IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 // 
 
 V 
 
 ^ .. 
 
 y 
 
 
 i ^^/^ 
 
 ^ «:/. 
 A 
 
 1.0 !r:i^ 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 !f* 140 
 
 2.2 
 2.0 
 
 11= 
 
 U IIIIII.6 
 
 "/ 
 
 ^% 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 O 
 
 / 
 
 /^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 873-4503 
 
 ,v 
 
 '% 
 
 V 
 
 <i; 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 U>. 
 
 s 
 
 \ 
 
 c.^ 
 
 <^*^ 
 
 l*>^ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the bust 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographicaily unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 D 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmdes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 I I Pages damaged/ 
 
 Pages endommag6es 
 
 ,^'l Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 I I Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 r~n( Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 I I Pages ddcolor6es, tachet6es ou piqudes 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pages ddtachdes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Qualitd indgale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materii 
 Comprend du matdriei suppl6mentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 l~~l Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 I I 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 partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6x6 film6es d nojveau de fapon 6 
 obtenb la meilleure image possible. 
 
 J 
 
 sj 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce d la 
 gAn6ro8it4 de: 
 
 La bibliothdque des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 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. 
 
 Les images sulvantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exy mplaires 
 originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — »- signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diff6rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
I 
 
l: 
 
 WHY NOT have: 
 
 RECIPROCITY ? 
 
 AN EASY, WISE AND PRACTICABLE METHOD 
 
 OF 
 
 SETTLING THE OUTSTANDING DISPUTES 
 
 BET?VEEN 
 
 CANADA 
 
 AND THE 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 By Thomas P. Gorman. 
 
 TORONTO, JANUARY 1890. 
 
 TORONiOr 
 PRINTED BY HUNTER, ROSE & CO. ' 
 
 1890. 
 
'/( . 
 
 V 
 
 I 
 
 u-/» 
 
 W 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 C 
 w 
 
WKim^mmsmmimasmmmTia^i^mfms;- 
 
 WHY NOT HAVE EECIPROCITY ? 
 
 ■♦♦4 
 
 WHEN it was proposed, a good many years ago, to assimilate 
 the gauges of the Canadian railways to those of the 
 United States, so that locomotives and cars could be run freely 
 across the international boundary line, and over the railway lin^ 
 of the respective countries, some exceedingly loyal and exceed- 
 ingly foolish Canadians objected to ihe proposition on the ground 
 that it would lead to the annexation of Canada to the United 
 States. These people imagined, or professed to believe, that unless 
 there was a transfer of passengers, freight, mails and luggage from 
 Canadian to American trains, and vice versa, at the international 
 boundary, people would soon forget where the boundary w*ts, and 
 that the British connection would be endangered. Quite as ab- 
 surd are some of the objections now raised on the Canadian side 
 against the proposal for the abolition of all restrictions upon, 
 commerce between the Dominion and the United States. The 
 opponents of reciprocity are of two classes : — Those who are pro- 
 tectionists in the abstract, and who are interested in restricting 
 the importation of foreign goods ; and those who profess to favor 
 reciprocity, but who argue that the scheme is impracticable. It 
 is with the objections of the latter class that this paper will deal 
 principally. The " loyalty " objection is unworthy of serious at- 
 tention. If the a^achment of Canadians to Great Britain can be 
 undermined by allowing them to trade freely with their neigh- 
 bors, then it must be confessed that their loyalty is not very 
 deep-seated. And is it not ridiculous to contend that a Canadian 
 can sell to and buy from the Americans all his life without be- 
 coming tainted with disloyalty, so long as he is obliged to pay 
 customs duty upon what he purchases and sells — but that if he is 
 allowed to do his trading freely he will become an annexationist 
 at once ? 
 
 TWO OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 Coming now to the American objection to reciprocity with 
 Canada, we find that it is contended — (1) that if the Canadians 
 were allowed free access to the markets of the United States 
 tb'>y would have no object in seeking political union with tho 
 g it republic, and that (2) if Canadian products were admitted 
 
 i" . 
 
