^^^i. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVAi.UATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 
 &?^ 
 
 
 t/j 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 13.2 
 
 2.5 
 
 •^ rife 
 
 ^ lig 12.0 
 
 l.2l 
 
 iiii|m 
 
 1.6 
 
 6" - 
 
 ^3 
 
 ^ 
 
 V2 
 
 ^;j 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 om 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY HS80 
 
 (716) 872-4303 
 
 V 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 <> 
 
 4^% 
 
 ^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 -1> 
 
 .1^ 
 
 ^'h'- 
 
 ri7 
 
<. 
 
 ^^4^ 
 
 <p 
 
 :% 4"^ 
 
 
 .<$> 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 vV 
 
 1981 
 
 B^^^^^^l^H 
 
Technicat and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may titer any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 □ 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture andommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde 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 on noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relie avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reiiuie serree 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 ajout^es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le toxte, 
 mais, lorsque cela §tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas et6 filmdes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires; 
 
 L'lnstitut a miciofilmd le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a dt6 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 methods normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 □ 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d^color^es, tachet^es ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tach^es 
 
 PTl Showthrough/ 
 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Qualite in^gale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materic 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by eirata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible imaija/ 
 Les pages totalement cu partiellement 
 obsc'jrcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de facon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 18X 
 
 20X 
 
 74X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
Tiio copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Quebec 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reprcduit grSce & \a 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Quebec 
 
 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 suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de ta nettetd 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 w'ih a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Lea exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont film^s en commonpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte una empreirte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commen^ant 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. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END "), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely includrd in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hend corner, left to 
 right and ton 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 clichd, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 4 5 6 
 
P3? 
 
 tlm 
 
 
 
 
 I'm 
 
 
 'iif^ 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 j'S 
 
 
 - \^- 
 
 a 
 
 w" 
 
 i!^ - 1 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ¥ 
 
 Mg':: 
 

 UTION 
 
 MONTR 
 
 NCH OF THE 
 
 ,.V - ' -9 
 
 
 Mnvr.l 1,\ iVH'AK .ll "'•I', l-'-'J' 
 
 r;-r-li(i;ul 
 
 l!v. V-U!!- Mr 
 
 !,,, ( 'ii;ui'i,i;i!i I'f ;ii'' l.u;ii'i 
 
 U, form (.;!ul>, M'litiv,'!, 
 
 mI" U.ii!'"iii (.^.!ului^si-^^r<, aii'l uiiiiiiiin-ii:-! y 
 
 ,,,lnn-t,u',l).a.r;>.n-M'..M..l:.,:,n.nn:U,>..fv,-|,ic!., 1-nK.rn:' 
 
 t-i ill.' !i;i,n..ii:il 
 
 ,t,,il-;,11y .•Ml:ip'i''i tul llic 
 
 lil',,dncli..M of :,r lie.-'- 'iiu'wrl 
 
 ••• ' *• . ., 'i , .,,1,;..,.! 1,, 1^' i.Ml.ii-li.'i 
 
 Mi;. Aia:i!. >i 
 |.«,nii]ililt 1. t'liriiK ;t!iii i 
 .it'l'T till' iiuMi''ati.ai. 
 
 •aiisi' 
 ,„.r Mil liir Mihj.-el U> 1'^' pulai-h.M 11! 
 
 i:i\ '■ ;i i!H'> iin J I 
 
 .,i],,,l f.iv rnillii';' lU-iMiSsil'l 
 
 I 
 
 V 
 
(iDu Commercial Pinion toitl) tbc Hnitcb States 
 
 (lllitlt It tuofb on Eirtpcnal llcciprocitn. 
 
 The proposal to abolisli all duties on trade between the United 
 States and Canada being now advocated by certain newspapers in the 
 West, and the attention of the farmers of Canada having been 
 specially directed to its consideration, I purpose to attempt a discus- 
 sion of the merits of suclia policy on its purely economical or business 
 side, leaving i)olitical considerations out of sight, and looking at it 
 chiefly from the farmer's str.n<lpoint. By commercial union is meant 
 the abolition of the custom houses all along the boundary line, the 
 adoption of a common tariff at the seaboard as against all otlier 
 countries in and out of the British Empire, the pooling of the customs 
 receipts there collected, and their division between the two countries, 
 on the basis of population, or such other basis as may be agreed upon, 
 and finally, the imposition of such direct or other internal taxation as 
 may be necessary to make up the deficiency in the revenue of the two 
 countries, or of either of them. The question has therefore to be re- 
 garded both with respect to its effect upon the revenue of our country, 
 with the methods by which the loss is to })e replaced, and to its 
 effect upon trade and farming interests. The former of these I shall 
 touch upon only incidentally, remarking here merely ♦^hat we now 
 collect from six and a half to seven million dollars a year revenue on 
 imports from the United States, and this would have to be made up 
 by other taxes. The custom houses along the frontier would bore- 
 placed by tax-gatherers dispersed throughout the Dominion. But I 
 shall take up more in detail the purely business aspect of the ques- 
 tion, the effect a commercial union would have on the trade of 
 Canada. 
 
 •V 
 
 \1 
 
 58979 
 
First then lot us see what the position is to-day. The extent 
 of Canada's trade with other countries is as follows : — 
 
 The aggregate import and export trade during the period from 
 1873 to 1885 was $2,477,000,000. Out of this, the trade with the 
 
 United Kingdom was 81,171,000,000 ; 
 
 With the United States it was $1,0GG,000,000 ; 
 
 And with other countries 340,000,000 ; 
 
 With countries other than the United States it was 
 
 therefore 81,511,000,000. 
 
 It thus appears that our trade is divided very largely between the 
 United Kingdom and the United States, — the former being somewhat 
 greater than the latter, — and adding otlior countries to the Mother 
 Country it is, compared witli the United States, as three to two. 
 
 As aga.ige of the value to our farmers of the various markets, 
 we take for the same period the amount of our exports. These were 
 81,131,000,000, of Avhich we sent to the United Kingdom 8564,- 
 000,000, to the United States 8455,000,000, and to other countries 
 8112,000,000,— being 8676,000,000 to countries other than the 
 United Sta,tes, As a market for our expo'-ts, therefore, the United 
 Kingdom takes about 50 per cent., the United States about 40 per cent., 
 and other countries less than 10 per cent. 
 
 As, however, we can go more i;ito detail with a single year, I 
 
 shall take the amounts for the last year of which I have the returns, 
 
 viz., 1885. In that year our total exports, as returned, exclusive of 
 
 coin and bullion, were 884,263,000. Of this amount we sent to the 
 
 United Kingdom .$41,871,000 
 
 To other parts of the British Empire 3,912,000 
 
 Total to the British Empire §45,783,000 
 
 To the United States 
 
 To other Foreign Countries . 
 
 .834,783,000 
 . 3,703,000 
 
 Total to Foreign Countries §38,480,000 
 
 Total to Countries other than the United States §49,480,000 
 
 The following are the figures for the same year, including coin 
 
 and bvdlion, and estimated short returns : — 
 
 Total Exports, 1885 889,238,000 
 
 To the United Kingdom . . . .841,877,000 To the United States 839,752,000 
 
 To Other British Countries.. 3,912,000 To Other Foreign Countries.. 3,703,000 
 
 To the British Empire, ... 845,789,000 To Foreign Countries 843,455,000 
 
 To Countries other than the United States 49,492,000 
 
 
 
 1 i 
 
 ■ ■ -SiM-^-j ft iwt. "ifr^Mni i-^,-. 
 
] 
 
 ^ 
 
 Tlie percentages of the latter tabic are : — 
 
 United Kingdom 40.9 per cent. 
 
