the CopF QaH< Co Lf Toronto
MAP TO AC C OMPANY HAN
x^ h ^2\
z,^
\
\bA I L'
AS KJIV,
N D
TERR
IS ON Bav
Mtxkd Forest
'f ftnd. Ve*/ietahf^?.
<2-.
C BN(]
>0/*>.
PlNHJ TlMBKR
/
r^i
.s^^
Por>
Uan<i
IOnsu
■N. \^
;w-nx
mJfT"
peN
hsv
uV^
LINOI
, C
:sEV
CO'
,.iAf^
•ff
c,/tennesse^^^cJ^^
V
.4*
^
Reference .
Populated Parts
or Canada. : .;: HBJ**.
Coal Areas iP?
Prairie. (canaoaJ
•■««3S^W'
Mexico.
I 100 200 300 400
I ' ■ ■ I I
:>XIMATtL SCAL« Of MILES
HANW^, COMMERCIAL UNION
-B
HANDBOOK
OF
COMMERCIAL UNION.
I
r TAN I) HOOK
OK
<y
OMMERCIAL UNION:
31 GColkctio^i of |tavcr6
ilv\l) HKKORK TlIK COMMERCIAL UNION CLUiJ, lOkONTO,
WITH
SPEECHES, LETTERS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
IN FAVOUR OF
UNRESTRICTED RECIPROCITY WITH
THE UNITED STATES.
PRECEPKn BY
AN INTRODUCTION
By Mr. GOLDWIX SMITH.
Edited by G. MERCER ADAM.
Toronto ;
HUNTER, ROSE &: COMPANY.
1888.
f\Qf\ri^ c^^
CONTENTS.
IMOE.
Introduction by Mu. Ooldwin Smitfj ix
Ub«jipuocity with the United States I j
Speech by the Hon. Siii Richard Cartwrioht, K.C.M.O.,
delivered in the Uoubo of Commons, Ottawa, 14th March,
]888.
A Farmer's View of Commercial Union 64 '^
By Thomas Siiaw, Secretjvry of the Permanent Central
Farmer's Institute, Hamilton.
Commercial Union and the Mining Interests of Canada. . 73
By T. D. Ledyard, Toronto.
(Read before the Commercial Union Club, Toronto,
March 1, 1888.)
How Unrestricted REcirRociTV with the United States
Would Affect the Prosperity of Toronto 86
By S. H. Janes, M. A. , Toronto.
(Read before the Commercial Union Club, Toronto,
Dec. 6, 1887.)
'p
Phb Effect of Commercial Union on Our Relations with
Oreat Britain 100
By W. H. Lookhart Gordon, Toronto.
(Read before the Commercial Union Club, Toronto,
Jan. 17, 1888.)
vi Citntants.
F'ACR.
CUIIKKNT ()h.)K«'TH)NH TO OoMMKIKUAL UnION C«»NHir>KHKI» . ... Ill
iiy tho Hon. ,1, VV. Lonolkv, Attornoy-(«onoral of Nova
8cotia, Malifax.
(From 77i.' iVcel:, Toronto.)
AnuiiKHs on Com.mehcial Union 122
By James Pkauhon, Toronto.
(Delivered at Almonte, Ont., Feb. 2()th, 1888.)
Addhkhh to tub Fahmekh op Haldimani) 131
(With a reply on tho Disloyalty Cry, delivered in tho House
of Commons, Ottawa, on the Debate on Uociprocity, March
K), 1888.)
By John Cjiarlton, M.P. for Norfolk.
How CoMMRHOiAL Union Would Affe«;t the Laijour Market 142
By Alfred F. Jury, Toronto.
(Reprinted from The Mail, Feb., 1888.)
Address rrfore the West Peterhoro' Farmers' Institute. 147
By Wm. Cluxton, late M.P. for West Peterboro'.
(Reprinted from The Mail, Mar., 1888.)
llECU'ROCITY IN THE NoKTH-WeST 155
By F. C. Wade, Winnipeg.
(Correspondence of IVie Mail, April 24th, 1 888. )
The Ontario Farmers' Institutes and Commerciai. Union. . 1G5
(Circular issued by the Executive favouring Commercial
Union with the United States.)
SrEEc^ii ON Commercial Union at the Toronto Board of
Trade (June 16, 1887) 160
Uy Henry W. Darling, Toronto,
Covin) 1 1*. vii
I'AUK.
TlIK MAN(rFA( rrUINO IntRHKHTS IV RkLATIoN to CoNfMKIlCIAf,
Union. (A reply totlio lion, .iamea Young, M. IM*.). . , . 175
With an article contributed to the I'ruHson A Por.HYTifAT
Would Hknkkit Canada.
By J. DKYl^KN, Jr., (Ult.
A Skiuks of Lkttkrh Addhfshkd hy Mr. (Ioldwin Smith to
the Toronto Ma;7, on the subject of CoMMKR<;iAh Union,
dealing with the iliscussiou in its various phasun, and meet-
ing the arguments successively advanced against the mea-
sure. (Jieviscd hy the Author) 1 IX)
A Lbttkr Addresskd from Washington by Mr. Goldwin
Smith to the Secretary of the Commercial Union Club, To-
ronto, on the progress of the movement in the United States.
(Washington, April 'S, 1888] 234
A Letter Addressed hv Mr. Ooldwin Smith to the Toronto
Mail on Imperial Federation as an alternative to Com-
mercial Union. [Toronto, Fob. 17, 1888] 238
•
A Letter Addressed by Mr. Goldwin Smith to the New York
huieptndent, on Commercial Union, and treating the sub-
ject in its relation to the Americans. [Toronto, Jan. 24,
1888] 243
A Letter Addressed ry Mr. Goldwin Smith to the New
York Chamber of Commerce, from the New York Times.
[Toronto, Nov. 5, 1887] 250
Si'EECH IN the House of Commons, Ottawa, on the Re<'i-
pRociTY Debate (April Cth, 1888) 254
By Wm. Mulock, M.P. for North York.
234 ^
viii Contents.
PAOE.
Tiih Ekfk«jt ok UK«JirKo»'iTY vviTU THE United States on the
LuMUEtt Trade 201)
By A. H. Cami'ijell, Toronto.
(An Address before the Commercial Union Club, Toronto,
Feb. 8, 1888.)
A Series of Articles on Commercial Union from the
Toronto Mail 272
By Edwarl Farrer, Editor of The Mail.
Constitution (with list of Executive Officers) of the Commer-
cial Union Club, Toronto 290
Map to accompany the Handbook.
OTIIODIJCTIOI^.
The question on which the following series of papers
is intended to throw light may be safely said to be the
greatest which has been submitted to the Canadian people
since Confederation. It has just given rise to a debate
in Parliament, second only, if second, in itnportance to the
debate on the Federal Constitution.
The movement for the abolition of the tariff wall be-
tween Canada and the rest of the continent had not its
origin in any conclave of schemers or any artificial organi-
zation. Of the men who afterwards came to the front
in it, not three had been know n to each other ; nor was
it in any way organized till it had for some time been
on foot. It had not its origin in party, for among
its principal promoters were men of both parties and
men of neither. Some, at least, of the Conservatives
saw in it the logical sequence of the policy which
had adopted Reciprocity of Tariffs only as the neces-
sary alternative to the more desirable Reciprocity of
Trade. It had its origin among the people, whose at-
tention had been turned to their trade relations with the
continent, by the Fisheries question, by the Manitoba
Railway question, by a season of agricultural depression,
and above all by the manifest failure of what is called the
National Policy, that is the application of the Protec-
tive system to markets so narrow as those of the Cana-
X Introduction.
dian Provinces. The movement may be said to have
taken practical shape at a convention of farmers, who
had grown tired of being forced to sell in the cheapest
market and to buy in the dearest.
The farmer has, as yet, had nothing to say to the tariff.
His industry, though comprising, if we include those de-
pendent on it as well as those engaged in it, the bulk of
our population, has, together with the other natural in-
dustries of the country, such as lumbering, mining, fish-
ing, and ship-owning, been denied the title of national,
which has been reserved for manufactures, and especially
for such manufactures as are not natural growths, but
the creations of artificial legislation. On the eve of a
general election the Prime Minister assembles the manu-
facturers, and intimates that in requital for their votes and
contributions, the commercial policy of the country will
be regulated in their interest ; but he does not assemble
the farmers, the lumbermen, the miners, or the fishermen.
The Ontario farmer has been made to pay a vast sum for
the construction of the Canadian Pacific Kailway by
which, instead of obtaining any commercial advantage,
he brings down the most formidable competition on him-
self, while he is made to pay a tax on his clothes and
other articles of consumption for the benefit of the pro-
tected manufacturer. It is not wonderful that the On-
tario farmer, the truth having once dawned upon him,
should declare for Reciprocity. It is not wonderful that
over forty of the Farmers' Institutes of the Province
should have pronounced, as they have, in favour of the
object of Commercial Union.
Introduction. zi
If this movement had done nothing else it would have
been most useful in afrming that the commercial policy
of the country is to be regulated, not by one industry
alone, however important and respectable, but by all, and
not least by those which being native to the country must
after all be the chief sources of its wealth and the main
pillars of its prosperity.
The farmers, as has been said, have declared their
opinion by a great majority. So have the lumbermen
in convention assembled. The mining interest is almost
too much depressed to make itself heard ; but when it
finds a voice, that voice is loud in favour of the removal of
a tariff wall which keeps our vast mineral resources dor-
mant, by preventing the free export of ore, the free im-
port of machinery, and the free inflow of the American
capital required by the risks of mining enterprise. The
people of Port Arthur know that if ever the rich treasure-
house of minerals in the midst of which they dwell could
be unlocked by the key of Unrestri{;ted Reciprocity, their
village would become a mining city. Our fishermen desire,
as one man, a free market for their fish ; our ship-owners,
the freedom of the coasting trade, which alone can restore
life to the shipping interest in the Maritime Provinces.
Our manufacturers, those at least whose industries rest
on a solid commercial basis, are for the most part ready,
while some of them are more than ready, to go into the
free market. 'They agree with Mr. Gibson, the owner
of one of the largest cotton factories in the Dominion,
who says : " I want Unrastricted Recipiocity because it
will give me a large market, and I am not afraid to com-
xii Tntrodtiction.
pete with manufacturers to the south of us. I believe I
have money enough and brains enough, and our people
are intelligent enough, to enable us to compete success-
fully with those who are manufacturing cotton to the
south of us. Give me the market, that is what I want."
There is political opposition to Commercial Union of a
very formidable kind, but the commercial opposition is
confined to those manufacturers who feel themselves de-
pendent on Legislative protection, together with the banks
which have advanced them capital, and the wholesale
houses specially connected with them. It is to be la-
mented, and those who have taken the lead in this move-
ment do sincerely lament, that justice cannot be done to
the interest of the many without some risk of injury to
the few ; but the many in this case are very many, the
few are very few. The responsibility for any loss which
may ensue must rest upon the politicians who, hav-
ing proclaimed that their policy was not protection but re-
adjustment, and that they had recourse to a reciprocity of
tariffs only because they could not get reciprocity of trade,
afterwards yielded to temptation, and attached to them-
selves a corps of political supporters, dependent on their
legislative patronage, by holding out to those who would
engage in manufactures the promise of permanent protec-
tion.
The map prefixed to this volume puts the broad argu-
ment in favour of Commercial Union before us at a
glance. It shows the main expanse of the cultivated and
inhabited continent, occupied by the United States, in the
enjoyment of perfect internal free trade, and owing to
^ Introduction. xiii
economical unity its incomparable prosperity ; each
State, even those which by nature are the poorest, mani-
festly deriving wealth from commercial intercourse with
the rest. Disposed at intervals along the northern mar-
gin of the continent are the four separate blocks of terri-
tory which politically make up our Dominion, the Mari-
time Provinces, Old Canada, French and British, the newly
opened region of the North- West, and British Columbia.
Each of these blocks of territory is divided from the
rest by wide uncultivable spaces, or by such barriers of
nature as Lake Superior or the " sea of mountains " be-
tween the North- West Territory and British Columbia.
They are all shut out by the tariff wall from the Commer-
cial pale of their continent, which is thus deprived of the
benefit of their natural resources, while they are deprived
of their market. The continent is the natural market for
the products of the farm, the forest, the mine, and the
waters in which they severally abound, and its coasting
trade is the natural field for the maritime industry of
such of them as lie upon the sea. With each other they
have scarcely any natural trade. An effort has been made
to force a trade between them by means of a protective
tariff, and at the same time to bind them together by poli-
tical railroads. The a tempt to force a trade has failed,
like all other attempts to turn commerce out of its natural
course. The coal tax imposed in order to compel Ontario
to use the coal of Nova Scotia was abandoned as futile, not,
however, before it had marked the weakness of a policy
which with one hand beckoned manufactures into Ontario,
and with the other checked the importation of the fuel
xiv Inti ^auction.
necessary to their existence. The merchants of the Mari-
time Provinces, as Mr. Longley, the Attorney-General for
Nova Scotia says, make constant visits in the way of
trade to Boston and New York, but none to Toronto ; the .
business men of Ontario go daily backwards and forwards
between the Province and the American cities, while their
visits to Halifax, in the way of business, are very
rare. The moral which Attorney-General Longley draws
from our experience is, " That the Maritime Provinces
have no natural or healthy trade with the Upper Pro-
vinces, but with the New England States ; that the Upper
Provinces have no natural trade with the Maritime Pro-
vinces, but with the Central and Western States adjoining
them ; that Manitoba has no natural trade with the older
Provinces of Canada, but with the Western States to the
south of them ; that British Columbia has no trade with
any part of Canada, but with California and the Pacific
States. In other words, that inter-Provincial trade is
unnatural, forced and profitless, while there is a natural
and profitable trade at our very doors open and available
to us." This is the moral which the map, geographical
and economical, enforces. In the Maritime Provinces the
disappointment has been so great as to lay a heavy strain
on Confederation. Each Province is practically confined
to its own market, which is in no case large enough for
the natural products. To any one looking at the Conti-
nent as an economical whole apart from political divisons,
to draw a tariflf line across it would seem insanity ; and
economy takes no notice of mere political lines.
The success of the political railways, constructed at
Introduction. xv
enormous expense, in giving effect to the Separatist policy
has hardly been greater than that of the protective tariff.
The Intercolonial Railway, after costing in all forty-six
millions, is run by the Government at an annual loss,
Apparently, of half a million, and the Government itself is
actually promoting a commercial line direct through
American territory, which can hardly fail to complete the
ruin of its own political line. The Canadian Pacific was
to be an exclusively national undertaking, and the iron
bond of our nationality. No American was to have any-
thing to do with its construction, and it was guarded by
monopoly clauses against any connection with the Ameri-^
can system. But the Syndicate included an American
firm,and the abrogation of the monopoly clauses, which had
brought Manitoba to the verge of insurrection, has been
purchased of the company by the Government ; a unique
instance probably of a payment made by a Government
for the reversal of its own policy. The Canadian Pacific
Railway Company is itself connecting Canada with the
American system at the Sault, and its operations in the
East have a manifest tendency in the same direction'
As a colonization road the railwav is unsuccessful, as
it spins out settlement over a line of eight hundred miles,
carrying the settler far away from his centre of dis-
tribution, increasing his freights both on exports and im-
ports, and depriving him of the general advantages of
close neighbourhood. To what military or Imperial uses it
may be put is another question ; we are dealing here only
with the matter in its commercial aspect, and in its rela-
tion to Canada. The removal of the tariff" by permitting
xvi Introdvjctlon.
the export of orc,a(lmittinjT^ mining machinery, and opening
the door to American capital, would awaken mining in-
dustry on the Northern shore of Lake Superior to the
life which it already displays upon the Southern shore.
Nothing else, apparently, in the way of Canadian com-*
merce can save the Lake Superior section of the line from
the fate of the Intercolonial.
The fruits of an economical policy which defies nature
and seeks to override her decrees, are a mass of pub-
lic debt piled up while that of the United States has been
in course of rapid reduction, and commercial atrophy.
jCommercial atrophy is what everybody must see would
ensue if one State of the American Union were cut off by
a tariff wall from the rest and set, as it were, to feed on
its own juices. It is of course felt more in Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick, where the market is smallest and
least adequate to the consumption of the natural products,
than in Ontario and Quebec, which form a market of re-
spectable size in themselves, though the division of race .
and language between the British and French Provinces,
which is so fatal to our hopes of national unity, probably
also forms a certain obstacle to trade. There appear to
be some who need reminding that the size of a market is
proportioned to the population and the purchasing power,
not to the extent of territory which, on the contrary, di-
minishes the market if the people are scattered widely
over it, so as to increase the difficulty and cost of distribu-
tion. The inevitable consequence of commercial atrophy
is seen again in the exodus which robs Canada of so
many of her sons just at the age when, the country
Introduction. xvii
having been at the expense of their bringing up, the loss
is greatest, and of no Hniall amount of property with them*
Sir Richard Cartwright reckons that in the last twenty-
five years Canada has lost one out of every four of the
native population and three out of four of the immigrants.
If this is not political it is economical and social annex-
ation.
The effects of the system have been most severely folt
in the North- West, which though superior to Dakota both
in soil and climate has been kept behind it, and nota-
bly retarded in point of population, by the double pres-
sure of Railway monopoly and an adverse tariff. Noth-
ing surely more extraordinary was ever undertaken by a
government than to force that whole region to have no
commercial outlet except at Montreal. Nor is anything
in modern commercial legislation more cruel than the
enactment which debars the poor settler of the North-
West from supplying his wants in the market close at
hand, and compels him to fetch his farm implements, the
materials of his dwelling, and many of the necessaries of
his life, from a distant Province. The bonds of Railway
Monopoly have been burst, not without the indirect assis-
tance of the movement in favour of Commercial Union.
It remains for the people of the North- West, in alliance
with the friends of Commercial Union here, to burst the
bonds of the adverse tariff, and thus remove the second
of the two great obstacles which have hitherto retarded
the progress of their country.
Reciprocity in natural products we once had, and our
tariff contains a standing offer of its renewal. The offer,
xviii Introduction.
it is well known, will not be accepted unless wo make the
bargain fair to the Americans by consenting to a reci-
procity of manufactures ; but it is an admission by our
Government of the value of the American trade, and a
conclusive answer to all the arguments which have been
urged on the other side, so far as natural products are con-
cerned. The various attempts which the Government has
made to negotiate commercial treaties with foreign na-
tions in Europe or South America, and the projects for
extending commercial intercourse with the West Indies
and Jamaica, are in like manner avowals of a conscious-
ness that our market is too narrow. Their authors
might be charged, as Commercial Unionists are, with dis-
paraging the country, if the country is disparaged by
saying that improvement is needed in its commercial
position.
The farmer is told that Protection, by forcing manu-
factures into existence, will provide him with the market
which he needs. It is a market created at his own ex-
pense, since he pays for it either in the raised prices or in
the lowered quality of the goods. Such a policy is rational
if a man can " raise himself by his own boot-straps," and if
a country can be enriched by taxation. Let capital and
industry find their own way into the most profitable chan-
nels. Develop the natural resources of the country, its
lumber, mines, fisheries, shipping industries, and agricul-
ture itself, in the only possible manner, that is by giving
them a good market ; population will then increase of it-
self, and farmers will have customers without paying for
their creation. It has been said by one who had studied
TntroducfioTi. xix
tlie subject that the farniei*H along the front of our coun-
try ouglit to havo enough to do in fee<ling the miners at
the bp.ck. The exodus probably carries otf as many con-
sumers as protected manufactures bring.
Applied as it is here, not to a continent like the United
States, but to a small market, Protection has not failed
visibly to produce its inevitable fruit — spasmodic over-
production followed by a glut, short time, and " combines."
When the authors of the policy point with exultation to
the new factories which they have called into being, the
answer is that capital and industry may of course be mis-
directed by legislation, but that in a short time the re-
sults will appear.
Literary men are specially conscious of the harm done
by the tarift' to what may be called the intellectual econ-
omy of the country. Our book stores, which cannot afford
to keep a largo supply of first-class books in stock, are cut
off from their centre of distribution, and can therefore
only at a risk, which in more than one case has proved
ruinous, lay the highest literature before their readers.
This must have its effect on the tastes and the intel-
lectual progress of our people.
We talk of the admission of American manufactures to
this country, which is the necessary condition of the ad-
mission of our national products to the United States, as
a concession on our part to American demands.- But let
it be remembered that so far as the consumers, that is
the bulk of our people, are concerned, the concession would
be no loss, but a very great gain. The mass of us are not
Introduction.
iiiamifaciurorH, antl our interest is to liuvo the bi^Ht ami
clioap3Ht goo<lH tliat wo can get.
Say what we will, there must always be the cloHest
connection and sympathy between our commercial system
and thai of the great nation with which we divide the
continent. A change of fiscal policy is apparently impend-
ing in the United States. If it comes, its effect cannot
fail to be felt here. A Canada commercially restricted by
the side of a free continent, all must see would be a moral
impossibility. Not in a spirit of malicious exultation,
but in a spirit of friendly warning, we may say to the
Canadian Protectionist, " Listen to the sound which comes
to you from the other side of the line, and set your house
in order, for if events continue to march in their present
direction, the death-knell of your system has been tolled."
That the United States are our natural and our best
market will bo found amply demonstrated, as regards our
industries generally, in the speech of Sir Richard Cart-
wi'ight, and as regards the farming industry specially in
the paper of Mr. Shaw. If the volume of our American
trade has hitherto been somewhat less than that of our
British trade, it is evidently because our American trade has
been checked by the tariff wall, while the British trade
has been free. Even under these conditions the difference
of our exports to the States and our exports to Great Bri-
tain is only that between thirty-five millions and thirty-
eight millions, making no allowance for the habitual un-
der- valuation of goods on which duty has to be paid. To
the other nations of the earth, after all our efforts to ex-
tend our connections, we export to the value only of
Introduction. xxi
Hovcn inillioiiH. Wherever there has been an opening; in
the Uirifl* wall tratle haH rushed through: our export of o^pt
upon the removal of the duty rose in value from a nom-
inal amount to two millions. Even where there has been
no opening, trade by its natural force has overleaped the
wall, and for our horses, our sheep, our hides, our barley,
our hay, our potatoes, our coal, our gypsum, our salt, our
stone and marble, the United States have been far our
best, and in some instances our only, customers. That
market has all the advantages of a home market, which
are very great in many cases, as in that of horses, which
if sent to England may stand long at liveiy waiting for a
purchaser, whereas here they are taken up on the spot.
Our lumber so struggles to pass the barrier that one of
our lumbermen, and not the greatest, has paid within a
few years duty to the amount of $365,000. A large pro-
portion even of our stock finds its way, in spite of the
duty, to the American market, and our great stock-farm-
er, Mr. Valancey Fuller, has shown his opinion as to the
interests of his trade by heading the movement in favour
of Commercial Union. It is the strong conviction of
those best qualified to judge, that were the tariff" waK
removed there would be a large export of fine wheat from
Manitoba and the North-West Territories into the United
States. Under the reciprocity treaty our trade with the
United States increased by " leaps and bounds " ; our
exports to the States in thv^ last year of the treaty having,
as Mr. Mulock shows, considerably exceeded their pre-
sent amount, notwithstanding the subsequent increase
of our population. A comparison between the American
xxii Introduction.
and the British market is almost needless, since, while the
American market would be opened, the British market
would not be closed. The American market increases
rapidly in wealth and purchasing power. It may safely
be said to be the best market in the world. Should the
depression of wheat-growing in England turn the farmers
there to stock-raising and dairy -farming, native products
will compete more seriously with Canadian exports, while
wheat-growing in India still expands. ^ la Jilr. Mulock's
speech will be found instructive statemcnvs respecting
the relative increase of our trade with England and
with the United States. Mr. Mulock finds that in spite
of the tariff there are imported into the United States
from foreign countries, $61,000,000 worth of products, all
of which could have been supplied by Canada, so that the
argument that the identity of products in Canada and the
United States would be fatal to trade between the two
countries falls to the ground.
Attention is always directed to the interest of the pro-
ducer and exporter. It is forgotten that the consumer
also has an interest in trade, and that in fact it is for the
interest of the consumer that trade exists. In spite of
the tariff Canadians buy forty-five million dollars' worth
annually of American goods, and we cannot doubt that
it would be for their advantage. Or that they would be glad,
if the trade were free, to buy more.
Mr. A. H. Campbell's deliverance on the subject of the
lumber trade is brief but decisive. That industry, our
greatest save farming, is unanimous, and there is in truth
no argument on the other side. The only objection which
Introduction. xxiii
has been raised is that our forests might be too rapidly
consumed in meeting the increased demand. But in the
course of the discussion which followed Mr. Campbell's
address the objection was met by the obvious reply that
the lumber when its value was increased would be more
carefully husbanded and better protected against fires.
The notion, so sedulously fostered, that the artisan has
an interest in Restriction, is confuted in the paper of
Mr. Jury. Other conditions being equal, as in this case
they are, it is impossible that the artisan should not gain
by an extension of the market for his labour and an in-
crease in the number of employers who compete for it.
Mr. Jury points out, what others also have remarked,
that the standard of living is higher among artisans in
the United States than it is here. If this is the case, the
test of any system being the well-being of the labourer,
there is little more to be said. The Canadian artisan
must surely by this time be aware that protection applied
to a small market like ours, after temporarily stimulating
production and perhaps raising wages, is followed by de-
pression and short time. He as well as his employer
will find instruction in the paper on Canadian Industry
by Mr. Farrer, given among our extracts from the Mail.
I That our shipping interest, both on the seaboard and
the lakes, is most important is not less certain than
that it suffers at present under heavy disabilities which
Commercial Union would remove. Mr. Thomas Conlon,
of Welland, tells us that our inland marine has of late
been disappearing from the lakes. Vessels, he says, trad-
ing with American ports have often to retura without a
xxiv Introduction.
cargo, while trade between American ports is interdicted
to them. He pronounces Commercial Union of vital im-
portance to the marine interests of the country. Captain
Hall, a large vessel-owner, follows in the same strain, de-
ploring the depression of the shipping interests and as-
cribing it to the disabilities under which owners of vessels
engaged in the coasting trade are subjected by the policy
of restriction.
The fear that, if the Customs line were removed, To-
ronto would be swallowed up by New York, will be laid
to rest, it is hoped, by the paper of Mr. Janes. Why
should Toronto be swallowed up when Detroit, Buflfalo,
Rochester and Syracuse flourish, when the price of resi-
dential land there is much higher than in Toronto, and
when Albany, within four hours' run of New York, con-
tinues to grow ? The growth of Toronto is due not to
the restriction of trade, but to the multiplication of rail-
ways, and to the increasing taste for city life. It goes on
at the expense of the smaller towns and villages of the
Province. It will be accelerated by anything that in-
creases the general prosperity, and enables more retired
farmers and others to migrate from the country to the
city.
To the speech of Sir Richard Cartwright, again, the
reader may be referred for an answer to the financial
question, as to the mode of meeting any deficit in the
revenue caused by the abandonment of the Customs
duties on the American frontier. Let it be remembered
that at most there will be not an increase in the amount of
taxation, but only a change in the mode. It can hardly
Introduction. xxv
be worth our while to sacrifice our best market, and to
keep our richest natural products undeveloped and our
industries dormant, merely for the sake of raising seven
millions of our revenue in a particular way. After all,
we are not sure that if the division of the seaboard duties
between us and the Americans was regulated on a liber-
al principle, to which the Americans with an over-
flowing treasury might agree, the exigency would arise.
Increased prosperity would bring with it increased pro-
ductiveness of the other sources of revenue. But much
may be done in the way of retrenchment, and with not
less advantage to our political morality than to the pub-
lic purse. We may put an end to Better Terms and to
the lavishing of money in local works, which to the dis-
honor of the country is constantly held out by govern-
i ment candidates as a bribe to electors. The public ex-
\ penditure has increased since the Mackenzie administra-
^ tion by a sum larger than the receipts from customs on the
American frontier. It should be borne in mind too, that
the collection of the customs duties in the North- West
along a perfectly open frontier of eight hundred miles,
I with an identical population on both sides of it, and
among people to whom the tariff is a sheer nuisance, will
be difficult, if not impossible. Even along the St. Law-
rence it is said that smuggling is so rife as to interfere
with the regular trade.
There is a cry even from opponents of Commercial
Union for the development of our mines, and with great
reason, as Mr. Ledyard's paper shows. But the mines
can be developed only by opening a free market for the
xxvi Introduction.
ore, and at the same time letting in mining machinery
and inviting the American capital which is needed to
meet the risks of mining enterprises. Nothing but free
trade can give life to that industry, or bring forth the
buried treasures to the profit of the whole continent. It
is fatuous to talk of stimulating production without a
market, as the catastrophe of the iron duty proves.
The commercial argument, of which these are the lead-
ing facts, will be found worked out in detail and with
reference to the several industries in the following pages.
It can hardly be said, however, that any stand is made
by the opponents of Commercial Union on the commercial
ground, except as regards the case of those manufactures
which are, or are alleged to be, dependent on protection.
That our lumber, our minerals, our fish, our stock, our
horses, our barley, our poultry, our potatoes do not want
the market of our continent, or that our ships do not
want tue coasting trade, no one seriously contends. Nor
has any one ventured to maintain that a Canadian prov-
ince gains or that it does not heavily lose by the com-
mercial isolation which to a State of the Union would
assuredly be ruin. Upon the commercial issue it has
been truly said that the Finance Minister has thrown
up his brief, as some at least of his clients are aware.
The objection which is most strenuously urged, and pro-
bably with most effect, is that which is met in the paper
y by Mr. Lockhart Gordon. Commercial Reciprocity with
tli. United States, it is said, as it must involve discrim-
ination in favour of American against British goods,
would be a breach of our duty to the Mother Country.
Introduction. xxvii
This is vehemently asserted by men who are at the
same time doing their utmost to exclude British goods by
protective duties ; and the assertion is fortified not only
with loud professions of disinterested loyalty on the part
of those from whom it proceeds, but with charges of dis-
loyalty and subservience io sordid interest against op-
ponents which give us sometimes reason to lament that
in this age of advanced civilization we have not yet
learned to discuss a public question without loss of
temper and violation of good manners. If the Gov-
ernor-General is ready to admit that many Commercial
Unionists are as loyal as he is himself, the angry dis-
cussion as to whether Commercial Union is compatible
with loyalty may surely cease. If it were proposed
that we should effectually get rid of the danger of dis-
crimination by admitting British as well as American
manufactures free, what would the byal Canadian man-
ufacturer reply ? Lord Lansdowne, in his speech at the
Ottawa banquet, allowed that Commercial Union would
be advantageous in a pecuniary point of view ; in other
words, that without it the Canadian people could not en-
joy the fair earnings of their industry or the measure of
prosperity which nature had intended for them; but he
suggested that it might be " a moral afiront " to the
Mother Country. A moral sentiment which is not af-
fronted by exclusion, but is affronted by discrimin-
ation, must surely be a curious mixture of delicacy
with fortitude, and, if it stands in the way of justice to
five millions of people, may itself be a proper subject for
revision. When the duty was imposed by us on British
xxviii Introduction.
iron, Canada was denounced in the House of Lortls as
having " imitated the conduct of Regan and Goneril," aH
being " indifferent whether she injured the Mother Coun-
try or not," as " acting without any regard to the Mother
Country ;" and it was declared that " the boasted unity
of our Empire had proved merely a poetic sentiment.''
Yet this feeling as well as the feeling against our new
tariff generally has subsided. The Commercial Unity of
the Empire has been abandoned ; this Lord Lansdowne in
effect admits, and he holds out no hope to the Imperial
Federationists of the adoption of the fiscal part of their
scheme. Surely then it follows that each colony is at
liberty, like the Mother Country, to do the best it can
fiscally and commercially for itself, provided it breaks no
Imperial treaties, without being deemed guilty of any
breach of duty to the Mother Country. The circum-
stances of Canada are peculiar, being those of a colony
territorially interlocked and commercially bound up in in-
terest with another nation. To the pressure of these cir-
cumstances it is, not to a tendene;y to play the part of
Goneril or Regan, that anything peculiar in our proposed
fiscal arrangements must be referred. It is not against
England that we should discriminate, but only against a
very limited number of exporting houses, whose interest,
if equality is the principle of the Empire, ought surely
not to prevail over that of the whole Canadian people.
The Queen would lose no jot of revenue or of allegiance.
But Mr. Dryden seems effectually to dispose of an objec-i
tion, which, to say the truth, was hollow enough whea
raised by the opponents of protective duties on British*
goods, b}'' showing that in fact we do already practically
discriminate between the total of English and the total of
IntrodAJiction. xxix
American imports to the disadvantage of the former in
the ratio of 4 J per cent., while with regard to free goods al-
so we are more liberal to the United States than to Britain.
If the assertion of entire fiscal independence without regard
for English interests is affronting, the language of the
Canadian Premier could hardly be void of offence when
speaking of the tariff he said, " I am, as far as this ques-
tion goes, up to the handle a Home Ruler. We will gov-
ern our own country ; we will put on the taxes ourselves.
If we choose to misgovern ourselves we will do so, and
we do not desire England, Ireland or Scotland to tell us
we are fools. We will say, if we are fools we will keep
our folly to ourselves. You will not be the worse for it,
and we will not be the worse for any folly of yours.'
But before we fall into paroxysms of indignant loyalty
let us wait and see what Great Britain will say when the
case is fairly put before her. Her interests in this coun-
try as an investor are much larger than her interests as
an exporter, having been valued on good authority at
six hundred million dollars, and having increased of lat e
Our purchasing power and our \^alue as customers would
rise with our prosperity, and our tariff, which Sir R.
Cartwright pronounces already hardly less unfavourable
to England than the American tariff', would certainly
not become more unfavourable after assimilation, if opin-
ion in the United States continues to advance in the pre-
sent direction. Nor are British statesmen likely to be
insensible to the danger of compelling the Canadian
people to choose between their attachment to the Mother
Country and their bread. Their hand has probably been
felt in the deliverance of the North- West from Railway
Monopoly, and to their practical wisdom it must be ap-
XXX Introckbctimi,
])arent that whatever may be said about sentiment and
however sincerely, upon the beneficence of the govern-
ment in these days depends the loyalty of the people.
That it is possible to desire Commercial Union for Can-
ada and at the same time to study British interests and
be heartily devoted to England, is a fact of which they
can hardly fail to be aware.
That Commercial Union must be followed by politi-
cal connection is a suspicion which has been sedu-
lously propagated, and has found entrance into many
minds. It is partly fostered perhaps by the name, which
however, was adopted, it is believed, with the special
object of marking that the Union was to be commercial
only, and not political. No one will contend in face of
familiar facts that two independent communities cannot
make a commercial treaty without altering their political
relations. In the present instance, no doubt, a necessity
of an unusual character will be entailed by the combined
action of the geographical relation and the present fiscal
policy of both nations. The internal Customs line
being removed, if Custom duties are still to be levied on
the seaboard, it will be necessary to assimilate the
tariffs, otherwise there will obviously be smuggling
through one country into the other. But this is really no
more subversive of our independence, or disparaging to
our honour, than other incidents of our geographical rela-
tion to the United States, such as our obligation to them
for the use of their winter ports, and for the transmission
of our goods in bond. It happens that as the tariffs are
approaching a level the difficulty of negotiation would
Introduction, xxxi
not he trreat. The Ottawa Parliament and Government
would hardly he inclined to commit suicide because they
had made an agreement with the Government at Wash-
ington respecting the rate of tariff. Among the Ameri-
cans, as everybody who knows them will say, there are
few who care about annexation, and the few who do are,
it is believed, generally hostile to Commercial Union,
which they think would deprive annexation of its most
powerful leverage, and at the same time take the strain
off Canadian Confederation. Unifying forces of various
kinds are constantly, and with ever-increasing energy,
drawing together the two portions of the Anglo-Saxon
race upon this continent, which were separated by the
civil war, for a civil war it was, in the last century. Of
these, railway communication, of which many Separatists
are themselves active promoters, and the exodus, of which
their policy is the perennial cause, are certainly not the
least operative. What will be the ultimate result perhaps
the next generation will see. But those who, instead of
giving themselves up to vague alarms will look clearly
into the practical bearings and probabilities of the case
will find, it is believed, no reason for apprehending that
Commercial Union in itself would entail political annexa-
tion. It has been said that in Germany unification
followed the Zollverein. The ZoUverein, however, was at
most a secondary cause. Germany, though politically
decentralized, had been time out of mind a nation.
Commercial Union has been voted down at Ottawa by
the same majority which last Session voted for the re-
tention of Disallowance on equally lofty grounds and with
xxxii Introduction.
ihii saiiK; aHHoveiationH tliat the policy of thu Oovernment
wa.s essential to the integrity of the nation. The Piiuie
Minister listened in silence to the torrent of loyal and
patriotic declamation, perhaps smiling to himself as ho
thought what the future might have in store for the de-
claimers. The Finance Minister was prevented from tak-
ing part in the debate by sickness. When he did come
forward in connection with the Fisheries question, it was
to avow that all that his party had said against the ad-
vantages of free trade with the United States wjus naught,
and that he had been taking the opposite line at Washing-
ton.
On the American side the progress of the movement is
such as to put out of court the invidious allegation that
we are laying Canada at the feet of the American govern-
ment. The movement is thoroughly reciprocal; care indeed
was taken on our side not by any premature demonstra-
tion to expose ourselves to the charge of presenting Can-
ada in the attitude of a suppliant. The Americans are in
fact formally in advance of us, since the Committee on
Foreign Relations has adopted Mr. Hitt's resolution au-
thorizing the President to offer us Commercial Union,
while the language held by the President himself has also
been most encouraging. It has not to be supposed that the
sixty millions would be so conscious of their need of the
extended market as the five millions, though it is certain
that, as in the case of the Commercial Union of England
with Scotland, the larger country would gain in propor-
tion as much as the smaller, while the rich mines of Can-
ada and her natural resources generally ofier a field of
Introduction, xxxiii
|iuculiar pioiniHc to AmcM-icati capital un«l ontoi priso. The
inturust in tlio Hul)j(!ct i.s naturally Htioii^er in the parts of
tho Union adjacent to Canada than in those more remote ;
hut it is now widespread and hjis found expression in the
resolutions of many Boards of Trade in diflferent parts of
the Union. Nor do we hear as yet of any pronounced, still
less of any organized, opposition, though there are in the
United States, as in Canada, protected interests which are
not identical with the common good, and from which it
is possible that opposition may eventually come. At
present the attention of public men is engrossed and the
legislative action of Congi-ess is almost suspended by the
approach of the Presidential election. That over. Com-
mercial Union, if we mistake not, will resume its march.
Nor, to judge from present appearances, would it be
wonderful if it took its place and even iigured promi-
nently among the issues of the Presidential contest and
in the platforms of the parties. This, however, is matter
of conjecture, and will be determined like other questions
of the same kind largely by the exigencies of the party
war.
Seven years it took the An ti -Corn Law League to carry
the repeal of the Corn Laws, though, as an organiza-
tion the League was extremely powerful and commanded
almost unlimited funds, as well as the eloquence of Cob-
den and Bright. In less than a year the Commercial
Union Club has seen the policy which it advocates adopt-
ed by one of the great political parties as the principal
plank of the party platform, endorsed in Parliarricnt by
a vote which, though that of a minority in the House, is
found to represent half the population ,of the Dominion, as
well as by the leading statesmen of the several Provinces
xxxiv Introduction.
in their inter- Provincial Conference, and accepted formally
or informally by all the ^oat interests of the country, Hav-
ing that of the protecto<l nianufactureiu It hits also the
abltist journal Ihiii in the Dominion on its side. The
Government which has placed itself or rather perhapH
directed its followers to place themselves in opposition
to Commercial Union, is atronj^j in connection, in pat-
ronage, and in its control of the political parties. It is
strong, unfortunately, also in the widesproad amenability
to equivocal influences which the long continuance of a
false system has engendered, in the exodus which carries
off many of the most independent spirits, and even in the
growing debt which increases the difficulty of dispensing
with revenue derived from customs. But, as this session
has proved, it turns smoothly on its pivot, and its party
when the word is given revolves with equal ease.
Our people are to an extraordinary degree enslaved to
party, the spirit of which is usually intense in inverse
proportion to the reasonableness of the party division.
But the recent bye-elections seem to show that there are
some of them at all events who reflect, and who will not
for ever sacrifice to a senseless Shibboleth their own bread
and that of their children. This is not an issue got up
by the wirepullers for an election, which when the cam-
paign is over and the declamation has sunk into silence,
may pass out of mind. Nature fights constantly and
manifestly on the side of Commerdal Union. There is
surely every cause for looking forward with confidence to
the verdict of the people at the general election, when it
will be possible to bring a great issue before them more
satisfactorily than at bye-elections, which turn usually
either on mere party or on local questions, and in which
Introductian, xxxv
the iiitluonce of tl.o holders of the puMic piirso who dis-
pense local expenditure is always Htronj^. If the question
of Commercial Union by itself and ciear of the various
political isHues to which it has no relation, but with
which in elections it is inevitably ndxod iip, could at once
be submitted to the Canadian people, there need be no
serious doubt as to the result.
On some grounds it might have been desired that the
question should not so soon have been taken up by party,
though taken up by party it was sure in the end, like
every other question under our system of government, to
be. It would have been better perhaps had more time
been allowed for the matter to be thoroughly discussed,
and for conviction to ripen on the purely economical
issue in an independent way. The Commercial Union
Club in fact did its best to keep party at bay and pre-
serve the national character 'of the debate. But the Con-
servative leaders soon assumed an attitude, rendered nec-
cessary perhaps, as they thought, by their connection with
the protected manufacturers, though certainly not re-
quired by anything in the general principles of Conserva-
tism, two great chiefs of which in England, Pitt and Peel,
having been the emancipators of trade, while its main ob-
•
Ject, the avoidance of revolution, can be effectually com-
passed in free communities only by making the people
content with their lot. The usefulness of the club as an
organization independent of party and devoted to the pro-
motion of the single object for which it was formed, has,
however, by no means ceased. Without obtnisive activity
it will remain united and continue to act, it will watch the
xxxvi Introduction,
progress of the movement, and when opportunity offers,
lend seasonable aid ; it will hold meetings at which the
commercial and industrial welfare of the whole people,
irrespective of party, will be the paramount object; and it
will circulate literature written in the same interest.
For these purposes it still solicits, and not less earnestly
than before, the support and co-operation of all the friends
of its cause.
GoLDwiN Smith.
Toronto, May 22, 1888.
RECIPROCITY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
SPEECH BY THE HON. Silt RICHARD CARTWRICiHT, K.(^M.G.
Delivered in the House of Commons, Ottawa, IJ^th March, 1SS8.
Sir Richard Cartwright moved :
That it is highly desirable that the largest po88i])le freedom of commercial
intercouiHe should obtain between the Dominion of Canada and the IFnited
States, and that it is expedient that all articies manufactured in, or the
natural products of, either of the said countries should be adndtted free of
duty into the ports of the other (articles siibject to duties of excise or of in-
ternal revenue alone excepted).
That it is further expedient that the Government of the Dominion should
take steps at an early date to ascertain on what terms and conditions ar-
rangements can be effected with the United States for the purpose of secur-
ing full and unrestricted reciprocity of trade therewith.
He said : I am not greatly given to indulging in conventional
formalities, but it is not in the spirit of conventionality that
I rise on this occasion to address this House, under a sense of
grave and weighty responsibility. It is true that I am forti-
fied and encouraged in bringing forward this motion by the
knowledge that in so doing 1 only voice the opinions of the
representatives of the Liberal party in this Parliament ; and
furthermore that I have every reason a man can have for be-
lieving that when I give utterance to their opinions, I also give
utterance to the opinions of the vast majority of those who
support us and of a very important section, to say the least of
it, of those who, on other questions, have differed from us very
widely. Were 1 called upon at present to produce evidence of
that, I think it might be found in the fact that within a very
few months, but not until after this question had been consid-
erably agitated throughout the Dominion, we found the lead-
ing statesmen of the several Provincial Governments, who met
at Quebec — all, I think, the more important Governments in
Canada — uniting without exception in approving substantially
of the proposition which I now submit to this House, ^ever*
B
2 • Handbook of Commercial Union.
theless I cannot conceal from myself that this motion is one
which is liable to raise issues of very great moment, not only
to the people of Canada, but it may well be to other peoples
also. There is no doubt that this motion is one which pro-
poses, in some considerable degree, a new departure ; there is
no doubt whatever that if this proposition were assented to by
the two countries chiefly concerned, very important changes
would, beyond all question, take place in the mode ol admin-
istering our public and commercial attairs, and therefore it is
equally clear that this is a question which requires the most
mature consideration and tlie utmost discussion at our hands.
This a case in which nature is too strong for us ; and although
it is my intention on the present occasion to abstain from s^
great many things which might theoretically strengthen my
argument, but which would undoubtedly open a way to irrele-
vant discussion, still I think I may be paftloned in taking this
opportunity to say that we will all do well to remember that
we are now discussing a problem which affects the present in-
terests of Canada to-day. We are not called upon to consider
how or in what way we might have dealt with this proposal,
had it been submitted to us under totally different conditions,
twenty or even ten years ago. The question is, what is best
for the people of Canada in the year 1888, and not what may
have been thought best for them in 1867 or in 1877. As for
the charge of inconsistency, which has been levelled at some of
us for supposed previous utterances on this question, I am in
no wise concerned to waste time in justifying myself Were I
so disposed, it would be easy for me to show that I, at any
rate, have been perfectly consistent to the root idea which un
derlies this whole proposition. But I do not intend to waste
time over that. I may say this, however, that every man who
studies the subject, knows that 1 am speaking simply the truth
when I say that within the last twenty years or the last ten
years, there have been very great economic and even social
changes in the position of Canada, and that therefore it might
very well be the case that propositions deserve discussion to-
day which we would not have thought it prudent to discuss
some ten or twenty years ago.
Now, I propose to-day, to confine myself chiefly to bringing
the attention of this House and, so far as I can, the people of
Canada to certain patent and salient facts, which, I think, no-
Sir Richard Carttvrighfs Speech. 3
body who studies the matter is able to deny, and also to point-
inj; out what appear to rae the inevitable consequences which
will result from those facts. I may differ from hon. gentle-
men opposite on that point, but it appears to me it is idle to
shut our eyes to these plain facts, and equally idle for us to
say that our present position is in all respects satisfactory. I
will take two facts alone which appear to me, and I think will
appear to this House, to be of very great importance in this
connection ; and of which I have here as absolute evidence as
it is possible for any man to have. I will take the movement
of the population in this country in the last quarter of a cen-
tury, beginning in the year 1861 and going down to the year
1880, which is the last moment for which 1 have absolutely
accurate statistic*! information. What an^ these facts ? Sir,
they are facts which I state with pain. But I say that we
have here incontestable evidence that in these twenty-five
years, one in every four oF the native born population of Can-
ada has been compelled to seek a home in a foreign country,
and that of all the emigrants whom we have imported at great
cost, three out of four have been compelled to follow in the
track of that fraction of the native born population. Now I
say, no man who properly appreciates what these facts involve
can deny that if I iiiake good my case, if I am able to show
this House that there is a great deal of substantial and a great
deal of presumptive evidence to support it, if I can show this
House that I am rather under than above the mark in making
those statements, no man who understands what those facts
mean can doubt for one moment that I and those gentlemen
who think with me are amply justified in saying this is a case
which requires our most earnest and serious consideration.
Now, I will teke those two statements respectively, and, first
of all, I address myself to the statement which I made and to
which I think I heard some murmurs of dissent on the other
side, that in the last five-and-twenty year? Canada has lost one
out of every four of her native born population. In the first
place, I have here, if any hon. gentlemen desire that the
authority be produced, the formal reports of the United States,
which show that in the year 1860 there were 249,000 men of
Canadian birth in the United States ; that in ten years they
had grown to 490,000 souls, and that in 1880, there were
707,000 Canadians in the United States. Now, it must be
4 Handbook of Commercial Union.
remembered that that by no means represents the total exodus
of our people, because, when you come to deal with such large
numbers as these, you must allow for the death rate which
prevailed in the twenty years from 1860 to 1880. That, death
rate, after careful examination, I believe to have been about
74,000 in the first decade, and 120,000 in the second, in all
equal to 194,000. It is clear, therefore, it is clear to demon-
stration, it is as clear as any fact can be, that between 1860
and 1880, for some cause or other, which it is not my present
purpose to analyze, at least 600,00u Canadians found homes in
the United States. Now, up to that point we go upon abso-
lutely certain ground. We have the United States returns
backed in the strongest possible fashion by our own Census
returns, which I have under my hand. The question is, how
many have we lost since then, how many have gone from this
country to the United States in the interval between 1880 and
1886 ] Now, we have here pretty clear evidence of the move-
ment of population at any rate in the great Province of On-
tario. We know what the increase in the Province of Ontario,
according to natural laws, should have been ; we know what
the increase in Ontario is. We know from these hon. gentle-
men's own returns what a mass of immigrants they alleged to
have been poured into this country in those six years to which
I have alluded ; and we find in brief that, according to our
municipal statistics, which are likely rather to err, as exper-
ience has shown, in increasing .than in diminishing the average
population, all Ontario in these six years has to show is an
increase of 128,000 souls. We find a huge gap here. We
find that in those six years the natural growth alone of On-
tario ought to have been 250,000 souls. We find that, even if
you take my estimate that out of every four immigrants you
pay for and bring to this country, you keep but one, there is
the strongest ground for believing that at least 80,000 souls
should have been added to the Province from that source
alone, and after deducting the 120,000 Ontarians, whom the
returns from Manitoba and the North-West show to have
settled in that country, you still find 180,000 unaccounted for
from that source alone. I need not appeal to this audience as
to the fact that Ontario of necessity, putting out of question
the North-West and Manitoba, always has and must absorb
the vast bulk of our immigration. 1 think my hon. friends
Sir Richard Cartwrighfs Speech. 5
from Priiic*' Edward Island, my hoii. friends from Nova Scotia,
my lion, friends from New Brunswick, and my hon. friends
from the Province of Quebec on both sides of this House will
all admit that no very large proportion of immigrants have*
settled in those respective Piovinces within the last six years ;
and, if any of them doubt the statement or think I err in that,
it is open to them now and here to correct me, and I challenge
the correction. If we admit that, and I see no ^possible
ground on which those positions can be disputed, you have
this result, that, allowing a moderate proportion for the emi-
gration that we know is going on of native born Canadians
from the other Provinces, at least 900,000 of our pojfulation
are to-day inhabitants of the United States, and in all proba-
bility rather over than under 1,000,000. So I submit that the
first statement that I have made is up to the year 1880 abso-
lutely true, and, as regards the period of six years which has
since elapsed, is as nearly absolutely proved as it is possible
at present for any such statement to be. More than that, you
have only to look, if you dispute the United States statistics,
to our own statistics, to our own Census returns, to see, I re-
gret to say, the strongest possible evidence of the substantial
accuracy of my calculations. We find that in 1861 the popu-
lation in those Provinces which now form the Dominion of
Canada was as nearly as possible 3,250,000 souls. We find
that in 1871, they had grown to 3,090,000, and in 1881, to
4,324,000 souls ; while, if you like to take the four old Pro-
vinces, you find that they had in round numbers grown from
3,000,000 to 4,000,000 in a period of 20 years. Now, as our
returns allege and profess to prove, we imported in those 20
years about 500,000 immigrants. I would like hon. gentle-
men on both sides to compare for one moment the rate of pro-
gress manifested in those 20 years with the rate of progress
manifested in the previous 20 years of our history. From
1841 to 1861, the old Province of Canada grew from 1,129,-
000 souls to 2,500,000. Thus the House will see that during
the first 20 years, the growth of old Canada was at the rate of
115 per cent., while in these later 20 years it has shrunk to 30
per cent.
Now I proceed to discuss the other position, I proceed to dis-
cuss not oHr success in what I deem a vastly more important
matter, not our success in keeping our own people in our own
6 Handbook of Commercial Union.
territory, but our success in keeping the for('i<{n iiniuim'tttioii
■which, at vast cost, we have brought into this country. I made
tlje statemclit a few minutes a«ro, that of the foreign population
•which we have brought in, three out of four have left tliis
country and sought homes in the United States. I now pro-
ceed to give you the evidence, as I believe the incontrovertable
evidence, of the substantial accuracy of that statement, the abso-
lute accuracy for the first period of twenty years and the sub-
stantial accuracy for the last period of five or six years. I find that
the foreign population in Canada in 1861 amounted to 665,000
souls, and that in 1881 that foreign population had shrunk to
670,006 souls. In other words, we lost 95,000 souls in those
twenty years ; a''"2:ether we had brought into the country dur-
ing that interval Jl,000 immigrants, according to the returns
which have been laid on our table by the hon, the Minister of
Agriculture. Now, I will allow, as I did in the case of the
emigrants to the United States from Canada, for a very laige
death rate. I will deduct 220,000 from the original foreign
born population in Canada in 1861, and it is as clear as any-
thing can be that deducting 15,000 for settlers in British Colum-
bia and Manitoba, of the 505,000 who remain, who came to this
country in that interval, the utmost numbers who can by any
possibility have remained in Canada are 125,000, so that 380,000
had made Canada a mere place of transit at our expense. So
there again you will find that up to 1881 the case is absolutely
proven that three out of four of all the multitude of immigrants
that we brought to this country, we were unable to retain.
How has it been in the interval between 1881 and 1886 1 Well,
Sir, 1 find that in that interval 477,168 immigrants are alleged
to have come to Canada as settlers. I turn to the Census returns of
north-western Manitoba, and I find that the utmost numbers
who can be accounted for there, amount to 25,000 ; so that there
remain 452,000 to be accounted for still. I have just pointed
out to this House that the great Province of Ontario, which has
always absorbed the vast bulk of all the foreign immigrants, not
merely does not show that it has absorbed 452,000 immigrants,
but it shows that its total increase is barely one-half its natural
increase. Again, I ask my hon. friends in the Maritime
Provinces, again I ask my hon. friends in Quebec, do they sup-
pose that any considerable proportion of this 452,000 can have
strayed into Prince Edward Island, or New Brunswick, or
Sir Richard Carhvriyht's Speech, 7
Nova Scotia, or Quebec, without their knowledge 1 Is it not a
patent fact that the vast bulk of these, if they are to be found
at all, must 'be found in the Province of Ontario 1 and is it not a
patent fact that if the increase of Ontario be no larger than I
have stated, the vast bulk of these imnngrauts must, as I have
said, have sought homes in the United States. There is, sir,
but one alternative to that — let hon. gentlemen take which one
they choose. It is, of course, theoretically possible, though
practically impossible, that these immigrants may have stayed
in Ontario, and have displaced an immensely larger number of
the native population than 1 have supposed possible. But I do
not think that argument is likely to be advanced in this discus-
sion by any resident of Ontario. Now, sir, I could bring for-
ward numerous details all tending in a very high degree to cor-
roborate these statements. I confine myself, for the present, to
these two : I point out, sir, that we, who are accused of mis-
representing the number of the people who have left this country,
on the contrary, as the Hansard record will show, gravely
under-estimated the loss of population in Manitoba and the
North-West. At the worst, when we were accused of making
most pessimistic statements, we never imagined for one moment
that the population of the North-West and the population of
Manitoba would have sunk to anything like the low ebb which
these returns, lately laid on the table, in 1885 and 188G, prove
to have been the case. I will call the attention of the House to
another significant fact. Time and again, knowing, as I well
know, that the chiefs of the Roman Catholic clergy in the
Province of Quebec were admirably well informed as to the
movement of the Catholic population of that Province, time and
again I have challenged hon. gentlemen opposite, if they ven-
tured to dispute my statement on that point, to obtain from
those gentlemen a statement of what the real facts of the case
were in regard to that population. Time and again, that chal-
lenge was refused, and I say, therefore, that we have every
ground that men can have for believing that in the statement I
have made, I am stating but the simple and literal truth. Now,
Sir, as regards the bulk of these facts and figures, you may just
as well contradict the multiplication table as contradict them.
They are there, with the sign-manual of the hon. gentlemen
opposite attached to them, and if they be inaccurate, on their
heads, and not on mine, the blame must rest. Now, what has
8 Handbook of Vommercial Union.
been done in Uhh matter, U[) to the present moment, may be
thus defined. First, I am sorry to say, they have attempted to
break the force of these ari^uments by desperate misrepresen-
tations, of which I will give this House a proof, drawn from
their own otlicial reports. Sir, I have beside me the returns of
the Department of Agriculture, and I call the attention
of the House to them. Those returns state that in
1881, 22,001 settled in Manitoba and the North- West. They
are particular, you will observe, up to the very last unit. In
1882, there were 58,751 ; in 1883, 42,722 ; in 1884, 24,440;
in 1885, for reasons which I will not distress hon. gentlemen
by referring to, 7,240. Now, Sir, that was the measure of suc-
cess of the immigration policy of the Government, of their
liberal land and railway policy ; they only succeeded in induc-
ing, so they state, 155,154 persons to settle in Manitoba
between 1881 and 1886. But, Sir, when we come to count
noses by actual census, I am very sorry to say the 155,154 set-
tlers, duly certified to us by the Department of Agriculture,
had shrunk into 43,000; 16,000 in the North- West, and 27,-
000 in Manitoba. There, Sir, are their own returns, there are
their own facts, there, out of their own mouths, are the proofs
that we under-estimated very gravely the extraordinary loss
which their misgovernraent has brought about in that country.
1 might add that with respect to the 16,000 souls from Ontario
and from foreign countries, whom alone they were able to settle
in those magnificent provinces in the North-West, there is
clear evidence that at least one-third are supported by Govern-
ment, are pensioners or employees of the Government, and are
paid out of the taxes of the people of this country, and are in
no proper sense or shape settlers at all. Then, Sir, beaten on
that ground, they dare to tell us that this is of no consequence,
that it is of no consequence to the people of Canada that they
have lost, in twenty-Jive years, well nigh two millions of British sub-
jects, one million of native born Canadians, and three/ourths of a
million of British subjects, whom they had induced to come to
this country with the intention of settling here.
Now, I have no right to put a money value on my own
countrymen, or upon the immigrants whom we bring to this
country ; but I v/ill point to this merely, that if you are to ac-
cept the customary standard laid down in the United States,
if you can ventuie to hold that every able-bodied man who
Sir Richard Cartwrhjht'H Speech. 9
comes to North America is worth, whoii ho laiidB on the dock,
$1,000 to the State, then, Sir, whatever may be the cause, the
result of all this is, that in losing those 2,00(),()0() of people we
have lost 500,000 of able-bodied men, or thereabouts, and we
have lost an equivalent, according to that calculation, to $500,-
000,000. Certainly had they been here, it is clear that both
our debt and our taxes would have been substantially reduced,
because we would have had so many more valuable settlers to
share the burthen with us. liut there is another argument
brought forward by men who ought to know better. They tell
us that we need take no concern for this, because substantially
the same thing is going on in the great State of New York
alongside of us. Sir, I demur to that argument. In the first
place I point out that when an American citizen leaves the
State of New York for any reason, he does not leave the United
States ; he transfers himself from one part of his own country
to another. Does the hon. gentleman suppose we are so ignor-
ant as some of those hon. gentlemen appear to be of the history
of North America? Do we not know that nearly 250 years
ago New York State was settled, that in the days of William
and Mary New York was a prosperous and important colony ]
Sir, the comparison is preposterous. We, when we lose any-
body, and we know this to our cost, we lose them, not to go
to another part of the Dominion, but to transfer their allegiance
to another country. Now, I take issue most strongly with
those hon. gentlemen, that is to say, with those of them who,
admitting my facts, venture to contend that this is a matter
of no consequence. I say that even if we had under our con-
trol no territory beyond the four original Provinces of old
Canada, this would be a serious calamity to us, because the
four Provinces of old Canada, well administered, are abun-
dantly capable of supporting a population two or three times
as great as that they now contain. But when we remember
that we have well nigh half a continent at our disposal, that
the First Minister himself has risen in his place to tell us that
we have 400,000 square miles yet unoccupied of the most
fertile territory that the sun ever shone on, what shall I say
of the folly of supposing that it is anything but a great mis-
fortune, a great calamity, a great injury to the people of the
country that so huge a portion not only of those who come to
settle in Canada, but of those who belong to us, of those who
10 Ilandhook of Commercial Union.
are our own flosh and blood, our own kinsmen, have been
obliged fur lack of opportunity to leave Canada and Heek a
home elsewiiere 1 I say that this it proof positive that icr are in
a state of retroijression. I say that as rej^ards the four old Pro-
vinces of Canada our population is either in a stationary con-
dition, relativoly speaking, or, at all events, falls vastly short
of increasing according to the laws of natural growth. And I
say — although I am not going to enlarge on that subject at
this present moment — that I have around me, 1 see on both
sides of the House, if only hon. gentlemen will have the courage
of their convictions and speak out what they know, many men
intimately acquainted with the state of the agricultural popu-
lation who could and who, before this debate closes, I hope will
bear their testimony to the fact, that all over the four Provinces
there has been a very large and formidable re<luction in the
actual selling value of farm lands, and a still more formidable
reduction in the price which farmers can obtain for the products
they raise.
Apply another test. If you choose to turn to the report of
Trade and Navigation, which the Minister of Customs with
commendable proraptitute has laid on the Table, there you will
find evidence which ought to convince this House that within
the last 14 or 15 years, although there has been a considerable
increase of po[)ulation — but far inferior to that we ought to
have liad — there has been, and it is a noteworthy fact, a very
large reduction in the total volume of trade. Here is the hon.
gentleman's own blue book laid within these last few days on
the Table of the House, and from that I see that in 1873, 15
years ago, the total volume of trade was $217,500,000, with a
population of 3,750,000, that to-day with a population which hon.
gentlemen opposite estimate, though incorrectly, at 4,800,000,
our total volume of trade and exports is $202,000,000, being
$15,000,000 less than it was 15 years ago, although we have
1,000,000 of people or thereabouts more. Sir, apply another
test. I find in 1873 the average per head of exports and
imports amounted to $58 odd ; according to the hon. gentle-
man's own statement the average per head of exports and
imports to-day is $41.50 ; in other words, the total volume of
trade measured per head, the proper way of measuring, has
declined nearly 50 per cent. I will allow for the reduced
values of certain articles, but no man can contend that there
Sir Richard Caiiirright*H Speech. 11
\H not |»r(M)f of very serious retrogression in one of those
indrxos whicii, far more than nmny of thoHu wliicii iiave heun
.'illudi'd to here, go to niaric the progress of a nation's prosperity.
Hdt it wouhl l)e iinjiiKt to hon. gentlemen opposite to suppose
they have been idle all this time. They could not k<H'p our
people here, they could rot keep the emigrants they brought
here, they couhl not raise the value of farm lands, nor the
prices of farmers' products ; but what they could do they
did. In these twenty years they have trebled our debt, in these
twenty years they have trebled our taxes, and when the Budget
comes to be brought down I think the liou^e will tind that the
liabilities of the people of this country are very fai indeed from
being fully discharged or measured even by our ])resent enor-
mous debt. Sir, again I say for the moment I suspend my
remarks on their faUure to create an important inter-provincial
trade. That is a question which requires a little more discussion
than it suits me to give it at the moment ; and again I ask
my friends from the Maritime Provinces, when the time comes,
to contribute for the information of the House their views as
to the success which has attended our efforts to create a trade
in that direction. Nor will I dwell just now further on the
lamentable failure, after the expenditure of over $100,000,000
of public money, to produce or obtain any adequate settlement
of the North-West. But I will say a word or two as to the utter
lailure to obtain any adequate return from our great public
works. Sir, the Public Accounts are here, and those Public
Accounts show that the people of Canada have expended well
nigh $200,000,000 in the construction of railways and canals
and divers other improvements. Time was when we hoped
those would give us something like an adequate return directly
or indirectly, but the time has now arrived when we tind these
expectations very bitterly disappointed. How now stands the
easel I take the Public Accounts for 1887, and 1 find, all
told, a charge of $3,970,000 for the expenses of operating those
public works, and that is the nominal charge. The real charge,
if our accounts were kept as any other country on earth would
keep them, would be nearer $4,500,000, or, at all events,
$4,250,000 than $3,970,000. Well, Sir, what do we get as a
return ? We get a total income of $3,270,000. Not only do
we not receive one farthing of interest on the outlay of $200,-
000,000, but there is a dead annual loss of $700,000 a year,
12 Ilandhook of Commercial Union,
not tu 8|H'ak of thu vuriouN ini|»ortant itoniH which under
our iiioBt viciouH Hystem of book-keeping are charged to
capital account. Sir, again I pass to the (piestion of our
failure to keep immigrants, and again I pass tor the moment
from the (jueHtion of why it ii that we in Canada with 400,000
8({uare mih*8 of the most fertile territory, cannot even keep our
own ])eople in our own country. But 1 have the right, the
House and country has tlie right, to ask, Why is this 1 Is it
becuuHe of the severity of our climate? I think not. The
climate of Canada is in part rigorous, but it is eminently
healthy and calculated to develop a vigorous and thrifty off-
spring. Is it the fault of our soil 1 Why, has not this House
echoed and re-echoed with declarations of hon. gentlemen
opposite that no country on earth possesses a region of such
unexcelled fertility as we do possess. Sir, I &»k, is it the fault
of the people 1 Well, in part it is the fault of our people for
being too credulous and too trusting to the promises of the hon.
gentlemen opposite. Anybody who knows how our people
conduct themselves when they leave our shores ; any one who
knows what distinguished positions the immense percentage of
that million of Canadians, whobe absence I deplore, have ob-
tained in the neighbouring Republic ; who knows that they
have shown themselves able to fight, and compete with, ay and
even to beat, our American friends with their own weapons,
anybody who knows that will say that it is hardly the fault of
the people of Canada if those things are so. But I think we
may ask, if it is not the fault of the climate, if it is not the
fault of the soil, and if it is not the fault of the people, whose
fault then can it be ? What am I to say of the threatened col-
lapse of our Federal Constitution which has become so patent
and so manifest in these later days 1 Have we not seen almost
every year and every day the fundamental principles upon which
federation depends torn into fragments and afterwards pinned
together with bribes, as in the case of Nova Scotia 1 Do we
not know and does not the hon. the First Minister know, if he
thinks for a moment, and I trust that he may, and take a sec-
ond and a wiser thought, that he runs the most imminent risk
if he persists in the tyrannical course heretofore pursued by
him towards the young and rising Province of Manitoba, that
he will have to take the responsibility of that tyranny, and that
he will have the choice offered to him, to recede from the
Sir Richtrd Carfwritjht'H Speech. 18
tyranny or see the Manitohans ansert their jn«t rights at any
cost. Sir, to a very great extent^ as the enormous increase of
our debt shows, we have all this time been living on our credit,
and a most mischievous policy it is. We may get temporary
advantage from it, we may get temporary assistance, hut every
roan knows, and more than that, all men who have studied the
early history of the I Fnited States know, that a young country in
our position cannot pursue a more fatal course than to allow its
debt to be increased with such unexampl«!d rapidity as ours has
been increased during the period to which I have aUuded.
Now what shall we say of the condition of that great interest
upon which all other interests in this country depend ? Who
is there who does not know that there has been, within the last
few years, an immense fall in the profits of our farmers, and at
the same time a very great increase in the burdens laid upon
them 1 Who does not know, who has studied the history of
the world, that at the self-same moment that you are heaping
burdens and burdens upon our farmers, at that selt-same mo-
ment they are being exposed to a totally unexpected and most
intense competition in the market which they have hitherto
controlled 1 Who does not know, Sir, that if this kind of thing
goes on our population, at least our farming population, may
perhaps exist, but it certainly cannot be said to live, at any rate
in anything like the comfort it has hitherto enjoyed. More
than that, I say distinctly, that I do not believe, unless we put
a speedy check to it, that this system can last very long. In
twenty years we have trebled our debt, we have tretded our
taxes, and we have added 30 per cent, to our population. Sup-
pose we go on for another twenty years, or even tor another ten
years — and I can tell the House that there are very serious
signs that unless such a chock as I spoke of is put we will go on
in the same headlong, reckless course — why, Sir, in twenty years
at the same rate of increase of population, and the same rate of
increase of debt and taxation, we will find ourselves with a
population of six millions and an annual taxation of ninety-mil-
lions of dollars. If we pursue such a course in the future we will
have done nothing more than we have succeeded in doing in the
twenty years between 1867 and 1887. Unhappily, all history
shows that those evil precedents do not of necessity prepare the
way for better. Even were the Government honestly disposed
to amend their ways it is scarcely possible for them under or-
14 Handbook of Commercial Union,
dinary circumstances to put a stop to the practice of immense,
insane expense. INtore than that, they will do well to remem-
ber that if I am correct in the statement I hfive made (and I
challenge the strictest scrutiny), if I am correct in saying thati
a million or thereabouts of the native born ]>opulation of Can-
ada have sought homes elsewhere, they must remember that
the tendency of that is altogether to increase. Who are the men
who leave us 1 Everyone who pays attention to the character
of that emigration knows that I am stating the simple literal
fact when I say that in a most unusual proportion they are the
very pick and flower and choicest portion of our population.
Everybody knows. Sir, that the men who leave us are just the
men whom wise statesmen would desire to retain in Canada.
Now were our position such, as that which formerly used to ob-
tain between Scotland and England I could not complain so
much, because if the same rule applied between ourselves and
the United States as between Scotland and England we would
still have the satisfaction of knowing that when our friends left
U3 they went to swell the strength of the Empire, or the Dom-
inion, as the case might be, in some other part of it. But, un-
fortunately, here the case is precisely the reverse. They are a
double loss to us, because they go to swell the strength of our
nearest neighbor, rival and competitor. Now, Sir, a matter of
consideration which perhaps is more important than all, is,
what possible available remedies are there for such a state of
things 1 So far as I can see these remedies are four. In the
first place I think that a very great improvement might be made
by reforming our present most oppressive and unjust system of
taxation. I say that an immense improvement might be made
by so revising our Constitution in the manner which we have
pressed from this side of the House time and again, and in the
manner which we have seen our friends — not our friends but
the friends of the Government — in conference assembled have
lately likewise proposed ; and by so altering the Constitution
that this tyrannical conduct on the part of the Federal authori-
ties towards the rights and privileges of the Local Legislatures
should be put an end to forever. On the other hand that which
is equally important is that this system of bribes, and all those
frequent and incessant forays by various Provincial Govern-
ments on the Dominion Treasury whenever they have been ex-
travagant and got into a scrape, may likewise be put a stop to ;
Sir Richard Cai'tivright's Speech. . . 16
and for a third remedy, Sir, that this most mischievous railway
monopoly which has baned our progress up to the present
time, and which has barred the settlement and prosperity of
Manitoba and the North- West should likewise be put an end to.
But most of all and most important of all, do I believe
would be the success in the obtaining of the proposition which
I ask the Government to try and obtain in the Resolution now
in your hands, the obtain inj^ of perfect free trade with the peo-
ple of the United States. 1 say,,Sir, that that is worth all the
rest. Give us that and railway monopolies will cease to vex
and harrass you ; give us that, Sir, and the federal (eliitions
will speedily adjust then'selves as federal relations ought to do
and as federal relations were intended to do ; give us that, and
the sting would be taken out of those tariff combines, more
particidarly if the United States, as there is now a good hope
that it will do, proceeds to emancipate itself from the trade
fetters it most foolishly put on. It may be said that this is an
heroic remedy. Well, all I can say is that if it be, never in
the history of this country, at any rate, was a heroic remedy
more needed. Now, 1 am not disposed to discuss this propo-
sition further without being prepared to say that it is in the
highest degree advantageous to both countries. I am very
sorry for many reasons that the hoc. Minister of Finance is not
in his place today ; but I dare say the House will remember
how in a fine glow of patriotic enthusiasm that hon. gentleman
about a year ago went the length of declaring that, if we only
knew it, we in Canada possess the best half of this continent.
Well, I will not venture to go quite that length, but I will say
that we are able, man for man, dollar for dollar, to give a full
and perfect equivalent to the United States fcr all we ask them
to give us. 1 desire that it should be so. I do not believe this
proposition or any other for mutual trade, can be successfully
carried out unless we are able to give- as much as we get ; and,
while 1 say that, while such trade would undoubtedly, in my
judgment, enrich four or five million Canadians, quite as much
enrichment would accrue to four or five million, or it may be to
eight or ten million Americans. Sir, the advantages to Canada
are very obvious, but I will come to those presently. In the
meantime, I take this opportunity to point out that free trade
with Canada would give to the United States an extremely
valuable market at their very doors — that free trade with
16 Haiidbook of Commercial Union.
Canada would open up to American enterprise vast new areas,
equal to at least a dozen new States ; and, 8ir, in such a case
as I suppose, I have no doubt whatever that the growth of
Canada would be so rapid that we should become within an ex-
tremely short time, in all probability, the most valuable customer
the United States possessed.
A Member — Hewers of wood and drawers of water for the
Americanb.
Sir Richard Cartwright. Hewers of wood and drawers
of water ! Sir, I have a better opinion, and I may say the
Americans have a better opinion, of the ability and capacity of
our fellow-countrymen than to suppose that they would con-
sent to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. Does not
my hon. friend, whose heart is better than his head in these
matters — does he not know of his own experience that the
Canadians who unfortunately for us leave this country, do not
subside into hewers of wood and drawers of water on the other
side of the border 1 Sir, as I have said, they take the highest
places amongst the best citizens of the United States. Sir, we
have, to say the least of it, enormous stores of raw material of
great value to the industries of the United States, and these
are very thoroughly appreciated, let me tell the hon. gentleman
opposite, by American economists of very high degree. I have
quoted the passage before — it may be said to be a hackneyed
passage — but nevertheless I will take the liberty of quoting
again in this connection the language in which one of the most,
eminent living authorities on political economy, in North
America, at any rate, and perhaps in the world, has described
the advantages which Canada has to offer, if it is allowed to ob-
tain free trade with the United States. This is the passage.
Sir, and I make no apology for repeating it to a Canadian
audience :
North of Lakes Erie and Ontario, and of the River St. Lawrence, and
east of Lake Huron, south of the iSth parallel of latitude, and included
mainly in the present Dominion of Canada, there is as fair a country as
exists on the American continent, nearly as large in area as New York,
Pennsylvania and Ohio combined, and equal, if not superior as a whole,
to those States in agricultural capability. It is the natural habitation on
this continent of the combing-wool sheep. It is the land where grows the
finest barley, which the brewing interest of the United States must have
if ever it expects to rival Great Britain in its annual export of eleven
millions sterling of malt products. It raises and grazes the finest cattle,
with (iualities (specially desirable to make gooil the deteiiora ion of stock
Sir RicJiard CartwrigMs Speech. 17
iu uther HectionH, and itH climatic conditions, created by an alinont encircle-
ment of the jjreat lakeH, especially fit to ^rt^w men. Such a country is one
of the j,'reateHt gifts of Providence to the human race; better than bonan-
zas of silver or rivers whose sands run i^old.