't 
 
 1}^ 
 
 i- 
 
 I- 
 
 4 WHY NOT HAVE RKCIPBOCITY? 
 
 free, goods from other couatried would find their way into the 
 United States by way of Canada without paying customs duty. 
 There are also some, like Senator Morrill of Vermont, who con- 
 tend that the United States' manufacturers would not be able to 
 compote with those of Canadp* lu the markets of the continent if 
 all restraints upon commerce Iwtween the two countries were abol- 
 ished. But Mr. Morrill gives his entire case away by advocating 
 the annexation of Canada to the United States. If the manu- 
 facturers of the Dominion could undersell those of the United 
 States under commercial reciprocity, they could certainly do so if 
 Canada was annexed. And Mr. Morrill's contention that reci- 
 procity would spoil annexationist prospects completely refutes 
 the argument of the Canadian. restriction ists that reciprocity or 
 commercial union would lead to annexation. 
 
 ]K. 
 
 ANNEXATION UNDESIRABLE. 
 
 As to the argument that Canadians would cease to long for an- 
 nexation if they had reciprocity or Commercial Union, it has 
 never been shown that annexation would be a good thing either 
 for Canada or for the United States. There is surely room for 
 two nations on the North American Continent, provided the two 
 can get along peacefully together. There is no feeling in Canada 
 in favor of aimexation to the United States, and if a compreher- 
 flive scheme for extenijed trade between the two countries was 
 adopted, which would* include a complete settlement of the fish- 
 eries, canal and lake navigation, and other questions which have 
 caused irritation during recent years, there is little doubt that any 
 feeling which may exist in the United States in favor of annex- 
 ing Canada would speedily disappear ; and the occupation of the 
 Anglo-phobes and " tail-twisters on the American side of the 
 line, as well as that of the Yankee-phobes and professional loyal- 
 ists on the Canadian side would be gone. 
 
 IS RECIPROCAL TRADE PRACTICABLE? 
 
 Now comes the question :■ — Is unrestricted reciprocity practi- 
 cable ? First let us admit that ti ) complete obliteration of the 
 existing restrictions upon trade between Canada and the United 
 States is desirable. This much is generally conceded. Even the 
 Canadian opponents of unrestricted reciprocity profess to be in 
 favor of reciprocity in the products of the soil, the sea, the forest 
 and the mine — thus admitting that freedom of commercial inter- 
 course with the United States would be a good thing for the for- 
 mers, the fisheiTaen, the lumbermen and the miners, and these 
 four classes form probably seven-eighths of the population. Can 
 
 >■ I 
 
wm 
 
 wmsmmmm 
 
 mm 
 
 WHY NOT HAVE RECIPROCITY? 6 
 
 unrestricted reciprocity be carried out without unfaimcRS either 
 to Canada or the United States ? Will not goods from England and 
 other countries find their way into Canada through the United 
 States free of duty, if we allow American products to come in 
 free; and will not goods other than Canadian gain admittance 
 into the United States free of duty if Canadian products are al- 
 lowed to be imported free ? Certainly not. At least there will 
 be as little and probably less danger of this happening than 
 there is now of American goods being smuggled into Canada and 
 vice versa. The theory of those apprehensive opponents of recip- 
 rocity is that if Canada or the United States agrees to admit 
 goods from a particular country free, all the nations of the earth 
 will send their products to that particular country to be shipped 
 from thence to Canada or the United States, for the purpose of 
 escaping the payment of customs duty. But if that theory was 
 correct, the present tariff systems of Canada and the United 
 States would be confessed failures. The United States admits 
 sugar from the Hawaiian Islands free of duty. How comes it 
 that all the islands of the Pacific Ocean, which produce sugar, as 
 well as the East and West Indian Islands, do not send their 
 sugars to Honolulu, to be shipped from thence to the United 
 States, in order to escape the American customs duty ? The an- 
 swer to this question every customs officer knows. The man 
 who attemps to enter sugar as Hawaiian sugar at a United States 
 port must prove by sworn and documentary testimony that his 
 sugar is the product of Hawaii. It is not sufficient to prove that 
 it came from Honolulu. The onus of proof is on the importer. 
 He must show that his merchandize is entitled to bo admitted 
 free before he can escape the payment of duty. The same rule 
 would apply to importations from Canada into the United States, 
 and vice versa^ under unrestricted reciprocity. 
 
