IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) C^/ i 7- < ^ % ■m^,- ^ 1.0 I.I 1.25 U Ilii u 2.0 1.8 u mil 1.6 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. dian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical Notes / Notes techniques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Physical features of this copy which may alter any of the images in the reproduction are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couvertures de couleur L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Certains ddfauts susceptibles de nuire d la quality de la reproduction sont notds ci-dessous. D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Th PC of fil Th cc or ap D 51 D Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en coulaur Pages discoloured, stained cr foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es Tight binding (may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin)/ Reliure serrd (peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure) D D Coloured plates/ Planches en couleur Shov. through/ Transparence Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Th fil in: M in up be fo D Additional comments/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pagination incorrect/ Erreurs de pagination v' Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents D Pages missing/ Des pages manquent D D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Plates missing/ Des planches manquent D Maps missing/ Des cartes g6ographiques manquent D Additional comments/ Commentaires suppldmentaires 9 ns la The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —►(meaning CONTINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire filmi, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la der- nidre image de cheque microifiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". The original copy was borrowed from, and filmed with, the kind consent of the following institution: Library of Parliament L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit ordce d la g6n6rosit6 de I'dtablissement prdteur suivant : Bibliothdque du Partement Maps or plates too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour §tre reproduites en un seul clich6 sont filmdes d partir de Tangle sup6rieure gauche, de gaurhe d droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Le diagramme suivant illustre la mdthode : 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 I c t( SI 1{ <:>« No. 1. INFORMATION FOR THE ELECTORS. J \ -'*«^iflwwvr • /^ >.' frJTOdMl^i^-fiW ( ,^'iX, THE LIBERAL-CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT. ■:* The history of Eeciprocity negotiations, proffers, laws and re- ports shows that Canada has always been favourable towards fair and friendly trade relations with the United States — always providing that these relations were not unfavourable to the in- terests of Great Britain or to the rapidly developing industries of this country. "*-The following memorandum will set forth with all con- venient detail the various offers that have been made; and the acts and reports that have been provided relating to the subject. "^r'; In 1847 an address was moved in the Legislative Assembly of Canada praying that negotiations would be entered into with the Crovernment of the United States to procure the admission of Canadian products for consumption in their markets on the same terms as the products of the United States are admitted for con- sumption into Canada, that perfect reciprocity may be established between the two countries. — Journals of Legislative Assembly, 1847, p. 16. 'I : 1 The address which was passed in 184'7 contained these words : " We would further remind Your Majesty that while in com- pliance with the recommendation of the Imperial Parliament we have passed a law repealing all duty on American produce com- ing through our country for exportation, no similar advantage is accorded by the American Government to the people of this Province, but that duties amounting in most cases to prohibition are vigorously maintained by that Government on every article of ours entering Into their ports."— Journals 184Y, p. 175. In this same year old Canada passed a law reducing rates of import duties on United States products from 12^ to YJ per cent, and raising the rate upon British imports from 5 per cent, to 7^ per cent. This measure was passed relying upon the supposed willingness of the United States to negotiate a fair measure of reciprocity between the two countries. It gave an immense advantage to the exporters of the United States, but no cori-es- ponding legislation was enacted by that country, nor was Keciprocity granted. In 1849 an Act was passed enacting "that whenever under any law of the United States of America the articles enumerated in the schedule to this act annexed, being the growth or production of this