..'^„.. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 |45 ■10 i ^ B^ 12.2 40 mil 2.0 us u IL25 i 1.4 — 6" 1.6 Photographic _,Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 87^-450:i v# •1>^ C\ \ ^<^ \ O^ fA CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIViH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Tachnical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquat at bibliographiquaa Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faatures of this copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of the imagas in tha raproduction, or which may significantly change tha usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couvftfture de couleur r~n Covers damaged/ D a n n Couverturs endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie at/ou pellicula r~^ Cover tftle missing/ Le titra de couverture manque r—i Coloured maps/ Cartas giographiquea en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D Planchea at/ou illuatrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ReliA avac d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La r« liura serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion l« long de la marge :nt6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut c(ue certain«s pages blanchaa ajoutias lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsque ceia Atait possible, ces pages n'ont paa iti filmtes. Additional comments:/ Commantairas supplAmantairas; L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur axemplaira qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaira qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modificatlcn dans la mithode normale de filmaga sont indiqute ci-dessous. r~~1 Coloured pages/ D Pagee de couleur Pagea damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurias at/ou pelliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages dicoiordes, tachaties ou piquAes Pages detached/ Pages ditachies Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualiti inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary matarii Comprend du materiel suppiimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible rri Pagea damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~71 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ r~n Pages detached/ ryi Showthrough/ rn Quality of print varies/ rn Includes supplementary material/ r~| Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiallement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont iti fi!m6es i nouveau de fapon ^ obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X XX nk-iji 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X a ktails I du lodifiar r una Image Th« copy filmed here hee been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Seminary of Queliec Library The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iceeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exempiaire film4 fut reproduit grftce A la g^nirositi de: Simlnalre de Quebec Bibliothdque Les images suivantes ont At4 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet* de l'exempiaire film4, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fllmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the bacic cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrsted impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impreesion. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"). whichev«ir applies. Les Dxemplaires originaux dont la couverture an papier est imprimte sont fiimte en commonpant par le premier plat at an terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une amprainte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres axemplairas originaux sont filmte an commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration at an terminant par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle «mpreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon Se cas: le symbols —»> signifie "A SUIVRE ". Je symbols V signifie FIN". irrata to pelure, n i n 32X Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included iii one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: 1 2 3 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmte d des taux de rMuction diff fronts. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seui cliche, ii est filmi A partir de I'angle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en baa, an prenant le nombre d'images ntcessaira. Les diagrainmes suivants illustrent ta m^t' ode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 SPEECH OP HON. JOHN A. DIX, OF NEW YORK, IN FAVi RECIPROCAL TRADE ANADA : DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.^JANUARY 23, 1849. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE GLOBE OFFICE. 1849. 'S o \?v^ ^^ d '-> #> % ^ f0» TRADE WITH CANADA. The Sonotelmviiig under considftralinn llie bill to ndmit cer- tain nrliclns of the growth or production oCCanndainlothc United States free of 'luty, upon the condition tliat the like articles of tho growth or production of the United States are adiiiitied into Canada l^ee of duty; thoquestion pend- ing being upon an amendment herctotbre submitted by Mr. PiiELrs : Mr. DIX said: Mr, President, sitice this bill was taken up for discussion, I have been unable, from indisposition and other causes, to bestow upon it the reflection which is due to the importance of the subject. But I will proceed, nevertheless, with Buch preparation as I have been able to make, to explain the objects of the measure and ita probable effects; and 1 will endeavor, at the same time, to answer some of the leading objections which have been made to it. If I entertained thebelief that theoperation of the bill would be prejudicial to the interest of any por- tion of the Union, I should not be its advocate. The first object of all public legislation is to ad- vance the general welfare of the country; but this object ought certainly not to be sought for at the expense of any particular section, or indeed of any single interest. I believe this bill is entirely free from objection in this respect; that it will be emi- nently advantageous both to the United States and Canada, and do no wrong or injury in any quarter. Before I proceed to examine the practical opera- tion of the measure upon the commercial interests of the two countries, I wish to notice a prelimi- nary objection which has been raised. It is supposed that the privileges conferred by this bill upon Canada will be extended, by virtue of certain reciprocity treaties into which we have entered, to the foreign States with which those engagements have been contracted. I take a totally different view of the subject. I believe Senators have put an erroneous construction upon the obli- gations of the compacts to v/hich they refer. We have reciprocity treaties with Russia, Den- mark, Hanover, Prussia, Mecklenburg-Schwcrin, the Hanseatic Republics, and several other foreign countries. They are treaties with sovereign States, and, by every fair rule of 'Construction, their stipu- lations, so far as they guaranty reciprocity, must be deemed to relate to engagements with other Powers equally independent. The commercial arrangement proposed by this bill is with a European colony adjoining us— one of those dependencies which the States of the Eastern hemisphere are accustomed to except in their compacts with us for reciprocity of commerce and navigation. Ifany oftheStat .swith which we have treaties stipulating for the same priv- ileges which we confer on others, had dependen- cies situated like Canada in respect to us, those States might perhaps