^, ^.. .j^"^'^^ ^ ^.1^^ \* CIHM/ICMK Microfiche Series. CIHM/iCMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notat tachniquaa at bibiiographiquas Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy available for filming. Faaturas of thia copy which may ba bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the image* in the reproduction, or which mey significantly change the usuaS method of filming, are checked below. I — Y Coloured covers/ Liil Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurte et/ou pelliculte D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ □ n n D n Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche. &elon la cas: le symbole — »> signifle "A SUIVRE". le symbole V signifle "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre film6s A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document ast trop qrand pour Atre reprodult en un seul ciichA, il est filmA A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A Jroite. et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'Images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Y CI^-kjD, r "^ V1V > v-w.ft-'-^i , a>«^ Q,^^:k^ Y V" ^^^, ':rT. THE NATIONAL FUTURE ,OF CANADA. OPPOSED TO A Zollverein or Commercial Union «!.> •» WITH THE UNITED STATES, OR TO Imperial Federation GALT: COLLIB & McGlVERIN, BeFORMBR OfFICE, 1887. «• -?r % c^'^'W-'^Tfi ■'■. .. ■'■■■ ■^■^.k^0."'r^ tf- tj . ,» It 1 E^Ji^ll^Lii^ - ^^ fi.ik J Ji " ^ ".91 r.h.-'r'' 5' «;-' . iiJji,Tt .••■ ^ "S^ v-h::u Oxc^ ^1^ (^ 0^R National Future! ,97/ ^•■■■. Being FOUR LETTERS BY JAMES YOUNG IN OPPOSITION TO eOMMEReiAL UNION (AS PROPOSED) AND IMPERI/IL FGDEHATIOR! And Poiqtiqg out wl^at i\\e Writer Believes to be THE TRUE FUTURE OF CANADA As a part of JVorth America, OALT: Collie & McCivebik, Refobmer Office, 1887. INTRODUCTORY. In rcsjwnnc to numerom requfsin from many j>arts of the Province^ these letters Art»'e been repuhlishi'd in their present form. Not being intended for general circulation, the edition »V comparatively limited. The first two tetters were puhlishrd on April 2nd and SOth last, and it uhis not vatil most actire and systematic efforts were commenced to promote Commercial Union, that the third and fourth letters were contemplated and written. They are published just as th'y appeared in the " Olobe," headlines and all. GALT, Oct. 17th, 1SS7, OUR NATIONAL FUTURE, THE COMMERCIAL UNION — AND— IMPERIAL FEDERATION SCHEMES. Interesting Letter from HON. JAMES YOUNG of Gait— A Canadian wlio lias Faith in Canada— Commercial Union and Imperial Federation alike hostile to Canadian Nationality. As a Canadian to the " manner born," who, notwithstanding the development of some grave political evils, retains faiih in the future of Canada as a distinct part of North America, I exceedingly regjet the present agitation of two questions— pro- ceeding from opposite directions — a Zoil- verein or Customs Union with the United States, and Imperial Federation It is not quite twenty years since Con- federation took place, and although some progress has been made, our most pressing political problem, from a national stand- point, continnes to be thb consolidation of the various Provinces composing the Do- minion. When opening Parliament in 1867, Her Majesty's representative, Lord Monck, officially declared the newly-form- ed Union to 1^ *' the foundation of a new nationality." This language, put into His Excellency's mouth by his constitutional adviL^ers, could bear no other legitimate meaning than that Canadian nationality was, and ought to be, the ULTIMATE AIM OF BRITISH AMERICA. I do not see how any patriotie citizen, at least without deep regret, can take any lower view of the true future destiny of Ctknada, and it appears to me that Imper- ial Federation, the outcome of super loyal- ism, or an American Zollvereiii,it8 re«'ersc and opposite, are alike hostile to its a)io>- cessful accomplishment. Our present and imperative duty is to make Confederation a success under the aegis oi the British flag, and wihl specula- tions as to our future necessarily nave a disturbing and baneful eflect. They en- courage the idea that Confederation is a fragile bond, to be broken lightly by any Province whose demands have been denied or whose pride has been piqued ; whereas, the pact of Confederation is as solemn and binding as that of the United States, and no more can any Province withdraw with- out the consent of the whole, than could the slave States in 1860 from the rest