^..

.<LSiJ^

^■V^.

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^ J'

1.0

1.25

■50 ^^ II^H

s? lift

liO

U il.6

6" -

•i •,

I^iolDgrapMc

Sciences

Corporation

23 WBT MAIN STMIT

WIUTIR.N.Y. MSm

(716) •72-4503

>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

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

I I Coloured maps/

□

n
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 <ierr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long dc la marge int^rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas iti fslmies.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires supplAmentaires:

L'Institut a microfilm6 le meilleur exempleire
qu'il lui a 6ti possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exempleire qui sent peut-Atre uniques du
point de vue bibliogrephique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mAthode normale de filmage
sont indiquts ci-dessous.

I I Coloured pages/

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagias

□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurias et/ou pellicuiies

[~~Y Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
LJ-1 Pages d6color6es, tachetAes ou piqu^es

I I Pages detached/

Pages d^tachies

Showthrough/
Transparence

r~~V Showthrough/

□ Quality of print varies/
Qualiti indgale de I'impression

□ Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel supplimentaire

□ Only edition available/
Seule Mition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to
ensure the best' possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure,
etc.. ont At6 filmAes A nouveau de fa^on A
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film* au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-dessou*.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

a4X

28X

32X

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

i\lational Library &f Canada

L'exempiaire filmt fut reprodult grAce A la
ginirositA de:

BibliothAque nationale du Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping w'th the
filming contract specifications.

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

Les Images sulvantes ont At* reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetA de Texempiaire filmA. et en
conformity avec Ian conditions du contrat d<i
fiimage.

Les exemplaires orlginaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimAe sont filmte en commengant
par le premier plat et en termlnant soit par la
dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impressiori ou d'iilustration. soit par le second
plat, salon le cas. Tous kj autres exemplaires
orlginaux sont filmte en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iilustration et en termlnant par
la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol ^^> (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.

CI^-kjD,

"^ V1V > v-w.ft-'-^i ,

a>«^

Q,^^:k^

^^^,

':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 ^■<ien Some br^n^hes 'of
niahUfactures*, would benefit both coun-
tries immensely, no unprejudiced person

OUR NATIONAL FUTURE.

au(|uaintci1 with our internatioiml com-
mcr«;« cjiii for a moiii«>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(»we<I byC'on-
8ul-(ieneral Potter at the Detroit Com-
mercial Convention that the action of liis
Oovernment was influenced by our politi
cal position ; in other wordH, it wa8 clear-
ly intimated tlult by exchanging tne Bri-
tish Lion fo- the Ameriaan Kagle we could
have Reciprocity in the fullcHt neiiHe of
the temi. This continuen to »j« the secret
of the commercial policy of our neighbors
towards Canada, and I desire imrticularly
to point out that a Zollverein, or (Jutitoms
union, with Free Trade between the two
countries and a Continental tariff against
the world, including Great Britain, is

ONLY AN OLD ACQUAINTANCE WITH A NEW
FACE.

It may be presented in the pleasing guise
of "complete Reciprocity," but every in-
telligent person must see that what is pro-
posed is simply a Zollverein, which is not
only irreconcilable with our continued con-
nection with Great Britain, but a sort of
hulf-way house on the road to annexation.
Political union has followed commercial
anion in Germany, and he must be very
blind who thinks it would be different on
this Continent.

To discuss the commercial results of a
Zollverein at length is foreign to my pre-
sent purpose. That many advantages
would flow to Canada therefrom is un-
doubted. But there is a bronze as well as
a silver side to the shield. Certainly our
rising manufactories wonld sufi'er under
free competition with the older, larger,
and richer establishments of the United
States, and the hopes entertained thr.t the
Maritime Provinces, with their stores of
coal and iron, will, ere many years, be-
come the New England of Canada, would
be indeflnitely postixmed. Canadians who
occasionally rush along the great through
lines of American travel to New York, or
Chicago, naturally come back with

VERY EXAOOERATED IDEAS OF OCR NEIGH-
BORS' PROSPERITY.

Let ttiem go into the country districts of
the various States ; let them compare
Northern Maine and New Hampshire with
our • Maritime . ^rqvvices, or . Miehtgaa,
6h*o, ir aBV 2>th^: 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<la." This happy phrase
hits ofl* the proposed Connnercial Union
exactly, and now long, I ask, would (ireat
Britain continue connected with Canada
after the Frys and Ingalls and Blaines
couUl fashion the Cana<liai) tariff at their
own sweet wills, or how long would wo
occupy a position of pitiful dependence on
Washington legislation, alike harraasing
and uncertain, without finding annexation
to be the only release from an intoliiiable
position ?

To discuss the details of such a policy is
needless. The broad facts amply show
what it means for Canada, and it is time
the mist was cleared from our eyes an<l we
looked the question straight in the face,
it is time people realized that the chief
difference between a Zollverein and annex.
ation is, that one is a straight and the
other a tortuous and troublous road to the
same destination, and for my part if things
ever came to such a pass with Canada, I
would greatly prefer the former to the
latter.