Province, shall be admitted free of duty into the said United States of America, then similar articles being the growth or production of the said United States, shall be admitted into this Province free of duty when imported direct from the United States." Act 12 Vic, ch. 3. The articles mentioned were : " Grain and broadstuffs of all kinds, vegetables, fruits, seeds, animals, hides, wool, butter, cheese, tallow, hams, salted and fresh meats, ores of all kinds of metals, ashes, timber, staves, wood and lumber of all kinds." The Administration of the United States favoured the adoption of a similar bill in Congress ; such a bill was reported by the Oommittee of Commerce and passed by the House of KejDresenta- tives, but failed of consideration in the Senate in both 1848 and 1849. • ■ , "• .^^ -f- .. 'ii In 1850 Sir Francis Hincks visited Washington on behalf of the Canadian provinces and addressed an able letter to the Chair- i !* 3 r ■ man of the Committee of Commerce in favour of the adoption of a measure of Eeciprocity on the basis followed by the Canadian Act of 1849. His efforts failed, and the United Statea Senate- refused to act. In 1854, after much correspondence, a Treaty of Eeciprocity was at length negotiated. The United States had found that th& protection given to our rights in the fisheries of the Atlantic Coast was pressing very heavily on their fishermen, and at length consented to a treaty. )•" = ,.. ^v^* />,*,. * ?v. /..>-.,-.. n Under this treaty the following articles were declared free in both countries, and the treaty was to continue in force for ten years: — SCHEDULE. Grain, flour, and breadstuffs of all kinds. Animals of all kinds. Fresh, smoked and salted meats. Cotton. wool, seeds and vegetables. ' TJndried fruits ; dried fruits. Fish of all kinds. Products offish and of all other creatures living in the water. Poultry. Eggs. ^" • • Hides, furs, skins or tails undressed. Stone or marble in its crude or unwrought state. Slate. Butter, cheese, tallow. ; !• Lard, horns, manure. :>. Ores of metals of all kinds. , :: Coal. Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. Timber and lumber of all kinds, round, hewed and sawed, un- manufactured in whole or in part. Firewood. ■'■' .'■■-. Plants, shrubs and trees, v- -. = • .,.. Pelts, wool. .. -- In.'* ; ^ ' ( , Fish-oil. Eice, broom-corn and bark. Gypsum, ground or unground, ' ' = ? ..i Hewn, or wrought or unwrought burr or grindstones. • ^ r Dye stuffs. , , ''■, Flax, hemp and tow, unmanufactured. , Unmanufactured tobacco. ,Ur- Eags. ■ k'.i-'^M '■■/• i.-..>>r "" Scarcely had the Treaty been put into operation when agita- tions began in the U.S. for its amendment or abrogation. The border cities complained that their manufactured goods met an import duty at the Canadian frontier, that Canadian duties on manufactures were raised from 15 to 20 p.c, that Gasp^ and Sault St. Marie were made free port<, that the treaty was unequal in its working, and that it should be abrogated. This, in the face of the fact that manufactured goods were excluded by ex- press words from the operation of the treaty, that U.S. duties on manufactured goods imported from Canada were higher than Canadian duties on like articles and were raised by the Morrill Tariff, that consular fees were imposed for proof of origin of free goods, and that the U.S. used no effort to obtain free use of the State canals for Canadian vessels. The agitation was taken up by the Legislature of N.Y. State and pressed upon Congress by the reso- lution of both houses of that body. All this had its effect. In 1865 notice of the abi'ogationof the treaty of 1854 was given by the United States ; but neither Great Britain nor Canada abandoned the friendly attitude they had always taken. When the notice of the abrogation of the treaty of 1854 was given on March l^th, 1865, by Mr. C. F. Adams, in London, to Lord John Eussell, the British Minister was disposed to think that the Government of the United States was not serious, so great a body of commercial opinion in the United States seemed favorable to the continuance of the treaty. But the politicians were more active than the merchants, and Consul Wilkins, in a report of Sep. 7, 1865, said that at the Detroit convention the New York delegates " had been well educated in the school of opposition. On behalf of the latter it was urged that no treaty should be made with an unfriendly people and hints were thrown out that the annexation of Canada to the United States must follow the abrogation of the treaty." He also says that he found at the Board of Trade of St. Louis " a bitterness against Canada very general." Notwith- standing this unfriendly feeling the British Gavernment and the Canadian Government joined in a friendly endeavour to secure a renewal of the treaty. In 1865, Sir Alex. Gait and Hon. H. P. Howland from