acquire in respect to such de- pendencies the same privileges we shall confer on Canada if ihe bill passes; but I do not admit that they would acquire those privileges for their me- tropolitan possessions, and' for the reason that col- onies have always been made practical exceptions to the general rule of international intercourse. Possibly a special reservation may be necessary in every compact, froiTi the provisions of which it is designed to exclude them; but I do not, as I shall show, consider it a matter of any consequence iu this case. This we know in respect to Canada, that it is not only expressly excluded from the terms of our commercial intercourse with Great Britain, but it is the subject of distinct stipula- tions; and yet the British Legation, in accordance with the wishes of the Canadians, has urged this measure upon us under instructions from home,, without the least idea that they would gain for Great Britain under our reciprocity treaty with her •he privileges they desire us to confer on Canada. The honorable Senator from Maryland [iVIr.. Pkauce] said that we had " given a construction to these reciprocal provisions worthy of notice," and he alluded to our treaty with Portugal in 1840, by which it was expressly agreed that the stipulation in our treaty with France in 1831, in regard to French wines, should not be interfered with. This i conitruction ia perfectly consistent with the view of the sulijpct I tnke. Tiiefle two tientieH wnrc with independent Powers; they were with conii- nental Powers in Europe almost bordering on each other; and a general stipulation in respect to equality of duties necessarily required an express reservat on to authorize us to make the duties on any of their products unequal. This, however, is a totally dilTcrent thing from a commercial ar- rangement between us and u European colony adjoining us. But in coming to the conclusion that our com- mercial relations with Russia, Prussia, and other Powers, under the reciprocity treaties we have formed with them, will not be affected by this bill, I put it on other grounds. These treaties relate to commerce and naviga- tion, and are intendi'd to regulate the commercial intercourse carried on by those countries with the United States on the ocean. They have certainly not been understood as referring to inland trade and exchange between countries bordering on each other. The righ' to regulate their interior inter- course with adjoining States has not been supposed to be at all impaired by these commercial engage- ments. If it were otherwise, if these treaties re- strained the States which are parties to them from admitting articles free of duty from a neighboring country, except upon condition of extending the same privilege to the other contracting parties, we should at this very inomcnt be entitled, in our in- tercourse with Prussia, to all tlie benefits of the j custom-house exeinptions of the ZoU-Verein, of which that kingdom is a leading member. Prussia borders on a number of the Zoll-Verein States. These States interchange with her their common products free of duty under the Zoll-Verein com- pact, or Customs Union. They have stood to each other in the same relation in which we stand to Canada. They had duties on their respective products as we have. Thsy have abolished them, as we propoae to do in respect to Canada on a part of ours. Now, will it be contended that we are entitled to the same freedom of intercourse with Prussia which she shares with those States, because she has stipulated to impose no higher duties on our products than on those of other countries' Surely not; and for the very reason that the stipulations of our treaty with her are intended to apply to ex ternal intercourse by sea, and not to inland ar- rangements between bordering States. The inten- tion of our treaties of reciprocity is stamped upon them in characters not to be misunderstood. The first stipulation (for those of latter years are much of the same import) limits the reciprocal liberty of conr-.nunce and navigation which the treaties were formed to secure to " the ports, places, waters, and rivers of the territories of each party, wherein foreign commerce isprrmitlcd." The second stip- ulation regulates the duties to be imposed on the vessels of the contracting parties engaged in that commerce. The third regulates the duties to be paid on the importation or exportation of their respective products. I admit thot, by the letter of these treaties, this bill might ad'ect our commercial relations under them. But I insist that all com- pacts are to be construed according to their mani- fest intention, not by one stipulation alone, but by all which relate to the same subject-matter; and 1 might apply these observations with great force to my first position, and say that those treaties did not contemplate commercial relations with colo- nial dependencies like Canada. But the wliole tenor of their stipulations shows them to have been designed to regulate commerce on the sea, and not the interior traffic carried on by the inhabitants of countries separated from each other by a mere sta- tistical boundary or an astronomical line. They are treaties of commerce and navigation — not of one alone, but of both combined. When this measure was first proposed, I in- quired of the State and Treasury Departments whether it would affect our commercial relations with foreign States under reciprocity treaties, and a decided answer was given by both in the nega- tive. My own examination of the subject has brought me to the same conclusion, whether upon the same grounds I do not know. If this construction be erroneous, if the privi- leges proposed to be conferred on Canada will be extended to the foreign States referred to, then, I repeat, we shall, on the same pr!-:;ciple, become entitled to the privileges of the ZjU-Verein, in Prussia, and perhaps gain access for our products, through her, to all the other States of that political association, comprehending, I believe, twenty-eight out of the thirty-seven States of the Germanic Con- federation. This would,;)Hj)io/rtcie,bean immense advantage, though it is not clear t'^at it would be of any practical benefit. But no one Ircomt, when our reciprocity treaties were formed, that they conferred any such privileges on us; and I venture to say it will never occur to any of the States which are parties to those treaties, that the proposed ar- rangement with Canada will confer any new priv- ileges on them. But if it were otherwise, the privileges the bill confers are reciprocal. We concede lothing which we do not gain in return. If Hanover, Prussia, and Mecklenburg-Schwerin should acquire the ! privileges conferred on Canada by this bill, we «* filiould ncfiuiie in respect to tliem tlie privilcjreH the bill confci-s on us. There would lie entire reci- procity. Our clianccs of jjrofitiiig hy tlie nrrnn;;e- ment would be ns good aa theirs. The Iluiise- Towna might fend ns a few morn hams; but there is sourccly an iirticle enumerated in the bill which cnn be brnu^'lit to us with tid vantage from the States on the Gcrmnn Ocean and the naltie. We are too distant for aLjricultura! cxchangrs. Tcsides, we are e.sscntially as ngricultural as they. Wiieat is the only article likely, under any circumstunccs, to come here, except in the most inconsiderable quantities. In 1837, when flour was ten, eleven, and twelve dollars a barrel, we received over a million of bushels of wheat from Germany, not half the quantity we sent in 1847 into Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick; but in the for- mer year, under