of the Republic. Under these circumbtances those restless spirits who want a Zollver- ein. Imperial Federation or any other im- mediate radical change in our present re- lations with great Britain, are, it appears to me, not only impeding the consolida- tion of the Dominion, but encouraging ideas in regard to its stability which may lead to more serious consequences. MT OBJECTIONS TO A ZOLLVEREIK, however, lie far deeper than this. I may say that a '* Customs Union," as under- stood across the line, or " the complete Reciprocity" of the Butterworth Bill, simply mean a Zc^lverein after the Ger- man model, and shojld not be confounded with Reciprocity as it existed nnd«y- the •'JVeaty of 1854.' That.KeCiDttjpity, iu.ail y&in [vi'oduats, aad ^■iit tiniiht. 'I'lie jH;o- pie of (.'anatla lave alwayn )M?«n ready to agree to tiiiH. Pait our iicighlMirs have re- fu8e«l further Keoiprocity evir uince the expiry of the KIgiii 'i'reaty in 1K6({, when it was more or lettH openly av(»weth^: S(ai^e; with' Oitt£-ib\ lei thSm. «oAthAt the '.t^rritohis' df Ihe* great Northwest, and it will be found that • ••• •< ti> i.«« our general prosperity does not compare unfavorably with theirs. So far us Ontario is concerned, I know no nart of the United I tState.s in which, the masses of the people are healthier, wealthier, or happier, and the immenHc resources of the I>«>minion are yet liut very |mrti»lly develoiMsd. But 1 bluill not ilwell further on the com- mercial usiK^c't of the (|Ue8ti(m, for no high- spirited people would chang» their nation- ality as they do a garmeni, or weigli their ptitriotism solely by the almighty dollar. My protest against a Zollverein is, that it is UTTERLY ANTI-CANADIAN, and subversive of the idea of an independ* ent national future. Mayor Hewitt, of New York, nt the recent Canadian Club dinnei, describe*! the proponition as one in which "the United States would make the tariff for Cana::^eiug admittedly our chief iadustry, if it could be proven that Com- mercial Union would greatly l)enefit our farmers, witliout entailing serious disad- vantages upon them, it would cert;iinly re- ceive my most favorable consideration. That SIMPLE UECIPROCITY WOULD DO THIS eveiybody is agreetl. The benefits would not be so great as under the former treaty, for there would be no Ciimean >var, no slave-holders' rebellion, no Grand Trunk construction to raise prices abnormally l>igh ; bat the complete freedom of ex- change of all products of the farm, especi- ally on the frontiers, would be both con- venient and profitable, and add to the {)rosperity of botix countries. But, as I lave remarked before, Reciprocity is one tiiintr. Commercial Union quite another. Tlie latter would open the markets of both countries, but only on certain conditions sj ecitied by the United States, and these comlitious, as I will endeavor to prove, would largely, if not wholly, destroy its advantages to our farming community. The coiuiitions referred to are the adop- tion of acoutinentaltaritland discrimination against our trade with the Mother Country. Our farmers, we are toUl, are sutiering from an oppressive system of Protection, which is annually becoming more unbear- able. But what gain would it be to them, by accepting the above conditions, to place tiiemselves under lihe still higher and more exacting Protection of the United States, whose policy approaches nearer the Chin- ese principle of non-intercourse than any other modern Government V We are also told that our farmers are sutfering from high taxation, levied largely for the bene- fit of other favored classes. This is, un- fortunately, too true, but farmers' votes have upheld the high taxation system, and they have the power to undo it ; but what relief would it be to their burdens to place themselves under whai. would practically be the United States tarili", which is at least ten per cent, or fifteen per cent, high- er than the taxes they have to pay at pre- sent ? Whilst improving our farmers' Ameri- can market, Commercial Union, unlike Re- ciprocity, would ;NJUUK TUKIH IIUM£ and BRITISH MARKETH. | These three markets absorb nearly all our agricultural produce, and the foimer, I submit, is the least important to our farmers for the following reasons :— (I) Because our neighlmrs raise annually over §2,210,000,000 worth of the same products which we raise ; (2) liecause the British is the consuming market for the surplus pro- ducts of both countries and determines the price ; and (3) because