 Other British Countries ^•'^ 
 
 Total British Empire 51.3 
 
 United States ^-^ • •'» 
 
 Other Foreign Countries "^ • - 
 
 Foreign Countries "^^-^ 
 
 Countries other than the United States 65 . 5 
 
 In the same year the Imports into Canada were : — 
 
 Total, 8102,710,000. 
 
 From the United Kingdom §41,407,000 = 40.3% 
 
 " other British Countries 2,424,000= 2.4% 
 
 " the British Empire 43,831,000 = 42.7% 
 
 " the United States 47,151,000 = 45.9% 
 
 ' ' other Foreign Countries 11,727,000 = 11.4% 
 
 " Foreign Countries 58,878,000 = 57.3% 
 
 " Countries other than the United States 55,558,000 = 54.1% 
 
 Adding imports and exports, the aggregate trade in the same year, 
 1885, was with all countries $191,948,000. 
 
 With the United Kingdom $83,284,000 = 43.4% 
 
 " other British Coimtries 6,330,000= 3.3% 
 
 " the British Empire 89,020,000 = 40.7% 
 
 " the United States 80,903,000 = 45.2% 
 
 " other Foreign Countries 15,430,000= 8.1% 
 
 " all Foreign Countries 102,333,000 = 53.3% 
 
 " Countries other than the United States 105,0.50,000 = 54.8% 
 
 This, then, is how matters stand while all countries are on the 
 same footing. 
 
 Generally speaking, it may be said that our trade with the United 
 Kingdom and the United States is about equal, our trade with the 
 whole of the British Empire exceeds our trade with the United 
 States, and our trade with all other countries together exceeds our 
 trade with the United States by a very considerable amount. Of 
 course, there is now no discrimination in tariff. Whatever duties are 
 imposed on any article imported from one country are likewise 
 imposed on the same article imported from any country. It so 
 happens, indeed, that a large proportion of our imports from the 
 United States consist of raw products intended for manufacture or 
 re-export, much of Avhich is free of duty, and much also subject to 
 only ^ mall duties. Therefore our tariff against the United States is, 
 on an average, really lower than against most other countries, and the 
 same is true of tne United States tariff against Canada. 
 
u 
 
 I' 
 
 ft 
 
 IS 
 
 THE TARIFF NOW EXISTING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. 
 
 Wo come now to examine wliat the duties now existing between 
 the two countries are. It appears from the United States Taljles of 
 Commerce for the year I liavo taken as my basis, 1885, that their 
 average rate of duty on imports from all countries is : 
 (p. 6G1). 
 
 If calculated on dutiable articles alone 45.80% 
 
 If calculated on free and dutiable articles .30..59% 
 
 The corresponding figures for Canada are : 
 
 Average rate on dutiable alone 26.09% 
 
 Average rate on free and dutiable , . , . 18.61% 
 
 These, however, are not the rates on trade between the two 
 countries. The Canadian trade tables give the total amount of duties 
 collected on imports from each country, and from these we find 
 (p. 545) that our imports from the United States in 1885 were : 
 
 Dutiable .S31,231,000 
 
 Free ... . 15,!)19,000 
 
 Total §47,151,000 
 
 Duties collected 6,624,100 
 
 This gives a rate of 21.21% on dutiable alone, and 14.05% on all imports. 
 
 There are no corresponding figures given in the United States 
 tables, and, on writing to Washington, I find there are no such tables 
 prepared. I have, therefore, been obliged to do the work myself : 
 taking from one table (pp. 60 to 107) the total amounts of each 
 article imported from Canada ; from another table (pp. 586 to 661) 
 the ad valorem equivalent of the total duty levied ; then extending 
 the amounts to find the total duties paid on each article ; finally 
 adding the total imports and the total amounts collected in duties 
 and calculating the rate of duty. 
 
 There are first, eggs, fish, etc., amounting to ^12,642,000 ad- 
 mitted free of duty. 
 
 Then to give a few of the largest items among dutiable articles : 
 
 Rate of Duty. 
 Article. Value. Specific. Ad val. Amt. of Duties. 
 
 Boards §6,802,520 §1 per M feet = 11.29% S 768,005 
 
 Barley 6,520,827 10c per bush. = 15.65% 1,020,380 
 
 Hay 1,517,483 .$2 per ton. = 21.20% 321,706 
 
 Horses 1,251,963 =20. % 250,400 
 
 HornedCattle 996,341 =20. % 199,200 
 
 Coal (Brit. Col.). . . 1,074,029 75c per ton . = 22.62% 242,945 
 
 §18,163,163 
 The average on these is 15.43%. 
 
 §2,802,636 
 
5 
 
 The following are the results on the whole iiui)ort trade from 
 Canada : 
 
 United Str.teH imports from Canada, 1885— 
 
 (,,100.) Dutiable §24,053,000 
 
 Free 12,t i42,000 
 
 Total $;J(i, 01)5,000 
 
 Duty collected 4,(550,000 
 
 Whicli gives a rate on dutiaVjle alone of 19.36%, on free and dutiable 12.09%. 
 
 In order to arrive at the average rate of duty on the whole trade 
 between the United States and Canada, I shall take the imports into 
 the United States from the American returns, and the imports into 
 Canada from the Canadian returns, with the duties collected as given 
 above, and the result is : 
 
 Total trade between the two countries- 
 Dutiable 855,284,000 
 
 Ytee 28,.501,000 
 
 Total §83,84.5,000 
 
 Duties collected 11,280,700 
 
 Being a rate on dutiable articles alone of 20.42%, on free and dutiable, that is 
 on the whole trade, of 13.45%. 
 
 This is the amount of duties that would be repealed by the 
 institution of Commercial Union with the Unittul States. There is, 
 of course, inconvenience and vexation besides, but that is the v3xation 
 of paying taxes. And if farmers have to pay these duties, they save 
 the amount in other taxes. The money has to be raised to carry on 
 the government, and I do not know whether a farmer would rather 
 pay the amount in this way or by a tax upon his house or farm. 
 
 COST OF COLLECTION. 
 
 It is, however, worth considering whether the cost of collecting 
 is greater under a system of custom houses than under another system. 
 
 The only thing I can compare with it is the cost of collecting 
 Inland Revenue. In the year 1885 the amount of duties collected 
 (Public Accounts, Canada, p„ xxiii) was : Customs $18,935,000, on 
 which the cost of collections was $791,537, or 42 cents per $100 ; 
 Excise 86,449,000 on which the cost of collection was $309,2G8, or 
 
 48 cents per $100. 
 
 But, as it might be supposed that this low cost of collection re- 
 sulted from the principal amounts being paid at the sea-board, I shall 
 give the figures for Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia, in the 
 
I 
 
 6 
 
 first 01 wliicli move than luilf and in tho other two the great bulk of 
 
 dutiable imports were from the United States, viz. : 
 
 Ontario .$1.-), 802, 000, out of S2.S,l«>(i,000 
 
 Manitoba I,o24,000, " 2,145,000 
 
 Britisli Columbia 2,152,000, " 3,458,000 
 
 111 these provinces tho costs of collection were : 
 
 I'agt'H ci;sTOMs. 
 8 and Ontario amount 80,55(1,000, cost ?253,189 
 
 38''^ 
 
 353 
 354 
 
 Manitoba 
 
 Briti.sli Columbia. . , 
 
 38,!)11 08% 
 
 30,733 32/, 
 
 12 and Ontario 
 
 350 Manitoba 
 
 British Columbia. 
 
 145,495 40% 
 
 14,002 1.02% 
 
 .5,058 0.13% 
 
 " 571,000, 
 
 " 01)9,000, 
 
 INLAN'O UKVKNUK. 
 
 3,t)00,000, 
 
 " 147,000, 
 
 02,000. 
 