the influence of ihe.se enormou.s prices, England herself .sent ns over seven hundred thousand bushels— nearly ns much as Germany; and yet she imported in 1847 over eighty-six mil- lions of bushels of grain. But such occu.sions very rarely occur; and when they do occ\n-, the tend- ency of importation is decidedly beneficial. Its influence is to check prices when they reach the liigh point of extravagance. Senators have expressed the apprehension that, if this bill pas.scs, we shall, under the con.struction they give to it, be deluged with wheat from the Baltic. Let us see how much ground there is for this apprehension. On the 1st of February wheat will pay but one shilling sterling a quarter in Great Britain— about three cents a hnahel. She imports from us: we export to her. The price of wheat there must, therefore, always be as much higher than the price here, when sh.e has a deficiency and we a surplus, as the cost of carrying wheat to her from the United States, and this cost, I am told, is about twenty cents the bushel. When it is a dol- lar here, it must be i^l 20 there. Now, let us see what a vessel laden with wheat from the Baltic would be likely to do in such a case. She must, to come here, sail directly by the ports of Great Britain, where slic can get a dollar and twenty cents a bushel, deducting the three cents duty v/hich she must pay. She gets, then, a dollar and seventeen cents. Suppose she continues her voy- age to the United Slates, how will the account stand ? Admitting, for the sake of th.c argument, that the wheat she brings will come in f;ec of duly under our reciprocity treaties, she will get one dol- lar a bu&hcl; but from this amount she must deduct twenty cents for co.st of transiiorlation from Great Britain here. She will get eighty cents here in- slCcid of one dollar and seventeen cents in Eng- land — thirty-seven cents a bushel less; and this, on ft cargo of sevrrnl thousand bushels, will amount to no inconsiderable sum. The Northern Germans have the reputation of being rather heavy, but ihcy are, so far aa I have had the opponuniiy of ob- serving them, the Yankees of the Continent in bargaining; and I think they will be found alto- gether too astute to engage in any such enterprises ns honoralde Srnntors apprehend. They will carry on a .severe competition with ua in supplying Eng- land with wheat; but they are just as unlikely to compete with ub in our markets ns we are to com- pete with Newcastle in supplying London with coal. Under the construction, therefore, which Sena- tors give to tlie bill, I am satisfied its operation would be as beneficial to us aa to the States with which we have reciprocity treaties. But I contend that these treaties will not be aflected by this nr- rangcmrnt. If I am mistaken, tlie privileges we confer will also be acquired by us, and we cannot, in any event, be losers. Let me now turn to con.niden. ionswliich directly concern the commercial intercourse of Canada und the United States. In order to understand the sul'ject in all its bear- ings, it will be necessary to see what Catuula is, and what she lias done for us in the lemoval of restrictions upon our commerce with her. The population of Canada (I usea general term, as the two provinces nre now united) is 1,527,75 soul.^, or, in round numbers, a million and a half. With less variety and fertility of soil than the United States, a more rigorous climate, and with colonial rc'strictions calculated, imder the most favorable view of the subject, to impede the devel- opment of her resources, to shar.kle the operations of industry, and to abridge the freedom of indi- vidual enterprise, which is always the most pow- erful stimulus to exertion, it is not to be expected that her progress will keep pnce with our own in population or in social and physical improvement. The policy of Great Britain has, within a few years, utulergone some important changes, favor- able to her in a cominercial and political view. Canada, it is true, has lost some exclusive privi- leges by a relaxation of the colonial system cf the mother cnuntiy, but the latter has extended to her some new facilities, by surrendeiing the control of the custom-house, .--o far as respects the irnposition of duties; and she has also conceded the principle of the resjionsibility of ministers which exists at home, so thn when the Governor is not sustained in his polii'y by the Provincial rnrliament, he is bound to chaiige his advisers, or, in other words, his Executive Council, wliich may be considered as the ministry of the colony. The Canadian 6 Governmciil is thus asHimilu'fd to that of Great Britnin in the esscntinl feature of its reHponsiljiliiy to the iii>|>ul(\r voire — ii concession wh'cn hus been gniiird (iflcr a lon^' and patient 8lru;,'(;!e on the [)art of a few nlilc and patriotic men in Canada. Almost colemporanooiis witli tiiis funil.inipnta! change in the political adniinislration of the iillairs of Canada was another of equal iinpoi . nee in ro- Bpect to lior commercial independence. In 184(5, nn act of Parliament was passed giving the legis- lative authoriiy of the British colonies the right to regulate theii own duties of customs, in respect to British as well as f(M'eign products. At that time there were no duties imposed by IJritish acts on British goods imported into Canada, ullhougli there were duties imposed by such acts on for- eign goods; but there were acts of the Canadian Legislature, made for revenue, imposing additional or cumulative duties on foreign goods, and a duty of five per cent, on IJritish goods. There was also an act of Parliament declaring that no goods should, "upon imporlaiion into any of the British posscsniona in America, be deemed to be of the growth, production, or manufacture of the United Kingdom, unless imported from the United King- dom." The ed'ect of this condition of the law was to prevent the importation of British goods into Can- ada througli the Uniied States, and to impose on the productions of the United States and otlier countries duties which were protective as to those of Great Britain and Canada. As early as 1843 tlie duty on the importation of ■wheatand Hour, of the growth oflhe Uniied States, going through Canada to the United Kingdom, was reduced to three shillings provincial duty, the quarter of eigiit bushels, and one shilling British duty, without reference to the slidingscale, by which the importation of breadstnffs from other countries was regulated. The consequence was, a large importatit)n of wheat and flour from the Uniied States into England through Canada. The corn laws being repealed, Canada loses this advantage — the advantiige of being a carrier for us — and it is now us beneficial to export Canadian wheat to England through the Uiiited States (the expense being equal) as direct from Canada. In other words, tiie wheat of Canada and the Uniied States has equal advantages in the British market. In 1S47, the Parliamenlof Canada, acting under the authority granted by the Imperial Ciovernmcnl, repealed the ditl'en ntial duties, and the new table or tarifl" of duties then tnacicd applies equally to goods of all kinds, whether coming from England or the Uniied States. We are, in this respect, p'aued on the fooling of the m jllicr coiar.ry. This equality was clTectcd by u double operation of law: first, by reducing the rate of duty on goods of the United States; and secondly, liy increasing the rate on British goods, thus bringing both to the same standard or scale. There can be no belter evidence of the liberality of the Canadians, and of their earnest desire to put