they take less of our products than the home or British mar- kets, and what they do buy,except horses, barley and a few othar items, is either re- exported or displaces produce of their own — in either case adding to the competition of our direct shipments in the Mother Country. It is the very marrow of the question to determine the relative value of these three mai'kets to our farmers, and we are fortun- ately now in possession of some reliable data which may guide us in loO,000,000, and of this our home market absorbed (to use round numbers) $110,000,000, or l',i per cent. ; (ireat Britain, ??22,500,000, or 15 per cent. ; and the United States, 415,- 500,000, or 10 per cent. It is (^uite evi- dent from these facts that it must be ab- surd to represent our farmers as tlependent on a market which for twenty years has only taken 10 per cent, of their surplus and only 5 per cent, of their total annual production, and that r.he benefits of Com- mercial Union MIGHT BE DEARLY rURClIA,SEI> if it weakened their home ami British markets, which together absorbed 88 per cent. ! Now, this brings us to another crucial point in Mr. Butterworth's propo- sal and reveals another serious, if not fa- tal, disadvantage . It would undoubtedly aft'ect both the home ami British nuirkets injuriously as purchasers of our farmers' productions, and thus they might find in the end that they had lost as much, if not more, than they had gained by the measure. Under Commercial Union something like a revolution would take place in our Bri- tisii and American trade. At present the latter sells us, taking all dcsoiiptions of goods, about §5,000,()(K) more per annum than the former. Take all duties oft' Am- erican goo«ls and rai.se our tarirt" wall still higher against the British, and a large de- cline in our whole trade witli the Mother Country, and the complete termination of some branches of it, woiild inevitably re- sult. But some may .say, " Wiiat matters that Ai our farmers ? Britain would buy our productions from us the same as be- fore." Not so, friend ! Political economy and experience alike teach, that as our im- ports from Britain dwindled to zero, our exports to her would also decline, and as these are mostly agricultural products, it follows that the Mother Country would more or less cease to be t!ie direct, con- venient, first-class market for our farmers which it is at present. I would invite the attention of farmers to the last table given above, which may aid them to figure out for themselves what they would gain or lose by nuiking the American market a little better and that of Britain a little worse. To put it in a sentence, what would they be in pocket if they got a trifle more on §2,189,000 worth of horses, $5,708,000 of barley, and $8.31,- 000 of sheep and lambs, but had to take a little less on $4,998,000 worth of cattle, $6, 179,000 of breadstuff's, and .$8,035,000 of cheese and butter ? THE SAME AIUiTMENT applies with still greater force to our home market. The general e under the Continental tariff which we wouldn't control, and if we even trebled our Inland Revenue taxes, it is extremely doubtful if the amojnt would be forth- coming, for the rates would be, in many cases, prohibitory, inducing smuggling and other evasious of the revenue. But even if we could easily raise the $7,000,000, what class of Canadian tax-payers, least of all our farmers, who have the brunt of the burden to bear now, would ever dream of taxing themselves for Commercial Union to such an extent ? PERCEIVING THIS DILEMMA, and that it alone would be fatal to the whole scheme, the Commercial Unionists have made th« somewhat extraordinary proposal that the United States and Can- ada should have a joint purse for Customs revenue, and they have published a cal- culation to show that a division of the revenue per capita would give Canada as much as at present . Assuming that this were correct, there would still remain the strongest possible objections to a joint national purse when we would have little or no control over the purse-strings. But, as a matter of fact, the figures advanced as to Canadian revenue under this propos- al are by no means correct . The sum of $210,000,C'X) is taken as the basis of this calculation, t>eing the average of American Customs receipts for the past 16 OUR NATIONAL FUTURE. I! four years. But as their war expenditure disappears their Customs duties are 1)eing gradually reduced ; last year they (>nly realised, in round numbers, §1 