But I h&ve mnch mistaken my fellov^
Canadians if they are not overwhelmingly
opposed to entering upon either road, and
e<iually as ovei-wheimingly resolved, that
when the day does come — as come some
day it must — when Canada shall sever
from Great Britain, the true destiny of
British America will be realized, as tore-
shadowed by Lord Monck, in the estab-
lishment of a great Canadian nationality
on the northern part of this Continent.

As this article has already extended to
{.'ojisiderable length, I must defer reference
ifp* Ilnperial Federation till another occa-
siohC

Gait, April 2nd, 1887.

• • •

• t ■

OUR NATIONAL FUTURE.

Letter No. 2.

Imperial Federation Scheme doing more to Disintegrate tlian Unite tiie Empire
— A Retrograde Step trom a Canadian Standpoint.

It is easy to diHcover increase*! rcHpon-
siliilities and diiBcultics, but no real ad-
vantages for Canada, in Imperial Federa-
tion, nor do I see how we uan have luiy
closer" or better connection with the
Mother Country than exists at present.

The idea at Hrst glance is ailinittedly
dazzling Tiiat tne British Isles should
become the centre of u grand Federation
of Free States, governe«l in all Iinnerial
matters by one Parliament, bound to-
gether in peace or war, and circling the
globe with Cnristianity and civilization, is
a conception both dazzling and ambitious ;
but it appears, on a very cursory exam-
ination, more like a Jingo dream than
practical statesmanship, and a dream, too,
which might readily clevelop into national
niglitmare.

The well-intentioned and eminently re-
spectable noblemen and others in (Jrreat
Britain who seem bent on pressing this
ambitious project are, I fear,

DOING MOKE TO DISINTEGRATE THK EMPIRE,

at least so far as Canada is concerned, than
their proposals would do to bind it
together. Whilst unable to present any
plan of Federation which the public mind
does not at once dismiss as impraticable,
their agitation is doing much harm by
creatine widespread doubts ao to the
strength and durability of the ties which
have so long and, upon the whole, so
happily united us to the Mother-land.
Like the agitat! jd for so-called Commercial
Union with the United States, the Fed-
erationist movement is disturbing and im-
peding the consolidation of theiJ)ominioii,
and if pressed and persisted in must ere
long

PRKOIFITATB A CRISIS

in our Colonial relations, the end of which
it is impossible to foretell.

In a brief paper such as this it is im-
nossiblu to discuss so bro:id a ({ucstion as
Imperial Federation at length, and I shall
have CM confine my remarks chiefly to a
few of the principal objections from a
Canadian point of view.

So far as (ircat liritian itself is oon.-jern-
e<l, there is no evidence that our fellow-
citizens there either believe in its practi-
cability or advantages. With the excep-
tion of Lord Roseljeiy and the late Hon.
W. E. Forster, I am not aware of any in-
fluential statesmen who have taken part
in the movement. Such eminent men as
•John Bright and Ooldwin Smitli have de-
nounced it as absurd and impracticable,
and it can be readily understootl, that
after building up the greatest and freest
Monarchy the world has ever seen, to
undertake to change its character and
form — the laborious work of centuries —
into a Federation combining heterogeneous
races and countriesi, and to give to each a
voice in the great Parliament of the nation,
would not only be a dazzling but

A MOST DANGEROUS EXPERIMENT.

With the history of ancient Rome before
them, the people of Britian might well
ask whether such an experiment would
not be more likely to p.esage the down-
fall of the Empire than its consolidation
and perpetuity.

Whatever else it may include, the pro*
ject necessarily involves the creation of a
Federal Parliament which would meet in
Lond6n, and in ~n hich the British Isles and
the self-governing colonies would be jointly
represented. This body would naturally
have control of all questions of Imperial
concern, such as peace, war, ships, colon-
ies, the fisheries and sognate subjects of a
ffeneral character. It is extremely doubt-
ful whether the Brtish people could ever

OUR NATIONAL FUTURE.

be induced to hand over such vital inter-
ests to a Parliament which, if based on
just principles of rupresentatiou, might be
eventually controlled by the colonists ;
Aivd, on the other hand, if the latter were
cot iairly repre8ent«d, would be certain to
end ill dissatisfaction and diaaster

FBOM A CANADIAN STANDPOINT

JiF«d«i>::^<onis as<etrograde step. No sach
• change in our colonial relations is possible
^ which would -not deprive us df cotv ju-
tionai rights and privileges we ow
possess. It is true we might still have a
voice in these matters, but it would be in
a Parliament meeting over three thousand
miles awav, in whose deliberations each
colony would exarciae but little influence,
even M'hen its representatives rose super-
ior to ribbons, stp.rs and garters. Besides
^thi8, who beHevQs that auy eoRsifleraltle
number of Canadians would «rer agree
ithat any other body than ;*ar own Parlia-
'laent and representatives should have
legislative control over our commerce, or
that our peace-loving citizens, in nowise
connected with Ola World quarrels,
should become direct parties to and par-
ticipants in war which may at any moment
redden Europe wivh blood from Moscow to
Constantinople ? It is true we raised the
gallant lOOth Regiment toi the British
army, and more recently New South
Wales sent a valuable contingent to assist
Gen. Wolseley in Egypt. But it world be
a great mistake to suppose from these spon-
taneous expressions of loyal enthusiasm,
that the colonies would bind themselves
for ever to waste their blood and treas-
ure in wars in Egypt, India, Burmah and
South Africa in M'hich

THEY WOULD HAVE LITTLE OR NO OONCyRN.