Now, Sir, in all that you will find nothing of the vast virgin
wheat fields of Manitoba ; you will find nothing of the vast
treasure troves which still exist scarcely scratched on the slope
of the Kocky Mountains, west and north of our side of Lake
Superior, and within the gorges of British Columbia. And,
Sir, I would not duplicate, but I could produce twenty testi-
monies like this from Americans who know the value of Canada
to the American people, in support of my contention that
Canada most assuredly will be able to give a fair equivalent for
all that, under my proposition, Canada is likely to ask the
United States to give her. Does any hon. gentleman opposite
choose to gainsay this proposition 1 Then, Sir, let hon. gen-
tlemen consider what, with all the absurdity )f two hostile
tariffs stretching for two thousand miles between these two
countries, wo have done already in the way of mutual trade and
intercourse. Of the $202,000,000 which represents our total
volume of trade, over $80,000,000 (in spite of all foolish artifi-
cial legislation), or nearly one-half, and that the most profitable
half, is with the United States. Sir, it is an interesting ques-
tion, but it is a question on which I hardly dare to offer an
opinion, if, with all these obstacles deliberately put in our way,
such is the force of nature that it will overleap all these arti-
ficial obstacles and secure us a trade of over $80,000,000, what
might we not do if perfect unrestricted free trade were obtained 1
I will venture to say that it is well within the bounds of
possibility that with unrestricted intercourse with the United
States that $80,000,000 might within a very few years swell to
$300,000,000.
It is, I believe, scarcely necessary for me to insist on the
enormous advantage which unrestricted trade with the United
States would be to us. Who does not know that for an im-
mense number of the products of the people of this country, the
United States is not merely the best market, but substantially
the only market. Now, I do not blame the Government much
in that they have tried, at all hazards, to force trade among the
various Provinces of this Dominion. I have always myself re-
garded it as very uphill work, about as profitable indeed as an
B
18 llandhoolc of Commercial Union.
attempt to make water run up hill, and the liistory of the In-
tercolonial Railway goes very far to show that 1 have been right
in that contention. But 1 am going to give the House a cur-
ious practical test of the results which have attended the efforts
made, I do not doubt, in all good faith, to promote inter-pro-
vincial trade among the several Provinces of the Dominion.
Hon. gentlemen know very well that where there is much trade
between different States or countries, you have one very good
practical test where the climate and conditions of life are the
same, and tluit test is the intermixture which takes place among
the various peoples trading together. Now, I have here the
Census return for 1881, and I have to call the attention of this
House to a few very simple facts which these returns expose. I
find that in 1881, there were of natives of Ontario, 105 settled
in Prince Edward Island, 310 in New Brunswick, and 333 in
Nova Scotia ; in all 748 natives of Ontario, settled in the Mari-
time Provinces. I find much the same state of things in Que-
bec, with the exception of two counties which border on certain
counties in New Brunswick, where the population on both sides
are essentially of the same origin. I find, and it may interest
hon. gentlemen to know it, that at the same hour and day there
were, of persons of United States birth, 009 in Prince Edward
Island, 5,108 in New Brunswick, 3,004 in Nova Scotia, or, in
rough terms, about thirteen times as many natives of the Unit-
ed States in the Maritime Provinces as there are natives of On-
tario. Lest any hon. gentleman should say that the natural
course of immigration is westward, I took the trouble to go
back a few years, and I found that, twenty-five years ago, in
1861, when we were not confederated together, when we had no
Intercolonial Railway, 7,600 natives of the Maritime Provinces
had taken up their quarters in Ontario ; while in 1881, after
fifteen years of Confederation, and knowing more about us, I sup-
pose, only 7,200 were found there. The number had been posi-
tively reduced by several hundred. Take the Census returns.
Turn to the Province of Lower Canada, and you will see eight
or ten large, populous counties with a population of 150,000 or
200,000 souls, and not one representative of my hon. friends
from the Maritime Provinces is to be found there. It is almost
phenomenal, and what is a very curious fact, which appears in
the Census returns, is that there was far more immigratiojgi in
the decade from 1851 to 1861 than from 1861 to 1881, in spite
Sir Richard GartwrigMa Speech. 19
of the ofKcial cunnection. Is it not idle to deny such facts
as these 1 Is it not idle to fight against evidence *? Must we
not admit that no matter how the Government may strive, no
matter how the people may strive, you cannot establish any
great inter-i)rovincial trade from which any great profit can re-
dound to the people of this country. What is the history of
the Intercolonial Railway ? It is contained here in our Public
Accounts. We find that on the 30th of June, 1887, the Inter-
colonial Railway stood as an asset in the books of Can^dci for
$46,431,000; we find that the total expenses of the Interco-
lonial Railway for that year were $2,828,000, and the total
receipts $2,596,000. Not only did the Intercolonial Railway
not pay one copper of interest on its cost, but there is an ad-
mitted loss of $231,000 in the running of that road for one
single year, and a real loss, if we properly charge up the ac-
counts, of $400,000 or $500,000 ; and in addition to that, every
single year since I have had a seat in this House, a million dol-
lars at least of extra expenditure has been charged to the capi-
tal account Take the whole together, the interest and sinking
fund, and they represent a dead annual loss of $2,070,000,
and the loss of running it must at least be $400,000 or $500,-
000, while we spend a million dollars on capital account every
year besides, which we will contin&e to do for many years yet
to come. Do hon. gentlemen venture to tell us there is any
hope of improvement here ? Does the House remember that a
few weeks ago I put the question across the floor as to the re-
sult of the first seven months' running ^ And does the House
remember that for this current year 1888, the Intercolonial
Railway has cost us just $340,000 in seven months more than
we received from it ? Just $340,000 dead loss on seven months'
running of the Intercolonial Railway, and I may add, as if that
were not enough, that we have recently been called on to sub-
sidize a so-called short line for the express purpose of cutting
through and destroying the value of the same Intercolonial Rail-
way which has cost us $50,000,000, thus probably doubling
the huge deficit that now exists.
I think, Sir, that every hon. gentleman will admit I have
shown conclusively that, do what you will, trade will seek, in
spite of all your legislation, for its natural market. Who does
not Jnow, who dares deny, that the trade of Halifax naturally
seeks Boston, that the trade of Toronto naturally seeks New
20 Handbook of Commercial Union,
York, that the trade of Winnipeg Heeka St. Paul and the country
south of it, and that the trade of Victoria naturally seeks San
Francisco and the rest of the Pacific coast 'I There is an old
saying, and I think a true saying in part, that trade follows the
flag; but I tell this House that it is still more true that trade
follows the })eople, and we have unhappily already sent out
about two millions of missionaries to cultivate friendly trade
relations with the United States. More than that, it is well
to remember that great economic changes are in progress, that
there has been a very material alteration in our position as re-
gards the markets of the world. It is quite clear that, in older
Canada, at any rate, grain production is on the wane, and that
the only cereal which we can depend upon as likely to continue
to be raised in large quantities is the article of barley, for which
we have practically no market except the Wnited States. That
is also true in a very high degree of the more important of our
other agricultural productions, with perhai)3 the solitary excep-
tion of the important article of cheese. Now, I dontend that
for almost everything which our farmers have to sell, the Unit-
ed States, if only we had free and unrestricted trade with them,
would afford us absolutely the besi market ; and I contend fur-
ther that, besides being the best market, it is literally the only -
market lor a great many important articles which we produce.
See, in spite of all artificial obstacles. Low huge a percentage
of the total volume of our trade is the volume of our trade
with the United States. Out of a total volume of trade of
$202,000,000, the United States supply $83,000,000. Out of
$81,000,000 of exports of our own produce, we sell to the
United States, or sold last year, over $36,000,000, or very nearly
one-half. Out of a total of goods entered for consumption of
$105,000,000, we bought $15,000,000 from the United States.
And to come to details, which is necessary in order to lay the
case fairly before the House, what do we find as to an enormous,
number of articles produced by agriculturists in this country %
These figures are instructive in a very high degree. We find
that, of 18,779 horses which we sold, the United States bought
18,225. We find that, of 443,000 sheep, the United States
bought from us 363,000. We find that, of 116,000 cattle, in
spite of all tariflF restrictions, they bought from us 45,000 head.
Of $107,000 worth of poultrv, the United States bough t, $99,-
000 worth. Of about $2,000,000 worth of eggs— $1,825,000,
Sir Richard Cartwrifjhf s Speech. 21
to be accurate— the United States bought all. Of $593,000
worth of hides, the United States bought $413,000 worth. Of
527,000 tons of coal, the United States bought 404,000. Of
140,000 tons of gypsum, the United States bought all. Of iron
ore, the United States bought all. Of salt, all that we sold, the
United States bought from us. Of stone and marble, all that we
sold,theUnitedState8 bought from us. Inspiteof fishery disputes,
and taxes I suppose, of $6,875,000 worth of fish that we sold, the
United States was our best customer and bought $2,717,000
worth. Of $20,485,000 worth of lumber, the United States
bought as nearly as possible one half, $9,353,000. Of 1,410,-
000 pounds of wool, the United States bought 1,300,000 poi nds.
Of 9,456,000 bushels of barley, the United States again bought
all. Of $743,000 worth of hay, the United States bought
$670,000. Of $439,000 worth of potatoes, the United States
bought $338,000. Of $83,000 worth of general vegetables,
they bought $75(000 worth. Of $254,000 worth of miscel-
laneous agricultural products, the United States bought $249,-
000 worth, without speaking of innumerable smaller articles,
such as apples, flax, and a great variety of other things ; and, if
the duties were once removed, no one who has ever been in
Manitoba and the North-West but knows that the United States
would become by all odds our best customer for a great deal of
our high class wheat. Why, in the mere articles of manufac-
tures, the United States, out of a total of $3,079,000, bought
$1,289,000 worth, and of miscellaneous articles the United
States bought $569,000 worth out of a total of $644,000.
There are two things to which I want to call the attention
of all the members of this House. One is that, for very obvious
reasons, our exports to the United States are largely under-
valued. They do not at all fairly represent the amount we sell.
So long as they maintain a high tariff, it is the obvious inter-
est of every Canadian seller to underestimate the value of the
articles he has to sell, and, as every one knows, the thing is
habitually and constantly done. In another respect it is very
important that the House should know that in the case of an
enormous number of the articles to which I have called speci-
fic attention, there is room for well nigh unlimited expansion.
Given free trade, given unrestricted intercourse, and that trade
might assume nearly unlimited proportions in regard to a great
many of those articles ; and these are two facts which should
22 Handbook of Commercial Union.
be borne in mind wben we are considering the possible devel-
opment of our American trade.
Now, not only have I shown that, even fettered and thwarted
and hampered as it is, our trade with the United States forms
an immense proportion of our total trade with all the world,
but I ask the House to consider what sort of a market it is that
these Resolutions of mine propose to open to the people of Can-
ada. Why, look for one moment at the host of great and grow-
ing cities which stud our southern frontier alone — Chicago,
Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Boston and New York. Those
cities alone which 1 have named, with their environs, contain a
population of something like five millions of people who are the
very best customers on the face of the earth. Consider how
conveniently they are situated to our markets. There is hardly
one of all those I have named which is more than twelve hours
distant from a Canadian market. The Canadian seller might
talk over a telephone with the American buyer in almost every
one of those cities. Then look at our railway system. I speak
more particularly of the railway system of the Provinces of
Ontario and Quebec. Look at the huge sums we have expended
upon it, and the small returns up to date which that large out-
lay has brought. The returns show that we have about 12,-
000 miles of railway all over the Dominion, a very large per-
centage of which is centred in Ontario and Quebec. These
railways are alleged to have cost $6^3,000,000, and, although I
believe a considerable amount of that is water — as it is techni-
cally called — I believe our system of railway represents an out-
lay, or would be worth at any rate, about $500,000,000. Now,
to-day the gross earnings of those roads are put down at about
S33,000,000, the expense of operating them, at over $24,000,-
000, and it is known that the amount returned as the ex-
pense of operating them does not include all that ought
properly to be charged to that account. That $653,000,000
of nominal cost therefore does not to-day on the aver-
age pay 1^ per cent, on the nominal expenditure. Give us
unrestricted intercourse with the United States, and I tell you
that, as far at all events as the central Provinces are concerned,
you will double the gross earnings and treble or quadruple the
net profits of these railways, and from a very poor property
convert these vast amounts, which have been largely supplied
from i^broad, into a very good, paying, profitable investment, to
Sir Richard Cartwright's Speech. 23
the great advantage of the people of Canada as well as to thai;
of the men who originally stipplied the money. Then another
point. Let ua consider how our population is distributed. We
all know the natural impediments which interfere with inter-
provincial trade. We all know how conveniently the Maritime
Provinces, Manitoba and British Columbia are situated for
trade with the United States ; and how exceedingly inconveni-
ently they are placed for trade with the central Provinces. I
apprehend that no man on either side will dispute my position
that to the Maritime Provinces at any rate, to Manitoba, to the
North-West Territory, to British Columbia, free and unre-
stricted trade with the United States is of the most enormous
importance. But, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the country I
know best — old Canada, from Quebec to Sarnia — how is the
population distributed there ? Why, Sir, it is known to every
man here that nineteen-twentieths of the population of these
two great Provinces is so situated that it is within tive hours'
rail, on the average, to the American frontier. Then consi-
der the advantages of such a market Remember that it is one
of the most rapidly growing markets in the world. Within
the last twenty-five years the American market has grown from
30,000,000 to over 60,000,000 of consumers, and it has not
stopped growing. In all human probability before the next
census is taken in 1 890, the statisticians of the United States
compute that the population will have grown to something like
04,000,000 or 65,000,000. More than that, the population,
especially the population of the great cities 1 have alluded to,
is one of the very richest populations on the earth. There is no
population in the world, keen bargainers though the Americans
are, no doubt, with whom it is so desirable for the agricultur-
ists of any country to establish free trade relations as it is with
the population of the great American cities. It is perfectly
well known to all who are familiar with that people, that there
is no market, I repeat, on the face of the earth, where the man
who has a first-rate article, particularly of food, to sell, is half
so sure of obtaining a first-rate price for it, as in the United
States. Nowhere have I known men who spend so lavishly on
their own personal living and for their own personal comfort,
as the great millionaires, and for that matter the great bulk of
the population, of the great cities of the United States. And
these, Sir, are reasons which make it more and more desirable
14 , Handbook of Commercial Union.
to US that we should obtain free and unreHtricted intercourse
with them, bo that we can take advantage of the very great
facilities which our natural position, in Ontario and Quebec
more especially, gives for trading with those great centres.
They are at our very door. We do not require to make long
journeys in order to make the acquaintance of our American
customers. As I said before, we can literally talk to them
from the telephone. At the worst, a few hours' journey V>y rail
will bring us face to face with them. We have no middlemen
to fear in dealing with the United States. We can thoroughly
understand the market, or it is our own fault if we do not.
ICvery merchant, every man of business, knows what an enor-
mous advantage it is in any trade that the men who sell
should understand thoroughly what the purcha.'ier wants to buy.
But, Sir, I do not know that it would be necessary for our
people to give themselves the slightest trouble. I remember,
and I dare say there are plenty of gentlemen who remember,
what habitually took place under the old Reciprocity Treaty,
when Canada prospered more than she has ever done since.
Why, Sir, when we had something approaching to free inter-
course with the United States there was this curious peculiar-
ity, that the buyer sought the seller and not the seller the
buyer. It was a matter of everyday occurrence, particularly in
the Province of Ontario, that our farmers, during the existence
of the Reciprocity Treaty^ were visited daily, and almost hourly,
by American purchasers who were ready to buy the apple off
the tree, the crop on the ground, even the unborn foal, if the
farmer was willing to sell it. Again, I repeat that there is no
market where a man who has got a good article to sell has any-
thing like as good a chance of selling it as the people of Canada,
and particularly of Ontario and Quebec, have in dealing with
the American people. Sir, I have been taken to task on more
than one occasion for venturing to say, what I now repeat, that
in my poor judgment, one native born Canadian was worth
more to this country thaii any half-dozen imported immigrants,
and I say that without, in the slightest degree, desiring to re-
flect on the many good, worthy and industrious men who, in
time past, have cast in their lot with us, my opinion always
has been that as a tax-payer, and as contributing to the devel-
opment of the country, one native born Canadian is worth a
half-dozen of any other nationality. Sir, in the same way, one
8ir Ricfiard Cartivright'a Speech. 26
United States customer is worth to us in Canada, half-dozen
Knglish customers, and half-dozen customers of any other
nationality. And what is true of them to us, is true of us to them.
I say that to the United States the trade of Canada is worth a
great deal more than our present numbers would indicate ; I
say that our trade is worth that of many times such popula>
ions as those with whom the Americans are now attempting
to open up trade relations in Mexico, or in South America,
or in any other of those countries which extend below them, more
especially if we prosper largely. Now, it is a curious thing —
I do not know whether it has attracted the attention of any
members of this House — that after all we have talked, and
after all we have said about the desirability of extending our
trade with foreign countries, these same trade returns that
I have here, show in a very remarkable way that we have
practically only two customers, after all said and done — one of
these customers being the people of England and her colonies,
and the other being the people of the United States. I do not
know whether hon. gentlemen have considered that fact, but if
they will look at the returns for 1887 they will see that of our
own produce, Canada, in all, exported $80,960,000, of which she
sent to the United States, $35,250,000 ; to Great Britain,
$38,750,000 ; to the British Colonies, about $3,000,000, and to
all the rest of the world, $3,800,000— $77,000,000 to the United
States, to Great Britain and her Colonies, and less than $4,000.-
000 to all the rest of the world put together. In 1873, to show
that this is no mere casual accident, I find that an identically
similar state of things prevailed. Then our total exports
amounted to $76,500,000. The United States bought 36,755,-
000; Great Britain bought $31,421,000; the British Colonies
bought $3,953,000 ; all others put together bought $4,500,000.
So when we trace the course of our commerce down for
these fifteen years, we find that it is literally true, for practical
purposes, that we have but two customers, as yet, of any im-
portance in the world, one the United States and the other the
people of Great Britain and her Colonies. And what is true of
exports is true likewise of imports. Take 1887 ; we imported
a total for consumption of $105,639,000 worth. We bought
from the United Statos, $45,107,000 worth; we bought from
Great Britain, $44,962,000. Of $105,000,000 worth, $90,000,-
000 were purchased from our two chief customers. In 1873
26 If(tudhook of Commercial Union,
we purchaflod $47,750,000 (lollars worth from the United
Stat«'H, from (ireat Britain $08,500,000 worth or $ 1 15,000,000
out of $127,000,000. That I contend is a matter of firHt-rate
importance, for this reaHon : I hav«« shown the Hoiine, that, nay
what we will, we have but two {/reat customers, (ireat Britain
and the United States. One admits our productions without
the slightest let or hindrance : we and all the nations of the
world in common M'ith us have a perfectly free entrance to
British markets ; in the other case, partly of our own doings
and partly by the action of the United States, the most formi-
dable artificial restrictions are imposed on our commerce. But
still the fact remains that we have but those two customers.
Which of the two is likt'ly to be more important to us 1 Well,
there is an easy test. Twenty years ae;o the British population
was about 30,0000,000 ; to-day the British population is about
35,000,000. Twenty or twenty-five years ago the American
])opulation was 30,000,000 ; to-day the American population is
00,000,000 or 01,000,000. Judge, then, for yotirselves which
of these two countries, situated as they are, is likely to afford
the greatest possible benefit to Canadian tra<le.
Now, Sir, it becomes my duty to consider, first of all, what
classes of our population «ire likely to benefit by free and un-
restricted trade with the United States ; or possibly I should
say, what classes of our population are not likely to be im-
mensely benefited by free and unrestricted trade in that quar-
ter. I will then have to consider the objections which have
been urged from time to time in the Press and elsewhere
against propositions more or less analogous to that which I
have placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and then I may have
a fow general remarks to make on the position in which we
find ourselves to-day. Sir, I think all the House will agroe
with me in saying that, whoever may or may not be benefited
by these propositions, there can really be no ground for doubting
that th(i whole great agricultural class from one end of the Do-
minion to the other will be enormous gainers if the markets of
the United States are thrown open to them. I think. Sir, that
no man will gainsay, least of all the gentlemen from the Mari-
time Provinces, that the fishermen of those Provinces will gain
enormously from access to the United States markets. Surely
no man will gainsay, and least of all my hon. friend beside me
(Mr, Charlton), that the lumbermen of Canada and all the vast
Sir Richard Cartufriffhf'fi Spfcch. 27
intereHts connected wiih them will gain enormouHly from ac-
cess to the Uniteil States markets. The miners will Kain
enormously, the whole vast number of persons and the whole
interests representing, as T have pointed out, ?r)00,000,00() or
^600,000,000 of capital, largelv connected with the niilroad
and transportation service generally of this country, will also
all gain enormously by free trade with tho United States. Not
only that but all those great cliisaes collectively representing
the great producing classes of this Dominion and including the
vast majority of manufacturers who have gained their living
Sractically by ministering to and serving tho producing classes I
ave named, must of necessity obtain great increase of prosperity
if you increase the prosperity of the classes I have nam(*d. More
than that, I believe that although a great deal has been said —
foolishly I think — as to the risk the manufacturers of Canada
will run in the event of our establishing unrestricted recipro-
city with the United States, I believe that there is good
grounds for saying that all manufacturers who deserve to
flourish in Canada on account of j)luck, and capital, and energy,
will prosper likewise enormously if that great market be opened
to them. It is due, I think, to tho Mail newspaper to say
that the energy and enterprise which that newspaper in com-
mon with others has displayed, in interviewing the great em-
ployers of labor throughout this country, has resulted at least
in showing that those who ought to know best and stand highest
in the opinion of the people as manufacturers are quite prepared,
if you give them the United States market, to take their man-
ufacturing existence in their hands and have no doubt of the
successful result. Who do the classes I have named re})re8ent,
together with the classes that are dependent upon them 1
They represent nineteen-twentieths of the whole people of this
country ; I might with truth say ninety-nine hundredths of the
people of this country, and they will, beyond all dispute, be
greatly benefited if you can obtain free and unrestricted reci-
procity with the United States. Now, another side of the
question to be considered, is, who are the parties that are
likely to lose if we establish free trade with the United
States'? I do not deny that when you introduce any
great measure into this country that there will be con-
siderable economic disturbance? and that some industries
may be injured which we would like tg preserve. That fact I
28 , Handbook of Commercial ' Union.
do not deny. No great change ever has occurred or ever will
occur without inconvenience in some way. No great change
in machinery, for instance, can be introduced without render-
ing much existing machinery worthless, and without injuring a
certain portion of the community, but I doubt if any great
measure was ever proposed which was so little likely to injnre
those classes of the community whom the best minds in the
community would desire to serve, as this present one. I can
see that certain interests will be injured, no doubt. I can see,
for instance, that those worthy gentlemen whose proceedings
are now being investigated by the committee presided over by
the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace), those gentle-
men who are, as I may say, pushing the protective doctrine to
its legitimate development and evolution — I can well conceive
that the combines and trusts will have their troubles consider-
ably increased, even if they escape the hon. gentleman's com-
mittee, by free and unrestricted trade with the United States.
I can conceive, I honestly confess, that there are other indus-
tries, not very numerous but important, and some of them
possibly dear to hon. members of this House, which may be
injuriously affected if this policy should be carried into practi-
cal eifect. There can be n() doubt ot one thing and that is that
if this policy be carried into effect it will mean for a consider-
able time to come the enforcement of a much needed economy.
I see, for instance, that devoted and most industrious band of
public servants who act from time to time as missionaries on
the Government's behalf in disputed elections may suffer.
They may be dismounted and obliged to go a-foot, and it may
be barefoot too. I say also that there is a danger, and I do
not wish to gainsay it, that the electioneering cornucopia may
run dry, and that if you adopt the system vit will enforce, in
your own despite, a rigorous economy. You will have to
carry your bye elections, or not to carry them, as the case may
be, without promises of piers, and harbours, and post offices,
and railway grants. There is danger, and a serious danger,
too, that the subscriptions of the manufacturers' association to
certain peculiar funds will grow smaller by degrees and beauti-
fully less, and even vanish altogether. It is possible, and it is a
serious thing, that the monopolists may find that their occupa-
tion is gone, and the worship of the great goddess of monopoly
brought to naught. It is possible that the trade profits and
Sir Richard Cartwrigld* s Speech. 29
emoluments of that valuable class of men, known as practical
politicians, ^may be very greatly interfered with. All those
things I see are possible if this measure be put in force, and if,
as I stated, strict economy become, as it inevitably will in such
a case become, the order of the day. Now, I do not deny — I
never have denied — that, looking at the way in which the
Government has been administered in this country for many a
long day, those are grave and serious changes, almost of a
revolutionary character, and I can well understand that the
venerable leader and father of this House, like the Duke of
Wellington on a similar occasion, may shake his reverend
locks and murmur to himself that he does not see how the
Queen's Government in Canada is going to be carried on any
longer in his own peculiar fashion. Knowing as I do how ex-
cellently well affected this House has always shown itself to-
wards vested interests, it may be — having regard to the fact
that although those interests are few they are very important
and very dear to many hon. and estimable members — that the
House may say that it is better that the ninety-nine-hun-
dredths should go on and toil and moil, and, as the reports
of the Labor Commission which so lately sat in Montreal
show, may starve, and suffer, and die, for the benefit of those
righteous men who earn cent, per cent, dividends, and who
supply the money to keep this best of all possible Govern-
ments in power. Those, Sir, are the chief industries whose
existence is in risk, so far as I am enabled, in a hurried analy-
sis, to judge. Those, Sir, are tolerably correct statements of
the men, and of the classes, who profit, and who will lose, by
unrestricted reciprocity and free trade with the United States.
The House will remember, I dare say, how I showed that
there is ground for expecting an unprecedented and enormous
increase of the whole volume of our trade, from one end of this
country to the other, enriching all save the classes that I have
excepted. And now comes the question, what is it that for-
bids the banns? What are the objections? What are the
reasons which can fairly be urged by any hon. gentleman
againa^ this proposition ? If I am correct or even approximate-
ly correct in my views as to the benefits which would result to
the people of Canada from the adoption of this policy, what
are the objections which can be urged for the purpose of keep-
ing asunder tvvp countries which — I say it in no spirit of
30 Handhooh of Commercial Union,
irreverence — God has joined for purposes of mutual benefit ?
Sir, I have heard some hon. gentlemen, or the organs of some
hon. geiitleinoii, contend that, forsooth, however desirable this
thing may be, the consequences of our own folly during the
past ten or twenty years have been such that we cannot aflford
to have it ; we will lose revenue — we have been bled so much
that we cannot afford to be cured ; for that is the argument.
Sir, the case is bad, I grant ; but the case is not so bad as
that. Put briefly, their argument is this : they admit, or some
of them admit, that this thing in itself, would be very desir-
able ; but they tell us that we cannot afford to lose all the in-
come which we derive from the Customs duties that we ob-
tain from the American imports. Now, Sir, I do not suppose
there is any man in Canada, certainly not one man on the floor
of this House, who appreciates more thoroughly than I do, or
who has declared from his place more emphatically than I, how
very grievously the whole future of Canada has been injured
and damaged and mortgaged by what I have repeatedly called
the insane folly that has beset the people and the Government
of Canada in heaping up debt and taxation at the moment
when their great rival was reducing both. Sir, I am in the
judgment of this House when I say that no man ever strove
harder than did my hon. friend, Mr. Mackenzie, when he was
Prime Minister of Canada, to put a check to that extravagance
and folly, and his efforts were crowned with a good measure of
success ; and it is well to take this opportunity of reminding
this House and the people of Canada that, if this be a desirable
thing and if all that stands in our way is the financial difficulty,
had Mr. Mackenzie's policy been maintained, and his Admin-
istration been continued in office, and had the people of Canada
desired to make an alliance with the United States, there
would have been no financial difficulty to grapple with. I say,
and I speak with knowledge, that I could have done it had I
been left in office. I say it would have been an easy task for
an honest and intelligent Administration to have kept down
the total expenditure of Canada to $26,000,000 or $27,000,000
at the utmost, and the total taxation of Canada to $20,000,'
000 at the utmost, and withal to have placed half a million
of the best settlers in the world in Manitoba, to their great
profit and ours. Now, Sir, I wish to face this question square-
ly and fairly. I do not, for my part at all, pretend to tell this
i^ir Richard Cavtwrlgltt's Speech. . 31
House that if we obtain immediately free and unrestricted in-
tercourse with the United States, there might not be some
temporary inconvenience accruing to us in the matter of the
revenue ; but, Sir, I have this to point out : This proposition
of mine does not involve the addition of one cent or one
farthing to the burdens of the people, but much the contrary.
We do not purpose, Sir, as some have proposed in discussing
schemes for the future of Canada, to add many njillions a year
to our annual expenditure. We are not talking, Sir, at this
present moment of raising $37,000,000 in place of $30,000,000.
We are simply talking of raising $30,000,000, by a small alter-
ation in the mode of taxation and by a readjustment of taxa-
tion in general. I repeat, it is possible, though not by any
manner of means inevitable or necessary, that you may have to
alter your mode of collection. It is not necessary in the slight-
est degree that you should add one penny to the total aggregate
burdens of the people, but the contrary. Sir, allow me to say
that this dread, whether it be real or pretended, of a possible
recourse for a part of our revenue to direct taxation, has always
struck me as an exceedingly weak argument in a case like this.
In the first place. Sir, iion constat that you will require to have
any direct taxation at all ; let the House remember that. There
is enormous room for judicious economy in our present admin-
istration of the revenue. I do not say hon. gentlemen opposite
can economise; but. Sir, I think I cc ild put my hand on
members of this House who could show some economy. While
we did economise, we got small thanks for it ; but perhaps the
people are wiser now. Nay, most assuredly the people are
wiser now ; and could we appeal to the people on a fair division
of the constituencies, with honest returning officers and deputy
returning officers, without the scale weighted against us with
grants for piers, harbors and bridges and railway branches, and
every form of political influence, then. Sir, I think hon. gentle-
men opposite would find that the results — I speak for my own
Province, at least — will be as correctly reflected in the Parlia-
ment at Ottawa as they are in" the Parliament at Toronto.
However, Sir, we will pass over a point on which I can hardly
expect those hon. gentlemen to agree with me. I desire to
' point out tinat the fundamental fact, for fact it is^ on which
this whole argument is based, is this : Give us free and unre-
stricted intercourse with the United States, and by that act
82 Handbook of Commercial Union.
you enormously increase the whole income of the vast majority
of the people of Canada. You will enable them, and as I
believe almost instantaneously, almost within a year and a day,
to buy a great quantity of goods which they cannot now buy, a
large proportion of which will be dutiable goods ; and by con-
sequence there is good and sound ground, if you admit my
preliminary fact to be true, for saying that it is altogether
likely that the remaining taxes will yield quite as much as
those we now have in our artificially restricted systemj But
bear in mind that no increase of taxation whatever is contem-
plated ; all that is required is a simple re-adjustment. It is
possible — we will admit for argument's sake — that the hon.
gentlemen are right, and that my contention is wrong that the
people will grow enormously richer and yet will not consume
more dutiable goods^ though I know of no case in which that
has occurred. We will suppose, for argument's sake, that we
have to face this bugbear of direct taxation — direct taxation,
be it remembered, not for all our revenue, but a trifling por-
tion of it alone. What, let us see, will be the consequence %
Now, Sir, I have to call the attention of the House in that
connection to certain important facts. First of all, no man
who has paid any attention to this subject will, I think, dare
to deny the fact, which I think is recognised by every political
economist, that direct taxation properly levied takes a great
deal less out of the pocket of the people than indirect taxa-
tion ; most of all, indirect taxation, levied as our system of in-
direct taxation is levied now. Sir, I desire to say that, in my
judgment, we ought not, I do not think this Government
would dare, I do not think any other Government would wish,
to add by direct taxation one farthing or one penny to the taxes
that now press most heavily on the agricultural classes, on the
fishermen, on the miners, on-the lumbermen, on all the great
producing classes in this community. I shall be prepared to
prove in some detail, at the proper place and time, that among
the many faults with whicji our system abounds, perhaps the
greatest is this : that /under it the hard-working, industrious,
thrifty man is taxed enormously out of proportion to his earn-
ings ; and I say that with a system of direct taxation^ if you
must have recourse to it, although I doubt greatly whether you
need, with proper economy, have recourse to it,[that crying in
justice must be redressed, and the respectable, well-to-do,
Sir Richard Cartwright's Speech, 33
monied classes must be made to pay their fair proportion — no
more should be asked — to the burdens of the country. This
proportion they most assuredly do not contribute to day, and
never will, under a system of purely indirect taxation.. Fur-
ther, we should bear in niinil, as these hon. gentlemen are so
intensely desirous of copying English precedents, that it is the
system of the mother country in a very high degree ; and if
that precedent be followed here two very good results will
accrue. First of all. Sir, you will remove that crying injustice
of which I spoke, and by which the poor man contributes out
of all proportion to-day, out of his scanty means, to the sup-
port of our Government ; and in the next place, you will pro-
duce this other admirable result, of giving all these respectable,
w>ell-to-do, monied men a keen practical interest in watching
the public expenditure and checking extravagance. You will
do more, if it must be done by that means — you will create a
sound, wholesome, healthy public opinion, the want of which
is so great an evil in Canada to-day. I dwell on that particu-
larly, because I am aware that, at this very moment, there are
certain gentlemen, presumably in the interest of the hon. gentle-
men opposite, who are losing no opportunity to impress upon
the farmers of this country in particular, that if we get unre-
stricted reciprocity with the United States, the Federal reven-
ues will have to be raised by direct taxation, levied in the same
way as the municipal taxes are to-day. I for one will protest
to the uttermost of my power against any such injustice ; I for
one declare here, speaking on my responsibility in my place in
Parliament, speaking with a knowledge of the subject, that our
present system is monstrously unjust to the poor man and too
favorable to the rich man, and that injustice ought to be re-
dressed, not by adding to the burden of the farmer, the laborer,
the artisan, the mechanic, the fisherman, the miner, the lumber-
man, but by removing the burdens from these and placing them
upon the shoulders on which by right they ought to fall. It is
almost too ridiculous. Here we are, here we have been, adding
millions a year to the taxes of this country and without the
slightest regard to the permanent welfare of the people ; and
we are told, forsooth, that although we may, without the least
injury to the community, addjuany millions a year to our tax-
ation, we must not alter the mode of collection one hairs
breadth under penalty of producing the most terrible results.
C
84 Handbook of Commercial Union.
There is another shaft in these gentlemen's quiver. Having
proved to their own advantage, first of all, that Canada posi-
tively cannot afford to spend a dollar to gain a pound, hav-
ing demonstrated that, according to the dictates of Canadian
political economy, it is always more expensive to pay two cents
cash for an article than four cents on credit — which is about
the difference between direct and indirect taxation — these hon.
gentlemen, the names of some of whom, to ray certain knowl-
edge were a[)pended to a certain remarkable document, bearing
date 1849, have been seized in their later days with an extra-
ordinary paroxysm of loyalty ; and to back their other startling
propositions they lay down this impossible, and still more start-
ling, proposition : If you make the Canadian people rich by free
trade with the United States, if you make them more prosper-
ous, happy and contented than they unfortunately are at
present, there will be great danger to their loyalty. That is the
position, in almost so many words. I would have thought that
those hon. gentlemen who ten years ago overrode all the pro-
testations of Mr. Mackenzie and myself, when we pointed out
to them that what they were doing was to adopt a policy which
was a mere servile imitation of the American policy, which was
in direct contradiction to the settled policy of the Empire; I
say that these men would have done well, recollecting what oc-
curred at that time, to have spared us all these disquisitions on
the loyalty of the Opposition. Do we not recollect when we
showed there was danger in the policy they adopted, how we
were told that, if the so-called and mis-called National Policy
was bad for British connection, so much the worse for British
connection. These men have not hesitated to carry out a policy
which has been responsible in my judgment for driving two
millions of Her Majesty's North American subjects into exile,
and which had risked the loss of all British North America to
the Empire. It is time that we should clear our minds of cant
on this subject. I have, and I have as good right as any hon.
gentleman to have, the interest of the Empire as much at heart
as any man on that^ side of the House. ' I have considered, to
the best of my opportunities and to the best of my ability,
what policy in this crisis is the best in the real interests of the
British Empire. I know that, in what I now say, I am but ex-
pressing the views of some of the ablest and highest of British
statesmen, when I afflrm that one great peril that threatens the
I
Sir Richard Cartwrighfs Speech. 35
British Empire to-day is the state of most dangerous isolation
into which she has come to find herself. What is her position
to-day in the view of some of the ablest of her statesmen 1 It is
that she has not a friend of a high-class power in the world.
She is at enmity more or less with France by reason of her oc-
cupation of Egypt and her control of the Suez Canal ; she can-
not hope that Germany will raise her little finger in her behalf ;
she cannot expect any help from Austro- Hungary ; and who
does not know that the Indian taxpayer is groaning under the
additional burdens imposed upon him for the purpose of check-
ing an anticipated Russian attack on India 1 That is a danger-
ous position of isolation, and I say that there is but one first-
class power in the world with whom England can make a firm
and lasting alliance, and that is her and our kinsmen and
friends on the other side of the border. I have always felt and
I have not hesitated to express it to English statesmen as well
as on the floor of this House, that the real problem which to-
day awaits the decision of England is how, in the first place, by
fair and honorable means — and no other should be used — to
conciliate the good-will of the people of the United States, and
to repair that most atrocious blunder which was committed a
hundred years ago, and which led to most violent collision be-
tween the two great divisions of the English race.
In this project which we are now bringing forward, if you
take a broad view of the whole situation, it' you remember what
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain has taken good care to din into our
ears and into the ears of the Government opposite during his
recent visit, if you remember that the interest of England in
maintaining friendly relations with the United States is so
vast and so great that it outweighs very many times the com-
paratively trifling profit which she can derive from our trade,
then I think you will see there is good ground for the position
which I take, and that is that, by entering into close commer-
cial relations with the United States, by establishing a close
and friendly intercourse with them, we will render to the Em-
pire the greatest service that any colony or dependency ever
rendered to the parent State. It has been made a grave ground,
it has been attempted to be set up as an insuperable ground, of
objection, that, when you propose to enter into a Weaty for un-
restricted trade with the United States, you must thereby, of
necessity, discriminate against English manufactures and the
36 Handbook of Commercial Union.
maniifactures of all other countries except the United States.
Now, that is true. I admit that. More than that, I will ad-
rait that, prima facie, what we propoue to-day is a very un-
usual thing. I will admit — I am in nowise disposed to shrink
from any argument which can be fairly advanced — I admit
frankly that, when a semi-dependent State, when a colony
proposes in one breath to tax the goods of the parent State and
admit the goods of a foreign State free, while at the same time
the parent State admits our goods and the goods of other coun-
tries free, and the foreign State taxes those goods very heavily,
i[ is a very unusual thing indeed. I grant that it is clean
against all formulas. I do not deny that. I admit that it ap-
])ears to be reversing the action of 100 years ago when Eng-
land lost half of this continent because she endeavored to tax
their goods without giving them representation, and I admit
that we are going a little far in taxing her goods and not t))e
goods of the people of the United States. I grant that this
needs explanation, and I am prepared to say that I can give
a full explanation why in the interests of England itself this
thing should be done. I think I have stated the case as strong-
ly as hoD. gentlemen can well desire. Now, let us first of all look
at the material results which will flow to England should this
discrimination take place, and here let me say what is obvious
to everyone who has given the subject a second thought, that,
in our peculiar geographical position towards the United States,
it is perfectly apparent that we cannot hope to gain free inter-
course and unrestricted reciprocity with them without dis-
criminating against the goods of other countries, unless and un-
til the United States are prepared to go in for free trade
with all the world, in which case our proposition would not
be necessary. The thing, I grant, is of the essence of the bar-
gain. I am not in the least degree desirous of concealing that
fact, but, so far as the material side is concerned, the prac-
tical results of assimilating our tariff in certain points to the
American tariff as agaiiist England have been immensely and
I suspect purposely exaggerated. In the first place, the House
ought to remember that at this very day our tariff is pretty
nearly as hostile to English manufactures as that of the United
States, and that there is very strong ground indeed, if things
remain unchanged, for believing that in two or three years
from this date our tariff will be much the more onerous of the
Sir Richard CartwrighVa Speech. . 87
t'vo. Then it h well to bear in mind that, the turiff to the
contrary notwithstanding, England has always managed to
carry on a large trade with the United States, and csj>fcially
with the northern portion of it. If I had the time at my
disposal, I could advance very good reasons for believing that,
suppose we do discriminate and otherwise things remain ex-
actly as they are, notwithstanding that the English would con-
tinue to drive a large trade with us they would have a trade
relatively much larger with the people of the United States,
and, therefore, the absolute loss to them would bo small.
But I return again to the fundamental fact on which, as I
said, this whole argument rests. There can he no doubt, I
think, that if we succeed in getting unrestricted trade, we
shall become much richer, and if we become much richer
there is no doubt that we shall buy a much larger quan-
tity of English goods than we do at the present, though
perhaps not in the same line. I believe that the result of
England giving us a free hand in this matter, would be
simply to make some little alteration in the character but not
in the quantity of the goods she sells us, and that practically
she would lose nothing in a material point of view. More
than that, i know something of English manufacturers. I may
say, by-the-by, thfit this is a ditliculty that it will be time
enough to face when it arises. Our first business is to ascertain
on what terms and conditions we can obtain unrestricted trade
with the United Statea ; when we know on what terms and
conditions we can trade with them, then, perhaps some difficulty
may arise, and that difficulty will have to be met. But I know
something, as well as the hon. gentlemen, of English manu-
facturers, I know they are an eminently practical, hard-headed
class of men. I know very well that English manufacturers,
so long as their goods are excluded from North American
markets, care precious little by whose name the ukase is signed
which excludes them, whether it bears the name of Grover
Cleveland, or Charles Tupper, or Mackenzie Bowell. Sir, you
may depend upon it that English manufacturers, at any rate,
are not to be caught with chaff. They understand that 80 per
cent, duty on iron is 80 per cent, duty, whether it be imposed
by an American Congress or a Canadian House of Commons,
and they do not care very much who imposes it, so long as the
duty is there. Sir, while I speak of these things as regards
38 Handbook of Commercial Union.
the mere material aspect of the case, in relation to Knglish
manufacturers, there are other arguments which the people of
Canada may very justly use toward English statesmen and the
English people. I say that the past history of this country
supplies all Canadians who care to study that history, with
abundant arguments. Mr. Speaker, the position of Canada is
exceptional, in many important respects unique, so far as
regards Kngland. I am not going to dwell nmch on the fact
that we are more than a colony, that we are a Dominion,
charged with the responsibility of managing the affairs of half a
continent, and entitled to claim for ourselves greater privileges
and greater powers than should be granted to any ordinary
colony. I do not dwell on that, but 1 dwell a little en certain
features in our past history which 1 contend give us a right to
claim to be heard in this matter. Sir, England is the great
colonizing nation of modern times. England has obtained
colonies by exchange, by barter, by conquest, by direct purchase,
by voluntary and involuntary settlement, but of all her hundred
colonies, England has but one, and that is the Premier Province
of this Dominion, which was originally taken possession of,
and has since been held by men who did not occupv or settle
through any of the ordinary motives that induce men to forsake
their native homes but to give up their broad fields and
pleasant lands for the purpose of maintaining their allegiance
to the English flag. Now, Sir, this question is being argued, to
some extent, on the sentimental side, and I am ready for my
friends there. To tell you a profound secret, Mr. Speaker,
which I trust will not go outside the walls of this House, 1 have
never been able exactly to understand the very deep obligation
under which the people of Canada lay to England. In point
of fact I rather think that the obligation is the other way. I
do not think. Sir, that although we have cherished, I hope we
will continue to cherish, the most friendly feeling toward the
^parent state, I do not think for my part, that we are under any
deep debt of gratitude to English statesmen, that we owe them
much, unless, per ciiance, it may be the duty, as Christian men,
to forgive them for the atrocious blunders which have marked
every treaty, or transaction, or negotiation that they have ever
had with the United States where the interests of Canada were
concerned, from the days of Benjamin Franklin to this hour,
not excepting their first or second treaty of Washington. I
Sir Richard Cartwright'n Speech. ' 39
say there is no man here who does not know that from the
very first hour that the United Empire liOyalists took pos-
session of Ontario and held it for the British Crown, down
to this year 1888, there never has been a time except, perhaps,
the short paroxysm of the American Civil War, when our
people could not have greatly benefited tiieir material inter-
ests by throwing in their lot with the people on the other side.
We have not chosen to do so, we do not now want to do so,
we desire to maintain our autonomy. On that point, I am
quite atone with some hon. gentlemen on the other side. But
I say at this moment, a remarkable opportunity has pre-
sented itself in which a little skilftd statesmanship and com*
mon honesty would enable us, at one and the same time, to
obtain great benefit for ourselves, and to render a most impor-
tant service to the whole Empire by aiding to re-knit together
those two great divisions of our race which were unfortunately
sundered by the blunders and incompetence ot English states-
men 100 years ago. Sir, if the hon. gentleman chooses, as I
have said, to argue this matter on the ground of sentiment, all
I can say is that a Canadian who understands and feels what
his country's history means, will not find great difficulty in
meeting him on any such grounds.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I think that in this matter, supposing
that we dismiss all other considerations, and look on it as a
pure matter of right, we have some right to follow the example
of England herself. No man knows better than the hon. gentle-
man opposite that England has always adopted a very different
rule and measure in dealing with the United States from that
which she has adopted in dealing with any country under
heaven. I dare say that English statesmen could bring forward
good reasons for their departure from their ordinary customs
in such cases. Now, I am not here to criticise her right to do
what she has done, at any rate, I am not criticising the reasons
for doing what she has done, but I say that J'jiigland has not
hesitated, as the English plenipotentiary the other day was good
enough to tell us, to give up the admitted legal rights of Canada
for the purpose of conciliating the good-will of the people of
the United States. So be it. We may have to bow, probably
we will have to bow. But by every parity of reasoning, we,
under these circumstances, are justified in saying to England:
We give up at your behest, for your benefit, and for the sake
40 Handbook of Commercial Union,
of the Empire, our admitted legal rights, now you make us a
little concession of your admitted le^al rights m a matter in
which we do not deny them, for your benefit and ours, and for
the sake of conciliating the good-will of the American people.
Sir, I said that was the lowest view. I believe that the great
mass of Knglishmen who have made investments in Canada,
and notably in Canadian railways, would, like ourselves be
entin^ly Hiitisfied if wo carried out this proposition, and I believe
that if all Kui^lish investors in Canada Aafere pollod after having
tie case properly explained to them, they would go with us in
saying that it was m the interests of England, that it was in
the highest and largest sense for the interests of the Empire,
that we should be permitted, if we desire to make such a bargain
as this with the people of the United States. Sir, there is a
third argument, which requires perhaps a little more considera-
tion. We are asked when we make, or when we suggest such a
proposition to be made, not by the hon. gentleman opposite, who
has maintained a most judicious reticence so far on this ques-
tion, as I have noticed, but we are asked by some of his followers
and myrmidons : What grounds have you for believing that, if
you make this proposition, the people of the United States
will agree 1 Well, Sir, what I have to say in answer to that
is this : When two men are desirous of making a bargain, or
when one man is desirous of making a bargain for mutual
benefit with another party, the time has come to enquire and
negotiate on what terms and conditions a mutually advantage-
ous bargain can be made. \ I say, moreover, that this is, even in
a pre-eminent degree, a matter for the two peoples of the United
States and Canada. This is a thing which, if done at all, has
got to ))« done in the broad light of day, not in dim diplomatic
twiiight. We know how the American Executive is constituted
and how the American Congress is constituted. We know that
this thing can only be done with the consent of Congress, and,
practically, with the consent of the American people, ^and,
therefore, it is that I have ventured to take, as I have said, the
responsibility of bringing this matter forward on the floor of
Parliament, because I know^ and hon. gentlemen know, that it
is not in their power to make an agreement behind backs with
the American Executive which wouhl be in any degree binding
on the American people. More than that: I say the[ present
moment is eminently in our favor for coming to the Americans
Sir Richard Cdrtnu'li/ht's Speech. 41
with Hoint) Huch propogition aa this, and I have good and fair
proof of what I ntate. In the firdt place, everybody kiiowH that
an enormous reduction in the American taritf is iuimineiit.
Things have come to such a pass there that tiie people will
insist on a very great reduction and alteration in their tariff.
In the next place, we have got a very direct and very important
invitation, or at all events a very important expression of the
goodwill of the man who stands in the highest place today in
the American Kopublic, and who I trust for their sake will
continue to enjoy the confidence of his countrymen for a second
term. Sir, I note that President Cleveland in the recommenda-
tion which he addressed to Congress respecting the Fisheries
Treaty, after stating the advantages he thinks he has achieved,
goes on to say :
Our social i^nd commercial iiitercourHu with tboue populationn who have
been placed upon our borderH and made forever our nei^hborH \a made ap-
parent by a liHtof the United Stite.i' common carrierH, marine ami inland,
connecting their lineH with Canada, which woh returned by the Secretary-
Treawury to the Senate on 7th of February, in answer to a resolution of that
body ; and thU is inntructive as to the threat volume of mutually proHtable
interchange which has come into existence during the last half century.
And then the President goes on to use these important words,
which coming from so high a source at such a time can he taken
as nothing less than an invitation by the President of the Unit-
ed States to us to come forward and see on what terms we can
negotiate for unrestricted reciprocity with them. Says Presi-
dent Cleveland :
This intercourse is still but partially developed, and if the amicable en-
lerpriaes and wholesome rivalry between the two populations be not ob-
structed, the promise of the future is f idl of the fruits of an unbounded pros-
perity on both sides of the border.
Sir, will any gentlemen here or elsewhere dare to maintain that
when President Cleveland in an official document of the highest
importance uses such terms as these with respect to intercourse
with Canada^ we, forsooth, should be debarred by any sense of
dignity from responding to an invitation like that 1 I have an-
other, not so formal, and yet more important perhaps. I find
that as long as a year ago, at a time when there was a danger
of hostile collision between the two countries, Mr. Secretary
Bayard, a man, as the First Minister knows, of the highest rank
next to the President of the United States, a man who is vir-
42 Handbook of Commercial C/Vi *.;ri.
tually Premier of the President'a Cabinet, a man whose name is
honored and deservedly honored by friend and foe from one end
of the United States to the other, — I say that Mr. Bayard, the
virtual Premier of the United States, wrote a year ago to Sir
Charles Tupper in these terms :
The immediate difficulty to be settled is found in the Treaty of 1818 be-
tween the United k^tates and Great Britain, which has been questiu rexata
ever since it was concluded, and to-day is suffered to interfere with and seri-
ously embarrass the good understandinjj of both countries in the in^portant
commercial relations and interests which have come into being since its rati-
fication, and for the adjustment of which it is wholly inadequate as has been
unhappily proved by the events of the past two years.
And then comes this important paragraph :
I am confident we both seek to attain a just and permanent settlement
— and there is but one way to procure it and that is by a straightforward
treatment on a liberal and statesmanlike plan of the entire cummercial re-
lations of the two countries. I say commercial because I do not propose to
include, however indirectly, or by any intendment, however partial or ob-
li(iue, the political relations of Canada and the United States, nor to affect
the legislative independence of either country.
This is a just, a wise and a statesmanlike proposal from a man
of the highest place and highest character in North America.
Have we not seen within the last two weeks two distinguished
members of Congress, Mr. Butterworth and Mr. Hitt, both Re-
publicans, both opposed to the party of Mr. Bayard and Presi-
dent Cleveland, introducing Bills, one of which is almost sub«
stantially on the lines of the Resolution I have placed in your
hands, Mr. Speaker, the other of which goes further than I
think it would be judicious or wise to go, but both in the di-
rection of free trade and unrestricted reciprocity with Canada.
Looking at this communication which has been placed in our
hands, and as to which something was said to-night, I cannot
but fear that a grand, opportunity was lost by the delay of the
Government in not endeavoring to settle the fishery question a
considerable time ago in accordance with Mr. Bayard's sug-
gestion.
I repeat one thing which I said before, but it will bear
repetition. It must always be remembered that Canada has
a good deal to give as well as a good deal to get, and in
making a bargain with the United States I for one would give
very fair and full equivalents. I wish that the treaty should be
perfectly and mutually beneficial, that for every dollar of profit
Sir Richard Cartiuright's Speech, 43
we make they should make their dollar, and that for every
Canadian who is benefited an American should be benefited
likewise. It is on such a basis alone that a firm and permanent
treaty of reciprocity, or a firm and permanent arrangement for
free and unrestricted trade can be carried out. As 1 have said,
the people of the United States need new markets as well as we
do. I do not contend, for it would be absurd to contend, that
the thing is as important to them as it it to us. It is not as
important to 60,000,000 to have the market of 5,000,000, as it
is for 5,000,000 people to have the market of 60,000,000. That
much is clear. •Jiut I do contend, Sir, that we have it in our
power to give a full equivalent, and benefit quite as many Am-
ericans by this arrangement as Canadians will be benefited. I also
say that this is emphatically one of those questions in which very
nearly everything depends on how the question is presented to
the various parties to the negotiation. You may approach this if
you will in the spirit of statesmen, or you may approach it in
the spirit of flunkeys. It is a large question which demands a
large treatment. Now, whatever the faults of England or
English statesmen may be, I have always felt, and 1 have al-
ways maintained, that England is essentially just, and that
when England understands fairly and properly the ground upon
which we make this claim that England will, I believe, be pre-
pared to concede it. As for the United States, I have no
doubt that they have got their faults as we have got our faults,
but with all their faults no man can have mixed much with the
Americans without knowing that they are emphatically a great
and a generous nation. I have heard one most foolish complaint
and most foolish fear expressed, and I have heard that com-
plaint made by men who ought to know better, the complaint
that the people and the Government of the United States, for-
sooth, are not prepared to gush over or to rush into our arms or
those of England at every pretty phrase. I do not blame them
for that As I have said, I know something of the history of
North America for the past one hundred years, and something
of the history of the dealings of England with the United
States during that interval. Even during the last five and
twenty years I say, that we have not always so acted as to war-
rant us in expecting that the Americans will rush at once into
our arms whenever we propose a friendly treaty or arrange-
ment with them, but I say that if you go to the United States
44 Handbook of Commercial Union,
and make fair, just and reasonable propositions to them that
there is every reason — and we have the proof of their highest
statesmen's assertions that we will be so received — there is
every reason to believe that we will be fairly and honorably
received, and that it is in our power to make a treaty which
shall be mutually advantageous, honorable and profitable to
both nations. I do not gush over the United States either. I
admire the United States, but I am in no way disposed to
cringe to them. I think I may remind the House that the
only negotiation during the last one hundred years in which
Canada obtained a tolerable equivalent for l^er concessions
was the negotiation conducted at Halifax by the Hon. Mr.
Mackenzie and my lamented friend Sir Albert Smith. I take
no shame to admit, and I have said it before, that for many a
year I have made it my deliberate purpose that I would do all
that one man could do, all that any man honorably could do,
to make friends as far as I could or to cause my people and the
Plnglish people to become friends once more with the people of
the United States. Our position towards the people of the
United States has been vastly changed within the last five and
twenty years, and it is well that this House should remember
that. Five and twenty years ago but a small proportion of her
population were in the United States. To-day, ^ir, the United
States, in the most emphatic possible maniter, are becoming liter-
ally Jlesh of our flesh and blood of our blood, I think my friends
from the Maritime Provinces and Quebec probably can afiirm
my statement, when I say that I know whole counties, I know
great regions, in Canada where you cannot findo^e single soli-
tary Canadian familj' which has not a son, or a daughter, or a
brother, or a sister, or some near and dear relative now inhab-.
iting the United States. We will do best honor to the United
Empire Loyalist traditions if we in our degree contribute to
bring those two great races together, and to repair in this way
what I have always looked upon as a great blot in English
policy within the last century,
Now, there is another side of this question. Suppose the
hon. gentlemen entered into those negotiations in good faith,
suppose they tried their best, suppose they do their best, and
suppose the negotiation fails, well, all I can say is that I would
advise the people of Canada in that case to set to work and put
their house in order. H we go on as we are going now, our
Sir Richard Cartwrighfs Speech. 45
position will soon become intolerable as compared with the
United States. I do not think that hon. gentlemen opposite
have at all appreciated what the United States has done during
the last dozen years. Sir, I do not think this House is at all
aware of the fiscal position in which the United K:ftates stand
to-day. I have here the last Un>3d States Treasury return,
and what does it show 1 It shows. Sir, that the total expendi-
ture of the United States, less sinking fund, was just $268,-
000,000, of which $35,500,000 came from miscellaneous re-
ceipts, and $233,000,000 was all they required to raise by direct
taxation. Now, Sir, they ooUect $120,000,000 in round num-
bers by excise, and, therefore, all they require to raise by cus-
toms duties is a bare $114,000,000. Sir, it would be in the
power of the United States Secretary of the Treasury, if Con-
gress gave him the authority, to raise either the whole of the
customs revenue in either of these three ways. He might main-
tain the existing tax on sugar and impose a very small income
tax indeed, and raise all the revenue he wanted ; he might main-
tain the tax on sugar and impose a very small ad valorem duty
and raise all the revenue he wanted ; or he might maintain the
present taxes on a very few articles and make his trade list free.
Now, I would like to direct the attention of this House for a few
moments to what might befall if the United States adopted such
a course. We have no less an authority than Joseph Chamber-
lain for saying that if the United States chose to reduce their
tarif? materially, they would become a most formidable compe-
titor to England in the markets of the world ; and if they be-
came a formidable competitor of England, what sort of a com-
petitor would they be with our farmers and manufacturers under
such circumstances — we heavily burdened with debt and the
United States almost free ? What, I should like to know, would
the hon. gentlemen do in such a case ] And it is a case which
is imminent, a case which may occur at any moment 1 Will they
go on and heap further taxes on the people 1 Do they think
they could prevent a much more deplorable exodus than we now
have 1 Now, Sir, if the hon. gentlemen refuse to act — this is
not a motion of want of confidence ; they have not committed
themselves, at least the First Minister has not, and I do not think
his colleagues have committed themselves, against this proposi-
tion — if they refuse to act, I ask them to consult their own
Finance Minister as to whether I am not right, looking at the
46 Handbook of Commercial Union.
result of their Fisheries negotiation, in saying that a most in-
tense feeling of disappointment will pervade the whole of the
Maritime Provinces at any rate. An intense feeling of disap-
pointment, I know, will pervade a vast number of the farmers
of Canada from one end of the Dominion to the other, and I
tjiink there will be a very great and bitter disappointment on
the part of many of the inhabitants of Manitoba and probably
also of British Columbia. Now, Sir, it must be borne in mind
that our circumstances within a few years, not wholly by our
own fault, not wholly by the fault of government, but in con-
sequence of great economic changes which have been taking
place of very great importance, have been materially changed.
Then, it is notorious that our position, in comparison with that
of the United States, has in twenty years been reversed, and
reversed enormously to our detriment. Twenty years ago our
taxes were one- third of the taxes of the United States ; twenty
years ago our debt was one-third of the debt of the United
States. To-day, by the last returns I have here, our debt is two
and a half times, as nearly as may be, greater per head than the
debt of the United States ; and the necessary taxes which the
United States require to raise for the purpose of carrying on
their government are one- third less than the necessary taxes the
people of Canad«^ require to pay. Then, Sir, the European mar-
ket, to which we formerly looked, is dwindling fast, so far as
we are concerned. We are exposed to intense competition from
every part of the world. On the other hand the American
market is growing with immense rapidity, and has become
vastly richer to-day than it was a short time ago, while we are
not able to keep the emigrants we bring here. As I said before,
a great change in the United States is imminent, and it is our bus-
iness to prepare to meet it. Sir, let me review our course for the
last twenty years. Can hon. gentlemen opposite, with the Public
Accounts in their hands, venture to deny that within twenty
years our debt has trebled, having risen from $73,000,000 or
$75,000,000 to $230,000,000, and that our taxes have trebled
likewise, having risen from $11,500,000 to 30,000,000 ? And
that does not at all represent the real increase of taxation.
Can they deny. Sir, that there is proof, absolutely conclusive,
over the greater part of the Dominion, that we have lost three
emigrants out of every four that we brought here, and one in
four of our own people ? Can they deny that there has been
Sir Richard GartwrigMs Speech. 47
an enormous reduction in the volume of trade, until the volume
of trade to-day. is nearly 50 per cent, less than it was in 1873 1
Can they deny that there has been a very great fall in the
prices of the articles produced by our agriculturists, on whom
we mainly depend 1 What shall I say of the immigration for
the last six years ? I have only got the municipal statistics
of Ontario to go upon, but what a sorry story they have to
tell us. I have the returns, of every rural municipality and of
every town and village of Ontario for the last six years, and
what do I find 1 I find that of forty-four counties in Ontario,
barely three have increased their rural population more than
the natural growth of -the populatioi^ warrants; of the re-'
mainder, twenty- two are either stationary or have gained less
than their natural growth ; and nineteen have absolutely lost
population. The total gain in Ontario, from 1881 to 1886, is
about 13,000 souls on a rural population of over 1,100,000.
In those six years we have gained about one half of one per
cent., according to the municipal statistics of Ontario. Of
206 towns and villages, 38 have increased in size more than
their natural growth of population ; 91 are stationary or have
less than their natural growth, and 67 have lost population
absolutely ; 168 out of 206 have either lost absolutely in popu-
lation or have grown less than the natural growth of papulation
warrants. T need not go over the list of rural municipalities
in detail, because they show precisely the same results ; and I
am sorry to say that I find from information furnished me
within the last few days by my esteemed friend Mr. Blue, the
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, that the record
for the year 1887, is rather worse, if that be possible, t' an the
records for the years that have preceded. What 8ht.il I say
of the comparison between Manitoba and Dakota 1 Manitoba
and Dakota started seventeen years ago on equal terms. Each
had a white population 1 4,000 strong. In about ten years Dakota
had added not a little over 100,000 to its population ; Manitoba
had added a little over 50,000 to its population. In 1881
Dakota had 130,000; Manitoba had 65,000. Then, Sir, we began
to spend the money of the public by tens of millions in
making railroads and promoting immigration to Manitoba.
In 1886, we find that after spending 8100,000,000 of public
money, and perhaps nearly half as much private funds, the
population of Manitoba has grown but 30,000, and according
48 Handbook of Commercial Union.
to the last statistics I have been able to obtain, in 1886, the
population ot Dakota considerably exceeds 500,000. They have
added nearly 400,000 to their population within the last six
years, while Manitoba has added but 30,000 according tc the
last census, after an expenditure of $100,000,000. Now, do
you call that satisfactory 1 If you do not, then the time has
come to search for some appropriate remedy. I say that,
rightly understood and fairly understood, the interests of Cana-
da and the United States and the mother country are really
identical, and that the time is come and is not far distant, when,
at any rate the best, the wisest and the most intelligent men
will realize that, if they do not realize it now. I am no an-
nexationist and I do not propose to become one. 1 have no
desire to see our country merged in the United States, and I
can tell the House that after conferences with a good many
distinguished Americans, I am well advised they do not par-
ticularly desire to add to their heavy responsibilities by seeing
us politically incorporated with them. I have always held and
declared that I regard annexation as undesirable. I have no
more wish to see my country merge her existence in that of
the great state to the south of us — although I admire much
in the institutions of the latter — than I would wish to merge
my own individual existence in that of another man's because
I admire his abilities or envy his great estate. We have a
plain duty to discharge. We are, some of us. Privy Coun-
cillors, and it is our bounden duty to advice Her Majesty
the Queen of Canada in the true interests of the people of
Canada, whatever those may be. That may carry us far. To
a very considerable extent the choice lies with the people of
Canada, to decide whether they shall continue to fulfil the
somewhat ignoble office that they now fulfil, of beiAg prac-
tically, and in fact, a sort of hostage to the United States
for the good behavior of England, or whether they will rise
equal to the situation and become a link of union and concord
between the two great English races. Which is the safer, which
is the more honorable, which is the wiser, which is the more
statesmanlike policy 1 I have abstained of set purpose from
alluding to the fishery matter, except in a most cursory way.
1 do not wish to animadvert on the conduct of the English
plenipotentiaries in that matter, but I may take this opportu-
nity of pointing out to the House, and the Finance Minister
Sir Richard Cartwri<jht*» Speech. 49
and his friends, that they can produce no argument to warrant
them in asking the people of Canada to ratify that treaty, ex-
cept practically this great argument that it is, in a high degree,
the interest of the Empire to conciliate the good-will of the
people of the United States by all fair and honorable means.
And that very argument which they bring to induce this House
to consent to the treaty, applies with ((jual force to my con-
tention that it is in the highest degree for the interest of the
Empire that we, on our side, shoultl endeavor, through the
very proposition I now submit, to knit Canada and the United
States together in a closer and more friendly alliance. We
must rise above the sole-craving for precedents, so dear to a
certain order of legal mind. We are in a new world, and we
own half a continent of it. It may be that there is no prece-
dent to fit our case. My proposal is new and so is our situa-
tion, and. Sir, I have to say if there is no precedent to fit, let
us make one. Hon. gentlemen may contend that the views I
express are not those held, at least by the majority of the peo-
ple, at any rate as they are represented on the floor of this
House; but if these hon. gentlemen could make up their minds,
for once, to depart from their precedents, and if there ever was
a case in which we would be warranted in departing from pre-
cedents it is this — and would dare to submit this question to the
plebiscitura of the people, they know, and I know, that the
answer would be decisively in its favor. They know that an
overwhelming majority of the people would be at our backs in
demanding that no reasonable effort should be spared to obtain
free trade with the United States ; and if it were possible that
this plebiscitura should be voted on by every native-born Cana-
dian in North America, we would roll up a larger majority in
its favor than has ever yet been recorded in our annals of any
kind whatever. I do not say, and it is false to assert that I
have ever said, that Canada has not made any progress during
the past twenty years. I admit considerable progress has been
made in certain directions. But what I contend for now is
this, that the progress has been partial, inadequate, far below
what the natural resources of our country would warrant. It
is also far below what we made ourselves in the twenty years
before 1861, and infinitely below what the United States made
in the first twenty years of their existence, when their popula-
tion wag equal to ours. I am quite willing to grant that a few
50 Handbook of Commercial Union. •>
towns have grown and pro8j»eroil within the past few years, l)ut
I say it is none the less true that over many wide areas of this
country our population is stationary and even retrograde. It
is none the less true that from one end of Canada to the other,
the value of farm lands is less to-day than it was six, seven or
eight years ago ; it is none the less true that the value of farm
products is enormously lowered, and that our farmers are ex-
posed to a far more intense competition than they hitherto ex-
perienced. Great new forces are coming into existence, the full
effect of which we are only beginning to feel. There is danger
lest Canada, so far as regards our native born population, should
sink into a mere residuum, a country from which the best and
most intelligent of our people are fleeing, not by hundreds or by
thousands, but by millions. Then as to foreign immigrants, if
these statistics can be relied upon, it is clear that we are be-
coming a mere dumping ground for the refuse of th'^se whom we
import into this country. It is quite clear we are not growing
up towards the light, and I hold it to be a very miserable symp-
tom of our political growth, that there should exist here this
craving to hang on to our mother's apron string. Under such
circumsf ances, it is our bounden duty to ascertain at the earliest
moment we can what are the views of the people of the United
States on this great question. This is not u question of eti-
quette. We have here, to all intents and purposc^s, the invita-
tion of the President and virtual Premier of the United States
to go and treat with them on fair and equal terms ; and if it were
a question of etiquette, the hon. gentleman is a Shakesperian stu-
dent, and he knows that **nice customs curtsey to mighty
kings. " If two peoples desire to have a great boon like this, they
need not stand on little paltry questions as to which shall make
the first advance. If we fail, it will then be time to consider the
situation anew. But I repeat that our real interests and those
of England and the United States are perfectly identical,
and will be substantially furthered by this proppsition. I
hope that, in th'S discussion, on both sides of the House,
. every man who speaks will remember that he is here as a
Canadian representative, that he is here as a trustee of a cer-
tain section of the Canadian people, that our business here, all
that warrants us in being here, is for the purpose of discussing
the welfare of Canada, and I hope that we will be spared cer-
tain stale and tawdry hypocrisies of which we have heard too
Sir Richard CartvyrighVs Speech. 51
much. I have the greatest possible respect for genuine loyalty
and for genuine loyalists wherever I have met them. Even if
they ai'e sometimes a little wooden-headed 'and perverse, the
thing is so good in itself that T can excuse a good deal ; but there
is a certain -lass of loyalty, and there is a certain class of
loyalists to whom I cannot extend any consideration at all. I
must say that 1 have not much respect for 35 per cent, tarifl'
protection loyalty or for 35 per cent, tariff protection loyalists ;
and I think, if the right hon. gentleman will permit me to say
so, that the First Minister showed that he ajipreciuted correctly
that class of loyalty and of loyalists in the famous parable he
delivered a few years ago, wherein he compared himself — it is
his comparison, not mine — to a monkey who had stolen into a
farmer's orchard and was shaking down the apples for the
benefit of the herd of swine that were grunting and rooting
below. England can take care of herself, as England has shown
many a time and oft. If the English Cabinet, wlien this
matter is fully represented to them, as it ought to be, see fit to
object, it will be time enough to take up that part of the question.
In discussing it, I admit that all men who think that this will
hurt Canada either morally o' materially — because 1 do not
desire to keep the question down to the mere ground of
material interest — have good and fair grounds for expressing
their views, but I say that none else should be heard on any
pretext in this House, and I say that the worst foe of British
connection is the man who would attempt to stifle discussion
on that ground. More than that, I say what every one who
has thought on the subject must know and feel to be true,
that, in many important respects, our position is anomalous
and transitional. No one supposed, when we came together in
this Confederation, stretching over half a continent, that we
were to remain serai-dependent forever. We are growing in
stature, not as fast as hon. gentlemen say, but still we are
growing, and we are entitled to a larger measure of responsi-
bilities and to a larger measure of rights. One thing is clear,
that everyone, as I have said, who thinks twice on the subject
knows and feels, that matters are not satisfactory for us in many
ways. Why, even the Imperial Federation ists know this.
They do not know exactly what they want, I grant ; they know
still less how they are to get it, I grant ; but they know that
there is a want and a lack in our present relations, and they
62 Handbook of Commercial Union.
desire to fill it. I have looked at that question long and often,
and, as far as Canada is concerned, I see no way out for them.
I see no way of our becoming a valuable member of a British
federation save only on one consideration, and that is that you
broaden your bases and take care that you unite yourselves
with the United States in the bonds of a firm and friendly
alliance whioh is not likely to be broken, and there is no way
in which that is more likely to be done than by greatly
increasing and promoting the trade between the two countries.
In mutual advantage and benefit the surest bond of union will
be found to exist, and I believe that Mr. Goldwin Smith was
eminently right in saying that it was an idle and silly de-
lusion to say that either P]ngland or the United States pro-
fited by the great struggle of the last century, that it was a
thousand pities that the violent collision took place, and I
know tjiat not only Goldwin Smith expressed those views,
but that they were held by the greatest and best of the
Americans of that day, by men like George Washington
himself, by men like Alexander Hamilton, by men even like
the Adamses, though they had strong republican leanings ; that
they were held by all the best thinkers of the last century ;
and that these are the views which are held by the best and
wisest Americans of the present time, and those were sub-
stantially the views, as their correspondence in certain re-
cords exists to prove, which were held by our own United
Empire forefathers, who did not desire to see Great Britain tax
the colonies for her own benefit, but did desire to testify to
the great and grand idea of a united British Empire and a
united British people all over North America. It is idle for
any human being to rise up and tell this House that, when we
have lost a number equal to half the whole population that
now remains, things are satisfactory with us. There is not
another country, except perhaps Ireland, that has sustained so
heavy a bleeding as we have done during the last few years. (^I
say the time lias come when Canada may justly claim the right
to make her own commercial treaties. I say it is for the inter-
est of the Empire that she should have that right. j These
things at any rate are perfectly clear. It is quite clear to any
one who will carefully study those trade returns and will study
the figures which I submitted before recess, that the United
States market, if it were qnly made free, is "worth more thau
Sir Richard Cartumghfs Speech. 53
twice over to Canada than all the rest of the world put together.
It is perfectly clear that it is the only market open to us for a
greataraount of our own productions. It is perfectly clear to me —
it may not be to hon. leentlemen opposite — that our position
relatively to the United States may become intolerable, and
that there is need of present action in this regard. If we do
nothing, and the United States act wisely, we may prepare —
farmers and manufacturers alike — for a very severe competi-
tion, for a great and increasing exodus, and for very great and
increasing dissatisfaction among our various Provinces. I
must not be misunderstood. I do not say that there are no
other expedients possible for us, but what I do say is that the
expedient 1 now propose for the consideration of the House is
the surest, the simplest, and the easiest expedient open to us ;
that it commends itself in a very high degree to the instincts
of our people, as it has been unmistakably shown ; that it is
in itself a fair, just and reasonable proposition ; that it is best
for us, best for the whole Empire, best for our kinsmen and
neighbors on the other side of the line ; and, believing that
that is so, I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given
notice.
• /
A FAllMEirS VIEW OF COMMERCIAL UiNION.
RY THOMAS SH \W,
Secretary of the Permanent Central Farmers' Institute^ Hamilton.
This is without doubt the raost momentous question that
agitates the public mind to-day in the Dominion of Canada.
It relates to the welfare of no less than five millions of the peo
pie on this side of the United States* northern boundary line,
and of fifty-five millions on the other side of it. Its adoption
or rejection will undoubtedly have an important bearing on the
progress of every one of the individual Provinces that go to
make up this great Confederation, larger in extent than the en-
tire domain of the United States. The question is so many-
sided that it will aflfect all the leading industries of the country,
agricultural or otherwise, in their entirety and in their sub-
divisions, and also the material well-being of the humblest citi-
zen engaged in the prosecution of these, so that no one who
has the welfare of his country at heart can look upon the sub-
ject with cold indiflference.
WHAT IS IMPLIED IN COMMERCIAL UNION?
Commercial union between Canada and the United States
implies a free interchange of all the products of both countries
of whatsoever nature, whether of the waters, the soil, the sea
and the mine. It would involve (1) an assimilation of tariff
rates against all other countriee ; (2) of internal revenue taxes ;
and (3) very probably an arrangement for pooling receipts and
customs, and distributing the same. It would be followed by
the discontinuance of the services of a strong force of custom-
house officials on both sides of the boundary line of nearly
4,000 miles between the two countries, which is maintained at
a cost to Canada of at least half a million of dollars annually.