their commercial intercourse with us on the most friendly footing. The consequenc" *f ihia change of the law has been to create a considerable importation of British and foreign goods into Canada through the United States, and also to cause a large im|)orlation of the productions of the United States into Canada for consumption. The cotton fabrics of Lowell are received on the same terms as those of Manches- ter. Tlie same remark is true of many other products of our industry, of which we carry large quantities into Canada for consumption. Tlic valu»of our productions annually introduced into Canada, under these new provisions of law, is stated, on Itigh authority, to airiount to more than two millions of dollars. It is natural that the Canadians should desire to send their produce to JN'ew York and Boston, to meet the trade which has thus been opened to us — that they, having put this trade upon the most liberal fooling in respect to us, should wish to export, on eiiual terms, suoh means of payment as they possess in the products of their own labor. Will the ter.r:s of exchange — perfect equality — proposed by the bill be disadvantageous to us? I propose to consider this question somewhat in de- tail, although it would seem but fair that the liber- ality which has been manifested by Canada towards us — u liberality by which we have greatly profiled — a liberality voluntarily extended to us, without equivalent — should be reciprocated, without stop- [)ing to weigh, with over-scrupulous exactness, the precise balance of advantages and benefits. In the first place, I believe it will be apparent, by looking at the list of enumerated articles which are proposed to be mutually received free of duty, that ashes, flour, and lumber arc the only ones ever likely to be brought into tlie markets of the United Slates in considerable quantities. Ashes we want, and at the cheapest price. In respect to lumlier, there is nothing to be apprehended. We shall unquestionably receive some lumber in New York, but 1 believe our limber districts do not fear ihe competition. Besides, it will come to us chiefly in the form of saw-logs for manufacture. New York is almost the only State this competition can aflect; an \ if there is any risk, we are will- ing to take it, in consideration of the general advantage and convenience the measure |)rom- ises to confer. It was apprehended by our friends i in Maine, that their interests mi^ht be injuri- ously nlTcctcd in thid respect. But the hill is so Bhu|icd us to nvoiil nil interference with them. It np{)lic8 only to the direct trade with Cnniida. Articles coming through New Brunswick or the other British provinces will continue on the old footing. The lumber interest in Maine, there- fore, will not be touched by the bill; and in all other reupccta that State will in all jirobability be as much benefited by it as any other. When the railway between Portland and Montreal is completed, the free commerce secured by tlic bill must bo of the greatest advantage. Flour, in fact, is the only Canadian product likely to come into competition with our own. Of all thcoihers — animals, hides, cheese, meats, &c. — we shall export more largely into Canada than she will export into the United States. The same re- mark is applicable to corn, and indeed to most if not all the breadslufTs, except wheat. It is possible that in certain years — years of scanty production in the United States, provided they are years of abundance in Canada — we may receive some wheat from her. But I do not believe that the amount will even in those years (which are very unlikely to occur) be sufficient to influ- ence prices in liie United States in a perceptible degree. If the importation, however, shall in such extraordinary cases prevent the price of grain from becoming extravagantly high, it will be a public benefit, by relieving the poor from the necessity of eating dear bread. In years of ordinary abun- dance I do not believe prices in the United Slalca through the United Stales in bond under the act of 1840, allowing n drawback of duties in certain cases. It enters into competition with ours in those markets now. The bill gives no now facility or advantage in this respect, except to relieve licr from custom-house formalities. I hold, then, that the wheat of Canada ran only have an influence on the price in the United States in very extraordinary years not likely to occur, and in years of exporta- tion, by competition with us in the foreign market, and that, in the latter respect, this innuence is ai sensibly felt now as it would bo under the pro- visions of this bill. These considerations become the more significant if it be true, as I suppose, that wheat is henceforth to be one of our regular exports. What, then, are the advantages to be expected from the proposed free interchange of products .' The first is, to relieve the inhabitants of both countries, and especially those on the frontier, from the inconvenience of the custom-house in respect to necessaries of common production ond daily use. The next is, to enable the Cana- dians to export their produce through the Uni- ted States to foreign markets without paying duty at the frontier, and with a deduction of two and a half per cent, on the drawback at the place of exportation. The custom-house formalities seem to have been a great obstacle to the use of our canals and internal channels of communication by the Canadians. From December 1, 18-lG, to July 1, IStl, we received from all the British North Ameri- can Provinces !1Q!) bushels of grain of all kinds, and will be at all afl'ected by the importation of wheat Ij no flour, while we sent them more than two mil- fiom Canada. The production of wheat in llie j lions of busliels of wheat during the year. Du- United States yields a surplus. Whenever prices I; ring ihe previous five months vvc received from all abroad are suflicient to sustoin exportation, ou wheat finds its way to foreign markets; and in these cases it is the price in those markets which iixes the price at home. 1 believe it may be stated as a principle that the price of a product, which is exported in any considerable quantity, is regulated in the markets of the exporting country by the price in the markets of the country to which the export is made. Our own experience proves the truth of this proposition. In 1847, when we were exporting breadsluffs, the price of flour in New York, the chief port of exportation, rose and fell with the fluctuations of price in the British market with as much certainty as the mercurial column in the thermometer rises and falls with the variations of external temperature. Tiiis fact should relieve us from all apprehension as to the influence of this bill on competition with Canada in the production of wheat. She may send her flour to foreign markets now, cither by the St. Lawrence, or the rest of the world 3U0 bushels of wheat and C4 c\vt. of flour— equal to 27 barrels. The last year the Canadians have used our canals more exten- sively. The returns are not yet printed, but I understand that at least 70,000 barrels of flour have been exported through the United States. Whether the experiment will succeed remains to be seen. Mr. CLARKE. Will the Senator from New York state where he obtained this information? Mr. DIX. I have ascertained the fact from some statistical statements published in a newspa- per at Oswego, containing the transactions at the collector's office. This information is given in an official form in the annual report on commerce and navigation received yesterday; bull have not been able to examine it. From the source I have before referred to, I learn that .