United States, and with due consideration of all the di-
verse interests of the different States to endeavor to frame a tariff
which shall keep in our possession the trade of Canada, while, at the
same time, it shall not be iujurioas to any of the great interests of our
own country. It requires no argument to show that if this question
• . 39
is worth a proper investigation, it can only be investigated by a com-
mission especially appointed for the purpose. This commission is
necessary for two things : in the first place, to collect facts and sta-
tistics and to report opinions, and, in the second place, to ascertain
the law which has a bearing npon the subject-matter of this resolu-
tion. And a report can only be so satisfactorily made as to give any
assurance of its results being permanent by a body of men skilled in
the law and experts in regard to mercantile affairs, who shall thor-
oughly examine all the points, both of law and of fact, relating to
this great question.
Vni.— 18 THBRL iXY GENERAL DEMAND FOB THIS f
If there is no general demand for this and the people on both sides
of the line do not wish for it, it might well he argupo that we should
not take any steps in this direction in advance of public opinion.
Bat such a ground cannot be maintained.
IN CAXADA.
The old reciprocity treaty was repealed in opposition to' the de-
sires of the British and Canadian government!^, who at the time of
the proposed repeal expressed themselves as ready to consult with
the representatives of the United States, with a view to the satis-
factory modification of the treaty. Nevertheless, the United States,
without any such attempt at remedying such evils as existed in the
treaty, insisted, for the reasons which have been stated, on its abso-
lute repeal. From that time to the present the Dominion has always
been ready and desirous to treat with the United States fur a re-
newal of the treaty in some form. They have always, so far as we
can judge of their motives, been desirous to at least amicably consult
with the representatives of the United States with a view to the de-
vising of some scheme of mercantile intercourse which shall be satis-
factory and advantageous to both countries.
In 1873 the Dominion Board of Trade presented a memorial to Earl
Dufferin, govern or- general of Canada, expressing a " sincere and cor-
dial desire " for the appointment of a commission to confer with the
representatives of the United States for the ])iirpose of negotiating
such a treaty of reciprocal trade, as would be for the tnutual advan-
tage and benefit of the trade and commerce of the Dominion and the
United States. The Canadian minister of customs, the privy council,
and the governor-general fully concurred in these views. From time
to time the Dominion Board of Trade at its meetings has expressed
the general sentiments of those who were present, and it is believed
by the board that the feelings of the merchants and the people of
Canada are represented in a declaration that it is desirable that a
treaty of reciprocity and trade on a comprehensive, liberal, and fair
basis should be made. It also stated that " it is of opinion that the
initiatory steps thereto ought to come from the Government of the
United States, seeing that it was by their action that the old treaty
was abrogated." So far as is known the people and the representa-
tives of tne merchants of the Dominion have not only been willing,
but anxious, that some scheme should be devised for bringing into
closer commercial contact the two countries.
IX THE LXITEU STATES.
In regard to the desire for this in the United States, the words of
the report of the committee, which I now quote, can be verified by
the most ample documentary evidence and other testimony. It says :
At one time or another the most of the commercial organizations of the country
have requested that action be taken in this matter by their boards of trade and
other organizations. The merchants of New York, Baltioiore, Portland, Buffalo,
40
Milwaukee, Boston, and all other cities baye requested that Congress would do tO'
the bnsineas interests of the country the Justice of at least invesUeating in a thor-
oofih and proper manner whether anything can be done by leeisUtion, and, if so,
what arrangements should be made between the two countries. The National
Board of Trade has frequently urged action in this math- r, and, so far as Icuown, no
commercial or representative organization of any kind has ever said a word or pre-
sented a remonstrance against it. Indeed it is difficult to conceive how any society
or Individual could remonstrate against a resolution simply for obtaining knowl-
edge and information upon a subject of the importance of this.