 Look at ou^ present Canadian tariff. We find that fish the 
 product of Newfoundland are admitted free while fish brought from 
 any other country must pay duty. Section 3 of the Dominion 
 Customs Act provides that fish and other products of the fisheries 
 shall be chargeable with and there shall be collected thereon the 
 rates of duty set forth in the schedule attached to the Act with 
 the following proviso : 
 
 " ^Provided that the whole or part of the duties imposed by this aeotion 
 may be remitted as respects either the United States or the Island of New> 
 foundland, or both, upon proclaruation of the Oovemor-General-in-Cotinoil ; 
 which may be issued whenever i^ appears to his satisfaction that the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, or of Newfoundland, or either of them, hare 
 made changes in their tariffs of duties imposed op<m artiolies ionportod from 
 Canada, in redaction or repeal of the duties in toroe in tibe mud countries 
 respactiyely." 
 
 
;M 
 
 WHY NOT DAVE RECIPROCITY? 
 
 
 T' 
 
 
 THE DISLOYALTY BUG-BEAR. 
 
 We are told that if would be dreadfully disloyal for Canada to 
 admit goods free from the United States while collecting duties 
 upon imports from England, but by the foregoing clause in the 
 Customs Act the Dominion Government "have taken power to 
 admit American and Newfoundland fish free, while collecting 
 duties on fish brought from Great Britain and any other British 
 colony or foreign country, and at present Newfoundland fish are 
 admitted foee under the authority of the Act before quot<)d. 
 Why cannot the rul« now applied to fish be applied to other 
 goods ? How do Canadian customs officers know that fish claimed 
 to be Newfoundland fish are really such ? They can only know it 
 by the testimony of the importer and by the circumstances sur- 
 rounding the importation. Under a treaty of reciprocity between 
 Canada and the United States providing for the fiee entry of 
 each country's products into the other, the customs officers would 
 identify the goods entitled to free entry just as American officers 
 now identify Hawaiian sugar, and Canadian officers identify 
 Newfoundland fish. Again, clause 11 of the Canadian Customs 
 Act authorizes the Government to reduce or abolish the duties 
 upon wines imported from France or Spain whenever these 
 countries have reduced or abolished the duties upon articles im- 
 ported from Canada. Why has this authority been asked for and 
 granted if it is impossible to discriminate in favor of foreign 
 countries and against Great Britain ? If there was anything in 
 the theory that goods not entitled to free admission would find 
 their way into Canada and the United States under a system of 
 reciprocal, trade between these two countries, how do the Can- 
 adian Government propose to keep Italians and Germans from 
 sending their wines into the Dominion free by way of France and 
 Spain, if the wines of the latter countries are placed on the free 
 list ? 
 
 Again we find that by the Canadian tariff coarse salt is sub- 
 ject to a general duty of ten cents per hundred pounds, but coarse 
 salt " imported from th^ United Kingdom or any British posses- 
 sion, or salt imported for the use of the gulf or sea. fisheries " is 
 admitted free. How do the customs officials know when coarse 
 salt is imported from Great Britain or fot use in the fisheries ? 
 They can vnly know this by evidence furnished by the importer. 
 It would be much easier to ascertain whether ipods entered at 
 customs were the product of Canada or of the United States, as 
 the case might be, than it is to prove that a certain cargo of coarse 
 salt is for use" in the gulf or sea fisheries In fact, along the 
 
- WHT KOT HAVE RECIPaOCnY ? » 7 
 
 botindary line from Lake Ontario to the Pacific Ocean there never 
 would be any difficulty, because the trade is there almost exclus- 
 ively between Canada and the United States 
 
 RECIPROCITY AND COMMERCIAL UNION. 
 
 What is there then in the way of complete reciprocity of trade 
 between the two countries ? Clearly nothing but the o])position 
 of interested or prejudiced persons. The existing Customs Acts 
 of Canada and the tJnitcd States show that such a proposal is 
 quite practicable. In what way should the advocates of unre- 
 stricted reciprocity proceed ? The plan which finds most favor 
 in Canada, and probably in the United States also, is that of con- 
 current legislation by Congress and the Dominion Parliament. 
 Let a clause be inserted in the United States' tariff providing for 
 the free admission of all articles grown or manufactured in Can- 
 ada, on condition thjjj^U articles of American growth or manu- 
 facture are admittednfree into Canada, and all that is asked for 
 will be accomplished. The views of the reciprocity advocates in 
 the United States seem to be embodied in the following resolu- 
 tion which received the almost unanimous support of the Wash- 
 ington House of Representatives last summer : 
 
 " Resolved, That whenever the Dominion of Canada admits products, 
 wares and merchandise grown, produced or manufactured in the United 
 States free of duty, then the products, wares, and merchandise grown, pro- 
 duced or manufactured in saicl Dominion of Canada shall be admitted free of 
 duty into the United States." 
 