}0,000 barrels of flour were received at Oswego. At BulTalo the amount was probably less. The bill will undoubtedly lead to a free inter- 8 change of prodiiulx aniuiij^tlie rrontiur iiiliubituntH. If, in llio course of these cxfhiins"' ., wo receive any Canudii wliciit for cotiMuni|>lii)n, it must bo in the few individual cases in which tho sellers of our products to the Canadians are able to consume it more freely. To a. very limited extent it may possibly reach a new class of consumers, who will become exporters on a sniull scale, under this bill. For instance, one of our frontier inhubititnts who, under the proposed arrangement, can carry half a dozen sheep into Canada without paying the duly of forty cents n head, now exacted by the Canadian tarilT, and bring back as many bush- els of wheat without paying the twenty j)er cent, duty imposed by our tarllT, will save between three and four dollars in an exchange of products of the valueof twelve or thirteen dollars— a monstrous tax! — and he may thus be enabled to eat wheat bread for a while, instead of living exclusively on the coarser breadstuflVi. This must be the only cfTect in ordinary years, when wc produce more wheat than wc require for our own consumption. Wc can take none from other countries, unless wc consume it more freely; and our increased consumption under this bill must not only be extremely limited, but of such a nature as not to interfere with our own production. But these are very small matters, Imrdly wortiiy to be taken into the account in nn estimate of large transactions. Let mc now test the truth of my poaiiion — that we have nothing to fear from com|)elition with Canada in wheat-growing — by a resort to arith- inetical demonstrations. The population of Can- ada is about half the population of New York. That part of the jirovincc which was once politically known as Upper Canada, and which, for distinc- tion, I shall still call ao, is the wheat-growing region. The Lower portion does not produce enough for its own consumption. It always draws largely upon the Upper. The least failure of the crops in the Lower would be sure to absorb the whole sur- plus of the Upper. If there were any just ground of apprehension in respect to our wheat-growing dis- tricts, looking to general considerations, it would be removed by the custom-house statistics of Can- ada for the year 1847 — thegreatyear of exportation for American breadstufls by reason of the famine in Europe. 1 take for illustration the most unfa- vorable year for my purpose — the year in which, from unu.sual causes, the export of wheat by Can- ada was greatest. I do so that those from whom I differ may have every advantage they can ask in the argument. The quantity of flour imported in that year into Canada v/as about 84,000 barrels, and the quantity exported about C7C,000: the quantity of wheat imported 5G2,000 bushels, and the quantity exported 0(18,000 bushels. The im- ports, of course, were from the United States. The excess of exports over imports was ,V.li!,000 barrels of flour, and lOG.OOO bushels of wheat. This entire export was probably to Great Ilrituin, her American islands, and her Atlantic provinces. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Notwithstand- ing this cxptirt (if flour from Canada, New Bruns- wick received from us, in the snmo year, over 100,000 barrels of flour, and Nova Scotia nearly as much more. The result of my inquiries is, that in ordinary years the upper portion of Canada produces a sur- plus of about 2,000,000 bushels of wheat, and that a considerable part of this surplus is consumed by the lower portion, including Clucbec and Montreal, and the demands for their shipping. In 1847 Can- ada produced 4,500,907 bushels of wheat, and im- ported 982,408 bushels, (including flour, and estima- ting one barrel of flour to be equal to five bu.ihels of wheat,) making an aggregate of 5, 543, 43.1 bushels produced and im[iorted. In the same year she ex- ported 4,047,300 bushels, making a balance of 1,490,00'J bushels consumed ut home. This is less than a bushel for each inhabitant — probably not more than half her consumption in ordinary year.? But the price of wheat being extravagantly high, the consumption must have been greatly dimin- ished, for the purpose of exportation, by resorting to the coarser grains for domestic use. The statis- tical taljles of earlier years jirove the export of 1847 to have been extraordinarily large. From 1838 to 1843 the annual export varied from 50,000 to 350,000 barrels; but in this last amount was inclu- ded a large import from the United States. It is not probable that her export is essentially different when there are no unusual causes to stimulate ex- portation. Taking one year with another, and deducting from the entire export of w heat from Canada an amount equal to that which wc send to her, to Nova Scotia and to Nev/ Brunswick, and I doubt whether there will be much of a balance left. In 1847, which was an extraordinary year, while Canada only exported 3,004,898 busiiels of wheat over her imports, we carried into the British North American Provinces alone, in the same year, 2,279,008 bushels. While Canada produces less than three bushels of wheat for each inhabitant, we produce more than five and a half bushels for each inhabitant; while she consumed in 1847 less than one bushel of wheat for each inhabitant, we con- sumed nearly four bushels and a half for each inhabitant, notwithstanding the temptation of high prices to export and to consume cheaper bread- stuffs; while her entire product of wheat in 1847 was four millions and a half of bushels, ours was 1 _^ 9 __ _ ■ ov. r on.' liiindriHl iinfl fourteen millioni of bunheli. jjproducta ngninat ui. But tho mcMure will, In Au;niiiHlMn rxportof I«-h.s timn six hundrril thou- ' truth, be of infinite ndvnnlnge to our iiKricuiture. •and burrcis of flour from Cnnndu in IHI7, (h»r Canndn sfinda few produrm to u«; w.i Rmd many excess over imports,) -f exported nrnriy fournnd || to her. We produce corn, which she needs, and a half milhons of I • N; nnd n^ninst nn export ; which she cnnnot raise in sufficient rpmntity for of one hundred thousand bushels of wheat from Cunndn, (excess over imports,) we exported nearly her own consumption. Ifer winters arc longer tImn ours; nnd, ns the expense of keepin;;: cattle four millions four hundred ihousurul bushels. In ! from autumn to spring i.8 80 For 1847 6(i,019 80 Making an average of g(!3,555 71 per annum for the three years. Estimating the rate of duty at 33 J per cent., the whole value of the articles imported from Canada into the United States, and paying duty at the cus- tom-houses, averages §190,007 13 per annum. A portion of the duties was, in all probability, re- funded in 1847 under the law allowing a drawback on reexportation of the articles, on which the duties were paid. 1 learn that the amount of goods en- tered at Buffalo and Oswego for the benefit of can be no necessity of protecting our products , drawback was greatly increased during the last against Canada, when she ceases to protect her •'. year, as the returns, when we receive them, will 10 undoubtedly show; but the amount refunded will be prnportioimhly increased, so tliat the treasury will not be ofTected by the augmented collections from this cause. Our entire imports from the Eritish North Amer- ican colonies in ] 84 j were of the value of about two millions of dollars. Of this amount more than nine hundred thousand dollars consisted of gold and silvt. , and more than eleven hundred