I need not dwell upon other points, for
I am persuaded the objections of Canad-
ians to Imperiiil Federation are funda-
mental. Attachment to Great Britain
and it« sovereign is almost universal
among us. Whatever others may do or
■ay, we gladly acknowledge how much the
world owes to the British monarchy. But
Above and beyond all this, Canadians feel
that their first duty as citizens is due to Can-
ada, and that they are not prepaid to
move back the hands on the dial of nation-
al progress by relinquishing any of those
cherished rights of Self -Government which
oar fore-fathers so long and so earnestly
struggled to obtain.

To combine the colonies and Mother

Country under one Parliament would be

« •ometbtng akin to putting n^w wine in old

bottles. Disguise it as some may,our mater-
ial and other interests are in not j. few
respects diverse. What is best tor them
is not always best for us, and vice versa ;
there is, conseijuently, much danger thut,
instead of bindmg the Empire and Colon-
ies together, attempts to tighten the cords
which unite us would inc/eaae the tension
and

8VAP THEM ASTTNDER.

There is itotlting mure vitally important to
what I believe to be the true future of the
Dominion than the present continuance
uf Britisli connexion, and I am firmly per-
suaded that thfe existing union between
Great Br^ Jan and Canada — albeit mainly
the tender chords of national sentiment —
is the strongest and best which will ever
bind us te^^ether.

National sentiment may seem at lirst
glance a fragile bond, but experience
proves it to be a potent force. It was
national sentiment which nerved three
hundred Greeks to withstand the mighty
power of Xerxes at the Pass of Ther-
nopylsB ; it M'as national sentiment which
stimulated Britain to defy Napoleon when
all Europe croucheu at his teet : it was
national sentiment which, under Cavour,
unified and regenerated Italy ; it was
national sentiment, under the statesman-
ship of Bismarck, which made Germany
the foremost of Contviieutal powers on the
bloody held of Sadowa ; and I see no rea-
son why

NATIONAI. SENTIMENT,

if untampered with by avowed Federation-
ists or disguised Annexationists, may not
continue to happily unite Canada and the
mother country for many years to come.

But as certainly as the son reaches man-
hood and leaves the pa-^ental roof as cer-
tainly comes the day when powerful Col-
onies attain their mn^jority.

This lesson is written all over the
world's history. That day came for
Britain's first born, the United States. It
is now approaching for this great colony,
ano it ought to be the prayer and aspira-
tion of every citizen, that at the proper
time and in cordial alliance M'ith Great
Britain, Canada may fulfil Lord Monck's
prediction ^ by peacefully and gracefully
taking a place among the nations, which,
by irs resources, people and institutions,
it will be amply fitted to ndom.

Gait, April 30th, 1887.

OUR NATIONAL FUTURE.

THIRD LETTER

-FR')M —

HON. JAMES YOHN6.

Commercial Union a National as well as a Commercial Question— Its Effects on
Canadian Industries — The Question of Patents — Whicli is

our best Merl(et.

I am pleased that The (ilcbe has taken
the broad ground that Couimerciiil Union
in not a party (juestion, and evidently aiuis
«»t a thorough ventihition of the whole sub-
ject. KcgartUng it as one of uionieutous
importance to the future of Cana«ia, and
scarcely less to the Lil)cral party, I feel
it to be my duty to otfer some ailditioual
reasons why Commercial Union api)Ci'.rs txi
me at once impracticable and undesirable.

I quite agree with Mr. Wiman ami Mr.
butterwortb (with the former of whom I
have been on terms of friendship for thirty
years with increasing admiration and le-
speut,) that tliere ought to be freer com-
inercial relations between the United
States and Canada. But who is to blame
for the tariti wall which exists ? Certain-
ly the United States. They annulled the
Elgin-Marcy Treaty in 18G(i, nmch against
Canada's will, and though the " balance
of tiade " had been nearly §100,000,000 in
their favor, the Brown-8eward Treaty of
1874 was cavalierly ignored by Congress,
and both the Federal and State Uovern-
mer'.s, so far as I have seen, have ever
since acted consistently on the view an-
nounced by Consul-General Potter at the
time of the famous Detroit Commercial
Convention, that Canada could have the
fullest Reciprocity by political uuion, but
not otherwise.