I coald make evidence on this point cumulative to almost any ex-
tent by quoting resolutions of commercial organizations or letters from
distinguished men who have investigated these questions and have
an interest in them. I think it is no exaggeration to say that by
means of resolutions and in other ways it can be shown that the mer-
cantile interests of the country, either through their organizations or
otherwise, never desired an absolute repeal of the old treaty and are
in favor of a fall investigation of the question whether in some way
new commercial relations cannot be organized with the Dominion of
Canada. The merchant understands better than anyone else that it
is a foundation principle of the political economy of nations that one
country should find all the markets it can in other countries, and no
merchant can be so foolish as to object to the obtaining of informa-
tion upon this question by the Government of the United States.
THIS yUESTlON IMMATEUUL.
This question of the demand by the people for this is, however, really
immaterial. If members of Congress are of opinion that fhe subject iS'
of importance and that it is for the business interests of the country
that this investigation should take place, it is their duty to order the
investigation upon their own judgment and not wait to be pushed
up to it by the force of public opinion. This is one of those great
things in which Congress can afford to lead on instead of being driven
by the people and in which it is our duty to act and vote according
to our consciences and convictions.
IX.— INJUSTICE AND DIBCRIMUiATION IN KEKU8IN0 THIS INVKSTIOATION.
Here are large bodies of most responsible and prominent men who
ask Congress — for what ? For a treaty 1 No. For a reciprocal trade
with Canada ? No. For free trade with Canada t No. For a tariff
to be framed with Canada 1 No. For any law or legislation what-
ever f No. Merely for information and that Congress will author-
ize a commission to gather facts, statistics, and knowledge concern-
ing a question of great importance. That is all they ask for, and
every thing that can be found in or rooted out of the resolution.
It is simply an investigation in behalf of the commercial interests
of the country. How can Congress refuse such an investigation f
Investigations in behalf of commercial interests have been very few ;
and it will be difficult for members to recall or name them. Com-
mittees have been appointed to inquire into almost every other in-
terest under the sun. Great expeditions have been organized at
immense cost to find out the solution of the apparently useless ques-
tion of the existence of the North Pole. Many years ago an expedi-
tion or commission was appointed, and a large and very costly book
published about it, to explore the river Jordan and the Dead Sea.
To give a statement of the investigating committees and cotnmissions
and of what they proposed to accomplish for the last twenty-five
years would require a book in itself. Upon what possible plea can
Congress refuse this very modest request of the merchants of the
country for information, when time after time and on occasion after
occasion, however frivolous, they have been willing to appoint com-
mittees (perhaps to travel over the country at great expense) for
investigating merely political questions?
41
The history of political investigatioDS wonld make a long chapter.
The history of commercial investigations by committees or commis-
sions would make a very short one. I repeat, therefore, that to refuse
this investigation would be an injustice and a discrimination which
could not well be apologized for or excused. It w ill require very little
expense to pay the salaries of this commission and other incidental
expenses, but if it required a very large expense the appointment of
a commission would still be justified.
X.— AKE TIIEKE ANY OUJECTIOXH TO THE RESOLUTION ?
Let us consider very briefly a few of the principal objections,
mostly sentimental, which have been urged against this resolution.
It will be found ou an analysis of these objections that htttdly any of
them ate objections of fact, and that most of them are of feeling and
sentiment. Now, I submit that this is not a question for sentiment.
It is simply a plain, practical doUar-and-cent question of what is for
the financial and commercial interests of this country, without any
regard to our sentiments of friendship or hostility concerning Canada.
FEEU.NO OF HOSTILITY TO CANADA.