 The Canadians who favor reciprocity have embodied their 
 proposition in the followrng resolution which received the sup- 
 port of eighty odd members of the Dominion House of Commons ; 
 
 "That it is highly desirable that the largest possible freedom of commer- 
 cial intercourse should obtain between the Dominion of Canada and the 
 United States, and that it is expedient that all articles manufactured in, or 
 the natural produces of either of the naid countries should be admitted free 
 of duty into the ports of the other." f 
 
 The two resolutions mean the same thing. Another resolution 
 which has been adopted by the United States' House of Repre- 
 sentatives proposes a customs union, that is a uniform tariff for 
 the two countries and a sub-division of the customs revenue col- 
 lected in both, according to the population of each. That plan 
 has been successfully carried out in the German States, and has 
 lately been adopted in South Africa, between the British Cape 
 Colony and the Orange Free State, with the full approval of the 
 British Government. A customs union such as that advocated 
 by Mr. Hitt, Mr. Wiman and others, is one method of obtaining 
 
6 
 
 WHY NOT HAVK RECIPROCITY? 
 
 I 
 
 the abolition of all restrictions upon trade between Canada and 
 the United States. But whether wo have a customs union or a 
 simple arranjirement providing for the free importation of each 
 country's products into the other is of no particular c usequence. 
 The principle and aim of each proposition is in the direction of 
 the abolition of customs restrictions upon trade between the two 
 countries. 
 
 Is tho abolition of these restrictions desirable? That is 
 the question which the people of the two countries must consider 
 and determine before they ^vaste time discussing the merits of 
 any particular scheme for achieving that object. Unrestricted 
 reciprocity is practicable. Commercial Union is practicable. 
 Let the people at the polls decide that tho customs* wall should 
 come down, and a way ot carrying their wishes into effect will 
 speedily be found. ' 
 
 / THE QUESTION OF REVj(|ftJE. 
 
 There is of course the question qf revenue to be considered. To 
 tho people of the United Statefi this matter is of little impor j,nce, 
 because the national government ia now embarrassed by a congest- 
 ed treasury, and any means of reducing the rapidly accumulating 
 surplus, while obtaining advantages for the country, in the way of 
 extended trade, ought to meet with favor. But on the Canadian 
 side the revenue question is a serious one. \y^e are told that by 
 agreeing to admit United States products free of duty the 
 Dominion Government would lose seven or eight millions of dol- 
 lars of revenue annually. How is this deficiency to be made up ? 
 In the first place the expenditure of the Dominion is now a great 
 deal too large, and might, with advantage to the country be re- 
 duced. An expenditure of thirty millions of dollars a year is 
 more than suflicient to efficiently maintain the services under the 
 control of the Dominion Government. If commercial or customs 
 union is agreed on there will be no loss of revenue to the Dom- 
 inion. But in any event the loss of revenue under unrestricted 
 reciprocity would be no greater than it will be if the policy of 
 the present CJanadian Government be successfully carried out. 
 The policy of the existing administration in Canada is to exclude 
 all American manufactured goods from the Dominion markecs, 
 and to obtain, if possible, reciprocity of trade in natural pro- 
 ducts. If they succeed in their aims — if all United States manu- 
 factures are shut out and natural products are admitted free — 
 the loss of revenue will be just as great as it would be under a 
 system which admitted all United States products free. What 
 we hare to consider is whether the ajivantages which would 
 
 
 
WHY NOT HAV« EECIPBOCITY ? 
 