A Farmers View of Commercial Union. 55
T^ ' V ''' ": PHYSICAL CONDITIONS CALL FOK IT. "'f^ ' ■•, <T
Take a map of the North American continent, examine it
carefully, note well the physical conditions of the two coun-
tries, and you cannot but be convinced of the short-sightedness
of the men who are trying to keep Canada and the U nited
States apart for purposes of trade. The dividing line is not
formed by impassible mountain barriers, and during the entire
land line of nearly three thousand miles, it could not be known
but for the iron pillars which mark its course. Even the sys-
tem of lakes which separate certain provinces bring them into
closer proximity by the facilities which they afford for transit.
Certain large and populous States are located to the westward
of this chain of water communication, which would afford to
them a natural outlet to the sea. On the ?«rest, British Colum-
bia has ready means of water communication with all the great
American cities on the Pacific seaboard, but is separated by
lofty mountain ranges from the North- West Territories and by
thousands of miles of land transit from the great commercial
centres of the provinces of the Confederation. The immense
plains of the North -West that are being opened up for settle-
ment are within a short run by rail of the great cities of the
North-western States, such as St. Paul and Minneapolis, while
thje most easterly city of Manitoba, Winnipeg, is 1,423 miles
from Montreal ; Calgary, at the base of the Rocky Mountains,
2,262 miles, and Victoria, in British Columbia, 2,990 miles.
Ontario is surrounded by flourishing cities on her very border,
such as Buffalo and Detroit, and the great manufacturing centres
of New England are not nearly so far distant from either
Ont£;rio or the Maritime Provinces as these are from each other.
The Maritime Provinces are separated from Montreal by more
than a thousand miles of rugged territory, where the railway
communication is limited in winter by blockade after blockade
of snow, but are at the same time within easy and cheap com-
munication of the American seaboard. Qt is plain, therefore,
that nature intended that the British Columbians should trade
with Californians and the people of Oregon, that those of Mani-
toba should have access to the markets of the flourishing cities of
Minnesota, yet destined to become superlatively great ; that the
people of Ontario should have access to all the markets along
her border, that she should have trade communicatioii with
Handbook of Commercial Union.
., ' ■ " ' ' ■ • ,' '' ' ■ ' ^f '' "' '
New York rather than w^ith Quebec, and that the people of the
Maritime Provinces should trade to their heart's content with
the people of New England^} And so in every instance named,
the trade should be reciprocal The British Columbian with
his coal and fish would get manufactured goods and provisions
from a warmer clime ; the Manitobans, in exchange for the
products of the soil, would get goods and manufactured articles ;
the people of Ontario would send their live-stock and the pro-
ducts thereof to the markets across the border, and in return
get such manufactures and productions as her climate does not
yield, and also the coal of Pennsylvania ; and those of the
Maritime Provinces would send their fish, their potatoes, their
live-stock and their coal and iron to the New England States,
in return for everything they might want. Any arrangement
other than this is nothing short of a crime against nature and
against man, and yet it is a crime that has been perpetrated.
British Columbia paid on June 30th, $2.60 per cwt for the tran-
sit of sugar from Montreal, and $3 per cwt for nails, a price in
excess of the first cost of nails at Montreal ; and at the same date
the quotation for the carriage of wool was $4.80 per cwt. loose,
and $2.50 in car lots compressed, from the Pacific to Montreal
via the C.P.R. Freight on flour from Chatham, Ont, to Hali-
fax on the first of July was 65 cents per barrel, with a rebate
of 16 cents for large lots, while transit was so low from Boston
to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that it was being shipped
there in the face of a duty of 50 cents per barrel.
The physical argument, then, is unanswerably in favour of
commercial union with the United States. It not only affords
the nearest market, which in the end must be the cheapest, but
it gives us access to a country which could supply us with
nearly everything we want.
Before Confederation the Hon. Geo. Brown claimed that
New England furnished Nova Scotia with breadstufi's to the
amount of $4,400,000 annually. He thought that by the
construction of the Intercolonial Railway this trade would fall
to Ontario and Quebec. Well, it is a costly way of securing it
by paying half a million annually by way of subsidy. Nor
have the people down by the sea ever taken kindly to the
scheme, and who would blame them, since a long line of rail-
way through a desolate country can never compete with a short
water route over an open sea. The Hon. J. W. Longley, the
A Farmers View of Commercial Union. hi
Attorney-General of Nova Scotia, reminds us that the difference
in passenger fare from Montreal or Boston was as 1 to 3 in
favour of the latter. And so of traffic, for it is as much to the
advantage of the Maritime Provinces to buy flour from the
United States, as for Olntario to get its coal from Pennsylvania.
They are now in a manner forced to buy flour from Ontario
and to pay cash for it, whereas if it were possible to buy in
eastern markets, the buyer would become a seller. If duty was
off" coal, the Nova Scotian miner would sell ten tons of coal in
New England w^ere he now sells one in Quebec. It must be
patent to anyone who has given the subject study, that there
can be but little natural trade between the Maritime Provinces
and Ontario and Quebec, between the latter and Manitoba and
the North-West, and between these and British Columbia.
As to Quebec Province, it does not matter very much what
the physical conditions of trade are to her. So long as she
retains her present attitude of isolation, the greater the barriers
to trade, physical and otherwise, the better will she be pleased.
If isolation in commerce will make a people great, then the
destiny of Quebec in her present frame of mind is one of
superlative greatness.
This argument from geographical contiguity is severe on the
advocates of an Imperial Zollverin between Britain and her
colonies. Separation makes this impracticable. With com-
mercial union between Canada and the United States, anything
that the latter could furnish would be more cheaply done by
the United States than by countries far away, unless what
might be in the line of British manufacturers, to which free
access would be worse for our industries by far than to go into
commercial union with the United States. We are separated
from Britain by 3,000 miles of sea, from New Zealand by many
thousands more, and as many thousands intervene before we
reach Australia and India.
IT WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY AGAINST GRKAT BRITAIN.
It is argued that commercial union between Canada and the
United States, with a common protective tariff" against all out-
side countries, will be an instance of unfair discrimination
against England.
58 Handbook of Commercial Union.
We answer that if Britain has a claim on us for preferential
discrimination in the arrangement of our tariffs, she has not
got it under our present tariff arrangements, and for this the
commercial union agitation is not responsible. If it is the
right thing to extend to Britain, then our legislators have not
done that right thing. If the relations o\ Great Britain to Can-
ada give her no claim for preferential discrimination in her
favour over other countries, then it follows that even though she
were discriminated against in common with other countries she
would have no just ground of complaint. The point here is
certainly clear ; if Great Britain has special claims upon us in
this matter, then those special claims have not been recognized,
and no one in Canada has shouted disloyalty notwithstanding.
Now, if it be the right thing to discriminate against Great
Britain in one degree in matters of trade, it cannot be wrong
to discriminate against her in ano*^her degree.
But let us look into the matter. How far has Britain claims
upon us in this line ? She cannot hold a closer relationship to
us' than that of parent to child. As a parent, what has she
done for us in matters of trade ? Why, just what she has done
for all the world. The villainous Mahdi, the murderer of
Britain's hero, Gordon, is just as free to trade with England as
any citizen of Canada. But it is objected, she has not dis-
criminated' against us. Very true, but if the relationship
should bind us to discriminate in her favour, it should bind her
to do the same. She has it in her power to discriminate in our
favour, but she will not, because it would not be to her interest.
On the same principle then, our interest should govern us in
arranging our fiscal relations, and this is just the line of argu-
ment used by Sir John Macdonald, when he said that, " as a
self-governing people, we have a right to consult our own in.
terests first."
We may imagine the case of a parent, whose son has gone' to
a far away clime to do business on his own account. That
parent represents England ; that son, Canada. The boy sets
out with nothing in his hand ; there he has to fight his way,
and ultimately he becomes fairly prosperous. Intercourse be-
tween the sou and the parent continues, and it is found mutu-
ally advantageous. But there comes a time when the son sees
his opportunity of making a splendid bargain, but its acceptance
would interfere somewhat with the rich old man's future gains,
A Farmer*s View of Commercial Union. 59
till he had t'me to readjust his plans. "Would it not be cruel
on the part of the old man to say to the son that he must fore-
go the advantage for his (the father's) sake ; or in other words
that the son must sacrifice the most splendid prospects of ma-
terial gain, that the old man might secure a little more gain ?
The relationship between parent and child is very sacred, and
we arc reminded that we should honor gray hairs, but e\en this
has its limits. The duty of the child to the parent till he has
attained his majority, is that of unquestioned obedience, unless
in things commanded that might be contrary to the law of
heaven. After that period the son is at liberty to direct his
own affairs. Now, it would be very pleasant if the counsels of
the father should be continued in such a way that the son
might profit by them, but if the old ma*i gave counsel that
was clearly wrong or even impolitic, the son would be in the
line of duty not to accept, and if the old man persisted in
thrusting it upon him, the son would be justified in resisting
it. If opportunity arose, whereby the sou could greatly better
his condition, and the old man opposed it on the ground of some
slight injury that would result to his business, would not the
son be justified in pointing to his own children, and saying,
father I will do this, for it is my first duty to provide for those
that shall live after me, as it was yours in days gone by 'i Who
will say, who will dare to say, that the son would not be doing
the proper thing ? and if the advantage that was to accrue
came from dealing with an older brother, as is the case with
Canada, the opposition of the old man would be utterly inex-
cusable. Now the relationship of kingdom and colony cannot
be closer than that of father and son, hence in the analogous
parallel Canada should not be blamed for seeking commercial
union with the United States, even though it should discrimi-
nate against England.
IT WILL GREATLY BENEFIT THE FARMERS.
That commercial union with the United States would be an
unquestioned benefit to all the farmers in all the Dominion, few
can be so uncandid as to deny. The farmers of the reciprocity
period look back with lingering regrets at that golden age for
them, when they sent their produce to the United States and
brought back gold, which laid the foundation of their success.
60 ITandhooh of Commprcial Union.
, It is true that the American civil war was raging during a part
of that period, which enhanced agricultural values, but allow-
ing for this, it was a period of agricultural advancement such
as they have not seen since, beyond all comparison..
Commercial Union would benefit the farmer ( 1 ) by cheapening
the cost of living; (2) by delivering him from the power of
monopoly ; (3) by giving him access to the markets of tlie Uni-
, ted States, thus enlarging his present market iwehejold.
When a tariff is levied on imports coming into any country,
the price is enhanced to the consumer. It is argued that the
artizan gets his compensation in surer employment, and it may
be, increased wages, and that the farmer gets his in the build-
ing up of new centres of population, and the enlargement of
old ones, thus creatijjg an increased demand for the products
which he has to sell. How far this is operative in Canada we
have already shown. The Census returns for 1880-1 give the
whole number employed by the industries as 254,935. Now
we must bear in mind that in the terc^ industries is included
all lines of material production other than agriculture. Many
of them apply to the preparation of the necessities of life and
to ordinary trades, as baking and blacksmithing, which are
necessary in a country under any conditions, and are not in the
strict sense of the terra producers. And a large number are
also engaged in handling agricultural products, as factory cheese
and creamery butter-makers, meat-curers and others, to enable
them to do which successfully requires no special tax. These,
then, should not be counted in. Leaving them out, and allow-
ing that many of the workmen have families, the whole number
thus engaged, including employers and their families, cannot
exceed 500,000, for a very large number of those engaged in
manufactories are under 16 years of age, and a still larger
number are unmarried. Take, for instance, the cotton factories.
These together gave employment in 1880-81 to 975 men and
1,445 women — together, 2,420 ; and to 542 boys under 16, and
565 girls — together, 1,107. Now of the first class, a large per-
centage would be single, as this computation takes in all over
sixteen, which makes it clear that our estim ite of 500,000 is a
reasonable one. Now the entire populatio.x of the Dominion
at that date wa3 4^32 4,810. It follows, then, that all except
the 500,000 had the cost of their living increased for the
benefit of the latter. Whether they got any adequate com-
A Farmer* 8 View of Commercial Union. Gl
peiTsation for this has never yet been satisfactorily shown. We
can conceive conditions where they might get this compensa-
tion by a vastly increased population, but this does not hold
true of us. In 1881 the total amount of dutiable goods enter-
ed for consumption was .$91,611,604, and the tariff collected
on the same was $18,500,785. The rural portion of the com-
munity alone largely outnumbers the entire urVmn population.
The proportions are at least as 3 to 2 in favour of the rural popu-
lations, as we will show further on. We leave it for our
readers then to judge what proportion of this increased cost
of living is paid by the farmer.
But it is argued that the manufacturers are rapidly adding
to the wealth of the country' by the increased value they
are giving to raw materials, and to make this the more im-
pressive, they are quoted as having produced goods at that time
to the value of $309,676,068, but the amount in raw materials,
$179,918,593, plus $59,429,002 in wages, must be deducted,
making a grand total of $239,347,593. The difference between
this output and the value of the entire products, $70,328,473,
is an increase in wealth to the countrv so far We must
acknowledge this is a very good showing so far as the manu-
facturers are concerned. But it should not be forgotten that
the farm'»vs were taxed some 20 to 25 per cent, on many articles
of consumption to bring this pbout, which modifies its value to
the country. It is not only an increase of wealth to the coun-
try, but a very substantial increase to the wealth of those en-
gaged in the industries, a return of more than 4^ per cent., less
running expenses, on the money invested. Allowing 6 per cent,
on capital and deducting this amount, $9,918,157, from the
$70,328,473, the gains, with the balance, $60,410,316, those
engaged in the industries made a clear profit of $237 out of
every one of the 254,935 work-hands employed, whether man,
woman or child, and to whom they had paid on an average $233
in wages. The interest allowed on capital will serve as an offset
to the labour performed by those possessing the industries.
When the farmers learn to handle labour so advantageously,
our cities will be so completely drained of their populations
that grass will grow in the streets and unbroken silence brood
over the marketp-laces.
The farmers are in no way envious of the prosperity of the
industries, or if they are, they should not be. But if they pur-
62 Handbook of Commercial Union.
chase this prosperity for the latter at a cost of more than two-
thirds of the sum of ^18,500,785 Customs duties, as we have
shown they do, they have a right to ask the reason why, as
we have made it clear that the only compensation they get
is the purchase of their products by the 500,000 represent-
ing the industrial classes, a large portion of whom would be
engaged in these occupations without a protective tariff. If
the farmer must toil laboriously with a rtturn sometimes not
over 1 per cent, on the money invested, and must be taxed to
afford the manufacturer a return of 4^ per cent, he is surely
justified in asking the reason why. He has this reflection, how-
ever, to console him, that he has put himself in this position,
and the further reflection that he will remain in itjuntil he lifts
himself out. This state of affairs is indeed adding to the wealth
of the country, and it is adding to the wealth of the manufac-
turer, although it is only fair to add that it is highly probable
that the proportionate gains of manufacturers are less now than
at the period to which we refer. We feel that our illustrations
of fact here will be deemed extravagant. If so, we refer any
who may conclude thus, to the Census returns of Canada for
1881-82, vol. iii, page 505, and ask them to make the calcula-
tion tor themselves. Commercial Union would not remove this
entire tax, for there would still be a protective tariff against
other countries, but it would greatly lessen it, and if an ad-
ditional tax were wanted for managing the government of the
country, it would be distributed on the shoulders of all who
should bear it. We may conclude, then, that it would cheapen
the cost of living for the farmer, by giving him opportunity to
buy througli his merchant in the cheapest markets of the con-
tinent, and at a lower price because of removed tariffs.
It would deliver him from the power of monopoly. Monopoly
is one of the greatest curses that can come upon any countryi'^
and its evils are in proportion to its extent. It finds no
countenance in any system of ethics as yet given to the world,
and could not exist in any country where the sanctions of the
golden rule, that most perfect regulator of all trade, holds uni-
versal sway. Yet even as regards monopoly, wp must be care-
ful to dijicriminate. It is often charged upon undertakings
where enterprise is the more suitable qualifying word. The
term will not fully apply to any business, however gigantic,
that does not so control prices as to make them unfairly dear.
A Fam^er^s View of Commercial Union, 63
It does exist in- Canada and in grievous forms. Almost the
only classes in the community not chargeable with this crime,
for we regard it as such, are the rural i)ortion of the community.
"We are not saying that this is the result of any clearer views
of the obligations of human brotherhood that they possess, so
much as the result oi disabilities of opportunity. Owing to
their isolation and numbers it is difficult for them to combine,
while for opposite reasonn,, owing to their contiguity and re-
stricted numbers, it is easy for those engaged in the various in-
dustries to combine. It is not wrong for any class to combine
for the furtherance of common interests, providing this does
not relate to a fixity of price. This should in every case be
regulated by the natural law of supply and demand. The
moment the demand will rot justify continuance in a business
on the basis of natural values, it is time to get out of it.
Monopoly is one of the most gigantic cancers of the nineteenth
century, which is preying upon the life tissues of one class of
the community for the advantage of another class, without any
corresponding weal to the general intere&ts of the country.
We have it in Canada in its worst form, owing to the restricted
nature of our market and the limited number of our producers
in the industrial lines. These monopolies, and those of the rail-
way systems, are the New World Gordian knot that is going
to puzzle the ingenuity of the farmers of this country to cut.
IT WOULD BRING THE FARMER AN ENLARGED' MARKET.
Commercial Union would bring the farmer an enlarged marlcet,
with all the advantage appertaining thereto. It would do this
in almost every line of agriculture, unless in the items of corn
in cereal produce, and pork in the line of animal produce. It
is estimated that the United States export agricultural produce
annually to the extent of ^500,000,000, and it is concluded,
therefore, that in the event oi commercial union not only would
the Americans not buy from us, but their goods would come
down upon us in a deluge, 'ind the competition would be more
than our farmers could stand. But that this argument is easily
refutable is clear from the fact that, notwithstanding the height
of the existing tariff wall, the Americans climb over it and do
buy from us in enormous quantities. In 1886 they bought from
us to the extent of $15,495,935, and in 1885 a still larger
64 ^ Handbook of Comviercial Union.
- ■ t
araount. The explanation is to be found mainly ir. the excel-
lence of our aj^ricultural products, and their contiguity to the
American markets where they are consumed. Now the fence
is as high on their side as on ours, and if under a tariff that
gives us no advantage on the whole, we can hold our own, why
should we fear competition when these tariffs are removed ?
The most substantial benefits would flow to us. In 1885 and
'86 Ontario alone exported to the United States 27,794 head of
horses, valued at $3,628,378 ; 93,096 head of horned cattle,
valued at $2,044,736 ; of swine, 4,004 head, valued at $11,-
720; 588,163 head of sheep, valued at $1,603,375, and of poul-
try and other animals to the value of $291,516 ; in the aggre-
gate summing up $7,579,725. The duty oi 20 per cent, col-
lected on this amounts to, in the case of the horses, $725,665 ;
■ cattle, $408,947 ; swine, $2,344 ; sheep. $320,675, and other
animals, $58,934 ; summing up $1,515,934 in the two years.
Add to this the duty of 10 cents per bushel collected on the 20,
178,877 bushels of barley for the same two years, sent from
Ontario to the United States. This was valued at $13,696,224,
and gave a duty of $2,017,887. We have, therefore, a total
paid in duty on live stock and barley sent from Ontario of $3,-
533,821 in the years 1.885 and 1886, or an average of $1,766,-
910 in one year lost to the Ontario farmers in their sale of live
stock and barley — a larger sum than is brought into the whole
Dominion by all the manufacturers through sales to the United
States of their products. But this by no means represents the
total loss to the Province. If the restrictions were removed
the sales would increase, it may be in an untold ratio, and in ad-
dition to the increased sales the price would rise of what was
not sold, owing to the increased demand.
That we are warranted in this statement is apparent from the
stimulus given to the trade in eggs by the removal of the duty,
which was about one cent, on each egg. The trade multiplied
itself in value by '82, by the time that it had reached the tenth
year of its unfettered life, and by 239 by the time that it had
reached the thirteenth year — that is, the year 1883. It is un-
safe to fix a limit which our trade with this people would not
overrun, could we get free access to their markets ? There
might not be another line of the live-stock industry which
would grow in equal proportion, but if many of the lines had
but one-twentieth part of its growth, our exports would be
A Farmers View of Commercial Union 65
enormous. If our trade in horses alone increased but the one
sixteenth part as fast as that in eggs, our export of horcds
would amount in the year 1900, or 13 years hence, to 55,588
head ; valued, according to present prices, at $7,256,756, And
if the export of all our live-stock increased at the same ratio, we
would send to the United States in the year 1900 live-stock to
the value of $15,159,450, to say nothing of live-stock products.
Now, if the 10 per cent, duty on eg^s had been, made but 15
per cent., that magnificent trade, which is as beneficial to the
customers in New York as to the Canadian producers, had
never been. See what an enormous trade we might have in
fowls. In Ontario we have at the present time no less than
6,968,915 animals. What a grand market would the manufac-
turing centres of New England make for these if we had access
to them, but we are virtually shut out ! ' ' «
There are many agricultural products that we have not named
to which Ontario conditions apply, to say nothing of the agri-
cultural productions of the entire Dominion. There is the article
of butter, of which we exported to the United States for the
fiscal year ending June 30th, 1886, only 111,388 lbs., which
were sold for the humiliating price of a little more than fifteen
cents per lb. In 1883, the quantity of creamery butter made
in Ontario was 823,853, and the creamery business in Ontario,
as well as in all Canada, is only in its infancy. There is no say-
ing what dimensions it may ultimately assume, for our facilities,
particularly in Ontario and Quebec, for the production of good
butter are simply unrivalled. The conditions essential to the
production of good butter are abundant pastures in summer,
with full supply of clean water and shade, protection in winter,
and a nutritious and varied diet, and skill on the part of the
maker. Viewed in the light of these essentials, Ontario and
Quebec Provinces stand out unrivalled amongst butter produc-
ing districts of North America. We may claim these two pro-
vinces as the dairymen's paradise. In Lower Canada in the
month of June, where green pastures slope upward on the long
swells that never seem to get to the top, the very grasses speak
of milk and butter, and one almost envies the cows the purity
of the waters that the dancing rills furnish them to drink. And
what are these two provinces doing in the line of butter making
for the American market 1 Nothing ! and why 1 Because the
market of the New England cities — the best butter market in
D
66 Handbook of Commercial Union. ' '
the world — in shut out against them. We heard the largest
butter maker in Canada remark not long since, that for every
pound of butter he could make, if we had commercial union
with the Uijited States, he could get 40 cents per pound in the
wholesale market, if made similar in quality to what he makes
at present. Even though we got but 20 cents per pound and
access to the market, what a magnificent trade would at once
spring up in butter ! The United States n.ttrket would always
have this advantage over the English : that it is near, and but-
ter is rather a delicate article to ship long distances ; and so it
is with cheese. So long as we produced cheese as good as that
which has captured and held the English market, we could get
a market in the United States. Give us a chance, and as our
hens have captured a creditable share of the New York trade,
and as our meat has forced itself over the United States tariflf
wall, so would our cows give us a place on the shambles of all
New England cities for our butter.
We liave not said anything as to our wool. The total clip for
the Province in 1886 was 6,238,347 lbs., of which we exported
to the United States but 1,287,984 lbs., valued at $268,362, or
not quite 21 cents per pound. With no duty every pound of
this would have brought 10 cents more, and with the facilities
that we possess for producing wool of a very fine quality, our
market in wool would no doubt assume huge dimensions. •
But some take the singular ground here that the Canadians
do not lose the amount of the duty. The case is as clear as
noonday. A Canadian at Fort Erie has a horse which across
the river would bring $120. A buyer from Buffalo steps over
and offers him SI 00, alleging as the ground of his inability to
give more, that he must pay $20 to get that horse over the river.
If there was no tariff line that horse could be taken over the
river at a cost of the ferry charges, and the Canadian would
have $120 as the price, instead of $100 as now, and the effect
would be on all the horses sold in the country, that the price
would rise, all of which would be to the advantage of the farm-
er. But there might come a time when the advantages would
not be relatively so great. For instance, the United States im-
port at the present time 48,000,000 pounds of wool annually.
Now, until the growers in the United States and Canada to-
gether produced enough annually, the prices would keep up,
the cost of manufacturing and the price of the fabriod remaining
K A Farmer 8 View of CommercM Union. 67
the same. There would come, as in the egg trade, a limit to the
export, but that limit would be so far ahead of what it is now
that every farmer in the country who thinks earnestly about the
matter must long for the consummation of this treaty. But
even in the egg trade, we do not know that it has reached its
outside limit. In 1897 it may be twice as much as it is at pre-
sent.
The relative strength of the farmer numerically, and the ex-
tent of his interest in the country, should entitle his claims
to fair consideration. In 1 885 the farmers of Ontario were the
owners of 21,775,299 acres of land, as returned by the assessors
of that year. The total population of the province was 1,784,-
960, and the urban population 369,152 outside of cities ; the
cities contained 289,254, so that the whole urban population
then numbered 658,406 ; the rural population was 1,126,960,
so that the country contained more than two-thirds of the whole
population of the province. In the same year the investment
of the farmers, consisting of land, buildings, implements and
live-stock, amounted to $958,159,740. We do not know the
amount of capital invested by the manufacturers in Ontario in
1885, but we do knovr that in the whole Dominion in 1880 and
1881, it was but $165,302,633, so that now it cannot be more
in Ontario perhaps, than $100,000,000. We have^ then, a total
farm population of 1.126,960, against a total urban population
of 658,406, and an investment of $958,159,740, against a pro-
bable investment of the manufacturers of $100,000,000, nor
should it be overlooked that of this urban population, not one-
half perhaps are engaged in manufactures. If the Ontario
farmer's claims do not get due consideration, he knows who
only is to blame /ror it, and it is highly probable that the ratio
of population in the entire Dominion is equally favourable tp the
farmer.
But it is objected that the farmers who have such large in-
vestments are doing " well enough," and therefore should be
content. The time was when they did well enough ; the time
of the Reciprocity Treaty was one of those periods, and prior to
that when the potash of consumed forests were feeding theii*
lands, but these days are gone, and what with restricted markets
and impoverished soils, taxes to make other people rich, and
combinations taking advantage of them, with the depressed
market prices, they are not doing well enough. The^ are DOt
68 Handbook of Commercial Union.
k
doing more than holding their own, unless it be in the improve-
ments put upon their lands. If they were not hard-working
and frugal and economical in every way, along with their
canoe, the farm, they would go down the stream. The repre-
sentation of the farmer in the cartoon of the humorous Toronto
weekly was the grim irony of reality. The old man stood in
his hay- field garments, with a manufacturer on his head, a
merchant on one shoulder and a middleman on the other, and
a lawyer crawling out of his pocket. We say it was the cruel
irony of what is too real ; but so long as he remains in this
position, he has himself to blame. He has past the stage of
childhood and is not in his dotage, and if his manhood allows
him to rest under disabilities, the more shame for his manhood.
In 1882, the farmers of Ontario were worth $882,624,610, in
1886 they were worth $989,497,911. The advance in these
four years has been $106,873,301, or an advance on the aver-
age capital invested for the four years, $948,302,805, or .028
per cent., while the manufacturers of the Dominion made an
advance of 42 per cent., less running expenses exclusive of
wages, in the years 1880 and 1881 ; and yet they tell the
farmer that he is doing well enough. Now anyone who knows
anything about farming and the ways of farmers, must know
that by the improvement of his lands, he makes the most of this
advance. And it is idle to say that he has large sums of in-
vested cash capital, for the farmer, above all other men, is prone
to invest his money in real estate. The conclusion is irresisti-
ble, that commercial union with the United States will greatly
help the farmer, by giving him a larger market.
ITS EFFECTS UPON THE INDUSTRIES NOT PREJUDICIAL.
Some persons argue that the adoption of commercial union
with the United States will affect our industries adversely.
Others maintain just as stoutly that it will be beneficial to
them ; that on account of the development of resources that
will follow the opening up of a large market, such a stimulus
would be given to them as had never been known before.
Very probably both are right in a sense. There is but little
doubt that there would be some derangement of our industries
as they exist at present, or those who represent them, more
f3spc<'ially those who represent the manufacturing portion of
A Farmer's View of Commercial Union. 69
thorn would not be so strongly in oppc jition. Many of them
have grown up under the shadow of a protective system, and
like a son setting out in life who has learned to rely upon the
successive instalments that come from home rather than upon
his own efforts, they naturally dread the withdrawal of this
fostering or pampering hand, ve scarcely know which, and
therefore array themselves in cpposition. But it is not so
with all of them. There is a strong and influential minority
(we can give the names), embracing in their number some of
the foremost, and we need scarcely add the most self-reliant, of
our manufacturers. This is an argument that has not as yet
entered very largely into the discussion, although it is one of
much significance. If a strong contingent of the manufacturers
would rather have commercial union for the sake of the larger
market, then one of the strongest arguments of those who
oppose the movement is removed. The secretary of the Man-
ufacturers' Association of Ontario gathered statistics in refer-
ence to this feature. Why has he not published these 1 Are
we not justified in inferring that so many of the answers were
unfavourable that he concluded it would be impolitic to take
this step 1
Why talk about "sacrificing" our industries by the adop-
tion of commercial union ? Is not the sacrifice nearly all the
other way ? The exports of Ontario in 1886 to the United
States, are as below :
Products of the Mine $3,115,696
" <* Sea. 2,587,548
" « Forest 8,545,406
Animals and their food 6,742,789
Agricultural products 8,753,146
Manufactures 1,758,707
$31,503,292
Here, then, we have those who export to the extent of $29,-
744,585 taxed to uphold those who export to the extent of
$1,758,707. It may be urged that the manufacturers produce
very much more largely than they export to the United States,
for home consumption. So do the other classes, notably the
farmers, who at the same time have to pay the manufacturers
more for their goods than if there was no Southern customs
7!0 Handbook of Commercial Union. '■'■
line at all, for in such an event they would have things less
t^ir own way.
rWe want the industries. We want them two-fold more
than we have them ; yes, three-fold. No country can thrive
so well without them. We want them protected where it is
necessary, as against cheap European labour, but do not want
them at the expense of the sacrifice of the inteiests of another
class which far outnumbers them, and which have at least an
equal right to a fair sharv? in the prosperity of the common-
wealth. J If the farmers of Ontario are not afraid of the com-
petition of the farmers of the United States, why should manu-
facturers be more faint-hearted than the farmers?
The total value of tli« live-stock of the United States on
January 1st, 1887, was $2,400,586,938. That of the live-stock
of the Province of Ontario at the same date, was $107,208,935 ;
and yet not a man amongst the farmers is dismayed at the
prospect of competition with the United States in live-stock,
although the interest of the former is more than twenty-two
times that of the latter.
Again, the United States had, on the 1st day of January,
1887, cattle to the value of $29,216,900, and to the number of
48,033,833 head. Ontario farmers do not for a moment fear
this competition, although their bovines all told numbered only
2,018,173 head at that date. Notwithstanding, in the two
previous years, the farmers of the Province sent over to the
United States no less than 93,096 head, valued at $2,044,736,
in the face of a taritf of 20 per cent., and they are quite confi-
dent that if they can do this in the face of a tariff", they can do
a good deal better in its absence. Are the manufacturers of
Ontario, who breathe the same air as the farmers, feed upon
the same products, are nourished by the same institutions, are
protected by the same civil privileges, and have comparative
advantages in every way equal to those of the farmers, going to
acknowledge that the courage of the sturdy farmer is to be
allowed to put them to shame ? All honour to our sturdy Cana-
dian yeomanry, that they have demonstrated to the world,
that under all the disadvantages that press upon them, they
are able to hold their own. How much better would they not
do if they had equal chances 1 While the minority have their
rights, they should never overshadow those of the majority. If
commercial union should injure the interests of some of the
A Farmer 8 View of Commercial Union. 71
manufacturers, we should be sorry indeed ; but if by not
getting it, we shall injure the interests of a far larger number
of the farmers, then the way of duty is clear. If there is no
other way to arrange matters, it would be better by far to give
1,000 of those controlling certain industries a liberal pension,
than to tax all the consumers in the state to sustain them at
the expense of barring the way to freedom of trade with no
less than sixty millions of people.
■ 1,
' THE fruit-growers' OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
(1) Some of the fruit-growers of the Niagara Peninsula, and
it may be elsewhere, oppose commercial union on the ground
that it will affect their business adversely. They argue that
American fruits ripen earlier to the southward ; that those fruits
would in such an event be rushed into our Canadian cities, in
which case the cream in prices would be skimmed before our
fruits would reach the market. If there is any force in this
argument it would equally apply to the present condition of
New York State. The fruit-growers of this State have to
•compete with those of Pennsylvania and New Jersey and other
States to the south of them. These Southern regions are a long
way ahead of New York State in the maturing of their fruits,
notwithstanding which, this State is pre-eminent for its fruit
: production. Its people not only hold their own against the
States south of thf-m, but the fruit industry is in a flourishing
condition. Were it otherwise, our fruit-growers would have
nothing to fear, as we shall see.
The climate of the Niagara Peninsula is much the same as
that of New York State, and the ripening period is not very
. diflferent If, therefore, the people of that State hold their own
and flourish in the face of Southern competition, why may not
the fruit-growers of the Niagara Peninsula in the face of New
York competition 1 It should not be forgotten *hat there may
be a later as well as an earlier market. We know of a Quebec
grower of strawberries who makes well out of the production
of these late in the season. Why may not the same be achieved
with other fruits 1 Why should our fruit-growers seek special
protection 1 If the advantages of location are worth anything,
these people have them in a marked degree. Buff'alo with its
250,000 citizfens, twice as large as Toronto, is nearer the
72 Handbook of Commercial Union.
County of Lincoln than Toronto, and as near as Hamilton with
but 40,000 inhabitants, and Rochester is not much further by
rail than t|ie Ontario metropolis. In early fruits, contiguity to
a market is of great value, they are so perishable in their
nature. Hence, in the event of commercial union, our great
centres would be as now far away from the base of American
supplies, and our Canadian producers, in the very middle of
consuming centres and those near at hand, so that if our
Canadian fruit-growers in the Niagara Peninsula could not hold
their own in the race, at least as well as the people of New
York State, it would not be for lack of equal opportunities.
But there is another side to this question. The consumer
has his rights as well as the producer. The consumers of fruit
in Canada number about 5,000,000 of people, while the pro-
ducers are but a fragmentary portion of the population. We
cannot give the numbers, but they are relatively small, as
the entire population of Lincoln, the greatest fruit producing
county in Ontario, is only 20,025, of which it is probable
that not more than one in ten is a fruit-grower. The major
portion of the Dominion will not grow the more delicate kinds
of fruit to advantage, yet the populations of these will be con-
sumers if they can get them. The people of the Dominion
imported during the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1886, from
the United States, in the item of green fruits alone, to the value
of $501,669, and paid in duty for the privilege, $101,44L
In the item of green apples alone, the staple fruit of the
Dominion, our people bought from the United States to the
value of $63,366, paying 40 cents duty on every one of the
31,278 barrels imported. It is not more fair that the con-
sumers of fruit should pay this sum, for the special advantage
of the fruit-growers, than that the farmers should pay a heavy
annual tax for the special advantage of those engaged in man-
ufacturing, nor have the fruit growers of Canada any more right
to tax the manufacturers a higher price for their products, than
the latter have to tax the former a higher price for theirs. This
brings us back to a fundamental principle of all true legislation,
which never seeks the welfare of the few to the disadvantage
of the manv. We are aware that certain fruits are admitted
free into the United States, and this fact proves amongst other
things that if fruit-growing here gives the Americans no con-
cern as to fencing it out of their country, it will not pay us to
fence it into ours with a tariff wall.
COMMERCIAL UNION AND THE MINING
INTERESTS OF CANADA.
BY T. D. LED YARD.
In considering the mining interests of a country, and the
wealth which profitably worked mines bring to it, coal and iron
are by far the most important factors. These minerals are the
source of much of England's greatness, and nature favours any
country in which they are found in abundanca They do not
enrich any individual or any class of men so much as they
benefit the whole community. Coal, certainly, except in the
case of coke, undergoes no change until it passes into consump-
tion, requiring only mining and transporting before it reaches
the consumer ; but iron requires the labour of many hands at
every stage, and its value is multiplied many fold before it
reaches the consumer. Take steel rails, for instance, which is
only one case out of many ; one and a-half tons of high grade
iron ore are required to make a ton of steel rails. This ore
costs, say $3 to mine, but the ton of steel rails is worth at least
$30. That is, the value of the steel rails is ten times the value
of the ore which made them, showing that nine-tenths of their
cost is distributed in the labour of smelting the ore, the cost of
fuel and of transportation, and in the different processes they
undergo until the perfect steel rails are produced. By far the
greater proportion of this is expended in labour, and therefore
it is that iron and steel manufacture benefits a country more
than any other. For this reason the state of the iron trade
is the financial barometer of a country's prosperity ; if the
iron trade is prosperous wages are good and freely distributed,
and other lines of business take their cue from i,t. My remarks
on the subject will be chiefty confined to our iron interests.
THE SPANISH MINES NEARLY EXHAUSTED.
Here is one very important point in considering the Cana-
dian ore question. While our grain markets are being cut off
by Indian and Russian wheat, our ores are likely to be re-
74 Handbook of Commercial Union.
required at an early date. England derives most of her Besse-
mer or^ from Spain, whence aUo the United States get the
greater part of their imported ores. For some time past re-
ports have appeared showing that the Spanish ore deposits
cannot last much longer. Recently a statement has been pub-
lished that the Campanil district, one of the most important,
has very much reduced its production, and that before long it
will cease altogether. The exhaustion of Spanish ores will
produce far-reaching consequences ; if England were deprived
of these ores she could no longer produce the cheap steel she
now manufactures, and a great and radical change must take
place. When the Spanish ores are exhausted (and a very few
years must see the end of them) no part of the world will offer
greater inducements for the manufacture of steel than our own
Canada, and if a sufficient market is opened to her, there is no
reason why this country should not become a large producer
of iron and steel, and obtain a share of that prosperity which
naturally follows. In that case it would not be at all surpris-
ing to see some of the large English iron manufacturers trans-
planting their works to Canada, We should then have an op-
portunity of seeing how far their loyalty goes ; the boot would
then be on the other leg. I am very much mistaken if these
same English manufacturers, having transplanted their busi-
ness to Canada, would not be the most enthusiastic Commer-
cial Unionists of us all. This is no visionary dream, for al-
ready English manufacturers are looking towards Canada ;
within the last few months I have had several inquiries from
England regarding our ores and iron mines.
EFFECTS OP THE UNITED STATES DUTY.
There is at present a duty of 75c. per ton on all iron ore enter-
ing the United States ; this, of itself, is a handsome profit on
mining iron ore, and even 50c per ton is a good profit on the
whole output of a large iron mine. The duty of 75c. per ton
then prevents many iron deposits from being worked. There
are some large beds of very pure ore so favourably situated that
they will pay in spite of the duty, but these are comparatively
few. The opponents of Commercial Union tell us that we have
the Canadian market ; this is true, but the Canadian market
does not amount to much ; 300,000 tons of pig-iron is about
The Mining Interests of Canada. 75
the annual consumption of Canada, requiriiig about 500,000
tons of ore ; half-a dozen good mines would produce this ; in
fact two of the leading mines in Michigan would easily do
it. The Chapin mine on the Menominee Range last year pro-
duced over 330,000 tons, and the Cornwall mines in Lebanon
County, Penn., put out in 1887 the enormous quantity of 700,-
000 tons, or over 2,000 tons a day for every working day
throughout the year. One single furnace company in the
States, The North Chicago Rolling Mills Co,, uses 1,700 tons
of ore a day, as much as would supply the whole of Canada.
A LIMITED HOME MARKET.
Our market, besides being so small, is very much scattered,
and distance tells heavily in the transportation of iron. In
Nova Scotia iron and coal occur in close proximity and there
is every facility for cheap iron manufacture, but where is the
market 1 The freight to Montreal is high, still higher to To-
ronto^ and prohibitory to Winnipeg. The natural market for
Nova Scotia coal and iron is, of course, in the Eastern States,
and the market for British Columbia coal and iron is in the
Pacific States ; and did not the tariff prevent it a great trade
would be done to the mutual benefit of both countries.
RICHNESS OF CANADIAN IRON ORE.
During the year 1887 the United States used 13,250,000
tons of iron ore, of which 12,000,000 was produced from their
own mines, and one million and a quarter imported, mostly
from Spain, but very little from Canada. The ores imported
from Spain are of Bessemer quality, and very free from im-
purities, but are not so rich in iron as some of our Canadian
ores, the average Spanish ore not yielding more than 50 to 55
per cent, of iron, while some of our ores run as high as 62 to
67 per cent, of metallic iron. Under reciprocity with the
States a great part of these Spanish ores would be replaced by
Canadian, to the great advantage both of our neighbours and
ourselves. The advantage to the United States blast furnaces
importing Spanish aud other Bessemer ores from Europe is
that, at certain points on the Atlantic coast, or contiguous to
Atlantic ports, these ores can be laid down cheaper than Lake
Superior Bessemer ores. The advantage is simply in the cheap-
76 Handbook of Commercial Union,
ness of these foreign ores ; they give employment to no one in
the United States, either in mining or transportation to the
Atlantic ports, as they are generally brought over as ballast in
foreign vessels. Whereas, if the duty were removed from
Canadian ores, these could be delivered from the Ontario iron
districts to good distributing points on the lakes, such as Char-
lotte, Fairhaven, Buffalo, Cleveland, Fairport or Ashtabula,
cheaper than Spanish ores can be imported, and American cars
and railways would have the carrying of them. Other things
being equal, American furnaces would, no doubt, for several
reasons prefer Canadian ores to those imported from Spain
of equal quality and at the same price ; but if it can be shown,
as it certainly can, that without the duty, richer Canadian
ores can be delivered to many American furnaces at far lower
Trices, a great benefit would be conferred on tne iron industry
of the United States. And this could be done without inter-
fering with domestic ores, for it would be some time before
Canadian ore would more than replace that imported from
Europe, and then the increasing consumption would absorb all
that we could send them without diminishing the consumption
of their own ores.
CONVENIENT LOCATION OF ONTARIO'S MINES.
Ontario has large deposits of excellent Bessemer ore so situa-
ted that it can be delivered at Buffalo very cheaply. Go down
to the Esplanade and walk from the Don to the western boun-
dary of Toronto along the railway tracks, and any day you will
see hundreds of coal cars which come here from the coal regions
of the United States, laden with coal, some of which go east
to Belleville, perhaps further, and some north-east to Lindsay,
but after unloading their coal they mostly go back empty.
Now, when these cars are at Belleville or Lindsay they are not
far from our Bessemer iron ores, which they could take back as
a return freight, and deliver at furnaces in Pennsylvania, close
to their destination. A large trade would be done in this way
if there was no duty ; our iron mines that are now lying idle
would be developed, benefiting our back country more than
anything else, giving employment to numbers of miners, a good
market to the farmers in the neighbourhood, as well as business
to the storekeepers.
The Mining Interests of Canada. 77
COMMEKCIAL UNION DIS(;USiiEl).
This trade would also benefit the United States, for in the
consideration of the great question of Oominercial Union we
should not look at it only from our own standpoint, but should
see how it will affect our neighbours. Buft'alo is now becoming
an important dictributing point for iron ores, and will be still
more so in the future ; ores are delivered there by vessels from
Lake Superior and distributed by rail to furnaces in Pennsylva-
nia. Lake Superior ores are taken from the mines to Mar-
quette, Ashland, or Two Harbours on Lake Superior, or to
Escanaba on Lake Michigan, and then shipped by boat a dis-
tance probably of o\^c 1,000 miles to Buffalo, whence they are
again transhipped to railways which carry them to the furnaces,
thus necessitating three different handlings, and this route is
open only during the season of navigation. But our ore dis-
tricts in Central and North-East Ontario are within 250 miles
of Buffalo, from whence our ores can be delivered by rail all
the year round in returning coal cars, which can be run direct
to the mines without going much out of their way, and from
thence run through to the furnaces without transhipment and
with only one handling. The return freight of ore is so much
additional business to the American cars and railway compa-
nies, as well as to our own railways, and the furnaces can get
cheaper Bessemer ore much closer to them than Lake Superior.
THE DUTY THE CHIEF DIFFICULTY.
I have been endeavoring for some time to find markets for
our ore in the United States, but it has been up-hill work, the
duty being the chief difficulty. There has also been in the past
considerable prejudice against Canadian ore ; for this, I will
freely admit there has been some ground. While we have ex-
cellent ores, we have alao some poor ones containing objection-
able matter. Through ignorance partly, and perhaps some-
times through dishonesty, these bad ores have been sent to the
other side ; there are places through some parts of our mineral
districts where the ore contains titaniuiki, the worst enemy to
iron ore. These ores should never have been touched, but in
some instances they have been sent to American furnaces for
trial, only resulting in their condemnation and in giving the
furnace men the impression that our ores are titaniferous.
7S Handbook of Commercial Union.
UNFAIR STATKMKNTS ABOUT OUR MINKS.
Sulphur is alRo an objectionable element, and some of our
mines, as in nearly all iron districts, contain too much sulphur.
Injury has been done to our interests by ores too high in sul-
phur having been shipped. Some of the United States mine
owners have not been slow to circulate the statement that all
Canadian ores contain titanium and sulphur, but nothing is
more unfair than to condemn a whole country, and especially
such a mineral country as Canada, where the ore districts ex-
tend for hundreds of miles, because objectionable ore is fcmd
in some parts. There is bad ore in almost every iron district.
Titaniferous ore is found in Minnesota, on the north shore of
Lake Superior, not far from the district where The Minnesota
Iron Oo. produces the very best Bessemer ore, and similarly,
ores too high in phosphorus and sulphur are found in the Mar-
quette and Menominee districts, not far from the most cele-
brated mines of pure ore. It is most unfair therefore to give
our ores a bad name, because in some parts of our vast mineral
districts are to be found some objectionable matters. Not only
owners of American mines have spread these reports, but some
of our own people are much too quick to condemn the products
of their own country. People who know nothing about the
subject have told me that our ores are not good, but strangely
enough these are generally the opponents of Commercial Union,
who arrogate to themselves all the loyalty in the country. It
is a curious loyalty which refuses to recognize whatever is good
among our own productions.
ANALYSIS OF CANADIAN ORE.
Within 110 miles of Toronto, close both to the Midland
branch of the Grand Trunk, and also near t^ the Canadian
Pacific railway, are deposits of Bessemer ores of excellent
quality. An analysis of ore from a large bed in the Township
of Belmont shows sulphur, only a slight trace ; phosphorus,
0,002, or one-thirtieth of the permitted limit for phosphorus in
Bessemer ore ; metallic iron, 65.36; the chemist remarking on
the exceptional purity of this ore. Another analysis of average
ore taken from all over this deposit gives metallic iron, 66.29 j
manganese, 0.42; phosphorus, 0.024; silica, 3.19; titanium,
TIte Miniing Interests of Canada. 79
none ; sulphur, practically none. These analyses were made by
chemists of la^^e blast furnaces in the States, and have fully
confirmed the first analysis made by Prof, Chapman, of the
Toronto School of Science, from surface samples of this ore.
The latter remarks : — *' This is an exceedingly good ore, not too
close in texture, rich in metal, quite free from titanium and
practically free from phosphorus and sulphur, while the rock
matter would be almost self-fiuxing. It is well adai)ted for
final treatment by the Bessemer process." Dr. Chapman's opin-
ion has been fully confirmed by practical iron men. Another
analysis gives iron, 68.88; silica, ^ 3.18 ; phosphorus, 0.006;
titanium, none ; sulphur, none ; which is about as nearly a per-
fectly ideal Bessemer ore as can be conceived. One prominent
man in Cleveland writes, '' I can sell all the ore of this qualitv
that I can get." Professor Thomas Heys, of this city, who ex-
amined this ore bed, makes a similar report regarding the
quality of the ore and estimates that there are at lea^t a million
tons of ore within a hundred feet of the surface. The Snow-
don iron district, 40 miles north-east of Lindsay, contains £:ood
Bessemer ore, very free from impurities. Analyses show 62 to
63 metallic iron ; phosphorus, ti*ace ; sulphur, 0.025 ; titanium,
none. In order to be of Bessemer quality, the amount of phos-
phorus must be very small, the limit in a 60 per cent ore being
0.06. When the analysis shows a trace only, this means less
than 0.005 per cent, phosphorus, or less than one-tenth of the
allowance for Bessemer ore. These analyses, therefore, show
our ore to be more than usually free from impuricies even for
Bessemer ore.
ADVANTAGES OF THE IRON INDUSTRY.
To be convinced of the benefit of working an iron mine, a
persou should go to the neighbourhood of an active mine and
judge for himself. The Blairton mine, in Peterboro' County,
at one time employed between 300 and 400 men, at wages from
$1 to 1.25 per day, paying out from $1,800 to $2,500 weekly for
wages alone. There was employment for every able-bodied
man and boy for miles around. The farmers from surrounding
townships found readv sale for produce at prices equal to the
Peterboro' market. Think of the good this would do to the
country ! An iron mine, with a production of 400 tons a day,
80 Handhooh of Covimercial Union.
would steadily employ 400 men ; the labour of these men would
be fully equal to that expended upon iOO farms in our back coun-
try, and the benefit would be fully as great as the cultivation
and production of 100 farms. Within a few months after
starting, several of our large ore deposits could give employ-
ment to this number of men in each mine. So that if ten
good-sized mines were working they would employ 4,000 men,
and do as much good to the country as 1,000 well cultivated
farms ; but unlike farms, which take several years to clear and
cultivate, the mines could be brought to a considerable state of
efficiency within a few months.*
The production of Lake Superior ores last year was about
4,000,000 tons, a third of the whole domestic production of
the United States, while only about 70,000 tons of Canadian
ore were produced in 1886 and considerably less in 1887.
The greater part of the Lake Superior ores go to furnaoer. in
Pennsylvania and Chicago, and are of course subject to no duty ;
it is because they have free entry to the whole of the United
States that these ores can be profitably produced in such large
quantities. If they were subject to a duty of 75 cents per
ton many of their mines could not work. It is the duty that
makes all the difference. Our ores are similar to those of Lake
Superior, many of them fully rqual to the best ; our labour is
cheap and shipping facilities good, but there is the duty against
us. The manager of one of the Michigan mines, after visiting
the Snowdon iron district, writes : " You have good ores and a
good country, but the duty is the killing of Canada." But the
most remarkable instance of prosperity from access to the larger
markets is to be seen in the Southern States. Many timid Can-
adians fear that if we have free trade with the States, they
being so much wealthier and more populous, would wipe us out.
Have the Southern States been wiped out by free commercial
intercourse with the richer Northern States 1 Let us look back
and see in what position the South was twenty years ago, after
the War ; the whole Southern States appeared to be com-
pletely crushed, so much so that it seemed doubtful if they
could ever revive. If Northern competition is so fatal, surely
, -■■..■■- - ■ — - . I ».i i f m il., tfij i i j^ ii jfc^ i _ J) _ I mu. 1 - . — ■■■■■■■ •
* Nowhere can be seen gjreater prosperity on the same scale than in the
villages which are called into existence by the working of a large mine ; good
wages are regularly paid and so much cash distributed through tlie district
where, but for the mine, there would be a barren waste.
The Mining Interests of Canada. 81
the stricken South could never have made headway against it.
But what do we find in the South to-day 1 We find a most
surprising revival which is phenomenal in the rapidity of its
development and in the actual progress of the country. This
prosperity is owing in a great degree to the deposits of coal and
iron in the South, and to the enterprise which has developed
them, with the assistance of Northern capital. Northern com-
petition has not injured the Southern States, but on the con-
trary their free trade with the whole United States is the reason
of their prosperity, and has caused their rapid development.
Does any one suppose, that if the South was cut off from the
trade of the Northern States by a Customs line, it would benefit
them ] In that case, would they not still be sunk in depression
and despondency ] Undoubtedly they would, and yet that is
just the position in which our restrictionists want to keep us.
Canadians are not cowards, far from it, but it certainly seems
a most cowardly doctrine to suppose that we, the vigorous young
Canadian nation, should be crushed out by competition with the
United States when the crippled South has revived and pros-
pered under it. Our iron ores will compare favourably with
any in the world ; all we want is a market. What Michigan
and the Southern States have done and are doing, we can do,
if we are admitted to the market of our own continent on equal
terms.
WHY THE MINES ARE NOT DEVELOPED.
With many of our iron deposits the duty of 75 cents per ton,
simply prevents their being worked ; it makes all the difference
between a profit and a loss. It is a question of existence ; to
be or not to be. Yet some restrictionists have asked, ** Cannot
you work your iron mines at a profit and pay the 75 cents per
ton duty 1 " After inspecting the Belmont mine, before re-
ferred to, an American expert stated that "/ithin a short time
after commencing work on it he would be taking out 400 tons
of ore a day ; the duty on this would be $300 a day. Perhaps
the restrictionists will kindly tell us how they would like an
unnecessary tax of $300 a day on any one of their businesses.
SUMMARY OF THE VIEWS PRESKNTED.
The points that I have endeavoured to prove are that we
have first class ores ; that in many cases the duty of 75 cents
82 Handbook of CoTnmercial Union.
per ton prevents these ores being mined ; that the removal of
the duty would benefit both Canadians and Americans alike.
SMELTING FURNACES.
I have so far only noticed the question of exporting ores
to the United States, but there are large quantities of poorer
ores which would not pay to export, but which could be very
profitably smelted on the spot if we had a market large enough
to induce capitalists to put up the necessary works. A blast
furnace takes a considerable capital both to erect and run it.
There are many suitable points for blast furnaces in our mineral
country where ore and charcoal can be had at the lowest cost
and where there is every facility for making iron, the market
only being wanting. There are numerous deposits of bog ore
or brown hematite containing 35 to 45 per cent, of iron, which
are suitable for a local furnace but are of no value otherwise.
One ordinary-sized furnace would employ in its own work and
in the preparation of charcoal a number of men, and would make
a good local market for the farm produce of the surrounding
country.
AN ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION CORRECTED.
The Canadian market is too small to induce capitalists to put
up the expensive works necessary to make iron and steel, but
if the whole North America market was open to us there are
many points where furnaces would be erected. And here let
me correct an erroneous impression with regard to the amount
of fuel necessary for smelting iron. It was stated recently in a
Restrictionist paper that it required two tons of coal to smelt
one ton of ore. This is not the case, the fact being almost the
reverse of this. Mr. John Birkinbine, of Philadelphia, editor
of the American Journal of Cho^rcoal Iron Workers, a very high
authority, in a letter to the Iron Age, computes one ton of coke
only to make one ton of pig iron. A correspondent of the
Buffalo Commercial Advertiser last fall stated that 1,900 lbs. of
Pennsylvania coke smelts 1^ tons of Lake Superior 66f per
cent, iron ore, which yields one ton of pig iron in the furnace.
An account appeared recently in the Iron Aye of a run at the
Union Steel Works, Chicago, where only about half the weight
of fuel was used in smelting a quantity of ore, the proportion
being about 1,750 lbs, of fuel to 3,500 lbs. of ore.
The Mining Interests of Gaiiaiia. 83
FURNACES SHOULD BE CONVENIENTLY SITUATED.
This makes a vast difference in considering the favourable lo-
cality for a blast furnace. If we had free trade with our con-
tinent, why should not Toronto be an excellent point for a blast
furnace and a good distributing point for its products ? We
have the best of ores within 125 miles of us and are much nearer
to the fuel than many furnaces in the States. Connellsville coke
is carried 600 miles to the Chicago blast furnaces, and still they
do an immense and very increasing business.
^ •' A BENEFIT TO THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.
Although the manufacture of iron and steel benefits a com-
munity more than any other, one impressive fact may be stated
to show the apathy of Canadians in these matters. Take the
C. P. R. east from Toronto, and when you get a little over 100
miles down the line you will be in the mineral district and close
to deposits of Bessemer ore suitable for making steel rails.
This mineral district extends for hundreds of miles, the C. P. R.
traversing a great portion of it. Wisre the steel rails over
which you are travelling made from Canadian ore ] Not at
all. These rails were bought in England, probably made
from Spanish ore, and in their manufacture did not contribute
one dollar's worth of benefit to any Canadian, although simi-
lar ore from which the rails are made lie almost alongside the
railway track. Is this loyalty to ourselves to send money out
of the country for articles which we can manufacture ourselves,
four-fifths of the value of which would be distributed to pay for
the labour of our own miners and mechanics ? Instead of doing
this, our money has gone to pay Spanish miners and English
labourers, who care nothing for us and could not probably point
out our country on the map.
OONSUMPTION OF IRON PYRITES AND OTHER MINERALS.
The consumption of iron pyrites for making sulphuric acid
is rapidly increasing in the United States. In 1886 112,000
tons were consumed. The duty of 75c per ton is a heavy tax
on this article, as pyrites is only worth about $4.50 per ton in
New York, but if there were no duty a large trade would be
done^ as we have many deposits of pyrites suitable for this pur*
84 Handbook of Commercial Union.
• ■.'■■.
pose. Large quantities of copper ore would be shipped to the
States were it not for the duty. In the Nipissing and Algoma
districts new and important discoveries of copper have lately
been made ; but here again the tariff bars the way. The United
Statos duty on lead ore is prohibitory, and there is little en-
couragement to develop our galena veins, although, no doubt,
we have abundance of this usefid mineral, and the same remark
applies to several other minerals, notably to the salt industry,
which suffers greatly through restriction.
Few people are aware of the extent and importance of our
mining districts. There are at least sixteen constituencies in
Ontario which are emphatically mining districts. Commence at
Peterborough and go east through the counties of Hastings,
Addington, Frontenac, Renfrew, Leeds, Grenville, Lanark and
Oarleton, or commence with Victoria and go north through the
districts of Muskoka, Parry Sound and Nipissing, and for hun-
dreds of miles through the great district of Algoma you are
still in a mining country, while in the Province of Quebec
many counties are fully as rich. No country in the world pos-
sesses such mineral wealth as Ontario, where so little is done
to develop it.
The miuing districts of Michigan and Minnesota are much
pmaller than ours, yet from those States the market value of iron
ore mined in 1887 was about |24,000,000, of which $10,000,-
000 was paid in freight and probably as m jch in labour, while
from a larger area of mining territory we in Canada produced
hardly anything.
I am a strong Protectionist, but I do not carry the idea of
Protection so far as to advocate a tariff wall between the Pro-
vinces of Ontario and Quebec or between the States of Ohio
and Pennsylvania.
If it is profitable for Ohio to trade freely with Pennsylvania or
New York, why should it not be just as profitable that Ontario
and Quebec should trade freely with those States *?
Our commercial interests are identical, and the fact of our
having different political arrangements should not make trade
between us less profitable.
Now-a-days when there is such keen competition in every
branch of the iron and steel business, — and whenever there is a
period of depression we hear complaints that there is so little
margin of profit, — the question of cheap ores becomes of vital
importancet
The Mining Interests of Canada. 85
While every device is resorted to in modern furnaces to
cheapen the cost of production, the most important question of
cheap ores appears to have been somewhat overlooked.
Our Canadian Bessemer ores are so favourably situated that
they could be c^elivered to Pittsburgh and many furnaces in
Pennsylvania much cheaper than other ores of the same qual-
ity if there was no duty.
Under the present tariff our mines remain undeveloped,
while on the other hand the furnaces are anxiously seeking for
cheap ores.
If the duty was removed this trade would find its natural
channel, to the great benefit of the United States furnaces and
of our mines.
ABSURDITY OF OUR PRESENT TRADE RELATIONS.
Let any unprejudiced man of common sense, either Ameri-
can or Canadian, stand before a map of North America, and,
after carefully tracing the boundary line between us, say why
the inhabitants of this great continent, who are of the same race,
the same language, the same religion, and who have the same in-
terests, should interpose hostile tariffs against each other. Did
nature ever intend that artificial barriers should be placed
where only an imaginary line separates us ? I would suggest
that the Commercial Union Club hang on its walls a map of
North America, on which there should be a black line, drawn
broad and deep along the boundary line between Canada and
the United States, so that the absurdity may clearly appear of
trying to keep apart two portions of the same continent which
nature intended to be commercially one. Then if you like, run
a red line round the outside boundary of.both showing the vast-
ness of the country we should have to trade in were the barriers
thrown down, and on the heading of the map place this motto,
which should also be the motto of our Club, " Let us have free
trade with our own continent, our natural market I "
-j'
f ':? '■
HOW rjNRESTRICTED RECIPROCITY WITH THE
UNITED STATES WOULD AFFECT THE
PROSPERITY OF TORONTO.
•^A-v-:. ■■..^^•v!'.,'vi.'-. BY S. H. JANES, M.A. ,.;,. .,4.? [.^'J,.i''^
The Commercial Union Club of Toronto has been organized, I
venture to affirm, on the principle of the most genuine patriotism.
We aim to promote what we conceive to be the best interests of
the Dominion. We seek to make Canada a better country to live
in by improving our trade relations with our nearest neighbour
— not in the interest of any special class or section of the com-
munity to the detriment of others, but in order that the greatest
good may result to the greatest number. If we continue to
trade with any particular country, and if, notwithstanding the
artificial barriers, such trade increases during a long series of
years faster than does our commerce with any other people, we
are perfectly safe to conclude that it is profitable to trade
with such a country. It would seem to follow, as a logical
sequence, that whatever we can do to improve and facilitate
such a trade by removing artificial obstacles and restrictions of
all kinds, is advantageous to \is and is in the truest sense
patriotic. We find that our commerce with the United States
has increased until it has become more important than even that
with Great Britain. For the year ending June, 1886, of our
foreign business, 45.89 per cent, was done with the United
States, and 43.30 per cent, with Great Britain, and only 10.81
per cent, with all other countries. This result was achieved,
notwithstanding the fact, that so far as our exports were con-
cerned, we had to surmount a high Customs wall to enter the
United States, while Great Britain admitted our goods free of
duty, as she does the produce of other countries. The object
sought in the formation of this Club, I take it to be, is, to assist
in breaking down that Customs wall, so that what we have to
sell may enter the United States as freely as into any province
of this Dominion, and also, to demolish the wall which we have
erected on this side of the border, so that goods may come in as
The Prosperity of Toronto. ' II7
freely from the United States. We contend for absolute free
trade between those two great countries. The special branch
of this important subject which we are to-night to discuss is,
" How Unrestricted Reciprocity with the United States would
aflfect the prosperity of Toronto 3 " Let me for a while occupy
your attention in attempting to throw some light on this subject :
The citizens of Toronto are justly proud of their city. As
compared with any other city in the Dominion, Toronto enjoys
a high degree of prosperity ; her increase in population and
wealth being very rapid. It is reasonable that we should be
jealous of that prosperity, and should scrutinise very carefully
any measure that would emperil it. Further, it is only by ex-
amining how Unrestricted Reciprocity would affect different
sections of our country, and by balancing the advantages against
the disadvantages that we can determine whether or not such
a measure as is proposed would be beneficial to our country as
a vvhole.
Toronto has many special advantages which would seem
happy omens of a great and prosperous future. Its situation
makes it most desirable as a place of residence. The broad
expanse of fresh water to the south affords excellent opportuni-
ties for invigorating recreation. It moderates the heat of sum-
mer, and, with the high uplands to the north, modifies the cold
of winter. So far as my observation goes, I know of no city in
the world that, all things considered, offers a more invigorating
and delightful climate, or a pleasanter home. A glance at the
map will convince anyone that its central location admirably
adapts it to be the metropolis of Ontario. Also, thanks to
the wisdom and enterprise of our early citizens, the network
of railways which is spread over the country, is made to
converge at Toronto, placing her in a position of easy com-
munication with every part of the settled portions of the
Province. From any locality in a wide circuit of country,
a merchant can come to Toronto by a morning train, make his
purchases, return home by an evening train, and receive his
goods in his place of business on the following morning. Tor-
onto is also the seat of the Provincial Legislature and the head-
quarters of our monetary institutions, of our law courts, of our
universities and other educational and professional schools, of
the press and of social life. In a word, she is the commercial,
intellectual, and social metropolis of this vast Province. By
Handbook of Commercial Union.
reason of these facts — of her central position, of the vast sys'
tem of railways converging at that centre, of the variety and im
portance of her institutions, of her growth in population and
wealth, of long established acquaintance and trade relations, of
the vigilance, vigorous enterprise and fair dealing of her mer-
chants and men of business — she has acquired a hold on the
trade of the Province that it would be very difficult either to
disturb or to dislodge. She has already attained to such a de-
gree of sturdy maturity, that she need not fear, under equal
conditions, the competition of any other city either in Canada
or in the United States.
Now it would appear to me to be tolerably self-evident that any
measure that will increase the prosperity of the country tribu-
tary to Toronto, must benefit Toronto. If by Free Trade with
the United States, the people of our Province can procure a
more ready market and higher prices for what they have to sell,
while the cost of production remains the same or is even re-
duced, the prosperity of the whole people will be thereby greatly
enhanced, and in that prosperity Toronto will participate.
The most importantindustry in Ontario is Agriculture. Accord-
ing to our latest Census, 1881, the agricultural class numbered
nearly as many as all the other classes put together, and had
farm labourers been included, as they should have been, the ag-
ricultural class would have exceeded in number all the others.
It is difficult to form an estimate of the value of the total farm
product for any year, as returns are very incomplete. The
total value of what are known as field crops for 1886, is set
down as $110,764,626, and when we come to add to that
amount the product of live stock, wool, cheese, butter, fruit,
vegetables and other articles not included, we think we are
safely within the mark when we place the total value of the
agricultural product of this Province for 1880 at something like
$160,000,000. Of this enormous amount, about $20,000,000,
was the value of the wheat crop, and this would not be
materially changed by Free Trade with the United States, as I^iv-
erpool is the market which determines the price of this cereal.
But wheat is rapidly losing its importance to our farmers.
Through the enormous cheapening of freight by rail and steam-
ship and the extensive cultivation of wheat on Ihe prairies of
the west, in India, in South America, in Russia and other
countries, where it can be grown cheaper than here, the culti-
' The Prosperity of Toronto. 89
vation of wheat has become unprofitable in this Province. Our
farmers must turn their attention to other products. Of nearly
all the other products, the United States is our best market,
nolv/ithstanding the enormous toll we have to pay to the
United States Treasury in order to reach that market. There
can be no doubt who has to pay that toll. The reason is, that
the amount. we have to sell forms such a small percentage of
the total consumption in the United States, that it does not in
any sense control that market. If any one is in doubt, let him
send over a carload of horses, cattle, sheep, wool, barley, or
other products, and he will find that the net price he will receive
will be the price current in the United States less the amount
of the American duty, cost of transportation and of handling.
If the value of a horse on this side of the boundary be $100, it
will be $120 on the other side, though it may not be more than
a few feet distant, 20 per cent being the amount of duty
charged by the Americans. Of barley, if the price on the other
side be 60 cents, the price on this side will be 50 cents, leaving
out of view the cost of freight, etc., 10 cents per bushel being
the amount of theduty. Of wool, if the price on the other side be
32 cents, the price on this side will be 20 cents, 10 cents per
pound and an ad valorem duty being charged by the Americans.
The case will be found to be similar with other articles. Again,
the net price realized for the surplus product exported in any
line, though that surplus be relatively small, determines the
price for the home market — in a word, determines the value of
the entire product. Of barley, the crop last year amounted to
19,512,278 bushels, valued at $10,009,799, but only for the
American duty, the value would have been $1,951,227 more,
or an increase of nearly 20 per cent. Of live stock, the total
value last year was $107,208,935, but only for the American
duty the value would have been 20 per cent more, amounting
to $21,441,787, or equal to an annual increase in value of about
$5,000,000, and so on with other items. We think we are
safely within the mark when we say that sweeping away the
American tariff, so far as this country is concerned, would rei^ult
in adding at least $15,000,000 to the value of the annual pro-
duct of our farms. But this is not all. The sweeping away of the
Canadian tariff as against goods coming into the country from
the United States would greatly cheapen the farmer's cost of
production. With reference to our imports from the United
90 Handbook of Commercial Union.
States the exact reverse takes place from what is the case in re-
ference to our exports to that country. Here again the small
volume of our purchases as compared with the enormous pro-
duct in the United States, prevents our purchasers from in-
fluencing the market price. Therefore, whatever duty our
Government impose on imports from that country, plu8 the
profit of the wholesaler and the retailer on that amount, has to
be paid by the consumer. But it may be said that if we did
not raise our revenue by duty on imports we would have to
resort to direct taxation, and that we would not therefore profit
by removing the duty from goods coming from the United
States. But the wholesaler and tlie retailer charge their respec-
tive profit, together amounting to at least 50 per cent on the
amount of duty, as well as on the original cost. Doing away
with the Canadian duty would therefore very materially cheapen
to the consumer the price of cottons, sugar, furniture, machi-
nery, implements, hardware etc. That is to say, the farmer
would have to pay a less price for such articles as he requires
to purchase, or in other words, his cost of production would be
lessened. But leaving this consideration out of view, and
assuming that we are correct in stating that Unrestricted
Reciprocity would result in adding $15,000,000 to the value of
the annual product of the fcrms of Ontario, let us try to realize
the full meaning of this enormous sum. It is equal to one and
a half times as much as the annual interest on the entire debt
of the Dominion. Assuming that the population of our Pro-
vince is to-day 2,136,000, and that half are engaged in agricul-
ture, it would be equal to about fifteen dollars for each man,
woman and child of that class, or nearly three times as much as
they now pay as their share of the expenditure of the Dominion.
Capitalised at six per cent, it would be equal to 1250,000,000,
or more than 40 per cent, of the present value of all the assessed
farm lands of the Province exclusive of buildings. In other
words, Free Trade with the United States would increase the
value of our farms about forty per cent.
If we wish to learn anything from comparison of values of
farm lands here with those in the States, we must take care
that we select for such comparison districts that are similar. I
suppose the County of Oxford contains as good lands as are to
be found in our Province, and the Genesee District in Central
New York as good as are to be found in that State. These two
' The Prosperity of Toronto. ' ti.
districts are similar in productive capacity, were settled about
the same time and largely by the same class of people, and have
reached about the bame degree of cultivation. Good farms in
the county of Oxford are worth from $50 to $75 per acre, and
in the Genesee District in New York, as I am informed on
reliable authority, they are worth from $100 to $200 per acre.
Other comparisons give about the same relative difference. We
therefore have a confirmation of the results reached by our
former reasoning.
The increased prosperity that would result to the agricultural .
class through free trade with the United States, would at once
react upon the villages, towns and cities of the country. The
retailers would do a more prospe/ous business by reason of the
enlarged purchasing powers of the farmers, and in turn they
would do a larger and more profitable business with the whole-
salers and manufacturers. Toronto being the chief retail,
wholesale and manufacturing centre of the Province, would
receive the largest share of this increased prosperity.
In my business as a real estate broker, I have found that the
retired farmer constitutes a very important element in the
growth of Toronto in population and wealth. He comes here
with his family and his money because of the superior advan-
tages Toronto offers as a place of residence and as a field for the
investment of his capital. He here finds the very best oppor-
tunities for the education of his children and for establishing
his sons in business. Now, if the farmers are placed in a posi-
tion to make money more rapidly, it is clear there will be a
larger number to retire with a competency and to permanently
settle in Toronto.
It is generally admitted that our farm lands rank among the
best on this continent. If we can increase the prosperity of our
farmers by giving them an equal market with the farmers of
the United States, we will at once stop to a large extent the
exodus of our young men to that country. It must be ad-
mitted that it is the most robust, energetic and intelligent of
our young men who now remove to the States. Nor is this any
fancy picture. It is estimated that there are to-day living in
that country one million native born Canadians, or one in every
five persons now resident in the Dominion. But this is not
all. By giving our farmers equal advantages to buy and to sell
with those of the States, we would be able to attract to this
92 Handbook of Commercial Union.
country a fair share of the enormous immigraticn which
annually comes to this continent. It is estimated that the
cleared land in our Province last year amounted to 10,938,471
acres. 1 am informed by the Bureau of Industries for Ontario
that we have in this Province at least twenty millions of acres
of additional lands fit for agriculture, or twice an much as is
now under cultivation, or nearly two thirds as uiuch as the
entire State of Ne'v York. These lands are apable of support-
ing from a million to two millions more people of the agri-
cultural class. Can any one doubt the wonderful impetus that
would be given to every industry of Toronto by any such con-
siderable addition to our rural population ?
Ontario is one of the richest countries in the world in the
extent, variety and quality of her timber. Not only so, but
the nature of our climate and soil is such that when one crop
is removed, another soon grows up to takes its place. The
middle and eastern States have pretty much exhausted their
own timber, and, in the future more than in the past, must be
largely dependent on the Canadian supply. The IJniited States
is our natural market We shipped them last year $8,545,406
worth, on which we paid to their revenue a duty of $2. per
thousand. In this case, as with barley, there can be no doubt
the exporter pays the American duty. I have it on the written
statement of one of the most respected lumber merchants resi-
dent in this city, that he has paid to the American revenue
since the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty in 1866 on the
lumber which he has shipped to the States, no less a sum than
$349,067, in itself a handsome fortune that would have been
saved to this gentleman and through him to Toronto, if there
had been no American tariff upon lumber. The forests of
Ontario are admirably located to supply the American market,
and if we had free trade with that country, not only would the
duty paid on our export be saved to our people, but it would at
once become profitable to ship many kinds of lumber for which
at present we have no market. Not only so, but by sweeping
away the tariff the manufacture of lumber in this country
would be greatly stimulated. Toronto is the headquarters of
many of our lumbermen and the base of their supplies, and by'
increasing their prosperity Toronto is directly benefited.
When we speak of the enormous extent of our Province —
when we say it exceeds in area by 10,000 square miles, the
The Prosperity of Toronto. 93
States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan put together, or
by 78,000 sriuare miles, the total area of Great fSritain and Ire-
land, — we are met with the rejoinder that a large portion of this
is barren rock. Be it so, but it so happens that even those
barren rocks contain untold millions of wealth of silver, copper,
iron and other minerals. Nature has been exceedingly lavish
to us. I doubt if there be any country in the world with so
large a supply of minerals, so accessible and of so high an aver-
age quality. But what good are they to us 1 Practically none
whatever as we are now situated. Why ? Because mining to be
profitable has to be done on a large scale, and therefore requires
a large market and we have too small a market. Speaking of
one of these minerals, Mr. Wiman says : — " Of all articles in
which Canada is rich by nature and poor by policy, iron takes
the lead. While in the United States, the greatest activity pre-
vails in iron, and fortunes are made yearly by its development,
we poor unfortunates in Canada make not a dollar. While
hundreds of thousands of people are employed in the neighbour-
ing country, in the development of iron in its manufactures,
we who are blessed with abundant st. res of it, and with every
facility for its production, Lre without a particle of advantage."
He then gives us some idea of the extent of the iron industry in
the United States, and tells us of eight firms whose employes
and their families alone number 200,000 souls, and whose an-
nual output exceeds in value the entire exports of the Dominion.
With continental free trade, capital would at once flow into this
country, an immediate development of this incalculable wealtb
would commence, and soon thousands of people would receive
employment in mining industries, and Toronto would be the
chief base from which these industries would be conducted.