92,000,000, itnd there are loud calls all over the Re- public for further reductions. Assuming.', however, that their revenue ditl not fall lower than the last-mentioned sum, it would reduce Canada's share from §3 50 to §3 20 per head, or by the sum of 81,500,- 000. riieu our inland revenue is set down in the calculation at §11,500,000. But unless they propose to extend the United States inland revenue system over the Dominion, or we bind ourselves to adopt similar laws to theirs, which would be much the same thing, our inland revenue would only amonnt to §6,000,000, which was more than the collections of last year. In the two items, therefore, the calucla- tion aforesaid comes short to the extent of §7,000,000. THE BKOAD FACT that Canada expects, according to the Finance Minister's statement, to realise 822,500,000 from Customs during 1887-8, whilst under the proposed joint-purse arrangement at 83 20 per head for live millions >f people, we would not receive more than 816,000,000, is sufficient to prove that Commercial Union is impossi- ble unless the people of this Dominion are prepared to put their hands in their pockets and raise annually some six or seven millions of additional revenue. Since the foregoing argument was writ- ten my attention has been called to Mr. Butterwortli's letter, of the 6th August, to members of ('ongress, in which he speaks of ''some modifications of the In- tenial Revenue system on each side of the line." This is the first time I have ob- served any proposal of this kind, and if higher taxes were levied it might some- what reduce the discrepancy in the reve- nue calculation referred to, but it would in no way weaken the truth or force of my argument as to additional taxation. Under any circumstances Canada would have to tax herself for the deficient millions. THE MOST STRIKINO AND OBJECTIONABLE feature of Commercial Union is the fact that our neighbors require that Canada, although a British colony, shall adopt a oint tariff with the United States, dis- criminating agaimst British trade. With- out dilating on the unusual character of this "condition," I may say the Dominion has no constitutional power to make any treaty, much less one hostile to the mother country. That Britain herself could agree to a discriminating Commercial Treaty, is by no means certain, as under the "most favored nation clause" of her treaties with such countries as France, Germany and Italy, she might be sharply taken to task for discriminating in favor of the United States. But waiving this point, what Canadian statesman, unless he had lost all regard for British connection, could seriously propose- to Great Britain to negotiate a treaty, or even consent to legislation, discriminaling against her own commerce and building up that of a rival ? "But," says Mr. Goidwin Smith, "Can- ada already levies duties avowedly pro- tective on British goods, and the adoption of the American scale would make no great difference, as it appears to me, either practically or in point of principle. " \Tith all respect to Mr. Smith, a greater fallacy than this was seldom ever penned. There is A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between the two cases. Under our pveseut tariff, however objectionable in some re- spects, British and American manufactur- ers stand upon e([ual terms. But under Commercial Union, Canada would open her doors free to all American goods, but bar them against those of Britain by duties ranging from 50 per cent, anywhere up to 100 per cent. This a wide difference from our present tariff, "both practically and in point of principle," and its far- reaching effects would speedily appear. It would, indeed, give a ruinous blow to British trade with Canada, and to repre- sent John Bull, as some are coolly doing, as being rather willing than otherwise to perform a sort of Commercial hari kari of the nature proposed, prov&s that the age of credulity has not yet passed away. Another overwhelming objection to every Canadian who has any proper spirit or regard for his conntry must oe, it ap- pears to me, that the control of this con- tinental and discriminating tariff would practically be in the hands of our neigh- bors. I know it is urged that a joint com- mission, in which Canada would be fairly represented, would regulate changes in the tariff from time to time. Mr. 'Viman is reported to have said at Detroit that the basis of this commission would be popula- tion, and that the proportion woula be ten members for the States for every one for this country ! However this might turn out, the old saw would doubtless prove mmm OUH NATIONAL FLTURE. 