 Now, as I do not imagine that the people of this country think 
 they should be exempt from taxation, they are perhaps as well uati.s- 
 fied to pay these taxes by duties, even on imports from the United 
 States, as by internal taxes. It may bo stated generally that customs 
 dutie.s, so far as mere cost of collection is concerned, is a more econ- 
 omical sy.stem than other systems of indirect taxation, though on 
 grounds to be stated later on I do not defend it as superior to direct 
 taxation, beyond saying that if ap[<lied at all, it ought to be ap[ilied to 
 all nations from which we import. 
 
 Under Commercial Union there woultl certainly be increased 
 
 inland taxes to replace the revenue lost. The Uniteil States, owing 
 
 to their restrictive tariff, have now to raise an enormous amount by 
 
 internal taxation. In 1884 the amounts were ; 
 
 Customs lf)l iMillion Dollars 
 
 Internal Revenue 121 " " 
 
 on which the costs of collection were : 
 
 Customs, .?0,.500,000....or3^% 
 
 Internal Revenue 5,113,000 or 4^% 
 
 which, as will be noticed, is very much greater thaUj nearly ten times 
 as great as, cost of collection in Canada. 
 
 The farmers then have to decide whether they prefe.' taxation 
 upon their trade with the United States at the average rate of 13.45% 
 or to pay an e([uivalent amount to be raised by direct taxation or 
 some other system of inland revenue. 
 
 I am not, of course, discussing the relative advantages of direct and 
 indirect taxation. A tax upon trade is a restriction on a )..cin's enjoy- 
 ment of a natural right. But a tax on a man's house or farm is an 
 
 
 « 
 

 bulk of 
 
 ... .38% 
 ... .08% 
 ... .32% 
 
 
 ... .-10% 
 ...1.02% 
 ..,'J.13% 
 
 1 
 
 try think 
 
 1 
 
 veil .'.ati.s- 
 
 1 
 
 e United 
 
 i 
 
 i 'nistoms 
 
 1 
 
 umi ecoii- 
 
 1 
 
 lougli on 
 
 "1 
 
 to direct 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ap[)lied to 
 
 i 
 
 ineroascd 
 
 f 
 1 
 
 OS, owing 
 
 nount by 
 
 1 
 
 ten times 
 
 taxation 
 .f 13.45% 
 xation or 
 
 lirect and 
 n's enjoy- 
 \vn\ is an 
 
 intorfiivnci; wiili a liian'y enjoyincnt nf [noporty. .Ml of ns v'.)uld bo 
 glad t<i be rid of taxes, ami llu! whole ipie.stion in >nn: of the beat 
 mode of rai.sing revenue l)y the government. 
 
 The boon i,lKit is to b(! gained from our entering a Commercial 
 Unii)!! is the repoal of 13.15 i)cr cent, duties on trade between Canada 
 and tilt! Unitoi) SU'te.s. What is the i)riee we are asked to pay for 
 it '] It is an increased rate of duty upon our imports froii every other 
 country in tlu; world, ineludinr.; the diUV'rent countries ol the liritish 
 Empire. What would tlie increase Ix- if we a<l<-[)ted tlu^ Tnite'd 
 States tarilf? Their rate of duty as against all countries is, as we 
 have se '11 : On (bitiabic articles alone 45.86%, on all imiiorts ."10.50%. 
 The Canadian rat(! is, on dutiable 2r).09%, on all imjiorts 18.01%. 
 Taking the rate on all goods it would be an advance all round ot 
 about 12 percent, cui our trade with all the rest of the world. 
 
 COMPAUISOM <)F ARTICLES COMPOSINCi TUADE WITH V MUOLTS COUXTIUf:S. 
 
 To determine whether it would bu an advantage to impo.se this 
 additional burden on all our other trail'', w<> should consider which is 
 the more valuable trade, and \vhich gives promise of the greater degree 
 of development. AVe have seen that the volume of our trade with 
 other countries, taking both imports and exports, was, in 1885, 
 8105,000,000 with other countries against !?8G,900,000 wiih the 
 United States. Therefore, in mere vohune (lur trade with other 
 countries seems the more valuaitle. This ditlerence would also bo 
 accentuated if it were not that (jur iluties against the United States, 
 being largely of raw products to be manufactunsd or for re-export, as 
 already stated, are considerably lower tl: the duties on imports from 
 other countries. So that whatever inciu ntal discrimination there is 
 tells in favour of the United States. It must be pointed ont, 
 however, that there is no discrimination in princiitle. The dillerenco 
 in rate results solely from the accidental circumstance that the imports 
 from the United States are largely of a class of raw products for 
 manufacture or re-export, which are admitted free of duty. But 
 still what difference there is tells on the volume of trade ; only for 
 this the proportion would be still greater in favour of our own 
 Empire and the rest of the world. 
 
 What we have to consider is whether our trade with the United 
 States is in itself of a nature to be more profitable than trade with 
 other countries. This leads us to make a careful examination of the 
 
( i 
 
 ; f 
 
 i I 
 
 \ t 
 
 8 
 
 c'.rticles of which this trad(5 consists. jMy researches enable me to go 
 fully into this question, only as to the trade with the United King- 
 dom and the United States, though I can also give a few leading 
 facts regarding trade with other parts of the Britisli Empire. 
 
 As already stated, our aggregate trade from 1873 to 1885 with 
 the United Kingdom was $1,171,000,000, with the. United States 
 $1,006,000,000. Our exports to the United Kingdom were 8584,- 
 000,000, to tne United States $455,000,000. What is the reason 
 that our trade with the Mother Country remains as great as or greater 
 than trade with our neigh})ors 1 Tlie former has to come over 3,000 
 miles by sea and a long distance by rail, and has to overcome a slightly 
 larger rate of duty than the latter, which has in most cases merely to 
 cross the rjrder. There must be some substantial reason to compen- 
 sate for c'/xitiguity of markets. The reason will, I think, be found to be 
 
 I 
 
 «J 
 
 n 
 1 1 
 
 i * 
 
 n 
 
 li 
 
 DISSIMILARITY OF PRODUCTS. 
 
 Trade with the United States is largely in articles they produce in 
 common with ourselves. Trade with the United Kingdom is more 
 largely in articles that both do not produce, or do not produce to ad- 
 vantage. It is this feature that makes countries commercially 
 complementary to one another, not mere geographical position. I do 
 not wish to underestimate the value of nearness of markets as tending 
 to facilitate exchange ; but tliiit it is not an essential to a high degree 
 of solid and rapid development is evidenced by the condition of the 
 Australian colonies, which, thougli 10,000 mlies from their chief 
 outsid ' market, }>resent the most marvellous instance of growth shown 
 by any communities the world has ever seen. Pissimilarity of pro- 
 ducts seems a more powerful olement in determining the channel of 
 trade tlian proximity of markets. 
 
 There is only one important class of articles to which this does 
 not apply, namely, perishable goods, such as fresh eggs, vegetables, 
 fish, ripe fruit, etc. These should, for the advantage of both coun- 
 tries, be made duty free, and, as a matter of fact, they largely are so. 
 One of the largest articles of export by Canada to the United States 
 is eggs, of which, in 1885, we sent them 81,826,000 worth, and they 
 are admitted free of duty. I'or perishable goodo we must look for a 
 market near at hand, and therefore we must depend either upon our 
 own country or oui neighbours. For this class of produce, of course, 
 the best market will lie the cit'es and towns of our own Dominion ; 
 
 MIW" 
 
9 
 
 me to go 
 lited King- 
 i\v leoding 
 •e. 
 