Then we would begin to see those tall chimneys of which we
have heard so much and seen so little. I take it that Toronto
is better located for a successful iron business than is the city of
Cleveland, where there is one concern whose output for the cur-
rent year, it is said, will reach the enormous sum of fifteen mil-
lions of dollars. Cleveland is many hundreds of miles distant
from its supply of ore, while Toronto is only a few hours dis-
tant from inexhaustible stores of the very best quality. The ore
would be brought down by rail and dumped at the Humber, or
on the Don flats and marshes ; vessels and cars would unload
at the same docks their cargoes of coal, and would return laden
94 Handbook of Commercial Union,
with ore for the furnaces of New York and Pennsylvania, or
with the manufactured article for distribution to the different
parts of the continent.
We all know that Toronto is a very popular objective point
for excursion parties. During the summer season the debarka-
tion of a train or boat load of American excursionists is almost
a daily occurrence, and everyone who comes leaves a consider-
able sum of money behind him when he departs. The chief
obstacle in the way of this kind of very profitable business is
the Custom's House nuisance which the excursionist has to face
twice, once on entering the country and once on departing from
it. I have frequently heard Americans say that they would
come more often to Toronto, and to our beautiful Muskoka
country for recreation, if it were not for this abominable nuis-
ance. The same thing also interferes with the through traffic
by our railways of both freight and passengers.
But it is said that Unrestricted Reciprocity would destroy
the wholesale trade of Toronto, or at least damage it to a con-
siderable extent. It is said that our retailers would pass To-
ronto and buy direct from New York and other large cities in
the United States. Well, the larger and more wealthy class of
retailors pass Toronto now and buy in Great Britain. I have
no doubt this class would to some extent transfer their accounts
from Great Britain to New York to the saving of much time
and money, but they still would do their sorting trade in To-
ronto. If New York would ruin or damage the wholesale
trade of Toronto under Unrestricted Reciprocity, why does not
Montreal accomplish the same result now, or why has she not
even dwarfed the growth of that branch of our business ? She,
like New York, is a seaport and has had all the advantages of
large capital, established connections, and priority of occupa-
tion of our territory, and yet through our central position, rail-
way facilities and the energy of our business men, already re-
ferred to, our wholesale trade has expanded during the last
twenty years more rapidly than has that of Montreal. Toronto
has crowded out Montreal from that territory naturally tribu-
tary to Toronto, and now practically controls it.
The wholesale trade of New York is divided into two sec-
tions. The one class does what is known as the package busi-
ness, that is, sells foreign and domestic goods only by the
original package and at a very small margin of profit, and seeks
The Prosperity of Toronto, 95
only for its customers jobbing houses and the larger retailers.
The other class does the ordinary jobl>ing trade, that is, keeps
a varied stock and sells to the retailer from each line in quan-
tities as small as will suit his requirements. Our Toronto
wholesale trade belongs to the latter class. The tendency in
New York is to make this distinction more clearly marked
every day and to vastly increase the proportion of the package
trade. The tendency throughout the United States is to local-
ize the jobbing trade for each section of the country in the
chief city of that section. Hence the enormous growth of the
jobbing business in such centres as Cincinnati, Chicago, St.
Louis, St. Paul, Kansas City, San Francisco and other places.
Even such cities as Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland and Detroit,
where formerly the jobbing trade was very insignificant, are
now doing a largely increasing business. As might be expected,
the jobbing trade of New York is becoming more localized.
The advantages of this system are very apparent. The whole-
sale men of New York cater for the trade of the entire coun-
try and can contract for the entire output of a manufacturer in
Europe or in America, and therefore buys at the cheapest pos-
sible price. In the case of foreign goods, he keeps them in bond
until they are needed, and does not require to be out of pocket
even the amount of the duty, till the goods are wanted for
shipment. As he sells at the least possible expense of hand-
ling and in such large quantities and to the class of traders who
pay most promptly, he can afford to do so on the smallest pos-
sible margin of profit. The jobber in different parts of the
country caters only for the climate and wants of the district
immediately about him and has his customer closely under his
eye. On the other hand, he does not require to run the risk
and expense of contracting for such large quantities of goods
80 long in advance of his needs, because he can from, time to
time order from the package merchant in New York and re-
ceive the goods in his premises within a week thereafter. He
is thus able to do a larger business on the same capital and at
much less risk and cost, and therefore at a larger net profit. At
the end of the season he need not be stuck with a large stock
to depreciate through change of style by the time the next sea-
son comes around. Under this system there are jobbers of dry
goods in the States who turn their stocks ten times or more in
a year, whereas under a different system, some of our largest
96 Handbook of Commercial Union.
jobbers scarcely turn ttieir stock more than three times, and
live times is thought to be extraordinary. Again, this system
suits the retailer admirably. He is placed in easy distance
from the base of his supply, so that he can at small cost make
frequent personal selections from stock, and therefore need only
carry a minimum amount of goods. Moreover, he goes to a
market specially adapted to his requirements and does not run
the same risk of having goods of a former season shoved on to
him. I therefore conclude that, through free trade with the
United States, though our wholesale men would have to change
their methods somewhat to suit the new situation, and though
they might lose some trade through Buflfalo, Detroit, New York
and other cities, they would nevertheless be greatly benefited
by having their business placed on a more healthy basis, and by
having their risks decreased, and by having an increased prob-
ability of profit on their turn over, and, moreover, I claim that
the loss of some customers would be more than compensated
for by the increased purchasing power of those who remained,
and by the vast additions to our population which would cer-
tainly follow.
Again, Toronto has very considerable'manufacturing inter-
ests which it is claimed would be seriously damaged, if not ut-
terly ruined, by the adoption of free trade with the United
States. It is said that the extensive, long established and
wealthy manufacturers of the Eastern States would flood this
country with their cheap ptvoductions, and that our manufac-
turers could not compete with them. (^ I believe it to be quite
true that our people would in most lines get a better article for
much less money, and this is one of the reasons why we contend
for the adoption of this principle, but that our manufacturing
interests would be destroyed I do not believe. On the contrary,
I claim that they would be at once stimulated into a more
vigorous and healthy growth. We would have a market as
broad as have the Eastern States, and an enlarged market is
the very thing we need and must have, if we ever hope to be-
come a manufacturing country to any considerable extent. It
is a well known fact that at present, on account of the smallness
of our market, in many lines there is hardly room for a single
concern to achieve the best results, and in others, two or three
will fill the bill, and then they are in mortal terror lest another
should be started and ruin them by over-production. In the
The Prosperity of Toronto. 97
event of the other being established, a combination will proba-
bly follow to keep down production and to maintain prices.
This is an unhealthy state of things, tending to prevent deve-
lopment and to dwarf enterpriser] If we could not hold our
own against the manufacturer ofthe East, how comes it that
the Central and Western States not only do so, but are beating
the East almost two to one in the ratio of the increase of their
products. From 1860-70, the ratio of increase for Massachu-
setts, New York and Pennsylvania was 77 per cent., and for
Ohio, Michigan and Illinois, 124 per cent; from 1870-80, for
the former 50 per cent., and for the latter 92 per cent. And it
must be remembered that we would start in the competition
much better prepared for it than were those Western States at
the beginning of the period mentioned. How comes it that
even the State of Michigan, a much younger country than our
Province, is leaving us out of sight in the manufacturing race,
notwithstanding the fact that she has to meet the freest com-
petition of the wealthy and long established manufacturers of
the East. The ratio of increase in the value of productions in
Ontario for the period 1871-81 was, according to the calculation
of our Secretary, Mr. Thomas Shaw, only 38 per cent., whereas
in Michigan it was 50 per cent., in Ohio 61 per cent, and in
Illinois 152 per cent. I have discussed this subject with many
of our mauufacturer3,^nd I find that the larger, the more intel-
ligent and the more enterprising of them say, that they do not
fear American competition when placed on an equal footing, as
they would be by the adoption of the principles for which we
contend. They say that of course their methods would have to
be somewhat changed to meet the new situation, but that an
enlarged market is exactly what they want and must have. Men
possessing ambition and courage, such as I am proud to believe
our citizens do to as large an extent as any people in the world,
desire to be placed in a position of the largest opportunities,
and are then willing to trust to themselves for the resultJ3
But it is not only the existing establishments that we have
to consider. We believe that continental free trade would
[\e&d to a great influx of capital to this country and to the
establishment of not only many new factories in lines already
existing, but also in many others in which at present we do
nothing whatever.^ We believe that Toronto particularly, ab
she has special advantages of high order, would soon become
B
98 Handbook of CorriTnercial Union.
one! of the important manufacturing centres of the continent.
Her climate is mosc suitable. Her position is central, and her
shipping facilities to the east, to the west, to the south and to
the north, are most excellent. Labour is abundant and caube
had at a reasonable price. Three-fourths of all the kinds of
raw materials used by American manufacturers we have in
inexhaustible supplies at our very door.
We, Torontonions, often boast of the prosperity of our city,
and well we may, for it is the most prosperous community in
the Dominion, We claim that we have special trade advan-
tages not possessed by such border cities as Detroit, Cleveland
and Butfalo. So we have. But when I visit those cities I see
evidences of a prosperity greater than that which we possess.
T find that their ratio of increase of population exceeds our own,
and that the indications of wealth are greater and more abun-
dant than they are with us. There is no safer barometer that
I know of with which to measure the prosperity of a city than
the prevailing price of residential land. The highest price
ever paid for residential land in Toronto is $130 per foot In
Detroit, I have it on the authority of its Mayor, residential
land reaches $400 per foot, 200 feet deep ; and in Cleveland,
$1,000 per foot three hundred feet deep and upwards ; and in
Buffalo, $500 per foot. I inquire the cause of this great differ-
ence—a difference greater than their excess of population would
indicate— and the only one I can find is that they trade with
sixty-one millions of people, while we trade with less than five
millions. We ask, therefore, that we may be placed on equal
footing with them by being admitted to the free and uninter-
rupted trade of the continent, a destiny that I maintain is clearly
indicated by geography, race, language, similarity of institutions,
and the sacredness of religion. Did it ever strike you that we
are more closely related by blood with the people of the United
States than with any other people on the face of the globe ) In
1881, of our total population, 3,715,492, or 86 per cent, were
native born ; and only 609,318, or 14 per cent., foreign
born ; and there were then resident in the United States
750,000 native born Canadians, or a number of our sons luid
daughters, brothers and sisters, equal to over 17 per cent, of
our total population, or 141,000 more than all the foreign popu-
lation then living in the Dominion.
TJie Prosperity of Toronto. 99
I imagine I already see the man with the loyalist fad point-
ing his finger of scorn at me, for he is super-sensitive, not be-
cause of his extreme attachment to good old England, but be-
cause he thinks his petted and pampered industry is in danger,
and in his utter dearth of argument he resorts to ridicule. I
would tell such an one that I am a native born Canadian, that
I have a stake in this country, that I expect to live and die in
it, that I prize as much and desire as fervently as he to main-
tain our connection with the Mother Country, that I have as
genuine a love as he, and perhaps a more genuine love, for the
old dag that " has braved a thousand years the battle and the
breeze." No Englishman expects or desires that our loyalty
should utterly dwarf our patriotism, or should lead us to sacri-
fice the interests of our children and sell our birthright. Eng-
land will never say one word to interfere with the working out
of our own destiny in our own way, nor impose a single barrier
to that which we conceive to be in our interests, in the matter
of what is merely a trade policy.
We have a country vast in extent, rich in natural resources ;
and a city beautiful for situation, famed for the enterprise
and intelligence of her people, for the beneficence of her insti-
tutions, for her comparative freedom from vice, for her obser-
vance of the Sabbath, for her obedience to the law of God and
man. All we ask is a fair field and no favour. With this fair
and open field we shall then be willing to abide the operation
of Nature's inexorable law, " The survival of the fittest"
THE EFFECT OF COMMERCIAL UNION ON OUR
RELATIONS WITH GREAT BRITAIN.
BY MR. W. H. LOCKHART GORDON.
In order thoroucjhly to understand this question it is neces-
sary first to examine and to try to explain what is really in-
tended by those who are now supporting what has been styled
the " Commercial Union " movement. Ijt is not the intention
in any respect to form a union of any kind \ h the United
States. I^Our sole and only object is to break dovrn the barrier
that now exists between the two countries for free and unre-
stricted tradef] We believe that, as there are many millions of
people on this continent, some of whom are our own flesh and
blood, speaking the same language, using the same articles,
carrying on similar businesses and with the same ideas of
liberty and freedom, there should be no statutory line or
carrier which would prevent all these people trading in the
most free and unrestricted manner with each other. T We be-
lieve also that it is in our interests and in the interests'of Great
Britain to remove as far as possible by a commercial arrange-
ment with the L^nited States, — and such an arrangement would
be equitable and just to all the contracting parties, — all the diffi-
culties that exist between us and this great nation, and thus
prevent for all time to come anything occurring that may create
any friction in the friendly relations that now exist between usj
To accomplish this, however, it is not necessary that there
should be any union with the United States. A union with
^.he United States is no more necessary to enable our farmers,
our lumbermen, our manufacturers, to sell their goods and wares
in the United States than there is necessity for union between
our merchants in Toronto and Hamilton before they can trade
with each other.' The reason why those who first took up this
question styled it " Commercial Union '' with the United
States, I understand, was that they wished to make it clear
that any negotiations that might be entered into with the
United States Government as to the tariff" was simply a com-
Commercial Union in relation to Great Britain. 101
mercial arrangement, and not a political arrangement. The
object of the term " commercial union " was to show that the
arrangement, if any, was simply a commercial one and not a
political one."*^
THE DISLOYALTY CRY,
But it is said by our opponents that we have no right to
desire to extend our trade with the United States — that such
an arrangement would show disloyalty to the British Crown ;
that we can only extend our trade relations with the United
States to the injury of the British manufacturer, and that being
the case our first duty is to look to the interests of the British
manufacturer irrespective of our own interests, and to ignore
any advantage that we might gain by this extended trade. We
are asked practically to acknowledge that this nation of Canada
was simply brought into existence in the interest and for the
benefit of the British manufacturer ; and that however much we
might benefit ourselves by looking round and finding others to
whom we could sell and from whom we could buy with greater
advantage, yet, inasmuch as we originally came from Great
Britain and are at present a part of the British Empire and are
subject to British laws and British customs, therefore we must
not, under peril of being called disloyal, improve our position
to the great extent to which we believe it will improve that
position by trading with a nation to the south of us which has
abundance of wealth and sixty millions of people.
I can scarcely believe that those who raise the disloyalty cry
can seriously have examined the question. I cannot under-
stand how any seriously-minded person can argue that we Can-
adians with a population of about five millions, occupying the
second largest country in the world, rich beyond imagination
in natural resources and full of enterprise, are to be kept back
and retarded in our progress for the sake of a few manufac-
turers living in the Mother Country, three thousand miles
away. When I tell you that the total amount of manufactures
imported into this country from Great Britain last year was
under $40,000,000 : that the profit on this to the manufacturer
was probably not more than ten per cent., or $4,000,000, and
that even if under Commercial Union for the time being a cer-
tain proportion of this profit should be lost to the British manu-
facturer, you can easily see how absurd the contention is that
102 Handbook of Commercial Union.
the prosperity of this country and of this people should be
sacrificed for the benefit of these few manufacturers.
THE BRITISH MANUFACTURER.
Any movement which must bring about an extended trade
between this country and the United States is not likely to
interfere with any other branch of trade in the Mother Coun-
try except those connected with her manufactures, unless it be
argued that Canada has been brought into the world not only
to buy from the Mother Country, but also to sell to her. It
seems to ine inconsistent for our opponents to argue that we
must do nothing that will prevent the British manufacturer
sending his goods into Canada to be purchased here, unless
they also argue that we are bound to sell all we produce to the
Mother Country. Surely if it is our bounden duty to purchase
from the British manufacturer it must also be our bounden
duty to sell our surplus produce to the British public. Why
they should contend that we should do nothing that would pre-
vent the British manufacturer selling to us, and do not at the
same time assert his exclusive right to buy from us I cannot
understand. It must be evident to everyone that every bushel
of barley and every barrel of apples, every stick of timber and
every pound of meat we sell to our neighbours across the water
must leave us so much less to sell in the markets of Great
Britain, thereby enhancing to a certain extent the price that the
English consumer has to pay for these several commodities. If,
therefore, the argument is good in the one case it surely must
be good in the other.
But, gentlemen, the reason why our opponents object to our
entering into any arrangement with the United States that
might for a limited time raise the duties against the Euglish
manufacturer is not that they really believe we are disloyal, not
that they really think we are desirous of doing something to
the prejudice of the British Crown and nation, fbut because
they themselves are interested in keeping American manufac-
tures from coming into this country. If you get to the root
and core of the matter you will find that this cry is being
raised by those who are either themselves manufacturers or
have been interested in promoting this questionable policy,
which, in my opinion, is now beginning to do so much to drive
Commercial Union in relation to Great Britain. 103
our people out of the country, and bo injure Canada in- every
province. If, instead of unrestricted reciprocity with the
United States, we were to advocate free trade in all its branches
which would admit the products of English manufacture as well
as those of American manufacture free of duty, we should hear
nothing of this disloyalty cry as far as it relates to Great
Britain, but the cry we should then hear would be disloyalty to
Canada. Canada, which has sunk so many millions in building
up theue manufactures and in carrying out this National Policy,
we would then be told, was disloyal to herself ; we should hear
very little ot disloyalty to the British Crown ; but our friends
are astute enough and clever enough to keep themselves and
their interests for the present in the background, and to use the
cry of disloyalty to the Mother Country as the cat's-paw which
they hope will draw them out of the fire. ~~]
ACTION OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
I do not believe, gentlemen, that if this matter were proper-
ly represented to the British Government and the British peo-
ple they would for a moment object to any arrangement that
Canada might be able to make with the United States or with
any other country that could be shown without doubt to be
greatly to her interests. Let us look at the present pcjaition of
affairs. The British Government have already recognized the
right of the Canadian Government to impose such duties on
goods coming into Canada from Great Britain as she thought
expedient and necessary. It is true that some years ago the
question of the tariff was one of the questions that the Gover-
nor-General of Canada had power to look into, but it is well
known that since the Governor-Generalship ot Lord Lome the
British Government have recognized the right of the Canadian
Government to impose such duties on all commodities as it
thinks necessary. The present Government of Sir John Mac-
donald in the year 1879 raised the duties on nearly all imports
by a very great amount. There was a considerable outcry at
the time. The matter came before the Home Government, and
the British manufacturers and merchants who then complained
were told that Canada had a perfect right to impose any duties
that she thought necessary in the interests of her own people.
It was said at that time that this duty was imposed by Sir
104 Handbook of Gonvmercial Union.
John Mttcdonald's Government more by way of retaliation and
to bring about unrestricted reciprocity with the United States
than for revenue purposes. If this is the case (and undoubt-
edly thero is good reason to suppose it to be so), I would ask
how it now lies in the mouth of those who are opposing us,
and who are mostly advocates of the policy inaugurated by Sir
John Macdonald's Government in the year 1879, to raise this
disloyalty cry which they are now relying on. Last year again
Sir Charles Tupper, much to the chagrin and annoyance of the
iron manufacturers in the Old Country, raised the duty on iron
considerably. When protests were made to the British Gov-
ernment the same reply was given as before.
Now, sirs, I fail to see how a party which has inaugurated the
system of taxes on British imports, and has increased those
taxes more than once to the great annoyance and detriment of
the British manufacturer, can honestly turn round upon us who
are advocating a movement which will greatly increase the
wealth and prosperity of this great country, and argue that we
are disloyal. It looks very much as if these gentlemen had
adopted the well-known rule used by skilful advocates when
they have a bad case, viz., to igiiore the facts and merits of the
' case and abuse the other side. T If in 1879 it was right and
proper to impose heavier duties on imports from Great Britain,
either to bring about unrestricted reciprocity with the United
States or in the interests of Canada, surely it cannot be wrong
in 1887 to increase these duties somewhat if it becomes neces-
sary to do so in order to accomplish this great object. If it is
disloyal to do this now, surely it must have been disloyal to do
it in 1879. Nothing has happened since then to make what
was not disloyal in 1879 disloyal in 188817
MORE MONEY AND MORE PEOPLE WANTED.
But, gentlemen, I will show you that it is in the interests of
Great Britain that we should have closer trade relations with
the United States. I have just stated that Canada is the
second largest country in the world, but poor in money and
/ poor in people. fWhat we want is more money and more peo-
ple. Our friends to the south of us have more money than
they know how to use. They have sixty millions of live and
active people, who from morolog till mght are seeking new
ConiTnercial Union in relation to Oreat Britain. 105
channels by which to increase their wealthJ Is it very much to
suppose that when we are in a position to point out to those
people the value of our mines, the value of our timber forests,
the value of our fisheries and our wheat lands, and thnt these
can be worked by them with their own money and free from
Customs duties and other senseless impositions, that a large
number of these people and a large amount of their money will
soon find its way into Canada ? It is said that history repeats
itself, and if we believe this to be the case we have only to
look back to what took place between the years 1864 and 1866,
when we had reciprocity in natural products with the United
States. During that period the busines transacted between the
two countries increased from $20,000,000 to over $84,000,000
per annum. The dissatisfaction, the dulness of the business,
the dismay in people's minds that existed previous to 1854
rapidly disappeared during this happy period. Canada never
was more prosperous, never was more happy ; and we think,
therefore, that we are not too sanguine when we suppose that
if all trade barriers were removed between us and the United
States a tremendous impetus would be given at once to all the
various branches of trade. I mentioned that the interest of
the British manufacturer in Canada wap about $40,000,000 per
annum. You will perhaps be surprised when I tell you that the
interest of the British nation as investors in our mortgages, in
our railways, in our municipal debentures, in our timber lands,
in our ranch properties and other things, is over $600,000,000.
Now it must readily be seen that whatever directly benefits
this country must indirectly benefit these investors, [jf trade
increases the dividends paid by cur railways to the British in-
vestor must improve. If the farmers* condition improves the
interest paid to the British investor on his mortgages will come,
in more regularly. J The money placed by the British investor
in our mines and ranch properties must bring in a better re-
turn. I say, therefore, without fear of contradiction, that in-
asmuch as the policy we are proposing will benefit such a large
number of English investors, and will injure only to a small
extent and for a short period the British manufacturer, it is in
the interests of Great Britain that our proposals should be car-
ried out I wish you to understand that I think the British
manufacturer will only temporarily be prejudiced by this
movement, for I am satisfied that as Canada increases in
106 Handbook of Commercial Union.
f.n^
wealth, and as the national debt of the United States decreases
in amount, and the tariff as a natural consequence is lowered,
that a larger quantity of British goods will be consumed both
in Canada and the United States, and/ihat ultimately the tariff,
which for the time being may be slightly increased, will be
eventually reduced to below what it is at the present time. '
STRENGTHENING THE EMPIRE.
Again, by improving the prosperity and increasing the
wealth of the country we are strengthening the whole of the
British Empire, f We are keeping our young men in Canada
who otherwise will leave. / At the present time it is said that
there are more than a million Canadians in the United States,
and that this number is increasing year by year. For years
past a large number of the surplus population of Great Britain
has emigrated to the United States ; a very small number to
Canada. Why is this ? The reason is surely to be found in
the fact that the one ia a prosperous country, the other a poor
country. Can it be argued by those who are raising the dis-
loyalty cry that any Englishman, when he has the choice of
emigrating to two countries, one of them being under the
British Crown, and the other a foreign country, would choose a
foreign country unless there was some good reason for doing
so ? Q! believe that as soon as you can show the British emi-
grant that prosperity has returned to the shores of Canada
and that he can do as well here as he can in the United States,
a very large proportion of those who are annually lost to the
British nation will come and settle in Canada and continue to
be good and loyal subjects of the British Crown. ] In this mat-
ter alone, therefore, of keeping our young men in Canada, and
of attracting to our shores the able-bodied, intelligent emigrant,
who otherwise would give up allegiance to the British Crown
when he goes to reside in the United States, I believe we are
advocating a course that is greatly in the interests of the whole
Empire.
But it is said that this movement will lead to annexation.
Our opponents say that Commercial Union is *' annexation in
disguisa Loyal as you may be in your intentions it cannot
fail eventually to bring about annexation." Now, sir, I may
say here that[lf I thought that this was to be the result of
Commercial Union in relation to Great Britain. 107
— 7
Commercial Union I should have nothing to do with it,.; As
you know, I was born in. Great Britain, and am not a native of
Canada, although I am proud to say that I have adopted Cana-
da as my country. There is no one who is more strongly at-
tached or has more loyal feelings towards the Mother Country
than I have; and one of the principal reasons I have in advocating
this movement is that I believe that unless we can improve our
position by extending our trade and getting more capital and
more people into the country, the time is not far distant when we
would be compelled to go to our friends across the water, suing
in forma pauperis, and requesting them to make some arrange-
ment to hf.Ip us. From all parts of the country I hear the
cry of distress. I am told on all sides that there is scarcely a
business in Canada at the present time that is more than pay-
ing expenses. The farmer finds it impossible to make both ends
meet. The manufacturer, who is paying heavy interest on un-
productive capital sunk in his buildings and machinery, has to
charge exorbitant prices to the poor consumer. Manitoba and
the North- West, which was tx) have been such a bonanza to the
whole Dominion, has instead turned out to be a tremendously
heavy weight. [' With a debt of $225,000,000 hanging over our
heads, largely incurred to build the Canadian Pacific R'y, which,
practically, is of little benefit to more than two cities in Canada
east of Winnipeg ; with &per capita debt of over $44 tor each
Canadian ; with dissatisfaction in the Maritime Provinces, so
pronounced that on more than one occasion Nova Scotia has de-
clared its intention to leave Confederation ; with ill-feeling in
Manitoba, amounting almost to rebellion, in consequence of
that province being refused direct communication with the sixty
million people south of them ; with the public press, which is
supposed to re-echo the sentiments of the people, stating, as
did the Emerson International on the 21st of July last, that
** the opposition to free channels of trade is rapidly engender-
ing a strong and wide-spread feeling in favor of annexation," I
think there can be little doubt that unless something is done
to remedy this terrible state of affairs we are fast
DRIFTING TOWARDS ANNEXATION
to the United States?? I believe, sir, that if we can assure con-
tinental free trade or unrestricted reciprocity with the United
108 Handbook of Commercial Union.
States that with the returning prosperity which will come to
this country, and the satisfaction we shall experience in seeing
our valuable natural resources turned to the best account, we
shall be so satisfied with our position that we shall scout any
idea of change in our political relations and continue a loyal
y^ and prosperous part of the Queen's domain. £1 am confirmed
in this view of the question by the fact that many of the advo-
cates of annexation are opposing the movement because they
agree with me in thinking that if we got Commercial Union
annexation would be indefinitely postponed.7 In support of
this view I may refer you to the remarks or the Globe of St.
John, New Brunswick, in its issue of 30th July last, where it
said, ** possibly the effect of Commercial Union would be to
retard the progress of any annexation sentiment which is based
on mere material considerations, inasmuch as these considera-
tions would be satisfied by Commercial Union. The more
ardent annexationists may therefore be expected to look with
indifference upon it, if they do not really oppose that Union
since it will not satisfy their aspirations." Gentlemen, these
are strong words, but none the less true ; and I hold it to be
the duty of every Canadian who is loyal to his own country,
who is loyal to this great Dominion, who is loyal to the British
Crown, to examine carefully these signs of the times, and try
to find some remedy for this grave dissatisfaction which is
cropping up in so many different parts of the Dominion. If
we wish to retain the several provinces in Confederation we
must satisfy the ])eople not by giving them better terms in
the shape of periodical grants of money, but by some broad
substantial commercial policy that will bring back life and
prosperity to the hearths and firesides of each of the people.
Our Government have on several occasions recognized the im-
portance of extending our commercial relations, and have taken
to themselves considerable credit for making and attempting
to make commercial arrangements with several foreign coun-
tries such as France, Spain, the West Indies, the Argentine
Republic, etc. Why, I would ask, is it necessary to go all over
the world seeking people to trade with whose laws, customs and
languages are different from our own when we have within a
few hundred miles of every part of Canada a people sixty mil-
lions in number ready and willing to trade with us, who speak
the sawe lauji^ua^e, »ui have laws and cuetgms Y^r^ Bimilar to
Commercial Union in relation to Great Britain. 109
our own, and many of whom, as I have already pointed out, are
related to us by flesh and blood 1
A SIMPLE MATTEK OF ARRANGEMENT.
But it is said that in order to have free trade on this conti-
nent it would be necessary for us to surrender our indepen-
dence to the United States, for this can only be brought aboub
when our tariffs have been fixed and settled for us at Wash-
ington. This argument seems to be absurd. If the argument
were sound, every time we open negotiations with the West
Indies, the Argentine Republic, or any other small States we arv*
offering to surrender to these States our independence in order
to bring about the arrangement sought for. ;^ The question of ^
tariff between two countries is simply a matter of arrange-
ment between the two contracting parties for a fixed period or
until notice of the termination of the arrangement by one of
the contracting parties, and as each contracting party has an
equal voice in the negotiations leading up to the arrangement \
I cannot see how any tariff fixed in this wav can be said to be
a surrender of our independence. Again, I would ask, did w«
surrender our independence to the United States when w<»
entered into an arrangement with them for limited reciprocity
in the year 1854, and which arrangement I believe discrimina-
ted to some extent against some kinds of British manufac-
tures 1 If under that arrangement we retained our indepen-
dence what is to prevent our doing so under an arrangement
for more extended reciprocity ]
DISLOYALTY A BUGBEAR.
Gentlemen, it is by arguments of this kind, and having as
little truth and force in them as this one, that our opponents
have been trying to influence the country against this move
iiient. I have carefully examined and read everything I could
find that has been said or written on this great question, and 1
cannot say that I have found any argument brought forth by
our opponents that we are not able satisfactorily to answer.
This disloyalty cry in my opinion has nothing in it ; it is a bug-
bear got up by our opponents to frighten the timid, and to
divert those who are wavering from the real question in ordei
(0 prevent t^e merits beip^ e^moed iu\>Q, If the (jueetion Qf
110 Handbook of Commercml Union.
disloyalty comes up at all it is a far more grave one than our
opponents would wish to make it. It is not a simple question
of the effect of this movement on our relations to the Mother
Country, but it is a question of our loyalty to ourselves. If
we wish Confederation to hold together ; if we wish to have
peace and prosperity in our midst; if we wish this Canada of
ours to flourish, to remain an integral portion of the Queen's
domain, we must look the present state of affairs fairly and
squarely in the face, and at once devise some means of restoring
contentment, happiness and prosperity to this great country ;
and I say that that can only be done by entering into the only
arrangements that our natural position points out to us to' be
the right and proper one, and that is to break down all bar-
riers of trade on this vast continent and bring about" as soon
as possible continental free trade, i
THE QUESTION SUMMED UP.
To sum up then, an equitable and just commercial arrange-
ment with the United States bringing about unrestricted re-
ciprocity between the two countries, would affect our relations
with Great Britain, as follows : First, it would greatly increase
our prosperity in Canada, and by so doing would largely benefit
the $600,000,000 of British capital invested here ; secondly,
after a short time it would in consequence of the increased de-
mand for manufactures, and the lowering of the tariff at present
existing in the United States, considerably benefit the British
manufacturer ; thirdly, it would open up fresh fields for the in-
vestment of British capital from the new enterprises that would
spring up in Canada ; fourthly, it would turn the tide of emi-
gration tor the best class of British emigrants from the United
States to the great wheat district of the North- West of Canada ;
fifthly, it would establish Confederation on a firm basis, and so
assure Canada remaining an integral part of the Queen's do-
main ; and sixthly, it would remove all cause of triction be-
tween ourselves. Great Britain and the United States, and thus
place millions of English-speaking people on this continent on
a friendly footing for all time to come ; and having accom-
plished all these things I think it will be acknowledged that
Commercial Union will be of inestimable benefit not only to
Canada, but also to the people of Great Britain.
CURRENT OBJECTIONS TO COMMERCIAL
UNION CONSIDERED.
BY THE HON. J. W. LONGLEY,
Attorney-General of Nova Scotia, Halifax.
There is nothing in the consideration of Commercial Union
with the United States which involves the questions of Free
Trade and Protection in the abstract. Both the Free Trader
and the Protectionist can cousintently support it ; the latter,
because it is contemplated that North America should have a
common and high tariff against the rest of the world \ the for-
mer, because unrestricted trade over a whole, great, and pros-
perous continent is an enormous step in the direction of Free
Trade. Personally, I would regard absolute Free Trade as a
better solution of uur difficulties. But this seems not to be a
practical question at the present moment. The most sanguine
public man would despair of being able to induce the Canadian
people to accept the broad doctrine of commercial freedom, and
a revenue derived chiefly from direct taxation. This solution
then having to be rejected for a time, it remains to be seen
what is the best practicable course for us to take.
The theory upon which the advocacy of Commercial Union is
based is that our present condition of affairs is intolerable and
cannot last The opposition to it goes upon the assumption
that everything is all right in Canada, that the National Pol-
icy of Sir John Macdonald is working well, and that all parts
of Canada are not only prosperous but contented. This is de-
nied in the clearest and most emphatic manner.
Granting, for the moment, that under ordinary circumstances
the National Policy is sound — in other words, that in a
new country like Canada it is the true policy to build up
domestic industries by imposing high tariffs against the pro-
ducts and manufactures of older countries, still, upon a careful
examination into the peculiar circumstances of our position, it
must strike any mind that is not prejudiced or dull, that
Buch a policy is simple madness, and mu^t sooner or later col-
112 Handbook of Commercial Union.
lapse. A political union of the several Provinces of British
North America was effected in 1867, but not a commercial
union, and the twenty years that have elapsed have served only
to demonstrate how utterly impossible a commercial union be-
tween the several Provinces is.
INTER-PROVINCIAL TRADE A FAILURE.
I take the solid ground that naturally there is no trade be-
tween Ontario and the Maritime Provinces whatsoever. With-
out the »id or compulsion of tariffs scarcely a single article pro-
duced in Ontario would ever seek or find a market in Nova
Scotia, or the other Maritime Provinces ; in like manner, un-
less under similar compulsion, not a product of the Maritime
Provinces would ever go to Ontario. [_ Twenty years of political
union and nine years of an inexorable protective policy designed
to compel inter- Provincial trade have been powerless to create
any larpe triide between these two sections, and what it has
created has been unnatural, unhealthy, and consequently profit-
less. 7
To illustrate : Ontario sends about $7,000,000 worth of bar-
ley to the United States, and pays fifteen cents per bushel duty
on it. How much does she send to the Maritime Provinces 1
She sends an equal value of the products of the forest to the
United States, and pays heavy duties upon it. How much to
the Maritime Provinces with no duties'? She sends over
$4,000,000 worth of animals and their produce to the United
States with heavy duties. How much to the Maritime Pro-
vinces ? Let us reverse the picture. Nova Scotia sends nearly
$2,000,000 worth of fish to the United States. How much to
Ontario ? She sends of the produce of her mines $600,000 to
the United States, and pays large duties. How much to On-
tario with no duties? She sends $500,000 worth of agri-
cultural products to the United States, and pays heavy duties.
How much to Ontario ? She sends some hundreds of thousands
of dollars' worth of produce of the forest to the United States,
and pays heavy duties. How much to Ontario ?
Of the genuine natural products Nova Scotia sends practi-
cally nothing to Ontario If the exports from Nova Scotia to
Ontario are carefully studied, it will be found that they consist
chiefly of refined sugar and manufactured cotton, the product of
Objections to Oommercial Union considered. 113
two mushroom industries called into existence by the protective
system, and which do not affect one way or another the inter-
ests of five hundred individuals in the entire Province of Nova
Scotia.
Does anyone ask why this state of things exists 1 The answer
is simple. God and nature never designed a trade between
Ontario an^ the Maritime Provinces. 7 If I have a barrel or ton
of any commodity produced in Nova Scotia, and I desired to
send it to Toronto or Hamilton, the cost of sending it thither
would (unless it were gold) probably be more than the value
of the commodity. But I can at any moment put it on board
of one of the numerous vessels or steamers which are daily
leaving every port in Nova Scotia for Boston, and send it to
that city for 20 or 30 cents. If I desired to go to Toronto or
Hamilton to sell it, I should have to mortgage my farm to pay
the cost of the trip, whereas I can go to Boston and back for a
few dollars.
Will some one be good enough to explain how it happens
after all the^boasted results of the National Policy, after the
glorification we hear in the party press when a car load of sugar
leaves Halifax for Ontario, that at this moment all the trade
relations and all the social relations of Nova Scotia are with
the New England States, and all the trade relations and all the
social relations of Ontario are with the people of New York,
Chicago, BuflPalo, Cleveland, Detroit, and other large American
cities T How happens it that Manitoba, where millions of the
people's money have been lavished in the attempt to engraft a
mad system of forced inter-Provincial trade upon the North-
west, is to-day on the brink of insurrection — over what ?
Simply the right to have railway connection with the United
States. Sir John Macdonald and the Canadian Parliament
have decreed that the people of Manitoba shall sell their wheat
in Montreal or Toronto, and trade with Ontario and Quebec.
God and Nature have decreed that they shall sell their wheat
in and trade with St. Paul, Minneapolis and other contiguous
western cities. Whose decrees are most likely based upon
wisdom, and which are most certain to prevail 1 Will some
enthusiastic advocate of the present system please rise and ex-
plain why, after twenty years of Confederation, a Nova Scotian is
never seen in Ontario except as a traveller or a delegate to
some denominational convention ; and why, with the exception
114 Handbook of Commercial Union.
of the " drummer " an Ontario man is as great a curiosity in
Nova Scotia as a South Sea Islander ? There must be some-
thing generally wrong with a system which, after twenty years
of enthusiastic gush over the Confederation and the building
of a National sentiment, has for its product complete isolation
between the several Provinces ; which sees the merchants of
the Maritime Provinces making constant visits in the way of
trade to Boston and New V^ork, and none to Toronto ; which
sees the business men of Ontario going daily backward and
forward between that Province and the American cities about
them, and coming to Halifax in the way of business once in a
century. In all seriousness is there not material in these facts
— undoubted facts — to cause sensible men to reflect upon the
prosperity and permanence of the existing conditions of things
in Canada ?
If any moral can be gathered from the incidents already re-
ferred to, it is this : That the Maritime Provinces have no
natural or healthy trade with the Upper Provinces, but with
the New England States ; that the Upper Provinces have no
natural trade with the Maritime Provinces, but with the Cen-
tral and \/estern States adjoining them ; that Manitoba has no
natural trade with the larger Provinces of Canada, but with
the Western States to the south of her ; that British Columbia
has no trade with any part of Canada, but with California and
the Pacific States. In other words, that inter-Provincial trade
is unnatural, forced, and profitless, while there is a natural and
profitable trade at our very doors open and available to us.
Does not this'suggest Commercial Union with the United States
as the supreme solution of our present difficulties in tones so
clear, so unmistakable as to be apparent to the dullest ? The
remedy is simple : strike down the unnatural and absurd barriers
between this country and the United States, and let trade flow
freely in its natural channels from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
Having stated the general principles which seem to make a
Commercial Union extending over the continent natural and
desirable, it remains to deal with some of the objections which
have been taken to this policy. They may be summarized
briefly as follows : First — It will lead to Annexation or political
Objections to Commercial Union considered. 115
union. Second — It will be injurious to the manufacturing
industries of Canada. Third — It is impracticable ; inasmuch
as it is impossible to frame a common tariff satisfactory to both
countries ; and if this were done in the first instance how is
this common tariff to be changed from time to time to suit the
exigencies of either country 1 Fourth — It will tend to separ-
ate Canada from her connection with the Empire^ These are
the chief objections urged against the scheme, so far as I have
heard them, and it is proposed to deal with each.
First — It will lead to Annexation. This must be considered
from two standpoints — that of those who are rigidly opposed
to political union with the United States, and those who are
nor. [f Belonging to the latter class, and believing firmly that "
the interests of the Dominion of Canada are more identified
with the continent of America than with any portion of the
world, this bugbear has no terrors for me ; nor would I, and
many others who believe with me, resist Commercial Union, if
satisfied that the material prosperity of the country were bound
up in it, for mere sentimental considerations. , But it is for the
benefit of those who, for some reasons which are not very
clearly defined, have an instinctive horror of political union
with their English-speaking brethren on this continent, that
the objection is now to be considered. ,
The onus is upon those making this objection to, establish
their point. It is suBicient in answer merely to deny the fact
and call for the proof. The facts of history are against any
such theory. The period when the Annexation sentiment was
strongest in Canada was just preceding the Reciprocity Treaty
of 1854. The advantages of trade with the United States
were then deeply felt by the masses of our people and large
numbers at that time believed that the only w^ay to master the
evils under which we were then labouring was to seek union with
the States. The public men of the other provinces joined in a
movement in this direction, and Annexation was a more vital
question in Old Canada than in the Maritime Provinces. ' But
the treaty ot 1854 put an end to this feeling. As soon as our
people secured the advantages of free access to the American
markets for tlieir staple products content followed, and all
mention of Annexation ceased. The Treaty terminated in
1866. The next year the Dominion was created, and a noble
effort has been made by our people to substitute a national life,
116 Handbook of Commercial Union.
or policy, in place of American trade. If the conditions were
favourable the struggle would be worthy of our best endeavours.
But I aimed to show in the former article that it could not be
done, the geographical difficulties are overwhelming and per-
manent. And to-day we find arising in the several sections of
this Dominion the same feeling of discontent, and the people
seeking the same natural remedy — trade with the United States.
It is fair and reasonable to conclude that the advent of a policy
of unrestricted trade with the United States would put an end
to this discontent, and allay any growing tendency to seek re-
lief by political union with our great neighbour. But it is
not necessary to be sophistical on this point. A ready and con-
clusive answer to those who croak ol' Annexation is at hand.
The question comes right down to this : Are the (>anadian
people afraid of themselves ?^ None of us have much fear of
conquest, or a forced union with the United States ; therefore,
if Canada ever becomes a part of the American Union it will
be because a majority of the Canadian people want it. When
that period arrives what is to be done? Shall not the will of
the majority prevail ? ^ With or without Commercial Union,
Annexation will never take place unless a majority of Cana-
dians want it and vote for it. What, then, need we fear ? Is
it said that Commercial Union will hasten the desire in this
direction*? Why ? Only in one way — by making the advan-
tages more apparent. Would this be a disaster ? [jLet us all
console ourselves by this thought, in this and in all other im-
portant matters connected with our destinies, — the will of the
Canadian people will be supremo^ If now and evermore the
great mass of people are inexorably hostile to political union
with the States, then they have nothing to fear, either under
Commercial Union or without it. If, on the other hand, it is
a good thing, and would tend to advance our interests, then
the sooner it coines the better. Let us not be afraid of our-
selves.
Second — It will injure the young manufacturing industries
of Canada. If this objection is well founded it is a disagree-
able confession. It either means that our manufactures are of
mushroom growth, and highly artificial, or that we are not equal
to our confreres in this important field of labour. I reject both
theories. T Some industries have been forced into an unnatural
p^istence D^ mef^us of »» unsound trade policy, The colUps^
Objections to Commercial Union considered. 117
of these will not be a national calamity. But there are indus-
tries in Canada which are able to compete with the continent,
and which would be vastly strengthened and enlarged by open-
ing to them the markets of sixty millions of people.^ The effect
of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 was not to depress the manu-
facturing industries of Canada, nor has any one a right to pre-
sume that unrestricted trade with the continent woul^have any
such effect. However, it may be admitted that the/immediate
effect of Commercial Union will be to injure some few of the
manufacturing industries of Canada]^! but the other side of the
case must also be considered. Manufactures ultimately adjust
themselves according to facilities, and no one can doubt that
Canada offers facilities which will attract to this country Ameri-'
can capital and American enterprise the instant that an en-
larged market is assured. Take the iron industry of Nova
Scotia. From Pennsylvania to the North Pole, so far as we
know at present, the condition of coal and iron lying side
by side does not exist in America, save in Nova Scotia. For
years past the National Policy has done its best to foster the
iron industry in Nova Scotia. Large duties have been imposed
upon imported iron. Then came a bounty of $1.50 per ton on
pig. Then special rates over the Intercolonial Railway for coal
and coke. Yet with all this nursing the Londonderry Iron
Works of Nova Scotia have never thrived, and the Steel
Company of Canada is now in liquidation. But who doubts
for a moment that in the day that the markets of the whole
continent are thrown open large iron works will spring up by
the agency of American capital in the counties of Pictou and
Cape Breton, where coke can be obtained at the very works
themselves at $L 50 or $2 per ton ? This only serves as an il-
lustration of many other industries which would boom at once
as soon as a natural and unlimited market was available. But
it must not be forgotten that while manufactures are an ex-
ceedingly important factor in the national prosperity they must
not be allowed to overshadow all other interests. It would not
be wise to sacrifice all other industries for the sole benefit of a
handful of manufacturers. Is it nothing that Commercial
Union will double the profits of the farmer, who represents
nearly fifty per cent, of the entire population 1 J Are we not to
regard the interests of the lumberman, the fisherman, the ship-
buildw; the nai»er ? Are we to ignore forever all the inexorn'
il8 '.. Handbook of Commercial Union.
ble laws of trade 1 Must everything give way to play the game
of the petted manufacturer ? Surely every reasonable person
will answer, No ! But we have yet to Bnd any man in Canada
who has addressed himself to the task of proving that in the
aggregate the manufacturing class in this country would suffer
by having opened to them in a day the markets of the greatest
industrial and consuming nation in the world. ^.'
DIFFICULTY IN ADJUSTING A COMMON TARIFF.
The third objection taken to the scheme of Commercial Union
is the most difficult to deal with. It is that it would be im-
practicable for two independent nations to adjust a common
tariff satisfactory to both. It is argued that the revenue necessi-
ties of each might differ, and a tariff which produced enough
revenue for one of them might not produce enough for the other.
And even if a satisfactory adjustment was made in the first in-
stance, in the course of time the exigencies of either might re-
quire an incrv^ase or a reduction, and that infinite difficulties
would stand in the way of a readjustment, These are substan-
tial difficulties, and need to be looked into carefully.
It will be kept in mind that this objection is one in form,
not in substance. It is a mere matter of detail. If it can be
successfnlly shown that the result of Commercial Union would
be to double the wealth of Canada in five years, it is not likely
the Canadian people would be daunted by any mere difficulties
of detail. But the objection is a practical one, and merits con-
sideration. Granted that Commercial Union is a good thing,
how is the scheme to be worked out ?
This very difficulty suggests the folly of tariffs of all kinds.
[^ Who can doubt that the world would be better and the whole
human race be brought nearer to the realisation of a common
brotherhood if there were no such things as Custom-houses 1 7
Wlio also will undertake to controvert the fact that tariff rev- ''
enues are the foundation of national extravagance and official
jobbery ? It is a vulgar impression that a revenue collected
through the Custom-house and excise departments is not a tax
at all, and that consequently the more revenue you get the
more money you will have to lavish. This is the origin of
reckless expenditure and growing and multiplying wants. If
all the money required by National Governments were raised by
objections to ComTYiercial Union con»idered. 119
direct taxation we should see a system of economy which would
remind one of Spartan virtue, and we should not have to worry
over such questions as Commercial Union, Jot th6 whole world
would form one great Commercial U nion.
This is the ideal condition of affairs. We unfortunately
have to deal with the real. But the indications are that this
continent is about to turn its course in the direction of commer-
cial freedom. In the United States the Protectionist party is
still ascendant, but the advocates of a reduced tariff are steadily
gaining ground. The enormous surplus which is being rolled
up each year, and which the Government do not know what to
do with, is an immense lever in the hands of those who are
endeavouring to lead their country in the direction of sound
economic principles. Therefore, though we have to deal with
things as we find them, and make all our calculations on the
basis of a tariff collected revenue for many years to come, yet
one thing we may confidently rely upon in all estimates for the
future, and that is that the United States will adopt the policy
of a gradual and steady reduction of their tariff. If the Con-
gress agree to the principle involved in Mr. Butterworth's Bill,
and a Commission is formed to adjust a common tariff, it is safe
to affirm that that tariff will be lower than the existing tariff of
the United States. It is equally safe to conclude that if a re-
adjustment of this common tariff is afterwards sought by the
United States Government, it will be in the direction of a fur-
ther reduction, and not an increase.
If these be the facts, then we can make our calculations ac-
cordingly. It will be satisfactory to Canadians to have a com-
mon tariff lower than the present American tariff. Indeed it
is one of the objections urged in many quarters to Commercial
Union that it will involve too high a tariff ; therefore we have
nothing to fear from the first common tariff American policy
and Canadian interest will run parallel in this regard. But
suppose that American policy, which is likely to prevail under a
common tariff, should seek a still further reduction in the com-
mon tariff, in the course of a few years, as we feel quite confi-
dent it will, how will this affect Canadian interest 1 Would it
not be entirely in line with it ? Have we anything to fear from
a reduced tariff 1 CJVe have always the alternative of direct *^
taxation, and I believe this to be the very best meaus of col-
lecting a revenue.7 Sound and enlightened opinion the world
120 Handbook of Commercial Union. • '
over is tending in this direction. Every educated writer on the
subject plants himself upon this solid basis.
Therefore .1 sum up the whole objection thus : The common
tariflf likely to be formed is one which will exactly suit Cana-
dian interest, and all probable changes will inevitably be in the
direction of sound policy, which no intelligent and patriotic
Canadian will ever be afraid of. It will not improbably happen
that Commercial Union may teach both countries the folly of
Custom-houses, then indeed will it prove a blessing to this great
continent.
THE SENTIMENTAL DIFFICULTY.
I come now to the fourth and last radical objection to Commer-
cial Union, — that it will tend to separate Canada from the
British Empire. I wish above all things to be frank in the
discussion of this vital question, and therefore I am compelled
to admit that there is a large basis for this objection. But the
relations between Canada and the British Islands are not very
close at this present. Recognising tliat we are part of the
great Empire of which wo may justly feel proud, we are loyal
to the British Crown, and, what is more important, loyal to
the British race. The accident that we are at this moment
Colonists, in my judgment, does not exercise a very powerful
influence in moulding the sentiment of the Canadian people
toward Great Britain. We are practically independent at this
moment. We make our own laws, frame our own tariffs, and in
no sense accept any interference with our affairs from the
British people. It is true that the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council is our final Court of Appeal, but this is only
because that it is so, not because there is any necessity, advant-
age, or philosophy for this tribunal ; therefore, the point I wish
to make is that the Colonial relation between Great Britain and
Canada is essentially a slender one, must necessarily come to
an end some time, and does not now have a very marked effect
upon Canadian policy.
It cannot be disguised, however, that there exists an enor-
mous sentiment of loyalty and affection for Great Britain in this
country, and nothing can occur to eradicate this. Surely no
man with any spirit or sense would wish to abate this one jot
or one tittle. Who can fail to be proud of the achievements of
the British race and the glory of the British Empire ) Who is
Objections to Commiercial Union considered. 121
80 dull as not to recognize that Great Britain stands to day as
the foremost representative of civilization and enlightenment
in the Eastern Hemisphere ? Who fails to appreciate the
rejected glory of the race in the development of North Ame-
rica ? The second point then which I wish to make is that if
the Colonial relations between Great Britain and Canada were
to terminate, either as a result of Commercial Union, or for
any other reason, this would not make the Canadian people less
devoted to the interests of the Empire, or less impregnated
with sentiments of loyalty and veneration.
But it must not be inferred that I admit or believe that
Commercial Union with the United States would involve In-
dependence. On the contrary, I am fully persuaded that
Commercial Union would be the easiest and best settlement of
the Fisheries dispute, and at the same time would be entirely
in lino with British interests. The common tariff, which would
be called into existence under Commercial Union, would un-
doubtedly be more favourable to British trade with North
America than the multiple of the two existing tariffs of the
United States and Canada. Therefore, I apprehend that the
proposition to make a permanent settlement of the Fisheries
difficulty on the basis of Commercial Union will meet with no
serious opposition in Great Britain, neither will it cause an
abrupt termination of our existing relations.
It is not wise or sensible to make our calculations of the
future entirely on existing lines. Canada is assuming national
proportions, and her future is still a matter of doubt and un-
certainty. Important changes must come with time. Imperial
Federation is simple madness, and not to be seriously enter-
tained in Canada. The only true policy for us to pursue is to
seek to promote our own material interests by the most natural
and palpable method. Anything which tends to the prosperity
of Canada will not be resisted by the British people. Our
destiny is in our own hands. Let us work it out with patriot-
ism and manliness.
if
ADDRESS ON COMMERCIAL* UNION. ^
Delivered at Almonte^ Ont., Feb. 20fh, 1888, ^^
BY JAMES PEARSON, TORONTO.
[From the Almonte Gazette.]
A well attended and interesting meetinsj of the North Lanark
Farmers* Institute was held in the Town Hall, Almonte, on
Monday, the 20th inst, called for the purpose of discussing the
now important question of Commercial Union between Canada
and the United States. Mr. 0. M. Simpson, President, occu-
pied the chair, and, after a few introductory remarks, announced
Mr. James Pearson, Barrister, Toronto, and a member of the
Commercial Union Club of that city, as the speaker.
Mr. Pearson began his remarks by saying that though now
a resident of Toronto, he was not a stranger in the county,
for he was born and brought up a farmer in the township of
Huntley, and, true to the instincts of his early vocation, now
found himself the owner of a farm in Victoria county, and so
could speak to the farmers he saw before him not only as a
lawyer but as a farmer, and in the interest of the farming com-
munity. He liked to hear the question at issue discussed, and
he didn't shrink from referring to it with those who held views
inimical to his own. He considered it a question of the far-
mers, the fishermen, the lumbermen and others on the one side,
and the manufacturers on the other, and when we undertake
to discuss questions of this nature, which necessarily affect the
INTERESTS OP THE WHOLE COUNTRY,
we should be prepared to treat them in a calm, deliberate
manner, relying upon cold facts to bear us out in our conten-
tions, and always having the best in'*»re8t8 of the countr}' in
view. He would first call attention to some facts relating to
the population and trade of the country, so that his hearers
would be able to follow him through his remarks. He would
speak of figures in round numbers. Canada, he said, was
Address on Commercial Union. 123
practically an agricultural country. She had other interests, to
be sure, but those of the farming population outweighed all
others, and were spread over the whole country. Taking the
aggregate trade of the Dominion from the time of Confedera-
tion, the speaker pointed out that of the exports of the
country farm produce aggregated over one-half of the
total ; lumber came next with a representation of about
one third ; the products of the fisheries one-twelfth, the exports
of the manufacturers nobly bringing up the rear with a repre-
sentation of one-twentieth. It could be seen from this that the
interests of nine-tenths were to be considered on the one side
and those of one-twentieth on the other. He gave the figures
in round numbers, as shown by the statistics, of the aggregate
trade for the years 1885-86-87, showing a falling off in the sec-
ond year from that of the first, and but a small increase of the
third over the second. Our imports, he said, exceeded our ex-
ports by $20,000,000, annually ; and our trade for years had
been much larger with the States than with England. Our
trade with those two countries was about 89 percent, of the
whole. We did more or less trading with China, France, Ger-
many, and even the Argentine Republic, but, as he said be-
fore. United States and England represented 89 per cent, of the
whole. We have a tariff at present against all countries ;
every article, wherever it came trom, had to pay the duty im-
posed by our tariff laws — by the wall which had been built
around the Dominion ; but the States, too, had a tariff wall,
and articles going into that country had to pay a heavy duty or
toll ulso. England was a
PllEE TRADE COUNTRY.
There was no duty to be paid on the articles sent ther:,. If,
with that tariff, we export as much to the United States as we
do to England, is it not reasonable to suppose that we would
export much more to the former country if the wall were taken
down 1 It is true that we sent articles to the United States
that we could not very well send to England, but if it were not
for the States what would we do for a market for our eggs,
poultry, etc. Last year we exported $2,000,000 worth of eggs
to the United States, and about a quarter of a million worth of
poultry. England, it was true, furnished oar staple markets for
124 Handbook of Commercial Union.
horned cattle, as shown by the figures for last year ; 75,000
went to England and 45,000 to the United States. But again,
in the matter of horses, we were obliged to fall back on the
States. The speaker pointed out that, out of 262,000 exported
since Confederation, only 5,000 went to England, 450 to other
countries, and the balance to the United States. Canada didn't
produce the kind required by England, but did produce the
kind wanted in the States. In 1886 England wanted horses
for military purposes. A man was sent out to inspect and
purchase these horses, and, out of 8,000 Canadian horses in-
spected, bought 80. Then, as to the question of barley, he
said that farmers were getting out of conceit of growing wheat.
The United States purchased nearly the whole of our barley.
In 1887, 9,000,000 bushels of the latter product was exported
to the States, the duty on which amounted to the
ENORMOUS SUM OP $1,400,000,
which went to swell the already enriched coffers of the U. S.
treasury. There was no doubt, that by the existence of tariff
laws, the farmer got less for his horses, less for his barley, and
less for all other articles exported than if the walls between the
two countries were removed. He explained in an explicit
manner the geography of the two countries, and showed that
our population was spread along a line of 4,000 miles. Ontario,
the nucleus of the Dominion, grew more grain to the square
acre than any State in the Union. Large countries might
prosper under protection, such as the United States and Ger-
many. They had the elements of trade within themselves, and
could go on building up walls until every country under the
sun was shut out from them ; but it was absolute folly of Can-
ada, a country of great extent, and unlimited natural resources,
with a small population, to build up a tariff wall shutting out
the trade of the United States, her nearest and largest cus-
tomer. The natural market for the products of the coal fields
and fisheries of the extreme east and extreme west of Canada
was not in Ontario, but in the States to the south of them,
where they were sent to-day in spite of the tariff. The agri-
cultural interests predominated in Canada. In the country to
the south of us they had different products. Every mile the
climate got warmer and warmer, until at the Gulf of Mexico
' Address on Commercial Union. 125
they had continual summer. The natural trade of the conti-
nent ran north and south, and when we undertook to build a
tariff wall around Canada we attempted to divert trade from
its natural course, and send it East and West. Mr. Pearson
here showed that the agricultural products of Canada were
much greater than those of the United States, per capita,
THAT OURS REPRESENTED ANNUALLY $400,000,000, OR $80
PER HEAD OF OUR POPULATION,
and theirs $2,500,000,000, or only $41 per head of their popu-
lation ; that the energetic, populous part of their country lay
up against the line dividing the two countries. He explained
the successful working of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, and
pointed out the benefit that would be derived from a similar
treaty to-day, the interests of the manufacturers being consi-
dered with the rest. The United States, however, would not
open their markets to us unless we opened ours to them. But
here comes the difficulty. The manufacturers want to continue
the protective policy, an<l their opposition prevents the farmer
from getting reciprocity, but the farmers were so far ahea<l in
wealth and numbers that their interests outweighed those of
the manufacturers, and he believed in laws and measures that
gave the greatest good to the greatest number.
Here the speaker alluded to insinuations by Mr. Ck'ke,
M.P.P., ot Toronto, in his article against Commercial Union,
who spoke of the " craven meanness " of those having the
audacity to advocate Commercial Union, and, with a surpris-
ing amount of self-confidence, charged them with being disloyal,
annexationists, etc. Mr. Pearson went on to show that Canada
owned the fisheries for three miles out from the coast lines, and
to secure the treaty of 1854, bartered away, or England did
with her consent, the right of fishing within this three-mile
limit in exchange for sending her goods to the States. Had
the conditions changed since that treaty was in force ] Not
at all ! They were the same to-day, but we didn't have the
manufacturing interests then to cry out against it. A man-
ufacturing interest had since been built up, which had been
helped along by the farmers themselves. The National Policy
was introduced, which built up and encouraged the manufac-
turers, gave them an impetus from which they have grown strong,
and now object to any change that would help the farmer.
126 Handbook of Ocmimercial Union.
Our Government to-day recognized the fact that the agricul-
tural interests of the country would be benefited by such a
change in our commercial relations with the United States £i8 we
are and have been advocating. This statement was proven by a
standing law on the statutes, -^vhich provides that whenever our
neighbours feel disposed to open their markets to our pro-
ducers our Government should meet them in a like manner.
There was absolutely no argument to be advanced that the far-
mer would not be benefited by free commercial intercourse
with the States, and, barren of arguments, its opponents met
those who favoured it with insinuations of disloyalty that were
not fair to the latter. For his own part he was a loyal Can-
adian — a descendant of a U. E. Loyalist, who left the States to
come to this country.
Mr. Pearson then went on to show to his hearers that dur-
ing the last three years our lumbermen exported $27,000,000,
of lumber to the United States, the duty on which amounted
to $5,000,000. In 1878, when the National Policy was in-
troduced, promises were made that the manufacturing inter-
ests would be built up, our cities and towns would increase
in population under its protecting influence, and a home mar-
ket would be opened for all our produce. If the N. P. had done
all this he would be satisfied, but it hadn't. It was true that
when it was first introduced men of means rushed into the
manufacturing business, and many of our towns and cities bene-
fited thereby for a time, Toronto being named as an example,
but the manufacturers
DID NOT FULFIL THE PROMISES
that were made for them, and the result was they had a lim-
ited market, and before going on many years found they had
more goods on hand than the market could receive. But did
they continue to run on full time ? No. For instance, the
Cotton question first came up, and the few mills that were in ex-
istence glutted the market, and the manufacturers turned out
just what goods they could sell in Canada. This caused a resort
to short hours, a reduction in wages and in the number of em-
ployes, and, as a natural consequence, the trade of the country
was interfered with and depressed. The manufacturer hadn't
been keeping pace with the improvements of the age, and for
Address on Commercial Union. 127
this reason was afraid of American competition. His policy
was' explained in the following dialogue, supposed to have
taken place between a manufacturer and a farmer : The former
Says to the latter, " Don't you go in for free trade with the
United States, for they would come in and sell goods to you
for one-half of what I sell them to you for. If you do I will
ruin your reputation — charge you with being disloyal and trying
to break up British connection." That was the unreasonable
way in which they argued.
The speaker then showed how the in(;ome of the farmer was
reduced by the duty he had to pay on his products at the line ;
and went on to state that the Institute was organized for the
purpose of teaching him as to the best and most profitable
means of growing his crops. He thonght, after all, the most
important question was how much he was going to sell his grain
for ; how much he was going to get for the money he would
receive from it, and how much he would have left to pay the
interest, and principal on the mortgage. There was a duty
of $20 on every $100 on horses going into the States, which he
gave as an illustration. The American buyer told ^he Cana-
dian farmer when the latter got on the other side that he would
give him $80 for his horse under the existing tariff laws ; if
the duty had not to be paid he would give him $100 for the
same animal, so that the farmer
LOSES $20 ON THIS SINGLE TRANSACTION.
He turns round to buy the necessaries of life at home — his
woollens, his cottons, his sugars, teas, and the thousand and one
other things that he requires — and finds that he pays a much
higher price for his articles than if we had reciprocity with our
neighbours. The speaker here explained that he wanted chiefly
to show the farmer where the shoe pinched, and he could use
his own judgment as to the best remedy to be applied. The
lumbermen, he said, were in much the same position as the
farmers, though in number they were few compared with the
latter. They, however, made up in their aggregate trade and
wealth. Here Mr. Pearson went into a detailed explanation of
the manufacturing interests of England and Germany, showing
that our manufacturers could never hope to compete with those
of the Old World ; the distances here were too great, and the
128 Handbook of Commercial Union,
profits would be eaten up by the freight rates before the goods
would get to the ocean for shipment. Had we not, then,
better face the music ? If Canada and the United States would
remove their tariff walls our manufacturers would be placed on
an equal footing with those of the individual States of the Union.
The manufacturing interests of the United States were not con-
..fined to the Eastern portion thereof, and the freight question,
especially in Canada, had a great deal to do with the matter.
It was impossible for an implement factory in New York to
•
COMPETE WITH ONE IN CHICAGO FOR THE WESTERN TRADE.
If the tariff walls were taken down our manufactories would
still go on. They were not supplying the outside world — they
were not supplying the United States. He knew manufac-
turers himself who would be glad to have free trade with our
neighbours. They had kept up with the improvements of the
age, and were not afraid of American competition. It was
true, however, that there were many others who were not up to
the mark, ^nd would not favour a change in our National Pol-
icy. He thought that, as we had been helping the manufac-
turers for nine years, they ought to be able to keep themselves
now, and should be content to give the farmers a chance. They
controlled to-day the legislation of the country with regard to
iheir own interests. They were continually sending deputa-
tions to Ottawa, but the farmers were never heard of in the
lobby of the House. They were scattered over the country, and
eflch one with his coat off and working as hard as his employes,
while the manufacturer hardly ever entered his shop, but walked
the street in his fashionable clothes, or sat in his cosy office
reading a newspaper. As an instance of the vigilance of the
manufacturer in looking after his own interests, he stated that
the American farmers had been tilling their prairies for half a
century when ours commenced. They possessed i)loughs such
as our farmers had never heard of, and when the Canadian
North- West began to be settled many of our people took their
implements with them, but soon found that they were unsuit-
able for the prairie soil. Looking across the line, they saw the
American comfortijbly seated upon his sulky plough, working
as easily and nicely as could be asked for. The farmers didn't
run down to Ottawa, as they might have done, and have the
Address on Gomrtierclal Union. 129
dut^y on these ploughs removed ; but the manufacturers quickly
took the hint, and hied away down to the capital and had the
duty increased, The speaker then took up the sugar question
and pointed out that the profits of a certain Canadian Sugar
Refinery for the last year amounted to $500,000, and that the
farmers were among tVie principal consumers.
lie thought in every locality the farmers should discuss the
question of trade relations with the United States, discuss the
facts and the economical part of the subject. He thought it
time the farmers should have " an iimings," just as they had
given the manufacturers in 1878. The latter ought to be lib-
eral enough to say, *' We will go in with you and have a change
made that will benefit not only ourselves, but the farmers as
well."
OUR CARRYING TRADE.
He then dwelt upon the carrying trade of our lake vessels,
and said that Canada had always stood well in this respect until
lately. In 1877, her vessel building represented 127,000 tons
capacity, and last year only 27,000 tons. The cause of this
was that the vessels along the lakes were valueless. They
plied between the upper lakes and Chicago and other places,
and often had to return light, while American vessels lay along-
side laden with grain and other products going to some part of
the Eastern States. The Speaker pointed out that during the
season of 188G the daily tonnage passing through the Sault Ste.
Marie Canal was greater than that of the Suez Canal. He then
went on to show that we had no outlet in winter, and that if
the States should shut us out and a storm should occur to block
the Intercolonial Railway, we would then have one cause for
wishing for annexation. If we wanttd to keep down any feel-
ing of discontent, we should strive to bring prosperity to the
country.. He was arguing and endeavouring to show that Free
Trade with the United States instead of leading to annexation
would have the opposite effect. The opponents of Free Trade
only threw out that insinuation to prevent thinking people from
giving ear to the subject. If we wish to build up the Dominion
and increase the spirit of independence within her borders, we
would have to help along the prosperity of the country ; then,
instead of the spectacle we have to-day of 5,000,000people,and
F
130 Handbook of Commercial Union.
1,000,000 Canadians in the United States, going up and taking
the oath of allegiance, our population would rapidly increase,
and our people would be happy and contented not as a part of
the American Union, but as a country
VYING WITH IT IN PROGRESS AND PROSPERITY.
He noted the rapid strides Canada had made in the building of
railways and canals, and the fact that we had laid the founda-
tion of a great Canadian Empire awaiting development. He
hoped he had enabled his hearers to see and understand the
geographical position of the two countries, and impressed upon
their minds the fact that he did not desire that we should throw
ourselves at the feet of the American Eagle and plead for reci-
procity ; but there ^»'as a feeling growing up on the other side
in favour of Commercial Union, and he thought it our duty to
study the question and learn whether it would be beneficial to
us or not. In his opinion it would bring us into trade competi-
tion with the Americans and make us more Canadian and inde-
pendent than ever.
ADDRESS TO THE FARMERS OF HALDIMAND.
(With a reply in the House of Commons to the Disloyalty Cry.)
BY JOHN CHARLTON, M.P.
WHAT COMMERCIAL UNION MEANS.
Mr. Charlton first proceeded to explain the meaning of the
teiTOtt [Commercial Union. It was, he said, simply a Customs
union between two or more independent States, where a com-
mon tariff and excise laws were adopted, and the revenue
collected, after deducting expenses of collection, was divided
among the participants upon the basis of population or any
other basis that might be agreed upon, while all trade restric-
tions between them were removed. The application of the
principle between Canada and the United States would require
that the two countries should have the same excise rates and
the same tariff upon imports from all other countries ; that the
revenue thus collected in both countries should be divided
upon conditions to be hereafter arranged ; that the Customs
line between the two countries from ocean to ocean should be
removed ; and that trade between Canada and the States
should be in every respect as free and untramelled as trade
between the different States of the American Union was at the
present moment^J Having explained the meaning of the term,
and the proposed mode of applying the principle, Mr. Charlton
proceeded to inquire whether the proposal was purely theoreti-
cal or whether history gave any practical illustrations of its
application and working. Fortunately, he said, we were not
without the advantage to bo derived from practical experience.
In 1818 ihe numerous independent German St&.tes, finding
that trade restrictions between States inhabited by people of
common lineage, language, laws and customs, were vexatious
and injurious, entered into a zoUverein or Customs Union,
which finally embraced not only all the German States but
Austria as well. This arrangement put an end to restrictions
132 Handbook of Commercial Union.
which in the very nature of the case could only prove intoler-
able and oppressive, and during all the years it has been in
operation has been productive of unmixed good, while at the
same time increasing the revenue of the various states belong-
ing to the Union. Mr. Charlton also instanced the case of the
union between Scotland and England in 1707, the beneficial
results following which were so ably shown by Professor Gold-
win Smith in a paper lately published in The Mail.
THE TREATY OF 1854.
As an evidence of the benefit that Canada would derive from
unrestricted reciprocity, Mr. Charlton dwelt upon the great
advantages resulting from the partial reciprocity in trade with
the United States which Canada enjoyed from 1854 to 1865.
It was not necessary, he said, to argue in a theoretical sense as
to the advantages that would result from unrestricted recipro-
city when we had the positive and overwhelming evidence
furnished by the highly satisfactory results of only a partial
application of a principle which was now presented to the
Canadian people, and which, in its importance, completely
eclipses all other issues. He proceeded to point out that the
United States supplied the natural market for a very large
proportion of the natural productions of Canada. The geo-
graphical and business affinities of the two countries would
. assert themselves despite trade restrictions. The Maritime
Provinces found their natural market foj: luiuber, coal, fish,
potatoes and other productions, in the seftboard States of the
Union ; and it was natural that the vessels transporting those
productions to the American market should bring as return
cargoes provisions and such wares as could be purchased with
advantage in that country. In the case of Ontario and Quebec
the United States was their principal market for barley, hay,
hops, wool, potatoes, horses, cattle, sheep, eggs, lumber, peas,
iron ore, etc. Manitoba and the North- West would naturally
buy the implements and articles best suited to their wants in
the Mississippi Valley, and would find their best outlet for
various productions in that direction. British Columbia found
a market for coal and lumber in California, and would find
trade with San Francisco more natural and profitable than
with the Canadian cities on the other side of the continent. Tt
Address to the Farmers of Ilaldvmand. 133
was to our advantage to buy from those who were customers
for our own productions such wares as we could obtain from
them cheaper than elsewhere.
We had heard a good deal of late years, Mr. Charlton said,
about protection, and the time had come for turning our atten-
tion to the protection of the great producing classes of the
country. Last year it was estimated that the duties paid into
the United States treasury upon Canadian products amounted
to $5,000,000. The duty on our barley was 10 cents per
bushel; peas, 10 cents; flax seed, 20 cents; potatoes, 15
cents; hops, 8 cents per pound; wool, 10 cents per pound;
hay, $2 per ton ; butter, 4 cents per pound ; lumber, $2 per
thousand ; iron ore, 75 cents per ton ; salt, 1 2 cents per hun-
dredweight, and horses, cattle and sheep, 20 per cent. In all
of these articles we furnished a small portion only of the con-
sumption of the United States. The removal of the duty
would not lessen in any material degree the prices paid in that
country for our productions, and if the imposts were removed
the amount of the existing duty would simply be added to the
prices paid to our own people. Why not protect our farmers,
lumbermen and other producers by securing a treaty that
would annually put $5,000,000 more into their pockets than
they now receive 1 For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1886,
the duties collected upon American imports into Canada
amounted to $6,790,000. The profits of wholesale and retail
dealers were levied upon this sum, as it formed part of the cost
of the articles ; and the increased cost to the consumer in con-
sequence of the duties was not less than $10,000,000. Why
not protect the consumers in Canada by saving to that class
$10,000,000 paid annually by them as a result of the duties
levied upon American goods imported ? Give them superior
odourless coal oil at ten cents per gallon and cheaper cotton
goods, coal, tools, implements, machinery, etc. This would be
a protection worthy of the name, for it would benefit the mass
of the people and not a few select rings and monopolies.
THE OBJECTIONS TO COMMERCIAL UNION,
Mr. Charlton went on to consider the objections raised to
the proposed Customs union, and said he should give them all
the weight they were entitled to. First, it was said that we
134 Hcmdbook of Commercial Union.
could not obtain such a treaty from the United States. He
could see no evidence that such was the case. While there
was no reason to believe that we could obtain reciprocity in
natural products only, he had no doubt the American people
would favourably consider a proposal for Commercial Union
and would give us a liberal arrangement. Public men in that
country very generally expressed opinions highly favourable to
the scheme, and whatever might be the chance^ for success he
could not deem it advisable to give up before we had tried.
The next objection was that we could only make a treaty upon
disadvantageous terms. In reply he would only say that we
were not obliged to make a treaty unless we could get one
that suited us. Another objection was that such a treaty
would discriminate against the Mother Country and would be
an act of disloyalty. In reply to this he ventured to point out
that the fiscal policy of the present Goveknment had never
been influenced by any consideration of this kind. It might
trutlifully be said that all our tariff legislation of late years
had discriminated against England. The care of British inter-
ests was not specially delegated to us, and our legitimate busi-
ness was to look after our own. He had no doubt, however,
that in arranging a common tarifi', to the details of which both
Governments must consent, modifications of the present Amer-
ican tariff would be secured that would more than compensate
England for any injury her commercial classes could possibly
suffer from diminished trade with Canada even if we admitted,
as he for one was not prepared to admit, that the volume of
imports from England would diminish. The next objection
was that the proposed treaty would injure our manufacturing
interests. To this he would reply that it would benefit our
farmers, lumbermen, fisherman, coal and iron mine owners,
stock raisers and labourers ; that is to say, at least nineteen
out of twenty of our population. We were not created to
serve the purposes of sugar rings, cotton rings, and pet indus-
tries that could only live upon subsidies, direct or indirect.
We had already bled freely for the benefit of " combines."