It is claimed by some that we should not show any humility or
weakness, as they are pleased to call it, concerning Canada, and that
it shows a disposition to " back down " for us now to consider the
question of treating in any way with the Dominion. It is true that
some of the relations of Canada to the United States have been most
unsatisfactory. Bitterness of feeling grew up in this country against
the Dominion of Canada during the civil war, which feeling has never
wholly died out. The fisheries ((uestion has always been an open and
disputed one between the two countries, and has lately imbittered
still more, and for the most just reasons on our part, the two countries
against each other. I shall briefly refer to that ([uestion in a few
moments. The two countries now, commercially speaking, stand in a
hostile attitude to each other. All the treaties are abolished or are
probably to be abolished in regard to commercial matters. The two
nations occupy a position somewhat similar to that of two boys
standing opposite to each other, with their fists doubled up, scowling
at one another, refusing to speak, and each with a chip on hia shoulder
which he requests the other to knock off. The question is, who will
speak first, and the feeling seems to be that the one who speaks first
shall be regarded as a coward. Now this is all very well between
boys, or even men, but two great nations cannot atford to maintain
this undignified attitude, and it cannot be maintained for any length
of time, because, sooner or later, these vexed questions must be in
some way settled, and will ,be settled.
It is true we have been sadly disappointed with the results of some
commissions and pleased with the results of others, but wh^n two
nations occupy the present attitude of Canada and the United States
the only way to do, and the wiiy which must sooner or later be taken,
is for them, by a commission or otherwise, to mutually consult and
see if these grievances cannot be adjusted. Dumbness on either side
will not do any good. Canada is not foolish enough to think for a
moment that we approach such a discussion from feelings of weak-
ness or fear. If there is to be a war of tarifis, we can wnip Canada
in every respect, to put the truth in the plainest language. Canada
understands that, with our vast extent of territory and our .vast
foreign commerce and the great number of countries we have to sup-
ply, she is not in the slightest degree a necessity to us, though she
maybe an advantage; and she also fully understands that, pecu-
liarly situated as she is, the United States are to her, as it were, »
42
mercantile necessity, and that if the United States are shut oflf by
barriers from her, great suffering ninst result to her people. If Can-
ada insists on a contest we can give it to her to her heart's content.
Iler writers and her speakers, her government and her press, under-
stand this thoroughly, and some oi them have ridiculed in stronger
terms than we could use the idea of Canada's fighting with the United
States. At present we cau afford to treat Canada with that good
humor with which a great power treats a small one, and if she pushes
her hostility to us to the point at which it becomes too troublesome,
then Canada will be made to understand that we can injure her to a
far greater extent than she possibly cau injure us, and that what
means only lujary to us would very likely mean financial ruiu and
disaster to her. The contest is not an equal one, and we cau afford,
as the leading power, to make overtures to Canada to secure amica-
ble trade relations if posslblo.
For instance, it is of great importance to the Dominion to retain
her carrying trade on the ocean, and she has a large trade of this
kind employed in bringing sugar to American ports. Suppose Con-
gress should reduce the duties on all sugars brought to our ports,
provided they were not brought in Canadian vessels. Or suppose it
should reduce duties eveu to a small extent ( which would make no
great difference in the revenues or protection) on other articles
rought to us by American vessels, which proceeding would at the
same time hurt Canadian vessels and benefit us by fostering our ship-
piug interests. Suppose the contest as to the fishery question goes
on, and we put prohibitory duties on fish ; or that in numerous other
ways which can be pointed out, and will suggest themselves, we en-
ter upon a tariff or commercial war with Canada; cau any Canadian
doubt that we can push her to the wall f Our Canadian brothers
might as well recognize the fact first as last that we do not propose
to be dictated to, but that we are amiable enough and, to tell the
truth, have enough self interest to desire friendly commercial rela-
tions; yet, if the necessity arises, we can destroy those relations and
still be a prosperous country. It will be unwise in us, and I think
that we all recognize the fact, unless forced into it by Canada, to
allow any feelings of hatred or feelings of dislike for our Canadian
brethren to stand in the way of an attempt, at least^ to have har-
monious commercial relations between the two countries.
DB8IUE TO FOKCE ANNEXATION.
I have heard prominent gentlemen, who have investigated this
question to some extent, say that they were opposed to having com-
mercial relations with Canada, because if those relations were en-
tirely destroyed and Canada thereby put into a position where she
must suffer greatly, if not meet financial ruin, she would therefore be
ready fur annexation, and the territory of the United States might
be extended northward, so that its boundaries would be three oceans.