thousand, including specie, were free of duty. Tiie remain- ing: "i'le hundred thousanddollarsare to be divided between Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Bruns- wick; and from the nature of the articles it is man- ifest that the quantity received from Canada was but a small portion of the amount. For instance, fish constituted nearly four hundred thousand dol- lars cf the nine hundred thousand; and this came from the Atlantic proving jS. The year J 847 gives nearly the same aggrej'ate result. Our entire im- ports from all the Critish North American colonies constitute a very inconsiderable part of our com- mercial transactions witli foreign States; and no change we can make in our intercourse with Can- ada can have any material infiuence upon them. Notwithstanding this sr 11 import from the British North American colonies, our commercial intercourse with them, including Canada, is as beneficial for its extent as that with any portion of tlif; world. We sent into them in 1847, products of the value of nearly eight millions of dollars— about five million eight hundred thousand domes- tic, and over two millions foreign. The foreign exports were probably, to a great extent, sent through the United States on foreign account. Our imports directly from those colonies, the same year, were of the value of about two mil- lions and a quarter. The remaining five miUions and a half (deducting some hundred thousand on foreign account) must have been paid by bills on England. A large portion of our exports into Canada is probably paid for in this way. She sends her lumber and flour to England, and with the proceeds pays us the excess of her imports from us over her exports to us. But it is only a small portion even of these ex- changes which this bill can afiect. It is only that portion which embraces the enumerated articles. Now, I have ascertained that in 1847 we did not import of those articles from all tlie British North American c^Jonies nn amount equal in value to one hundred thousand dollars. T'rom Canada it must have l)cen quite inconsiderable. The intercourse this bill is destined to affjct is, therefore, not only limited in its extent, bat it is essentially local in its character. No apprehension is expressed in any quarter as to its piacticul operation, excepting ; aa respects competition in the production of wheat. I I trust I have shown that even this apprehension I ia without foundation. But if it were not so, the States on the frontier arc those most likely to feel the i'lfluence of the competition Ohio is the largest wheat-growing State in the Union. She produces a little less than seventeen millions of j bushels — nearly foui' times as much as Canada. i Next in order is New York, with a product of fourteen millions and a half of bushels — more than ■ three limes as much as Canada. Michigan, in 1847, with a population not one-fourth of that of Canada, produced nearly twice as many bushels I of wheat. These are the States which should ; object to the free exchange proposed by the bill, if objection could reasonably be made in anyquar- \ ter; and yet they are the .ery States in which the i measure is most earnestly desired. It is, in truth, I a measure which exclusively concerns the inhab- , itants of the frontier; and 1 -earnestly hope Sena- I tors representing States w 'ich are fur removed from it, and which cannot be affected by the pro- ' posed measure, will consent that the wishes of the parties immediately interested shall furnish the ! rule of their intercourse with each other. : 1 havb endeavored to show, Mr. F.esident, that the Canadian Government has acted with great i liberality towards us; and that by reciprocally ', removing the duties on the agricultural produc- ; tions of both countries enumerated in this bill, we ' do no injury to any interest, but create a mutual benefit. I I was very much surprised to hear tl •" Senator , from Maryland [Mr. Pearce] say that there wos , no reciprocity in the proposed arrangement; that ; " the bill is delusive. If it pass, no' a dollar's : worth of any of these products will be exported from the United States to Canada.'- The Senator could not have examined this subject with his accustomed care. Let me convince him that he : has not done so. In 1S47 we exported to Canada I 83,983 barrels of flour, and 562,553 bushels of }i wheat, with a duty of about seven and a half cents a bushel on the importation; we also sent her G4,378 > bushels of other grains. I Mr. PEARCE. I will thank the Senator to state whence he derives his information. I do not find it in the public documents. j Mr. DIX. I have obtained the information from the custom-house statistics of Canada, to which I ' have referred, furnished at my request by the ofli- I cers of the Canadian Government. I We also sent into Canada 943,280 pounds of tallow, with a duty of one per cer.t., (the very large export probably K-sulting from the very low duty;) y8,UU0 pounds of butter, with a duty of 1 (9 i \ 11 p 50 per cwt.; ],458 oxen, with a duly of $7 a head; 14,701 bushels of potatoes, with a duty of ten per cent.; 49,099 busliels of apples, with a duty of ten cents per bushel; 1C,S09 barrsia of salted meats, chiefly pork, with a duty of $1 20 the cwt. The duty on sheep is nearly prohibitory. It is. Fit ordinary prices, forty per cent. Nearly the same may be said of the duty on most other animal.s siderit proper to notice, though I regret to be under j the necessity of making any reference to it. The j Senator from Virginia [Mr. Humter] terms this bill a measure '* of quasi annexation, because tlie ad- ' vantages which are urged as arising from it seem to ' relate to some such project in the future." Mr. President, if this measure had any such olijcct, wc might reasonably count upon the support of the Senator from Virginia, if there^were no other ground of objection. It is but fiur years since Now, I do not hesitate to say, that the export of most of the enumerated products may be very jj every Democratic vote in this body from the north- greatly increased by the removal of the dutiesupon j! cm, northeastern, and northwestern States was them; and 1 am satisfied ,hat the Senator from ,; cast for the annexation of Texas. If Canada Maryland will find, on a mo-e careful examination I should desire to unite herself to us, are we not to of the sul)ject, that he has er.tirely misapprehe.'7'.led the operation of the bill upon the agriculturid in- terest of the country. And now I wish to notice, in the briefest man- ner, the amendment proposed by the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Phelps.] The elTect of the amend- ment, if adopted, must be to defeat the measure. It cannot be accepted by Canada. The articles the amendment proposes to make reciprocally free are hata, boots, shoes, and other manufactures of k-tiier; cotton and woollen fabrics. These are all j manufactured articles. The bill contemplates a I free excliange of certain agricultural products. ' The amendment changes the whole character ofj the bill. It extends to a class of imports on which expect the same unanimity among our Democratic friends in anotlier quarter? or are we to understand thcit annexation is only to be countenanced when it can oe made at one extremity of the Union, and to be opposed at the other? — that even freedom of intercourse is to be discouraged and repelled, be- cause it may by possibility lead to such a result in the future? I hope the intimation of the Senator from Virginia is not to be so understood. If it is, it is well that we know now in what manner our cooperation in the annexation of