Our manufacturers have as cheap labour and as cheap capital
as their competitors in the United States. We propose to
open the markets of the continent to them and to give them
65,000,000 instead of 5,000,000 customers. When this is
done let them enter the lists and fight the battle like men, and
Address to the Farmers of Haldimand. 135
he had no fears for the result in the case of such industries as
ought naturally to succeed iu this country.
THE WHOLESALE MEN.
The next objection was that the proposed treaty would injure
our wholesale trade and send our retail buyers to New York
and Boston. He did not believe this would be the case to any
serious extent. He had found upon examination that the natu-
ral commercial centres in the United States, such as Buffalo,
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Grand Kapida, Chicago, St. Paul,
St. Louis, San Francisco, Portland, and many other cities he
might name, supplied from their wholesale houses the retail
merchants in the country naturally tributary to them ; and that
the wholesale trade of New York was largely with the minor
wholesale houses of these cities. Such, he believed, would be
the case in Canada, and he had no doubt that Toronto and Mon-
treal, by reason of the great advantage of proximity to the cus-
tomer, would continue to hold the trade that their merchants
now enjoyed. Another objection, and perhaps the most serious
one in the estimation of many, was that the proposed treaty
would lead to annexation. This assertion was tacitly admit-
ting that it would work so well and prove so satisfactory that
we should want political as well as commercial union. He had
no fears of any such result. The political and commercial union
that had existed between Scotland and England for 180 years
had not in the slightest degree impaired the distinctive traits of
Scottish character. We were satisfied with our political insti-
tutions, and hoped to remedy in due time the defects of our
Constitution. A desire for more intimate commercial intercourse
could not be held to imply a desire for political union. It was
the present condition of matters that threatened to lead to an-
nexation. If our people cannot get free commercial intercourse
without annexation they will inevitably consider the question
of political union as the means of getting it ; but if Commercial
Union can be secured political union will not be desired or
thought of. To-day the Maritime Provinces would gladly ac-
cept annexation, and the annexation sentiment is strong in On-
tario, Manitoba and British Columbia. This desire is grounded
not upon love for American political institutions in preference
to our own, but upon a desire for free commercial intercourse ;
136 Handhooh of Commercial Union.
give us the free corameroial intercourse and there is no motive
left to incite public sentiment in the direction of annexation*
THE REVENUE ARGUMENT.
The last objection Mr. Charlton proposed to consider was
that the proposed treaty, as a fiscal arrangement, would not
yield us a sufficient amount of revenue, and that it would be
necessary to resort to direct taxation. He would suppose, for
the sake of argument, that such a course would be necessary.
If the country profited enormously by the arrangement it could
afford to pay a portion of its necessary taxes directly instead of
indirectly as at present. Direct taxation was not without its
advantages. The cost of collection was less than the cost of
collection by import duties. Every dollar secured by the Gov-
ernment in duties cost the consumer about a dollar and a half,
because the duty was a part of the cost of the article imported,
and both the wholesale and retail dealer had their profit upon
it. Incidental taxation in the shape of enhanced cost of goods
produced in the country under protective duties was also saved
to the consumer if revenue is raised by direct taxation. If
revenue was raised by direct taxation the taxpayer would more
fully realize the extent of his burdens and would look more
closely after expenditure, and more imperatively demand econ-
omy and honesty in the administration of public affairs. He
was of opinion, however, that a resort to direct taxation would
not be necessary. Our revenue from customs and excise in the
year 1886 was $25,226,000. The revenue of the United States
from customs and excise was $309,710,000 during the same
period. Had this amount of revenue in the two countries been
collected under a Customs Union the fund for distribution
would have been $334,936,000. If the distribution were made
upon the basis of population, estimating the population of Can-
ada at 6,000,000 and that of the United States at 60,000,000,
our share of the fund would be $25,760,000, or $434,000 more
than the actual amount of our revenue at present. Under Com-
mercial Union it was to be expected that the revenues of the
two countries would decrease to some extent, as the imposts
ui)on the trade between the two countries would no longer be
collected. But Commercial Union would save us the large ex-
pense of maintaining a Customs barrier against the United
Address to the Farmers of Ilcddbnand. 137
States ; and it was not only possible to economise largely in
other directions, but it was highly desirable that we should do
so. With our fisheries to offer as a consideration we ought to
be able to secure more than an equal per capita share of the com-
mon fund derived from customs and excise, and he was decid-
edly of the opinion that terms could be arranged which would
give all the revenue required if the administration of our affairs
was economical and honest.
At this time, when the matter of the Fisheries was under con-
sideration, the people should make known their wishes. Com-
mercial Union was beyond all question desirable. The project
was a feasible one and events were ripe for securing it. We
possessed immense resources in our soil, in our timber, in our
minerals and in our fisheries. The development of these re-
sources had only commenced. The Dominion could support in
happiness and comfort as many inhabitants as now lived in the
United States, but almost every interest in the country lan-
guished for the want of admission to the great zoUverein of
Anglo-Saxon States on this continent. Free untrammelled
access to our natural markets would put a new face upon our
affairs. Give us this and the tide will turn, prosperity will
come, the exodus of our citizens will cease, some of the million
Canadians now in the United States will return, immigration
will pour in to till our prairies, develop our mines and fell our
forests ; and we shall be well on the road to the realization of
our natural and honourable destiny of building up a great and
prosperous commonwealth.
In his speech in the House of Commons on the Unrestricted
Trade Resolution Mr. Charlton said : — Now, I propose to exam-
ine candidly a few of the objections that are urged against
this proposal of Unrestricted Keciprocity.
THE LOYALTY QUESTION.
First of all, it is urged that it is disloyal. Well, sir, to whom
is it disloyal ? It may be disloyal to Manchester, it may be dis-
loyal to Birmingham, but is it disloyal to Canada 1 That is the
question that concerns us. We are not charged with the guardian-
ship of the interests of Manchester, of Birmingham, or Eng-
land ; we are charged with the guardianship of the interests of
Canada. If we do not guard those interests expressly given to
138 Handbook of Commercial Union,
us, thfty will not be guarded. Time and again our interests
have been given away to advance Imperial interests, and it is
our business to guard our own interests ; and if this policy is
loyalty to Canada, if it is calculated to promote the interests
of Canada, that is as far as I care to inquire with respect to
the question of loyalty. Now there are 4,750,000 people in
Canada. What are they ? They are British subjects, and
they are just as much entitled to consideration as 4,750,000
British subjects in England. How many British subjects in
England are there who can possibly be affected by this pro-
posed change 1 We imported from England last year $44,496,-
000 worth of goods. Suppose they were all the products of
manufactures, suppose they were all the productions of the
skilled labour of England, how many men would it take to
produce that amount of goods ? I stated, in reading over the
development of manufactures in the western States that in
1880 Milwaukee produced $43,473,000 worth of goods, or with-
in a fraction of the entire amount we import from England.
How many inhabitants had that city 1 It had 115,000 ; and I
venture to say that not one-half were engaged in inanufactur-
ing. How many people does it take to produce the $44,000,000
worth of goods we import from England ? In 1880, according
to the returns, the production in the United States was $1,950
per head for each man, woman and child engaged as factory
operatives in that country. Upon this basis the production of
that amount of goods means the employment of 25,000 oper-
atives ; it means that at the very outside 75,000 people in Eng-
land are dependent upon the production of the goods that have
been exported to Canada and sold in this country.
And we are asked to do what 1 We are asked to place in
one scale the interests of 75,000 people in England and in the
other scaie the interests of 4,750,000 people in Canada, and to
decide that the claims of the 75,000 people shall out-weigh the
claims of the 4,750,000. That is the kind of loyalty in this
connection. I do not care for that kind of loyalty. I am
engaged in looking after the interests of my constituents, and
1 care a great deal more for them than I care for nabobs in
Manchester. What do you suppose is the amount of profits
derived from this business in England 1 It may be $4,000,000
or $5,000,000, or even a little more. How much" British cap-
ital is invested in Canada ? I am told there is $560,000,000
Address to the Faimiers of HoLdimand. 139
invested. Now, the interests of those men who have made
investments in Canada are intimately connected with the
prosperity of this country, and even admitting that we were to
sacrifice the interests of those people engaged in manufactures,
would we not be benefited? How much money is there in-
vested in England to produce the goods sent to Canada. The
investment at the outside of $30,000,000 will produce the
amount of 44,000,000 woith of goods. The ratio in the United
States was $2, 790- of capital to $5,369 of products in 1880,
nearly two of products to one of capital ; and it is a liberal esti-
mate to say $30,000,000 of capital invested in England is all
that is invested to produce the goods sent to Canada. Place in
one scale the men having $30,000,000 of capital engaged in
producing goods sent to this country, and place in the other
scale the interests of English investors in this countrv to the
extent of $560,000,000, besides the interests of all the people of
this Dominion, and we are asked to say that we will consider
the interests of the owners of $30,000,000 of capital invested
in manufactures paramount to the interests of the other class
who invested $560,000,000 here, besides the capital of the
people of this country. That is not the kind of loyalty I intend
to stand by or advocate. It is assumed upon the hypothesis
on which I have been dealing with this question, that unre-
stricted reciprocity would abolish imports from England. It
will do nothing of the kind. It may temporarily check those
imports, but the increased prosperity which will be sure to be
given to this country will lead to increased trade. It has ever
been so and ever will be so, and the result will be that in a few
years, instead of abolishing English trade, there may be a large
increase of English imports into Canada. I remember the time,
Mr. Speaker, when hon. gentlemen opposite were not so super-
loyal, I can remember when we were discussing the National
Policy, and when it was urged that that policy was a disloyal
one as regards England, that it threatened British connection,
those hon. gentlemen said, " So much the worse for British con-
nection." I rather suspect the motive which prompts hon. gen-
tlemen opposite on this occasion to make such a leading cry of
this cry of loyalty.
There is another feature of this case to which I might be per-
mitted to allude most briefly in connection with the charge of
disloyalty, I believe it is a matter of interest to the wholQ
140 Handbook of Commercial Union.
Anglo-Saxon race, to every English-speaking man, whether he
may be. in America, or the United Kingdom, or Australia, or
New Zealand, or the Cape of Good Hope, or Hindostan, or
wherever he may be on the face of this broad earth, for they
are scattered over the whole face of it — I believe it is the inter-
est of every English-speaking man, that friendly relations should
exist between the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon family.
I believe that any policy that will draw closer the bonds that
connect the United States and England, that will increase the
cordiality existing between those two great powers, that will
have a tendency to bring those two powers to act in concert and
in alliance, is a policy that should receive the commendation
and the support of every man, not only in Canada, but in every
English-speaking country in the world. I do not need to tell
you, Mr. Speaker, that no question is likely to arise — no ques-
tion for many years, except the Alabama question, has arisen
between England and the United States threatening to sever
the amicable relation between those two countries — that has
not had some connection \vith Canada. The fisheries dispute
— we cannot say it ceases to exist — which so lately was an om-
inous question, threatening the relatione between those two
countries, was purely a Canadian one ; and if we adopt any
policy that brings Canada and the United States into closer
commercial relations and removes the danger of friction between
this country and the United States, we adopt a policy that is
likely to lead to that result which we consider so desirable, the
drawing closer together of these two great branches of the
Anglo-Saxon race, I believe that a powerful argument in favour
of unrestricted reciprocity can be founded upon that view of the
case. I believe we would be justified in entering into negotia-
tions and seeking to draw those two peoples closer together,
closer in commercial and closer in social intercourse, if no other
consideration had weight in the premises. So much for the dis-
loyalty objection. Now, the next objection urged to this pro
posed arrangement is that it will lead to annexation. What
does that objection admit ; what does it tacitly, inferentially
admit ? It admits that it would bo such a splendid thing we
would want more of it, that it would work so well we would
not be satisfied with a half measure, but would go the entire
distance. I say that it admits that it would be a good thing.
Perhaps it would ; but it would not be a good thing to the ex-
Address to the Farmers of Haldimand. 141
tent of bringing about annexation. It would have a direct ten-
dency, on the contrary, to prevent annexation. I remember
when I was a boy that the annexation sentiment in this coun-
try was rampant. I remember a manifesto issued in 1849
signed by hundreds of prominent Conservatives in this Domin-
ion, and it put the arguments in favour of annexation with
great power and force. I know, sir, that annexation was de-
bated and discussed, and that the great mass of the people in
that section of the countiy in which I live believed in it What
was the cause of it 1 Was it because they considered the poli-
tical institutions of the United States superior to those of Can-
ada ? No, sir, I think not. It was because they desired freer
commercial relations with the United States, and that they saw
in annexation the only mode of obtaining it. In 1854, when
we got freer commercial relations with the States, annexation
died out, We never heard of it again while reciprocity contin-
ued. It was not a desire for annexation on political grounds,
but the sentiment was created by the desire to obtain free com-
mercial intercourse with the United States, and by that desire
alone. Now, sir, we have an annexation sentiment to-day, and
it is growing in this country, and it is growing because of the
mismanagement, the recklessness and the extravagance, and the
corruption of the party in power. If there is any one thing
that actuates the public mind and that has a tendency to spread
this annexation sentiment in Canada, it is the desire that is felt
by the farmers and lumbermen and other producing classes of
this country to obtain free trade with the United Statea It is
that, sir. It is not because they do not believe that our poli-
tical institutions in Canada, if honestly managed, are not as
good as those of the United States, for, sir, nine out of every
ten of the people of Canada believe our institutions are better,
as they have a right to believe. It is the desire for unrestricted
commercial relations that promotes the sentiment in favour of
annexation. Now, sir, you secure an arrangement by which we
can obtain unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, and
you will iind as a result of that arrangement that agitation for
annexation will die out completely. This would be the inevit-
able result of such a policy, and it is the way to put an end to
the annexation agitation altogether in this country if we can
have through a commercial treaty all the material advantages
that can result from annexation.
HOW COMMERCIAL UNION WOULD AFFECT
THE LABOUR MARKET.
BY ALFRED F. JURY, TORONTO.
Before giving some reasons why workingmen should favour
Commercial Union with the United States, I shall endeavour
to answer some of the arguments I have heard them advance
against it.
One of the first is that we should be swamped by cheap
American goods, as we were prior to 1878. Admitting for
argument's sake that we suffered prior to 1878 because the
Americans sold us goods for less than their real value, those
who use that argument seem to forget that the conditions would
be changed under Commercial Union. Under Commercial
Union Canada would be like so many States of the Union for
all the purposes of trade. There would be no customs tariff
between the two countries, so that if the Americans made a
slaughter market of Canada we could send their goods back
and sell them to their own people and make a good profit by
the trade. Under Commercial Union there would be no ne-
cessity for them to slaughter their goods in our markets, as
they would have access to them without resorting to that pro-
cess ; and the same prices, plus cost of carriage, would obtain
in both countries. In fact, it would kill the slaughtering which
some protectionists say takes place now, as well as the smug-
ling which we all know is going on on a large scale.
There is a fundamental protectionist fallacy underlying all
this talk about the labour of a country being injured by im-
ports. All trade being an exchange of labour it is impossible
to have large imports without first having performed a lot of
labour so as to have enough of your own products to supply
the native dem. nd and yet have an amount large enough left to
exchange for the products of other countries which, when they
come in, we call imports. To talk of large imports killing
labour is most assuredly to put the cart before the horse,
because a great deal of labour must precede large imports,
Cornmercial Union and t/ie Labour Market, 143
Did anyone ever hear of a nation of idlers that were great
importers 1 No ; other nations do not give you the products
of their labour unless you have products of your labour to give
them in return.
We are often met by the statement that we could not com-
pete with the Americans. Surely this cannot be true of our
workingmen, who, v/hen they go to the States and work side
by side with the American workmen, are considered quite equal,
if not superior, to them. Our inability to compete, if it exists,
must be caused either by the smallness of our market or by
lack of capital, energy or skill on the part of our manufacturers.
For it is notorious that tJie Canadian manufacturer has the
advantage of cheaper labour, and in many instances of cheaper
raw material and power as well.
One of the primary benefits resulting from the consumma-
tion of this movement would be that which must flow to every
people who have close commercial intercourse with a much
larger and richer nation, namely, the elevation of our standard
of living up to their standard. I do not think it will be dis-
puted by anyone who has examined the facts, that the people
of the United States have the highest standard of living of any
people on this continent. It is generally admitted that if we
had Cominercial Union with the States a large amount of
American capital would flow into the country to be invested in
developing our national resources. It follows that this would
create a great demand for labour, and, as the workingmen know,
it is when bosses are wanting men, and not when men are
< wanting bosses, that the price of labour goes up. Further, our
industries would become more diversified, so that there is not
the slightest doubt employment would be. more general and
wages higher than at present. Not only would American capi-
tal find its way into Canada, but British manufacturers would
come here and start factories if we could offer them the mar-
kets of the United States without their becoming citizens of
that country. Again, Commercial Union, by taking off" the
duties at present imposed on many articles which our manu-
facturers have to import from across the line in a half-manufac-
tured state, would tend to cheapen production, and the working
classes are as much interested in cheap production as any other
class in the community. Cheap production must not be con-
founded with cheap labour. T am one of those who believe in
144 Handbook of Commercial Union.
dear labour and cheap products, and this is not a paradox. If
all the taxes that are now imposed on the raw material of
labour were removed, part of the amount thus saved would go
to the artisans if the artisans were organized ; part to the
manufacturers, and part to the consumer in the shape of cheaper
goods. The people have a certain amount of money to spend
in articles of manufacture. If we put duties on anything en-
tering into their production we. just divert so much out of the
pocket of the producer and consumer into the coflFers of the
Government or into the pockets of the manufacturers. If, for
instance, the people of this country have two hundred millions
to spend in manufactured goods, and duties are put on which
enable the Government to collect tw«nty-five million and the
manufacturers to collect about the same amount, this means
that fifty millions of a tax has been put on industry, which if
not put on could, and a large amount of it would, be spent on
labour, thereby causing a greater demand for labour and a con-
sequent rise in its price.
Organized labour has a special interest in helping on the
movement for Commercial Union, as it would enlarge the field
of competition among employers. So long as society is based on
competition — and there is little doubt that the competitive sys-
tem will survive many generations — the sellers of labour should
see that all other classes in the community are subject to one
and the same economic law. At present the conditions in this
respect are unequal, and therefore unjust. The manufacturer
gets protection from the products of foreign labour, and is
thereby enabled to put up the price of the goods which the
Canadian artisan uses as a consumer. But he does not put up
the wages of the Canadian artisan. Not at all. On the con-
trary, the Dominion Government actually helps him to intro-
duce competitive foreign labour against home labour. The
Government has spent about two million dollars during the last
five years on immigration, that is, in importing foreign labour
to keep wages down in this country for the benefit of the
manufacturer. We are often told that protection is synony-
mous with high wages. If it were true that protecting pro-
ducts was equivalent to protecting the producer, all we should
have to do would be to find out how much protection there was
on any article to know that the labour producing that article
received high wages. But if we look round at the different
Commercial Union and the Labour Market. 146
trades do we find the highest wages paid in the highest protected
industries ] Most assuredly not. The highest protected indus-
tries both in Canada and the United States pay the lowest
wages ; and it is reasonable that it should be so, for if an arti-
cle cannot be produced in the country without a high protec-
tive duty it is a very good evidence that employers cannot afford
to pay high wages. If it were true that a high tariff* was
synoymous with high wages the workingmen would not have
to combine in trade unions to keep up wages ; the tariff would
do it for them. At election times I often hear workingmen
talking about protection causing high wages, but I notice that
at all other times those of them who are trying to raise wages
preach the benefits of organization.
Take the way protection aff*ects strikes. If men strike for
an increase of wages from those manufacturers who have such
a dread of the products of pauper labour, how does the case
stand with labour? Why, the manufacturers can import all
the pauper labourers they want from Europe to take the places
of the strikers. If the strike be in winter weather and the
men on strike want blankets, they cannot import them without
paying a duty of forty per cent., because forsooth the blankets
are made by the pauper labour of Europe. If the employer
has large stocks on hand all he has to do is to lock up his fac-
tory and starve his men into submission. He is not afraid of
anyone coming and selling goods under him. The ring among
the home manufacturers and the tariff" against the foreigner
will prevent that. Instead of a strike being an injury to them
it may be a positive benefit. If it lasts long enough to run
their stocks down it gives them a good excuse to raise their
prices. But how is it with the labourers 1 They being so
numerous and so poor it is exceedingly difficult for them to
organize and prevent other native workmen taking their places,
and quite impossible to prevent the pauper labourers of Europe
from doing so. It is in time of strikes that the manufacturers
suddenly discover what a fine fellow the pauper labourer of
Europe really is — so docile, so expert, so intelligent, in fact,
in every way so superior to the native article. But when
election time comes round, then the native labourer must be
protected against the pauper labourer of Europe by placing a
heavy duty on what 1 On labour that the native workman has
146 Handbook of Govimerciat Union.
to sell] No ; but by putting a high tariff on the manufactured
article the mauufacturera have to sell.
In conclusion, I wish to point out that it is the pretty general
feeling among not only the farmers themselves, but among all
those who have given attention to the subject, that Commercial
Union would benefit the farmer. If that is true, and I believe
it is, that of itself would benefit the workingmen in two ways.
In the first place, the farmers are the great consumers of the
goods made by the workingmen of the cities and towns ; and
anything that would give them a better foreign market for their ^
products, where they would obtain higher prices, would enable ;
them to consume more of the goods made by the artisans ; hence
it would give the latter more work. In the second place, by
improving the condition of the farmer, free trade with the
States would keep the farmer's sons at home and stop them
from thronging into the cities and towns in such numbers as
they have done of late, to compete with and lower the wages
of the mechanic. Further, by remaining on the farm they
would be producing wealth for the community, so that, instead
of being competitors for work in the centres of population,
they would be consumers of the products of the artisans. Not
only all this, but the farmer, having a larger market for that
kind of produce requiring the greatest amount of labour in its
production, would require more help. That would add to the
general demand for labour, and cause the industrial machine
to run more smoothly than at present.
ADDRESS BEFORE THE WEST PETERBOROUGH
FARMERS' INSTITUTE.
BY WM. CLUXTON,
Late M. P. for West Peterhm'ough.
[Commercial Union, we all understand, means Unrestricted <■
Reciprocity, unrestricted commercial intercourse between Canada
and the United States ; in other words, the obliteration of the
Customs line between the two countries — in fact, the abolition
of all tariff and customs duesj The question as to who pays
the duty has been discussed by economists of reputation from
Adam Smith, Mill, Ricardo and other writers downward, who
argue that the burden of customs duties falls on the importing
community, and not on the community which sends the goods
on which the duties are imposed. But they admit there are
exceptions to the rule. I would not presume to say whether
these eminent writers are right or wrong. They may be right
from their standpoint, especially so as far as England is con-
corned. But after fifty years of an extensive business experi-
ence and reading, I humbly submit the conclusions which I
have arrived at in connection with our trade with the United
States. When the supply exceeds the demand the price, as
between the two countries, is equalized, and in that case is regu-
lated by the European or foreign markets. This is the case at
the present time with wheat and cheese in Canada and the
United States. The price is governed both in this country and
in the States by the price in England, and when combinations
are formed to control the market and put up the price, say, of
such a necessary article as coal, the consumer, importing coal
into Canada from the United States would, in such abnormal
cases, pay the duty.
A few years ago we had a magnificent crop of oats in Canada,
and there was a good demand for them in the States. That
year I shipped 180,000 bushels to Boston, which I bought at the
several stations on the Midland railway in the vicinity of Peter-
148 ffandbook of Gommercial Union.
borough. When th^^se shipments reached the boundary line at
Island Pond they were stopped by the American customs
officer until I paid the duty of ten cents per bushel, amounting
to $18,000 — or rather, I should have said the farmers from
,fhom I bought the oats paid the duty to support the American
Government. A merchant residing at Rochester or Ogdens-
burg shipping 180,000 bushels to Boston from his side of the
customs line at the same time, and selling at the price at which
I sold my oats, would receive $18,000 more than I received;
and consequently could pay the American farmer ten cents per
bushel more than I could pay the Canadian farmer.
WOOL GROWING IN CANADA.
Sheep-raising in Canada should be a profitable business for
farmers. Are flocks increasing ? Have they not decreased
since the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty in 1866 ? Why ?
Because the price of wool has been so low that farmers found
it undesirable to keep large flocks of sheep. How would Com-
mercial Union aflect this property ? The price of wool in
Ontario for some years past has been from 18 to 20 cents, while
the price in the States has been for the same grade 35 cents.
Do away with the duty and the price in Ontario for fleece-
washed wool would be at least 30 cents per pound. The duty
on wool imported into the United States is 10 cents per pound.
In confirmation of what I say I submit a letter from my Boston
agents, one of the largest wool houses in America :
Boston, Aug. 31, 1887.
IV . CluxtoThy Esq. , Peterborough, Ont. :
Dear Sir, — With your request for a posting in regard to Can-
adian wool fully in mind, we now take pleasure in quoting you 35^
cents as the price current here for Canadian wools, duty paid, and
would further say in this connection that those wools when brought
to our market come into direct competition with Kentucky and
Maine wools ^ and, but for the heavy duty upon your class of stock,
we should be able to use a large quantity of it in this country to
good adva n ta gp , inasmuch as the class of goods with which it com*
petee is in somewhat limited supply in the States.
Respectfully yours,
Fbno Bros. & Child e.
Mr. Dryden, a farmer, and a member of the Ontario Legis-
lature, says in his speech on this subject :
^^S^BM
Address to West Peterborough Farmers. 149
((
Last week I had a call from two American farmers, one from
Pennsylvania and the other from Michigan. Both have large flocks
of Shropshire grades, but the Pennsylvania farmer raises sheep for
meat, and the Michigan farmer for wool. Now, how do you sup-
pose their prices compare with ours 1 We sell lambs dropped in
March at $3 to 3.50, and the Pennsylvanian assured me that they
got $6 to $G.50 for theirs. The Michigan farmer told me that the
clip of his Shropshires sold fuv 35 cents unwashed." Mr. Dryden
further says : " Open the American markets and the revenue to the
Canadian farmer from wool, as well as from mutton, will be enor-
mously increased. I say this because no other portion of the
American continent is so well adapted for raising sheep as this
Ontario."
THE BARLEY QUESTION.
A farmer selling 500 bushels of barley for tho American
market loses ten cents per bushel, or $50 on the 500 bushels —
the American duty. There is something in the climate and
soil of Ontario that produces a finer quality of barley thi.n any
other part of the continent for making the excellent pale lager
beer which is consumed in such vast quantities in the States,
and the brewers there cannot very well do without it Again,
suppose you sold to an American a horse for $100, it would
cost him, duty paid in the States (not taking freight and ex-
pense into account) $120. If you bought the horse back again
in the States and brought it to Canada it would cost, duty paid
on this side, $144. If you sold it again to the American at
$100, which would still be the value in Canada, and bought it
back a second time in the United States at $120, the value of
the horse there, and imported it into Canada, you would have,
after paying the American duty of $40 and the Canadian duty
of $48, just $12 out of the price the horse was first sold for.
And, as this would not probably pay the expenses of one trip
to the States, it would have been better the first time the cus-
toms house ofiicer said, " Stand and deliver," if you had said,
" Well, I will deliver the horse ; take him, and I will go home
and ponder the question as to whether the producer or the
consumer pays the duty ? " If you follow these transactions,
the illustration will show that on both sides of the line the
shipper — the producer — paid the duty. And this rule works
in the same way with every article which the Canadian farmer
produces and sends to the United States, with the exception,
perhaps, of wheat and cheese.
150 Handbook of Gommereial Union.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
The opponents of Commercial Union say that as the United
States produces the same articles that Canada produces, they
do not require our products, and that England is our natural
market. Let us see. In 1886 we sent 15,786 horses to the
United States. The stated price of these was $1,761,490 —
nearly $120 each. The duty paid on these was $352,298. The
United States imported that year from Canada 33,165 head of
cattle, valued at $443,430, on which the duty was $89,686.
Canada sent to the markets of the United States 343,862 sheep,
valued at $943,514, the duty paid was $188,702. The latest
report indicates that we sent 18,225 horses, 45,765 horned
cattle and 363,046 sheep last year. Twenty per cent, the duty
on horses and cattle, represents over $451,000. Canada ex-
ported to the United States in 1886 between eight and nine
million bushels of barley, which paid a duty of 10 cents per
bushel, not taking into account mall, which paid a higher duty
than barley.
FREE EGGS.
Canadian farmers exported in 1886 over thirteen million
dozen eggs, worth in the neighbourhood of one and three-quar-
ter million dollars. Eggs are admitted free of duty into the
United States. This accounts for the great impetus given to
the trade in eggs. If we had unrestricted reciprocity with the
United States it is reasonable to suppose that our trade in
horses, cattle, sheep, butter, wool, poultry, and other products
would also be greatly increased. Farmers would get from $20
to $30 more for every horse, $10 more for every ox, $10 more
for every $50 worth of sheep, lambs and poultry, ten cents more
for every pound of wool and four cents for every pound of but-
ter exported to our neighbours across the line. What a change
it would make in the butter trade ? At present Canadian but-
ter has to be sent 3,000 miles to England to compete with the
German butterine and oleomargarine — imitations so perfectly
manvifactured that there is not one person out of a hundred
who could distinguish these articles from genuine butter. If the
vast sums of money paid the American Government for duties
on Canadian produce exported to that country were distributed
among Canadian farmers, giving them enhanced prices for
Address to West Peterborouyk Faiinera. 151
the articles they produce, many of them would be able to re-
move incumbrances from their farms, and they would be en-
. abled to buy land for their sons.
At the meeting of the Farmers' Union held at Port Hope last
summer, Mr. Butterworth, of Ohio, said : — " A farmer starts
from Ontario with a car load of barley for New York. When
he reaches the picket line the United States Government kindly
takes one bushel out of every seven. He pays freight, storage
and commission, and buys com oii the United States side and
starts for home. His own Governm.ent stops him at the picket
line, and the officers take one bushel in every four. Thus after
a season of unremitting toil he is permitted to rejoice in the fact
that, in exchanging his produce for things necessary for his
family, he has had wrested from him by two Christian Govern-
ments one-half of his goods. Indeed, it hard for the Canadian
farmer to be in a very prosperous condition. He is taxed to
support his own and the American Government or protected
manufacturers, and monopolist combinations besides."
LUMBER AND PISH.
I will not take up your time in discussing lumber and fish
duties, as the farmers are not so much interested in them, more
than to say that the duty on lumber imported into the United
States is $2 per 1,000 feet. If we had Commercial Union the
lumbermen would get $2 more for every 1,000 feet of lumber
they shipped to the States. At a meeting of lumbermen held
the other day in Toronto, they passed a resolution unanimously
in favour of Commercial Union. They should be the best
judges of their own business. The condition of the fishermen
is analogous to my case as illustrated by the oats transaction.
The fishermen of the great fishing port of Gloucester, near Bos-
ton, come to our coast, catch fish, and sell free of duty in the
American market, while our fishermen have to pay a duty of
one cent per pound to the United States Government Our
fishermen want Commercial Union, and failing to get that, they
will go for annexation. Mr. Longley, the Attorney-General of
Nova Scotia, says so.
THE DISLOYALTY CRY.
If Commercial Union would give us everything that political
union would give, what object would there be in seeking
162 Handbook of Comrriercial (Jnion. ; - '
annexation 1 The man that is disloyal to himself, his family
and his country is the disloyal man. If the majority of the
people believe and decide that Commercial Union would benefit,
the country, they will have it if the Americans are willing to
give it to us. Does not this cry express a fear that the people
would be 80 fascinated with Commercial Union that they would
hunger after political union 1 A prosperous people are a con-
tented people, and a contented people do not become disloyal.
In 1847 there was a great commercial depression all over the
world. In Canada it was severely felt, and business was de-
moralised. It continued to cling to the country, and the
common cry at that time was " Ruin and Decay." In the
United States, with its vast resources, they soon surmounted
their difficulties, and the country advanced by leaps and
bounds. Then it waa that Canadians began to contrast their
condition with the state of things across the line, and they be-
gan to grumble ; and these grumblings soon broke out into a
cry for annexation. Associations were formed to promote
peaceable separation from Great Britain and annexation to the
United States, and these associations issued manifestos, which
were numerously signed. The Montreal manifesto was signed
by 326 of the principal men in the city, viz., Rose, Gait, Hol-
ton, Ferrier, Macpherson, Redpath, Molson, Torrance and
others. Some of these names have been familiar to the public
for years as those of our most prominent public men, under
the following titular forms : — Sir Alexander Gait, Sir John
Rose, Hon. Luther H. Holton, Senator Ferrier, Mr. Redpath,
the sugar refiner ; Mr. Molson, the banker ; and Mr. Torrance,
importer. That manifesto stated what Commercial Unionists
say today, viz. :— " That reciprocity would render Canada a
field lor American capital ; render our rivers, canals and rail-
roads the highway for the business of the west, enhancing the
value of property and agriculture, and giving remunerative
employment to the people. And Canadians could purchase
articles at lower prices. All danger of war would cease, and
there would be perpetual peace and amity between the two
countries."
The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 fully proved the convictions
of that forecast. When we got reciprocity Canada took a new
start by sharing in the prosperit yof our neighbours across the
boundary, and the cry for annexation died a natural death. If
Address to West Peterborough Fai-mers. 153
this was the result of reciprocity from 1854 to 1866, would it
not be the same under Commercial Union ? Those twelve yeare
were golden years for Canada, and many of the foundations of '
the comfortable farm houses we see to-day on every side, and
other buildings, were laid during that prosperous period. Under
the operations of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 the gross ex-
change of natural products between the Canadian provinces
and the United States rose from $20,000,000 in 1853 to $84,-
000,000 iu 1866.
THE BEST MARKET.
Our opponents say that Er.gland should be our market and
that we should loyally deal there. Commercial Unionists say :
" We have a better market at our own doors, of sixty millions
of the most progressive, wealthy and enterprising people on
the face of the earth." I and many others have tried the Eng-
lish market, and if there is anything that would be likely to
make a man " commit profanity," as Mark Twain says, it is
consigning produce to England. I have no hesitation in saying
that if a bank engaged largely in that business, if its charter
permitted it to do so, the bank would become bankrupt. In
Liverpool produce is sold at four months' credit — " Liverpool
terms" — and in London at two months ; the shipper pays 3 per
cent, commision for selling and guaranteering the debt. The
commission and other charges eat a man out of house and
home. It takes seven cents a bushel to sell wheat and pay
the charges after the vessel touches the dock at Liverpool. It
takes 12 per cent, in Liverpool, including freight, to sell cheese,
butter, clover seed, etc.. and 10 per cent in London. The only
safe way to do business there is to sell c. i. f., if you can do
so, which is not an easy matter. If one sends 1,000 boxes of
cheese, they weigh it, take full weight, and then take one pound
for each cheese j so the shipper is docked 1,000 pounds. Last
year I shipped 10 cars of clover seed — 2,000 bags, 5,000
bushels— to England, and this winter nine more cars. In Eng-
land they weigh and deduct one pound from each bag, and
then another pound per bag for the draft ; so that on my
2,000 bags they docked me 2,000 pounds — and clover seed,
with charges added, is there worth from 8 to 10 cents per
pound. I mention these matters to show the old-fashioned
way they have of doing business. The brightest business men
154 Handbook of Commercial Union.
they ever had in Montreal were large consigners of produce to
England, and they all succumbed to the inevitable with one
exception : they may be described as men appearing with
their heads above the Hood for a little while and then dis-
appearing out of sight forever.
(k If a Canadian dealer sends produce to the United States he
sells for cash, gets paid for what he sends without any docking,
and gets quick returns with moderate charges. The farmers
in Canada are three-fourths of the population and wealth of the
country. If they will cling together, study the^r own interests,
and not listen to politicians, but strive for Commercial Union,
the country will reap the advantages and their descendants v. ill
call them blessed.
RECIPROCITY IN THE NORTH-WEST.
(^Correspondence of The Mail, April 24th, 1888.)
BY F. C. WADE, WINNIPEG.
THE FRUIT QUESTION.
The taste ^^ reciprocity gained by extending the free list so
as to include fruit will be highly appreciated in North- West
Canada. Throughout the several millions of square miles con-
stituting North- West Canada, or, more properly, central British
America, domestic fruit trees are unknown. Whether they can
be grown or not is as yet an unsettled question. The chances are
that the hardiest fruits can be produced, and that the present
condition of affairs is due to the newness of the country, and the
lack of interest taken in the fruit question by the old settlers.
However this may be, the fact stares us in the face that we have
no fruit of our own, and are compelled to go outside for every
apple, pear, peach, pomegranate or anything of the kind we
may require. Consequently we have had but two alternatives,
either to buy our fruit from Eastern Canada, paying transport
charges for 1,500 miles, and sufficient besides to guard dealers
against loss, or American freights and the Canadian duty super-
added. Now we have another alternative, and when it suits
us to buy from the States there will be no duty to con-
tend with. So far as bananas, olives, pineapples, plantains,
tamarinds, mangoes and melons are concerned, we will
experience all the benefits of the removal of the duty with-
out interfering with any infant banana or pineapple indus-
try in the Eastern Provinces. The apples we will probably
continue to import from Ontario ; but if the Clinton (Huron)
Fruit Review is right, the Illinois apple will come north to
compete with it, in which case the price will probably drop
considerably below $3.50 to $4.50 a barrel, or 25 cents for six
pounds, the prices which have prevailed hitherto. Our pears
will come in large quantity from California. For some reason
or other the California pears are so much preferred here to the
156 Handbook of Commercial Union.
Ontario fruit that there is almost no market for the latter.
Peaches will continue to be imported from the United States,
and we look forward to early supplies of strawberries, rasp-
berries and other small fruits from the same sources.
The likelihood is that the prices of all fruits will be reduced
20 per cent; a matter of tremendous importance to this coun-
try. Freights and duties have heretofore exalted prices to
such an extent that the great bulk of the population have been
compelled to do without fruit of any kind. Imagine, for in-
stance, $2 for a twenty-pound basket of plums, and yet that
has been the common price. The removal of the duties will,
by placing all fruits within the means of everyone, conduce
not only to the enjoyment but to the health of thousands who
have BuJBfered severely from the total lack of fruit in this dry
climate. The fruit trade between the United States and North-
West Canada will immediately develop to tremendous propor-
tions.
THE FISH SUPPLY.
The small measure of recip: ocity which has been gained by
the placing of fruit upon th*^ free list of both countries, is
bound to be so satisfactory in its results that it is impossible
not to wish that in the near future the international free list
may be extended to include many more products, if, indeed it
does not take m cverytl * ig. With regard to one great com-
modity at least, the vast American North- West is in precisely
the same position ts the Canadian North-West is with regard
to fruit. In the whole extent of country constituting the
American West and North-West there is an utter absence of
fish. But fortunately, just as the United States is able to sup-
ply North-West Canada with fruit, now that the duty is to be
removed, so North-West Canada is in a position to furnish an
inexhaustible supply of fish to the American West and North-
West The great extent of our fish lakes has been referred to
in the columns of The Mail. Lake Winnipeg is 8,500 square
miles in extent ; Lake Manitoba, 1,900 square miles ; and Lake
Winnipegoosis, 1,936 square miles. These are regular sources
of supply, within easy reach of the Canadian Pacific Railway,
yet they form but a portion of the great lacustrine district ex-
tending between par:;llels of latitude 49" and 54°, and meridians
of longitude 88° and 102", and including the Lake of the
Reciprocity iti the North- West 157
Woods, 1,500 equare miles in area. Lake Nepigon, Rainy Lake,
Lake St Joseph, Lac Seul and numbers of othera. Within
this lacustrine district it is calculated that there are 20,000
square miles, or 1 3,000,000 acres of lakes well stocked with
fish. More remote and at present inaccessible are Great Bear
Lake, 10,000 square miles in extent, the Great Slave, 12,000
square miles in area, and nearer again. Lake Athabasca. Then
immediately north is Hudson's Bay, half as large as the Medi-
terranean, receiving numbers of rivers stocked with exhaustless
quantities of trout and white fish.
The export of the North-West fish to the United States has
already begun. Whitefish, jackfish, tullibee, pickerel, salted
whitefish, yellow pike, dore, sturgeon and perch are the var-
ieties, and the nature of the demand can be judged from the
fact that practically the whole catch goes to Buffalo, Minne-
apolis, Chicago, Detroit and St. Paul. Fresh fish crossing the
boundary into the United States pay no duty, and since it was
decided that frozen fish are not " preserved" in the sense of the
United States Customs laws, great quantities are shipped in a
frozon condition. But the demand for salt fish is a great and
growing one. In 1886, 214,000 pounds of salt fish were
shipped to Minneapolis alone. The duty on fish preserved by
salting or other processes is the only obstacle to the develop-
ment of an almost unlimited export offish from North- West Can-
ada to supply the entire country from St. Paul to the Pacific
coast, and from the 49th parallel of latitude to California. The re-
lations of North- West Canada and the United States with re-
gard to fruit and fish are really remarkable. There are bound
to be two enormous trade movements. Our fish exports will
constitute a Southern movement. For years, if not for cen-
turies, the great fi&h resources of North-West Canada will be
carried south and west to supply the great American demand
for fish in the arid regions. And at the same time there will
be a great Northern movement of United States fruit of all
descriptions to supply the people of the prairies and treeless
plains.
COAL GOING TO THE STATES.
The future coal shipments from North-West Canada into the
United States promise to become very large. The coal of the
Banff mine having been adjudged Canadian anthracite, is ad-
158 Handbook of Commercial Union,
mitted to the United States free of duty. It has already at-
tained a reputation in some localities m the United States, and
is being shipped in large quantities even to California. Since
last October 5,000 tons have been exported to the Spreckles
Sugar Refinery at San Francisco, and I am informed that the
same establishment is only awaiting the perfect development
of the mines to order 100 tons a day. Large quantities of the
same coal have been used in Winnipeg this winter. The agents
claim that when rid of slate and well cleaned it will displace
the Pennsylvania coal entirely. On the bituminous coal the
American duty of 75 cents per ton is still charged. The de-
mand for this coal throughout the American North-West threat-
ens to be enormous. Cult lignite coal, teamed ov^r the
prairies from Lethbridge, inAiberta, N.W.T., to Fort Benton,
in Montana, is preferred at $22 a ton to Montana coal at $d a
ton. What could be more significant thau this one fact as an
indication of the extent to which the lignite from North- West
Canada will be exported to the United States.
The American demand for our lignite promises to be almost
unlimited, but our supply is equally limitless. Dr. George M.
Dawson, of the Geological Survey, declares thai the known
area of true lignite coals of the best quality extends along the
base of the Eocky mountains from the 49th parallel to the
vicinity of the Peace River, a distance of 500 miles, with an
average width of, say, 100 miles, making a total area of 50,-
000 square miles. The outcrop along the banks of the Belly
River is placed at 99,000,000 tons. It is estimated that there
are 150,000,000 tons in a workable position near Medicine
Hat, 270,000,000 tons in the Blackfoot Crossing seam,
49,000,000 in the Horse Shoe Bend seam and 15,000 square
miles of good lignite extending east to the Souris River and
Turtle Mountain districts. Our home market could not make
a perceptible impression upon such a supply of coal in a
thousand years. Its true destination is the great American
West and North- West. It is desirable that no impevHment
should prevent the e xport of these marvellous coal resources of
the United States — to Dakota, Minnesota and Montana, and
to all the country west to the Pacific and soutK to California.
Now that monopoly has been abolished a railway will be con-
structed from Lethbridge in Alberta to Helena, Montana, and
other railways will cross the boundary at many points to carry
Reciprocity m the North- West. 159
tbe output of our coal mines to the coiiHumers Houtli of the
international boundary. Destiny has decreed that international
commerce west of Lake Superior shall sweep north and south
with the magnitude and refsistlessness of ocean tides.
THE WHEAT BELT.
Considering the extent of the export of wheat from the
United States it might seem absurd to contend that there is any
market south of the international boundary for Canadian
North- West wheat. But if there is not a market now there
certainly must be one in the near future. The extent of the
zone of profitable wheat production in the United States is after
all not very great. In 1860 J. A. Wheelock, Commissioner of
Statistics for Minnesota, defined the limitfi of the wheat belt of
North America as follows : —
The wheat-producing district of the United States is confined to about ten
degrees of latitude and six degrees of longitude, terminating on the west at
the 98th parallel. But the ixtne of its profitable culture occupies a com-
f)arative narrow belt along the cool bonders of the district defined for in-
and positiona by the mean temperature of fifty-five degrees on the north
and seventy-one degrees on the south, for the two months of July and
August. This definition excludes all the country lying south of latitude
forty degrees except western Virginia, and north of that it excludes
the Southern districts of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa,
while it includes the northern parts of these States, Canada, New York
Western Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Red River
and Saskatchewan Valleys. In general terms it may be stated that the belt
of maximum wheat production lies immediately north of the districts where
the maximum of Indian com is attained.
He further stated that physical and economical causes restrict
the limits of wheat culture to the seats of its maximum pro-
duction in less than one-third of the States of the Union, within
a climatic belt having an estimated gross area of only 260,-
000 square miles, from which nine-tenths of the American
supply of bread and a large and increasing amount of foreign
food must be drawn. Since 1860 the belt has contracted very
materially. It is stated on excellent authority that the only
States east of the Kocky Mountains which produce a surplus
beyond local consumption are Wisconsin, Minnesota and
Dakota. There are, cf course, the great territorial organiza-
tions — Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada.
Although the area ojf Montana is 146,689 square miles, or
93,881,184 acres, it is officially stated that only 3,346,400
ICO Handbook of Commercial Vnio7i.
acres, or one acre in thirty, are within reach of irrigation, and
therefore susceptible of wheat cultivation. It is estimated that
Utah, although 84,476 square miles in area, contains but
1,250,000 acres that can be irrigated without reservoirs. If, as
it is contended, the area requiring irrigation extends eastward
to longitude 101°, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and Nevada
are in the same condition, as far as wheat-raisiug is concerned
as Utah and Montana. As a matter of fact, the thinly popu-
lated Province of Manitoba alone during last season produced
about twice as much wheat as Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Utah,
and Colorado taken together. Making allowance for California
and Oregon, it is plain that the wheat zone in the United
States is very small indeed in proportion to the total area.
More than that, ^hile the population is increasing with
marvellous rapidity, t^e wheat belt is decreasing. What could
be more suggestive in this connection than the following ex-
tract from the Grand Forks (Dak.,) Herald of a recent date : —
Farmers in South Dakota are talking of abandoning the future raising of
wheat to any great extent. They say it costs so much for machinery, horses
and extra help for threshing that they cannot realize any profits on their
crops. Scarcely any wheat in South Dakota is graded higher than No. 2.
They are of the opinion that com will pay much better.
THE DEMAND FOR SEED GRAIN.
Corn is rapidly pushing the wheat northwards. It may
seem a bold statement, but it is probably true nevertheless, that
if the American duty of 20 cents a bushel were taken off Cana-
dian wheat, the entire surplus product of Manitoba and the
North-West for years to come would be purchased by United
States dealers for seed purposes. American wheat in almost
every State and Territory needs regenerating. New seed is
everywhere required, and as no wheat possesses a greater
vitality and germinating power, gives a greater yield, or pro-
duces better flour than that of Manitoba and the North-West,
there will be an immense demand for it from the south of the
line. Within the last five months quite a quantity of No. 1
hard has been consigned to farmers on the other side, and sold
to them for seed purposes at $1 per bushel, they paying the
additional 20 cents duty. We cannot hope to export much at
this figure, but if the duty were removed the demand for
Manitoba No. 1 hard for ^^ed purposes would immediately be-
Reciprocity in the North- West. 161
come very large. What was not sold for seed would find its
way out by Duluth for Liverpool, and even for that the farmer
would receive from five to eight cents more per bushel than
can be got from shipping by Port Arthur. It may seem strange
to say that when the market price is ultimately made at Liver-
pool wheat sells for several cents more south of the boundary
than north of it. Nevertheless it does. The North- West
Farmer calculates that the farmers of Southern Manitoba lost
$250,000 this year by not being able to sell at American prices
on the other side of an imaginary line. Facilities of transport
possessed by buyers and their ability to turn over their money
rapidly enable them to pay much better prices than are oftered
at Port Arthur. The removal of the duty of 20 cents per
bushel on wheat would be worth millions of dollars to Mani-
toba and the North-West in very few years. ; ^ --?<.
THE PROSPECTS FOR BARLEY
Unrestricted reciprocity in barley would be an invaluable
boon to the Canadian North- West. Present signs indicate that
the barley crop of Manitoba and the Territories will presently
assume tremendous proportions. The estimated crop for Mani-
toba for 1887 was 2,000,000 bushels, and for the Territories
about one quarter of a million bushels. But these are the mer-
est beginnings of the production which will soon develop in
earnest. The barley of Manitoba is adjudged to be the best
upon the continent. It is contended that there is no possibility
of fairly judging, according to the standard now in force, of the
relative values of our barley and that raised in Ontario. Light
barley, such as that of Ontario, weighing 44 to 49 pounds to
the bushel, and graded as No. 1, cannot really be compared in
value with barley weighing 51 to 52 pounds to the bushel and
graded the same. It is held that the inspected No. 2, shipped
from Manitoba, is better value than the ordinary standard No,
1 of the Dominion. In bulletin No. 2, dated September, 1887,
Prof. Saunders, director of the Central Experimental Farm at
Ottawa, compares the average vitality of the grains of Mani-
toba and the North-West, with that of the grains of Ontario,
and finds the vitality of the barley of the Canadian North-West
is to the vitality of that of the Eastern Provinces as 97 ptr cent,
is to 73 per cent. The Canadian Malt Company of Detroit,
162 Handbook of Commercial Union.
Michigan, received from 30,000 to 40,000 bushels of Manitoba
barley this last year, and this is their testimony : —
We Kave instructions to our brewer to make three special brewings, one
from Manitoba barley, one from best Western barley, and one from Ontario
barley, in order to fairly test their respective merits. The result was four
and one-half barrels more for 100 bushels from Manitoba malt than from
Western, and greater gravity ; and four barrels for 100 bushels more than
that produced ftom the same quantity of Ontario malt.
If 100 bushels of Manitoba malt are worth four barrels of
beer, or $40 more than the Jsame quality of any other malt, it
is plain that, if allowed to do so by the tariff architects, we shall
soon export vast quantities of barley to the United States. It
is to the interest of this country, therefore, that it should have
the freest of free trade with the United States, so far as barley
is concerned.
CEREALS GENERALLY AND POTATOES.
'.'1 ' ' IJ- . '
Owing to the exceptional vitality of North- West seeds, they
are in great demand for regenerating all the cereals of the
United States. In the bulletin just referred to, issued from the
Central Experimental Farm last September, after comparing a
number of samples of grain from Manitoba and the North- West
with Ontario, and the Provinces East, Prof. Saunders rated their
vitality as follows : —
NORTH-WEST PROVINCES. EASTERN PROVINCES.
Proportion of Vitality. Proportion of Vitality.
Wheat 96 per cent. Wheat 92 per cent.
Barley 97 " Barley 73
Oats 95 " Oats 65 "
The results of the experiments were accepted by him as proof
of the fact that " grain grown in the Northern countries pos-
sesses more vigour and vitality than that produced in more
Southern latitudes, which makes it more valuable for seed." It
is well known that the United States grains are in need of being
regenerated by the introduction of new and vigorous seed. I
am told on good authority that the vitality of our grains is so
great, that with the removal of the various duties our surplus
crop, not only in wheat but in several other grains, could find
a very profitable market in the United States for seed purposes
alone, not to speak of anything elsa
'Reciprocity in tite North- West. 163
Quite recently a brisk trade in potatoes has sprung up be-
tween Winnipeg and Chicago. The potato crop seems to have
been a failure in every part of the United States this year,
except Northern Dakota and Northern Minnesota. A great
demand for Manitoba potatoes has set in. A few months ago
Manitoba potatoes were quoted at 25 cents. Now they are
bought from the farmers at considerably over 40 cents, invoiced
to Chicago at 50 cents, and sold there, the Early Rose at $1 per
bushel, and Mixed at 90 to 95 cents. During the last five
weeks no less than from 70 to 100 carloads have been shipped
to Chicago, and the trade is increasing in volume. North- West
potatoes have in fact taken a hold upon the A -lerican market
which will never be relinquished. They rank higher than any
other potatoes in flavour and dryness, and are far more produc-
tive. With them the light skinned, stunted tubers of Wisconsin
cannot be compared. The Manitoba potato crop last year was
estimated at 2,750,000 bushels, and the average yield was
placed at 250 bushels to the acre. As double that amount can
be grown to the acre, and no United States potatoes can stand
before those produced from the soil of North-West Canada, a
trade has been begun which promises to be one of the most
important and valuable to the whole country. The only impe-
diment is the duty of 15 cents per bushel, which, though not
prohibitive in times of what is almost a potato famine in the
United States, must seriously interfere with, if it does not des-
troy, the export in better years.
SUMMING UP.
The trouble of collecting all the above important particulars
has been taken for the purpose of refuting the ott-asserted but
absurd idea that the products of the American and Canadian
North- West are so similar that there can be no trade between
the two countries, and that therefore they would not be bene-
fited by unrestricted reciprocity. The list might be indefinitely
extended. We have- the interminable forests of Hudson's Bay
and the Rocky Mountains ; we have iron, salt, gypsum, petro-
leum. On the Slave River in the North- West, the Salt Plains
cannot be crossed in half a day. What more is necessary to
show that nature has decreed that all this vast country, call it
North- West Canada or Central British America, as you will,
164 Handbook of Com/mercial Union.
shall trade freely and unrestrainedly with the great nation to
which it is joined by nature at every point along its boundary,
but from which its trade is now driven back by an almost pro-
hibitory tariff 1 The reciprocal trade which should sweep back
and forth over the two countries like a mighty wave is rendered
stagnant by the foolish interposition of man.
THE ONTARIO FARMERS' INSTITUTES AND
COMMERCIAL UNION.
Circular issued hy the Executive.
The following was forwarded to the various Farmers* Insti-
tutes in Ontario which have declared themselves in favour of
Commercial Union between Canada and the United States : —
At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Permanent
Central Farmers' Institute, held in Toronto, August 4th, 1887,
the following resolutions were passed : —
1. That this Executive Committee do now proceed to take steps to fonn
au organization in each electoral district or county in which Farmers' Insti-
tutes nave declared by vote in favour of unrestricted reciprocity or commer-
cial union, with a view of promoting the same between Canada and the
United States.
2. That a circular be addressed by the president and secretary to the dif-
ferent individual Institutes which have declared in favour of a removal of all
restrictions on trade between the United States and Canada, asking them to
take steps to have all the farmers within the territory of each canvassed at
the earliest possible moment to ascertain their views in reference to the above
question, and that suitable forms be furnished them by the secretary for this
purpose.
Now that a season of comparative leisure is at hand, in com-
pliance with the terms of the above resolutions, we forward to
your Institute the accompanying forms for the prosecution of
such canvass, and urge upon you the advisability of at once
forming an organization or organizations within your territory,
which shall give early and vigorous attention to the furtherance
of the work in hand.
Permit us to remind you of the necessity of taking early
action, in view of the fact that this question will assuredly be
considered at Ottawa during the next session, and of selecting
the most prudent and energetic members of the community to
take the work in hand. Select them from both classes of poli-
tics, for this is purely a question of economics and not one of
politics, and make it your earnest endeavour to unite the farm-
ers for the protection and furtherance of their own interests,
166 Handbook of Commercial Union,
which will 80 largely be affected for the better or the worse by
the success or failure of this movement.
You are aware, doubtless, that out of some twenty-seven In
stitutes 60 far reported as having voted on this maasure, twenty-
five have declared themselves favourable to it by overwhelming
majorities, and in most cases unanimously, and numerous gather-
ings of farmers in other parts of the country have similarly de-
clared themselves. Not a few advocates of the measure — the
movers and seconders of the resolutions — have hitherto been at
variance in politics. Where the expression of opinion has been
so unanimous, it is the plain duty of the Executive Committee
of the Central Farmers' Institute to seek to secure the end to
which all this expression of opinion directs, by endeavouring to
give practical shape to what must otherwise prove ineffective.
The benefits that would accrue to the farmers of Ontario, and
indeed to the whole province, have been so frequently laid
before you that it is quite unnecessary to repeat them here.
We believe that no farmer who has studied this question with
a sincere desire to reach the truth, will deny this statement.
Where the expression of sentiment has been so unanimous it
must receive attention. The members to whom you have given
seats in the Legislature, as well as the nation at large, have a
right to regard your wants ; and we now urge you to take such
action, and at once, as will cause your representatives to es-
pouse your cause on the floors of our parliaments as their own.
The justice of these conclusions is even more apparent when
we consider the relative strength of the farmer's interests and
the amount he has at stake. He is the owner of more than two-
thirds the material wealth of the whole Dominion, and he out-
numbers all other classes of the community more than two to
one, and yet have the true interests of the farmers been con-
sidered ? Is it not, on the contrary, true that the material ad-
vantage of the minority has been advanced at the expense of
the majority ; and has not this majority been a burden-bearer
to the advantage of others 1 We therefore urge upon the farm-
ers of this country to unite in their own common cause and for
their own advancement For th^ furtherance of your interests
an opportunity has come to you such as may never come again,
either in your day or in that of your children, and we appeal
to you in the name of your manhood, for the love you bear
your country and the interest you have in its advancement, to
Ontario Farrnera and Commercial Union. .167
arise in your might, and so work together that no power in the
country will dare to say to you that you shall not have un re-
restricted trade with the United States, should it be offered to
us by the latter country. Remember that if this great material
boon is secured, it will be secured by the united action of the
farmers, and if it is lost, it will be lost through the indifference
of the farmers.
When men say to you that you are disloyal because you are
seeking to better your own condition, point them to the mag-
nificent country that your hands, more than theirs, have helped
to make the brightest gem in the coronet of Victoria, and which
you are always willing to defend. When they clamour that
you are discriminating against Great Britain, tell them Great
Britain will not pay your mortgages, assume your liabilities or
give you better prices for your produce. When they say to you
that you are seeking annexation, let the loyalty which the
farmers have always shown to the institutions of this grand
country and their efforts to make it what it is, be their answer.
When they tell you the United States does not want reciprocity,
think not that they know the intentions of the Americans in
this respect. And when they say to you that United States
produce will swamp your markets, remind them of the superior
producing power of the farms of Ontario as compared with
those of the United States ; tell them that the farmers of this
country are not afraid to compete in an open field with those of
the neighbouring country ; that you have faith in your own
industry, ability and energy, and that if they lack in these it is
no reason why you should ; assure them that the farmers of
Ontario are competent to judge for themselves of their own
needs.
We urge you once again to take immediate action. Form
Commercial Union clubs not only in every electoral district,
but in every township thereof, if possible, and canvass every
farmer. The help of every farmer is wanted in this great bat-
tle. You, delegated to the executive work to be done in this
cause for our common interest — show by your action that you
grant we have done our part thus far. The time for words
has passed, work is now wanted and asked for at your hands.
By the great interests at stake, we ask our farmers to give it.
We are not seeking any advantage over other classes, but simply
e(|Ual chftnces, Ml we waiit is fair play and no favour, By
168 Handbook of Commercial Union.
the remembrance of long years of past disadvantage, we ask
you to take possession of this your lawful heritage. By the
thought of recent years of toil, with only an annual advance
of .028 per cent, per annum on your investments, including all
your improvements, we ask you to try to better your material
condition. By the remembrance of the old homestead, soon to
pass, it may be, into strangers' hands, the sons or daughters
thereof gone or going to live and die in another country, we
ask you to try and keep it in the family. By the thought of
nearly 1,000,000 of the best of our citizens gone to help to
make the neighbouring republic great, we plead with you to arise
in your might and say with one voice that you want unrestricted
trade with the United States, and that not a man of you will
cease to work until your wants in this matter have received that
attention at the hands of your representatives which their im-
portance deserves.
V. E. Fuller, Thos. Shaw,
President. Secretary.
CENTRAL farmers' INSTITUTE. t
The fcUov/ing is the declaration which the farmers are asked
to sign : —
We, whose names are hereunto subscribed, are of the opinion
that it is necessary for the agricultural community, and those
directly interested in agriculture, to unite firmly and cordially
to promote their interests, and by so doing to help every other
legitimate interest in the country, since successful agriculture
is the principal basis of true Canadian prosperity. Unrestricted
free trade with the United States would be the greatest attain-
able material boon for the farmers of Canada at the present time.
We are further of the opinion that the necessity is so urgent
that men should sink minor differences and agree upon united
action to obtain the desired Unrestricted Reciprocity or Com-
mercial Union. We therefore agree, by our votes and influence,
in every legitimate manner, to promote the attainment of this
object ; and until the removal of all restrictions on the trade of
the two afore- mentioned countries is obtained, we will lay aside
ordinary political difl'erences, and make its attainment the
primary object — electing to our representative bodies only such
men as wijl make H their essential platform.
SPEECH ON OOMMERCIAt UNION AT THE
TORONTO BOARD OF TRADE.
(June 16th, 1SS7.)
BY MR. HENRY W. DAKLING, TORONTO.
■ 'f ■
<4 In the history of the discussion of public questions in Can-
ada there has probably been no subject which has taken such
a hold upon the public mind, or opinions which have so
rapidly matured, as the one which had claimed their atten-
tion at the two previous meetings, and which now claimed
their attention that night. It was natural that the subject
should be at first regarded with some anxiety, and there were
unquestionably some strong prejudices against it ; but the dis-
position which was shown here to prevent the fullest discus-
sion of it and to force an unfavourable verdict from this Board
before a full discussion had taken place, unquestionably inten-
sified the public interest in it, and has given the question an
impetus which probably nothing else could have done. Mr.
Macdonald sought to minimize its importance by expressing a
want of knowledge as to the quarter from which the proposal
emanated. He repeated the same remark in both his speeches.
Now,'even if the proposal for Commercial Union had emanated
from individuals having the most selfish interests to serve, it
would have made no difference in the importance of the sub-
ject. As a matter of fact, however, it arose out of the unset-
tled Fisheries question, and the introduction of the Butterworth
bill into Congress suggesting this method of settlement of an
international difficulty periodically recurring. This was at-
tended by the passing in the same session of what is known as
the Retaliation bill, and necessarily the probable effect of the
one and of the other has become a question of absorbing inter-
est. The attitude of Canada has been dignified and consistent
throughout. She regarded as a common benefit to both coun-
tries the former reciprocity treaty, of which she earnestly
sought a renewal on more than one occasion. These overtttres
170 Handbook of Commercial Union,
having been refuied, she adopted her own course, and showed
the people of the Republic that Canadians were possessed of a
good share of British self-reliance, and while we would gladly
have cultivated closer commercial relations with them, neither
our existence nor our advancement were absolutely dependent
upon them. When overtures are made by the Republic for
closer commercial relations it seems to be a duty of the plainest
kind to discuss these proposals and to look at them in all their
bearings. Light upon the subject can only do good, and the
improved attitude of the Board is highly significant and is in
itself an index of the public mind. ,
Now let us endeavour to clear away some of the obstructions
raised by way of obscuring the merits of the case. One ob-
tained expression by Mr. Beardmore in a most offensive way to
the effect that those who were discussing this matter were an-
nexationists at heait. He (Mr. Darling) not only denied this,
but he contended that the consummation of this proposal would
do much to avert any desire which might be abroad for annex-
ation, and would entirely remove any material object to be
gained by it. The action of two parties was necessary to
consummate annexation. He proceeded by quotations from a
speech by Hon. Robert R. Hill, a member of Congress from
Illinois, and a memorandum concerning Canada made by Mr.
Wharton Barker, to show the favourable attitude that American
public men took on the subject. He had every reason to be-
lieve these opinions reflected the opinions of the people of the
Republic. There were two ways by which annexation could be
brought about — by conquest and by common consent. By con-
quest the Republic would find itself, if successful, in a position
similar to that of Russia with Poland, and under such circum-
stances would never have a valuable acquisition. Nor are they
likely to attempt it. At present there is no desire for annexa-
tion in the minds of either people, but when it does exist it will
take place as a matter of course. On the other hand, if all the
advantages of annexation can be obtained by commercial union
all reason for it would be removed, there would be nothing to
be gained, and our political status would be preserved. He
ventured to remind those who have any disposition to thwart
discussion upon this subject that if they refuse to discuss the
means whereby the commercial relations between the Republic
f^nd Canada can be improved, aud if our statesmen decUne at
Speech at the Toronto Board of Trade. 171
the dictate of acy aeU'iu class of this community to take advan-
tage of any advances by the Republic to this end, they will pro-
bably find that it is not reciprocity nor commercial union that
will be discussed, but that there are disintegrating elements in
existence which may bring about discussion of annexation pure
and simple. The sentiments of loyalty and patriotism which
this discussion has evoked and will evoke are not more than
might have been expected. Where they are sincere they are
most creditable, and the absence of them would be ingratitude
of the very deepest kind. Canada has asserted the principle,
however, in connection with her fiscal [)oIicy, that the course
wL h is to be pursued is that which is best for Canada. The
imposition of protective duties was justified upon the ground
that they would stimulate her manufactures, and be a lever by
which a new reciprocity treaty with the Republic would be ob-
tained. Our statesmen have defended this policy to the people
of England upon the ground that discrimination against the
Republic was the object in view, but England as plainly said,
we do not thank you for your discrimination, we do not ap-
prove of it ; we see nothing in it but an utterly selfish policy ;
every new session of our Parliament sees another step taken in
this selfish policy. They had all in mind the sentiment that was
uttered by the organ of the protectionists, that if the British
connection suffered through the adoption of the protective
tariffs, it was so much the worse for British connection. They
must look with some degree of distrust, therefore, upon the ex-
treme abhorrence by the Canadian manufacturer of the United
States manufacturer, and his solicitude for the British manu-
facturer. He thought it had been pretty conclusively estab-
lished by the discussion which had taken place that such com-
mercial intercourse with the Republic would be extremely ad-
vantageous to our farmers and agriculturists. It had been
argued that they are very well off already, and statistics had
been quoted to show how prosperous they were. Admitting
all this to be true (alinough a good many farmers will have
something to say upon the subject^ it is no reason why they
should decline to take ways and moans to enhance their pros-
perity. They have been taught by advocates of the National
Policy to believe that their home market is the best market,
and the country at one time rang with the demand which was
to spring up for what was termed their " garden sass," in con-
172 Handbook of Gomimercial Union.
sequence of their proximity to a large industrial population. It
was not to be wondered at, therefore, if they sought to have
these advantages in even larger measure than they already en-
joyed them by the freest access to the industrial population of
the adjoining States. The conditions of agriculture are chang-
ing. It is no longer profitable to grow wheat in Ontario for
exportation at the present prices. Crops less exhaustive to the
soil and a greater variety of products are desirable, and with
access to such a market as the United States affords, these
could be secured. Commercial Union would be good for bim-
bermen. Timber will no longer be exported. Tliere would iu-
niediately be an added value to standing timber of every kind.
There was any quantity of timber going to waste or being burn-
ed which would at once become valuable as an article of export.
They must husband their forest resources and make them as
productive as possible. Commercial Union would be good for
our fisheries, our coasting and carrying trade and our milling
interests. Now, what remained 1 There were the manufactur-
ing, and what he may call the jobbing, interests. Mr. Macdon-
ald says the result to these interests would be ruin. Mr. Wilkie
draws a picture of appalling desolation. Canada would be very
much in the position of any of the States in the Union. They
would have the same advantages and disadvantages. Did they
confess that Canadians would be found inferior in ability or
enterprise to their rivals ] Canadians have distinguished them-
selves in every walk in life, and occupy high positions in every
State in the Union. Doubtless there would be changes. The
United States would benefit by the introduction of their goods,
but surely Canadians understood the science of the distribution
of commodities and woiild not be wanting in industry and en-
terprise. Mr. Wilkie hau said that all Toronto's wholesale busi-
ness would go to New York. He had statistics in his posses-
sion, however, which he thought would confute that view. The
statistics were to the effect that Rochester and Detroit, two
cities whose population was similar in number to that of To-
ronto, distributed about the same amount annually as Toronto.
This did not seem to establish the fact that the position of these
places as distributing ceutres was lessened because of want of
protection from the business men of New York. Rochester,
Buffalo and Detroit are large distributing centres, and they
have no country behind them, but must cultivate the field be-
Speeck at lite Toronto Board of Trade, 173
tweon them and New York. The merchants of Toronto, served
as they are by far-reaching lines of railway, and with a firm
hold of their trade, their capita) and energy would ultimately
assert themselves and share in the added prosperity of the
country at large. Mr. Macdonald says that as soon as commer-
cial union was accomplished the cotton factories would all close
up the next day, and yet they had Mr. Thompson telling them
that they were selling articles as cheap as they can be bought
in the States. They must be careful how they arrayed them-
selves in opposition to all these national interests that he had
mentioned. No manufacturer had said that he would be closed
up next day. He could understand the plea, " Lot me alone, I
am doing well." The conditions were similar in both countries.
There was the age and youth of communities. All the States
have established their new factories as they have required them.
Canada must do the same. New factories begin where others
leave oif. There could l^e no doubt there would be disadvan-
tages at first. What they required was more capital and a larger
market. He instanced the cotton industry, into which capital
poured after the adoption of the protective tariff. Now the
manufacturers of that fabric found that there were more spin-
dies running than they could find market for the produce of.
Moreover, there was no assurance of the permanence of the
present policy. It was »till experimental. It was significant
that party ties were being loosened just now on all hands, and
a new division may occur at any time. Under Commercial
Union permanence would be secured.
CoL^-ng to Mr. Cumberland's remarks, he said that what that
gentleman had stated about Germany and the ZoUverein was an
historical error. He stated on the authority ot a gentleman
whose word would bs unquestioned — Mr. Goldwin Smith — that
Mr. (iJumberland's statement was erroneous. Mr. Cuml.>tirland
had twitted him with having made a huge jump over the fence.
He thought it extraordinary that he, a free trader, should be
found advocating Commercial Union. All he had to say in reply
to this was that whatever benefits were derivable from protection
were largely increased in connection with sixty million peopla
The evils were largely minimised from the same cause. He
now came to the point that Commercial Union would discrimin-
ate against Great Britain. He did not desire to dissemble the
gravity of this branch of the question. He firmly held to the
174 Handbook of Uommercial Union.
opinion that the union should only be accomplished with the
consent of the Mother Country. On a limited scale it would
be in consonance with the most cherished principles of Great
Britain. When the union was accomplished a portion of the
British Empire would be then in enjoyment of free trade with
the United States. It might be the precursor of larger things.
Britain could not object to the principle, but only to its limited
application. It would be injurious to her no doubt, but the
thoughtful people of England could not forget the geographical
contiguity of Canada to the United States. He did not believe
that Great Britain would ever say nay to the strongly express-
ed desire of Canada. Were Great Britain, however, to say that
the consummation of commercial union would mean separation,
he freely admitted that the scheme would unquestionably fall
to the ground.
He desired to express his sincere and honest conviction that
this free intercourse with the Republic would be of immense
advantage to the Republic and Canada, and give an enormous
impetus to the development of our natural resources, and prove
of lasting benefit to both countries. Occupying the powttion he
did he could not advocate the adoption of any course which
would be destructive to any important commercial industry of
this country or of its prosperity us a whole. They were aware
that these meetings had been called at the instance of the
Council of the Board of Trade, the object being to afford an op-
portunity for discussion. The rules of the debate required that
they should proceed with a resolution before them. That which
he had the honour to move aflSrmed that the subject was worthy
the fullest investigation and the earnest consideration of our
people. He did not desire to commit the Board further than
that. He congratulated them upon the important contribution
that had been made to the discussion, which must be regarded
as worthy of the Board and of the important interests which
it represents.
V
THE MANUFACTURING INTERESTS IN RELA-
TION TO COMMERCIAL UNION.
\A Reply to the Hon. James Young, M.P.P.'j
BY J. DRTDEN, JR., GALT.
The Hon. James Young has recently addressed to the press
a series of able letters on the subject of Commercial Union.
He presents a candid and clear statement of the case from the
Restrictionists* point of view, which I propose here briefly to
examine.
Like many opponents of Mr. Butterworth's proposal, Mr.
Young spends a good deal of time and energy to oliow that it is
not Commercial Union but Reciprocity which we want, when
the simple statement of the fact that we can't get Reciprocity
ought to set at rest this Reciprocity business. A writer who
has given the subject so much study as Mr. Young evidently
has given it, should know that the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854
was terminated by the United States because they found that
Canada secured thereby a market for $229,000,000 worth of
products, while the States sold scarcely more than half that
amount to Canada. What is the use of harping about partial
Reciprocity when the United States have time and again re-
fused it ? We have a standing offer on our statute books, but
this has been ignored.
Mr. Young sets out with the statement, often rung in the
ears of our farmers, that the agriculturists are not " suffering
serious disadvantages as compared with our American neigh-
bors," but that they are •' wealthier, healthier and happier"
than in the most favoured parts of the Union. Assuming this
to be correct, which I doubt very much, does it necessarily fol-
low that the Customs line is not a serious impediment to the
prosperity of the farmers of Canada, and that they would not
gain anything by an enlarged market 1 If the farmers of On-
tario are more prosperous than those of the States, is it not be-
176 Handhook of Commercial Union.
cause Ontario possesses a better soil and climate and is inhabi-
ted by a more frugal and industrious class of people 1 On this
point, however, Mr. Young does not give us any reliable data.
Even supposing the farmers of Ontario are in a better position
than those of the States, the mere fact that a large proportion
of our surplus population seek farms in the Western States in
preference to our own North- West, and the further fact that
the Western States are settling up rapidly with foreign and
other immigration while our own Canadian North- West is at a
standstill, should disprove the statement that the farmers of
Canada {i. e., over the whole Dominion) are in a better position
than those of the States. The whole case of Mr. Young seems
to be a strained attempt to prove that Great Britain is a better
market for our farm produce than the United States. I take
his figures. They are as follows : —
Surplus farm production. $150,000,000
Exported to Great Britain... $22, 543, 936
Exported to United States. . 15,495,783
Exported elsewhere 1,678,493 39,718,212
Home market consumed.. . . $110,281,788
The above is for 1886. Then he goes on to say that our
home market is " incomparably the best which our farmers
possess, while that of Britain ranks second and that of the
United States third." His conclusion is of course that Com-
mercial Union is bad and Protection good. Here Mr. Young
has not gone far enough. His conclusion is not justified. His
statement is lacking in one important particular. He does not
nor can he say how much, if any, this home market has been
built up by our restrictive or Protective policy. If Mr. Young
can show that our home market has been built up by tariff* re-
strictions we will tell Messrs. Wiman and Butterworth to stay
at home and we will build a real " Chinese wall " along our
border.