17 free true, that the tail coultl not expect to wag the dog, ami so, i»i actially, the WtNTKOL OF TAXATION WOI'LU I'ASS OUT OF OL'R HANDS. If Congress ever consentetl to give the control of the taritl' into the liamls of any commission, which I can haidly believe, they would >it least insist that tliey should appoint the comniissioiieis wlio Were to represent the Repuhlic. Control- ling the commissioners they would con- trol what they did, and conatciuently, this jondition of Commeicial Union would practically place the taxation of the people of Canada in the hands of t -i United States Congress. A century ago our neighbors began the Revolutionary War rather than submit to "taxation without representation," and I cannot understand how any Canadian who desires the continu- ance of the present independent position of Canada could ever consent to hand over the tremendous power of taxation, not only without representation, but into the hands of a nation with which we are not even politically connected. Now, suppose Commercial Union to be actually in force, what would the posi- tion of Canada be ? We would be under the Continental Tariff, nominally control- led by a joint commission, but practically by the States. Our Inland Revenues would be similarly controlled. There would be a joint purse for the moneys col- lected, but as our neighbors would put in. Bay two hundred to our twenty millions, naturally the purse aforesaid would be kept at Washington, and if we did not draw the whole of our per capita allowance of revenue from the American capital, whatever deficiency there was at our own ports would certainly be drawn from there. Can anyone imagine a more dependent and pitiful position for the Dominion and its Government to occupy? We would oc- cupy a position wondrously like being sup- ported by an annual subsidy from the Uni- ted States, and our Government would be like Samson shorn of his locks. As they no longer controlled the tariff or its reven- ues, they would be impotent to discharge many of the functions of Government. They would be U.NABLB TO UNDERTAKE NEW PUBLIC WORKS and improvements so necessary to the growth and prosperity of a country like Canada. If an Indian rebellion broke out they would be at their wita' end for money to put it down, and Canada would occupy a position at once painful and comical in case of trouble ansing between (ireat Bri- tain and the States. Whenever the tariff was changed at Washington, our Parliament would have to cry " ditto" ; when new rules and ord- ers were issued as to Customs, our Gov» ernment would have to cry "ditto" again ; and wiien they altered their Inland Reve- nue taxes "ditto" would again be our cry. Our merchants and all others affect- ed would have to conform to these chan- ges, and wc may rest assured that in a coniniisi«ion composed of ten Americans to one Cantulian, their policy would at least nf)t be to l)uilutter- worth scheme. Our great loaders, < ieorge Urowu, Alexaiitler Mackenzie aiul Kilwanl lilake— a uoltletrio — never at any time ex- pressed themselves fa voral)let<)aZoliverein. Mr. Brown, we know, was strongly op- posed to it, as being antagonistic to the continuance of British Connection ; and as a political weapon, whilst its advantages lire attractive on the surface, when the people come to understand its numerous commercial drawbacks and political con- sequences, in my humble judgment any party adopting it would tintl it a veritable iHjomerang in their Iiands. For, after all, although our electorate have made great mistakes, the people generally waiinly love Canada, ami if this tjuestifju ever goes so far as to be threshed out and sifted at the polls, their good sense can be trusted to say to our American neighbors : — "We ardently desire freer commercial lelations with you; we are warndy in favor of a new Reciprocity Treaty oi- any other fair measure, dealing out even- handed justice to l)oth, and doing no in- jury to either ; but we are not pi"e pared, under the guise of Commercial Union, to surrender our country for commercial advantages which would be just as bene- ficial to you as they would be to us I" As was stated in a former letter. Com- mercial Union is ITTKULV ANTI-CANADIAN, and leads directly away from that national future whicli ouglit to be and is worthy to be the iiope of every true Canadian. There exi.>