AFTER MAINTAINING THIS ATTITUDE

tor twenty years Mr. Butterwortn pTxjpos-
ed to Congress last year a substitute meas-
ure, which he 'tailed Commercial Uuion.

This proposition may seem little,lMit means
much, juid its substance may be biiefly
stated as follows : — (1) Complete freedom
of trade between Canada ami the States,
and (2) the adoption of a joint continental
tariff agiiinst the world, including Great
Britain, This idea is not original, being
simply the revival of Honu3e (ireeley's pro-
posal of an American ZoUverein after the
(ierman model. It was scouted in Canada
when first proposed twenty years ago, but
we are given to understand Miat, as re-
vampe^l by Mr. Butterwoith, the Presi-
dent, Cabinet Ministers, governors, judges,
legislators and the people of the United
States have recei\-ed the proposal with al-
most universal favor.

In discussing this question it is high time
every candi<l v.riter ceiised to speak of Re-
ciprocity and Commeix;ial Union as the
same thing. They aio materially different.
Reciprocity is one tliu)g. Commercial
Union (juite another. The former is sim-
ply a Commercial (juestion ; the latter is,
in aH'Mtion, a national and political quen.
tion ot the most vital character. Many of
its advocates seek to shirk or ignore this.
But it is imifossible. It is of the

VERY ESSENCE OF MR. BUTTERWORTIl's BILL,

ample proof of which, if any were needed,
might be found in the fact that whilst in
Canada its friends are constantly protflst-
ing it won*t affec*; British Connection and
lead to Annexation, its popularity in the
States arises chiehv from the belief that it

OUR NATIONAL FUTURE

would speedily bring ahout these very re-
•ults.

The proposed measure, therefore, must
stand the test politically a» well as com
mercially ; but Iwlore considering these
points let me brietty glance at, without die-
cussing, what I regard as a few out of many
incorrect assumptions.

(1) How absurd it is, not to say unpatri-
otic, to apeak of Canadians, especially our
farmers, as being poverty-stricken and suf-
fering serious disadvantages as compared
with our American neighbors. Sixty mil-
lions of people will naturally have larger
cities, larger industries and larger wealth
than five millions. But, as I have had oc-
casion to remark before, I do not believe
that in tlie most favored parts of the Union
the masses of ihe people are wealthier,
healthier or happier than in our own noble
Province of Ontario, whilst in the majori-
ty of the States and territories their posi-
tion is quite inferior to ours in almost
every respect.

(2) Equally fallacious is it to assume
that the Canadian farmer pays all the du-
ties on the horses, cattle, barley, etc.,
which are exported across the lines. For
forty years the Liberal party has been
taught ditferently, and the demonstrations
of Adam Smith, confirmed by all great liv-
ing political econcnists.as well as by prac-
tical experience, clearly prove the con-
trary.

(3) I may also notice the assumption so
frequently indulged in, that Commercial
Union would open up to our farmers a
market of 60,000,000 of con(=^umer8. With
oqual truth it might be said that it would
bring upon them sixty millions of competi-
tors, for a nation which exports over|500,-
000,000 worch of farm products annually
cannot require to import similar articles
for their own consumption.

Now, how would such a sweeping meas-
ure as Commercial Union

AFFECT CUE PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIES?

Some would undoubtedly be benefitted ;
others as certainly crippled and injured.
Our fisheries would not it seems to me,be
improved. Our sea to lers would secure
an open market, but t is would be more
than offset by being crowded off their fish-
ing grounds by New England fishermen,
who would have the best chance in Ameri-
can markets, and who might soon reduce
our unrivalled fisheries to the same condi-
tion as their own. The removal of duties
would give a temporary stimulus to the
lumber trade. But, as our neighbors are

annually becoming more dependent on our
lumber, it can hardly be doubted that the
duty almost invariably falls on the Ameri-
can consumers, and its removal would be
sure to be followed by a readjustment of
prices. Exchanges would be more easy,
which IS always an advantage, and pro-
duction would probably be stimulated ;
but, with the exception of a few large limit
holders, the Utter would be an injury
rather than a benefit to Canadians, as our
fntnre wealth and prosperity largely de-
pend on the conservation of our forests.

The dazzling picture of wealth drawn
from the rapid development of our "moun-
tains of iron and copper" will hardly bear
close scrutiny. The boasted riches made
in the States from these industries have
been almost wholly absorbed by a small
circle of iron and copper monopolists, and
almost every dollar of it has, in conse-
quence of their enormous protective duties,
been wrung from the pockets of the fai m-
ers and other producing classes. It may
seem a somewhat surprising statement.but
judging from the remarks of the Hon.
David Wells, Frof. Sumner and other Am-
erican political economists, it is doubtful

IF A SliNGLE DOLLAR HAS REALLY BEEN
ADDED

to the wealth of the United States by all
the iron and copper produced ; in other
words, it is doubtful if the nation as a
whole would not have been . richer if, in-
stead of forcing up the prices of these sta-
ples by enormous bounties and duties un-
til mining and smelting would pay, they
had allowed their people to buy the im-
mensely cheaper iron and i^opper of Eng-
land and other countries. I will only add
on this point that there still remain many
"undeveloped" mountains of iron and
copper in the United States, but the mon-
opolists aforesaid can always be relied up-
on to retard or crush out their develop-
ment, and that we in Canada would fare
any better can hardly be expected.