Mr. Young next gives a statement showing the exports from
Canada to Britain and to the United States during the last
seven years. During those seven years there was sent to the
United States $108,437,212 of agricultural products and to
Great Britain $208,102,110, showing that Britain took nearly
$100,000,000 more agricultural products from Canada than the
United States took from us during those seven years. He then
The Manufacturing Interests, 177
gives the following statement which he has compiled from offi-
cial records. It is a valuable statement and ought to be studied
by every Canadian who wishes to post himself on this ques-
tion : —
U. S. Gt. Brit.
Cattle $ 724,967 $4,998,327
Horses 2,189,394 19,279
Sheep 831,749 317,987
Butter 17,545 773,511
Cheese 20,219 7,261,542
Eggs 1,722,579
Meats of all kinds 83,570 698,776
Wheat 325,271 4,789,276
Flour 125,520 1,092,461
Oatmeal 15,630 297,415
Barley 5,708,130 11,248
Indian corn 59,450 1,330,1 31
Oats 87,697 1,160,528
Peas 377,003 1,739,917
Hay 897,806 69,534
Potatoes 374,122 192
Hides and skins 468,461 785
Wool 271,424 45,254
Apples 55,302 410,898
Then from this imposing array of figures Mr. Young comes
to what he considers the irresistible conclusion that "this makes
it tolerably clear that Britain is our principal market for for-
eign export." We are indebted to Mr. Young for these figures,
but his conclusions therefrom or his interpretations thereof we
must decline with thanks. Mr. Young has here fallen into the
error — which seems *^^o form the basis for the stock butt argu-
ment against Commercial Union, but which we should scarce
expect from a writer who has given the subject much study and
research — of comparing our exports to Britain with those to
the States in order to find out which is the better market. Did
it not occur to Mr. Young, when compiling these statistics, to
ask himself the question, " Why are the people seeking Com^
mercial Union ? " Is it not to rid themselves of a high tariff,
or in other words a ** Chinese wall" which prevents us from ex-
porting to the United States? That is the object of the
" Chinese wall," to keep Canadian products out of the United
States market, and that it has fulfilled its object is evident
from the length of time it has been in force. Mr. Young, in
178 Handbook of Commercial Union.
his zeal to prove what he claims to be his stock argument, for-
gets that in Britain we have a free market, while before we can
get to the United States market we must climb this " Chinese
wall." It merely requires to be mentioned to be seen how un-
fair is the comparison between the United States and English
markets, and how mistaken and absurd the conclusion that
because we export more to a free market than to one that is not
free, therefore the former is our natural market for our surplus
products, the market from which the farmer is to derive his
wealth, the market in which to isell the hard-earned product of
honest toil, (rive us a free markets in the United States and I
venture to say that our exports to that country will be double
that at present sent to Britain. Give the farmer ten cents a
bushel more for his barley and there will be such a stimulus given
to the production of barley that in place of sending $5,000,000 of
barley to the States we will send $10,000,000. Give the farmer
20 per cent, more for every horse sent to the States, and in
place of $2,000,000 worth of horses, we will send annually
across the lines $5,000,000. If we can send over $700,000
worth of cattle to the United States and pay the high duty, is
it not reasonable to suppose that with the removal of the duty
the cattle export to that country would be greatly enlarged 1
If we can export over $1,000,000 worth of sheep and wool and
pay the duty, will it be denied that with a free market the ex-
port would be more ^han doubled ] Look at the above state-
ment again. See the item of eggs. This is the only product
admitted free to the States' market. .And what do the figures
showl Nearly $2,000,000 worth of eggs have been shipped
across the lines, and not one. dozen of eggs has been shipped to
Britain. How do the opponents of Commercial Union account
for this showing 1 Will they have the hardihood to deny that
that business would not have amounted to its present enormous
proportions with tariff restrictions placed upon it ? Mr. Young
professed some solicitude for the Town of Gait. In this town
tre have a large egg business. Will Mr. Young deny that it
was " Commercial Union" in this particular product that built
up this business which is of so much value to our town and
surrounding country ? Let us be fair to ourselves, let us be
honest, and give credit where credit is due. Why not ship
these eggs to Britain if Britain is our natural and principal
market ? In this article we have Commercial Union, but, con-
. The Manufacturing Interests. * 179
trary to the logic of those British loyalists who see in Commer-
cial Union Annexation, the two countries still remain separate
politically. ""i;^
Again, these figures show that Mr. Young's contention is
absurd that on the removal of the duties the competition of the
American farmer would prove disastrous to our farmers.
Surely if we can compete with the American farmer in his own
market, as the above statement shows we are competing, and
pay a high duty to get into his markets, no one is so dense as
not to see that the American farmer cannot compete with our
farmer in our own market. We are shipping over $800,000
worth of sheep annually to the United States and paying a
duty thereon, and according to Mr. Young if that duty is abol-
ished by Commercial Union our market for sheep in the States
will likewise be abolished, of which contention any farmer will
see the absurdity. So with the other articles mentioned in
that statement which compose all the principal farm products
of Canada.
The writer goes on to say that our British market would be
ruined by Commercial Union, a statement which he neither
explains nor substantiates. Does he mean to say that England
will shut her doors against us if we adopt Commercial Union?
If so why does she not shut her doors against the United
States ? Does he mean to say that her buyers will retaliate
and fight shy of Canada altogether 1 Then why does she not
refuse to purchase American products ? Is this English justice ?
Is this British fair play 1 Mr. Young might have added an-
other leaf to his statistics to show us what amount of farm pro-
ducts England buys from the United States. He might have
told us such exports are in the neighbourhood of $90,000,000,
while the Mother Country only favours Canada with $25,000,-
000. Talk of British loyalty ! Why, our loyalty to the Mother
Country has only a market value in England of $25,000,000,
while the Yankees sell their loyalty to the British flag for $90,-
000,000 ! Every one, every farmer at anyrate, will dlearly
perceive the benefit to our farmers of free importation into the
United States markets, but that is only half of Commercial
Union. Our farmers need not be told that the free entry of
American manufactures and some of her natural products
into Canada would be money in their pockets. Mr. Young
seems to lose sight of this phase of th^ subject, or at any rate
180 ' Handbook of Gommercial Union.
he fights shy of it. The farmer need not be told that with
cheaper corn he could raise cheaper and better beef He need not
be told of the immense savings in the cost of implements and
the reduction in the cost of raising grain which this saving
would cause. Mr. Young is careful not to mention the saving
in the cost of living to all classes, farmers included, which Com-
mercial Union would eflfect. No greater boon could be given
to the settlers of the Northwest than cheaper implements.
Half a million dollars would have been saved to the farmers of
the Northwest in this one article of farming implements if
allowed free entry, and perhaps much of the present discon-
tent and talk of rebellion would have been averted. Manitoba
is essentially a wheat-growing country and anything having
in view the establishment of manufactures on the prairies is
surely an insane policy. Anything that will prevent the
fullest development of its natural riches, the fertility of its soil,
MUST HAMPER THE GROWTH OP ;
and destroy our hopes of seeing in the near future, a great
nation in itself, great in the wealth of the productions of its
soil, great in its British institutions, and imbued with a Can<
adian national sentiment
I can conceive how a good deal can be said against Com-
mercial Union from a manufacturer's standpoint. I can con-
ceive how something can be said in favour of Protection
even from a farmer's standpoint so long as the United States
keep up their high tariff wall. But it is inconceivable how
any one, looking at the subject for a few moments from a simple
honest standpoint, can come to the conclusion that the com-
plete obliteration of the tariff walls on both sides of the boundary
is not in the highest degree desirable for the great producing
population of our country.
I had intended to deal shortly with the manufacturing as-
pect. But this subject is so vast, such a community of inter-
ests enter into it, that to discuss it with any semblance of jus-
tice would require a separate article. However, I just want to
say a; few words here. Mr. Young says that if Commercial
Union can be proved a benefit to the agricultural classes he
will support it heart and soul. This is an important admission.
He admits that the farmers' int^rest8 are paramount to those
. The Manufadui'ing Interests, 181
of the manufacturers. In other words, he is willing to see
our whole manufacturing industries ruined if the farmers are
going to be benefited. Our manufacturers will remember this.
His remark that Commercial Union will prove disastrous to
such rising manufacturing towne as Gait will be
TAKEN FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH
by our manufacturing classes. I do not believe that they will
be led away or prejudiced by any such statement. I have no
doubt that many of them, in our own town at any rate, which
has been justly called the "Manchester of Canada," will re-
sent such an imputation. Most of our manufactures were es<
tablished before we adopted Protection. They have become
firmly rooted, and if anything were needed to show that they
can hold their own against American competition, it is the fact
that they are now shipping their manufactures across the linoB
and finding a market there, paying a duty thereon and compet-
ing with American manufactures on American soil. Give them
a free entry into the United States, and I question very much
whether they will seriously object to Commercial Union, if
they do not indeed favour it.
Mr. Young has not touched upon the national and political
aspect of the question, but I am glad to know that he promises
to take up this phase of the subject in a future paper. This
paper will be looked forward to with interest. His readers will
be curious to know how he will account for the present disin-
tegrating forces at work in the Dominion, how he will reconcile
the present discontent in Manitoba and the other outlying
Provinces with the idea of a Canadian nationality. I shall be
curious to know how he views the alarming increase in our
Dominion debt. I shall be curious to know what view he takes
of subsidising outlying Provinces at the expense of Ontario
to prevent them seeking relief from the bonds of Confeder-
ation. As to the political or
ANNEXATIONIST ASPECT OF THE QUESTION
Mr. Young has expressed himself pretty clearly. He will, no
doubt, emphasise this point and endeavour to prove that Annex-
ation will undoubtedly come from Commercial Union, and from
182 Handbook of Commercial Union.
that he will tell us to beware of that dread monster that
brought disaster, commercially, politically and morally, when
it swallowed up all the States and united them under one Gov-
ernment, and we shall no doubt learn that California and other
later acquisitions have been sorry and repentant all the days of
their wedded life. I shall expect to be told that Commercial
Union, with its accompaniment, Annexation, will flood Canada
with bad morals and infidelity. He will see nothing in the
teachings of Sam Jones, Moody and other American evange-
lists, but secession, hoodlumism and disloyalty. We shall be
curious to know how the morals and religion of one million of
our brothers across the lines have been affected, and if they
have succeeded in holding their own with those shrewd, un-
scrupulous, Yankee monopolists. We shall perhaps learn that
they have succumbed to Americanism and that they died curs-
ing the land of their adoption. And last, but not least, if we
afe " to endure the ills we have," how are we to prevent an-
other million of our brothers being enticed away to that deadly
and inhospitable climate 1
II.
A POLICY THAT WOULD BENEFIT CANADA.
When the Commercial Union movement was first inaugur-
ated the cry of the Kestrictionists was that it would ruin the
farmer. This cry of course came mostly from manufacturers
or those interested in the maintenance of a high tariff. Notice
their magnanimity or supreme unselfishness. There was no
word about the ruination of their own businesses. They saw
that if they gave the real reason for their opposition to Com-
mercial Union, i.e., to fleece from the consumer their thirty
per cent, tribute, they would only be adding fuel to the agita-
tion, they would at once array every farmer and consumer in
favour of the movement This would unite the farmers as
they never were united. Perhaps those farmers who are so
blind to their own interests, who are so easily led astray by
the politicians, would experience a rude awakening and for once
see their true interests, which are the interests of Canada. But
not so. The manufacturer would not take the bull by the
horns. He preferred to fondle the farmer, to take a deep in
. 2 he ManufactuAng Intereata. 183
terest in his affairs, and tell him that Commercial Union
would give him no more for his barley and horses and add
nothing to the value of other produce. Unfortunately we
yet have in Canada a few farmers who can be " bamboozled,"
so to speak, and it is to be feared a few have allowed them-
selves to be so treated. These tactics, however, are now fail-
ing. The benefits to be derived from Commercial Union have
now been made so clear that a man must have a good deal of
self-assumption in his make-up to try to prove the contrary. So
the Restrictionista are beginning to appeal to the " last refuge
of scoundrels," which Johnson calls patriotism. Commercial
Union on the one hand is disloyal to England, and on the other
hand it is entering into an arrangement with a foreign nation
which means separation from the Mother Country and union
with another country, whose constitution is all wrong, whose
public morality is of the lowest order, and contact with whose
people means contamination by all that is base and deceitful.
While there are some sincere in their attachment to the
Mother Country, it is equally true that a large number, I might
say a large majority, of the opponents of Commercial Union
oppose it not for any love they entertain for British connection,
but for their own private aggrandisement. Were they as con-
sistent as they are zealous in presenting their case they would
not merit this imputation. Since the year one in Canadian
politics the cry of British connection has been hawked about
and made to serve the purpose of wily politicians. It has been
dangled before the people till they have come to look upon it as
some dread monster who will wreak vengeance upon anyone
incurring his displeasure. This same cry was held as a threat
over the people of Canada when they fought for and obtained
responsible Government, and more recently we have seen it do
duty when Canada asserted her right to frame her own tariff
laws. And after all, has our love for British connection been
lessened by these accessions on the part of England ? Is our
love for England not as strong to-day as it ever was 1
Were anything further needed to show the inconsistency of
those who denounce Commercial Union because it discrimin-
ates against England, it is the fact that Canada is now discrim-
inating against England and in favour of the United States.
The figures will speak for themselves. During the year 1886
our imports from Great Britain amounted to 140,601,000*
184 Handbook of Commercial Unions
The duty collected thereon amounted to $7,817,000, being
equal to 19| per cent. During the same year our imports
from the United States amounted to $44,808,000, and the
duty collected thereon $6,790,000, or slightly above 15 per
cent, showing a practical discrimination against England of
about 4i\ per cent. Also in the matter of free goods our tariff
is far more liberal to the United States than to Britain. Dur-
ing the year 1886 we admitted goods from the United States
free to the value of $15,198,000, and from Britain $10,215,-
000, showing a discrimination here in favour of the United
States of what amounts to 33^ per cent. Did those super-
loyalists who profess such an ardent attachment for the Mother
Country, who guard with a jealous eye the tie that binds us
together, ever inquire into this 1 How can they reconcile this
fact with their contention that tariff discrimination against
England means separation 1 We are doing this under our
present protective tariff, and yet their boast is that Canada is
loyal. Then what do these figures prove ] They prove that a
tariff is not an article that separates or unites two countries,
and that a tariff is not a true measure of our loyalty to Eng-
land, and, therefore, that Commercial Union does not mean
separation from Britain. If those who thus blindly oppose
Commercial Union are consistent, if they are truly loyal, they
will at once turn their attention to our present tariff arrange-
ment and see to it that it does not bear more heavily on Britain
than on the United States.
But, let us ask, what does this *' discrimination against Eng-
land," mean, anyway ) It means that the manufactures of
the United States shall have free entry into Canada, while our
present tariff, or probably a higher one, shall remain against
British manufacturts. It is held that the manufacturers of
England will suffer by it, inasmuch as it will injure their
Canadian market. No one pretends to say that it will seriously
affect the great body of the people. Well, then, the question
arises : Does the manufacturer represent public opinion in
England ? Does he rule the land ? Has he alone the right to
goy whether our connection shall cease or continue ? Is there
no other tie that binds us to the Mother Country but the
purse-strings of a few British manufacturers ? Will England
sever our connection because her manufacturers say so ? Will
England disown us because we have discovered a new source
- The Manufacturimj Inter eaU. 186
of prosperity ? Shall we be dishonouring her name if, in fol-
lowing her example, espousing her economic religion and emul-
ating her spirit, which has been the glory of modern civilisa-
tion, we build up a great and prosperous nation here 1 Far
rather, shall we not be dishonouring 'her name if we do not
avail ourselves of that liberty which England has been trying
to teach mankind the use of the world over 1 Will Canadians
take this view of British connection 1 I prefer to think they
will. The utterances of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain at Belfast are
to be commended to those miscalled loyalists. The sentiments
may not be true, but they show the absurdity of this loyalty
talk in Canaaa. Coming as they do from a leading English
statesman as well as a large English manufacturer it would
appear that our sentiment is not reciprocated. He says : —
If Canada desires Commercial Union Canada can have it. But Canada
knows perfectly well that Commercial Union with the United States means
political separation from (Ireat Britain, for it is quite imjMssible that (Ireat
Britain should retain all the responsibilities and obligations of the colonial
connection when all the advantages are taken away.
Here is a practical declaration that England will have noth-
ing to do with Canada unless she can reap some advantages
from Canada, and it would appear from this that hitherto
Britain has not been a loser financially from her connection
with Canada. Then what are those advantages Mr. Chamber-
lain speaks of 1 He says they will all be taken away by Com-
mercial Union. The advantages must, therefore, be the privi-
lege the exporters or manufacturers of England have of selling
their goods in Canada — an advantage to be measured by the
amount of dollars and cents they can take out of Canada.
Then it may be fairly asked, where do our advantages come
in ? Does England sell her goods cheaper to us because we are
under her rule ? Does she pay more for our produce than for
the produce of foreign nations 1 Does she discriminate in our
favour 1 Does the English emigrant prefer Canada to the
United States because Canada is a colony ] This, then, is the
great question : Is our country being populated, are her re-
sources being developed, is she increasing in riches because of
her relations to Great Britain 1 If that can be answered in
the affirmative, and if we can afford to discriminate in her
favour and against the United States, by all means let us do so.
But no one has taken this stand. Not even the most bitter
186 Handbook of Commercial Union.
opponent of Commercial Union can go that length. But, they
say, we are protected by England ; we are under her shelter-
ing wings. But does she not in return claim the right to draft
soldiers in Canada in time of war ? Does she not secure a
short route for troops t<9 India and the East through Canada,
and does she not secure the right, which she is exercising at
the present time, to negotiate our treaties 1 Is this not ample
recompense for our protection without giving up a great dollars
and cents advantage, which some have pleased to call it, in the
shape of Commercial Union with the United States 1 Mr. An-
drew Carnegie is, perhaps, a little to a republican for our taste,
but he presented a true republican doctrine with great force
when he said, " A nation must have much to offer in exchange,
more than I see that any nation has, which stifles in the breast
of the most ignorant people in the world the sacred germ of
self-development."
After all that has been said, is it clear that Commercial
Union will so seriously discriminate against England ? Is it clear
that England will not endorse the scheme when the time comes
for her to pronounce upon its merits ? Is it clear that there is
not some reason to hope that Commercial Union will not only
not weaken British connection, but rather serve to maintain it
and at the same time tend to promote good feelings between
the United States and the Empire at large 1 I need not here
repeat the arguments that have been advanced in support of
this view of the case. Mr. Wiman has, on different occasions,
and Sir Richard Cartwright in his Ingersoll speech, argued
with great force that no danger may be feared of British con-
nection ; but, on the contrary, that Commercial Union would
be of great benefit to the British Empire. No ; we are not
certain that England will object. Strong reasons have been
given that she will not object when the time comes. Then
what is the use in spending ourselves until we know England's
wishes 'i It will be time enough then to cry halt if England
says so. Let us study what is best for ourselves, and there is
no doubt England will take care of herself. Our first duty is
to ourselves. Self-preservation is nature's first law.
In all our past dealings with England there is no precedent
that would lead one to expect that in this case she will inter-
pose any serious objections. On the contrary, in all our deal-
ing England's policy has ever been to give to Canada the fullest
The Manufacturing Interests. 187
measure of Belf-govemment, to encourage her in all national
enterprises, to allow her the fullest latitude in choosing and
doing what is best for herself. They deny this who assert thai
Britain will object to Commercial Union.
In speaking of the opposition of manufacturers, a distinction
should be made. While the opposition comes almost wholly
from the manufacturing class, it is not true that all manufac-
turers are opposed to it. Were all our manufactures estab-
lished and continued in existence by the tariff, we might then
expect that all manufacturers would be opposed to it But, in
point of fact, most of our manufactures were established be-
fore the adoption of protection. At any rate it is safe to assert
that the great bulk of the manufacturers now would not be in-
jured, while a great portion of them would be immeasurably
benefited by the expansion of their market and by the free
entry of their raw material. The manufacturers I have desig-
nated above as opposing Commercial Union are those whose
only excuse for existence is thnt they are manufacturing goods
which the high tariff prevents the people from purchasing in a
better and cheaper market.
Even w.^re it true that the whole manufacturing interests
were arrayed against the project there would still be no valid
reason why we should retreat one step from our position.
There would still be no reason to despair of ultimate victory.
I go a step further and say, were it true that the whole manu-
facturing interests were to be ruined, the more incumbent
would it be upon every well-wisher of Canada to lend a hand
to the consummation of this scheme. But, I ask, why should
they be ruined 1 Before answering this question, let me ask
what right has a manufacturer to existence in any country, or
what is it that calls hiin into existence 1 Why is a railroad
built and allowed to exist ? Because it cheapens transporta-
tion and reduces the cost and adds to the comforts of travel-
ling. A railroad is not essential. It is convenient. So with
all manufactures. If we cannot get a manufactured article
which we want we say establish a manufactory, or if the price
is too high we say establish a manufactory and reduce the
price. If a manufacturer establishes a plough factory in a
locality where other plough factories exist, he must either
manufacture a superior plough or sell it cheaper, or his factory
will prove a wild-cat venture. There is no law that will compel
188 Hamdhook of Commercial Union.
a farmer to buy a dearer or an inferior plough, and were a
Government to impose a tax upon the old ploughs in order to
establish the new plough factory, the old manufacturer would
be justly indignant, and the farmers, to say the least, would
feel it a very grievous and unjust piece of legislation. A manu-
facturer has no right to exist unless he manufactures an article
that cannot be obtained in any other way, or unless he can sell
it cheaper than is at present charged for it. In other words,
he has no right to exist unless he confers a benefit upon the
community in which he locates. In direct contravention of
this principle is the policy that compels a people to buy dearer
and in most cases inferior goods in order to establish a
manufactory. Not only does the manufacturer not confer a
benefit upon the people — -he does not add to their wealth or
happiness — but, on the contrary, the people have to pay to
him, nolens volens, a tribute of thirty per cent, by foregoing a
measure of that freedom which is the boast of every free State.
Were a scheme proposed to abolish the thirty per cent, tax on
the old ploughs, and consequently to reduce the price to the
farmer, would the farmers be likely to object to such a scheme
because it might ruin the business of the new plough factory 1
No, that would be absurd, you say. The only man in the
locality likely to object to the removal of the tax would be the
protected manufacturer himself. Well, then, this is the posi-
tion of the manufacturers with regard to Commercial Union.
If Commercial Union will ruin them they have no right to
exist. If such are allowed to exist it can only be at the ex-
pense of the consumers by selling their rights^ for the consumers
have rights as well as the manufacturers.
It is to be hoped that this cause, where such a great prin-
ciple is at stake, will prosper. It certainly augurs well for its
success when the two greatest of Canadian journals are lending
their powerful influence in its behalf. It is a pretty sure in-
dex of its strength when it has taken such a hold upon the
people at such a time. Unhappily it has hitherto been the
case that public discussion could be aroused only by a fierce
election contest, when an intelligent discussion of a subject
was out of the question. Nevertheless, shame be it, there are
public men and newspapers in Canada, now that they have a
chance to show their independence, to show the stufi* they are
made of, hanging back, waiting for the call of their masters.
The Manufacturing Interests. 189
In declining this golden opportunity they convict themselves
of being slaves to party and traitors to their country's best
interests. They have no opinions that are not cut and dried
by their masters. They know no public good but the good of
their party.
And calmly bent, to servitude conform,
Dull as their lakes that ahimber in the storm.
LETTERS ON COMMERCIAL UNION.
BY MR. GOLDWIN SMITH. .
[The following letters were addressed to The Toronto Mail, at
different periods of the discussion, and deal with the controversy in its
successive phases /]
L
The discussion of Commercial Union appears to have reached
a turning point. Party, on one side has declared against the
movement, and it seems that political influence is being used to
stop the passing of resolutions in its favour by Farmers' Insti-
tutes. This is no fault of those in whose hands the conduct of
the movement has been. The constitution of the Commercial
Union Club expressly disclaims party, nor, I am persuaded, has
that rule been broken by any of our members. Our meetings
have been public and discussion has always been free. We
have among us representatives of both political parties. I
vofed myself for the N. P., of which I have always treated Com-
mercial Union as the continuation, not the contradiction, the
objeciL of the N. P., as at first promulgated, having been to force
open the American market by the pressure of a retaliatory
tariff. Nor can I see how Conservatism, if it means opposition
to revolution, has anything to do with a narrow commercial
policy. The only antidote to revolution in a free country is
contentment, and the way to produce contentment is to let
the people enjoy the fair earnings of their labour and the full
measure of prosperity which nature has destined for them ;
neither of which is possible under the present system of vicious
restriction.
However, to this it was pretty sure to come, and we can
hardly blame a Protectionist Government, which receives the
support of protected manufacturers, for doing its utmost to re-
sist the progress of commercial emancipation. The two policies
— the Continental and the Anti-Continental, as they may be
called — at last fairly confront' each other. The policy with
Mr. Goldwin Smith's Letters to the " Mail." 191
which Sir John Macdonald's Government is identified is that
. of severing the Canadian provinces from the continent of which
economically they are integral parts, by means of a tariff wall,
and at the same time connecting them artificially with each
other by political railways, and forcing, in nature's despite, a
trade between them. This system appears now to be breaking
down at every point Its inevitable consequence in each of the
provinces, but especially in the Maritime Provinces, is a com-
mercial atrophy attended with an exodus of energy and enter-
prise, the serious extent of which is doubted by no one who
knows Dakota, Chicago, and New York. Of the political rail-
ways, one, after costing forty millions, is run at a loss, while
the Government itself is dealing what cannot fail to prove a
heavy blow to its own road by promoting a short cut across
American territory, and thus in the teeth of its own policy
placing its great line of inter-provincial communication in
American hands. The political part of the other railway north
of Lake Superior is probably destined to a similar fate. Light
has at length dawned upon the mind of the people ; they begin
to see, and they will see every day more clearly, that free trade
with their own continent is indispensable to their prosperity
and that nature must have her way.
In the North- West especially, the break-down of the Separat-
ist policy is conspicuous. The rich promise of that land has been
half strangled by Railway Restriction and the tariff wall. The
political railway has failed to serve the purpose of settlement or
commerce, and when the harvest is good the railway fails to
carry out the grain. Meanwhile, in the rival settlements of
Minnesota and Dakota, freedom of railway development has
been enjoyed. The people of Manitoba have been engrossed
by their struggle against railway restriction ; if they had not,
they would be in revolt against the tariff. Commercial Union-
ists might also be content to fold their hands and watch the
course of events in the North-West, so certain is it that the
people of the Nortl^West, if they mean to prosper, or even to
escape complete failure, must in the end burst through Res-
triction.
The organization of the Farmers' Institute is in itself a great
gain to the cause of commercial emancipation, since it will
enable the farmers to balance the industry which alone has
hitherto been organi^sed, and has consec^uently had the com-
192 Handbook of Commercial Union,
mercial policy of the country almost under its [exclusive con-
trol. The change is wholesome, not only with reference to the'
special industry represented by the Institutes, but in the general
interest of the country.
It will be noted that the Association Chambers of Commerce
in London, England, have had Commercial Union under con-
sideration, and that the result is a resolution affirming the im-
portance of the question and designating it as one the progress
of which ought to be carefully watched. The inference seems
to be, first, that the Chambers are advised by their correspon-
dents here that the movement is important^ and, secondly, that
there is as much feeling against Commercial Union on their
part as would lead them, in case of its adoption here, to call for
the application of the Imperial veto.
In a sympathetic article on the memorial in favour of arbitra-
tion between Great Britain and the United States, the organ of
our Government and of opposition to Commercial Union repro-
duces what it apparently deems a satisfactory answer to the ob-
jection that mutual submission to arbitration would be a waiver
of national independence. " The engagement being reciprocal
— England and the United States mutually agreeing not to
make war against each other — there is really no waiver of in-
dependence in either case. There was, for example, no invidious
distinction in the waiving of independence beween the United
States and Great Britain when they agreed at the close of their
last war to keep only nominal forces of ships of war on the great
lakes." It is difficult to see then how there could be any waiv-
ing of independence in an agreement which would be equally
reciprocal between Canada and the United States to keep their
import duties on a common level. Of the two, submission to
limitation of armaments might seem more derogatory to national
sovereignty, and in case of a sudden outbreak of war it might
entail a serious disadvantage on one party, whereas a recipro-
cal regulation of import duties, with power of withdrawal after
notice, could entail no disadvantage whatever. So easily do
the dictates of common sense find entrance into the mind in
cases where neither sinister interest nor prejudice stands in the
way.
I shall not presume to add to the number of conflicting
opinions as to the merits of the Fisheries Treaty. Nobody
doubts that the British Commissioners have done for us all that
Mr. Goldwin SmitJia Letters to the " Mail." 193
could be done by negotiators who had morally no force behind
them. What is too evident is that the treaty is not likely to
put an end to quarrels. An end can etiectuall;^ be put to quar-
rels only in one of two ways ; either by excluding one of the
two contending parties from the ground altogether or by ad-
mitting both oa perfectly equal terms. Commercial Union
would admit both parties on equal terms, while it would give
a free market to Canadian fish and throw the coasting trade open
to Canadian vessels.
About Imperial Confederation I confess I am sick of talking.
Once more we are told that the principle is unspeakably grand
and beneficent ; that we who fail to embrace it are abject souls
with a lurlf ing tendency to treason ; that nothing can really be
easier than its application, but that we must not ask for de-
tails. Tn other words, we must not ask for an intelligible plan
or for satisfactory answers to practical objections of the most
obvious and apparently the most insurmountable kind. To bid
us, in a practical matter, embrace a principle without a plan,
what is it but asking us to embrace moonshine 1 The Asso-
ciated Chambers of Commerce, it will be observed, have de-
clared by an overwhelming majority against ** Fair Trade," in
other words, against discrimination in favour of the colonies, an
essential part of the Federationist programme. Nor does any-
one who knows the temper of the British masses imagine that
they would deprive themselves of cheap food for the purpose of
strengthening a political connection with dependencies which
they could not point out on the map. Not less vehemently
would our protected manufacturers repel any proposal for the
free admission of British goods. As has been said before, gov-
ernment by the British monarchy, if real, might have its ad-
vantages, and from that point of view there may be something
to be said for the old colonial system. But monarchical gov-
ernment has practically ceased, and the only political relation of
a sound and rational kind which can subsist between kindred
democracies is that which is denoted by an Anglo-Saxon fran-
chise.
n.
In settling the question of Commercial Union it is not nec-
essary to come to any decision between the abstract principles
H
194 Handbook of Commercial Union.
of free trade and protection. In truth there is no such thing
in these matters as abstract principle. Economical questions
are questions of pure expediency to be determined by the cir-
cumstances of the particular case. Adam Smith himself admits
that there are cases in which a departure from the rule of free
trade is legitimate. Mill admits that it may be expedient to
protect an infant industry ; though it must be owned that, as
free traders derisively point out to us, the longer the infant
industry is protected the more protection it seems to demand.
I never could see any reason why a retaliatory tariff, though in
itself a violation of the law of free trade, and demonstrably in-
volving a commercial sacrifice for the time, might not be rightly
employed for the purpose of enforcing reciprocity of trade. The
N. P. has always seemv to me perfectly justifiable in princi-
ple as a measure of self-protection against a highly protected
neighbour on our side, though reciprocity of trade, if we can
get it, is infinitely to be preferred to reciprocity of tariffs. Nor
is commerce alone to be considered : patriotism may sometimes
require that commercial objects should give way to political or
military considerations. It is best, as a rule, for Governments
as well as for ordinary purchasers to go into the open market,
but he must be a purist of free trade who would condemn the
Government for building its own navy or manufacturing its
own munitions of war. At the same time experience warns us
to be very sure that patriotism is not class interest in disguise.
It is hard, however, to understand how any sane man can
doubt that free trade as a rule is best both for production and
distribution. That we should produce that which we can pro-
duce most easily and at least cost, sell our products where we
can get the highest price for them, that is, where they are most
wanted, and buy where there is the greatest plenty and where
(consequently) the goods are cheapest, are dictates of common
sense, ratified by the universal practice of ordinary life, which
nobody in his senses, I presume, ventures to dispute. Nor is
it easy to imagine how anyone can study the natural laws of
the economical world and see how just and admirable is their
operation ; how, if they are left to themselves, they set each
producer throughout the world his proper task, and distribute
the pay in proper proportions among the myriads in different
parts of the globe, whose labour is combined in the production
of the simplest and cheapest article, without feeling that to im-
Mr. Goldwin Smith's Letters to the " Mail." 196
prove upon them by legislation must always be a hazardous
undertaking. No doubt there are zealots of protection who
have persuaded themselves that if this continent could be cut
into squares, each fenced against its neighbours commercially by
a Chinese wall, the inhabitants of each square would be much
richer and happier than they are now. The theory of my old
friend, Mr. Isaac Buchanan, seemed to go that length. He also
believed and did all that a nimble pen could do to convince
us that national wealth might be increased to an indefinite ex-
l-ent by any Government which would only issue a flood of
promissory notes, under the name of paper currency, and re-
f:iso payment. I have observed that the two theories are apt
to be found in company with each other. That prosperity can
be generated by monetary fraud, and that a community can be
made rich by taxation, are indeed beliefs likely to make their
home in the same brain. Often, however, the staunch Protec-
tionist abjures argument, and says that all the theorists are
on one side, but all the practical men are on the other. By prac-
tical men it would be found on examination that he means men
interested in protected industries, by theorists independent en-
quirers. Turgot, Pitt, Peel and Cavour were practical men in
their d^y, and the members of the Anti-Corn Law League were
manufacturers almost to a man.
Protection must make a case. It must show a special reason
for departing from what in ordinary circumstances is the dictate
of common sense, and for depriving the members of the com-
munity at large of the natural right of buying the best and
cheapest goods in whatever market they may be found. Pro-
tection is always in effect and for the time being a tax levied
on the community at large in favour of a particular class of pro-
ducers, and as such it requires justification, more especially as
it is exceedingly apt, under institutions like ours, to ally itself
with political corruption. The case which protection, as the
policy of this continent, makes is that certain industries native
to the soil and naturally profitable if they can once be securely
established, are prevented from securely establishing themselves
by an abnormal, unfair and blighting competition with the paup-
er labour of Europe. Whether the labour of Europe is really
pauper labour, and whether the case is made out as between
America and Europe, is a question which need not here be de-
termined. No such case can be made out for protecting the
196 Handbook of Coinmercial Union.
Canadian producer against the American, since the price of la-
bour is pretty much the same on both sides of the line, or rath-
er cheaper her& The Canadian producer also enjoys the ad-
vantage which every producer enjoys in his home market of
freedom from the cost of carriage ; and the greater the bulk and
weight of his products the greater of course his advantage will
be. It is ditficult to see why Mr. Clarke's trunks or Mr. Gur-
ney's stoves should have anything to fear from their American
rivals : judging from their reputation, perhaps we should say
that their American rivals would have at least as much to fear
from them. Some fruit-growers near St. Catharines have been
stimulated by a local politician into a declaration against Com-
mercial Union. But surely it is hard if iresh fruit cannot
hold its own against fruit from a distant market.
All weak producers, of course, would like protection. Mak-
ers of inferior books would like it as well as makers of inferior
woollens and cottons. If shoddy were allowed to regulate the
tariff there would be nothing but shoddy to buy or wear. I
heard the other day of a farmer who complained that a new
overcoat failed to afford him against the rain the protection
which it enjoyed against foreign cloth ; and I suspect that his
experience was not singular. At least in the debate at the
Toronto Board of Trade an eminent opponent of Commercial
Union pleaded in plain terms that certain classes of Canadian
goods were so inferior in quality to the American goods of the
same class that they could not bear the competition for a mo-
ment. On what principal of expediency or justice Canadian
consumers could be compelled to buy the inferior goods he did
not say, nor did he explain why free competition would not in
this case, as in others, be the necessary stimulus to improve-
ment in production.
Of our stronger Canadian manufacturers, however, not a few
are in favour of Commercial Union ; they, or some of them,
might have to adapt their production to the larger market by
making fewer desciiptions of goods and on a larger scale, but,
this being done, they feel that the larger market would bring
greater gains. Mr. (now Sir) George Stephen, in a circular
addressed in 1875 to the beads of the woollen trade, and quoted
in the Toronto Nation of that year, said that if we could have
free interchange with the United States of all the native pro-
ducts of both countries, whether natural or manufactured, Can-
Mr. Ooldwin Smith's Letters to the "Mail." 197
ada would soon become the Lancashire of this continent and
would increase in wealth and population to a degree that could
be hardly imagined. In this opinion he did not stand alone.
I am surprised, in going through the country, to find how many
manufacturers there are on the side of Commercial Union, and
my relief is equal to my surprise ; for the painful part of this
movement, as I have very keenly felt, is that while we are do-
ing justice to all our great natural industries and to the great
body of our people, we cannot help placing in some jeopardy
the interests of those who have been tempted to invest capital
in trades more or less artificial by the promise of legislative
protection.
That the farmer will find more or better customers in the
protected and artificial, than in the natural industries, so that
his interests are specially bound up with protected manufac-
tures, is an assumption which, though it underlies a good deal
that is said on the subject, will not bear a moment's scrutiny.
Whatever makes the country most prosperous will give the
farmer the most and the best customers. The number of the
farmers' customers is not increased any more than that of
the customers of other producers by a system which leads to an
exodus. It is the same with regard to the interest of the work-
ing class. The rate of wages and the abundance of employ-
ment must depend on general prosperity, not on the forced
prominence of any special, least of all of any exotic, industry.
Some arguments of a rather fanciful kind are used as props
or embellishments of their cause by the champions of protec-
tion. It is desirable, we are told, to force manufactures into
existence,' even where they would not rise of themselves, in
order by varying industry to diversify national character. But
surely in every civilized and opulent country the natural vari-
ety of industries is sufficient to beget, so far as any economical
influence can beget, varieties of character enough to satisfy any
ethical connoisseur. Some peculiarities we must be content to
forego. Northern countiies cannot have those of the planter,
nor can inland countries have those of the seaman. Why there
should be such a passion for propagating factory life on a large
scale it is not easy to see. The result in England, physically,
has been degeneracy ; politically, the growth of an element at
once revolutionary and feeble, which threatens to stifle the
greatness of the nation, On the other hand, nothing can be
198 Hcmdbook of GommercicU Union.
more clear than that protection, if misapplied, demoralizes as
well as impoverishes a country. Our own Government has
entered into sinister relations with a protected interest, and
we have already a ring in cotton. Kings are sure to be gener-
ated with hot-house rapidity when protection is applied to a
small area, because its spasmodic action in over-stimulating pro-
duction and thus bringing on violent fluctuations of prices is
more felt in the narrower sphere.
However, where protection makes a case, no disturbance of
the existing system is involved in the present measure. Against
Europe the Canadian as well as the American producer re-
tains his protective tariff. It is only where protection makes
no case that it is now proposed in the general interest to re-
move the barriers against freedom of trade. A Protectionist
may vote for the abolition of the Customs line between Ontario
and New York State on the same grounds on which, if he held
a sane form of his theory, he would vote against the establish-
ment of a Customs line between Ontario and Quebec, or be-
tween New York and Pennsylvania. He may in fact regard
Commercial Union with the States as the establishment of his
principle on a rational basis and the rounding off of its proper
domain.
There can be no question that the movement gains ground
apace.' The farmers almost everywhere are showing the keenest
interest in it No weather prevents them from coming in
large numbers to the meetings. The Ontario farmer has only
too good reason for his willingness to listen to anything which
promises to make his future more secure. The price of farm
lands seems to be generally falling. The competition of the
North- West, which the Ontario farmer has been made to pay
for bringing down on himself, will soon be felt The harvests
of India will encounter the Ontario wheat-grower at Liverpool.
In the opening of a new and immensely rich market, to which
Canadian energy and intelligence may adapt themselves, surely
lies the best hope for Canadian agriculture.
III.
A member of Parliament was reported the other day to have
said that, in speaking to the citizens of Detroit on Commercial
Mr. Ooldwin Smith's Letters to the "Mail" 199
Union, I had hinted that Commercial Union meant annexation.
I must have been either misreported or misunderstood. I
wish to be perfectly frank upon this as upon other points, and
not to leave it to be said hereafter that anything has been
held back. It is my avowed conviction that the union of the
English-speaking race upon this continent will some day come
to pass. For twenty years I have watched the action of the
social and economical forces, which are all, as it seems to roe,
'drawing powerfully and steadily in that direction. Intercourse
of every kind, co-operation for every sort of object, interchange
of hospitalities, inter-marriage, are daily on the increase. The
unifying influence of railways is felt more and more as the inter-
national system becomes more complete ; and it is strange that
men whose calling it is to promote and facilitate such communi-
cation should be found recoiling with horror from the thought of
Commereial Union. An actual fusion is in fact taking place
through the migration of Canadians to the centres of wealth and
employment ; and the Separatist system, as it impoverishes Can-
ada, thus militates against its own political object by driving
Canadians into the arms of the American Republic. The popu-
lation on the two sides of the line being not only kindred and
similar, but identical, and the political institutions of both
being, not only in principle but almost in form, the same, the
consummation to which all this points can hardly fail some day
in the course of nature to arrive ; though no one who had a
particle of statesmanship in his composition would desire to
anticipate the course of nature or to hasten the union by a day.
Such, I say, is my settled conviction, and so far as I am able
to gauge popular opinion, while there is nothing like an annexa-
tionist movement on foot, the prospect of closer relations with
the people of the United States is ceasing to be a bugbear, and
the alarmist cry of annexation is losing much of its elfect.
Tn the special circle of the U. E. Loyalists, the feeling may
still be strong, and it sometimes displays itself in a rather
angry and menacing style. I have, historically, the most sin-
cere respect for the tradition of the U. E. Loyalists, as I have
for that of the Cavaliers. But it is vain to suppose that an
industrial and commercial community will forever remain dedi-
cated and will sacrifice its present interests to any historic tradi-
tion, however generous and touching. The grass must grow at
last over every grave. I happened the other day to be in an
200 Handbook of Commercial Union.
Knglish manor-house, the owners of which represent the stand-
arii-bearor of Charles I. They prize and cherish the relics of
their ancestor, but they are themselves Liberals. I fancy by
this time we should Hnd not a few descendants of the U. K.
Loyalists on the south of the line.
While I have watched the action of the lying forces
which draw us towards our kinsmen in the United States, I
have also watched the growth, both in bulk and in intensity
within our own political borders, of a French nationality as
alien to us as anything can well be, and the presence of which
seems fatal to our hopes of a really united Canada. " The
country of the French-Canadian," says La Verity, in a passage
recently quoted by The Mail, *' is the Province of Quebec, and
none other. No doubt it is his duty to live in harmony with
the inhabitants of the other provinces, to which his province is
joined politically ; but we repeat, he is bound to remain a
French-Canadian and that alone ; to regard the Province of
Quebec as his true and only fatherland ; and to treat the other
groups by whom he is surrounded merely as neighbours." This
is not mere rhetoric or petulance, it is the real sentiment of
the French, and the principle on which they are acting towards
us, while the British element is being fast extruded from Que-
bec and will soon have no foothold except in the commercial
quarter of Montreal. The forces of a whole English-speaking
continent might have been potent enough to assimilate the
French element in Quebec, as they have assimilated, sufficient-
ly for political purposes, the French element in Louisiana ; but
the forces of Canada alone have manifestly failed. It seems
impossible, I repeat, that British and French Canada should
ever bt come in heart, or in anything but in mere form and
name, one people. When we talk of welding together a Cana-
dian nation by means of political railways and tariffs we over-
look this unwelcome and stubborn fact. The alien nationality
of Quebec and its interposition between British Canada and the
Maritime Provinces are obstacles to consolidation of a very
different kind from those which American confederation en-
countered and overcame in its early stage, though a false
parallel between the two cases has been drawn.
There is another point in the situation which perhaps is
more distinctly present to my mind than to that of Canadians
who have seen less of British politics than I have. We have
Mr. Ooldwin Smith' 8 Letters to the '*Mail." 201
just Vi'iOii told in relation to the Fisheries dispute that the
British '' do not care a continental for us and would not burn
a drachm of powder in our cause." The first part of the state-
mt-nt is untrue, as well as offensive, but the second is true.
The military unity of the Empire, as well as its commercial
unity, is practically at an end. The democracy which has
now mounted to power in England could not be induced to
fight ''n a colonial quarrel. It could with difficulty be induced,
I suspect, to fight in a quarrel concerning India, though of the
whole mass of dependencies, miscalled Empire, India is the
only one over which England really holds Imperial sway, and
her interests in it of various kinds are immense. Not only is
the democracy unwilling to fight, but it is totally incapable of
governing distant dependencies, or of understanding an Im-
perial policy. This, if I mistake not, will soon appear. By
the bond of the heart we shall, I trust, always remain closely
united to the Mother Country, but the political bond can
hardly fail to grow weaker and to be gradually displaced by
the ties which bind us to our own continent If I am wrong
in this forecast, let my error be corrected ; but truth can never
be treason.
I felt the greatest sympathy with the aspirations of Canada
First, and mourned when its flag went down, I consoled my-
self with the reflection that whatever might happen to us in
the political future we shonld be still Canadians, and even as
States of the Union, if such was our destiny, might retain
everything that was distinctive in our character and everything
that WAS glorious in our traditions, while we sent forth states-
men to act on the ampler scene. Of disregarding sentiment,
and looking only to material interests, I hope I am guiltless ;
I should disgrace my bringing up if I were not ; though I do
not believe that sentiment can ever live long when it is
divorced from the real interests of the people. Sentiment is
the flower, but the plant on which the flower grows is the
public welfare.
Surh is my faith ; but I am equally sincere in expressing my
belief that the questions of commercial and political union are
not only theoretically distinguishable from each other, but are
practically distinct ; and that Canada may modify her fiscal or
trade relations with her neighbour in any way, or to any ex-
tent she pleases, without surrendering her political indepen-
202 Handbook of Gormriercial Union.
dence. A certain resignation of control over the national
tariffs on both sides is a necessary part of every commercial
treaty, and would involve no forfeiture of political autonomy in
the case of Canada and the United States any more than in
that of England and France. The rates would be fixed by
mutual consent, and liberty of withdrawal after due notice
would be reserved. Why increase of commercial intercourse
with a neighbour should threaten the integrity of a nation any
more than the increase of social, religious, philanthropic, intel-
lectual and general intercourse, it is difficult to see. The
question has been often asked, and never answered, on what
ground, if partial reciprocity showed no tendency to impair
nationality, we should expect complete reciprocity to destroy
it. There is a school of fiscal reformers which proposes to
abolish all import duties and raise the whole revenue by direct
taxation ; Cobden inclined to it, and I have often discussed the
question with him. Supposing that school prevailed and im-
port duties were abolished, would the nationalities cease to
exist 1 Would they even be sensibly affected by the change 1
The immediate effect of Commercial Union would be to relieve
Confederation of a heavy strain, to allay the discontent of the
Maritime Provinces, and by giving our people generally the
commercial advantages of union with their continent to make
them content with existing political arrangements. Americans
who are strongly desirous of annexation, are, as I have recently
had occasion to observe, opposed on that very ground to Com-
mercial Union. It is from this quarter and from certain pro-
tected manufacturers in the United States, who are also
opposed to the measure, that we get these terrible pictures of
the loss of independence and the humiliation which Canada in
embracing Commercial Union would have to undergo. But
everyone who has mixed with the Americans or watched
American opinion must know that the number of Americans
who desire the annexation of Canada, or even think about it,
is comparatively small. The general feeling is that the Re-
public has territory enough, and that a further extension would
be dangerous. The inducement which the Free States once
had to bring Canada into the Union for the purpose of coun-
tervailing the power and the southward extension of the Slave
States has ceased since the extinction of slavery. The politi-
cians also fear that by the entrance of so large a body as Can*
Mr. Ooldwin Smith's Letters to the "Mail" 203
ada into their politics the balance of parties might be disturb-
ed and existing combinations overturned. What the precise
effect of the increased commercial intercourse might be on in-
ternational sentiment, it seems impossible, amidst such a
variety of complex influences, to foretell.
The declining force of the feeling against annexation is so
marked, and Commercial Union has taken so strong a hold up-
on the mind of the people, as to render it not impossible that if
the movement in favor of Commercial Union is defeated a
movement in favor of annexation may ensue. Stateiimen, at
all events, before they decide upon their course, will do well to
take some surer means of ascertaining the real mind of the
country than the conventional language into the use of which
the people have been drilled.
What is perfectly certain is that there is not a man promi-
nently connected with this movement who can have the slight-
est interest in bringing about political annexation. Not one
of the number has any feeling but that of the most loyal affec-
tion for England. Not one can be even imagined to cherish any
personal ambition pointing in the direction of the United
States. Not one of us, in fact, is in public life at all. To sup-
pose, therefore, that we are political conspirators veiling an-
nexationist designs beneath a pretended scheme of Commercial
Union is not only uncharitable but preposterous. Nobody on
either side of the question, I hope, has any object in view but
the good of the country.
The project of an Imperial Zollverein, proposed as a more
loyal aTid patriotic mode of improving and extending Canadian
commerce than Commercial Union with this continent, evidently
meets with little support either in England or in the colonies
generally. It runs counter to the fiscal policy jv^hich appears
to have been irrevocably adopted by Great Britain. Emanat-
ing from the quarter whence it at present emanates it can
hardly be regarded as anything but an attempt to create a
diversion. It would involve the free admission of British
goods, to which our protected manufacturers would be the
last men to agree, while the sacrifice of revenue would be just
as great as that entailed by the removal of the Customs line
between Canada and the United States.
Before this controvery about the probable effects, economical
and political, of Commercial Union, comes to a close, it is not
204 Handbook of Commercial Union,
unlikely tbat the question may settle itself in a rough way.
In the North-West there is an open frontier of eight hundred
miles, with a population absolutely identical on both sides of
it. The settlers care little for the Ottawa Government or its
revenue ; smuggling already is said to be rife ; and when popu-
lation increases it will scarcely be possible with any force that
the^Government can command to maintain the Customs line.
IV.
In the debate on Commercial Union, the union between
Scotland and England in its commercial aspect has naturally
presented itself as an analogous case ; and, allowing for the
distance of time, the analogy is close and instructive. The
commercial condition of Scotland before the Union was no
doubt much below that of Canada at the present day. The
comparison therefore must not be too closely pressed, nor must
we expect the same extraordinary results in our case which
ensued in the case of Scotland. But we may reasonably expect
a measure of the benefits which in the case of Scotland followed
the removal of commercial restriction and the free admission
of a highly industrial and energetic race to a great and rich
market.
In the Duke of Argyll's recent work on Scotland the chapter
narrating the economical effects of the union bears the signifi-
cant title, " The Burst of Industry," and truly marvellous is
the transition of a nation from poverty to wealth which it nar-
rates. Illustrations without number might be produced, but
they are almost needless when the general fact is one of the
commonplaceg^of economists and the theme of all who have
written on the domestic annals of Scotland. Buckle has a long
and glowing passage on the subject. Mr. Lecky says :
" In the ten years preceding the union the commercial inter-
course between the two countries had been so slight that the
goods imported from Scotland to England only twice exceeded
the small amount of £100,000, and the imports from England
into Scotland never in a single year exceeded .£87,536, while
the whole shipping trade of the smaller country was annihilated
bv the Navigation Act But immediately after the union the
movement of industry and commerce was felt in every part of
Mr. Goldwin Smith's Letters to the ''Mail." 206
the Lowlands. Glasgow, having no port or vessels of its own,
chartered ships from Whitehaven and began a large trade with
the American colonies. In 1716 or 1718 the first Scotch ves-
sel that ever crossed the Atlantic was launched upon the Clyde ;
in 1 735 Glasgow possessed sixty-seven vessels, with a tonnage of
5,600, and in a few years she had become, in the American trade,
a serious rival to the great seaports of England. It was in the
first half ot the eighteenth century that Greenock laid the
foundation of its future greatness by the construction of a
commodious harbour, and Paisley rose from a small village into
a considerable manufacturing town. It was computed that the
aggregate tonnage of Scotch vessels rose between 1735 and
1760 from 12,342 tons to more than 52,000 ; and it was noticed,
as a significant sign of the growth of the industrial spirit in
•Scotland, that from the time of the union it was common for
the younger sons of the gentry to become merchants, and to
make voyages in that capacity to the Continent. In the seven-
teenth century almost the only Scotch manufacture had been
that of linen. In imitation of the curious law which encour-
aged the English woollen trade by providing that every corpse
should be buried in wool, a Scotch law of 1686 had enacted
that every shroud be of linen, but it was not until the union
gave the linen manufacture a wider vent, that the trade began
really to flourish. It was introduced into Glasgow in 1725, it
speedily spread through many other Scotch towns, and we find
it appearing evon in the Orkney Islands in 1747. It was no-
ticed by the historian of commerce that on Oct. 23, 1738, no
less than 151,219 yards of Scotch linen, as well as 3,000
spindles of linen yarn, were imported into London, and that of
late years the entries had been annually increasing. The value
of the Scotch linen stamped for sale in five years, from 1728
to 1732, was £662,938. In the four years, from 1748 to 1751,
it had arisen to £1,344,814. In Aberdeen trade in woollen
stockings largely increased, and a considerable manufacture of
coarse woollen serge grew up. Some time before the century
had closed, cheap Scotch carpets had penetrated to most Eng-
lish houses. The preparation of kelp, which was introduced
into Scotland in 1720, gave some industry to the poorest coasts ;
and the first Scotch country banks were established in 1749 at
Aberdeen in Glasgow."
206 Handbook of Commercial Union.
Specially instructive is the new value which was given to
the natural products of Scotland^ kelp and black cattle, each of
which having before been comparatively little remunerative
became a mine of wealth when developed by the capital and
admitted to the market of England. A small country is pretty
sure to have natural products in excess of its own demands.
Canada has among other things minerals far in excess of her own
demands, actual or possible. An attempt is now being made
by legislation to force her to develop an iron trade without a
sufficient market or sufficient capital. English experts treat
the attempt with derision, predicting that it will be a total
failure. The legislation needed for the development of Cana-
dian minerals is the removal of restrictions on the market.
About that the people of Port Arthur feel no doubt
With regard to the probable increase in the value of natural
products, we may look to greater profits than were reaped by
Scotland. Black cattle and kelp are small matters compared
with our stores of minerals, phosphates, fish and lumber. In
the French province we have a great fund of labour highly
available for factories, which at present, like the redundant
labour of Scotland before the union, finding no employment in
its own country is driven to wholesale emigration. If the
French clergy want to keep their people at home they had bet-
ter, instead of forming repatriation societies, which are utterly
futile, bear a hand in making thfi home a place in which the
people can earn a living.
It is true that the union of Scotland with England opened to
Scotland, besides the trade with England, the trade with the
American Colonies and West Indies. But the temporary union
in the time of Cromwell, when the Colonial and West Indian
trade had not become of much importance, had been, as Bishop
Burnett says, a period of great prosperity for Scotland.
It is curious to see what arguments were used by the oppon-
ents of the measure, and notably by Lord Belhaven and
Fletcher, of Saltoun, the latter of whom had proposed, instead
^f opening a new market for Scotch industry, to relieve the
poverty of Scotland by introducing slavery. Here also the
analogy is close. The Scotch people were assured that the of-
fered participation in English commerce was a mere delusion,
that English commerce was occupied entirely by the English
themselves, and that they were being invited to a feast at
Mr. Goldwin Smith's Letters to iJie ''Mail" 207
which every chair was already filled. For this mere shadow
they were told they were to give up their substantial trade
v/ith France and their independent competition in the markets
of the world. Subtle reasons no doubt were given to them fcr
believing that the trade with France was much more profit-
able than commerce with the rest of their own islands. All
the benefits of the union, it was said, would go to the greedy
and over-reaching Southern. The workman would have to pay
English prices for his food but would not get English wages,
since all the profitable trades were already engrossed. Even
his jug of ale would be snatched from his hand by taxation
proportioned to the capacities of the rich Englishman. Lord
Bellhaven, in his famous speech, described the artisan as drink-
ing water instead of ale, and " eating his saltless porridge,"
whtle he saw " the laborious ploughman, his grain spoiling upon
his hand, cursing the day of his birth, dreading the expense of
his burial." In the middle of his speech Lord Belhaven
formally paused for some time to shed a tear over the departing
glory and opulence of his country. Lord Marchmont, in reply
to him, said that he thought a short answer would sufiice —
t " Behold, he dreamed ; but, lo, when he awoke, behold, it was
a dream ! " The reality was the farms of the Lothians, the
works and warehouses of Glasgow, and the shipbuilding yards
of the Clyde.
J n the case of Scotland, the union being political as well as
commercial, the seat of government was to be removed, and it
was not unreasonable to fear that a certain amount of wealth
would depart with it This argument was addressed with special
effect to the citizens of Edinburgh, who might well think that
they were called upon to make a great sacrifice. But even Edin-
burgh gained more by the general increase of prosperity than she
lost by the departure of the Parliament. Toronto would gain by
the general increase of prosperity, while its Parliament would not
depart. In reply to the assertion that Toronto would be en-
gulfed by New York, while Rochester, Detroit, Buffalo, Syra-
cuse and Albany are not engulfed, we need only say, " Behold
it was a dream ! "
In entering a commercial union with England, Scotland
espoused the heavy, and, as people then thought, ruinous debt
which England had contracted in the War of the Succession.
This it was that gave point to Belhaven's prediction of intolera-
208 Handbook of Commercial Union,
ble taxation. But Canada would enter into partnership with a
nation whose federal debt is per head considerably less than
half of ours. To Scotland the benefits of free trade with
England were also partly countervailed by the necessity of con-
forming to impolitic restrictions to which English commerce
itself was subject in those days. She had among other things
to cease exporting her wool. The advantages of a free trade
at that period were, moreover, greatly reduced by freights
which were enormously higher when goods were carried by
pack horses than they are now that goods are carried by rail.
I found it a little diiHcuit to interpret a parable which
an eminent manufacturer lately made use of in a communica-
tion to the Press on the subject of Commercial Union. But if
I did not miss his meaning he may derive some comfort ^om
the case of Scotland. He seems to be afraid that the richer
country will by some fell force of attraction draw away all the
commerce and wealth from the poorer country, and he paints a
picture of the coming desolation not unlike that drawn by
Lord Belhaven. That we '* were and are not," according to
him, will soon be our epitaph. But instead of drawing away
the wealth from Scotland, England filled Scotland with wealth.
The development of the linen trade by the influx of English
capit2,l moie than made up for the loss of the piofits on the
trade in wool The native manufacture of woollen cloths, it is
true, suffered from the importation of the cheaper English
goods, but the people were better clothed, which after all is a
point of some little importance, though, as Chambers observes,
the general rule in commercial legislation is to fill the mouth of
every special interest and leave the crumbs to the community
in general. Why should Canada be expected to suffer by a
commercial connection with the United States when we see
that all those States of the Union which are by nature less
wealthy gain by their connection with the wealthier States ?
Would Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire b^ better off if
they were severed by a Customs line from the rest of the union ?
No Canadian manufacturer has yet told us in plain terms that
he fears American competition in a fair market and given us
the reason of his fear. Why is it, we must once more ask, that
the Canadian producer, with freight in his favour and some ad-
vantage also in regard to the price of labour, cannot hold his
own against the producer on the other side of the political line,
Mr. Goldwin Smith's Letters to the ''Mail" 209
as well as the producer in the younger States of the Union holds
his own against the producer in the older States ? If the prin-
ciples veiled under the parable above referred to were clearly
stated and pressed to their logical results, I fancy they would
lead us to the conclusion that Toronto was a curse to Ontario.
Fallacies are uttered in the present debate by defenders of
restriction which were uttered by opponents of Commercial
Union between Scotland and England, and then received their
practical confutation. It was constantly assumed, for example,
that in every bargain while one party would gain the other must
lose, and the alarmists of each nation declared that, as the other
nation was the sharper and the more unscrupulous, the loss
would be on their own eide. That in a fair bargain both parties
profit was a truth which, simple as it is, had then hardly dawn-
ed on the commercial world. Trade altogether would be an
evil if some of the things which were then said and are now
being repeated were true.
On that occasion, as on this, the lack of commercial argu-
ments was liberally supplied by appeals to international anti-
pathy. English objectors denounced Scotland and Scotch objec-
tors denounced England as a community of rapacious sharpers.
There no doubt was commercial dishonesty on both sides of the
border. There is commercial dishonesty on both sides of our
border. The oflScers of the Ontario Investment Association, of
London, are not Yankees. There have been some wooden nut-
megs among us which had not been raised in Connecticut. If
the Yankees as a community are knaves and cheats^ why do we
take their bank bills at par 1 Why are we so anxious to con-
nect ourselves with them by means of railways 1 Why did we
make a Reciprocity Treaty with them, and why, since their
withdrawal from it, have we more than once sought its renew-
al 1 Are they honest in regard to natural products while they
are dishonest in regard to all the other articles in the taHff 1
What do all those thousands of Canadians who have settled in
New York and Chicago say 1 Have they gone to take up
their abode among thieves? Can anything be more absurd
than to talk of a community as too knavish for commercial in-
tercourse when we are actually fusing with it, and it already
contains nearly a million of our native citizens 1
It is worth while to observe, too, that whatever was valuable
in Scotch nationality and in Scotch character remained unim-
210 Handbook of Commercial Union.
paired, though it was not less the subject of doleful predic-
tions than Scotch trade. Another recent opponent of Commer-
cial Union seems to apprehend that if we trade freely with our
neighbours we shall be betrayed into keeping Sunday in their
way. But the Scotch Sabbath remained just as strict after
Commercial Union with England as it had been before. Bales
of goods may carry physical infection, but they will hardly
carry ecclesiastical contamination.
Heaven forbid that a word should be said in disparagement
of national aspirations, or of any generous aspirations of any
kind. But if we are asked to sacrifice the material wealth and
happiness of our people to nationality, it is as well to ask what
in our case nationality means. Does anybody seriously believe
that British and French Canada will ever become, in the true
sense of the term, a nation 1 Is not everything tending direct-
ly the other way 1 Does our union with Quebec really mean
anything more than connection, which no commercial change
could disturb, with the same Crown 1 If there is no chance of
Anglicizing Quebec, is there any chance of really uniting to
Ontario the British provinces which are separated from us by
Quebec, and the people of which, as anyone may satisfy him-
self by going among them, still regard us as strangers 1 Is
there any nationality, in fact, actual or possible, except that of
British Canada, in other words, of the Province of Ontario 1
And why should the peculiar character, traditions, memories or
sentiments of Ontario be impaired by free trade with the
States any more than those of Scotland were by free trade with
England 1 A curious nationality this — so intense that every-
thing else ought to be sacrificed to it, so feeble that it is liable
to be extinguished by the reception of goods from the other
side of the line on which Customs duties have not been paid I
After Commercial Union we shall be not a whit less a nation
than we ar<3 now, while a great strain will have been taken ofi"
Confederation.
What wound could be given to nationality which would be
worse than the running sore of the exodus 1 Yet the exodus is
sure to increase if commercial restriction is maintained. Our
people now, besides being taxed by Government fifty cents
higher than the Americans, are paying a heavy tax to the pro-
tected interests on their clothes and other necessaries. The
effect of this, combined with the exclusion of capital and the
Mr, Ooldwin Smith's Letters to the "Mail" 211
consequent dormancy of our resources, cannot be doubtful.
Nationality will mean expatriation. But the truth probably is
that the financial and commercial progress of the United States
will before long begin to act upon us in a more direct and pal-
pable way. It will become impossible to maintain for political
objects a little Egypt of artificial impoverishment and indebt-
edness by the side of a continent advancing in wealth and
financial prosperity under internal free trade.
A reference to the economical experience of Scotland is, of
course, like other economical arguments, " au appeal to the
pocket." The Scotch have always thought of the pocket, but
this has not prevented them from thinking, and to some pur-
pose, of other things also. Commercial Unionists want our peo-
ple to have the fair earnings of their industry, and the share of
wealth which nature has intended for them. They believe that
a good measure of material prosperity is essential not only to
happiness, but to civilization and to the existence of affections
of which a comfortable home is the centre. Civilization and
family aifection are not lest) objects of genuine sentiment than
those exclusive idols of the Imperialist fancy, for touching which
we are threatened with bloodshed. " Keep up your bright swords
for the dew will rust them." Bluster rusts the sword worse
than dew. If there is anyone who helped, by dragging Canada
into the quarrel between the North and the South, to kindle
the anger of the North against us, and thus deprive our people
of the benefit of the Reciprocity Treaty during all these years,
he has surely done mischief enough for one life-time, and had
better be sensible and quiet for the future. Protectionism is
just as much as free trade an appeal to the pocket, though it is
not an appeal to commercial justice.
In the desperate struggle against nature which is carried on
under the present system not only are our people impoverished,
but they are corrupted. The provinces, linked together by no
bond of commercial interest, and drawn each of them naturally
to trade with the States, can be held in forced union among
themselves and forced severance from the States towards which
they are drawn, only by a vast system of bribery, which has
now been carried on for twenty years, and has its monuments
not only in the debt, but in a public life to a lamentable extent
saturated with corruption. This consideration, too, if it is not
sentimental, is moral, and may be worthy the attention even of
212 Handbook of Commercial Union.
those who are too chivalrous or too spiritual to care whether
the commercial system is just to the people, or whether indus-
try receives its fair reward.
In measuring the progress of the movement in favour of
Commercial Union and estimating the chance of its success, it
must always be borne in mind that the movement, as I have
said before, is spontaneous. It has been set on foot by no
" gang," to use that playful expression, of any kind. I believe '
I may say with truth that of the Canadians who take a
leading part not more than two had ever been in a room to-
gether. I suppose I have myself the honour to be accounted
one of the gang, and I have done nothing but advocate in
your columns or on the platform the policy which I have ad-
vocated as a journalist for many years. I have gone to meet-
ings only when invited, and I have declined about as many
invitations as I have accepted, So far as I have been con-
cerned or know, there has been no wirepulling or propagandist
machination of any kind. Indeed, our opponents, while they
may be able to prove that Mr- Vtilancey Fuller, Mr. H. W.
Darling and I are mistaken, will find it difficult, I imagine,
to show what motive we can have for conspiracy. It seems
most desirable that this question, the most important since
Confederation, should be fully presented to the people, and that
their opinion should be formed upon it irrespectively of party.
But for my part I shall be very glad when, the question having
been thoroughly ventilated and the mind of the people having
been made up, the time arrives for handing the matter over
to the regular politicians. Let us hope that the regular politi-
cians are preparing to deal with it, when their turn comes, not
merely as an affair of party tactics, but with some reference to
the real interest of the whole people.
Of the meetings some have been very large, and all that I
have witnessed have been significant The audience has not
been a miscellaneous crowd, such as is drawn together by a
display of rhetorical fireworks at election time, but a gathering
of farmers or other men of substance, who have come, often
from considerable distances, to hear what was to be said about
Mr. Oold/wln Smith's Letters to the "Mail." 213
a practical question in which they were deeply concerned.
There has been nothing to produce excitement or enthusiasm,
but there has always been the most marked attention. In the
way of rhetorical attraction we have had very little to offer, as
tao clearly appears when I have to be pressed into the service.
The expression of dissent has been invited, but hardly any-
where has dissent been expressed. The meeting at Clinton
was called a fiasco, and triumphantly cited as a proof of the de-
clining force of the movement The managers had pitched
their expectations of numbers far too high, and expressed un-
due disappointment when their expectations were not fulfilled.
The absence of Mr. Valancey Fuller, whom the farmers would
specially wish to hear, was damping, though we were indemni-
fied by a most excellent speech, bearing the evident impress of
thoroughly independent conviction, from Dr. Macdonald ; and
there was a counter attraction in the shape of a fair. But if
a large majority of those present were believers in Commercial
Union, an enemy of Commercial Union has not much chance of
election in Huron. Politicians tell us that all this means noth-
ing ; that the farmers will come to meetings or picnics, listen,
go home, forget all about the matter, and when election time
comes vote with their party. It might be so if the subject
were a mere party issue like the sanity of Riel or some project
for bedevelling the franchise ; but men do not so easily forget
their pockets. The farmers will be reminded of Commercial
Union every market day. N. P. swept the country in 1878,
taking a large nuraber of voters out of their party lines, and
Commercial Union is a good deal more important as well as a
good deal sounder than N. P.
At Clinton the chair was taken by a Conservative. The
chair has been taken by Conservatives elsewhere, and I hear on
all sides of Conservatives pronouncing in favour of the move-
ment. Why should they not? Conservatism is bound to
order, property, and government by intelligence ; but it is in
no way bound to a vicious commercial policy, which must keep
up discontent among the people. Pitt and Peel were the great
emancipators of trade. By the leader of the Canadian Con-
servatives the work of Commercial Union has already been
half done. Sir John Macdonald it is who has " levelled up"
the Canadian tariff to meet half way the American tariff which
is coming down. The great difficulty in the way of Commer-
214 Handbook of CoTwrnercial Union,
cial Union was that of aHsimilabing widely different tariffs ; of
this Sir John Macdonald's policy has relieved us. Commercial
Union has in this sense been justly designated as the comple-
ment of the N. P. The Conservative leader too it wa8[who pro-
claimed with no uncertain voice Commercial Home Kule for
Canada, which Mr. Brown used to denounce as rank treason,
and gave the most practical effect to his principle by imposing
protective duties on British goods.
The longer the discussion lasts the clearer the case becomes.
The map settles the question. Here is a great continent,
infinitely varied in its productions, the bulk of it enjoying per-
fect freedom of trade within its own paie, and manifestly owing
its boundless prosperity to that system. But on the northern
edge of it are four blocks of territory separated from each
other by wide spaces or great physical barriero, having little or no
natural trade among themselves, and at the same time shut out
by a customs wall from free commercial intercourse with the
continent at large. Each of the blocks has natural resources —
minerals, lumber, fish, or capacities for special farm products —
which by reason of its isolation, remain but half developed.
Is it possible that such a state of things can be sound or
that it can last 1 Looking at the case from the American point
of view, is it possible that the people of the Continent at large
should be content forever to exclude these northern blocks of
territory from the commercial pale and forego the additional
wealth which their resources, if developed with the aid of
American capital and enterprise, would bring 1 Difficulties
there may be in getting rid of any established system, and
even when the people have made up their minds as to their own
interest it is not certain that legislation in that sense will at
once follow. Every day shows us that a government in posses-
sion of power and patronage, though elective, may be a differ-
ent thing from government by the people. Yet in the end
nature cannot fail to have her way.
It is from manufacturers alone, or from banks and wholesale
dealers connected with them, so far as I can see, that the com-
mercial opposition comes, and even in this quarter it is far from
universal. Many of the manufacturers recognize the benefits
which the measure would bring to the whole country, and are
willing, or even more than willing, to take their chance in the
larger market, though in some cases they would have to spend
Mr. Goldivin Smitfis Letters to the "Mall," 215
money in adapting their system of production to it. Not one
of our leading manufacturers, so far as 1 am aware, has yet
plainly avowed his inability to compete y'^ith the Americans.
My friend Mr. H. E. Clarke complains that the argument in
favour of Commercial Union is a mere torrent of words. Let
him give the discussion a thoroughly definite and practical
form, in one part of the field at least, by declaring, as the chief
of one of our manufactures, that he is incapable ot holding his
own against the Americans in a fair market and telling us his
reasons for that belief. Of the plea of infantile weakness, ex-
perience has already disposed. The m'\nufactures of the West-
ern and Southern States were set up and are flourishing in face
of the long-established manufactures of New England. As has
been said before, the newest works are likely to have the latest
improvements, and hence to be the strongest not the weakeot.
Labour is at least as cheap and good on thiH side of the line as
on the other. What then has Mr. Clarke to fear 1 Does he
really fear anything commercially, or is his opposition mainly
sentimental 1 I do not wish to decry sentiment of any kind,
or to say that commercial considerations ought not sometimes
to give way to it. But if , as a clerical opponent of Commer-
cial Union has been reminding us, man does not live by broad
alone, man does live by bread, and I would submit to Mr.
Clarke that of all sentiment the most undeniably genuine and
precious is that which has its seat in a happy home, while
homes can hardly be happy unless the people receive the full
earnings of their labour and enjoy a fair measure of material
comfort.
The industries which unhappily have some ground for alarm
are more artificial and less strong than that of Mr. Clarke.
But, to borrow in part Mr. Clarke's simile of the bay and the
lake, I doubt whether the little fishes of the bay have not as
much to fear from the big fishes of their own secluded waters
as they have from any incursion of the big fishes from the lake.
The tendency of an artificial system like that under which we
are living seems to be to beget millionaires and to extinguish
such traders as are not strong euough to meet the violent fluc-
tuations sure to be produced by protection applied to a limited
area. For the rest, I can only say once more that this is the
painful part of the subject, but it was not without such warn-
ing as journalism could give that the Government, from the
216 Handbook of Commercial Union. ^^:
policy of a revenue tariff with adjustment to national indus-
tries, allowed itself to be drawn in an unlucky hour into a
policy of protection. An effort at least was made at the time
to point out that whatever might be tlie effect of protection
when applied to a territory so vast, with a range of production
so unlimited as that of the Unitei States, when applied to
the comparatively small market of Canada, and to a country
with so limited a range of production as onrs, it was certain
to be a failure. Instead of saying the market of Canada, it
would have been more correct to say the market of a Canadian
province. The provinces, as has already been said, have little
or no natural trade with each other. Each of them, at least
each of the foiu* divisions of them, under the present system,
is to itself the only free market on this side of the Atlantic.
The millers, a most important and influential interest, seem
to be generally in favour of Commercial Union. Well they
may be, after the experience of the last nine years.
The eyes of the farmers are being opened. They begin to
see that the development of our natural industries which
Commercial Union promises, would provide them with more
customers than can be provided by any forced industry, and
with customers for whose creation .they will not have to pay a
heavy percentage in the shape of duties, on all the imported
goods which the farmer uses. They are also beginning to ask
whether, if American goods are, as Mr. John Macdonald told
us, of such quality that Canadian goods could not compete with
them in an open market, it is really wise to deny themselves
the liberty of buying American goods. Nor do they miss the
moral of combinations to keep up the price of sugar or cottons.
Appeals to hatred and mistrust of Yankees are evidently worn
out ; while arguments based on an alleged antagonism between
the interest of the Imperial country in this matter and that of
the colony, or on the impossibility of obtaining the benefits of
Commercial Union without accepting political union, are pro-
ducing an effect the very reverse of that which those who use
them would desire. Ultra-sentimentalists may depend upon it
that they have been living in a fool's paradise on these points.
I am the very last man to treat with levity any profession of
attachment to the Mother Country ; otherwise I might be
tempted to laugh at the expressions of filial horror at the
thought 01 discriminating against British goods which continue
Mr. Goldwin Smith's Letters to the "Mail." 217
to proceed from commercial gentlemen who are themselves
excluding British goods by protective duties, and are besieging
Ottawa to get those duties raised still higher. Little does it
signify to the British manufacturer whether the tariff" by which
his goods are excluded is passed by Canada alone or by Canada
in conjunction with the United States, though it is assumed by
our Protectionists that in the first case all is well and in tlie
second case the skies of commercial loyalty must fall.