 1885 with 
 ted States 
 ere 8564,- 
 the reason 
 3 or greater 
 )vev 3,000 
 i a slightly 
 
 merely to 
 io coinpen- 
 ound to be 
 
 pi'oduce in 
 ni is more 
 luce to ad- 
 iimercially 
 ion. I do 
 as tending 
 igh degree 
 ion of the 
 heir chief 
 I'th shown 
 ty of pro- 
 channel of 
 
 this does 
 egatables, 
 )oth coun- 
 Ay are so. 
 ted States 
 
 and they 
 ook for a 
 
 upon our 
 af course, 
 >oniinion ; 
 
 each of these is the centre of a thriving district of market gardening, 
 which is a vaUiable industry to the country. The greater our popula- 
 tion, of course, the larger will be the number of such centres, the 
 greater the prosperity of a certain class in our farming community. 
 But the cultivation of such perishable products cannot sustain more 
 than a small fraction of our population, and for farmers staples, for 
 wheat, flour, oats, oatmeal, butter, cheese, cattle, sheep, preserved 
 meats, anything that can be transported without injury, the best 
 market will be one in which t)iere is a scarcity of these things, the 
 markst in which they are to be consumed, not that from which they 
 are to be re-exported to the country of ultimate consumption. When 
 a farmer has grain to sell he does not sell it to the farmer on the next 
 land, even though he be a rich man with a largo farm, he takes it to 
 the miller, the produce merchant or the baker. It is the same Avith 
 nations. The United States and Canada may both be regarded as 
 farmers whil*^ Liverpool is the baker's shop, where both have to sell. I 
 imagine it is better for Canadians to sell to Liverpool direct than to 
 sell in Xew York and let the American shipper get the profit out of 
 the Liverpool trade. 
 
 Before entering upom this comparison 1 must say a word regarding 
 certain articles that now are, or that until recently have been, admitted 
 to the United States free of duty, for the export of which, therefore, 
 Commercial Union would give us no market that we have not already. 
 Eggs I have already mentioned, but no article on commercial relations 
 with the Unitfid States would be complete without a reference to our 
 fisheries. Fish were still, in 1885, admitted free of duty to the 
 United States. Not that that was our only market ; for wc exported 
 that year 87,960,000 of fish, of Avhich 83,560,000 went to the United 
 Stales and 84,400,000 to other places, chiefly to the United Kingdom 
 and the British, French and Spanish West Indies. The United 
 States also re-exported 8863,000 of cod and mackerel, etc., principally 
 to the same markets. 
 
 But this may h\ taken as a cardinal point in our policy on the 
 fishery question : that admission of American fishermen to our fisheries 
 is worth far more than access to the American markets for our fish. 
 The Americans themselves know this very well. They would be only 
 too glad to get us to consent to grantmg them the use of our fisheries 
 without asking any other return than free trade in fish. But for us 
 to consent to that would be to give up one of our most eff"ectivc levers 
 
; 1 
 
 ■ 
 
 tl 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 to induce them to grant reciprocity in other nrticles of common pro- 
 duce. We know that the vahie set by the Halifax commission upon 
 the use of our fisheries for twelve years, under the treaty of "Wash- 
 ington, was $5,500,000, in addition to free admission to the American 
 markets for our fisli. And therefore, although, in order to give time 
 for a commission to examine the question, we might be willing to 
 consent to a temporary arrangement, such as that suggested by Lord 
 Siilisbury with the approval rf our government, under which Ameri- 
 cans were to be allowed to enter our fisheries in return for free admis- 
 sion of fish alone, we certainly would not consent to that otherwise than 
 temporarily. Our fisheries are of immense value, and to have the use 
 of these Americans must be prepared either to pay a good round sum 
 annually for the privilege, or else to grant us reciprocal trade in other 
 things besides fish ; and this under a treaty similar in principle to 
 the last Keciprocity treaty, wi^'ch shall not require us to discriminate 
 against the rest of our Empire, and which shall leave us free to 
 regulate our tariff otherwise as we see fit. Otherwise we shall keep 
 our fisheries for our own fishermen, and make the Americans buy 
 their fish from these, and pay their own duties on inqjorting them. 
 
 It may therefore be taken for granted that in any arrangement 
 that is made, fish must be admitted free to the American market, the 
 only question that will arise being how much more indemnity they 
 will have to pay Canada for the use of tiie fisheries. In this respect, 
 therefore the returns of 1885, in whicli fish are on the free list, are 
 as useful as any others for arriving at conclusions which shall be of 
 general application. 
 
 TRADE WITH UNITED STATES. 
 
 I shp.ll now give a series of tables, showing all the principal 
 articles now exported by Canada to the United States, taking from 
 the trade tables for 1885 all article'5 entered therein in which 
 exports to tlie United States amounted to 6100,000 and over. The 
 first list is of articles admitted to the United States free of duty. 
 
 Table I. 
 Principal Free Expoi-ts 1885, Canada to United States, {Canadian returns). 
 
 Fish: Cod, etc., dry salted 641,000 
 
 Mackerel, pickled 62.">,000 
 
 Herring " ....2!)0,000 
 
 " smoked 13:^,000 
 
 Lobsters, canned 712,000 
 
 i; 
 
11 
 
 ommon pro- 
 lissiou upon 
 ty of Wash- 
 le American 
 o give time 
 3 willing to 
 ied by Lord 
 liich Ameri- 
 
 free admis- 
 lerwise than 
 lavo the use 
 
 round sum 
 \de in other 
 principle to 
 liscrimiuate 
 
 us free to 
 
 shall keep 
 3ricans buy 
 ng them, 
 rrangement 
 market, the 
 imnity they 
 .his respect, 
 I'ee list, are 
 shall be of 
 
 e principal 
 aking from 
 in which 
 over. The 
 " duty. 
 
 Fish: Salmon, fresh 8 223,000 
 
 Freah, N.E.S 447,000 
 
 Eggs 1,82(5,000 
 
 Gold Quartz, (British Columbia,) 999,000 
 
 Hides, skins, furs. 459,000 
 
 Bark for tanning 304,000 
 
 Firewood 310,000 
 
 Furs (undressed) - 185,000 
 
 Logs 143,000 
 
 Railway Sleepers 142,000 
 
 §7,505,000 
 Total Free Imports from Canada, 
 (U. S. returns), .?12,042,000. 
 
 In this class of goods, bearing in mind the position assumed as 
 above with regard to fish, it is evident that no increased market in 
 the United States would be gained by Commercial Union with that 
 country. It is true return cargoes would be free from duty ; but 
 only at the expense of increased inland taxes and higher duties 
 on imports from every other market. 
 
 The second class consists of goods which are imported by the 
 United States, eithei- to be re-exported, or else, being imported in one 
 place, and an equivalent amount of tlie same articles exported in 
 another, serve merely to replace goods which are the produce of the 
 United States themselves. 
 
 Table II. 
 
 Principal Exports Canada to the United States 1885, of articles of which the United 
 States Export exceeds their Import from Canada, 
 
 ARTICLES. Canada's 
 
 Export to U. S, 
 
 Coal bituminous (from B. C.) 1,178,000 
 
 Copper ore 245,000 
 
 Iron " 132,000 
 
 Horned cattle 1,411,000 
 
 Hides, hoi US and skins 459,000 
 
 Peas and beans 484,000 
 
 Wheat 208,000 
 
 Rye 1 31 .000 
 
 Potatoes 108,000 
 
 Wood Staves and headings 312,000 
 
 Other lumbe.- 184,000 
 
 Household furniture 147,000 
 
 Other wood manufactures 221,000 
 
 U. S. Export. 
 
 1,989,000 
 
 4,739,000 
 
 12,891,000 
 
 12,900,000 
 
 4,153,000 
 
 .522,000 
 
 72,933,000 
 
 2,000,000 
 
 205,000 
 
 1,950,000 
 
 1,182,000 
 
 2,128,000 
 
 1,590,000 
 
 $5,300,000 
 
 8119,248,000 
 
! 
 
 if ' It 
 
 'I ' I 
 I 
 I 
 \ 
 
 ! t J 
 
 12 
 
 For a groat deal of this Canada could open up a direct trade with 
 the country of ultimate consumption and «lerive perhaps as great or 
 greater trade profits than by sending the goods to the United States 
 to be dealt with by AmericaK dealers. I may specially direct atten- 
 tion to the magnitude of the export by the United States of copper 
 ore and iron ore, as Mr. Wimun, in his perambulations, pictures the 
 enormous market that country would be for these products under a 
 Commercial Union. 
 