 9 
 
 accrue to the country from unrestricted trade between Canada 
 and the United States would more than compensate for the loss 
 of revenue. The prohibition of the liqu<^r traffic would cause 
 a greater loss of revenue to the JJominion than reciprocity, yet 
 noarly all our public "men profess to be anxious to see the liquor 
 trattlc wiped out. The Canadian Minister of Finance claims to 
 to be a prohibitionist. Has he over otoppetl to consider the 
 amount of revenue that he would lose if prohibition was carried 
 into effect ? Last year the customs duties collected in Canada on 
 beer, spirits, and materials used in the manufacture of these arti- 
 cles, amounted to about $2,083,269. The excise duties on spirits 
 reached $:J,072,288, nnd on malt and malt liquors $495,756. Total 
 revenue from al«!Oholic liquors, $5,661,313. In the coming year 
 the governmr t exj^ect to receive $7,125,000 of excise revenue. 
 Nearly the whv..e ol this will come from spirits and beer. Do 
 the prohibitionists cease advocating prohibition becnuse of the 
 loss of revenue their success would entail ? iNot at all. They 
 argue that the benefits which would result from prohibition 
 would more than compensate fo/ the Iojis of revenue. The advo- 
 cates of reciprocity put forward a similar claim. Mr. Gladstone 
 once remarked, in reply to the argument that prohibition would 
 cause a loss of revenue : — " Give me a sober people and the 
 revenue will take care of itself." So we say reciprocity will give 
 us a prosperous, a happy, and a contented people, and the 
 revenue will take care of itself. 
 
 A SITBJECT FOR STATESMEN. 
 
 How should this great question of the international relations 
 between the two countries be discussed ? Certainly not in a 
 spirit of narrow jealousy, hostility or defiance by the statcv^jnen 
 of either country towards the other. Let those who make a live- 
 lihooii or win popularity in the United States by " twisting the 
 British lion's tail," and our Canadian " loyalists by occupation " 
 take a back seat for a time. This is a question for statesmeu, not 
 for demagogues. Speaking on this iNdnt in the Cfinadian House 
 of Commons Sir Richard Cartwright said : — 
 
 " Canada has a great deal to give, aa well as a f;reat deal to got, and in 
 making a bargain with the United States I for one would give fair and fall 
 equivalents, t wish that the treaty shall be perfectly and mutually bene- 
 6oial — that for every dollar of profit we make they should make their dollar, 
 and that for every Canadian who is benetited an American should be bene- 
 fited likewise. It is on such a basis alone that a firm and permanent 
 arrangement lot free and nnrestricted trade can be carried out. The people 
 of the United States need new markets as well as we do. We have it in our 
 power to give a full equivalent and to benefit quite as many Americans by 
 this arrangement as Americans will be benefited. You may approach this 
 
 y 
 
mn 
 
 10 
 
 W^Y NOT HAVE BKCJPBOCITY ? 
 
 1 
 ■ 
 1 
 
 matter if you will in the spirit of stateimen or you may approach it in the 
 spirit of flunkeys. As for the United States, I have no doubt they have got 
 their faults ; but no man can have mixed much with the Americans without 
 knowing that they are emphatically a great and a generous nation. If yon 
 go to the people of the United States and make a fair, just and reasonable 
 proposition to them there is every reason to believe that we will be fairly and 
 honorably received, and that it ia in our pow^r to make an arrangement 
 which will be mutually advantageous, profitable and honorable to both 
 nations." 
 
 The statesmen of the United States ought to be able to ap- 
 proach th^* subject in a spirit similar to that indicated by Sir 
 Kichard C twright. If they do so, there is good reason to hope 
 that the petty vexations which have arisen between the two 
 countries during the past few years ; the seizures of American 
 fishing vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and of '^anadian seal- 
 ing vessels in Behring Sea ; the demands for retaliatory legisla- 
 lation by citizens of one country against the other because of real 
 or fancied injustice ; the export duties on logs by one country 
 and the increase of lumber duty by the other ; Smart Aleck taxes 
 'Oipon lobster cans and peach baskets, and the other petty disputes 
 which tend to place two nations that ought to be close friends in 
 fi. most ridiculous light before the world, would speedily cease. 
 /j^It is reasonable to expect that there will always be objections 
 
 \ to reciprocity by selfish men, who enjoy monopolies, and who 
 think that trade ought to be restrained and competition restricted 
 for their benetit. These men are to be found on both sides of the 
 line. They see no injustice in legislation which compels the con- 
 suming classes to purchase dear goods, and which reduces the pur- 
 chasing power of the working man's earnings. It is a noteworthy 
 fact that the man who advocates a high tariff in his own country 
 invariably desires that every other country should adopt free 
 trade. He is not willing to give and take. It is very easy to 
 reduce the high tariff man's argument to an absurdity. You grant 
 him that foreign goods should be excluded from the United Stayte.s. 
 Being asked then whether the goods of all other States should 
 not be excluded from that one in which he happens to do busi- 
 ness, so as to give him a monopoly of the home market, and his 
 