I do not believe that this argument would have any weight as against
the resolution. I do not believe that the people of this country have yet
arrived at the point where they are prepared to say that they desire
annexation. I am doubtful whether Canada has yet arrived at the
condition of prosperity in which she will not become to us more of a
burden than of a benefit. Her debt has been and is increasing out of
all proportion to her population. Her debt in 1867 was |75,7'28,641,
while in 1877 it was $133,208,694, and it is estimated that in 1881 her
debt will amount to $170,000,000; in 1891 to $250,000,000, and 1901 to
$300,000,000. The total debt, including what is due on existing con-
tracts, is about $200,000,000. Her financial showing is not a favorable
43
one. While the balance of trade since the anion of the provinces in
1867 has been against the Dominion to the amonnt of $'229,696,336, dur-
ing the same time her publicdebthasbeen doabledand the taxes on ac-
count of the general government rose from |13,480,092 to $24,48d,'372.
The interest on the public debt is about $7,000,000 per annum, and
the state of the finances is snch that additional taxes will have to be
imposed in a short time.
So, I submit, in the first place, we are not prepared to say that we
want annexation, and that question is one of grave importance, re-
quiring careful consideration ; and, in the second place, there is no
evidence as yet that Canada is prepared for or desires annexation ;
and, in the third place, it would seem that a desire for annexation
would be fostered more by building up commercial relations and
friendly feeling and brotherly love between the two countries than
by turning them into bitter enemies. It is certaiuly a new axiom of
human conduct as well as of political economy that to make two men
friends and brothers the best way is to cause them to hate each other
as much as possible.
FEELINO AS TO THE FISIIEUY QUEBTIONB.
As to these questions I shall speak briefly hereafter. Sufilce it to say
that there is neither logic nor reason in taking the ground that be-
cause we have been wronged therefore we will not speak to Canada
nor have any consultation with her whatever in order to see if these
commercial difficulties, as well as others, cannot be settled.
OUJECTIOSS TO THE FOBMEU UECirBOCITY TREATY.
As I have said, these objections are not pertinent here and are not
entitled to the slightest weight. I only refer to it again under this
heading because this argument against the former reciprocity treaty
is constantly pushed forward with wearisome iteration as the stock
argument against this resolution.
AKOUMENT THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO AOIiEE.
Another objection that is raised is the weak and despairing sugges-
tion that there is no use in trying this thing, because nothing can be
accomplished and it is impossible to agree. The advocates of this
doctrine are afraid to attack the question and propose to lie quietly
down and give it all up, let the commerce of the two countries drift
on wherever it may, and trust to fate. They propose to follow the
Turkish plan of crossing their arms and rolling up their eyes and say-
ing, "It IS fate." Perhaps it is impossible to agree ; but it certainly
is worth the while to make the attempt. If all great questions before
Congress are to be laid helplessly aside with the reflection that it is
impossible to do so great a work, we might as well give up all at-
tempts at legislation or at the management of the interests of the
country. We do not know that something cannot be done until the
attempt has been made ; and there is every reason to hope that some-
thing at least can be accomplished in the direction of reciprocal trade.
Between a complete arrangement for reciprocal trade in all articles
and the present condition of trade there are many intermediate steps
and it may be that if we can only take one of these steps to bring arouu d
trade in only one article, it may be an advantage to our country as
well as to Canada. Mr. Ward, in his argument in the House of Rep-
resentatives, May, 1876, spoke as follows :
It ought not to be diffioult to agree upon the basis of a common tariff on all arti-
cles, such as silks, laces, brandies, wines, jewelry, &o., the importation of which
is taxed only for revenue and in regard to which no irreconcilable differences of
politico-economical theory arise, oi' to determine the terms of an equitable division
of the revenue collected from .them in common. If this only were done the most
extensive smuggling, from which the revenue of the United States suffers, would
44
be itopped aod onr pnblic TreMory would be the gainer by many millions. Some,
at leaat, of the manufactares and raw prodncts of each oountry'coold be admitted
to free exuhange with those of the other.