Texas and the acquisition of Florida is likely to be reciprocated. Mr. HUiN'TER. The gentleman from New York is mistaken if he supposes I urged this view of the bill as an objection to it. I slated the fact Canada must rely for revenue. It would be just ,; without comment on it, or intimating either an as unreasonable in her to ask us to receive Jier | approval or condemnation of it. I said that such furs free of duty. must be its purpose, for that the best arguments But the duties on these articles, though revenue | urged in its favor seemed to be based upon some duties, are exceedingly moderate. They come j! such prospect in the future, within the range of those proposed by General '\ Mr. DIX. I am aware that the Senator did not Hamilton in his celebrated report on manufactures |: comment upon the intimation he made, though I made shortly after the organization of the Federal j' understood him to make it by way of objection to Government. Tlie duty on hats is 1^ percent.; on , the bill. But I am happy that he does not wish it boots, shoes, and manufactures of leather of all to be so received. While on thissubject, I desire to kinds, an average duty, I think, not exceeding 10 : say, that so tar as I am concerned, so f\ir as con- percent.; and on manufactures of cotton and woid cerns those with whom this measure originated, no 11 per cent. These duties are not only moderate, \\ such design was even imagined until it was sug- but low; and without reference to the departure of !| gested by those to whom it seems to be unaccept- the amendment from the general policy of the bill, |; able. I believe (though I am not sure) this prop- it IS unreasonable to ask their abolition. jj osition came originally from Canada-from the Besides, the same duties are imposed on like j. liberal party in Canada-though it was cordially products of British maimli,cture. The mother \ acquiesced in on our side by those who supposed country has no advantage over us in this respect j ihey had a direct interest in it. Among the first in Canada, mid we ought not to ask an advantage ! by whom it was publicly suggested, if I remem- °^'^'' ''^'■- |i ber right, was the Secretary of the Treasury. He It is quite manifest that the amendment musi jj has twice recommended it; and undoubtedly be- defcat the bill; and I entreat Senators not to give [] cause he regarded it as a commercial arrangement it their support. If the bill is not acceptable to :| which would be beneficial to both parties. " them, I trust they will, at least, consent to mam- |j I know personally many of the prominent men f(!si ilmir onn.KsJtion to it by a dire.L vote. l! in Canaila. I know they are strongly opposed lo 1 nowcomeloanolijcctiontothebill wliichlcon- ; a separation from the mother country. They 12 desire uninnwilh England first, indopendonce next, annexation to the United States last of all. They desire a free exchange of products with ua, be- cause they believe the existing restrictions upon our commerce are prejudicial to both countries; and they desire nothing more. What the feeling is with the great body of the people in Canada, I have no means of knowing. Tliat they desire free intercourse with us, there is no doubt. Beyond that, I know nothing of their opinions or wishes. For myself, I have heretofore spoken freely on this subject. 1 would neither be forward ir. court- ing the annexation of adjacent States, nor back- Ward in acceding to it. I would neither make overtures nor repel them, without good cause. I believe we are large enough for all the purposes of security and strength; but I do not fear further ex- tension, nor would I decline it when circumstances render it convenient to ourselves or others. Mr. Prej^idcni, this consideration has been urged, and urg(d directly, as an objection to commercitd freedom between the United States and Canada. I have rcccniiy heard it from the anti-liberal party in Canada, who are for new restrictions on our commerce. They are in favor of existing restric- tions as well as new one.s, upon the ground that free intercouse may lead to a political union be- tween Canada and the United States. The Board of Trade in Montreal, in a petition to t!ie Queen, on the 18th December last, prayed for a renewal of the discriminating duty on American grain in favor of colonial grain; and one of the reasons as- signed was, that the recent changes in the commer- cial relations of Canada had led to "a growing •commercial intercourse with the United States, ' giving rise to an opinion, which is daily gaining ' ground on both sides of the boundary line, that ' the interests of the two countries, under the ' changed policy of the Imperial Government, are ' germane to each other, and under that system • must sooner or later be politically interwoven." Whether this view be just or not, I do not be- lieve the result is to be defeated in either of the modes proposed— by a contmuation of existing restrictions, or by the imposition of new ones. I believe the tendency of such measures will be to hasten and to consummate the very end th(y are intended to defeat. Let us see if it be not so. A man at Champlain, New York, or Swanton, Ver- mont, wishes to sell an ox to his neighbor in Can- ada, living in siglit of him, and take wheat in ex- change. On making his entry at the Canadian custom house, lie is taxed $7 on the importation of his ox. He brings back thirty-five bushels of wheat, at $1 a bushel, and, on entering them at our custom-house, he is taxed 20 per cent, ad valorem, (•J7 more,)— fourteen dollars tax to the two Governments for the privilege of exchanging his commodity with his neighbor, separated from him in one case by a narrow sheet of water, and in the other by an astronomical line. Now, I venture to assert that these impositions will not long be sub- mitted to on either side; and if they are not re- moved by the two Governments, the inhabitants of both countries will look to annexation as the only practicable measure of relief. Sir, a liberal policy is always the most wise as well as the most just; and, I say again, that the people of the two countries will not submit to such a sys'em as I have described — a system executed by an army of custom-house officers on each side of the bound- ary line, placed there to enforce exactions which absolutely prohibit commercial intercourse, or to fill their bags of plunder out of the hard earnings of the frontier inhabitants. And I cannot believe that those who advocate the doctrines of free trade will sustain a state of things so utterly at variance with their own principles; that the" will be found acting in-unison with the anti-liberal party in Can- ada, upholJing commercial restrictions, which do no good, against commercial freedom, which works no injury; throwing impediments in the paths of those who are marked out by the great features of the districts they inhabit for friendly intercourse, and creating these embarrassments for the avowed purpose of making them alien to each other. Notwithstanding the opinion of the Senator from Maryland, there is another consideration in favor of this bill which I consider of vital importance to us. We have earnestly desired, since the Ameri- can Revolution, the free navigation of the St. Law- rence. In 18:36 it became the subject of diplomatic correspondence between the two countries. The discussion exhibits the high value we have attached to this privilege. Indeed, we claimed it as a right; and it was asserted as such by Mr. Clay in a letter of great power and eloquence. The right was not admitted by Great Britain, and the matter was dropped. Bit