 The third class of exports is of thoso for the greater part of which 
 the United States is the ultimate consuming market ; the class, there- 
 fore, to be compared with the list that will be given of our export to 
 other countries. 
 
 Table III. 
 
 Principal Exports, Canada to the United States, 1885, of which the latter retain the 
 
 whole or a great part* 
 (Last three figures omitted.) 
 
 U. S. Imports from _, , ^^ „ 
 
 Articles. ^ Camida. ^^^rnnS^ 
 
 Canadian American import. 
 
 Returns. Returns. 
 
 Wood: Planks S6,956 §6,805 $6,814 SC,570 S 386 
 
 U.S. U.S. net 
 Export. Consump'n 
 
 Laths, palings, etc 220 
 
 Shingles 133 
 
 Barley 5,477. .. 
 
 Hay 1,181 
 
 Malt .... 280 
 
 Horses 1,524.... 
 
 Sheep 773 
 
 Wool 186 
 
 157..., 
 6,.521..., 
 1,517.. 
 
 2(57 . . . . 
 
 1,251..., 
 
 857 ... 
 
 200 ... . 
 
 157 
 6,522. 
 1,518 
 
 207. 
 1,371. 
 
 860. 
 .3,000. 
 
 48... 
 132 .. , 
 346.., 
 204 .. , 
 
 377. 
 512. 
 
 88. 
 
 88,277 
 
 810,730 817,575 820,509 
 
 Resnm^ of Dutiable Imports to United States : — 
 
 Table II 8 5,300,000, Canadian Returns. 
 
 Table III 17,575,000, American " 
 
 Together 822,875,000 
 
 Total Dutiable Imports from Canada, 824,053,000, Americar Returnii, 
 
 . 172 
 
 1 
 
 . 5,131 
 
 977 
 
 . 280 
 
 . 1,147 
 
 . 201 
 
 98 
 
 88,453 
 
 il . \ 
 
 * 
 
 * The figures in the first column of this. Table III, are taken, as those of our 
 exports in the other two tables, from the Canadian returns, the other columns are 
 from the American returns. The second column is given for comparison with the 
 first, and because in a few cases the U. S. tot.al import would have appeared as 
 less than the import from Canada . The two columns show, however, no greater 
 discrep.ancy than miglit have been expected, as the exports from Canada are not 
 immediately entered for consumption, and therefore may not appear in the Ameri- 
 can returns for the same year. The closeness of their correspondence serves to 
 show that the classification is practically the same, and the returns tolerably 
 accurate. 
 
 -.-«« 
 
13 
 
 ect trade with 
 ips as great or 
 United States 
 y direct atten- 
 ites of copper 
 , pictures the 
 iucts under a 
 
 part of which 
 e class, tliere- 
 our export to 
 
 atter retain the 
 
 S. U.S. net 
 )rt. Consump'n 
 
 570 S 386 
 
 48 172 
 
 132 1 
 
 M6 5,131 
 
 20-1 977 
 
 280 
 
 577 1,147 
 
 512 201 
 
 88.. .. 98 
 
 !77 S8,453 
 
 IS. 
 
 leturiiii, 
 
 as those of our 
 er columns are 
 rison with the 
 e appeared as 
 ver, no greater 
 ]!anada are not 
 ■ in the Ameri- 
 ence servers to 
 urns tolerably 
 
 ■f. 
 
 Of tliese articles in Table III it appears that the United States are 
 the ultimate consuming market for about half of what they import 
 from us, the diflorence being either re-exported or serving to replace 
 exports in the same way as the articles mentioned in Table II. For 
 these, as was remarked of the latter, it would be at least possible for 
 us to open up direct trade with the countries to which they are 
 exported, although naturally a good deal of such trade might be less 
 advantageously done, as the place of import might be at a consider- 
 able distance both from the place of United States production and 
 from the place of export. 
 
 The third column shows to what extent we already have, not- 
 withstanding the duties existing, control of this branch of the United 
 States trade, and the extent to which such trade can be expanded 
 without diminishing the market of United States producers themselves. 
 This margin for expansion, it will be seen, is not large, since we 
 already supply 817,575,000 out of their total import of 820,509,000, 
 being 85.7 per cent. This is a point of considerable importance when 
 we come to compare this trade with our trade with other countries, 
 and illustrates the difference between trade with a country whose pro- 
 ducts are similar to our own, and with countries whose products are 
 essentially dissimilar. 
 
 TRADE WITH UNITED KINGDOM. 
 
 I will now give similar information with respect to our trade with 
 
 the Uniteil Kingdom, taking in the same way, from the tallies of 
 
 1885, all articles of which our export exceeded 8100,000 apiece. To 
 
 correspond vrith the third column in Table III above, I add in a 
 
 separate column the total import by the United Kingdom of the 
 
 articles in (piestion. 
 
 Table IV. 
 
 Principid Exports, Canada to the United Kingdom, 1883, icith total imports into the 
 
 United Kingdom of the same articles. 
 
 (Last three figures omitted. £, stg., multiplied by 5 to give amoiint in ?.) 
 
 U. K. Import Total 
 
 Animals and Produce : from Canada. U K. Import. 
 
 Horned Cattle 85,752 §40, GOO 
 
 .Sheep 4.56 12,590 
 
 Butter 1,212 58,800 
 
 Cheese 8,176 24,450 
 
 Furs 1,426 5,020 
 
 Hides and Skins 137 19,010 
 
 Meat: bacon 628 14,470 
 
 .S17,787 S181,0G0. 
 
I 
 
 If 
 
 it 
 
 I 
 
 Is 
 f 
 3! 
 
 1. 
 
 A I 
 
 l! 
 
 14 
 
 Agricultural Produce 
 
 Fruit : 
 Grain ; 
 
 Green Apples S 537 
 
 Oats 703 
 
 Peas 1,713 
 
 Wheat 1,681 
 
 " Flour 381 
 
 Oatmeal 241 
 
 The Forest : 
 
 Deals : Pine 2,079 
 
 " Spruce and other 2,084 
 
 Deal ends 249 
 
 Planks, Boards, etc 251 
 
 Timber: Elm 257 
 
 Oak 552 
 
 " Pine, red... 101 
 
 White 1,984 
 
 The Fisheries : 
 
 Lobsters, canned 903 
 
 Salmon 423 
 
 Tlie Mine : 
 
 Phosphates 328 
 
 Manufactures : 
 