It is hoped, and it is reasonable to suppose that by a fall examina-
tion by the representatives of the two governments, some common
ground, at least as to some articles of commerce, might be found.
XI.— THE FIBHBKY gt'EBTION.
The argument is made against this resolution from prominent quar-
ters that it ought not to be passed while the fishery question is in
abevance, but I submit that this is one of the very reasdns why it
onght to be passed. Ever since the formation of the two govern-
ments this has been the great question in dispute between the two
countries, and several treaties nave been made concerning it. The
Washington treaty of May 2C, 1871, for twelve years, expires in 1883.
I need not refer to the present position of the fishery question. It
is not worth the time to discuss the past diflBcnlties. The question,
wfiich confronts us is, how to meet and get rid of the present diffi-
culties. The substance of the Washington treaty was this: That
United States fishermeti should have the right to shore-fishing in the
provinces, while fish-oil and fish of all kinds should be admitted into
each country free of duty.
The considerations urged were our having the right to fish and their
having the right to sell fish to the United States free. Our rights have
been infringed, and the people of the United States naturally feel
indignant, not only at the exorbitant [)rice they have been compelled
to pay, under the decision of the commission, but at the invasion and
denial of their rights, as shown by the Fortune Bay outrages. Every
man, at least on the American side of the line, believes that a com-
mission which obliged us to pay $5,500,000 for the right to fish in
those waters committed an outrage. It seems apparent, even on the
most superficial view of the question, that we ought not to have paid
anything, and that the Dominion in regard to this fishery question
has received from us much more benefit than it ever gave. It seems
to be demonstrated as clearly as statistics, mathematics, and reason
can demonstrate it that a balance of the benefits from the fishery
trade and from the intercourse between the two countries on account
of the fishery was very largely in t&yor of the Dominion, and if any
money, equitably or honestly, onght to have been paid, it shonld have
been paid to the United States. I think that we are justified in feel-
ing that we have not had fair treatment, and if the unwritten as
well as the written history of that commission is to be believed, that
in regard to the formation of the commission and to its proceedings
and its mode of estimating damages and the way in which it figured
up those damages and afterward changed the figures and arrived at
its final results, and in fact in ail its doings, we were, to put it very
mildly, overreached ; a vigorous use of language would allow us to
say that we were swindled.
It certainly has the appearance of being what in border phrase
would be called a " put ujp job." I believe that at the earliest possi-
ble moment compatible with our national honor, which is bound to
the observance of treaties according to the terms thereof and law ap-
Elicable thereto, retaliation should be made by means of duties on fish
rought into our market. If the treaty was unfair, and we have been
wronged by being obliged to pay a large amount of money, which
we ought not to have paid, and now (besides paying the money) are
prevented from fishing freely where the treaty gives us the right to
fish, we ought, having those disadvantages, to secure for ourselves
benefits by abolishing the treaty and retaliating upon the Canadians.
45
Where, then, do we now stand f The two nations stand facing each
other with this tlshery question undetermined, the right to Ssh in
Canadian waters taken from us and the right to sell fish in our mar-
kets taken from them, or that is the position the two nations will
occupy if the present propositions are carried oat. In other words,
the two countries stand entirely independent of each other, with all
the work of agreeing upon propositions of tiade to be done over
again and with the necessity of making, if possible, some arrange-
ment. This is purely a question of money and not of feeling.
If it can be demonstrated that this fishery question should not be
settled, but should remain permanently in its present condition, and
that the twqcounti'ies as to tiuh and fishiug-gronnds can stand entirely
independent' of each other, and each leave the other to enjoy merely
its own independent rights, thou no other negotiation is uocessarv ;
but I assume that this is not the case, and that it is desirable in the
interest, perhaps even of peace, and certainly in the interests of com-
merce, that this question should be determined. How shall it be de-
termined? Certainly it cannot be determined by the two nations fac-
ing each other and abusing each other. Certainly it cannot be deter-
mined by the two nations stiuuliug up and calling each other by hard
names, and shaking their iists at each other. Certainly it cannot be
determined by the two nations turning sulky and absolutely refusing
to consider any propositions or to make any approaches. The only
way in which it can be determined is by another attempt through
representatives of the two countries to agree on some common basis
of commercial trade.