Our movement is in response to that made in Congress by
Mr. Butterworth, and for the purpose of ascertaining how his
proposal would be received on our side. VVe shall presently
see what the mind of the Americans is, if only the manoeuvr-
ing of political parties for the inside track in the Presiden-
tial race does not interfere with a fair consideration of the
question. All along the border, and wherever a lively interest
is felt in the question, we have every reason for believing that
the feeling is favourable. We hear of special interests being
adverse. It is said that iron-masters of Cleveland and the
lumbermen of Michigan wish to keep out Canadian iron and
lumber. Not all the lumbermen of Michigan are hostile, for a
letter from one of the greatest of them is before me, expressing
the strongest sympathy with the movement. But we must be
prepared for some opposition of that kind. The feudal baron
planted his castle on the route of commerce, and sallying forth
with his men-at-arms levied toll upon the trader with a strong
hand. The baron of monopoly instead of a castle sets up his
restrictive code of law, and instead of men-at-arms keeps in his
pay his lobbyists ; and perhaps we may rather prefer the toll-
taker, who avowed that the toll was his object, and did not
pretend that he was fostering infant industries, diversifying
the national character and enriching the community by taxa-
tion. What is the mind of the Washington Government, we
have as yet no right to say. But we know that President
Cleveland has declared against taking more money from the
people than the necessities of government require. In other
words he has dec'ared for such a reduction of the tariff as
would probably bring it very close to ours ; and if he keeps
that flag flying he will be re-elected.
The question of commercial relations between the two coun-
tries can hardly fail to come up in connection with the Fish-
eries Commission. The appointment of a Western man by the
218 ; Handbook of Commercial Union. ■ ^
American government as one of its commissioners seems to
indicate that such is the expectation. It is a pity that Mr.
Chamberlain is to go straight to Washington without first
visiting Canada and learning the needs and wishes of our peo-
ple, about which he probably knows little ; but to have our
affairs settled by those who do not know much about them is a
consequence of our being a dependency. Mr. Chamberlain's
Canadian colleague and adviser will be a party politician with
party objects of his own which may or may not coincide with
the interests of the community at large, and the question will
be settled in a diplomatic conclave uninstructed and uncon-
trolled by the people whose vital interests are at stake. This
is not satisfactory, but it is a part of our present system.
VI.
An American politician, and one certainly not wanting in
sagacity; writes : — " The time will undoubtedly come when
the Dominion and the United States will be more closely
united, but I /ear that Commercial l/nion would defer indefinite-
ly the political union" Such is the real feeling, so far as I have
seen, of those Americans who set their faces against Com-
mercial Union and would scare Canada from it. Here is the
answer to the insinuation that in promoting a measure which
would make the Canadian people content with their com-
mercial situation we are inciting them to political change.
With more plausibility might the adversaries of Commercial .
Union be accused of conspiring to show the people that there
is no way of obtaining a free market for their produce and
securing the fair earning of their labour except political annexa-
tion. Restrictionism, which drives the flower of our popula-
tion across the line, is annexation by inches and in the saddest
form.
A false impression has, perhaps, been produced by dwelling
on the assimilation of tariffs as if that were the object of the
measure. The object of the measure is the removal of restric-
tions on trade. Assimilation on tariffs is merely a necessity
incident, or apparently incident, to the practical adjustment of
the scheme. If the tariffs were not assimilated when the cus-
toms line between the two countries was removed the seaboard
' Mr. Goldivin Smith's Letters to the "Mail." 219
of one country would become a backdoor for smuggling into
the other. Far from seeking an assimilation of tariffs as the
main object, and as a step toward political union, Commercial
Unionists, I apprehend, would be perfectly ready to dispense
with it if any other mode of obviating the difficulty, such as
declarations as to the nationality of goods or transmission in
bond, could be made to serve the purpose as well. But it is
preposterous to contend that a special agreement with a foreign
Government with regard to fiscal arrangements involves a
cession of national independence.
The two families of the English-speaking race on this con-
tinent will some day be one people. Such is my belief, and I
never conceal it. Nor do I conceal my conviction that the
union will be happy for both parties, and not less happy for
their common Mother, who has no real political interest on this
continent except amity with the whole race. But I am equally
sincere in saying that I see no reason why an extension of
commercial intercourse should bring with it a change of politi-
cal relations. I see no reason why an extension of commercial
intercourse should do this any more than the extension of rail-
way communications in which commercial restrictionists take
an active part. The railway connection which the C.P.R. is
making with the United States at the Sault seems to me fully
as annexationist in its tendency as the removal of the Sault
custom house would be. Do the alarmii s think that on the
opening of free trade with the States the Ottawa Government
would disappear or relieve by abdication the people from whom
it takes so much and for whom it does so little ?
Accounts from the United States continue to be good so far
as the disposition of the people and of the bodies which repre-
sent commercial interest is concerned. We have strong proofs
of the growth of favourable opinion. Since attention has been
drawn to the subject the interest does not seem to be confined
to the border States. Boards of Trade have been moving in
differed parts of the Union. The minds of the politicians at
present are, of course, absorbed in the faction fight for the
Presidency, and no legislative question, whether domestic or
foreign, stands much chance of settlement or even of practical
consideration in Congress till the Presidential election is over.
Party, whether in the United States or in the Dominion, cares
for nothing but its own game. Moreover, Canada and Cana-
220 . Handbook of Commercial Union.
V IT-.
dian questions are prejudiced in negotiations with the American
Government and Legislature by the odium attaching in the
minds of American politicians, at least of such as play for the
Irish vote, to a dependency of Great Britain. The Fisheries
question would soon be fairly settled if Canada were an inde-
pendent commonwealth of this continent.
In this country we are asked to believe that Commercial
Union is dead. If it were, Annexation would rise from its
grave. But why, when it is dead, are such desperate efforts
made to kill it ? The new organ of the Government and the
protected manufacturers seems to have hardly any other em-
ployment. Into any constituency where the issue is raised at
a bye election speakers and money are poured. Cries that
treason to the tariff must be stamped out resound on all sides.
It is disagreeable to see, in connection with this subject, a ten-
dency to revive the system of " rib-stabbing " in the old interest
and under the old auspices. The people have now had a taste
of better things, and rib-stabbing is out of date. There are
things which are very much beneath the dignity of a Prime
Minister of England or a President of the United States, but
not, it seems, beneath the dignity of a Prime Minister of
Canada. We are always being reminded that we are a depen-
dency and not a nation. Mr. Thomas Shaw, the secretary of
the Central Farmers' Institute, and of the Commercial Union
Club, who has been the object of attack, is no hireling. He
has served his cause honourably and from conviction, if ever
man did. All who have read his pamphlet know that he has
served the cause well. In the meantime our meetings in
different parts of the country continue to be held, and with
the same encouraging results as before. I have myself just
returned from a meeting at Brampton, where the farmers of
Peel were represented, notwithstanding the severity of the
weather, in numbers which overflowed the hall, and the resolu-
tion favourable to Commercial Union was carried without dis-
sent. It is impossible to believe that the men I there saw
before me will in the end allow their vital interests to be dis-
regarded or sacrificed to party watchwords ; much less can it
be siipposed that they will permit themselves to be cowed by
slanderous accusations of disloyalty or blustering threats of
military coercion. What does loyalty to England mean ? Up-
holding her honour against the attacks of Her enemies, vindi
Mr. Ooldwin Smith's Letters to the "Mail." 221
eating her rights, exerting yourself to defend the integrity of
her claim against dismemberment, or charging other people
with disloyalty to her while you lay protective duties on her
goods ?
There is, of course, strong opposition to be encountered ;
effort and patience will be required as usual ia proportion to
the prize, which is nothing less than the emancipation of Cana-
dian industry. The Dominion Parliament will vote us down,
as it master hus announced that it will, and will thereby show
once more that elective government is not necessarily the same
thing as government for the people. The process carried on
for twenty years with consummate skill and full command of
the public resources has produced its effect on the character of
the Legislature, and, at the s%me time, as these election trials
show, on the political morality of the people. Party manageis
may also be disposed to resent the intrusion of a great ques-
tion on the machine tactics by which they have just been
leading their party to victory. Their hostility shows at least
that Commercial Union has had its origin, not in party machi-
nations against the Government, but in the natural desire for
Continental free trade engendered among the people by the
vices of the restrictive system.
From the Local Legislatures, if they will take up the question
which the report of the Inter-Provincial Conference has laid
before them, we may expect something more like a genuine
expression of the mind of the people. The truth is that of all
the recommendations of the Inter- Provincial Conference this is
the one which the Local Legislature may discuss with the best
hope of a practical result. For improvements of our constitu-
tion, which require amendments of the British North America
Act, they might as well order prayers to be offered up in our
churches as send petitions to the Parliament of Great Britain.
Overloaded at all times, and now paralyzed by Irish obstruc-
tion, the Parliament of Great Britain has not a thought, much
less a moment of time, to spare for anything Canadian. Help
in that quarter there is none, but in regard to the commercial
question we may to a certain extent help ourselves.
In Manitoba almost everyone, except those in the service
of the Government or of the C.P.R., is in favour of free trade
with the continent, which is manifestly a vital necessity to that
province. But the Liberals are more likely to act indepen-
222 Handbook of Go^m/mercial Union.
dently of the restrictionist influence at Ottawa, and therefore
the transfer of the Government to their hands is a gain to
Commercial Union.
Appeals are addressed, and from Restrictionist quarters, to
Mr. Mowat to develop the mines of the province. What is
he to do % Is he to go down with a pick, raise the ore and sell
it to himself ) How is it possible to develop any resources
otherwise than by giving, them a market ? Continental free
trade and nothing else will bring about the development which
my friend, Mr. Hamilton Merrifct, desires,
I am not aware that there are any new arguments to combat
or any new fallacies to expose. Denunciations, threats, per-
sonal abuse, appeals to sentimental prejudice, and prophecy are
still the order of the day. Nobody, I suppose, believes or
even supposes it to be seriously asserted that all the leading
friends of this movement, including the principal farmers of
Ontario and the chiefs of our other great natural industries,
are in the pay of Mr. Wiman and are serving his grand design
for raising the value of real estate on Staten Island. The people
are not influenced by such monstrous fictions, nor will one who
is firmly convinced that his cause is good and will succeed in
the end allow himself to tarnish and conipromise it by engag-
ing in an ignoble brawl. This is the only answer that can be
given to personal attacks. Do protected manufacturers sup-
pose that if motives are to be called in question no motive can
be assigned for their opposition to the emancipation of Cana-
dian industry, except pure and single-hearted attachment to
the general good ?
The farmer, I believe, is by this time pretty well awake to
the fallacious character of the argument that Restrictionism, by
forcing capital out of natural industries into hot-bed manufac-
tures, furnishes him with more customers for his produce. He
sees that the development of the natural industries, when their
fetters were struck off, would furnish him with a much larger
number of customers, and without making him pay toll for
their creation on his clothes and other articles for consumption.
He has grasped the fact that our protective policy is at once a
tax and a manacle upon those industries which are not pro-
tected.
American competition, we are told day after day, would be
"crushing to our manufactures." Those who reiterate this
Mr, Ooldwin Smithes Letters to the "Mail" 223
wail do not see how completely they give away their own case.
If a trader is crushed by fair competition, it must be because
his goods are very inferior or much too dear. In other words,
the community under the present system must be suffering
extortion. That the competition in the present case is not fair
cannot be pretended, since the price of labour is somewhat
higher in the United States than here. Restrictionists always
assume that all our manufacturers are in the same boat. But
the truth is that not a few of them are willing, while some of
them are more than willing, to go into the open market. That
there are some who having been lured into investment by the
delusive policy of the Government, might be in danger if the
false basis on which their industries are founded were with-
drawn, can hardly be denied. This, as I have said before, is
the painful part of the matter, and alone causes me any mis-
giving or compunction in advocating a measure which I believe,
as firmly as I believe in my own existence, to be fraught with
increase of wealth and happiness for the mass of the Canadian
people. We must hope, and I do hope, that in the first place
the number of manufactures adversely affected by Commercial
Union would not be so large as is supposed ; and, in the second
place, as the change is not likely to come suddenly, there would
be no danger of anything like a crash.
VII.
The interviews with leading manufacturers published in The
Mail show plainly enough that if the race were open the Can-
adian manufacturer would have a perfectly fair start. Ada[i-
tation of his mode of production to a wider market, by making
fewer articles on a larger scale, would be all that, if his bus-
iness was sound in itself, he would need. And what can any-
one in reason desire or claim more than a fair start 1 Can it be
necessary again to set forth the proof that by forcing capital
and labour out of their natural channels into artificial channels
we simply waste them, while left to themselves they would add
more to the wealth of the country, give employment to more
hands, and furnish the farmer with more buyers of his produce ?
The policy of taxing the farmer's clothes and implements in
order to provide him with customers for his grain, is surely one
224 Handbook of Commercial Union.
which, had it been devised by some recluse professor of poli-
tical economy, instead of being devised by practical politicians,
would have drawn down derision on him and on his tribe.
From the North- West I get a journal, devoted to the Gov-
ernment, the tariff and the C. P. R, which undertakes to show
in three columns, bristling with statistics, that the North- West-
ern Provinces or Territories are supremely happy in being cut
off from the neighbouring market, and that admission to it
would be their ruin. It is to be hoped that the statistics are
more genuine than those of Manitoban manufacturers, which
Mr. Wade exposed in the columns of The Mail, and which have
found their way into the London Times. But the argument
founded on them applies just as well to Minnesota or Dakota as
to Manitoba or to the District of Saskatchewan. Would Min-
nesota, Dakota, or any other state of the Union be better off
if it were shut out of the commercial pale of the continent by
a tariff wall drawn round it and forced to look to a market on
the other side of the Atlantic 1 Let us have an answer to that
question.
We have also continued comparisons between the value of
our trade with the United States and that of our trade with
England, from which the inference is drawn that the English
market is much the better. The English market has hitherto
been better than the American, for the simple reason that it
has been free, while the American market has not been free.
When by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 the American market
was made free in regard to certain articles the result, as every-
body admits, was decisive. But it is really needless to discuss
this question. Nobody proposes to close the English market.
If we get free trade with the States we shall have the American
market and the English market as well. Which of the two
markets is the better will then be seen.
However, except as regards the case of a few of our weaker
and more artificial manufacturers, the commercial argument is
almost at an end. I doubt whether the man is to be found
who sincerely and in private maintains that we, with our ener-
getic, intelligent and frugal people, and with all our natural re-
sources awaiting development, should not gain by admission to
the market which is close at hand, and which is at the same
time the richest in the world, As The Mail has said, it is on
the political argument, ^r at least the appeal to political fears
Mr. Qoldwin Smith's Letters to the "Mail." 226
and prejudices, that the Restrictioaists really rely, and against
this it is that the friends of Free Trade with the continent
have practically to contend. Yet that argument has never yet
been presented in a definite and intelligible form. We have
had nothing but shouts of '* Loyalty" and shrieks of " Annex-
ation," which have no more meaning or relevancy in the present
case than the cry of " Great is Diana of the Ephesians ! "
What is proposed is simply a fiscal and commercial arrange-
ment identical in its essential character with that made by the
Reciprocity ^Treaty of 1854, though more comprehensive. Why,
let us ask for the thousandth time, ^ould this affect our poli-
tical relations or our national dignity 1 Why should a special
agreement of this kind change the general life of a nation any
more than that of a man ? In making a commercial bargain
with a man you do not embrace his politics or his religion. My
friend the Hon. Mr. Young is afraid that if we cease to levy
duties on American goods, and to have duties levied by the
Americans on ours, we may be constrained to adopt the Ameri
can view of the Sabbath. There is nearly as much reason for
this fear as there is for the fears of those who fancy that Com-
mercial Union must bring with it political annexation.
If there is a tendency to annexation, increase of intercourse
will be likely to strengthen it ; this nobody denies. But in-
crease of commercial intercourse will not be likely to strength-
en it more than increase of railway intercourse, of social inter-
course, of religious intercourse, of philanthropic intercourse
or any ot the other kinds of intercourse which are being daily
extended and which not even the most high-flying Loyalist
thinks it possible to interdict. Assuredly no increase of
commercial intercourse can be half so effective in paving the
way for annexation as the actual fusion of the populations
which is being brought about by means of the exodus, under
and through the operation of the very system which the pro-
fessors of Loyalty uphold, and which is constantly sending
the most enterprising of our young farmers and no inconsider-
able amount o# Canadian property with them over the line.
However, Mr. Chamberlain tells us, as the result of his obser-
vations, that there is very little annexationism in the States,
while Sir John Macdonald emphatically delares that there is
none here. If there is very little disposition to annexation on
one side and none on the other, both parties being free agents,
I
22G Handbook of Commercial Union.
how is the catastrophe to be brought about ? Let alarmists
suspend their outcries for a moment and put that question de-
finitely to themselves. Of the correctness of Mr. Chamber-
lain's opinion as to the general absence of annexationism among
the Americans, I happen to have fresh evidence from the pen
of an entirely trustworthy witness. The fact is that Party,
whether in Canada or in the United States, thinks of nothing
but its own game, and the American politicians tremble at the
thought of admitting into their field of operations so new, so
large, and so uncertain an element as the Canadian vote. What
the future may have in store is a different question, and one
on which I have already expressed my opinion without dis-
guise. That the mere removal of the tariff wall would be nec-
essarily followed by a political union, or by political change of
any kind, seems to me a totally baseless assumption, though
its baselessness will probably not prevent its reiteration when
commercial argument or solid argument of any kind there is
none.
That Canada would resign her fiscal independence by enter
ing into a commercial treaty, however comprehensive, with the
usual liberty of withdrawing, is an assumption which seems to
me not less baseless. It derives colour only from the incidental
proposal to assimilate the tariffs. Assimilation of tariffs, I
repeat, is not the object of Commercial Union ; the object of
Commercial Union is free trade with our own continent. As-
similation of tariffs is merely a safeguard against reciprocal
smuggling. Nobody insists on adopting it if any other expedi-
ent equally effectual can be found ; though there can be no
doubt that Canada would be the gainer by assimilation accom-
panied with a pooling system, if the division of the revenue
were to be on the basis of population, to which, or to any ar-
rangement liberal towards Canada, the Americans with their
overflowing treasury might not be indisposed to consent.
But if our Restrictionists think that the commercial system of
this country can be settled irrespectively of that which prevails
over the rest of our continent, and that we can enjoy perfect in-
dependence in this sense, they never were more mistaken in
their lives. If Mr. Cleveland's policy gains the day in the
United States, the Restrictionists will soon see whether it is
possible to maintain their present policy here. The nation of
sixty millions^ with its overpowering wealth, must be, in a
Mr. Goldwin Smith' h Letters to tJie *^Mail" 227
great degree, the commercial regulator of North America. A
commercial independence setting at naught this influence, I re-
peat, is out of our reach. If the proposal of Commercial Un-
ionists were that our most convenient winter ports, with the
power of licensing or suspending our winter trade, should be
placed in the hands of the Americans, there might be some
ground for the cry of treason. But this Nature has done ;
and our own Government, by promoting the construction of
the short line through Maine, to the obvious disparagement of
the Intercolonial, is in fact setting its seal to Nature's decree.
In spite of all loyal declamation and railing against the Yan-
kees, geography will have its own.
There is another way in which the Restrictionists are de-
pendent on the United States, though it is in their own des-
pite, and they would be very unwilling to own it. If emi-
gration to the United States did not afford a safety-valve for
the discontent engendered by the restrictive system an ex-
plosive force would accumulate which would soon save us the
necessity of further debate.
To anti-American feeling appeals are no longer made except
in a few eccentric quarters. Nothing can be more marked than
the subsidence of that prejudice in the course of the last
twenty years. In truth, not only has kindly intercourse in-
creased, but actual fusion has been going on so rapidly that in
the case of a very large number of Canadians a quarrel with
the United States would be a quarrel with their own sons and
brothers. The progress of reunion between the Americans
and the English has been equally manifest and equally rapid.
In shrinking from contact with the people of the United States
we should be a great deal more British than the British them-
selves.
To accuse us of disparaging the country because we propose
a change in her commercial policy, or rather a logical extension
of the policy already adopted, is childish. Every change how-
ever beneficial, is to that extent a disparagement of the previous
Htate of things. Is the country dishonoured when it is said
that the industrial and commercial qualities of her people would
enable them to reap great benefit from an extended market 1
Are a man's strength and speed cried down by saying that
though he does pretty well in fetters he would do much better
if his limbs were free 1
228 Handbook of Commercial Union.
As to the cry of disloyalty, it was well said the other day
by Mr. Dewart that all reformers and improvers from the
framers of the Great Charter downwards, have in their day
been disloyal. They have all been disloyal to an established
system and to the special interests bound up with it, while
they have been loyal to the broad interests of the nation and of
humanity. But before we proceed with the discussion of this
rather invidious and not very fruitful topic, I have a friendly
challenge to throw out. Let some manufacturer who has taken
an active part in constraining the Government to lay protective
duties on British goods, one of the promoters of the new iron
duty, for example, lay his hand upon his heart and declare that
the thing against which his loyal conscience rebels is simply
and solely discrimination against Great Britain, and that he
would be equally transported with loyal indignation if the
measure which he supposes to involve such discrimination
were to his own advantage. It might be possible, though it
seems difficult, and if it were possible Commercial Union-
ists would not be unwilling, by adopting, in place of assimi-
lation of tariffs, some other mode of preventing reciprocal
smuggling, to avoid the appearance of discriminating against
British goods. Would that satisfy the loyal Canadian manu
facturer 1 Would he then be willing to let us have free trade
with the United States 1 The resolution moved by the Hon.
John Macdonald at the Toronto Board of Trade deprecated the
extension of relations with the United States only so far as it
might be inconsistent with duty towards Great Britain. Should
we have his vote and those of his supporters if the semblance
of discrimination were removed 1
Sir John Macdonald, in reply to the outcries of the British
manufacturers against his tariff of 1879, avowed, in words
which have been often quoted, that in fiscal matters he was for
Canadian Home Rule to the hilt, and that so long as his sys-
tem suited Canada he did not care what Englishmen, Scotch-
men or Irishmen might say. Great Britain has taken from the
colonies all the privileges which they once enjoyed in her
markets. Simple justice required that she should at the same
time concede to them complete fiscal independence, and this
she has done. In framing her commercial policy she keeps
singly and solely in view the special interest of her own people,
and she leaves the colonies to do the best they can for theirs.
Mr. Goldwin Smith's Letters to tfie "Mail" 229
We have the assurance of the Conservative leader, who is at
the same time a Privy Councillor and a Grand Cross of the
Bath, that we may take the fullest advantage of that liberty,
in face of the protests of British producers, without departure
from our allegiance, and therefore without prejudice to our
loyalty. Our circumstances are those of a comparatively small
community placed alongside of a mighty neighbour, to whose
policy we are compelled to have reference and in fact have al-
ways had reference in regulating our own. In this respect rur
circumstances differ from those of any other British colony, and
the difference must be taken into account. Mr. Chamberlain
does not pretend to deny that Commercial Union would be
good for Canada ; if it would our charter covers it, and he has
no right as a representative of British manufacturers, who
frame their own tariff absolutely by the rule of their own in-
terests, to lay an interdict on our freedom of action in this
matter.
For my own part, ae I have said before, I am an Englishman,
and it would be difficult, I trust, to prove that I have ever failed,
when called upon, to show it. Weie any measure really adverse
to Great Britain proposed, if I could not conscientiously resist
it, I should stand asida I am thoroughly convinced that free
trade between Canada and the United States, even if it entails
assimilation of tariffs, would not be adverse, but, on the con-
trary, advantageous to Great Britain. The value of her six or
seven hundred millions of investments here would at once rise,
and a new field for investment would be opened to her capital-
ists, equally to their benefit and to ours. Her farmers and farm
labourers emigrating to Canada would find better employment
and a more prosperous home. It is not at all likely that, suppos-
ing the tariffs to be assimilated, the joint scale would be more
adverse to Great Britain than the Cana lian scale is now. Such
would be the immediate consequences of continental free trade
to the Mother Country. If I mistake not, the ultimate conse-
quences, both commercial and political, would be better still.
Mr. Chamberlain tells us that before we can get Commercial
Union we shall have to convince England, the United States
and Canada. As to the decision of England I have no fear,
when the case shall have been fairly put before her. In the
United States we must not expect legislative action till the all
absorbing contest for the Presidency is over, but the accounts
230 ; Handbook of Commercial Union.
of the growth of opinioo are highly encouraging. That Can-
ada is coining to a conviction in favour of unrestricted trade
with her continent the meetings which continue to be held in
different parts of the country show. We had a capital meeting
of the farmers of West Durham at Bowmanville yesterday.
This movement, being unforced and clear of party, has, at all
events, roused the Canadian farmer to independent thought
about his own substantial interests, and loosened a link in the
chain of his slavery to the party machine.
VIII.
Sir Richard Cartwright has the advantage of being a
thoroughly political, not a forensic speaker. He brings out the
great points of his case with the force essential to a style of
speaking the object of which is not to obtain the judgment of
a court, but to leave a broad impression on the popular mind.
His speech ot March 4th, though it will produce no efFe on
the Government majority, will tell on the country. His reso-
lution, if it comes to be submitted to the House, will be voted
down of course, but not by anything like such a majority as
voted down Parliamentaty Reform and the Repeal of the Corn
Laws upon the first introduction of each in the British House
of Commons.
His chief opponent appealed to the standing ofier in the
Tariff Act of reciprocity in natural products. That offer is the
decisive answer to all attempts, whether made by the Conser-
vative ministers, or by any other controversalist, to cast doubts
on the advantages of reciprocity. It is a recorded admis-
sion that free trade with our own continent is essential to the
interests of our farmers, our lumbermen, our miners, our ship-
owners, our fishermen ; in a word, to all the natural and truly
national industries of the country. But reciprocity in natural
products only, it is well known, we cannot have. The Ameri-
cans will not give without getting something in return. They
will not consent to what Sir John Macdonald, when it is ten-
dered to us, calls " a one-sided and jug-handled reciprocity."
Either, then, our government must be prepared for reciprocity
in manufactures as well as natural products, or the standing
Mr. Goldnin Smith's Letters to the "Mail!' 231
offer in the Tariff Act is a hollow mockery, designed only to
throw dust in the eyes of the Canadian people.
Like an able and discreet tactician, the chief spokesman of
the government threw the main question into the background.
He did not attempt to show that free trade with the continent
is not essential to the development of our natural resources, or
that without it our people can enjoy the fair earnings of their
industry, and the country its destined measure of prosperity.
He did not touch the crucial question how, if every State in
the American Union prospers by reason of its free trade with
the rest, a Canadian province can fail to suffer by exclusion
from the commercial pale. But he contends that Commercial
Union would derange our finance and disturb our relations with
the Mother Country.
The most telling part of his speech probably is that which
relates to the disturbance of finance. Here he is fortified be-
hind a sinister rampart of his own building. The wastefulness
of Government by piling up debt has not only laid a heavy
burden of taxation on the country, but embarrasses its com-
mercial policy. What, however, is now contended is that it
is worth our while to let our trade and industry be crippled,
to allow our immense natural resources to lie dormant, and
to expose ourselves to commercial atrophy, and i"j the exodus
both of men and capital attendant on it, not for the sake of
seven millions of dollars, though that would be a poor enough
reimbursement, but for the sake of raising that sum by a partic-
ular mode of taxation. The mode of taxation happens to be
one which it will be hardly possible to maintain along the vast
open frontier of the North-West when that region, to which,
as it does not manufacture, the tariff is an unmixed evil, shall
have filled up and become strong. A Minister cannot allow
himself to contemplate the possibility that when the shackles
were struck off from trade and industry, the recuperative
buoyancy of the tariff, consequent on the increase of pros-
perity, would go far to make up the deficit. Still less can he
allow himself to see that the expenditure of the Ottawa Gov-
ernment has within a few years increased by more than seven
millions without any benefit whatever to the community, and
might be reduced, not only with advantage to the public purse,
but with equal advantage to our political morality, since a sys-
tem on which Nature has laid her ban, has been aiid can be up-
232 Handbook of Commercial Union, nl
held only by corruption. Disturbance of finance, if it leads to
retrenchment, will be to us a blessing hardly disguised. ^^iTirfeT
As to the relations with the Mother Country, let us give the
Mother Country leave to speak for herself. There was a loud
and not unnatural burst of indignation when those who are now
shouting loyalty laid protective duties on British goods, but as
yet there has been no audible burst of indignation at the pro-
posal of Commercial Union, though the subject has been pretty
widely discussed both in the British press and by commercial
bodies. The people of England know that when colonies are
permitted to lay protective duties on British goods the fiscal
unity of the Empire is at an end. They appreciate the fact
that their interest in Canada as investors is larger than their
interest as importers, and see that in the net upshot they will
be the gainers by a policy which would enhance the prosperity
of this country. They might invest capital in Canadian indus-
tries and thus themselves enjoy the benefits of the opened mar-
ket of the United States. To act in defiance of their veto is
what ffobody proposes ; but let us wait till the veto comes.
Commercial Union could in itself affect no political relation, nor
would it detract a particle either from the revenue or from the
authority of the Crown.
To the vague cry of disloyalty, again raised, we can only
reply once more that the same cry has been raised against
every great legislative improvement from the Great Charter
downwards. It was raised against the advocates of Responsible
Government in Canada by a party which soon after saluted the
object of loyalty, in the person of its representative, with a vol-
ley of stones and rotten eggs. We must content ourselves with
asking what policy is good for the people. The policy which
is good for the people must be loyal towards any government
which has the good of the people for its end. Mr. Davies
seems to have given the " discrimination " objection its quietus
by showing that in fact we already lay a higher rate of duty on
the aggregate of British than on the aggregate of American
goods ; in other words, that we do discriminate in favour of
American against British trade.
Once more we hear of the supreme advantages of a home
market, as though that were not a home market which the de-
velopment of our home industries by afiording a market for
their products would create. Once more, too, we are told that
Mr. Ooldwin Smith's Letters to the ''Mail," 233
the cause of the exodus is the unpatriotic conduct of the people
who will not shut their eyes to its existence, and that we should
see nothing adverse to our prosperity if we could only be true
patriots and bury our heads in the sand.
There seems to be a nervous disposition to drop the name
Commercial Union and to adopt Unrestricted Reciprocity in its
place. I should myself have preferred *' Continental Free
Trade," had we not been told that the phrase " Free Trade "
would raise theoretic questions which were not involved, and
which it was our policy to avoid. *' Commercial Union," as I
understand it, differs from Unrestricted Reciprocity only in
more clearly including mutual participation in the fisheries and
coasting trade. It was adopted, I believe, in direct contradis-
tinction to political union, and for the special purpose of
guarding against any such idea. However, the name has now
become thoroughly current in England and the United States '
as well as in Canada, and is imbedded in all the literature of the
question. An attempt to change it would look like the hauling
down of a flag and would not propitiate opponents who are -^
already crying out that Unrestricted Reciprocity like Commer-
cial Union is annexation in disguise. I have not happened my-
self, in the different parts of the country in which I have been,
to hear any objection expressed to the term. The people are
ready for Commercial Union, name and thing, if only the ques-
tion could be put to them clear of political issues which have
no relation to it, and of partyism to which, though it is utterly
senseless, and not one of them can give an intelligible account of
it, they have to an extraordinary degree become slaves. Get .
the farmers to prefer their own bread and that of their families
to a shibboleth, and the battle is won. In any case the suc-
cess of emancipation is merely a question of time. What the
Restrictionists have to vote down is the map.
The reception of Mr. Hitt's resolution by the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee at Washington argues well for the success of
the movement in that quarter, and rebuts the story of American
indifference propagated by those who at the same time were
charging the Canadian friends of reciprocity with being the
paid agents of American conspiracy. The want of an extended
market, of course, presses less on the Americans than ourselves,
their present market being so much larger than ours. It was
therefore natural that they should be slower to move. But in
234 v . Handbook of Com/mercial Union.
the United States opinion once formed spreads very rapidly,
and in this case there is no opposition, so far as we can see, in
any section of the Union, which is likely to prove very strong.
There, as here, the chief difficulty is that of obtaining a verdict
on t<he economical question apart from political issues and the
contest of political parties for power. That difficulty is serious,
I know, on both sides of the line ; it may long delay a measure
which the interest of the people clearly demands, and for which
the people, if they were allowed, would at once vote. But it is
against the map that restriction fights and the life of the map
is long.
LETTER FROM MR. GOLDWIN SMITH TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE COMMERCIAL UNION
CLUB, TORONTO.
AMERICAN OPINION ON TRADE RELATIONS WITH CANADA. i^'
Mr. Geo. Kerr, jun., Secretary of the Commercial Union
Club, has received the following letter from Prof. Goldwin
Smith : —
George Kerr, Jun., Esq.,
Secretary of the Commercial Union Club. '^''
My Dear Mr. Kerr, — On my way South, I have halted at
Washington a few days, partly to learn what I could about the
position and prospects of Commercial Union. The result of
my inquiries is in every way satisfactory. The promoters of
the measure in Congress are sanguine, and the outlook appears
entirely good. The argument from American indifference or
contempt, so often used by our opponents, will certainly be
available no more. Allowance must, of course, be made at
present for the absorption of public attention by the approach
of the Presidential election, which interferes with the action of
Congress even in domestic matters of pressing importance. It
is natural that the necessity of improved trade relations should
less quickly impress the mind of the larger and wealthier than
that of the smaller and less wealthy nation. This only shows
Letter from Mr. Goldwin Smith to Mr. Kerr. 235
the baselessness of the suspicion that Commercial Union had
its origin in an American conspiracy e^aiust Canadian wealth
and independence. When an opinion has once gained a hold
among the people of the United States its spread is rapid. I
can hear of no serious opposition. The question has been wisely
kept out of party and presented as purely general and inter-
national. But there is nothing apparently in Commercial
Union to repel either of the political parties. On the contrary,
it seems to have strong points of attraction for both.
? The Committee of the House of Representatives on Foreign
Affairs, in reporting favourably on Mr. Hitt's resolution to pro-
mote Commercial Union with Canada, says ; —
" Our commercial relations with Canada have recently awakened a deeper
interest and received a more thorough discusHion than ever before on both
sides of the border. The tendency of public opinion is plainly towards the
enlargement of trade between the two countries." They express their belief
that the power conferred by the resolution upon the President of meeting
Canadian overtures for Commercial Union *' will lead to beneficent results,
promoting the independence, prosperity and peace of two great peoples."
I accepted an invitation to appear before the Committee of
the House of Representatives on Foreign Relations, and was
heard with an attention that proved the interest felt by the
committee on the subject. My first object was to obviate the
impression that the rejection of Sir Richard Cartwright j reso-
lution by the Canadian Parliament would be the rejection of
Commercial Union by Canada. I explained that the question
before the country when the present Parliament was elected
was not Commercial Union, of which there had at that time
been no mention, nor indeed commercial policy at all, Mr. Blake
having declined that issue. I gave what I thought a correct
account of the defeat and the present weakness of the Oppo-
sition, which would enable the Government to command a large
majority in the coming division. I showed that under our
system of Parliamentary government Ministerialist members,
even if some change had taken place in the opinions of their
constituents, would be bound under heavy penalties to vote
with the ministry, since its defeat would entail resignation and
dissolution. I assured the committee, and I hope with truth,
that the rejection of Sir Richard Cartwright's resolution, even
by a large majority, would in no way damp the spirits of
Commercial Unionists, but that we should look forward with
unabated confidence to tb« verdict of the people at the next
236 ' Handbook of Commercial Union, '^■i
general election. I recounted the origin of the movement in
favour of Commercial Union among us, and gave the proof of its
increasing strength, showing that it extended to the represen-
tatives of all our great natural industries, while the commer-
cial opposition was almost confined to that portion of our
manufacturers who feel themselves dependent upon legislative
protection. I admitted, of course, that a strong opposition on
political grounds was being offered and would probably con-
tinue to be offered by the leaders of the Conservative party.
As to the counter-movement of Imperial Federation, a public
meeting in favour of which had been announced, I could only
say, with all respect for the aspirations of its promoters, that it
seemed to expend itself in emotion, without propounding any
definite plan ; that I did not believe that the Colonists would
consent either to conform to an Imperial tariff, or to contribute
to Imperial armaments if those proposals were fairly brought
before them ; that there was not, in my opinion, the slightest
chance either of inducing the English masses to raise the price
of their food by discriminating in favour of the Colonies or of
inducing the protected manufacturers of Canada to consent to
the free admission of British goods, and that even if the British
Colonists of Canada could be persuaded to accept such a scheme
of Imperial centralisation and surrender of Colonial self-govern-
ment, it would be unanimously rejected by the French,
I am more than ever convinced of the absen<'.e of any ground
for the apprehension that Commercial Union would necessarily
bring political union in its train. Not only is there no visible
inclination among Americans to drag Canada into the Union,
but there is in some highly influential quarters a visible lean-
ing the other way. Here, as in Canada, party considerations
rule, and fear of the disturbing influence which the entrance
of Canada into the Union might have on the balance of par-
ties is stronger in the mind of the politician than any prompt-
ings of territorial ambition. Dakota, with a population of
600,000, has now for six years baen vainly seeking admission
as a State. Her prayer is refused because her entrance would
disturb the balance of party. My impression is that even if
Canada desired admission to the Union she would, in the pre-
sent circumstances, have no small difficulty in obtaining it. On
our side the initiative would rest with a Government and Legis-
lature, every member of which is bound by ties of interest and
Letter from Mr. Goldiuin Smith to il/r. Kerr. 237
ambition to the present political arrangements. If those who
are shrieking about annexation would only consider how it
could be brought about without any disposition on the part
of the holders of power on either side, their fears would de-
part, and, it may be hoped, that their proneness to misrepre-
sent those who differ from them would depart with their fears.
In the commercial sphere Commercial Union, while it would be
an immense boon to the many, might, I am afraid, endanger
the interests of a few. In the political sphere it would en-
danger nothing except the continuance of a policy which has
wasted the earnings of the people to an enormous amount in
struggling to put asunder what nature has joined, and of which
the fruits are an ever-increasing mountain of public debt, com«
mercial atrophy and the exodus.
;^„I am also struck as often as I visit the States with the
general prevalence among the Americans of good feeling to-
wards Canada and England. Of the moral reunion of the
English-speaking race, there seems to be the fairest prospect
and I can hardly imagine the existence of a member of that
race by whom, if he has any regard for its greatness, its moral
reunion would not be welcomed. When euemiee ot Commercial
Union call the United States " the Sodom of the South," we
must ask them whether they know anything of the great com-
munity, identical with ours in blood and organic institutions,
of which they speak in such terms, and whether they remember
that it now comprises nine hundred thousand Canadians, and
at least an equal number of English, Scotch or Irish from the
North of Ireland, who, by the way, are now seeking naturaliza-
tion and are likely to become a political element of no small
power. Mr. Chamberlain, the British plenipotentiary, in his
speech at Toronto, refused to call the Americans a foreign peo-
ple, so that those who treat them as " foreign and hostile"
would seem to be setting themselves in opposition both to the
sentiment and to the policy of the Mother Country. The
Americans must always be our neighbors ; kindly relations with
them can never cease to be of the most vital importance to us,
and to cultivate their enmity would seem to be not only un-
^enial and an outrage on kinship, but the very height of folly.
The same violence of language and offensiveness of attitude on
the part of the same section of Canadians have already helped
238 Handbook oj CorriTnercial Union.
to wreck the Reciprocity Treaty, the loss of which our fanners,
at all events, have reason to deplore.
If the commercial and industrial question could only be sub-
mitted by itself and apart from political issues to the people of
both nations, there can be little doubt what the verdict would
be. We should at once enter into the advantages of Unre«v
strictv«?d Reciprocity, together with a share of the coasting trade.k
It is in the entanglement of the commercial and industrial
question with political issues of a party character that the
principal danger of miscarriage lies. 1 have^read the reports of
the debate at Ottawa without finding a single commercial argu-
ment of a substantial kind advanced on the Ministerial side>
Speaker after speaker, passing over the material interests of the
people, or throwing them into the background, appeals in pas-
sionate strains to political prejudice and party feeling. In that
Parliament we know too well the appeal will not be made in
v6,in, but three years hence the cause we hope will come before
a different tribunal.
IMPERIAL FEDERATION.
The announcement of a public meeting for the discussion of
Imperial Federation was welcome to Commercial Unionists.
Though Imperial Federationists tell us that they do not deign
to regard Commercial Union as a rival policy, Commercial
Unionists cannot help regarding Imperial Federation as a policy
which stops the way. We shall therefore be glad to see the
plan brought to the test of practicability by clear presentation
and full explaiiation of detail& Nor is there anyone who could
do this for us more ably than Mr. Dalton McCarthy.
As this question, like that of Commercial Union, transcends
party politics, Mr. Dalton McCarthy, Mr. Cockburn, or any
other Conservative politician who may be concerned, will feel
himself on this occasion unembarrassed by party ties, and at
liberty to m«et the objections urged against the scheme by his
political chief. " W0 are told," said Sir John Macdonald in his
speech dh the new tariff, at Toronto, on November 3rd, 1881,
*• that we want an Imperial Federation. I will not trouble you
with a disquisition on that subject just now j but I tell you
;; Imperial Federation. 2S9
Imperial Federation is utterly impracticable. We could never
agree to send a number of men over to England to sit in Par-
liament there and vote away our rights and principles. I am,
as far as this question goes, up to the handle a Home Ruler.
We will govern our own country. We will put on the taxes
ourselves. If we choose to misgovern ourselves we will do so,
and we do not desire England, Ireland, or Scotland to tell us
we are fools. We will say, if we are fools we will keep our
folly to ourselves. You will not be the worse for it and we will
not be the worse for any folly of yours." This is pretty de-
cisive languajge, language which it would be difficult to explain
away. Nor can it be questioned that Sir John is right in ap-
pealing to our mistrust of Colonial delegates sitting in England.
Those delegates, if we may judge from experience, would soon
become more Belgravian than the Belgravians, greater courtiers
; than any lord-in-waiting.
We shall, no doubt, hear what the Federationists deem the
answer to this objection and to the objections which have been
raised on other points. We shall hear what they have to say
about the relations to be established between the Federal Par-
liament and the Parliament of Great Britain, and between Fed-
eral and British parties ; about the ambiguous function which
would be assigned to the Crown as the head of two legisla-
tures which might easily come into conflict with each other ;
7 iibout the disposal of India, which contains five-sixths of the
.total population of the Empire; about the obligation which
would be imposed on the colonies of contributing to European
or Asiatic wars for objects in which they have no interest ;
about the necessity of communities diflfering as widely as pos-
sible in their economical circumstances to accept a common
tariff; about the mode of t^pportioning the representation so
that Great Britain should have her fair share without utterly
swamping the colonial delegations. We shall learn, also, by
what body the Federal Constitution is to be framed, and, what
is of equal importance and still more difficult to settle, to whom
the powers of interpreting the Constitution and of enforcing it
in case of breach of its provisions or of disobedience to Fe<leral
edicts is to be assigned. It is to be hoped that we shall also
be enabled to see what is the precise object which this vast
association of communities scattered all over the world and
differing considerably from each other in character, social struc-
240 Handbook of Commercial Union.
ture, and political tendency, is to serve. An object intelligible
to all the members every association must have, otherwise it
will be without a principle of union ; and it will hardly have
been framed before insubordination and dissolution will set in.
Least of all could an association, in which it is evident that the
centrifugal forces must from the beginning be exceptionally
strong, so that extraordinary effort is necessary to bring about
the union, afford to dispense with a vital bond. The whole
tendency of events during the last century has been towards
colonial decentralization. To reverse what thus appears to be
the course of destiny some tremendous motive power must be
applied.
As to the practicability of the scheme I must, pending fur-
ther explanations, agree with " the Canadian JBeaconsfield,"
who, however, would hardly say as his supposed English proto-
type said in private to Lord Malmesbury, " Those wretched
colonies are as stones round our necks, and besides they will be
independent before long." But the sentiment which inspires
Imperial Federationists commands my hearty respect. Their
proposal of radical change implies that they hold our present
positton to be neither noble nor safe ; and I am persuaded that
they are right. It is miserable to be forever a mere dependency
and never to have a place among the nations. It would be
miserable even if dependence brought with it protection free of
co8< . But dependence brings with it nothing of the kind. To
talk about our being any longer under the aegis of Great Bri-
tain is idle. In every dispute that has arisen with the Ameri-
cans as to our rights we have been made to feel that the arm of
the Imperial country is not stretched over us. On the other
hand, whatever hatred or jealousy her power excites extends
to us in full measure. If we were the Republic of Uruguay
the Americans would probably give us at once a fair settle-
ment of the Fisheries question and pride themselves on their
magnanimity in doing so. But as it is, they negotiate with
Canada as jealously as if she were Great Britain, and override
her claims as if she were the Republic of Uruguay. They
know as well as we do that the British Ambassadors who act
for Canada have morally no force behind them. The aristoc-
racy which once ruled England might have gone to war with
the American Republic on a Canadian question. The democ-
racy, which now rules England, could never be induced to go to
Imjyerial Federat'uyn. ' 241
war with the great power of this continent, and a Republic
with which it has the strongest sympathy, for any objects of
ours, any more than our democracy could be induced, for Bri-
tish oV)jects, to contribute to the expense of a Russian war.
The fisheries question, after decent diplomatic formalities, has
apparently been settled like the questions of Maine, Orecjon
and St. Juan. A war between England and other maritime
powers, such as Russia and France, in which the enemy's cruis-
ers might get to sea and prey on Canadian commerce, would
put the soundness of the existing relation to a crucial test.
Imperial Federationists and all who deal with these ques-
tions ought to have distinctly present to their minds the change
which has come over the political spirit of England. The
monarchy to which the eyes and hearts of Loyalty were turned
is now a crown upon a cushion, and the power of the aristoc-
racy is almost gone. I understand Mr. Froude or any one else
who prefers the rule of a Royal Governor, supposing him to be
a man of sense and integrity, to a government of faction, dema-
gogism and corruption. But the Royal Governor, as everyone
who looks at facts must know, is reduced to the shadow of a
shadow. His last prerogative has been surrendered to the
party leader. The colonial relation now means simply the sub-
ordination of one democracy to another, without any percep-
tible benefit to either, and with much detriment as well as dis-
paragement to the one which is subordinate. The Constitu-
tion of the Dominion was an experiment, and was constructed
to get Canadian politicians out of the deadlock into which their
factious struggles for power had brought them. Everybody
must see that it needs revision. But revision it cannot have
since power of amendment there is practically none. A mon-
archical government, looking from its throne over the Empire
with comprehensive and paternal view, might have attended to
colonial legislation. The democracy of which the British Par-
liament is the tumultuous organ has no eyes or ears for any con-
■ cerns but its own. It is absorbed, like our democracy, by its
: own party questions and conflicts. If it did legislate for us, its
i legislation would be that of ignorance, as would our legislation
4 if we undertook to legislate for the democracy of Great Britain.
So long as Canada remains a dependency, she must be without
the power of constitutional self-government ; she must be con-
tent to forego that higher political. life which is enjoyed by the
242 Handbook of CommerciaL Union.
least of nations. This and notliing else the Colonial rela-
tion means ; and therefore, I repeat, the dissatisfaction of the
Imp(?rial Federationists wHh the existing state of things is w(3ll
founded and getierous, though the change which they propose
may not be feasible.
In Mr. Fro'ide's recent work on the West Indies we get a
lesson as to the benefits which the rule of an Imperial demo-
cracy confers on the people of a distinct dependency. The
refusal of England to sanction a commercial arrangemont
with the United States, which might have saved the sugar
interest, has proved, according to Mr. Fronde's informant:), a
final sentence of ruin. In the West Indies, as in the Maritime
Provinces, under a system of restriction, commercial atrophy
has set in. The white population is meditating departure^ and
the islands are likely to fall into the hands of the negroes, who
will soon relapse, like those of San Domingo, into savage an-
archy and their wild African superstitions.
Baronetcies and Knighthoods the relations of Colonial depen-
dencies gives us. Each of them might be found upon exariina-
tion to have cost Canada dear. But perhaps some of us Mould
be inclined to supplement Sir John Macdonald's remark as to
the inexpediency of entrusting our interests to delegates domi-
ciled in England, by a similar remark as to the inexpediency of
entrusting our interests to members of the British baronetage
and knightage resident here.
Dependence is sure to tell, like any other politic? 1 relation,
on the political character of a people. For the political char-
acter of the Canadians nature had laid the best posr.ible foun-
dation in their moral and sodal qualities, as well as in their
economical circumstances ; nor could more promising material
for a free commonwealth have been found. Yet in no com-
munity which calls itself a nation, and in whose heart national
pride has its seat, should we be likely to find the lack of inde-
pendence and self-respect upon which the holders of power and
patronage presume here. ** The people of Queen's County, New
Brunswick, want railways and other public works, and they all
know that the policy of the Grovernment regarding railways is
liberal. If a Government supporter is elected any reasonable
request will be granted. It rests entirely with the Govern-
ment candidate what will be done. The Government will not
encourage and foster King, and unless Queen's supports the
Commprcial Union in its Ainerican Aspect. 243
Government candidate she has no right to ask for public
works." With such promises of a miserable mess of pottage as
the reward of subserviency, and such threats of its withdrawal
as the punishment of independence, does a Government candi-
date in Canada approach his constituents. Could a Govern-
ment candidate in Mexico show less consideration for the self-
respect of Mexicans ? Why does the Government here, as a
rule, carry all the bye-elections while in England it more
cften than not loses them ? Is not the answer to that ques-
tion to be found in the speech to which I have referred exhort-
ing Canadian freemen to vote for the power which has the dis-
tribution of the loaves and fishes 1 East Northumberland in a
Dominion election goes one way ; in a Provincial election it
goes the other ; but on both occasions it goes with the Govern-
ment. It is not only Opposition leaders who complain that our
standard of public morality has sunk low. It has sunk lower
than the standard of public morality in the United States,
where Mr. Colfax was driven from public life for an action of
corruption which would scarcely have affected his position here.
Some of our people seem almost to feel pride in being governed
by unscrupulous astuteness and well-managed corruption. The
Canadian is superior probably in intelligence to the average
British elector, but unlike the Briton he cannot, without great
difficulty, be induced to stand unflinchingly in a minority, much
less to stand alone. This is no doubt partly to be ascribed to
the general operation of the party and demagogic system which
teaches men to surrender their souls to party tyranny and to
shake like aspen leaves at the breath of anything which they
take for prevailing opinion. But it is also in part to be ascribed,
if I mistake not, to the absence of all that is bracing, ennob-
ling and elevating in the political influences which are bound
up with the name of nation.
COMMERCIAL UNION IN ITS AMERICAN
ASPECT,
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK " INDEPENDENT," JAN. 24, 1888.
The Editor of The Independent has done me the honour to de-
sire that I will explain to his readers the movement in Canada
in favour of Commercial Union with the United States, respect-
244 Handbook of Commercial Union.
ing which he says some of them are very imperfectly informed.
The fact is, that most Americans, and even most American
statesmen, are very imperfectly informed about Canadian ques-
tions generally, and about Canada herself. When Canadians
betray fear of American deaignu against their independence, 1
tell them that in twenty years of intercourse with Americans,
1 have hardly ever heard the desire of annexing Canada ex-
pressed, while of annexing her by force I have never heard a
whisper ; and that if they knew the truth they might be more
mortified by the indifference of their neighbour than alarmed by
his tendency to aggression. Yet Canada is an important part
of this continent and will have her share of influence for good
or evil on its destinies ; of this we had an inkling at the time of
the Civil War. For my part, I am an Englishman, true at
heart, I trust, to the land of my birth, and zealous for her
honour and her greatness. But I desire to see the British aris-
tocracy fairly out of this continent, because I think that its at-
tempt to rule and meddle here, if continued, will some day work
evil to all parties concerned. There is another thing in Canada
to which American eyes are not yet turned, but to which some
day they will be turned perforce. The schism in the Anglo-
Saxon race produced by your Revolution, entailed the loss of
that which the arms of the united race had won in the struggle
of England and her Colonies against France. The portion of
the race in Canada being isolated, its assimilating forces have
proved too weak to digest New France, which has grown up
into a separate French nationality, now daily becoming more
intense, and, from the extraordinary rate at which its popu-
lation multiplies, is rapidly extending its borders so that it
threatens to overflow your North-eastern States, and aspires to a
division of the continent. The remnants of the English-speak-
ing population are being fast eliminated from the Province of
Quebec. This growth will have its consequences in time, per-
haps something like the consequences which the growth of
Irishry has had in the United Kingdom. It is, I venture to
think, a very bad part of your perennial contest for the Presi-
dency that it confines the interest and narrows the mind of
your people to the cockpit in which that battle is fought, and
renders them blind or indifferent to anything beyond, even to
that which is going on upon their own continent and concerns
them most nearly. Nay, you seem in danger of falling into a
Commercial Union in its American AnpecL 245
sort of legislative paralysis, every question being suspended till
after the Presidential election, the influence of which is always
extending itself further back over the Presidential term.
" Commercial Union," " Unrestricted Keciprocity," " Con-
tinental Free Trade," are three different names for the same or
nearly the same thing. For my own part I preferred " Conti-
nental Free trade," but this was discarded because it seemed to
threaten Protectionists with the adoption of Free Trade as a
general principle. " Unrestricted Reciprocity " as a watchword
was somewhat cumbrous. Thus we slid into " Commercial
Union," which is perliaps more accurate in this respect that it
includes community of Fisheries and of the coasting trade,
which forms part of the scheme.
We had once a restricted reciprocity to which an end was
put, partly by the impression of the people of the United States
that it was not fair to them, partly and principally by the ill-
feeling which arose between Canada, as a dependency of Great
Britain, and the United States at the time of your Civil War.
What is now proposed is complete reciprocity of trade in all
articles, whether natural or manufactured, so that the Customs
Line between the two nations shall be abolished, unrestricted
freedom both of selling and buying shall be the law of the whole
continent, and from end to end of it the flow of capital and the
march of commercial enterprise shall have perfectly free course.
This Northern continent would then, though politically divid-
ed, i)e economically one, as Nature means it to be. We should
practically have g6t back to the footing on which the wisest of
British statesmen, such as Shelburne and Pitt, wished to place
the relations between the two divisions of the Anglo-Saxon
race, after their political separation, and which was that of an
amicable division of the great Anglo-Saxon heritage. The Fish-
eries dispute, in common with all other commercial questions
between the two countries, would at the same time be settled
in what appears the only permanent and satisfactory way.
This is the essence of the plan. But free trade between the
United States and Canada involves an assimilatiom of their
tariffs on the seaboard because otherwise the country the im-
ports duties of which were lowest would become a back-door
for smuggling into the other country. It happens that through
the raising of Canadian duties simultaneously with the reduc-
tion of your debt ul e tariffs are spontaneously approaching each
246 Handbook of Commercial Union. >
other. Some system of pooling the Customs revenue and di-
viding it in fair proportions might else be a necessary part of
the machinery for carrying out the arrangement. There are
proposals for letting the Customs Houses stand and having re-
course to a system of transmission in bond or of affidavits as to
the nationality of goods. Into these I need not go. Free trade
between two adjoining nations, if they are so minded, is an ob-
ject so manifestly practicable in itself that statesmanship may
be trusted to settle the details. An assimilation of Excise as
well as of Customs would be necessary for the same reason
which renders necessary the assimilation of Customs.
A glance at the map, the economical, not the political map, of
this continent suffices to put the case before us. Here are four
blocks of territory which make up the Dominion* — the Maritime
Provinces, Old Canada, French and English, the newly opened
region of the Northwest, and British Columbia — separated from
each other by great spaces of desert or by barriors such as Lake
Superior or the Rocky Mountains. With each other they have
hardly any natural trade, though the attempt is made to create
a forced trade among them by means of a protective tariff which
compels the settler in the Northwest to resort to markets a
thousand miles off for his farm implements and some of the
necessaries of life. But they have all natural products — min-
erals, lumber, fish, or special kinds of farm produce — which they
want to send to the market of the continent. From that mar-
ket they are shut out by the tariff wall between them and the
United States. Each of them is in the plighf in which a single
State of the Union would be if it were severed commercially by
a fiscal barrier from the rest. The inevitable effects, which
everybody notices on crossing the line, are undeveloped resour-
ces and commercial retardation. Canada needs liberty of buy-
ing in the America^i market as well as of selling in it. There
are many articles which the wealthier and more scientific coun-
try only can produce or can produce best and which the less
wealthy or less scientific country must be content for the pre-
sent, at least, to purchase. The attempt to force Canada to
divert her labour and capital from the development of those
natural resources which are real wealth to manufactures, and
to make her provide all manufactured articles^ even the finest
c, *
See Map.
Commercial Union in its Ame nca7i Aspect 247
machinery, for herself by means oi' Protection, hsis borne the
fruits which the Protective syste/n applied to a small area
and a narrow market, was sure to b.^ar, whatever may be its re-
sults when it is applied to a vast area with an immense range of
production, such as the territory of tl.e United States. A bad
system of production is engendered, the manufacturer being
compelled by the sroallness of the market to produce a number
of articles, instead of producing a few on i\ large scale. Articles
are lowered in quality, while spasmodic ovor-production is fol-
lowed by desperate endeavours to keep up tiie price of goodis by
combinations against the public. The head of our largest dry-
goods establishment in Toronto avowed that the capital which
had been recently drawn by Protection into manufactures, would
not, in a free market, be worth more than thirty- three per cent,
of its face value ; whence it followed that the interest on sixty-
seven per cent, was being paid, in eflFect, by taxation of the com-
munity. On the settler in the Northwest, who, as I have said,
is prevented from buying his farm implements and some of the
necessaries of life in the nearest and best market, the tariff
presses with cruel force. This, with the restriction on the free
construction of railways imposed in the interest of the Anti-
Continental and Separatist policy, has manifestly retarded pro-
gress in the Northwest
Looking at the matter from the American side, we see Ameri-
can capital and enterprise debarred by the tariff wall from
opening up the rich natural resources of the northern part of
the continent The wealth of Canada in minerals of different
kinds is almost fabulous ; but this wealth lies dormant, and the
golden treasure-house of Nature remains locked through the
exclusion of your capital and enterprise, as well as from want
of a free market for the ores and of liberty to import the ma-
chinery which Canada cannot Tnale for herself. At the same
time your manufacturers are debarred from a market which is
already of no small importance, and might become very large
and rich if the natural resources of Canada were developed and
their development were followed by a proportionate increase in
her wealth and population. It is naturally by the people of
your border states that this is most felt ; the commercial com-
munity of Detroit especially feels that it is cribbed and confined
by the Customs Line ; but what affects one part of a nation
affects it as a whole, and the entire population of the United
248 Handbook of Commercial Union. '•
States has an interest in the free extension of A.merican enter-
prise northward, and in the admission of American products to
the northern market Scotland had not anything like the na-
tural wealth of Canada ; yet commercial union with her brought
to England a large increase of commercial activity and wealth
as well as of political power ; and the result would in this re-
spect have been the same had the union been merely commer-
cial. '■ J*'' '^i' .'-^^ • •■'? ;^ *v^' '■'\'i 'i* ■• ■-' '*<■ -v^
Suppose the continent were politically undivided, who would
not deem it insanity to buiM up a commercial harrier between
its Central and Northern portions, so as to cut otf Central and
Southern enterprise from the development of Northern resour-
ces, and Northern resources from Central or Southern markets ?
But the political division makes no difference in the economical
relations. Why should we perpetuate to our mutual injury a
state of things which is perfectly irrational, and which had its
origin in political accidents as little beneficent as any in the
hateful record of enmity between nations ?
The Canadian tariff has been avowedly framed on the princi-
ple of retaliation ; or, as its framer said, of resortinp; to recipro-
city of tariff, if we were refused reciprocity of trade. Its ulti-
mate object, if its framers are to be b3lieved, was reciprocity of
trade. It embodies a standing offer of reciprocity in natural
products, on the principle of the Old Treaty, to which our peo-
ple still look back with wistful eyes. But your people naturally
enough refuse a one-sided, or to use Sir John Macdonald's own
phrase, a " jug-handled " reciprocity. They reasonably demand
an equivalent for their admission of Canadian products, in the
shape of a free market for their manufactures. Unrestricted
reciprocity, in short, is the only attainable kind of reciprocity
as well as much the best.
Mr. Butterworth's action in Congress has met with a signal
response here. Almost without any formal organization a move-
ment in favour of Commercial Union has been set on foot and is
daily gaining strength. Out of some forty-five meetings of the
Farmers' Institutes of Ontario, called for the discussion of the
question, forty-two have declared in fa' our of Commercial Union.
All the natural industries of the couu cry— those of the farmer,
the lumberman, the miner, and the fisherman — are necessarily
on the same side. On the other side are only such of our pro-
tected manufacturers as feel that they cannot hold their ground
Commercial Union in its American Asj^ect. 249
without protection, the Tory Covernmetit which has called the
protected mR,nufacturerB into existence as a body of political
adherents, and the party by which the Tory Government is
supported and which does not desire extension of intercourse
with the American Kepublic. I need hardly say that to those
who feel as J. do on these subjects, the tendency of a com-
mercial policy to hasten the moral reunion of the Knglish-
speaking race constitutes an attraction not less than its material
advantage.
Commercial argument against continental free trade there is
absolutely none, saving the danger with which some of our
weaker manufacturers would be threatened by free competition,
while the stronger would only '^ave to accommodate their sys-
tem of production to the circumstances of the larger market.
There is nothing but vague propaecy of woe and ruin which
one Jeremiah has carried to the pitch of predicting that after
Commercial Union the country will relapse into a jungle,
amidst which the Canadian farmer will look for his homestead
in vain — a flight of vaticination equal to that of Lord Bel-
haven, the great opponent in the Scottish Parliament of the
union of Scotland with England, who foretold that, if the union
took place, a Scotchman would be prevented from dying of
hunger only by lack of money to pay for his burial.
The chief reliance of the opposition is on the cry of dis-
loyalty, combined with "the bugbear of Annexation." It
would be disloyal, we are told, to enter into any arrangement
which would involve a discrimination against Great Britain in
favour of a foreign nation. Mr. Chamberlain, the British
Plenipotentiary, it may be observed in passing, refused the
other day in his speech at Toronto to call the people of the
United States a foreign nation. However, the discrimination
would not be ngainst Great Britain, who would neither lose a
cent of revenue nor surrender any authority bayond what she
has already surrendered by permitting the Colonies to regulate
their own tariffs and lay protective duties on British goods.
It would only be against a small class of British producers,
whose interest is entitled to no preference over that of the
Canadian subjects of the Queen. Far be it from me to dis-
parage political sentiment or to say that commercial considera-
tions are not to be sacrificed to it. But surely it is a singular
loyalty which lays protective duties on British goods in its own
250 Handbook of Commercial Union.
interest and flames up into indignant protest only when it is
itself to be exposed to American competition. Ask a Cana-
dian manufacturer to admit free the goods of the land to which
he is 80 devoted, and the limit of his devotion will at once
appear. There is besides these commercial loyalists in Canada
tt small set of people who exalt themselves in their own esti-
mation by perpetually railing against Yankees and trying to
nurse the rapidly dying embers of the old feud between the
two portions of our race. But the reconciling influences are
too strong for them. There can be no serious doubt that
Canada, when the question is fairly put before her, as it
probably will be at the next general election, will declare for
Commercial Union. Nor is there reason to anticipate any
serious difficulty on the side of England. When^ the question
having been formally raised in the case ot the colony of Victo-
ria, the Colonies were permitted to lay protective duties on
British goods, commercial autonomy was virtually conceded to
them in full measure, and it cannot be restricted now. Can-
ada must be allowed to do what is best for herself commer-
cially as a community of this continent. This the English
people will see, and, as they have over six hundred millions
of dollars invested here in various ways, their interests in
Canada as investors at least equal their interests as importers.
As to the bulk of the British people, in whose hands politi-
cal power now is, they care nothing about any question on
this side of the waior, and could never be induced to interfere.
The threat of a veto was uttered, I suspect, by Mr. Chamber-
lain in haste, and when the time comes will, like previous
threats of the same kind, be tacitly withdrawn.
COMMERCIAL UNION WITH CANADA.
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
[From the New York Times.]
The Committee appointed by the Chamber of Commerce of
the State of New York to consider the matter of Commercial
Union between this country and the Dominion of Canada has
received the following letter from Professor Gold win Smith : —
Co7ib7nercicU Union with Caiaida, 201
Dear Siii, — In reply to your letter of the Hth inst, let rao
assure you that I consider it a great honour to be invited to ex-
press my views on the subject of a Commercial Union between
Canada and the United States to a committee of tho (yhain-
her of Commerce of the State of New York. The advantaj^os
of continenital free trade to Canada are too manifest to reiiuire
demonstration. In her soil, her forests, her waters, and her
mines, she has natural products far in excess of her own wants
which seek access to the continental markets. She has also a
fund of labour of the l>est quality which the development of
these resources would employ. She would at the same time
greatly benefit by the free imiK)rtation of those manufactured
articles which she cannot produce for herself, or which can be
better or more cheaply produced in the wealthier and more
scientific country.
To the United States, Commercial Union would bring the full
enjoyment cf all the natural wealth of Canada, which Ameri-
can capital Mould develop, as well as an extended market for
American manufactures. That Canada at present, with her re-
sources imperfectly developed, is not so rich as the United
States forms no reason for believing that the union with her
would not be profitable. Scotland at the time of her union
with England was a comparatively poor country, yet the
union proved highly profitable to both parties.
It is impossible to look at the map of this country without
seeing that the exclusion of the Canadian Provinces, geogmphi-
cally identified with it as they severally are, from its commer-
cial pale, is a struggle against nature and a renunciation of the
benefits which she proffers to the continent as an economical
whole, Each of the four blocks of Canadian territory — in the
Maritime Provinces — old Canada, comprising Ontario and Que-
bec, the newly-opened region of the North- West and British
Columbia* — is inseparably connected by commercial bonds with
the States of the Union adjoining it to the south, while those
States reciprocally have in it their natural complement and
partner.
By Commercial Union the Fisheries question would be settled,
and it is difficult to see how it can be settled satisfactorily and
permanently in any other way. It is hoped also that a part
* See map.
252 Handbook of Gommercud Union.
of th(^ arrangement would be 8uch an extension of th*^ Extradi-
tion Treaty as would relieve the continont from the u. *)ntive
iurnished to commercial dishoneHty by the exintence of iin a8y-
lum for fugitives from justice on each side of the line.
The movement in favourof Commercial Union among theCan*
atlian people has been perfectly spontaneous. Their thoughts hav-
ing been turned by the b'isheries dispute and some other cir-
cumstances to their commercial relations with their neighbours,
the conviction that unrestrained reciprocity is their true interest
has impressed itself upon their minds, and has been spreading
rapidly without the aid of organized agitation or wirepulling of
any kind. Out of thirty Farmers' Institutes in the Province,
twenty-eight have declared, and as a rule unanimously, in favour
of Commercial Union, one only bein<<^' adverse, and one being still
in suspense. Our Commercial Union Club m this city has just
been formed in response to repeated solicitations, and to sup-
ply a manifest need. Those connected with the great natural
industries of the country — the farmers, the miners, the lumber-
men, and the fishermen — seem to be almost unanimous in favour
of the scheme.
The commercial opposition appears to consist of those among
our manufacturers who think they have reason to fear Ameri-
can competition, the banks which have advanced them capital,
and a certain number of wholesale houses. The manufacturers,
being better organised and more political than those who are
connected with the natural industries, the opposition appears
more powerful than it really is, and its aspect is rendered yet
more imposing by its concentration in the great cities. Both
our leading journals advocate Commercial Union. That the
boon of free trade with our own continent, if fairly offered to
the Canadian people, would be accepted, there can, I think, be
no serious doubt.
The difficulty and the danger of miscarriage arise in this, as
in similar cases, chiefly from the entanglement of a commer-
cial question vitally affecting the material interests of the en-
tire people with questions of party politics, to which it has no
relation, and with the struggles of political leaders for power
and place. Were it possible to submit the subject, divested of
party influences, to a convention composed of commercial re-
presentatives of each State of the Union, and of each of the
Commercial Union with Canada. 253
Provinces of Canadii, with instructions to frame a plan for sub-
mission to the Legislatures, there would bo more hope of a result
in accordance with the real interests and wishes of commerce
and industry on both sides of the line.
I am, dear sir, very truly yours,
; GounviN Smith.
ToKONio, Nov. 5, 1887.
.,>V:4''.'.V ''
■V. ';■!;"■' 'Vtf.'j ^V,' ,'.■
.'■..
"^^).'%.y.i\ , ..-'»
• "*■ ,v
.' ' ..' >■
' > .
■••■<■'
■v-Vi. .r
■ ■■r..
l» ..!; .
ri ■
■ /■i''^'
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON
RECIPROCITY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
' . IJY MR. WM. MULOOK, M.P. FOR NORTH YORK.
' =;r [/)c/tvere(i Apil 6th, 18S8.] *
I do not propose, considering the length to which this debate
has been protracted, to prolong it to any great extent. At the
same time, considering the importance of the question, I am
not prepared to give a silent vote. The subject is one which,
I believe, demands from the First Minister of the Crown an
expression of opinion on the floor of Parliament. Had the cir-
cumstances permitted, I think we should have had an expres-
sion of opinion from the hon. the Finance Minister, but when
he was unable, through ciixamstances beyond his control, to
give the House and the country the benefit of his views upon
this question, it was more than ever incumbent on his seniors
in the Cabinet to have placed their views upon record. They
have not seen fit to do so. But three members of the Cabinet,
at different stages of the debate, ventured to commit them-
selves. The last Minister of the Cabinet who spoke, the Sec-
retary of State, made a most extraordinary statement, one that
does not commend itself, at all events, to my mind. He took
the position that, no matter what the facts were, no matter
what the statistics established, no matter what the arguments
proved, no matter what interests wore involved, they all count-
ed for nothing if the sentiment of the country was with him.
What he had in view was the votes of the people, and not the
interests of the people, and he delivered what he considered an
infallible judgment at once, when he said : the people are not
with you on this occasion. Where, he asked, are the petition-
ers 1 Where are the expressions of opinion for or against the
proposition? He got one of his answers to-day, when Prince
Edward County spoke.
Could there be a better evidence of the will of the j>eople
than the verdict rendered at the polls, and should the debate
ontinu B a few days longer, another would be given in the per-
Reciprocity with the United States. 255
son of the representative of Missisquoi, who was recently elect- *
ed on this very issue in a constituency that a few months ago
gave at the polls a Conservative majority, and which today
rendered a verdict in favour of this proposition by some hun-
dreds of a majority.
We had another election the other day in L'Assoniption,
which had been carried by a Liberal, at the general election, by
a majority of twenty-one. I am told that this trade question
was the leading issue in that contest, and that it turned entirely
upon it, and the result was that the people of that county,
by 400 or 500 per cent over the previous majority, returned a
member in favour of the proposition which is now before the
House. Surely, in face of these facts, the Secretary of State
need not assert that there is no evidence before the House of
the feeling of the country on this matter. We had lately the
benefit of the opinion of the Minister of the Interior on this
question. What argument did he advance against the propo-
sition 1 He admitted the right of Canada to do what it is pro-^
{>osed to da He admitted that it might be to the interest of
Canada to do what this Resolution proposes shall be done, but
he took the ground that we should not be mean enough to leg-,
islate in a way that might not conserve the interests of Eng-
land. Then we had the l)euefit of the opinion of the Minister
of Marine and Fisheries, and what was his argument against
this proposition 1 His argument was that there was no such
thing as a natural market, that markets could be made by the
expenditure of money and of energy, and that no natural mar-
kets were to be found on the earth, that markets were artificial
creations, and he pointed to the United States, and said that,
even if we did get free trade with the United States, they were*
producers of the very things that we would produce, and there-
fore we would find no market there. , It is too late for one to
indulge in mere opinion, but I will trouble the Minister of Ma-
rine and Fisheries with some brief statistics, which I think will
convince him, or which ought to convince him, that trade does
find a natural level, in spite of many obstructions, artificial and
natural. If you take the trade of Canada for 1887, you find
that over 40 per cent of our whole trade was with our neigh-
bour, the United States. We sold last year to the United
States over $37,000,000 worth of the products of Canada, not-
withstanding the obstructions in the way of that trade by rea-
256 Handbook of Commerciiil Union,
son of the high tariff existing in the United States. Had that
tariff not prevailed, I think we may fairly assume that our trade
with the United States would have been vastly more during
the past year than it was. If you look at the trade which Can-
ada has done with the whole world during the past year, you
will find that, with all the efforts we have been putting out,
having established connections with all parts of the civilized
world, we have only been able to sell $7,000,000 worth of
the products of Canada to all the nations of the earth with
the exception of the United States and Great Britain. We
sold last year to the United States five times as much in value
of our products as we sold to all other countries in the world,
Great Biitain alone excepted. Does not that teach us a lesson 1
Can we not draw inferences from those facts ] Will any phil-
osophy enable us to say in a sensible, truthful way, that trade
does not assert itself on geographical lines, and follow as nearly
as possible the natural directions indicated ? If not, how comes
it that all nations confine so much of their trade to their near
neighbours ? I think there can be but one deduction drawn
from it, and that is, that if we do not interpose obstacles, trade
does naturally seek the nearest market. In Canada what is
the nearest market ? We sell, first of all, to ourselves, — we
have our domestic trade. The vast bulk of the trade of this
country is at home amongst the people, and the surplus, follow-
ing the principle of selling in the nearest market, if it is the
best, finds the nearest market, which is always the best, and
that, in our own case, is the market of the United States. Now,
my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says there
is no natural market in the United States for anything that we
have. He says that the United States are producers of the
very articles that Canada produces, and therefore it is idle to
seek to obtain access to the United States market ; it is bring-
ing coals to Newcastle ; that is tu ) burden of his argument. I
have looked through the list of imports in the United States in
the past year and what do they disclose 1 I may not have
made out a complete list of all products of Canada which have
been imported into the United States ; if not my argument is
so much the weaker ; but I find that the United States last year
received from foreign countries $61,711,024 worth of products,
every one of which could have been produced in the Dominion
of Canada. On those products the United States customs
Reciprocity v/ith the United States. 257
houses collected $19,318,181. These articles are as follows :
Animals, barley, bituminous coal, copper ore, fish, hemp, furs,
liay, hops, iron ore, pig iron, lead, leather of various kinds,
spirits, cheese, salt, potatoes, lumber, wooden ware and wool.
All these articles are producible by the people of Canada, and
all of them were purchased by the United States last year to
the extent of over $60,000,000, in spite of the tariff' imposed.