there has been no period when we would not have been willing to grant an equiva- lent for a privilege in which, according to Mr. Clay, nine States have an interest. Canada is now desirous of granting it without equivalent. She stands ready to pass a bill opening the free naviga- tion of the St. Lawrence to our vessels. Her Par- liament is in session. The liberal party, which is now in power, is about to bring the measure for- ward; and 1 am happy to say that Lord Elgin, the Governor — a gentleman distinguished for an en- lightened and liberal statesmanship — is in favor of the measure. Its success is certain, if we do not decline the reciprocity atked for by this bill. 13 When the Senator from Maryland said that the navigation of the St. Lawrence was useless to us, he could hardly have been aware that ship canals have been constructed around the fulls of Niagara, and other points below, to connect the great lakes with thcAtlanticOcean by way of theSt. Lawrence, and that vessels of three hundred and fifty tons pass freely through these internal channels of commu- nication. During the last summer, two of our reve- ! nue vessels passed from Lake Erie and Lake On- tario, through the St. Lawrence, to the Atlantic. When our ships can go to Quebec by sea and meet vessels from our northwestern Slates, there can be no doubt that large quantities of the prod- ucts of those States will be carried, in summer, spring, and autumn, in this direction by our own vessels to Europe. If this bill becomes a law, I have no hesitation in predicting that vessels at no distant day will be laden with wheat in Chicago, Green Bay, Detroit, and Cleveland, and unlade'in Liverpool. Ship-owners, producers, all will be greatly benefited by this free commerce, which will have an advantage in avoiding transhipment between the point of embarkation and the sea, or the foreign market. If the result is to affect in any way producers in the Middle States, as Kentucky in the West, and Maryland and Virginia on the At- lantic, It will be to relieve them from competition in our own markets with the wheat-growers of Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin; and I greatly err if gentlemen from the wheat^rowing States do not find themselves acting in direct contravention of the interests of their constituents in opposing this measure. In any point of view under which the subject can be considered, the opening of the St. Lawrence will be of incalculable benefit. It is, indeed, the only outlet of the Northwest to the sea for vessels of any magnitude— the only outlet of this kind they can ever have; for with all the facilities for internal communication New York possesses, a ship-canal through her territory is opposed by physical obstacles too serious to be overcome. I believe the adoption of this great measure— the free navigation of the St. Lawrence— depends on the passage of this bill. If the reciprocity it pro- vides for is refused, we cannot expect that Canada will grant ua what she considers as a boon, what we claim as a right, and what all must concede to be a privilege of inestimable value. On the con- trary, if the liberal course she has pursued is met by an illiberal spirit in us, I fear she will be com- pelled, in se'f-defence, to resort to her old system of differential duties, and to continue the restric- tion on navigation. ThtiP is a strong party in Canada in favor of this course. I have already alluded to the anti-liberal party. I have quoted their recent petition to the Queen in favor of dis- criminating duties on our products. And, sir, I greatly fear, if this bill is defeated, that we shall put a weapon into their hands to be wielded to our serious annoyance and injury. To with- hold, therefore, a just measure of reciprocity, as I verily believe, of mutual advantage to both parties, would not only be exceedingly narrow in policy on our part, but, like all sellLdiness, it would de- j feat itself, and result in a loss of benefits we already I enjoy. These benefits, as I have already shown, , are— first, 'equal duties in Canada on American j and British goods; and second, a market for at least three millions of dollars in value of the prod- i ucts of our industry. j Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator allow me to j interrupt him? The statement of facts he makes ia i important; and I desire to know on what authority i he says that our manufactured articles are received : in Canada on the same terms as those of Great J Britain. 1 Mr. DIX. I state it on the authority of the Canadian tariff", which I shall be happy to show the Senator from New Jersey; and I will add that large quantities of our manufactures are car- ried into Canada for consumption— iron castings, coarse cottons, and a variety of articles sent from the New England States, New Jersey , and Pennsyl- vania. To these States the increased intercourse proposed by this bill will be of great importance. The prospective benefit (which we should reject by a narrow policy) is the free navigation of the St. Lawrence— one of the highest prizes offered to the commercial enterprise of the country for many years. It will also carry with it the appli- cation, which we have always contended for, of a principle of the greatest value in international intercourse— a principle generally conceded in Eu- rope, since the report of Baron Von Humboldt— the right of riparian States to an outlet to the sea by the water-courses on which they border. These seem to me to be advantages which far outweigh in im[iortante anjj considerations of pecuniary profit to be drawn from a ciose computation of the number of bushels of wheat which may be reciproci'iv received and exported; though, even on this narrow ground, I trust I have shown that we are not likely to be losers by the competition. There is another view of the subject which, I con- fess, weighs greatly with me. The liberal party in Canada has been struggling for years to obtain the measure of political and commercial freedom to which they believe every community of men to be fair.v entitled. Commercial freedom they have secured— not fully, but so far as to give them the 14 regulation of the impost: political freedom, so far as to give the popular voice a control over all car- ; dinal subjects of internal administration and ex- ternal intercourse. The f^rst use they have made of this partial independence of the mother country I is to tender to us the most liberal terms of com- 1 mercial exchange. They have extended to us these benefits without equivalent. "We have en- ' joyed them for nearly two years with great ad- j vantage. They now ask equality in exchanging ' a few agricultural productions common to both [ countries. Sir, I should deeply regret that the United States, powerful and populous as they are, ' should withhold from a comparatively weak and dependent neighbor a privilege claimed on grounds ' so fair in themselves, and so entirely in accordance with the liberal principles by which we profess to be governed. It would be but a poor encourage- ment to a country adopting our political maxims to some extent, and carrying them into the admin- istration of her own commercial aftairs, to be driven from the liberal policy she has espoused into the old system of exclusion ; to be thus checked at the very outset in her attempts to cast off the shackles which she has regarded as the greatest impediment to her prosperity, to be forced to this alternative, too, by us— the country, above all others, most interested in the establishment and maintenance of an enlightened policy in govern- ment and in commerce. ■ I t