A new government has come into power in England, and one which,
it is believed, will meet this question in an open and manly way ; and
this fishery question, in my opinion, ofiers one of the strongest rea-
sons for the desirability of a commission. How else can you settle it
except by au investigation and by a commission ? Both governments
have not the power of talking and consulting as governments except
through commissions or through other mouth-pieces. The officials of
the governments can themselves only investigate through commis-
sions or other oflScials. Soouor or later this plan must be adopted ;
and is it not better to move iu this direction at the present time, and
to now endeavor iu this critical position of affairs to obtain some
thorough, well-digested, and, it is hoped, some permanent scheme for
enabling the two countries, as to their fishery and other commercial
questions, to live together iu harmony f
XII. — AUK TIIEBE ANV LEGAL UUJKCTIONS T(J THE rUOrOSED UE30LUTI0S ?
I shall refer very briefly to the objections of this nature which have
been urged against the resolution under discussion. Iu the first place
the complete answer to all such objections is that this is only a reso-
lution for information and iu(jiiiry, and if any lawyers in this House
can show in the Coustitutiou or the statutes any reason why it is im-
proper or illegal to obtain knowledge or information, I should like to
be informed of that statute and that article iu the Constitution. One
of the very objects of this commission is to ascertain if there are any
such legal objections, and to examine thoroughly into all the aspects
of the case. This consideration, I submit, disposes entirely and at
once of all legal objections to the proposed resolution, but I desire to
refer brfefly to the principal objections of that nature which have
been made. It has been claimed that a reciprocity treaty with Can-
ada cannot be made, becau.se a treaty can only be made by the Presi-
dent and the Senate, whereas all revenue matters or matters affect-
ing tariff are exclusively within the jurisdiction of Congress. The
treaty-making power consists of the President and Senate, the law-
40
makioff power oonsists of the Senate and Honsn and President, the
latter naving ouly the power of siBning or vetoing bills. To the
treaty-making power belongs exclusively the power to make treaties,
and to the law-making power the power to make tariff lans. Hence
it is argued that the treaty-making power cannot affect trade by
means of any tarifl" provisions. This nuestion may be, under some oir-
oamstances, of great importance ; and as you approach it, it expands
to such an extent that to properly treat of it, historicallv, legally,
and otherwise, would require a book of itself. The distinguisheif gen-
tleman from New Jersey, [Mr. RouESON,] who is a member of the
committee reporting this resolution, suggested at a hearing before the
committee that tiiese questions might well be treated under the fol-
lowing beads: ,
1. Ig the tieatytuaking power of the President aud Sunate oxclnsive )
3. Is the rureiiiio power of Congrvsa uf such a nature us to Klve it excluslTe
power over this »Hl>ji'ct?
3. Is a reciprocal niTiingomeut necessarily unitiT the treatyniakinj; power!
4. If the treaty-making power Is not exclusive is it lestniluod by the ueoessity
of action by Congress upon any subject whlel<. aiiects the ri'venue J
5. Are these two points coexiatlnj; ? that is to say, may tlie treaty-making
power act, and are all treaties referring to subjects in the power of Congress, how-
ever complete in themselves, suliject to the subsequent action of Congress 1
6. Is the action of Congress subject to the treaty-making power I
It will be seen that a full discussion of this question in all its bear-
ings would expand this argument to an extent incompatible with the
ordinary limits of a speech in this body, and would require much in-
vestigation to consider in a satisfactory manner. It seems to me,
however, that there can be no doubt upon this question ; that the
treaty-making power cannot directly or indirectly infringe upon or
interfere with tlie law-making power. The treaty-making power has
certain specified rights aud the law-making power other specified
rights, and each is independent of the other. The treaty-making
power cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly, and if the
right to impose a tariff on certain articles belongs exclusively to the
law-making power, it is clear that the President and Senate cannot
by any mode change or aflect the tariff on those articles. If the con-
verse of the proposition is true, it leads to most absurd results.