We now come to onr merchants, manu-
facturers and farmers, and it is these
classes which Commercial Union would
most deeply affect. Promptly as the trade
barriers were thrown down, that numerous
and respectable class known as " drum-
mers" would sweep over the Dominion
with a zeal begotten of "pMtures new."
The immediate effect would be business
disturbance and upheaval, to be almost
certainly followed within twelve months
by a serious commercial crisis, beginning
among our merchants and marofacturers.

OUR NATIONAL FUTURE.

but extending to our monetary institutions
and more or Icsa aH'ccting all classes.
When the wrecks were cleaied away and
things had settled down again, it would
be found that a considerable portion of our
importing trade from (Jreat Britain and
abroad had lieen permanently transferred
from Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, Winni-

Seg and other Canadian cities to I'orvland,
loston, New York, Chicago and St. Paul.
Proof of the soundness of this view may
be found in the action of the members of
tlie Toronto Board of Trade, who abnost
unanimously decided against Commercial
Union, and who are not only competent
but

THE BEST JUDGES

how it would affect our mercantile in-
terests.

That the measure would ser'ously crip-
ple our existing Canadian manvifactures is
generally admitted, and, indeed, is so
self-evident as scarcely to require argu-
ment. As a Liberal I have opposed the
exorbitant protective duties of our present
tariff, but I have never advocated or be-
lieved that our manufactures could subsist
and flourish if exposed to absolutely free
competition from the immense British and
Aineri'jan establishments. It is unreason-
able to expect that they could, and tlie
very last thing that tne United States
manufacturer would consent to, would be
to open his markets to BritJsli goods, al-
though, (alas for consistency !) he would
like us to open ours to him !

"But," it is constantly asked, "why
cannot the Canadian manufacturer com-
pete with the American on equal terms ?"
Ask the latter why he cannot compete
with the British manufacturer on equal
terms, and he will answer : — "The terms
are not equal ; we cannot compete because
of the cheaper labor and capital, cheaper
raw material, and, in many cases, larger
establishments of Great Britain. " What-
ever truth may be in this, there are strong
reasons why many of our manufacturing
industries could not withstand the compe-
tition certain to occur if we made our mar-
kets perfectly free to the large corpora-
tions and monopolies of a great nation
like the United States. Nor does it
necessarily follow from this feet that
Canadian piioea are higher, or that the
change would ultimately ensure the con-
sumer cheaper goods. It is an easy and
very common thing across the lines for
large corporations to crush out smaller
concerns and afterwards charge higher

prices to recoup themselves. That this
would be extensively done throughout the
Dominion by American manufacturers if
Commercial Union were adopted is as cei-
tain as tliat man is human, and the result
of such unfair, combined with legitimate
competition, would not oidy check the
further growth of manufactures among us,
but

CAUSE WIDESrUEAI) RT'IN

among those which at present exist.
"But," we are told again, "with Com-
mercial Union we would have all the Uni-
ted States to manufacture for, and that
ultimately the best of our manufacturers,
reinforced by Americans and American
capital, would have immense establish-
ments sending Canadian goods all over the
Continent." This is a pleasing dream, but
only a dream. Indeed, this is one of the
crucial points at which, It appears to me.
Commercial Union absolutely fails . Two
facts must, I think, make this perfectly
clear to every unprejudiced mind. They
are as follows : —

First — All descriptions of American
manufactures are extensively covered by
patents, either wholly or in part. These
patents r.in for long terms of years and
prevent competition with the patented
articles in any of the States or Territories
of the Union. Many of these same manu-
factures are made in Canada, but few of
them have been patented here ; conse-
quently, whilst the Americans could over-
run our limited market with their patent-
ed goods, our manufacturers who make
the same article or parts thereof would con-
tinue to be as completely shut out of the
States as they are at present.

Second — Under Commercial Union the
commencement of large industrial estab-
lishments in Canada would be checked if
not altogether prevented. It would offer
a premium to manufacturers touvuid Can-
ada, for the very obvious and powerful
reason that if they located here the repeal
of the treaty would lose them eleven-
twelfths of their market and entail serious
loss both in real estate and plant. On the
other hand, by locating in the States they
would be certain of the whole of that large
market and enjoy ours also whilst the
treaty lasted.

Under these circumstances, I submit, that
whatever else may be said in favor of
Commercial Union, it would inevitably be
most disastrous to Canadian manufactures,
both at piesent and in future. I shall not
enlarge further on this point, except to say :

1r^

OUR NATIONAL FUTURE.

what this would mean, not only to our
leading citit!8,but such places as Stratford,
Woodstock, Brantiord, (ialt, Berlin,Pari3,
Odhavva, and other riainy towns and vil-
liiges throughout the iJoniiniou, requires
no prophet to foretell.