 E.xtract Hemlock Bark 137 
 
 Leather, Sole and Upper 403 
 
 Musical Instruments : Organs 116 
 
 Wood, other manufactures 199 
 
 Other wood work 
 
 S 2,760 
 Other 
 
 Grains: 116,645 
 
 157,270 
 
 61,720 
 
 2.470 
 
 5,256 
 
 340,865 
 
 Wood : 
 Hewn, 28,070 
 Sawn, 52,050 
 
 8,757 
 
 1,326 
 328 
 
 Fish, 11,505 
 
 855 
 
 1,230 
 
 Mus.Ins. 4,395 
 
 House 
 Frames, 1,270 
 
 2,905 
 
 80,120 
 
 11,505 
 
 834,309 
 
 9,800 
 §023,350 
 
 Total Export to United Kingdom in 1885 § 41,871,000 
 
 Above enumerated 34,309,000 
 
 Total Import by U. K. of articles above enumerated 623,350,000 
 
 It is not quite possible to compare all the items, as the headings in 
 the English returns are, in some cases, more general than our own, 
 and I have not been able to obtain the more minute classifications for 
 1885. In order to check the above, to guard against any misappre- 
 hension on such items, and to give a more certain ar>'ircue of our 
 possible trade with the United Kingdom, I give three additional 
 tables, in which the distinctions are more minutely drav'n, of the 
 articles we are in a position to supply the home market with. The 
 first is a statement of the import of articles of food, in 1880, and I 
 give in separate colums (1) the import from foreign countries, (2) the 
 import from British countries, (3) the total import, (4) the total 
 
 iS 
 
S 2,760 
 
 r 
 
 
 s: 
 
 116,045 
 
 
 157,270 
 
 
 61,720 
 
 
 2,470 
 
 J: 
 
 
 m 
 
 28,070 
 
 'n, 
 
 52,050 
 
 340,865 
 
 ih, 11,505 
 
 80,120 
 
 11,505 
 
 1,230 
 
 Ins. 4,395 
 
 ise 
 
 les, 1,270 
 
 2,905 
 
 9,800 
 8023,350 
 
 .S 41,871,000 
 , . 34,309,000 
 .. 623,350,000 
 
 the headings in 
 
 than our own, 
 
 assifications for 
 
 i any misappre- 
 
 ap^A'cue of our 
 
 hree additional 
 
 drawn, of the 
 
 ket with. The 
 
 in 1880, and I 
 
 untries, (2) the 
 
 (4) the total 
 
 15 
 
 export by the principal colonies and dependencies, of the same articles, 
 
 in order to sliow the pro[)ortion which, without increased production, 
 
 the colonies were in a position o supply in 1880, (5) the same for 
 
 1884. 
 
 Table V. 
 
 l7)iport of certain Arlichs of Food into the United Kingdom, 1880. 
 (In £' sterling. Last three figures omitted ) 
 
 From From Totul Total e\\ irta from 
 
 Articles. Foreign British U. K. Principal colonies.* 
 
 Countries Countries Import. 1880. 1884. 
 Animals — living : 
 
 O.Ken, bulls, cows and calves 0,717 1,077 7,794 1,030 1,458 
 
 Sheep and lambs 2,094 172 2,200 037 1,079 
 
 Meats : Bacon and Hams 10,853 133 10,980 185 109 
 
 Dairy Produce : Butter 11,501 580 12,141) , .„„ , „„ 
 
 Cheese 4,325 707 5,092 [ ^''^^^^ ^'-^^l 
 
 Eggs 2,183 52 2,235 154 402 
 
 Meat.''— Salted, fresh or preserved... 5,078 306 5,444 fl9 843 
 
 Corn, Grain and Flour : Wheat 24,409 0,213 30,022 0,844 13,190 
 
 Barley 4,958 53 5,011 1,100 1,196 
 
 Oats 4,527 408 4,935 555 407 
 
 Maize. .... 10,193 970 11,103 540 502 
 
 Flour 8,085 021 8,700 1,800 1,605 
 
 Potatoes 2,419 428 2,847 192 278 
 
 £97,402 £1],840 £109,242 £15,154 £23,140 
 10.84% 13.87% 21.19% 
 
 Total United Kingdom import, £109,242,000 = 8540,210,000. 
 
 The next is a table of articles used as raw materials of manufac- 
 tures, in which is given only the total impovt, the import from British 
 countries, and the import from foreign countries. 
 
 Table VI. 
 
 Import into the United Kingdom, 1883, of certain Raw Materials, which are 
 
 2Woduced in Canada. 
 
 (In £ sterling. Last three figures omitted.) 
 
 From From Total 
 
 Articles. Foreign British U.K. 
 
 Countries. Countries. Import. 
 
 CopperOre £ 018 £ 477- £1,095 
 
 Oil train and blubber 230 200 430 
 
 Skins and Furs : Sheep and Lambs 370 633 1,003 
 
 Seal 331 112 443 
 
 Wood: Hewn 3,958 1,057 5,015 
 
 Sawn 7,397 3,014 10,411 
 
 Staves 579 62 041 
 
 £13,483 £6,155 £19,038 
 
 Total U. K. hijport, £19,300,000 = 896,800,000 
 
 * The colonies included in these figures are : India, Cape of Good Hope, 
 Canada, Barbadoes, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, 
 Tasmania and New Zealand. 
 
irf 
 
 
 li 
 
 'it H 
 
 ?! ;i 
 
 f 
 
 16 
 
 Lastly there are articles, chiefly manufactures, of the following 
 kinds : — 
 
 Table VII. 
 
 Import into the United Kimjdom, 1883, of manufactured and other articles which can 
 
 be produced in Canada. 
 
 (In i; sterling. Last three figures omitted.) 
 
 Articles. Total Import. 
 
 Alkali , £ 81 
 
 Hats and Bonnets : Straw 75 
 
 Horses 133 
 
 Leather o,4t!r» 
 
 " Boots and Shoes 421 
 
 ' ' unemimerated 247 
 
 Musical Instruments 879 
 
 Paper and Pasteboard 1,245 
 
 Paper-hangings 40 
 
 Skins and Furs C>38 
 
 Wood : Furniture, etc 581 
 
 House Frames and Joiner Work .... 254 
 
 £10,3(30 
 Total U. K. import, £10,300,000 = $51,800,000. 
 
 The United Kingdom, therefore, at the present time furnishes 
 a market for 
 
 Articles of Food £109,242,000 = .?546,2in,000 
 
 Raw Materials 19,038,000 = 98,190,000 
 
 Manufactures, etc 10, 360, 000 = 51, 800, 000 
 
 £139,240,000 = §696,200,000 
 
 As compared with the market for $20,750,000 offered by the 
 United States for goods now dutiable, cf which her exports do not 
 already exceed her imports. In preparing the above tables I have 
 carefully selected, so far as it was possible to do so, only articles w'hich 
 are already produced, and are capable of being produced to a much 
 larger extent, by the people, and chiefly by the farmers, of Canada. 
 
 a 11 
 
 ■ { 
 
 ■s i i 
 
 \\ 
 
 TRADE WITH AUSTRALASIA. 
 
 Let US look now at some of the other markets of the Empire, and 
 first Australasia. The several colonies of Australia and New Zealand 
 at the present time import from foreign countries the following quan- 
 tities (values) of articles that we can well supply them with : — 
 
 ! 
 
 
 I >r 
 
 ! 
 
>f tlie following 
 
 r articles which can 
 
 Total Import. 
 .... £ 81 
 .. .. 75 
 . . l;« 
 
 5,4G() 
 
 421 
 
 247 
 
 879 
 
 1,245 
 
 40 
 
 .... 938 
 . . . . 581 
 . . . . 254 
 
 £10,300 
 
 ime furnishes 
 
 46,210,000 
 98,100,000 
 51,800,000 
 
 96,200,000 
 ffercd by the 
 :ports do not 
 tables I have 
 irtieles which 
 id to a much 
 of Canada. 
 
 Empire, and 
 S^'ew Zealand 
 owing quan- 
 ith :— 
 
 17 
 
 Table VIII. 
 Foreii/u Imi>orts by the Colonies of Austrahma of Articles that can be produced 
 
 hi/ Canada,— 1SS5. 
 Articles. Value. 
 