Canada, Hon. W. A. Henry, from Nova Scotia, and Hon. A. J. Smith, ( 1^ from New Brunswick, were sent by their respective (Governments to Washington to co-operate with Sir P. Bruce, in a friendly attempt at negotiation for a renewal of the treaty of 1854. These gentlemen found " that no renewal or extension of that existing treaty would be made by the American authorities, but that whatever was done must be done by legislation" — English Parliamentary Papere, 1866-76. Nevertheless, though not strongly of opinion that uniformity of reciprocal legislation could be obtained from so many different legislatures, the delegates submitted a basis for legislation. The negotiations failed, owing to the unfriendly feeling in Congress, a result which Lord Clarendon, in a despatch to Sir F. Bruce, most sincerely deplored. — Sessional Papers, Nova Scotia, 1866. By the Customs Act of 1868, section 6, certain enumerated articles, the growth of the United States were permitted to be imported into Canada from the United States "free of duty or at a less rate of duty than is provided in the said schedule, upon the proclamation of the Governor- in-Council, whenever the United States shall provide for the importation of similar articles from Canada into that country free of duty or at a less rate of duty than is now imposed on the importation from Canada of such articles into the United States." This was an olive branch held out by Canada to the United States in spite of the hostile experiences of previous years. In 1869 Sir John Eose was sent by the Canadian Government to Washington, and in conjunction with Sir Edward Thornton, proposed new negotiations with the consent and approval of the British Government of that time, for a reciprocity treaty based on the treaty of 1854, with the addition of manufactured articles to the free list, the mutual opening of the coasting trade, the protection of patents and copyrights, and a treaty of extra- dition. 1 1 was found impossible to make any propositions which the Americans would accept, and the negotiations fell through. In 1871 during the session of the Joint Commission which framed the Washington Treaty, Sir John A. Macdonald, commis- sioner for Canada, and his colleagues the British commissioners, proposed, "That the Eeciprocal Treaty of 1854 should be restored in principle." The U.S. commissioners replied that 6 " The Treaty had proved unsatibfactpry to the ' people of the U.S., and consequently had been terminated by notice from their Government in pursuance of its provisions. Its renewal would not be in their interest and would not be in accordance with the views of the people of the United States." In 1872 the Government of Sir John Macdonald in response to a resolution of the Board of Trade of the Dominion, called attention to the fact " that both Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Canada have availed themselves of every suitable opportunity since the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty to press upon the Government of the United States the desirability of a renewal of reciprocal trade relations between the latter country and Canada upon a broad and liberal basis; and submits for the favorable consideration of Your Excellency in Council that the Dominion Board of Trade be informed that should the Government of the United States comply with the wishes of the United States National Board of Trade, the sub- ject will receive the fullest consideration of the Government of Canada," Canada Sess. Papers No. 40, 18*73. (The United States National Board of Trade in 18*72 had peti- tioned Congress for a renewal of reciprocal trade relations with Canada; and the Dominion Board of Trade had brought this fact to the notice of the Government of Canada.) In 1874 George Brown, at the instance of the Mackenzie Gov- ment, which, by its Minute of Council, declared its belief, " That a most favorable opportunity was presented for renewal of negotiations for a reciprocity treaty," was sent as a commis- sioner to]Washington, and in conjunction with Sir Edward Thorn- ton, after a good deal of discussion, negotiated a draft treaty of reciprocity. But the President did not even allude to it by message, nor did the Senate of the United States, acting within the scope of its authority, ratify or even deign to discuss it. ^ The failure of George Brown's attempt in 1874 had such an effect on Mr. Mackenzie's Government that during the remainder of its term it made no further attempt in that direction. In 1875, when Mr. Wallace asked if the Government intended to renew negotiations, Mr. Mackenzie replied: "We will always be ready to negotiate for a reciprocity treaty with any nation." ; f •■ In inau<^urating the National Policy of 1879, which had become an essential part of public policy in Canada if we wore to have any gieat national industries, the Government of Sir