Agriculture l>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 <loing so. The
able head of the Ontario Bureau of Statis-
tics, Mr. Archibald Blue, in a carefully
prepared 8tatement,now in my possossion,
makes the value of evciything produced
on Ontario farms in 1 S8G to have been
close upon $160,000,000. Adding 8140,-
000,000 for all the other Provinces, which
must be a moderate estimate, we reach a
total production for the Dominion of 8^500, -
000,000. Assuming that one half of these
products were consumed by the farming
community themselves, the surplus was
dis^posed of as follows : —

Sui-plus farm production $150,000,000

Exiiorted to Great HritalnS22.,')43.J)3G
United States 15.495,783
clbe where.... 1,678,493

39,718,212

Homo market consumed $110,281,788

Although only an approximj,te estimate,
these figures clearly indicate that the home
market made by our manufacturing, lum-
bering, mercantile and other classes is in-
comparably the best which our farmers
possess, while that of Britain ranks second
and that of the States third. As indica-
tive of the relative value of the two latter
I subjoin a statement of our total ship-
ments of products of the farm (goods "not
the produce" of Canada included) to each
respectively since 1880 : —

Year. . United States. Gt. Britain.

1881 $13,177,724 $25,793,797

1881 14.199.707 34,087.306

1S82 16,297.206 35.763,194

18S3 18776272 ;!9,5,J7,012

1884 14.512.522 25.750,801

1885 1.5.542..5.^3 30.449,446

1886 15,931,188 26,700.404

$108,437,212 $208,102,110

OUK NATIONAL FUTURE.

During the last p.aven yeara, therefore,
Britain took more agricultural products
directly from the Dominion than the States
did by nearly ?flOO,OOU,000. This makes
it tolerably clear that it is our principal
market for foreign export, and its supeii-
ority is enhanced by the fact that wliilst
the Mother Country sends us comparative-
ly no farm products in return, our

AMERICAN NfiltUIBOKS AKE ACTIVE COM-
TETITOKS,

not only in the foreign, but in our own
home market. In order to throw furtlier
light on this important point I have com-
plied from Dominion records the following
table of our chief agricultural exports to
each country respectively during 1S8G : —

U. S. Gt. llrit.

Cattle ? 724,457 ?».y!»8,;i27

Horses 2,18y,3yl 19,279

Sheep 631.749 ai7.9s7

butter 17,545 773,511

Cheese 20,219 7,2(il,542

KKgs 1,722,579

Meats, all kinds 83.570 698,776

Wheat 325,271 4,7&9,27ti

Flour. 125,520 1,092.461

Uatiueal 15,080 297,415

Barley 5,708,130 11,248

Indian corn 59.450 1,3:^0,131

Oats 87.697 1,160,528

Peas 377.003 1.739,917

Hay 897.806 69,534

Potatoes 374,122 192

Hides and skins 468,161 785

Wool 271,421 45,254

Apules 55 302 410,898

These various statistics will, I trust,
furnish our farmers some reliable data up-
on which to estimate the relative value of
their three chief markets. The surplus
farm production of the Dominion (only
one-half the total amount) for 1886, as we
saw above, was about .*>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 <lecline of our Bri-
tish trade, which would be as certain un-
der Commercial Union as that the sun
shines, would more or less injure our
ocean shipping, our importing interests,
the Pacific arid Intercolonial railways, as
well as leading cities along the St. Law-
rence route. As we have already seen,
there would be a serious decline in our
manufactures with little chance of improve-
ment whilst Commercial Union lasted.
Attempts have been made to belittle our
home market . But according to the census
of 1881 there were at that time 254,935
mechanics employed in manufacturing
alone, there was $165,302,000 of capital
invested, and the annual pro<luct of our

OUR NATIONAL FUTURE.

various industries was given at $309,676,-
IHX). Accoriling to the Secretary of the
Manufacturers' Association, the annual
output is now not less than $500,000,000,
and the wages paid out something like
$60,000,000. The numbers employed Jiave
been very largely increased since 1881.
Taken altogether, these different classes
embrace a large portion of our consuming
population, and they arc our fanners' best
customers, because they are found at his
own doors, saving the cost of earriage, and
they buy largely of butter, eggs, poultry,
vegetables, fruits, berries, honey and oth-
er minor articles, which are scarcely of
any value for export. The injury of thes^j
interests would be the certain injury of
what is incomparably our farmers' largest
and beat market, and (waving the point
that the consumer generally pays the duty)
to damage it even slightly in the hope of
saving 10 per cent, or even 20 per cent, on
the horses, barley, sheep, etc., purchased
from us by the Americans, might prove
something akin to •' wasting at the bung
to save a*. i,he spigot. "

FroH! all the foregoing considerations I
am forced to the conclusion that, even

commercially, there are two sides to the
proposed union, and that its acknowledged
advantages are oflFset by still greater dis-
advantages. The wide difference between
it and Reciprocity ntust be apparent to
every one. The latter would benefit the
farmers and the people generally of both
countries ; it would inflict injury upon
none. It is a fair and square deal on both
sides, but that is just what Commercial
Union is not, for aside from its national
entanglements and injury to our manufac-
turing, importing and other interests, it
would so damage both our farmers' home
and British markets that I feel assured if
our neighbors will not agi'ee to a fair and
just measuie of Reciprocity, the great ma-
jority of Canadians will a me to the sage
conclusion of the poet : —

" Better endure the ills we have
Than flee to others we know not of."