 . selfishness will prompt him to say yes. Then he is compelled to 
 admit that if, one State or one Province should be protected 
 against another, one county ought to have a tariff against ano- 
 ther, and the village against the town or city. Being cornered, 
 he declares that so lonw as the foreignei-s shut out his goods he 
 will insist on having theirs shut out. There is some force and 
 some equity in that argument, even if its application does some- 
 times result in '* cutting off the nose to spite the fcice." But even 
 this last refuge of the monopolist does not hold good as an argu- 
 
 an 
 
I 
 
 WHY NOT HAVE RECIPBOCITY ? 
 
 11 
 
 raenfc against recipix)city, because the proposition is ** all bars 
 down," and the placing of Canadian and American producers on an 
 even plane in competing for business all over the two countries. 
 The United States manufacturer who wants the customs wall 
 kept up on the ground that the Canadians would undersell him 
 if it was torn down, betrays lamentable cowardice, and the same 
 remark ap^^lies to the Canadian who is afraid of competition in » 
 his business in such a large market as that of the North Ameri- 
 can continent. 
 
 NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE TARIFF WALL. 
 
 The cry of "jug-handled free-trade" cannot be raised against 
 a proposition for unrestricted reciprocity between two nations. 
 Not an argument can be advanced in favor of free commercial 
 intercourse between the various States of the American Union 
 which does apply with equal force in favor of free trade between 
 the United States and Canada ; not an argument can be used in 
 favor of free trade between Ontario and Quebec which is not also 
 an argument for free trade between Ontario and the State of New 
 York. If it is a benefit to shut Ontario and Quebec products out 
 of the markets of New York, why not shut out the products of 
 Ohio and Illinois ? Does any sane man believe that the republic 
 of the United States would ever have attained its present great- 
 ness, if each State had been free to maintain tariff walls egainst 
 its neighbors ? And was not the " free trade between the pro- 
 vinces " argument used with force by the promoters of the Can- 
 adian Confederation Scheme ? The reciprocity prineiple is simply 
 an application of the Golden Rule to international commerce. 
 The existing policy of " commercial war " between the Dominion 
 and the United States cannot be defended upon any moral 
 ;.;iound, and it is the duty of the statesmen responsible for the 
 government of the two countries to put an end to it. Why 
 should two nations professing Christianity adopt towards each 
 other n. trade policy which is in the highest degree unchristian? ^ 
 On the Canadian side, as before remarked, the " loyalty " cyy is 
 raised by those interested in maintaining the existing restrictions 
 upon trade between this country and the United Sta,tes. We are 
 told that it would be utterly wrong to discriminate against Great 
 Britain and her colonies and in favor of the United States — that 
 it would be "disloyal" to impose duties upon goods imported from 
 the United Kingdom, while admitting United States products 
 free. But Canada has the right to do this, and the only question 
 is whether it is in her inteiest to do so. 
 
 y 
 > 
 
 
 -M 
 
 y 
 
ssas'^fm 
 
 12 
 
 WHY NOT HAVE BECIPBOCITY ? 
 