John Macdonald did not overlook their traditional good-will towards the United States and towards fair reciprocal relations. Therefore the Customs Act of 1879, chapter 15, section 6, contained the following enactment : '* Any or all of the following articles, that is to say : Animals of all kinds, green fi-uit, hay, straw, bran, seeds of all kinds, vege- tables (including potatoes and roots), plants, trees and shrubs, coal and coke, salt, hops, wheat, peas and beans, barley, rye, oats, Indian corn, buckwheat and all other grain, flour of wheat and flour of rye, Indian meal and oatmeal, and flour or meal of any other grain, butter, cheese, tish (salted or smoked), lard, tallow, meats (fresh, salted or smoked), and lumber, may be imported into Canada free of duty, or at less rate of duty than is provided by this act, upon proclamation of t! o Governor-in-Council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that similar articles from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty, or at a rate of duty not exceeding that payable on the same under such proclamation when imported into Canada." In 1887, when Sir Charles Tuppor was at "Washington, ho made a foi-raal proposal once more to the Government of the United States, a copy of which is given hero in full : — 8- n- of >y in an er ?5, ew dy (36 A.) [copy.] Of the statement presented by the British Plenipotentiaries to the Fisheries Commission at Washington, in relation to recipro- cal trade relations between Canada and the United States, and the answerof the American Plenipotentiaries thereto. Sir Charles Tupper begged leave therefore formally to hand in the following proposal from the British Plenipotentiaries : — That with the view of removing all cause of difference in con- nection with the fisheries, it is proposed by Her Majesty's Pleni- potentiaries that the fishermen of both countries shall have a31 the privileges enjoyed during the existence of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington, in consideration of a mutual f.rrangeroont providing for greater freedom of commer- cial intercourse between the United States and Canada and New- foundland. i I M 8 t. Mb, Bayard's Reply:— #\ v) ..jv " While continuing their proposal heretofore submitted — on . the 30th ult. — and fully Bharing the desire of Her Britannic Majesty's plenipotentiaries to remove all causes of difference in connection with the fisheries, the American plenipoten- tiaries are constrained, after careful consideration, to decline to ask from the President authority requisite to consider the proposal, conveyed to them on the 3rd inst., us a means to the desired end ; because the greater freedom of commercial intercourse so proposed would necessitate an adjust- ment of the present tariff of tne United States by Congressional action, which adjustment the American plenipotentiaries consider to be manifestly impracticable of accomplishment through the medium of a treaty under the circumstances now existing. " Nor could the American plenipotentiaries admit that such a mutual arrangement as is proposed by Her Britannic Majesty's plenipotentiaries could bo accepted as constituting a suitable basis of negotiations concerning the rights and privileges claim- ed for American fishing vessels. It still appears to the American plenipotentiaries to be possible to find an adjustment of differ- ences by agreeing on an interpretation or modification of the Treaty of 1818, which will be honorable to both parties and remove the present cause of complaint, to which end they are now, as they have been from the beginning of this conference, ready to devote themselves." «' '-'^^'« Yi5*?«> 'CiOjj-ttii'Uii '^ct i:hs\(i:::} It will thus be seen that the position assumed by Canada has from the first been thoroughly consistent, and continuously favourable to the adoption and maintenance of a just and^ reasonable measure of reciprocity with the United States. .^.^ This has been shown : — - ' 1. In the Act passed in 1849, in the. Customs Enactments of statutory offences in 1868, 1879 and 1888, and in the speedy ra- tification by our Parliament of the treaties of 1854, 1871 and 1888. 2. In the repeated efforts made by Canada for the continuance of the old treaty of 1854, and, after its abrogation, for the renewal of reciprocal relations on a fair and equitable basis. y On the other hand, from the time of the abrogation of the treaty of 1854 until the present, in no single case has the United . States Government (a) either responded to the approaches made t by Canada (6) or made any advance itself. The Liberal-Conservative Government of Canada omits no op- ^ portunity of promoting and developing the best interests of** Canada on a self-dependent basis, and at the same time avails itself of every opening to bring about a measure of honourable reciprocity with the United States. s e M