Havhig taken up so much space already,
I shall have to reserve my remarks on the
national and political aspect of the ques-
tion for another article.

r,alt, Sept. 1, 1887-

OUR NATIONAL FUTURE,

FOURTH LETTER

— FROM —

HON. JAMES YOUN6.

National and Political Results of Commercial Union — The Revenue Question —
Inconsistent witli Britisli Connection or a National Future.

Turning now to the national and politi-
cal side of the question, we have to con-
sider the results likely to follow from the
"conditions" which our neighbors have
Attached to Commercial Union. These
conditions are that we unite in an Ameri-
can ZoUverein, or, in other words, that we
adopt a Continental tarifF against the
world, and consequently discriminating
against British trade. Nothing has sur-
prised me more than that the advocates of
this measure can profess to see nothing im-

Eracticable in this country continuing
British connection, while we join another
nation in a league against British com-
merce. But before discussing that point,
let us glance at another lion in the path,
whicn, unlike old John Banyan's lions,
mil have to ba grappled with and over-
come before we can proceed.

ONB OF THE FIRST RESULTS

of Commercial Union would be the loss of
nearly $7,000,000 of revenue annually col-
lected by us from American imports. The
total Customs revenue of the Dominion
for 1886 was $19,373,551, and notwith-
standing our high taxation, there was a
deficit of 35,834,000. How could we pay
our public creditors and prevent financial
embarrassment if we gave up our control
over the tariff, and at the same time threw
away $6,769,000, or over one-third of our
total Customs receipts, which was the
amount collected from United States
goods last year ?

It will not do to "pooh-pooh" this ques-
tion instead of answering it. It is a matter
of the most vital consequence. The solv-

ency or bankruptcy oi the Dominion may
depend upon it. The seven millions of
revenue would have to be raised, and how
could we do it ? We could not raise it by
higher duties on imports, for we would J>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

OUR NATIONAL FUTURE.

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.

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)uil<l up the trade of Montreal
and Toronto at the expense of Boston and
New Yoik. If the tariff was raised we
W(mld have to pay higher taxes. If it was
lowered our subsidy might decline so that
bankruptcy might stare us in the face, and
then, inde^id, we might be forced to "look
to Washington" whether we liked it or
not.

It is needless, I feel assured, to press
this point further. Even if the United
States Government acted in this matter
with perfect good faith, the proposed ar-
rangement as to the tariff and joint purse
would

OIVE RISE TO CONSTANT DIFFERENCES

between the two countries, and in all such
cases, as the weaker party, we would have
to knuckle under. Place ourselves once in
such a position, and our experience iu re-
gard to the fisheries and other questions
ai)undantly proves, that however just and
generous Americans generally are, the
average Congressional politician and all
whom he could influence, would use their
vantage ground for all it was worth to
realize the national dream of the Monroe
doctrine : —

" No pent-up Utica contracts our powers. ;
The whole boundless continent is ours.

Many in Canada who have expressed
themselves favorable to Commercial Union
are under the belief that it is compatible
with the continuance of British connection,
but I think it must be apparent from the
foregoing reasons, not to mention otherS)
that the combination of the two things is
quite impracticable. And this leads me
to notice the statemencs frequently made
by Mr. Goldwin Smith and others, tha*,
"All Canada was enthusiastic over Com-
mercial Union," that "everyone admits
its benefits," etc. If it had l)een said that
all Canada was enthusiastic for Reciproci-
ty and freer commercial relations, it would

OUR NATIONAL FUTURE.

be correct enough, but there are no solid
grounds for suying that of Comnterciul
Union. A few meetings, most of them
■parsely attended, furnish little evi<lence
oi Canadian opinion, more especially when
most of those present were under the be-
lief that they were only voting for Recip-
rocity of a rather more extended character
than before. Besides, in almost every
case, tne resolutions passed contained a
saving clause in favor of British connec-
tion, which fact indicates what the opin-
ions of the masses of Canadians will be
when the true bearings of the question are
fully discussed and understood. Our peo-
ple are