 lu 
 
 iff 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN DOES NOT, 
 
 apparently, object to her colonies doing as they please in the ^ 
 matter of tariff" arrangements. A commercial union has just been 
 formed between Gape Colony and the Orange Free State, under 
 which goods from the last mentioned country are to be admitted 
 into the British Colony free, while similar goods brought from 
 England must pay duty. And this arrangement has been approved 
 by tlie British government The present Canadian customs 
 tariff imposes an average rate of twenty-two per cent, duty upou 
 the classes of goods imported into the Dominion, while the aver- 
 age rate upon imports from the United States is less than fifteen 
 per cent. Although Canada imports more from the United States 
 than from Great Britain, the revenue collected upon Britisli goods 
 greatly exceeds that levied upon those brought from the United 
 States. Is this not discrimination against the mother country I 
 The right of Canada to discriminate against Great Britain or any 
 other country by means of her customs tariff has been insisted 
 upon by various Canadian governments since before Confedera- 
 tion, and admitted by the Imperial authorities. In 185J>, Sir 
 Alexander Gait, then minister of finance, in answering the objec- 
 tions of the British Secretary of State for the colonies, to a traiff 
 scheme which proposed discrimination againsi. British trade, said ; 
 " I must distinctly affirm the right of the Canadian legislature 
 " to adjust the taxation of the people in the way they deem best, 
 " even if it should unfortunately happen to meet the disapproval 
 " of the Imperial Ministry. Her Majesty cannot be advised to 
 " disallow such acts, unless her advisers are prepared to assume 
 " the administration of the affairs of the colony, irrespective of 
 " the views of the inhabitants." The Imperial government had 
 to give way, and the doctrine laid down by Sir Alexander Gait 
 has been acted upou by every Canadian government and legisla- 
 ture during recent years. Why should i^ be otherwise ? ^e 
 Canadians to remain forever, like ancient vestals, watching the 
 holy fire of " loyalty ? " Are they to entertain no national ambi- i 
 tions, and to refuse to allow any hopes of an independent Cana- 
 dian nationality to enter their minds ? The idea is absurd. ■ 
 When it was charged that the present Canadian protective tariff ' 
 would prove inconsistent with British connection, the supporters 
 of the tariff cried " so much the worse for the British connection." i 
 Just now the Liberals of Canada are contending that Canada J 
 should have the right to make commercial treaties with foreign 
 nations, regardless of British interests or British influence, and : 
 that right will have to bo conceded. 
 
WHY NOT HAVE RECIPROCITY t 
 
 19 
 
 in the 
 1st been 
 B, under 
 rlraitted 
 
 it from 
 Dpi'oved 
 
 ustonis 
 
 goods 
 
 INTERESTS OF BOTH COUNTRIES IDENTICAL. 
 
 For the benefit of the professional loyalists in Canada and the 
 Anglophobes in the United States the question may be asked: 
 Is Canada more of a British colony than the United States ? Did 
 not Disraeli utter a truism when, in his place in the House of 
 Commons in 18G3, he said : " Colonies do not cease to be.cclonies 
 when they become independent ? " The United States maintains 
 a tariff wall against Great Britain. So does Canada. The Amer- 
 icans speak the English language, their system of jurisprudence is 
 founded upon that of England ; Americans in common with 
 British subjects claim the literature of Great Britain as a heri- 
 tage ; the bulk of the foreign commerce of the United States is 
 carried by British ships; over one-half of the exports of the 
 Inited States go to Great Britain; British political issues have 
 a greater influence upon the politics of tlie United States than 
 upon the politics of Canada. In proof of this statement it is oniy 
 necessary to refer to the Sackvillo West incident. Pro-British 
 and anti-British parties exist in the United States as well as in 
 Canada. The State legislatures feel called upon to pronounce 
 upon the question of Home Rule for Ireland, and meetings are 
 held in all parts of the United States, and money raised to sup- 
 port the Home Rule party oJ Great Britain. The great ambition 
 of American ladies seems to be to marry English noblemen, and 
 American as well as Canadian millionaires go to England when 
 they retire from business, and there spend the fortunes made in 
 the United States and the Dominion. The British trade returns 
 for 1886 show that Great Britain in that year purchased mof^ 
 from the United States than from all her colonies put togod^r, 
 and that the aggregate trade between the colonies, including 
 India, and the mother country was £157,390,680 ; while 
 the trade with the United States reached £108,425,072. In 
 the same year Canada's trade with Great Britain only amounted 
 to £18,304,206. And the volume of trade between Great Britain 
 and the United States is constantly increasing All these facts 
 go to prove the' truth of Disraeli's remark, and that the United 
 States is very little more than a British colony yet. In fact, if 
 the exodus of population from Canada to the southward contin- 
 ues, the great republic may soon be spoken of as a Canadian 
 colony. In the course of a S])ecch before quoted from. Sir Richard 
 Cartwrighu remarked that the American people were becoming 
 " blood of our blood and flesh of our flesh," and that the geograph- 
 ical position of Canada made her "a hostage to the United States 
 for the good behaviour of England." 
 
rre^ 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 WHY NOT HAVE RECIPROCITY ? 
 
 •■ w ' 
 
 Ui;®*-! 
 
 n. 
 