If by means of a reciprocity treaty or any treaty with a foreign
country the treaty-making power can provide that u tariff shall be of
a certain amount on certain articles, it can thus provide a tariff for
all articles. All our tariffs come from trade with foreign countries,
and the President aud Senate, by means of treaties with those foreign
countries, could thus fix the tariff on all possible articles coming into
this country and make up an entire tariff schedule. Nay, more, if the
treaty-making power co'uld do thi(>, why could it not, whenever it
might be done by means of a treaty, establish what the amount of
our bonds should be or how they should be issued or what percentage
of interest they should pay ; make navigation laws for our country ;
enact in treaties emigration laws, at the request and by the consent
of foreign governments interested in these questions, (because emi-
gration is coming to our shores by hundreds of thousands,) or provide
as to the mode of the settlement of our public accounts, and in fact
act as a law-making power, and include in its own powers almost the
whole field c i legislation f Without going at further length into
this question, I do not believe that the treaty-making power exclu-
sively can affect the tariff and, by means of the tariff, the trdde with
foreign countries.
I submit, however, that this question is of not the slightest impor-
tance here. It has never been proposed in the discussion of this reso-
lution to have the treaty-making power exclusively take charge of
47
this question, otberwiae this resolution would not be pending in the
Honse of Representatives. The question does not arise in any waj
in this discussion. Suppose a scheme of reciprocal trade can be de-
vised between the United States and Canada ; you may entitle it
reciprocal trade or a reciprocal treaty or a reciprocal taritf. using
whatever words you choose to describe the scheme or the means of
carrying it out. If it shall be framed as a reciprocal treaty, it has
never been desired that such a treaty should be curried out and made
law by the treaty- making power, without the consent of the House,
and certainly it cannot be claimed that if the House and Senate con-
coct this tariif scheme and formulate it into the shape of a treaty or
other law, such a treaty or scheme may not bo made by the consent
of the Senate, the House, and the President. The law or treaty would
then be made by both the treaty-making and the law-making powers.
This would at once remove all questions, and this is all that is in-
tended, and the House ah initio in this resolution becomes a party to
the proceedings. But, again, no question need arise, because this nec-
essarily need not be a treaty.
Suppose that this commission reports a certain tariff scheme of re-
ciprocal trade, and that th.at scheme is formulated into a bill and pre-
sented to Congress for its action. Congress by the consent of the
President passes this as a tariff or trade bill, and it contains a sec-
tion or proviso that it shall go into force or effect only when a similar
bill, which formnlates the same scheme, shall be passed by the British
Parliament or the Dominion of Canada, and shall continue in force
only according to the terms of the same joint scheme. This bill
would have the consent of all the three departments of this Govern-
ment, and would embrace both the treaty-making and the law-makine
powers. No one can contend for a moment that such a scheme would
not be perfectly lawful. In fact this whole objection is the merest
criticism on words. It would be applicable and applicable only If it
was intended to try to get from the Senate and the President a re-
ciprocal treaty without the concurrence of the House; but the con-
verse of the proposition being true, the argument is utterly worthless
and falls to the ground. If, nowever, this question shall become of
importance, it is one of those great questions which we desire the
commission to investigate and report upon. They will report upon
tho question how, if they can ngree on any mutual system of trade,
it shall be formulated into law. They may find it necessary to fully
investigate and report upon these legal questions, but as objections
at this stage of the case they have no weight or force.
" FAV0UEIJ-NAT10?(S " CLAUSES Hi TBEATIE8.