WARMLY IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY

or any fair and square measure to secure
freer trade between the two countries, but
Instead of being " enthusiastic for Com-
mercial Union," it is my firm belief that
Mr. Smith will find, when the people of
Canada thoroughly understand both its
commercial ana politicul consecjuences,
that it will prove but little more popular
than his abortive wine and beer agitation.
However sincere some may be in thinking
otherwise, Commercial Union is inconsist-
ent with the continuance of British con-
nection or a national future for Canada.
John Bright, in his recent letter, says that
Protection was a first step towards separ-
ation of Canada from England and that
Commercial Union would be "another and
more serious step " in the same direction.
There can be no doubt of the correctness
of Mr. Bright's view, and those Canadians
who have heretofore thought differently —
and many have honestly done so — have
only to read the accounts of the Detroit
meeting to learn " whither they are drift-
ing." Mr. Gold win Smith there came out
flat-footed for Annexation, and Mr. But-
terworth, though still employing ambigu-
ous phrases, clearly indicated Annexation
as the final result when ne said — " It is
apparent to all that in the consummation
of what is now proposed,

THR MONROE DOCTRINE BECOMES AN AC-
COMPLISHED FACT

throughout all this continent."

There can be no uncertainty aa to the
meaning of the language u^ied by the lead-
ing Commercial Unionists at Detroit, and
yet we find it frequently asserted on this
side of the lines that to support Commer-
cial Union is the best way to prevent An-
nexation. It is remarkably curious, if this
be correct, that every Annexationist in the
land ia doing his level best, in talking or

writing, in favor of the Butterworth
scheme ! And in using the word Annexa-
tionist I do not intend to convey any re-
proach. I have no fault to find with any-
one who holds that or any other view. I
disclaim any sympathy with a mere loyal-
ty cry ; and, on the other hand, much less
do I sympathize with sneers at loyalty, as
if it were a crime for a Canadian to be
loyal to his own country But whilst
treating Annexationists M'ith all rfspect, it
is the manifest duty of those who hold,
like myself, that Canada has a nobler and
better destiny before her, to warn our fel-
low-countrymen that Annexation is the
natural and logical resulc of such a grave
step as Commercial Union, and that to pro-
tend that the latter would prevent the
former is rot less preposterous than to say
that the best way to prevent your boat go-
ing over Niagara Falls would be to shoot
it over the Chippawa Rapids.

In our circumstances as part of the
British Empire, Commercial Union is

AN IMPRACTICABLE NATIONAL POSITION.

We would no sooner get there, to use a
current phrase, than it would be apparent
to everyone that, united with Britain po-
litically but with the States commercially,
Canada had become a sort of national Her-
maphrodite, half British and half Yankee;
that such a position was at once inconsis-
tent and intolerable ; and that we must
either go forward to Annexation or tiy to
retrace our steps, regretting the folly of
which we had oeen guilty . That Canada
could adopt the latter course if thoroughly
united, might be possible, but we would
not be united upon it, and we would find
that, having slidden half way down a
precipice, it is very hard to scramble back
to the top but very easy to slide down to
the bottom. For my own part, I do not
believe we would ever find it practicable
to draw back, for I regard Political Union
as the natural corollary of Commercial
Union. But that we could either go back-
wards or forwards without embroiling
Great Britain and the United States or
creating serious civil disorder in Canada,
and possibly bloodshed, is

OPEN TO THE VERY GRAVEST DOUBTS .

I hope mv fellow-Canadians will weigh
well all the consequences, political aa
well as commercial, likely to follow such
a far reaching measure as Commercial
Union before deciding upon it. If I have
written warmly, and perhaps at too great
length, it is because I feel it to be a ques-
tion of momentous importance to the

OUR NATIONAL FUTLKK.

lutme of Camula, aiiil la'tiiUho, as a liTt;-
loiig Lilxjiiil, I wmiM reganl it as a f,'reat,
poiTi»i)H fatal mistake, if the LiWeral
party Itecame coniiiiitteil to the l>utter-
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.><ts tlirougiiout Canada the kind-
liest feelings toward tiie Uidted States.
For my own part, I aimirc the great Re-
public witli its nob|(! work for humanity
and freedom, and I like the American peo-
ple. Ihit us a nation they have their
dangers. 'I'hey iiave still unsolved their
negro problem, the Mormon scandal, the
Socialistic cons])iracy, wliii'i steadily be-
comes niDre duugi'i-ous, iui<l lynch law,
which continues to pi»;vail over a large
part of the Union. The Continental .Sun-
day, too, with its open theati'es, concert
halls and baseball matciuvs, is beconnng
alarmingly common. Canada doubtle.ss
has its dangers and ditlicultieb' also, but I
Hrndy l)elieve tiiat tor the i)resent we
occupy a i»etter position than any other a«
a self-governing Doiidnion umler liritisli
protection, an<l, win n the circling wheels
of Time bring tlii.-. connection to an end,
that we have territories vast enough, re-
sources iiiimenso enough, institutions good
enough and a peojile with character
enough, to establisii and maintain a Cana-
dian nati-»nali*y which will be honore I
and respected all over tlic world.

Calt, Sept. 17.