 
 
 Ri : 
 
 I 
 
 / 
 
 • A PRECEDENT IN EUROPE 
 
 If precedents for such an an'angeraent for unrestricted com- 
 mercial intercourse between two countries such a.s that proposed 
 between Canada and the United States are called for, they wil] 
 be forthcoming. The German Zoilverein can be cited, but a case 
 more nearly parallel can be found in the existing arrangement 
 between Sweden and Norway. Each of these kingdoms admits 
 the products of the other free, while imposing duties upon good.s 
 imported from other countries. Some one may say that Sweden 
 and Norway form one nation. That is not correct. It is true 
 that the King of Sweaen is also the King of Norway, or vice 
 versa, but each country maintains its own parliament, its own 
 constitution, its own laws, its own customs tariff, its own official 
 language, itij own currency, its own flag. The Swedish customs 
 returns for "1885 show that the imports from Norway were 23,- 
 736,000 kroner, and the exports to Norway 10,311,000. There is 
 no more danger of foreign goods finding their way into Norway 
 as Swedish products, than there is that goods subject to duty 
 will be smuggled in. And the difficulties of maintaining unre- 
 stricted reciprocity of trade between Norway and Sweden are 
 much greater than they would be if a similar arrangement was 
 made between Canada and the United States. 
 
 FRENCH-CANADIAN LOYALTY. 
 
 As to the alleged devotion of the French Canadians to British 
 interests, it is only necessary to quote from a speech delivered in 
 the Canadian House of Commons by Hon. L. K. Masson, an ex- 
 Minister of Militia, an ex-Lieutenant-Govemor, and a leader of 
 the Conservative party, to show how little ground there is for 
 taking much stock in it. In replying to the charge tha* the pro- 
 tective tariff which his party were about to introduce woiild dis- 
 criminate against British trade, Mr, Masson said ; 
 
 ** I may tell the honorable gentleman that the Conservatives of Lower 
 Canada are as loyal to England as they always have been, but I will add the 
 words of Lafontaine : ' Mais avant tout soyous Oanadiens ' — (• But before 
 •11 let us be Canadians '). This was Lafontaine's doctrine, and they followed 
 it. The Imperial Government in its relations and connections with the col- 
 onies has Zj^ver been exempt from those rather selfish niotivea, if such mo 
 tives couldfoe so called, by which the mother country has wished to aggrandise 
 herself at the expense of the colonies ; the whole colonial system is based 
 upon this principle thut the mother country took these colonieu so as to have 
 from them raw material for her own manufacturers. That was the object of 
 •very central government in every country in the world with respect to their 
 eolonios, and, it 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 
 
 rfii 
 
f-^m 
 
 mmmmmmmmmmmm 
 
 WHY NOT HAVE JIECIPROCITY ? 
 
 15 
 
 good.s 
 
 defend the rightii of Canada. The Imperial Qovernment having given us 
 the right of self-government, has also conferred upon us the right to regu- 
 late our local duties as we wish. The Oonservatives of Lower Canada do 
 not wish to act against the interests of England, but they have the right, if 
 they wish, to regulate the duties, irrespeotiye of England, if it is Canada's 
 interest to do so." 
 
 Mr. Masson declares that his compatriots are Canadians first and 
 Britishers afterwards, and that they intend to support what is 
 best for Canada, irrespective of Great Biitain's wishes and inter- 
 ests. That is precisely the position occupied by the Canadian 
 advocates of reciprocity. 
 
 ADVANTAGES TO BOTH COUNTRIES. 
 
 The advantages to be derived from complere freedom of 
 coraraercial intercourse between the United States and Canada 
 inu8t be obvious to any one who will take the trouble to 
 look at the position of the two countries. The natural 
 course of trade is from North to South. The Dominion and 
 the United States are the natural markets each of the other. 
 Not only would unrestricted reciprocity settle satisfactorily 
 all outstanding disputes with regard to the fisheries, canal 
 privileges, and export duties, and remove all sources of- irrita- 
 tion and il-feeling between two kindred nations, but it wo''ld 
 give an immense impetus to trade between the two countries, 
 thus furnishing increased bueincss for railways and water- 
 ways. Even under existing conditions the United States has a 
 trade with Canada greater, in proportion, to the Dominion's 
 population, than with any other country. The average Canadian 
 buys more American products than the average man ol any other 
 nationality on the globe. Canada's trade with the United States 
 is nearly one-half of her entire trade with the world, and the 
 trade of the United States with Canada is only exceeded in 
 volume by the trade with Great Britain, Fiance and Germany. 
 
 .#