 Agricultural Ini piemen ts : Mowers gjyi qoo 
 
 I'l""Pl'« (i.'ooo 
 
 ^ , ,,, Others io7,oG0 
 
 xJooks and Maps 
 
 Carriages and Parts 
 
 JJ^'fV, ; • ••••"■'•"•■•••■•••... 114,000 
 
 -I' isn : balmon, canned 3*^3 qqq 
 
 Iron : Sewing Machines 129 000 
 
 Locomotive Engines 140000 
 
 Leather: Finished, upper '.'..' 14'^'ooO 
 
 1'^*^"* 41»,000 
 
 Musical Instruments : Organs 138*000 
 
 ;;"\^^^^--' ■ •'.'.'.'.'.z.:::. 51:0m 
 
 Provisions : Beef, canned 
 
 Soap 
 
 Wood : lumber 
 
 124,0)0 
 388,000 
 
 
 Household Furniture 
 
 Woodenware 
 
 Other Wood Manufactures . 
 
 12,000 
 
 59,000 
 840,000 
 
 43,000 
 301,000 
 
 08,000 
 192,000 
 
 S3, 482,000 
 Canada could import in return from Australasia copper, tin, lead, 
 Kauri wood and gum, pearls, certain kinds of leather, hides, cordage^ 
 tallow, fruit (green), sugar, jams and preserves, preserved mea°ts,' 
 coffee, wines, wool, and certain woollen goods. 
 
 BRITISH WEST INDIES. 
 
 Among the articles we conld send to the West Indian Colonies, 
 I may mention several of their most important imports, such as cattle,' 
 indian corn, bread and biscuit, oats, wheat flour, meal, fish, certair! 
 cotton manufactures, fish and salted beef, salted pork, butter, cheese, 
 soap, refined sugar, wood, lumber, shocks, staves, headings and house- 
 hold furniture. 
 
 We could receive from them in return, asphalt, drugs, cocoa, 
 cocoanut, coffee, bananas, india rubber, hardwoods, oranges, preserved 
 fruits, wool, spirits, sponges, molasses, sugar. 
 
 BRITISH HONDURAS. 
 
 Balize imports large quantities of fish and wheat-flour; and 
 exports mahogany and hardwoods, drugs, sugar, bananas, cocoanuts, 
 india rubber. 
 
/<l 
 
 I! 
 
 » , I 
 
 i 1 
 
 
 18 
 
 BRITISH GUIAXA 
 
 could import from us whoiit-flour, tisli, salt beef, cheese, soap, wood, 
 Inndjer, shooks, staves, headings, and illumini'.tiug oil, and could send 
 us drugs and sugar. 
 
 IIONO KONG 
 
 imports large quantities of wheat-flour, fish, also certain illuminating 
 and other oils, and could send us gums, drugs, spicos and tea, silks 
 and sugar. 
 
 THE EAST INDIES 
 
 import largely of uncolored cotton, such as we manfacturo, and 
 illuminating oils ; and sends us a groat variety of produce, among 
 which I may mention, dye woods, kutch, shellac, indigo and other 
 drug?, colfee, kauri, rice, goat skins, india rubber, fixed and expressed 
 oils, plumbago, volatile oils, spices, nutmegs, pepper, tea, tin, teak 
 wood. 
 
 BRITISH AFRICA 
 
 imports largely of the following articles produced to a great advantage 
 in Canada : agricultural implements, illuminating oil, canned beef, 
 lard, soap; wood: lunil)er, shooks, staves, headings, household furniture 
 and other Avoodware and manufactures. They already send us 
 unmanfactured wool and sugar, and also dye woods, drugs, goat skins, 
 spices, sugar, and ostrich and other feathers. 
 
 In trade with all these countries we derive certain advantages, or, 
 at least, preferences, from being under a common flag, and others 
 require only to be opened up by lines of steamships to spring into 
 vigorous life. The same process might be gone through with regard 
 to our trade with France, I'elgium, Holland, Germany and many other 
 foreign countries. 
 
 Is it then wise policy for this country, for the sake of cultivating 
 trade with the United States, to create greater restrictions and 
 tramnuds upon trade of such magnitude as can grow out of our 
 relations with all other countries 1 That is one of the effects that would 
 certainly be produced by commercial union with the United States. 
 The lower our tariff is on imports from all these countries, the 
 greater possibility of development of the trade. So long as we keep 
 our dut'os lower than the tariff of the United States, so long have we 
 an advantage over them to that extent in such trade. If we increase 
 our duties against these countries to the extent of 12 per cent, our 
 independent trade with all of them must seriously suffer. 
 
 Itl 
 
 
19 
 
 cheese, soap, wood, 
 oil, tuid could seiul 
 
 Ji'tain illuminatin'' 
 ices and tea, silk.s 
 
 nianfacture, and 
 
 f produce, among 
 
 indigo and other 
 
 ted and expressed 
 
 ler, tea, tin, teak 
 
 a great advantage 
 oil, canned beef, 
 lusehold furniture 
 already send us 
 ilrugs, goat skins, 
 
 n advantages, or, 
 flag, and others 
 >s to siH'ing into 
 3ugh v'ith regard 
 ' and many other 
 
 ke of cultivating 
 restrictions and 
 jrow out of our 
 iffects that would 
 3 United States, 
 e countries, the 
 long as we keep 
 so long have we 
 If we increase 
 12 per cent, our 
 fer. 
 
 We may put it thus : We export every year to countries other 
 tiian the United .States about $50,000,000 of goods. On the imports 
 wliicli Ave receive in exchange we pay 18.61 per cent, duties, say 
 $9,300,000. This leaves, neglecting other cliargcs, $40,700,000 to bo 
 divided among the producers in Canada. If we advance our rate of 
 duty, and adopt the United States tarilF of 30.59 per cent., this takes 
 oft" 815,300,000 from the price we receive, leaving only $34,700,000 
 to l)e divided among our people, Ijeing a minimum loss every year of 
 $6,000,000 on our trade with our own Empire and foreign countries 
 Otlit;r than the United States. 
 
 15ut what if the United States would consent to lower their tariff 
 six per cent, on condition of our increasing ours six per cent"? Or 
 even suppose, though it is an unlikely supposition, the United States 
 would lower their tariff to the rate of the Canadian, and that a uni- 
 lorm system of excise and internal taxation were agreed upon 1 Even 
 ;in such case, Canada would not be justified in entering upon a Com- 
 mercial Union. Many of the reasons in that case would certainly be 
 more or less political, since it would be renouncing control of the 
 sources of our national revenue ; and it is difficult to conceive of the 
 management in common of these, without, at least, periodical repre- 
 sentation of Canada in the United States Congress. Moreover, it 
 would be a violation of thi' principle of international law in commer- 
 cial 'reaties that the duties on the same articles imported from all 
 for.-^ign nations must be the same ; and it would be incompatible 
 with our position as a part of the British Empire to discriminate 
 against the other countries composing it, by levying duties, however 
 small, against them, while we admitted goods from a foreign nation 
 free. 
 
 But even in that case there is an economical objection also : 
 namely, that Canada would lose the advantage she now has, by reason 
 of her relatively lower tariff, in her trade relations with all other 
 countries ; and would be prevented from entering upon commercial 
 treaties with every other country, unless it was agreeable to the 
 people of the United States. If the United States did lower their 
 tariff, Canada's true policy would be to preserve her advantage by 
 lowering hers still further, and to make it approach as near as possible 
 to free trade with all countries. 
 