Can any hon. gentleman say now that there is no possible mar-
ket in the United States for what the people of Canada can
^ produce 1 Sir, to say so is to trifle with the facts. The vol-
' ume of trade under these circumstances would, I think, be
vastly in^veased were we to have free access to the markets of
the United States. My hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr.
White) touched very lightly upon the effect of the Reciprocity
Treaty. If we examine the imports and exports of the old
Provinces of Canada during the continuance of the Reciprocity
Treaty, they will tell us whether a high tariff" is a hindrance to
trade or not. In the year 1854, we sold to the people of
the United States $2,162,250 worth of products; in the suc-
ceeding year, our products entered the United States free and
the amount of exports immediately jumped up to the sum of
$4,184,319, or very nearly double the amount of the preced-
ing year. I may say in this connection that as our exports
to the United States in succeeding years went up, those of
' England went down. What did that prove 1 It proved that
for our surplus products, in the year 1854, when there was
a duty upon them going into the United States, we had to
seek a comparatively unprofitable market in Great Britain,
but in the succeeding years, when they went into the U nited
States duty free, we sold in the best market, of the United
States. During the continuance of that treaty the volume of
our exports to the United States increased by leaps and bounds,
so that in the year 1866, when the treaty was repealed, we
exported to the United States the enormous sum of $34,770,-
261 of the products of the old Provinces of Canada. Now, I
would call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries to this point. In the year 1866, the last year of recipro-
city, the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia, exported to the United States
products to the value of $40,127,266. That year the Ameri-
can people imposed a high duty upon our products and the
J
268 Handbook oj Commercial Union.
effect since then has been that in the year 1887, the last year
for which we have complete returns, we only exported to the
United States 37 million odd ; in other words, whereas 22
years a^o these four Provinces, under free trade with the
United States, sent to them over 40 million dollars worth of
Canadian products, to-day, although we have become more
powerful, although our population has considerably increased,
our trade has fallen off with the United States to the extent of
nearly three millions of dollars. So I think that so far as
natural products are concerned, there is no possible argument
against the proposition, that if we remove the barriers imposed
by the Custom houses, our trade with the United States in natural
products would vastly increase. But it is said by the friends
of the manufacturers that this policy would destroy our own
r^anufactures. I would deplore such a result with any man.
I do not desire to see any industry in Canada sacrificed, I
desire to see what is best for the whole of Canada adopted by
Parliament and by the country, and being of that wish, and
believing, as I do, that evidence is producible to show that our
manufacturers would not suffer, I am firmly of the opinion
that we will not endanger our manufactures by enabling them
to obtain access to the United States markets, even by giving
access in Canada to the ftianufactures of the United States.
At this hour I will simply ask hon. gentlemen to apply the
lesson that is furnished by the growth of the southern States,
and ask whether Canada, if admitted to the markets of the
United States, would not be able to have such a record
after a reasonable period of time. Is there anything in
Canada, is there anything in the Canadian people to war-
rant us in saying that they cannot accomplish what the
people of the Southern States have accomplished, given the
same conditions 9 Are our people less energetic, are they less
capable ? Those hon. gentlemen who say so declare want of
confidence in the people of Canada. They do not mean it.
They are afraid of the competition. They are afraid of mak-
ing an honest trial. They are afraid to give up what they call
a certainty for what may, to their minds, prove an uncertainty ;
but in the light of facts and in the light of history, which
should teach us and from which we should learn, I cannot see
how 1^ Canada can fail in any arena in which the American
Reciprocity with the United Staief^. 25.^
people have succeeded. Why, the hon. member for Centre
Toronto the other night furnished U8 with a little argument
upon this point. He said in his glowing language that he knew
something of the Southern States, that he came from them, or had
something to do with them. He stated that within the last
eight months there had been invested in industries there over
$100,000,000. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the conditions of the
Southern States are such that, having che whole of the market
of the United States, they put their capital of $100,000,000 in
eight months to build up industries, why would he not apply
the same reasoning to what would follow in Canada if we had
access to that great market 1
Mr. Speaker, we are talking business. We mean business,
and the people of Canada want business, and the people oiF
the United States wanted business, and when they invested
$100,000,000 during the last eight months it was for business.
It was because they saw there was a market in the United
States for what they would produce, and because they expect-
ed a return, that they invested that capital. Whether we are
under one flag or a dozen flags it does not make any difference
in the amount of money we are making, if we can get the
customers under the same conditions, Mr. Speaker, the Minis-
ter of the Interior argued in favour of the loyalty cry. That
is a favourite trick in order to take the attention of the
public away from the issue involved. If this proposition is
sound on business principles it is sound in its entirety. If this
proposition can be defended as one likely to produce com-
fort, to supply wants, to make the value of labour more than
it is, that ib loyal ; and that is a proposition which ought to be
commended to the people. But I am willing to take the hon.
gentleman at his own words. I am willing to test him by the
record of his friends to see whether they really are sincere
when they try to cause this loyalty cry to be rp'sed in order to
prevent the people from debating this proposition, or whether
the cry is merely raised as a device in order to humbug the
country.
Now, in 1854, hon. gentlemen, or some at least in this House,
will remember that in the old Legislative Assembly of the
Provincos of Canada this very question came up, and although
no final decision was arrived at, yet on the 26th May, 1854, a
260 Handbook of Commercial Union,
resolution was adopted by the Coramittee of the House at that
time in the following words : —
** That the principle of reciprocity witn the United States be extended to
the production of m»nufai;tnre«, and to the registration of Canadian and
United States built nhipR, and to the shipping and coasting trade iix the
same manner as to the production of agriculture."
That resolution, so far as I have been able to discover, and I
speak subject to correction, was not opposed by any member of
the Conservative party. It was reported to the House, but I
do not find that it made any further progress. But looking at
the members who constituted the committee that reported upon
it, I find that they represent pretty fairly the Conservative
element of that day. The chairman of the committee was a
gentleman who I believe had at the time no very decided poli-
tical views — the Hon.W. Hamilton Merritt I do not know that
he had any particular political views. At all events that resolu-
tion was then offered to the House and no protest was raised
against the principle involved in it. It was not then declared
to the country that it was disloyal. The Conservative party
did not then declare it was disloyal. They were not nearly so
loyal then as they are now, and it was not very long before that
they were taking a very different view of the whole political
relations of Canada. It was only about five years before that a
number of their leading lights declared that the only salvation
for Canada was political annexation to the United States. I
do not know that the Conservative party ever treated with any
great cruelty some of the prominent men that took part in that
movement. I believe that one of them has recently been pro-
moted to a high position in the Cabinet of the hon. gentleman
opposite. In fact they have all at times come in for favours,
sometimes from the Government, and in manv cases from Her
Majesty, by being decorated in testimony of their extreme
loyalty and worthy citizenship. At the particular time this
resolution was brought in some members of the Conservative
party then in the country were not as they are to-day so sensi-
tive upon this question. They were prepared at all events to
discuss any question involving the best interests of the country
Mr. Speaker, in 1878 the Conservative party proposed wha
they called their National Policy and we have several time
had the resolution proposed at that time brought before the at
tention of the House. That resolution told the people of Can-
Reciprocity with tJie United States. 261
ada that this National Policy that they were proposing was
simply the means to an end, and that end was to be what we
are seeking to day, reciprocity. Not only did they tell us that,
hut they emphasised it in their resolution, in order that there
should be no possible difterence of opinion on the question.
That policy the resolution says, after referring to some other
things :
" Would encourage and develop an active inter-provincial tra<le and
moving (a* it ought to do) in the direction of reciprocity of tariff with our
neighbours, so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, will great-
ly tend to procure for this country eventually a reciprocity of trade."
What does *• eventually " mean 1 Does it mean a time so re-
mote as is indicated by the member for North Simcoe when he
proposes eventually to benefit the farmers of Canada by his
Imperial Federation scheme, and when he succeeds in induc-
ing English statesman to tax breadstuffs so as to raise the price
of wheat from seventy-five cents to one dollar for the Canadian
farm.br. That is the relief proposed by the member for North
Simcoe. Is that " eventually " ? Did the First Minister
mean when he put the word in the resolution that it was to be
at a remote period, or did he mean that that word was to be
accepted in the ordinary sense of plain language in which it
was expressed, that *' eventually " meant just as soon as such
a treaty could be obtained. That was the view presented to
the people on the hustings, that is the proper reading of this
article and that is the right view to take of the aim of the hon.
gentleman at that time. I am reminded by my hon. friend
from Wentworth that the present Finance Minister asserted
that this National Policy would produce this highly desirable
result of reciprocity within three years, so that " eventually "
has really expired now. Well, Mr. Speaker, the First Minister
was not nearly so loyal then as he is now. He was very much
concerned at that time about putting money into the pockets
of the people, and British connection had not much to do with
it. Whatever enriched the people of Canada was the first law
unto him at that time ; and so, when he came to move his
resolution in 1878 he was prepared to throw overboard Great
Britain. In the course of his speech in support of his National
Policy, after depicting all the benefits that would flow from it,
he said :
262 Handbook of Co7P,mercial Union.
** We nhall then ^row up rapidly a ^'ood, Hteady and mature trade between
the ProvinceH, renderiuK um independent of foreign trade, and not, an New
BrunHwick and Nova Scotia formerly did, look to the United States or to
Kn^land for trade, but look to Ontario and Quebec."
He was prepared then, for the sake of the Canadian people, if
necessary, to shut out the whole trade of England, and I pre-
sume he felt that he was doing his duty. The dootrine he laid
down then bore fruit, becaase he was followed shortly after
in the debate by a supporter of his, the Hon. Mr. Masson, who
gave his view of what the duty of Canadians was under such cir-
cumstances. He said :
" He might tell the hon. gentleman that the Conservativea of Lower C/an
ada were as loyal to Entfland as they always had bpen, but he would add the
words of Lafontaine : 'Mais avant tout soyonH Canadiens '—[' But before
all let us be Canadians.'] This was Ijafontaine's doctrin<), and they followed
it. The Imperial Crovernment in its relations and connections with the
colonies had never been exempt from those rather selfish motives, if such
motives could be so called, by which the mother country wished to aggran-
dise herself at the expense of the colonieb ; the whole colonial system was
based upon this principle, that the moth.^r country took these colonies so as
to have from them raw material for her own manufactures. That was the
object of every central government in every country in the world with respect
to their colonies, and if England claimed a right at times to be selfish in its
desires with regard to this colony, they would not go so far in that course,
but defend the rights of Canada. The Imperial Government having given
us the right of self-government had also conferred upon us the right to regu-
late our fiscal duties as we wished." The Conservatives of Lower Canada
did not wish to act against the interests of England, but they had the right,
if they wished, to regulate the duties, irrespective of England, if it were
Canada's interest to ofo so."
I am not aware that the hon. gentleman who used these words
lost standing with the Conservative party by reason of them.
On the contrary, I believe he was duly rewarded at a later period
with high honours at the hands of the Administration. I am
not aware that i he First Minister either has suffered by reason
of his assertion that he believed in Canada for the Canadians
against England, even if it injured British connection. I do
not believe Her Majesty entertained any ill-will towards him
on that account, because a few months afterwards he was decor-
ated. Therefore utterances of that kind do not appear to be
regarded as disloyal by Her Majesty herself. Again, the doc-
trine that Canada's interest must be considered first was echoed
by another hon. gentleman supporting; the Government, the
present member for Richmond and Wolfe, who, in the course
of his speech, on the 26th March, 1879, said :
Reciprocity with the United States. :J63
" There WM nothing we could do which woulu he more likely to brinij
about a renewal of reciprocity, than taking a ntand upon a tariff which
might be carried out in the interests of the ('ana4lian i)eople."
Another supporter of the Government, Mr. Houde, laid down
this proposition : ,
*• Let every CJovemment legislate the best in the interest of its own people
and for the welfare of its own |)eople. That was the surest way of promot-
ing human progress or general prosperity.''
The then member for Centre Wellington, Dr. Orton, expressed
himself as follows : —
" He had always thought the inauguration of a National Policy in Can-
ada shoXild be merely a means to an end, and that end the obtaining of favour-
able commercial relations with other countries. He hoped in a short time
we would be in a position to compete favourably even with our more formid-
able neighbour across the border, and they would see it to their interests to
give us fair trade relations and open up their ports to us in return for our ad-
mitting their products on favourable terms."
This National Policy he regarded as a means to an end, the goa^
aimed at being what we are seeking for to-day. Another sup-
porter of the Administration, Mr. J. S. Koss, of Dundas, ex-
pressed himself as follows : —
" If England chose to open her markets to all peoples and treat us no bet-
ter than others we had to do the best we could for ourselves, consequently
Canada must adopt such a fiscal policy as commended itself to their own
judgment and which was in the interests of their own people. Unless they
did this they must fail to accomplish what waa expected of them as a free
and progressive people."
I understand that that hon. gentleman, after expressing this
view, received a position of emolument from the Conservative
Administration. Then, I am obliged to refer to the utterances
on that occasion of the present Speaker, who was prepared to
advance the interests of Canada even against those of England.
He is reported in Hansard as having used these words :
" It had been stated in a threatening way that England would not ap-
prove of a tariff that seemed contrary to her interests, but where was the
Englishman that could seriously refuse to Canada the right of legislating in
her own interests ? "
Further on he says :
" When responsible government hatl been gn^nted to Canada by the Bri-
tish North America Act, had i»he not been conceded the right to frame her
tariff as she saw fit ? Canada had the right of governing herself, and if this
right was now refused to her, she would be well able to demand it,"
264 Handbook o/ Comvierciat Union,
Then, speaking of the vote he was about to cast in favour of
the National Policy, which was to lead to reciprocity, he said :
" It would \w a vote given in favour of the constitutional and commercial
libui'ty of Canada. It would hv a vote that would aMHurt the existence of
('anada iw a nation diutinct not only from KukIiuuI, Wut the United States, n
Hon. gentlemen, I have no doubt, are quite familiar with the
memorandum directed by Sir Alexander Gait, then Mr. Gait,
to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, setting forth what
ought to be the true attitude of Canada in regard to its fiscal af-
fairs. 1 could, if time permitted, give numerous extracts from
speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, all taking the ground that
in matters of trade the Parliament of Canada had first to con-
sider the interests of the people of Canada. I say that not only
do the people of Canada demand that position from us, but the
sentiment of England is in harmony with the sentiments I have
(pioted. The hon. gentleman who formerly represented the con-
stituency which I have the honour to represent, a keen ob-
server — I refer to Dr. Strange — spoke in this House on this
question. He is an Enr;lishmau, and an able and talented gen-
tleman. He expressed himself on this question in a way, I
t!.lnk, that did not meet with the disapproval of his constitu-
ents in North York. On the contrary, I believe that many of
bis old supporters again desire him to represent their riding.
They bore no malice to him for having uttered on the floor of
Parliament the words which I am about to quote, taken from
Ucmaardy 2l8t March, 1879. He addresses this House as an
Englishman. He was a Canadian by adoption, but an English-
man in spirit. As far as he was able to ascertain the spirit of
the English people, they were anxious and willing that Cana-
dian interests should be first considered by the Canadian peo-
ple. He spoke as follows : —
"He addressed this House as an Englishman. He waB •; Canadian by
adoption, but an Englishman in spirit. As far as he was able to ascertain
the spirit of the English people, they were anxious :\nd willing to see this
vast colony of which they were justly proud succeed even if we had in our
own interests to i)ut a «>top to purchaning our goods from England. No Eng-
lish Government would venture ti» prevent the adoption of this tariff on the
ground of its injuring England. The English people, without exception,
took great interest in our success, and with the exception of a few manufac-
turers would bid lis God-speed on the royal road to wealth."
That is the sentiment of an Englishman expressing what he
conceived to be the opinion of England with regard to the
Reciprocity with the United States. 265
aft'airH of Canada. What <li(l t!'e Uight Hon. .John liright re-
cently tell us at a banquet given to Mr. Chamberlain 1 I do
not endorse all that Mr. Bright aaid that night, but I wish to
show that he took strong ground in favour of Canada being
entitled to arrange her own tariff as she pleased, and to conduct
her own affairs in her own interest without regard to the com-
merce of the mother country. He went on to express a senti-
ment I do not endorse, but hon. gentlemen opposite can hardly
repudiate John Bright as a true friend of the Empire at present,
in view of the attitude which he has taken on certain political
questions in England, which attitude, no doubt, commends itself
to the favour of the Conservative party both in England and
Canada. We have a . ery distinguished Englishman in Can-
ada, Mr. Goldwin Smith, whose name has been referred to in
this assembly during this debate, and not in the most courte-
ous manner. The time was when what he said was accepted
with favour by tho Conservative party. He is a loyal citi?5en
to England. I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite cannot con-
trovert that. We all know his record, we all know the part
he thought it his duty to take to preserve the Empire some
few months ago, and we know thut he to-day is a loyal British
subject, anxious to see the welfare of England promoted. Do
they denounce him as a traitor to England ?
I give as another reason why we are not obliged, in making
trade relations with the United States, to consider first the in-
terests of England, the fact that England does not act in this
way with regard to the colonies. There are trade treaties be-
tween England and other great nations, giving benefits to Eng-
land from which the colonies are excluded. There are now
treaties between England and China, and Japan, and Siam, and
France, and Spain, and the Netherlands, and the United States,
which are not applicable to the colonies. If England, in the
exercise of her constitutional rights, considering the highest in-
terests of her people, arranges, as I conceive she has the right
to do, her own Customs treaties for her own benefit and not for
that of the people of Canada, a corresponding right exists with
us. Does not the Confederation Act, under which we are here
to-night, say that the constitution of the people of Canada shall
be the same in principle as the constitution of the people of
England ? Our constitution is based on the principles of the
English constitution, and unless the loyal gentlemen opposite
266 Handbook of Commercial Union,
cun provo thai England Ih not loj'al to us in h(*r conduct with
regard to commercial treaties, they cannot say that Canada
would be Rctin^ disloyally if, first of all, we consider our own
interests in i\ny particular trade relations we may enter into.
We have further evidence to prove this contention. There is
uncontrovertible evidence, having the sanction of the British
Parliament, that the duty of Canada ib to arrange her trade
treaties in her own interests and without considering the inter-
ests of England. How will I prove that proposition ? When
the right hon. the First Minister, who is smiling now, caused
the Customs Act of 1879 to be introduced, it was, before it be-
came law, communicated to the Imperial Government. It was
a tariff considered highly detrimental to the interests of the
English manufacturers, who rose up in arms against it, protest-
ing that Canada was raising a tariff to exclude English goods,
and was not, therefore, loyal to England. They asked there-
fore, that the Act be disallowed by the Im[>erial authorities.
John Bright brought the matter before Parliament on the 20th
of March, 1879, and put this question to the Colonial Secretary
on the floor of the House :
"Incase of any proposal to enact differential duties on the part of Can-
ada, would the Bill be Hubmitted to the ( i ovemment before it was adopted ?"
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, then Secretary for the Coloniec, re-
plies .
** The beat answer I can pfive to it is to read the telegram I sent to Can-
ada, which received the sanction of the Government. It was in these
terms :
" ' They deemed the fiscal policy of Canaila rested, subject to treaty obli-
gations, with the Dominion Parliament.' "
The Dominion Parliament was recognized on the floor of the
Imperial Parliament as being entitled to impose differential
duties if necessary, without it being considered right or proper
or constitutional for the Government of England to disallow
that Act. What further evidence is there ] Hon. gentlemen
all know that every colonial governor, when entering upon the
duties of his office, receives certain instructions. The time was
when all the instructions to colonial governors of all English
colonies contained the instruction forbidding the governor to
sanction the imposition of differential duties, and that instruc-
tion is still to be found in the instructions to every colonial
lieciprocUy ivitk the United Slates, :io7
governor with the exception of the Governor-General of Cana-
d& In 1878, for the first time, that inatruction was eliminated
from the instructions given to the Governor- General of Canada.
Thus you see that the Crown recognized the fact that Canada,
occupying a peculiar geographical position on the earth, cannot
have her trade a flairs regulated in the same way as other col-
onies of Great Britain, which are more or less insular or peculi*
arly situated ; so the Government of England recognized fully
that Canada, l)y reason of her imf)ortance, by reason of her
position, and by reason of her constitution, cannot be trammel-
led and ought not to be trammelled in the interests of the peo-
ple of Canada, or for that matter in the interests of the Kmpire,
even if, for her own sake, she should impose differential duties.
On that point, I cannot offer to the House, I think, any better
evidence of the feeling of the people of Great Britain at the
present time than an extract from the work of the late Mr.
Todd, who was a keen observer of current events, on ** Parlia-
mentary Government in the British Colonies " At page 181,
he summarises the position of Canada in regard to her trade
rights, in these words :
" But, on account of the growing importance of Canada, an ^ell before an
since Confederation, exceptional privileges have been conceded to her, from
time to time, in respect to fiHcal and commercial matters wherein the in-
_ terests of Canada were concerned, with freedom to a<lopt whatever policj'
might be approved by the Tiocal LegiHlature, irrespective of the opinions or
policy of the Imperial Parliament. "
Such is the inference drawn by Mr. Todd from the current op-
inion and the authorities in Great Britain. I think I have
established that the hon. gentlemen opposite at one time took a
different view of this question ; I think I have established that
England does not wish Canada to injure herself even in the in-
i terests of the mother country, and though hon. gentlemen op-
posite have been practically asserting that English regard for
Canada simply depends upon the extent of Canadian accounts
in British ledgers, I do not think that our people will be so
childish as to consider the bu&ineos interests of people across
the Atlantic to the prejudice of their own domestic interests.
There is a good reason why England desires us to be on friendly
terms with the United Stat^3s. The United States are the
largest customers of Great Britain. More than one-third, nearly
a half, of the volume of trade of Great Britain is with the
208 Handbook of Commercial Union.
United States. Last year, the volume of trade between Great
Britain and the United States amounted to between $500,000,-
000 and $600,000,000, and England desires that we should be
on good terms with the United States, so that there may be no
disturbance of her interests in that connection. If it is placed
ujwn that ground, we are promoting the best interests of the
people of Great Britain by maintaining friendly intercourse
with the United States, so that there may be no interference
with the flow of trade between those countries. I shall not
delay the House longer on this subject. We are loyal to the
people of Canada if we vote on this question with a view to
their benefit, on a proposition which is calculated to find a
natural market for our products, to stimulate the manufactures
of this country, to encourage labour and to make Canada attrac-
tive to the population and to the wealth of older lands, that
will be a trade policy that will operate equitably throughout the
whole length and breadth of the Dominion, that will enable us
to solidify this Dominion, and to extend and carry out the very
principle which established this Dominion, the extension of our
trade markets. As inter-provincial trade was held but as an
inducement to the Provinces to come together and form a con-
federacy and thereby to have the domestic trade of four mil-
lions of people, that principle must be equally good if you give
them the trade of sixty millions of people. Therefore, if it was
right to 'bind us together by the scheme of Confederation for
the purpose uf establishing inter-provincial trade — and I be-
lieve it was — it is still better to extend this principle and to
obtain ultimately entire free trade throughout this great Ameri-
can continent. Therefore, I have great pleasure in recording
my vote and giving my voice in favour of this principle, believ-
ing as I do that it will be to the advantage of Canada and will
place our relations with England on a sure and firm foundation,
and that we will be bound to England by a feeling of love and
regard, not by a feeling that we have to pay for, not one wrung
from the people by a system of indirect taxation, but by a har-
monious union between colony and empire free from all dis-
turbing causes.
\;'.'
THE EFFECT OF RECIPROCITY WITH THE UNI-
' TED STATES ON THE LUMBER TRADE.
r BY MR. A- H. CAMPBELL, TORONTO.
At the ordinary fortnightly meeting held last night (Feb. 8th)
of the Commercial Union Club of Toronto, Professor Goldwin
Smith presiding, the subject of " the effect of Reciprocity on
the Lumber Trade of Canada" was discussed. Much interest
was given to the proceedings owing to the presence of a large
number of lumbermen, who were in the city attending the
annual meeting of the Ontario Lumbermen's Association, some
of whom took part in the interesting discussion.
Mr. A H. Campbell was the first speaker. In introducing
Mr. Campbell to the meeting the Chairman said he observed a
number of gentlemen present from outside Toronto who were
not members of the club. He would take the opportunity of
assuring them that, notwithstanding what they might see in
party journals to the contrary, this was no party movement
The club addressed itself to what it believed to be for the inter-
ests of the whole community. Its members belonged to both
political parties : Mr. Campbell, who was to address them, was
a Conservative.
Mr. Campbell then spoke. He said that when the present
agitation for unrestricted reciprocity with the United States
commenced, the benefits which would accrue to the lumber
trade were so great and so manifest, that he feared his judg-
ment might be warped by selfish considerations, and that what
might be good for him personally might be detrimental to the
interests of the country at large. A fuller consideration of the
circumstances and of the various interests and industries which
would be affected convinced him, however, that all the impor-
tant interests, including farming, mining, stock-raising, with
the fishing and carrying trade of Canada, would equally share
in the benefits of a free market with a people havmg a popu-
lation of sixty millions, and consequently that this movement,
he felt, was in the general interests of the whole country.
270 Handbook of Commercial Union.
Amongst the most important of our industries was that of
lumber. From the lofty tree growing in the distant forest
to the finished board manufactured for the varied uses of
commerce, it employed the labour of a large number of men
and horses, and provided the means of living to many families
in the country. He had not the statistics for the export trade
from Canada' to the United States for 1887, but in 1885 it
valued $9,355,736; in 1886, $8,545,506, and taking the value
tor 1887 to be not less than that for 1886, they would have a
sum of money far exceeding $26,000,000 in three years. Of
that sum about $5,289,308 was paid into the United States
treasury in duties, and very nearly the whole of that money
would be saved to this country had there been unrestricted
reciprocity. Another way in which lumbermen would benefit
by Commercial Union was that they could export dressed in-
stead of rough lumber, and by the difference in weight re-
duce the freight. When the reciprocity treaty existed they
had good trade with the States. The year 1866 was perhaps
the most prosperous year lumbermen ever experienced in
Canada. Since the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty he paid
over $350,000 for duty on exported lumber, and he was not a
very large operator. The great want in this country now was
a market. What made the National Policy a national failure
was the want of a market. Under the National Policy instead
of chimney stacks marking the country the mills were reducing
labour or wages. High protection ever meant over-production,
and over-production meant failures, ruin and distress. Com-
mercial Union, or, as he preferred to call it, reciprocity, meant
the opening of a market for our products. " Canada for the
Canadians" was a great cry at one time, but it seemed to him
to have ended as they might have expected, viz., Canadians
were living upon each other. Why did England colonize but
to find a market. Why were France, Germany, etc., so anxious
to get colonies but in order to have an outlet for their goods.
Commercial Union would give them the large market which
they needed. Not only would lumbermen be benefited ; the
good effect would reach almost all classes of manufacturers and
the farmers. American capital would flow into the country
and the country would prosper. What made Maine such a
large manufacturing country but that they had a market of
60,000,000 people. He believed our manufacturers were as good
business men and more economical than those on the other side
Reciprocity arid the Lumber Trade. 271
of the boundary line. Speaking generally, he was of opinion
that about 800,000,000 feet of lumber were cut in Ontario
yearly, and only one- third of that quantity was used in Canada.
Mr. Gordon Waldron abked whether a larger market and the
investment of more capital would not have the effect of deplet-
ing our forests too rapidly 1
Mr. Campbell, in reply, said the greater the demand the
more valuable would lumber become, and consequently the
greater would be the care to preserve it from fires and destruc-
tion. The cry that the country would be denuded of timber
was a fallacy. Young trees were always growing, and thinning
the forests would facilitate the growth of trees.
Mr. James Pearson pointed out that the increase in the value
of lumber, consequent on Coiimercial Union, would increase
the selling value of the limits, and thereby increase the public
revenue derived from sales of timber limits.
Mr. Geo. Kerr, Jr., suggested that the Government should
begin at once to plant large areas of land with young trees.
Mr. Thomas Conlon, of Welland, said the inland marine was
for the past few years fast disappearing from the lakes. This
was a very serious matter, and one reason for it was found in
the fact that vessels trading with American ports had often to
return without a cargo. Boats took lumber from the Georgian
Bay to Chicago, and because of the interpretation put on the
American coasting laws they could not load with wheat from
Chicago to Boston via Colling wood because both Chicago and
Boston were American ports. Canadian vessels were not al-
lowed to trade between American ports. There were minerals,
copper, granite and marble, which would be developed. Com-
mercial Union was of vital importance to the marine interests
as well as to the lumbering interests.
Capt. Wm. Hall, a large vessel -owner, and one of the Vice-
Presidents of the Commercial Union Club, endorsed what had
fallen from the previous speaker, and gave an interesting account
of his own experience and observations in connection with the
inland marine trade of Canada. He keenly regretted the cir-
cumstances which had long depressed the shipping trade of the
country and the disabilities under which owners of vessels en-
gaged in the coasting trade found themselves in consequence of
the restrictionist policy pursued by the government He
closed by warmly endorsing the Commercial Union movement
and predicting its ultimate triumph. — (Mail Report.)
I
SOME ASPECTS OF THE COMMERCIAL UNION
QUESTION.
BY EDWARD FARRER, "'
*'^ BY EDWARD FARRER, ,./,- ' r^
Editor " r/ie r(wm/<; #tti7."
[The following articles are from The Toronto Mail, and bear on
some important points of the Commercial Union question as thzy
arose in the proqress of the controversy^ ., , r»
I.
OUR NATURAL MARKET.
In a speech delivered at Buffalo the other day, Mr. Hurd, of
Ohio, a distingniBhed advocate of commercial freedom, stated
that whereas ten years ago the annual value of the trade be-
tween the United States and the Sandwich Islands was only
$800,000, it is now, thanks to a reciprocity treaty, $14,000,000.
The islanders, though not far removed from a state of barbarism,
have prospered ; and it is needless to sav the treaty has bene-
fited the United States.
Free trade between Canada and the United States would un-
doubtedly produce similar results. At present nearly half our
foreign trade is done with our neighbours. The figures for last
year stand as follows : Canadian trade with Britain $89,000,-
000; Canadian trade with the United States $82,000,000 ; and
this despite the fac t that Britain admits our products free, while
there is a double, row of Custom houses between us and the
American market. It is probably safe to say that our trade
with the States is in reality larger than our trade with Britain.
A considerable quantity of goods is smuggled into Canada from
the States, and m exporting their products thither Canadian
shippers almost invariably understate the value. On the other
hand, there is no illicit trade with Britain, nor is there any
object to be served by undervaluation, since she does not levy
, Our Natural Market. 273
duties upon our exports. The trade returns during the period
of the Elgin Treaty show that Canadian trade with the States
quadrupled in twelve years. Yet since 1866, the population of
the States has doubled, and we have incorporated a vast ex-
panse of new territory, and sunk an enormous sura in attempt-
ing to develop it. Even with the American tariff against us,
the American market is our best market for barley, sheep,
poultry and eggs, vegetables, hides, coal, salt, fish, gypsum,
stone and marble, wool, hay, peas, potatoes, flax and lumber ;
that is to say, we send the bulk of our exports of those articles
to that market, although they have to pay a toll equivalent to
42 per cent, ad valorem all round. Imperial Federationists must
admit that, evsn if the British people, carrying the altruistic
principle to an unheard of length, should determine for our
sake to tax their food and other raw materials, thereby dimin-
ishing by just 80 much their ability to manufacture cheap
goods, we should be in no better position to develop our na-
tural resources than we are now. India and Burmah could beat
us in wheat, Australia in wool, while it would be like sending
owls to Athens for us to ship coal, iron ore or salt to England.
Nature has made Canada part and parcel of the American con-
tinent, and, as the facts just cited conclusively show, our true
market lies on^this side of the ocean.
Many well-informed persons are of opinion that the Americpn
market is destined to become more and more essential to us.
In these older provinces wheat is no longer the staple crop. Our
farmers cannot grow it as cheaply as the prairie farmers can,
still less can they compete in price with the wheat from semi-
tropical regions in Asia and South America. The dairy and
cattle interest is therefore becoming the mainstay of the Onta-
rio farmer, but the question is how long he is to be permitted
to secure remunerative prices in the British market. For the
English farmer is also being driven out of wheat-raising into
dairying. Creamery associations and cheese factories have been
established ; a Margarine bill has been adopted to prevent the
sale of imitation butter as butter; and, as a writer in the Quar-
terly Review says, English pastures and English cows are as good
as those of . .y country in the world, and food-stuffs are cheaper
than in an^ protectionist country. A general levellingup of
the quality of butter is reported, even in Ireland; while far
larger quantities are produced and the industry promises to
274 Handbook of Commercial Union.
attain immense proportions. The improvement in English
cheese-making is less marked. In Scotland Canadian experts
are employed to teach the farmers the Canadian system. The
revolution in the production of wheat has likewise stirred up
the farmers of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Switzer-
land and Belgium, who are devoting great attention to the sci-
entific manufacture of butter and cheese. The State has taken
the matter in hand in most of those countries. Thus, Sweden,
besides establishing Government dairy schools, has appointed a
dairy instructor in every county, who is constantly travelling
about to instruct farmers and their servants in all that pertains
to the industry. It is tolerably clear, therefore, that the Cana-
dian farmer is not to have everything his own way in the
British market, as regards the supply of dairy products. The
exportation of cattle to England has not been profitable for
some time past. In fact, last year of 116,000 cattle and 443,-
000 sheep exported from Canada, we sent 363,000 sheep and
45,000 cattle to the United States. English authorities believe
that the Argentine Republic will shortly become the main
source of the cattle supply. The Government of that country
pays liberal bounties on exportation of live cattle and meat —
the bounty in the case of live cattle is three dollars per head —
and the natural conditions existing there are extremely favour-
able to the successful prosecution of the industry, although last
year the herds suffered from drought.
Such, in brief compass, is the case of those who believe that
the American market is to be our principal market in the near
future ; and, considering that, even with two tariff walls be-
tween us, our trade with them is only nine per cent, less than
our trade with the Mother Country, the anticipation promises
to be fulfilled to the letter. Since 1878, our trade with Britain
has been diminishing, while our trade with the Americans has
been almost as rapidly increasing. The ill-success of the devices
employed by our Government and by that of the United States
to ban commercial intercourse between neighbouring peoples
only serves to mark the folly and impotence of man when he
essays to reconstruct the natural order of things.
UnreatHded Trade. '275
UNRESTRICTKD THADK.
A Guelph correspondent writes : " If unrestricted trade be
such a good thing, how does it happen that Ontario has made
greater progress in regard to population than any State in the
Union 1 We have not had as large an area of unrestricted trade
as they have had, yet we have beaten them." Our correspond-
ent is mistaken respecting the relative growth of population.
In 1791, Upper Canada had a population of 65,000 ; in 1821,
a population of 123,000 ; in 1830, a population of 210,000, and
80 on ; the population in 1881, when the last Census was taken,
having been 1,900,000. Several States have grown more rapid-
ly. For instance, Illinois, which had a })opulation of 55,000
in 1820, had a population of 3,100,000 in 1880. In 1810
Indiana had a population of 24,500, while in 1880, the popula-
tion was 1,980,000. Iowa had only 43,000 inhabitants in 1840,
while in 1880 it had 1,000,000. Kansas had only 107,000 in
1860. In 1880 it had a million. Missouri had a population
of 60,000 in 1820. In 1880 the population numbered 2,160,-
000. Ohio had a population of 45,000 in 1800, and one of
3,200,000 in 1880. Minnesota has made remarkable progress.
In 1850 there were only 6,000 persons there, while by 1880
the population had risen to 780,000, and in 1887 it was esti-
mated at 1,130,000. Texas had 212,000 inhabitants in 1850 ;
in 1880, 1,600,000 ; in 1887, 2,040,000 (estimated). Wiscon-
sin, California, Mississippi and other States have also done well.
We have no data at hand for instituting a comparison as regards
wealth. But here is a striking fact, brought out by Mr. Wl-
MAN in his speech before the Montreal Board of Trade the other
day — that in 1860 the wealth of the United States was esti-
mated at sixteen thousand millions, of which the war destroy-
ed nearly one- half ; neverthebsss, in 1887, the wealth amount-
ed to sixty thousand millions. Had any of the States above
named been cut off from the rest by a tariff wall, it is safe to
say they would have suffered from such isolation. If our cor-
respondent really believes tliat the way to produce wealth and
promote settlement is to restrict trade, we are sorry for him.
276 Handbook of Gomryiercial Union.
III.
, . FALLACIES.
Almost all the speakers on the restrictionist side in the dis-
cussion now going on in Parliaaient, have assumed that res-
triction iH " loyal," and hence that unrestricted trade would be
the reverse. They keep out of sight the fact that the N. P.
and the iron duties were both adopted in spite of earnest pro-
tests from British manufacturers and workmen ; that as a
direct consequence of that policy British trade with Canada is
declining, whilst American trade with us is rapidly growing ;
and that the duties we levy fall more heavily upon British
than upon American goods. Thus, while we have imported
since 1882 American goods of the value of $244,000,000, as
against British goods of the value of only $222,000,000, the
aggregate amount collected in the form of customs duties has
been $36,300,000 from the American and $42,050,000 from the
British goods.
The restrictionist speakers further take it for granted that
they are authorized to speak for Canadian industry. But, as a
matter of fact, many of the principal manufacturers |and em-
ployers of labour favour unrestricted trade with our neighbours
and complain that the existing iiscal system is injurious to them.
Amongst these may be named Messrs. Waterous, Plewes
and WiSNER, of Branoford ; Baymond and Armstrong, of
Guelph ; Todd, Turnbull and Hay, of Gait ; Norris, K. H.
Smith, McSloy, Yates, Mitchell and Towers, of St.
Catharines ; Hope, Copp, Beckett and Carlton, of Hamil-
ton ; Campbell and Leonard, of London ; Coleman, of Sea-
forth ; Ransb'ORD, of Clinton ; Clare, ot Preston ; Brown
and Erb, Nelson and Forsyth, Williams and Greene, of
Berlin ; Massey, of Toronto ; McMullen, of Picton ; FoL-
GER, Mucklestone, Harty and Breck, of Kingston ; Cos-
siiT and Mann, of Brockville ; Cowan and Skinner, of
Gananoque ; Haslett, of Peterboro', and many others. The
farmers, the lumbermen, the fishermen, the miners and the ves-
sel owners count for something, yet the restrictionists treat
them as though they had no right to a voice in the determina-
tion of our fiscal policy.
>'^ Canadian IndvAitry. » 277
Both these bold assumptions were placed in the forefront yes-
terday by Mr. McNkill, who in addition, declared that Com-
mercial Union would " degrade "us. Mr. McNeill does not
perceive that our present condition might fairly be described
as a degraded one. We are poor, but with vast natural wealth
lying useless at our feet for want of a market. We are a young
community, yet, in proportion to population, the immigration
from our shores is as large every year as that from any Old
World country where overcro v\ ding, militarism and other acute
evils press upon the people and drive them forth. Lastly, un-
der the existing fiscal system, we are taught to prefer the inter-
ests of the few to the welfare of the many ; and led to believe
that we are so wholly lacking in intelligence and self-reliance
as to be unfit to meet the Americans in the field of industrial
and commercial enterprise.
IV.
CANADIAN INDUSTKY.
I
The assertion so frequently made by the Restrictionist press
that free trade with the States would be " a blow at Canadian
industry " pre-supposes that every industry in the country
dreads American competition, and could not live without the
shelter provided by a high tariff. This assumption is, of course,
wholly unwarranted. Manufacturers like Waterous, Raymond,
Norris, Armstrong, Maasey and others of the first rank, declare
that American competition has no terrors for them ; on the con-
trary, they would hail free trade with the Americans as afford-
ing them a vastly larger market for their output and relief from
the taxes imposed for the purpose of bolstering up the mere
exotics. The varied forms of labour by which our natural re-
sources are transformed into actual or potential wealth, e.^.,
agriculture, lumbering, fishing and mining, occupy a similar
position. The high tariff is a positive injury to them, inasmuch
as it increases the cost of production and restricts their freedom
of exchange. It will be found, in short, that the industries
which desire free trade with our neighbours are those which
contribute far beyond all the rest to the creation of national
wealth. The best measure of the usefulness of an industry to
278 Handbook of Commercial Union.
the community is supplied by the export tables rather than by
the bald statistics of home production ; for the simplo reason
that the latter in many case6 represent goods which have been
manufactured at a loss either to producer or consumer, where-
as, speaking roughly, every dollar's worth we sell to the foreigner
brings us a greater or less amount of profit. The following
table gives the exports of the different industries last year and
in 1878, as classitied in the Trade and Navigation returns, and
shows conclusively which class is making the most money for
us as a people :
1878. 1887.
Mines $3,044,000 $3,806,000
Fiaheries 5,874,000 6,876,000
Forest 23,010,000 20,484,000
Animals and products 14,220,000 24,24^3,000
Agriculture 14,G89,000 18,820,000
Natural products $61,437,000 $74,230,000
Manufactures $ 4,106,000 $ 3,070,000
It will be seen that the exports of the natural industries, which
are all more or less injured by the high tariff, were fifteen times
greater in 1878, and twenty-five times greater in 1887, than
the exports of the manufacturing industries, for whose benefit
the tariff was contrived. And if we could ascertain the export^
of those manufacturing industries which are injured by the re-
strictive policy instead of being benefited by it, the case against
restriction might be made still stronger. It will also be ob-
served that while the exports of natural products have increas-
ed 21 per cent, since 1878, there has been a decline of about
25 per cent, in the exports of manufactures. It may be said
that this decrease is due to the circumstance that Canadian
manufacturers are now supplying the home market and have
therefore less to send abroad. The figures do not give much
countenance to that theory. We imported of dutiable goods
$60,916,000 worth in 1878, and $78,120,000 worth in 1887.
Imports are not classified in the same manner as export*^, but
it appears that nearly all these goods were manufactured goods,
with the exception of tea and sugar. By the way, the quanti-
ty of tea imported was less in 1887 than in 1878, while the
quantity of dutiable sugar was about the same. Admitting
tor the sake of argument, however, that our exports of manu-
Our Mineral Resources. 279
facbured gocxlH are falling off becauso the home manufacturer
has secured a greater control of the home market, i.e., has
more effectually restricted the liberty of the consumer, the fact
remains that this control is directly prejudical alike to the con-
sumer and to the natural industries. But the only point we
seek to make just now it that judged by the best test, the
(•mall protected industries have no sort of right to speak for
Canadian industry at large, or to assert that free trade with
the States would be a blow to it, merely because they them-
selves would suffer.
V.
OUR MINERAL RESOURCES.
Sir Charles Tupper told us when he was imposing the iron
duties that within throe years an industry affording employ-
ment to twenty-five thoucand men would be created. So far,
however, not a single ton of iron ore has been smelted in con-
sequence of the protection afforded by those taxes. The cost
of iron, and of everything into which iron enters, has been
exalted to the Canadian consumer and manufacturer, but that
is all. In working out his equation. Sir Charles forgot to take
into account the smallness of the home market and the impos-
sibility of sending Canadian iron, in the ore or in the metal, to
foreign countries. We cannot get it into the States because of
the American duty, and we cannot ship it anywhere else on
account of British competition.
A committee, with Mr. Hamilton Merritt as chairman, of
the Geological and Mining section of the Canadian Institute,
has prepared an instructive report on our mineral exports. It
is now well known that the Dominion contains rich deposits of
iron, copper, silver, coal, salt, etc. Yet of all British colonies,
we are the most backward in the export of minerals. Com-
paring ourselves with the United States, the total value of
mineral production in Canada in 1886 was $11,500,000, whilst
the total value across the line was $459,000,000. The com-
mittee adds that it is *' emphatically of the opinion that this
great disproportion does not exist in the mineral resources of
the two countries." Then what is the cause of it) The re-
280 Handbook of Commercial Union.
port (loea not ftirninh a direct answer, but it is ouvious that the
compilers had in mind the fact that we l.avo no market for a
large output, and that the only market we can hope for is that
of the United States. Great Britain, which imports largely of
ores and metallurgical products, is not likely to cut off her sup-
ply from abroad hy means of a tax, and give us the benefit of a
preferential tarifil The natural market for our iron, salt and
coal as well as for our lumber and fish is not Europe but our
own continent, from which we are divorced by the xisting
policy. With regard to salt, the whole story has been told in
these columns by Mr. Ranaford, of Clinton, and Mr. Coleman,
of Seaforth. The salt found in Bruce and Huron is a remark-
ably pure article, and would command a ready sale in the
States if unrestricted trade prevailed. As it is, our salt has to
pay a heavy toll on entering the American market, whilst here
at home it is exposed to the competition of English salt, manu-
factured under free trade conditions and carried across the At-
lantic as ballast. If the N.P. were a logical and coherent
structure, British salt would be subjected to a duty, or else the
Canadian salt maker would be relieved of the protective charges
on his coal, iron, leather belting and other things used in pro-
duction. The Government, it appears, is desirous of taxing
British salt with a view of " building up " the home industry,
but political exigencies in the shape of the vote and influence
of the fisherman in the Eastern Provinces prevent Sir Charles
from doing so. The net result is that our salt interests are
being suffocated. In 1886, $23,000 worth of salt was sent to
the States, and in 1887 only $9,400 worth. An Eastern paper
suggests that " men like Mr. Hansford should go in for Im-
perial Federation with a differential duty in favour of Cana-
dian products." But, even if England were to descend to the
folly of injuring her own people for the sake of benefiting us,
Canadian salt would not derive any advantage from it. To
ship Huron salt to Cheshire would be to carry owls to Athens.
As regards coal, it is not denied by the restrictionists that New
England is- the true market for the production of Nova Scotia
and the Pacific States for that of British Columbia, just as
Pennsylvania was evidently designed to be the source of supply
for Central Canada. They admit, in fact, that the coal duties,
Canadian and American, are a violation of the dictates of
nature and common sense. Under unrestricted trade, the
" Our Mineral Resaurces, 281
manufacturers of Ontario would obtain chea|H;r fuel, and the
development of our coal deposits would enrich Nova Hcotia and
British Columbia beyond meaHure. In no other conceivable
way can those deposits be worked to anything like their full
capacity.
The case of Canadian iron tells with et^ual force against
the policy of commercial isolation. In this province there are
rich beds of ore in Madoc, Marmora, Belmont and Seymour,
and also in the region between Lake Superior and the Mani-
toba and Kepwatin boundary. The udmirable work on our
natural resources prepared for the Colonial Exhibition says
great masses of iron ore exist on the coast of British Columbia,
" lying in close proximity to beds of marble or limestone and
to the coal fields of Nanaimo." In Nova Scotia also the
iron lies close to the coal. Nevertheless, as the authority just
referred to observes, " for a country having 1 1,000 miles of
railway, with a weight of over a million tons of rails, and
possessing for the manufacture of iron natural advantages
which few if any y>laces in the world surpass, the deve-
lopment of Canada's iron industry is wonderfully slow." In
reality there is nothing wonderful about it. Capital will not
take the risk of erecting blast furnaces and other costly plant
for the supply of so limited a market. Under unrestricted
trade, our wealth of iron would be utilized to its full extent.
The geographical position of fuel and ore in the United States
is far less convenient than in Canada. Ore from the Lake
Superior mines furnishes one-third of the entire weight of pig
iron made in the States. Those deposits are several hundred
miles 'distant from the coal of Pennsylvania, and the expense of
bringing the two minerals together forms a very considerable
item in the general cost of production. Nevertheless, the vast
area of the American market, with its sixty million consumers,
enables capital to embark successfully in iron production. If
the customs barriers were removed it is reasonable to suppose
that American and Canadian capital together would develop
the Canadian deposits, where all the conditions of cheap produc-
tion co-exist. It is clear that the mere imposition of duties will
avail us nothing. A market for the output is essential to pro-
duction on a large scale ; and the American market is the only
one to which we can look.
282 Handbook of Commercial Union,
It is scarcely necessary tc add that, until we are able to
make use of our natural resources, we must be content not only
to see theia lie dormant and valueless, but to find the labour
which under free trade with our neighbours vould be utilized
in their development, going elsewhere in seijrch of employ-
ment. In other words, so long as we remain isolated from
the continent to which geographically and economically we
belong, so long shall we be debarred from profiting by nature's
kindness to us, and so long also shall we be compelled to con-
tribute Canadian men and women to the growth of the United
States.
VI.
A CRY FROM THE WEST.
Hitherto the people of British Columbia have been content
to bear in silence the mnnifold inconveniences imposed upon
them by our trade policy. The expenditure of ten or twelve
millions on the construction of the Canadian Pacific in that
province, with the large outlays of the Local Government, has
doubtless helped to keep them quiet. But the Canadian Pacific
has now been completed, the provincial treasury is empty, and
there is no immediate prospect of any fresh distribution of
funds. The anaesthetic having spent itself, the patient is once
more becoming alive to his ailments. The case against restriction
is briefly this : It compels the British Columbia settler to buy
his goods in the markets of Eastern Canada, three thousand
miles distant, and to bring them in by a monopoly railroad,
which, traversing a thinly peopled region, charges heavy rates ;
whereas under unrestricted trade he could frequent the neigh-
bouring American markets, to wlKch he has access by sea.
Further, the articles which he exports, e. g., lumber, coal and
fish, cannot be sold to advantage in Eastern Canada. We buy
a few carloads of canned salmon from him, but that is all. The
natural market for his exports is California and Oregon, but
before he can dispose of them there he has to pay a heavy duty.
So that, first, the settler has to sell in one market and buy in
another, thus losing the benefits of exchange ; secondly, the
price of what he has to sell is diminished by the amount of the
A Cry from the West. 283
American tariff ; while, lastly, the price of what he has to buy
is enhanced by our tariff and by the enormous cost of trans-
portation from Ontario and Quebec. The Columbian, of New
Westminster, in its issue of the 28th Feb. , states the matter
thus, with special reference to the coal trade :
" Our best market for coal is in San Francisco. Last year owr coal mines
produced 413,260 tons, of which no less than 324,949 were exported to San
Francisco and other California ports. This export trade is met by a duty,
and the amount of duty falls upon the owners of the mines. But this is
not all. The appliances required in coal mining, and, indeed, in preparing
for market any of our natural products, are made dearer by the tariff. Tt
comes to be a fact therefore that the tariff works both wayH against the
disposal of our natural products. While therefore the tariff was framed
for the piirpose of protecting Canadian manufactures, our Uianufactured
exports have declined more than one quarter ; and the export of natural
products, which the tariff does not protect, has largely increased. The
products of British Columbia available for export are coal, lumber and
fish. Not one of these is protected by the tariff, and in the production of
all of them the tariff imposes burdens which place us at a disadvantage as
compared with the people across the boundary."
The old alchemists used sometimes to attribute the failure
of their experiments to the charms and incantations of envious
rivals. So with us, the Ministerial press accounts for the
chorus of complaint ascending from every province in the Do-
minion by assuming that the people have been misled by the
advocates of Commercial Union. This is anything but com-
plimentary to the intelligence of the people ; moreover, it is
quite untrue. There is a venerable axiom in the dynamics of
human action that general discontent is not the product of mis-
conception or ignorance, but proceeds from some tangible and
definitive cause. Like the British Columbia settler, the Nova
Scotia fisherman and miner are excluded from their natural
market and forced to sell there at a loss equal to the duty and
to buy at home at a still further loss. The people of Prince
Edward Island and New Brunswick labour under a like dis-
advantage. In Ontario and Quebec a somewhat similar state
of things prevails; while in Manitoba, as in British Columbia,
the evils resulting from the double row of Customs houses along
the frontier are aggravated by the presence of railroad mon-
opoly. Under such a system, the proper development of our
natural resources is impossible ; hence the exodus which is
draining us of the best blood in the country ; hence also the
desire for a radical change which finds expression in the com-
plaints just referred to, and in the silent but rapid growth of a
feeling in favour of annexation.
284 Handbook of Commercial Union.
Commercial Unionists believe that their remedy would re-
lieve the strain upon Confederation, and that it is the only
measure at all competent to do so. The Government, however,
is bound to the smaller manufacturers and to the owners of
such monopolies as the sugar refineries ; and wedded to the
policy of bribing each province in turn at the expense of the
rest, which has brought us within sight of national bankruptcy.
, A Ministerial journal tells us that restriction in trade and ex-
travagance in expenditure are actually making us rich, as
though a community could grow rich by pursuing a course
that would infallibly beggar an individual. The evidence of
our growing wealth, we are told, is to be found in the multi-
plic.ition of factories " which could not exist for a month" un-
der free trade with the States. Happily some progress has
, been made by Canadians of late in the study of political econ-
omy, and most of us are aware that in all cases where, by
means of restrictive duties, an industry has been summoned
into existence that would otherwise not have existed, capital
\ and labour have simply been diverted into a channel less pro-
ductive than some others into which they would naturally have
flowed. The presence of these exotics and parasites, which, as
our interviews with leading manufacturers show, hamper and
prey upon the great indigenous industries, proves nothing ex-
cept that the consumer is suffering and that the ability of the
country to buy and sell abroad is being deliberately crippled.
It certainly does not afford much consolation to the intelligent
Canadian, who hears the muttering and rumbling of some great
political upheaval, and knows that no people ever yet escaped
the penalties attaching to the violation of natural law.
VII.
THE APPEAL IN BEHALF OF ENGLAND.
The cry that Britain would be injured by unrestricted trade
with th» States, inasmuch as it would involve discrimination
against British goods, comes with shame and mocking from
those who, in face ot the bitter complaints ot British manufac-
turers and workmen, have slapped well nigh prohibitive duties
on their wares. But there is a large class of persons outside the
The Appeal in behalf of England. 285
Manufacturers' Association who are sincere in advancing this
objection. To them we venture to submit a few facts and
figures, which may perhaps enable them the more readily to
seize Sir Richard Cartwright's meaning when he says that un-
restricted trade would be of substantial advantage to England.
Under the present tariff our trade with England is rapidly
declining, whilst our trade with the States, notwithstanding
the high duties they maintain, is growing. This is demon-
strated by the official returns of our exports and imports to and
from both countries. In 1873 Confederation was completed
by the admission of Prince Edward Island. Dividing the fif-
teen years from 1873 to 1887 inclusive, into three equal periods
of five years each, we find that our aggregate trade, our imports
and exports combined, with Britain and States has varied con-
siderably, but that during the last five years there has been a
well-marked increase in our trade with the States, and a cor-
responding falling-off in our trade with Britain. Here are the
figures :
Aggregate
Aggregate
Quinquennial
Trcfie ivith
Trade
Period.
Britain.
roith U. S.
1873-77 $478,000,000 $415,000,000
1878-82- 424,000,000 377,000,000
1883-87 441,000,000 438,000,000
That is to say, during the first five years our aggregate trade
with England exceeded our aggregate trade with the States by
$63,000,000 ; whereas in the last five years our trade with the
States haa very nearly equalled our trade with England. Trade
with the latter has fallen $36,000,000 since 1873-77, while
trade with the former has increased $23,000,000 since 1873-77,
and no less than $61,000,000 since 1878-82, in spite of the fact
that England admits our product free while the Americans tax
them about 42 per cent, all round. The import returns are
particularly interesting :
Aggreaote
Aggregate
Quinquennial
Imports from
Imports from
Period.
Britain,
U.S.
1873-77 $272,000,000 249,000 000
1878-82 197,000,000 207,000,000
1883-87 222,000,0<X) 244,000,(KK)
286 Handbook of Commercial Union,
So that our purchases from England during the last five years
have been less by just $50,000,000 than our purchases from
her between 1873 and 1877 ; whilst, despite the N. P., our
purchases from the States are practically as large as ever they
were. Our sales or exports to England and the States have run
as follows :
Aggregate
Aggregate
Quinquennial
Exports to
Exports to
Period.
Britain.
U. S.
1873-77 $206,000,000 $166,000,000
]878-82 227,000,000 170,000,000
1883-87 219,000,000 194,000,000
That is, we sold more to England by $13,000,000 during the
last five years than during the five years from 1873 to 1877,
but less by $8,000,000 than during the five years from 1878 to
1882. Our sales to the States, on the contrary, show a steady
and uninterrupted growth. With regard to exports, it is nec-
essary to bear in mind that those to England include the
articles we send her in payment of the interest on her invest-
ments and loans. These payments are constantly growing, for
we are constantly borrowing fresh capital from her. But we
})ay no interest tribute to the Americans ; all our dealings with
them, therefore, represent so much actual exchange. It will be
seen, then, that the decline in our bona fide trade with Britain
since 1878-82 has really been greater th?n is apparent from the
figures, inasmuch as with the increase in our indebtedness to
her we have been compelled to send her additional exports on
interest account. On the other hand, there is good ground for
believing that the official figures do not show the full extent of
our trade with the States. Everybody who lives on the frontier
is aware that cotton goods, wearing apparel, coal oil and other
articles are smuggled from the States into Canada. The returns
of the " underground route " would largely swell the accredited
volume of our purchases from our neighbours. Our sales to
them are also greatly understated. When a Canadian ships
products to England, where they are admitted free, there is no
object in undervaluing them ; but when he sends products into
the States, where they are taxed, he often makes it his business
to get the better of Uncle Sam if he can. A case in point, and
a striking one, is furnished by the trade returns for 1887 in the
article of sheep. In that year we sent 68,545 sheep to Eng-
The Sugar Tax. 2o7
land. The returns give the gross value as $567,433, or $8.30
per head. We sent 363,046 sheep to the States, and the re-
turns give the value as $974,482, or only $2.40 per head. It
is not easy to believe that every sheep we sent to England was
worth three and a half of the sheep we sent to the States.
Now, what Sir Richard says, having regard to these facts,
is, first, that the N. P. is not the " loyal " contrivance it is re-
puted to be ; secondly, that the States is clearly our natural
market ; thirdly, that, as a consequence, our trade with our
neighbours is bound to increase, more especially if they reduce
the tariflf, at the cost of our trade with England. In other
words, whether unrestricted reciprocity between Canada and
the States be established or not, the British exporter is certain
to suffer more and more. But, Sir Richard adds, if we were
allowed to buy and sell from the Americans without molesta-
tion from their custom oflficers and our own, and if, further-
more, we were put in possession of their illimitable market for
our natural wealth, we should be so much the better able to
purchase English goods, while the British investor who has
$600,000,000 at stake in Canada, would participate directly
in our prosperity : and, last of all, the connection with England
would be strengthened by the change for the better in our cir-
cumstances. Here, again, we are inclined to think that Sir
Richard is more loyal, in the sense of displaying a more in-
telligent concern for the welfare of the Mother Country, than
those who, in order to benefit a few "combines," would perpet-
uate a system that is injurious alike to Britain and to Canada.
VIII
THE SUGAR TAX.
A correspondent writes to say that at a recent meeting at
Smithville, near Grimsby, at which Commercial Union was
discussed, one of the speakers in behalf of restriction asserted
that the sugar induatry in Canada furnished employment, di-
rectly or indirectly, to 40,000 persons. It is probably safe to
say that, counting men, women and children, our refiiieries do
not support more than 7,500 persons. But, assuming that
they support 15,000 persons, or 3,000 families, what then ? If
288 Handbook of Commercial Union.
the Smithville speaker who talks of 40,000 will look at the re-
turns he will find that it costs the country a great deal of
money to maintain the refineries. On the average every con-
sumer of sugar pays the refiners a tribute of a cent and an
eighth per pound, quality being taken into account ; but let us
say a cent per pound on an average annual consumption of
200,000,000 pounds. This is $2,000,000 a year. Giving each
of the three thousand breadwinners employed in the industry
$500 a year over and above Clyde wages, there still remains a
round half million for Mr. Drummond. The Smithville debater
was evidently pre-supposing that if the refineries were closed
under unrestricted trade the labour they now employ should be
lost to the community. But this is highly improbable. Under
unrestricted trade we should he able to produce many article-
which could be exchanged for foreign sugu at a far less outlay
to ourselves than that incurred in manufacturing Canadian
sugar under existing conditions. In other words, the labous
now employed at the refineries, which is almost altogether unr
skilled, would find more remunerative work in indigenous in-
dustries ; while the consumer, through effecting a saving on his
sugar, would be in a position to buy a greater quantity of other
commodities, i. e., to create a greater demand for labour. The
Smithville man may retort that this means that we ought not
to manufacture at all. It simply means that we ought not to
manufacture articles which we cannot manufacture profitably.
Then, he may ask, are we to import everything ? The answer
to this is that we could not possibly import everything unless
foreign nations consented to support us in idleness. We must
give value for everything we buy from them, for their sugar
for instance ; and, this being the case, Canadian capital and la-
bour would not suffer in the least by unrestricted trade. We
should merely be turning it to better account. If it ever came
to pass that we could make sugar more cheaply than we could
procure it by obtaining it in exchange for something else, then
we should make it and everybody would be a gainer. At pres-
ent everybody loses except Mr. Drummond.
Our correspondent ought to be cautious about accepting the
random assertions of restrictionists. Even the blue book fig-
ures which they sometimes use to clench their arguments are
not always ingenuous. Mr. Wade, of Winnipeg, drew atten-
tion in these columns the other day to a clear case of hocus-
The.Combines. 289
4
pocus in connection with the North-west industries. The offi-
cial compiler had included amongst the exports from that re-
gion goods retuined to the consignor in the States, together
with large ([uantities of contractors' material, etc., shipped out
by the CauHdian Pacific ; and had included in the number of
industries such rudimentary ones as photograph galleries, dress-
makers' shops and lime-kilns. The object here was to make
Eastern people believe that restriction benefits the North-west,
although it is obvious that it injures the settler by exalting the
cost of producinjL^ wheat, and by preventing him from exchang-
ing his wheat for other articles on the most advantageous
terms.
IX.
THE COMIUNES.
The House of Kepresentatives at Washington is about to
institute an inquiry into trusts and pools. We call them
"combines" here. In the debate on the resolution, the Re-
publicans admitted that combines were wholly indefensible.
A few extreme protectionists contended that there were mon-
opolies in articles which are not protected; but it was easily
shown that the articles named were articles which cannot be
imported, and of which nature or circumstances have given a
few individuals a monopoly. There is a monopoly, for example,
in Congress water, which comes from a certain spring at Sara-
toga. But that is no sort of justification for a combine in sugar
or steel. When a side is driven to the expedient of defending
one wrong by citing the existence of another, it stands self-
condemned. It is not at all likely that the Dominion Parlia-
ment will follow the example of Congress by ordering an in-
vestigation into combine methods in Canada. The protected
interests, once omnipotent at Washington, are not fighting for
very Hfe there, tariff reform being inevitable in the near future.
In our case, however, those interests are stronger than the
Government. Yet it is obvious that if combines are an evil
in the United States they are an evil here. To maintain prices
by conspiracy was once an offence punishable by law ; and, ex-
cept in the subsidized press, we have not met anyone bold
enough to defend the system.
K
290 Handbook of Commercial Union.
The argument put forward by the subsidied journals is that
the prices of manufactured goods are lower to day than they
were in 1878, before the tariff was established ; hence the N.
P. has not increased prices ; ergo, the combines do not injure
the consumer. This is merely a sophistical jumble. Manu-
facturers* ])ricos have fallen here, not in conseijuence of our
Ml'., but because of the general fall in values all over the
world. But it the Canadian prices current to-day are compared
with the current prices in other countries, it will be found that
the former are higher than they would be if competition, home
and foreign, were allowed. In other words, the N. P. and the
combines together deprive the Canadian consumer of the full
extent of the prevailing cheapness. And this is a great in-
justice to him inasmuch as the products of our natural indus-
tries, i.e., the fruits of his labour and capital as a producer, re-
ceive no protection, but, on the contrary, have to be sold in a
free market subject to that cheapness. Wheat, for instance,
has been steadily declining in value since 1877. The Econ-
omist of January 14 gives the average price in England per
quarter of eight bushels since then as follows :
S. D.
1877
56.9
1878
, 46.5
1879
43.10
1880
44.4
1881....
45.4
1882
. . . . 45. 1
1883
41.7
1884
35.8
1885
32.10
1886
31.0
1887
32.6
American statistics enable us to see how this remarkable fall
has affected the value of the yield per acre on this side of the
Atlantic. Thus (Statistical Abstract, U.S., 1886, No. 9) the
average value of the yield per acre of wheat throughout the
United States in 1877 was |15.02, whereas in 1885 it was
only $8.05. As the price in 1887 was fully as low as in 1885,
we shall be justified in saying that $8.05 represents the value
last year, although allowance should be made for the effects of
T/(te Combines. 291
the drought. Similarly, according to the Hanie authority, the
average value of the oats yield per acre in 1877 was $9,25,
while in ISSf) it was only $7.88. Barley, buckwheat, rye, [n-
dian corn, hnv, potatoes, «5tc., have all .suir«!r»Ml in a gr.ati-r or
less degree from the universal depreciation. Beef and dairy
produce held up until 1884, when they too succumbed ; and
cheese has been low since 1871). In short, the agricultural
interest in Canada and the States is experiencing to the full
the effect of the shrinkage in the value of its own products ;
but, as has been said, it is not permitted, owing to high tariffs
and combines, to receive the whole benefit of the compensation
afforded by the fall in manufactured articles ; which is surely
unfair.
The combine is the old trade monopoly revived and writ
large. When Mr. Drummond, of Montreal, and the other re-
finers in Canada enter into an agreement with one another and
with the wholesale and retail grocers to keep up the price of
sugar, while the consumer is virtually prohibited by the tariff
from importing the foreign article, the public is sweated as
effectually as though Parliament had by law given those men
the exclusive privilege of making and selling sugar. The sys-
tem is both an unjust and a short-sighted one, for no com-
munity will long tolerate such a state of things. What defence
can any N. P. advocate put forward, say, before an audience of
farmers ? The latter were assured that prices in the home
market should be tempered by competition ; but the existence
of the combines is proof positive that the covenant has been
broken. A New Brunswick manufacturer is reported as say-
ing that the farmers voted for the N. P. under the intpression
that they were about to obtain some sort of a monopoly in
breadstuffs; and that they deserve no sympathy now that the
tables have been turned upon them. There is a good deal of
truth in this cynical statement uf the case. Everybody, the
farmer included, imagined he was going to get the best of his
neighbour ; in other words, individual and class selfishness was
to some extent the prDpolling motive at the pDlls in 1878. The
farmer now finds himself in the position of La Fontaine's fish.
The fish thought to improve their condition by forming an al-
liance with the cormorant, who promised to protect them from
the man who occasionally netted the pond. But the protection
was of a delusive nature, forthe cormorant simply lifted them
292 Handbook of Commercial Union.
out of the water, deposited them on the dry land, and then
devoured them at his leisure. Admitting that the farmer has
brought the combines upon himself by his own deliberate act,
it does not at all follow that combines are justifiable, still less
that he will continue to support the policy which renders them
possible. On the contrary, we are convinced that the combines
are discrediting the N. P. in public estimation, just as in the
United States the trusts and pools are increasing the strength
of the tariff reform movement.
X.
REIGN OF GUEKD.
In a recent article on the struggle for existence, Professor
Huxley speaks of a fine old Scottish family motto which reads,
" Thou shalt starve ere I want." This would be a not in-
appropriate blazon for the handful of men engaged in exotic and
therefore highly protected industries in this country. They
have succeeded, through their influence with the Government,
in transforming the tariff, originally designed to protect the
Canadian manufacturer against American '' slaughtering," into
ati engine of far-reaching oppression. The fate of the natural
industries appears to be a matter of complete indifference to
them. The farmer in this province, who is the chief consumer,
was never in worse case then at present ; but, instead of seek-
ing to afford him some relief, the Government, at the instance
of these persons, is constantly devising fresh burdens for him,
although the exodus figures show that the point where taxation
becomes intolerable has nearly been reached. The lumbermen
are also complaining, while the salt men protest that they are
being literally ruined. The duties imposed for the purpose of
bolstering the exotics also tell heavily upon such indigenous in-
dustries as those captained by Waterous, Raymond, Massey,
Norris, Plewes, and Armstrong, of Gnelph. The new iron
duties, for example, are tantamount to a forced levy of $30,-
000 a year on Mr. Massey's firm ; that is, the advance in the
price of their raw material caused by the increase in those
duties is equivalent to that sum. Under ordinary circumstances
Mr, Massey, and other manufacturers similarly circumstanced,
Reign of Oreed. 2J>3
would no doubt cliargo the exaltod price of thu raw material to
the finished article, and thereby f<hift the load from their own
backs to the back of the unfortunate farmer. The home market,
however, is quite bedevilled. The prospect of large gains held
out by the tariff has attracted a great deal of capital into the
implement industry, and the struggle for custom is so keen
that only a portion of the exalted price can bo saddled upon the
consumer. Hence, as Mr. Massey says, " unless something is
done for manufacturers in our line many will have to give up
business." Yet the iron duties benefit four rolling muU and
four only. Sir Charles Tupper told us — he is a sanguine man
— that the duties would load to the development of our iron
deposits, and that within three years five and twenty-thousand
men were to be employed in that industry alone. He entirely
forgot that our home market is too small to admit of any con-
siderable expansion in the output of iron, that we cannot send
our iron to the States because of the heavy toll, and that for
a variety of reasons we cannot compete with p]nglish iron in
any neutral market. The net result is that, for the sake of
keeping life in four rolling mills, and of placating a few Nova
Scotians who have iron deposits to sell, and who complain of
the taxes on their flour, corn meal and manufactured goods,
every industry in the Dominion in which iron enters as material
has been injured, while the consumer is of course hit hardest of
all. It would be easy to go through the whole list of exotics
and show that the means adopted for coddling them in their
perpetual infancy are reacting upon the natural industries in
which the great bulk of the population is directly or indirectly
engaged. The sugar duties, for instance, affect every industry
in which sugar is used, and fleece the consumer out of a vast
sum, which is divided amongst two or three refiners,
who, in their pride of purse, actually boast that they are
earning from 45 to 65 per cent, on their invested capital.
One of the journals whose melancholy duty it is to uphold
this regime of legalized extortion has got hold of a theory
known to economists as Alby's argument, from having been ad-
vance 1 by M. Alby, a French protectionist, some twenty years
ago. Briefly stated, the contention is that under a high tariff
each consumer consents to pay for all the products he requires
a price augmented by the Customs duties, on condition of
obtaining for his own products in the home market a price
294 Handbook of Commercial Union.
e(|ually uugiiKMited by the same means, so that they shall re-
turn him profit. In other words, whilo evoryhody in (Janada
is paying an exalted price, everyhody is getting an exalted
price ; frgo, we are all profiting hy the excluHion of the
foreigner. But a moment's n-flertion will whow that, so i'^r
at least as the natural industries of the country are con-
cerned, this is not true. The high duties do not add a cent
to the price of wheat, cattle, lumber, or fish, for we have a su-
perabundance of those articles and are compelled to sell them
in the free market. For the high prices they have to pay to
the "sugar barons" and that ilk, ilie farmer, the lumberman
and the fisherman, for the reason just given, receive no sort of
compensation. And, as we have shown above, the high prices
likewise militate against such manufacturers us Massey and
Waterous by increasing the cost of their raw material and in-
capacitating them to that extent from competing in foreign
markets. M. Alby's plea is not a sound one. The Restric-
tionist press had better stick to the cry of treason. A some-
what low estimate of popular intelligence is involved in the
assumption that those who are seeking to relieve the many from
the exactions of the few are endeavouring to wreck the Domin-
ion. All who are not wilfully or hopelessly blind must per-
ceive that, from Manitoba to Nova Scotia, t!ie iryustice of the
restrictive policy is making the people discontented with their
lot. It is obvious aKo that, so long as that policy remains in
force, we cannot develop the great natural wealth of the
country ; for to do that we must have a market capable of ab-
sorbing a large annual production. Facts like these, however,
do not disconcert our opponents, who Relieve, with the Wilt
shire squire whom Cobdeu's ffiend Mr. Villiers encountered at
an Anti-Corn law meeting, in "giving the country folk a good
big mouthful about the danger to Church and State," Tiiat
argumentum ad ignorantiam is the only effective weapon at their
disposal, though we are inclined to think its edge has been
dulled by too frequent use, and that the number of Canadians
who can be made to believe that it is unpatriotic to agitate for
commercial emancipation is growing smaller every day.
TM t ..
COMMERCIAL UNION CLUB
O-F TOI^OI3"TO.
Offlccvft of the oriub.
GOLDWIN SMITH, D.O.L., President,
H. W. DAKLING,
A. H. CAMPBEIJ.,
S. H. JANES,
W. H. LOCKHART GORDON, j Vice-Presidents.
CAPT. WM. HALL,
WILLIAM CLUXTON,
GEORGE KERR, Jr., Secretary and Trcaaurer,
G2 Wellington Street West, Toronto.
EJXBCXJTIYEJ.
G. Mercer Adam,
J. N. Blake,
C. W. Bunting,
W. H. P. Clement,
H. H. Dewart,
W. G. DouglaB,
E. E. A. Du Vernet,
H. P. Dwi^ht,
W. 1). Gregory,
M. H. Irish,
A. F. Jury,
Robert Jaffray,
T. D. Ledyard,
Geo. S, Macdonald,
A. Macdougall,
W. D. MattliewH, Jr. ,
Hugh Miller,
Thos. Mulvey,
Samuel D. Mills,
Peter Mclntyre,
Wm. McCabe,
W. B. McMurrich,
James I'earson,
G. B. Smith, M.P.P
R. C. Steele,
W. J. ThomaP,
Fred. VV. Wjilki-i.
coNB'rrru'rioN
OF THE
Commcrciitl Union €lub
OIF a?oieo2srTO.
1. This Association shall be designated Thu Commercial Union
Club of Tokonto.
2. The objects of the Club are to improve the trade relations and
develop the industries of Canada by securing unrestricted recipiu -
city of trade between this country and the United States.
3. The Club is not connected with any political party ; it invites
the co-operation of persons of whatever political party, who are
favourable to Commercial Union.
4. The Club will welcome to its membership, and regard as eligible
to its Executive Committee and officers, any who may be favourable
to its object, in whatever part of the Province or Dominion they
may reside.
6. The agencies which the Club employs are public meetings, thei
diffusion of literature, and co-operation with local associations which
may be formed with the same objects in view.
6. The administration of the Club shall be vested in an Execu-
tive Committee [not exceeding forty in number (irrespective of ex-
officio members), to be elected by the Club.
7. The Officers of the Club shall be a President, Vice-Presidents,
Treasurer and Secretary, all of whom 'shall be members of the Ex-
ecutive Committee.
8. The Constitution of the Club may be amended by a two-thirds'
vote of the members present, provided that notice of said amend-
ment shall have been given by motion at the previous meeting, that
a week, at least, shall elapse between the two meetings, and that
the proposed amendments shall be set forth in the circular conven-
ing the meeting.
9. Any person may become a member of this Club by assenting
to the Constitution, and paying an annual membership fee of One
Dollar, or any larger sum he may see fit to contribute to the funds
of the Club, the first payment to be made at the time of his admis-
sion.
10. The Presidents of Local Associations shall be ex-officio mem-
bers of the Club.
/?