The only objection remaining which I wish to consider, and to which
I shall very briefly refer, is the above. It has been claimed that it is
impossible for us to make any system of reciprocal trade with Canada,
because under the "favored-nations" clauses in treaties we should be
obliged to give the same advantages to other countries as to the Do-
minion of Canada. It may be said in reference to this proposition
that the position of Canada is an exceptional one, and, giving the
strongest construction to this clause in treaties, the utmost that can
be claimed is that any nation shall have precisely the same privileges
as any other nation. Now, suppose that we make a treaty of recip-
rocal trade with Canada on account of her peculiar position, her pe-
culiar relations of commerce and of transportation, or otherwise, or
on account of the returns which she can make to us in regard to her
fisheries, &c., and these peculiarities of condition and of compensa-
tion and of intercourse are the cause of the treaty. Certainly no
other government can claim an equal privilege unless she can snow
48
the same co'uditious and ofTor the same privilogeM that Canada does.
For example, beoanse we want from Canada the right of tifthing,
and for thJH as well as for other purposes make the treaty, France
and England cannot cliiiin the same taritV on their articles, unless
they 4ive to ns the same Consideration, niunely, the right of fishing
and such right under the same cirrnmstnnces and on the same tlsh-
ing-grounds, or unless they can show they are contiguous to our
border, with the same mutual advantages of railroads, water com-
niunication, and the same need of each other, and the same depend-
ence on each other. This treaty will not depend on the mere question
of the taritt', but on all questions of intercourse botween the two
countries. I do not beg the ipiestion, as I might by saying that these
treaties have heretofore been made, and that it lias never been claimed
that treaties made from peculiar circumslanuus, or for reasons par-
ticular and individual to countries, can be shared as to their advan-
tages with all other countries. For example, we made the duty on
flsu free to the Canadians because a;i a consideration we received the
right of fishing in Canadian waters. Can France, England, Oermauy,
Italy, or the Hawaiian Islands come in under the " favored-nations "
clause and say that we are therefore bound to make the duty on fish
free for them f Such an argument cannot be muintaiuod for a mo-
ment, and if urged we can reply to those countries that they are per-
haps entitled to the same rights as other countries and are under the
same obligations as other countries, and that when they can do for us
just exactly what Canada does in consideration of u treaty ; when
they can give us the important rights of fishing, of trade, the same
intercourse, the same communications, and, in a word, can be to us
what Canada is and can give to ns the same compensation that Can-
ada can, then each will have made out her right under the "favored-
nations" clause. Therefore, I submit that in theory, law, reason, and
in practice this doctrine does not stand in the way of some scheme of
reciprocal trade with Canada. It may be said in addition, as I have
before stated under another heading, that this scheme is not intended
to be necessarily formulated into a treaty. It may be formulated
merely as a tariff law, passed by Congress, in return for a similar
tariff law passed by the Dominion of Canada, and thus this qneijtion
might be avoided. But I am willing to place it on the broadest
ground, that under the strictest construction of the above clause in
treaties such a scheme of reciprocal trade with Canada as contem-
plated by the resolution may be carried out. In any event, here is
another of the compMcated questions which we desire to have exam-
ined and thoroughly discussed, and which can be so examined and
discussefl by a commission.
The importance of this subject is my apology for discussing it so
much at length. These questions, affecting the commercial interests
and the friendly relations of two great countries, are of no trifling
importance. They are worthy of the careful, patient, and unpreju-
diced consideration of the people and of Congress. Few questions of
more importance and having a more direct bearing upon the interests
of all classes of our citizens, whether producers or consumers, whether
farmers, merchants, manufacturers, or laborers, have been presented
for the action of the present Congress. This question demands from
us a decision upon its merits, and that we, regardless of prejudices or
local interests, shall decide it according to the best of our judgment
as to what the interests of the country and of the people, as a whole,
demand. Such full and impartial consideration I hope this subject
will receive from this House, and, receiving it, I believe the resolu-
tion under consideration will be adopted.
O