 Of course all this demonstrates not only the evil of burdening trade 
 with other countries for the benefit of the United States, but the 
 
 '■*« 
 
w 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 Hi 
 
 Ml 
 
 1' • 
 
 L ; 
 
 . :; ii 
 
 ,1 .li 
 
 'Hi 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 . . i 
 
 1 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 20 
 
 tlisndvnntnges of lii<,'li or protcctivL' duties generally. I believi' it is 
 clearly the interest of the farmers, except perhaps these in the 
 immediate neighbourhood of manufacturing towns or cities, to jn-otest 
 against the high and increasing duties that have recently ])een imposed 
 in Canada, every increase of one per cent, being a direct injury to the 
 trade and ship[)ing of the country and to the farmers who are the 
 backl)onc of its prosperity. It is i)ossible there may be certain partial 
 compensation if industries are established which, once established, 
 shall be self-supporting ; but for such of them as are really well 
 adapted to the country, a low rate of duty should sufHce to give them 
 all the protection they need. Industries that will require perpetual 
 protection would be much better closed up. I therefore approve of 
 the stand taken by one of the leading members of our House of 
 Commons who declared that although he had su])ported the National 
 Policy from its incc^ption and so long as the degree of protection 
 granted was moderate, lie protested against the late increase of duties 
 as an injustice to the farming community. Indeed, I am a believer in 
 free trade and direct taxation, and hope some day to see absolute free 
 trade between the British Empire and the United States and all other 
 nations, and the honest, straightforward system of payment by the 
 people to the government of the taxes necessary to carry on its work. 
 But if the United States will n(jt enter into that arrangement, then I 
 believe the best policy for Canada to adopt will be the nearest appioach 
 to free trade wiih the rest of the British Empire ; in Avhich case 
 this country would become the emporixuu of a vast trade even with 
 the people of the United States, who would buy from us a great deal 
 of what they could get here as cheap as they could import it direct 
 from the country of its production. In order to build U[) such a 
 trade we should have the lowest possible duties. But if the country 
 is not ready to pay their taxes by direct taxation and prefer to do so 
 by customs duties, then it is clearly the best policy for the farmers to 
 support a purely revenue tariif. Only it must be a tarilf against all 
 countries alike, for it would be wiser to support the nic o advanced 
 protectionist, as things are at present, than to sacrifice the advantage 
 we have over the United States in a lower rate of import duty, to sacri- 
 fice also our present and prospective trade with the several countries 
 of our Empire and Avith other foreign countries in order to build up 
 industries of the United States alone. It vould be a distinctly 
 retrograde step, if the Liberal party of Canada were to abandon their 
 
21 
 
 [ ht'litivi' it is 
 ).s these in the 
 cities, to jn'otest 
 tly l)ii{'n iiiipoaed 
 eot injury to the 
 lers wlio ai'o the 
 )o ('(irtnin ]iartial 
 niw established, 
 i are rt.'(diy well 
 ice to give them 
 ;quire perpetual 
 :'efore approve of 
 'f our House of 
 ted the National 
 ft! of protection 
 icrease of duties 
 am a believer in 
 see absolute free 
 tes and all other 
 payment by the 
 irry on its work, 
 ngement, then I 
 nearest appi (jach 
 ; in M-iiicl) case 
 trade even with 
 n us a great deal 
 import it direct 
 )uild up such a 
 it if the country 
 I prefer to do so 
 )r the fanners to 
 tariil against all 
 i mc c advanced 
 !e the advantage 
 rt duty, to sacri- 
 ieveral countries 
 der to build up 
 be a distinctly 
 -0 abandon their 
 
 high priucipl. d policy of tarill' f(jr revenue oidy, and the nem-est 
 approach to free tro'la possible, but treating all countries alike, and to 
 adopt instead a policy of special favours towards a country that 
 maintains a high [jrotective tariff even against our own Empire, a 
 policy that would force us to abandon one of the most important of 
 our national attri])Utes. 
 
 SIIII'PIN'O AND HAILWAYH. 
 
 To return, however, to the subject immediately before us, another 
 ellect ot' ailopting Commercial Union with the United States would be 
 to injure our shipping. To buy from oiu- Southern neighbours instead 
 of importing for ourselves would be to build up inland tratlic, 
 especially of lines of railway running north and south at the expense 
 of our shipping with other countries, and of our own great lines of 
 railway running east and west. To speak of shipping first, if we 
 choose to buy from the United States what we now import direct 
 from Kngland, the Wi-st Indies and South Africa, and what we hope 
 soon to liring from Australia and Hong Kong, our shipping interests 
 with all these places must decline. It is true we may continue to 
 sentl oiir surplus produce, wheat and other grain, cattle, sheep and 
 lumljer, to England and elsewhere ; but if we refuse to spend the 
 money due us there, and l)ring it back to spend in the United States, 
 we shall not only get less value for it there, but our ships will come 
 back with smaller cargoes, and will either Ije ruined or will liave to 
 charge higher freights on the cargo one way, to pay the expense of 
 the voyage both ways. Accidental circumstances may sometimes 
 prevent this from becoming apparent at once ; but it is selfevident 
 that shipping cannot be permanently carried on at a loss, and the 
 owners of our steamships, their masters and sailors, will inevitaljly 
 sulfer if we persist in a policy of liampering importation from beyond 
 seas. !More will then be chargeii for what freight we send away and 
 the ililFerence will come out of the pockets of the farmers ami the 
 producers. The United States protective policy has had the effect of 
 largely destroying their mercantile marine. Commercial Union would 
 tend to destroy ours also. We have now a high rank among the 
 shipowning countries of the world, and we should be careful not to 
 lower it. 
 
 But not shipping only, our Canadian sea-ports also would suffer. 
 Trade would bo driven from them to New York which tends more and 
 
i !• ' 
 
 iA 
 
 ,' ' t 
 
 . ' >A 
 
 ii 1 
 
 more to become the sole sea-port of importance in the T''nited States. 
 Montreal, St. John and Halifax, would suffer the fate of Portland 
 (Maine), Salem (Massachusetts), and other towns on the coast, which 
 were at one time the centres of important shipping interests, but are 
 now deserted except fci small fishing and coasting craft ; and that not 
 because of natural disadvantages, for there are no finer ports in the 
 United States, but solely tiirough the excessive duties on imports and 
 the spirit of monopoly and concentration of railway, forwarding and 
 shipping interests in one direction ending in Xew York. In the same 
 way Vancouver would be checked in her effort to become a grand Pacific 
 terminus, and her general traffic would be diverted to San Francisco. 
 If, therefore, Canada takes any interest in maintaining a national 
 highway of her own, she will reject a policy that would divert all her 
 traffic into United States channels. The same fate might befall the 
 border towns. Some of the leading merchants who took part in the 
 discussion of this question before the Toronto Board of Trade 
 expressed the conviction that Toronto would cease to be an important 
 distributing centre, and that her trade would be diverted to Buffalo, 
 Detroit and Chicago. 
 
 The injury would also be severely felt by our two great lines of 
 railway. This country has spent a vast amount of money in estab- 
 lishing two great national highways, the Grand Trunk and the Cana- 
 dian Pacific. The one stretches from Sarnia to Quebec in summer, and, 
 at present, to Portland in winter, traversing one of the finest districts in 
 the continent. Its trade and power depends largely upon the prosperity 
 and solidity of our Canadian towns, especially Montreal and Toronto, 
 and upon these retaining the control of the distributing trade for 
 Canada. The back-bone of the Grand Trunk is Canadian, and it is 
 its position of solidity here that enables it to tap the western trade at 
 Chicago, and bring some share of it by the St. Lawrence route, where 
 return cargoes entered at lower duties than those levied in New York 
 can be obtained. Assimilate the tariffs at the Canadian and American 
 seaboard, and you remove the centre of the whole North Amc ' 3an 
 continent to New York, 
 
 Our other great railway extends from Vancouver to Quebec in 
 summer, and to Halifax, St. John or, perhaps, a port in Cape Breton, 
 in winter, or, as has been poetically remarked, from Hong Kong or 
 Yokohama to Liverpool. The realization of the latter conception 
 would be destroyed by Commercial Union with the United States. 
 
 ■MyuitL.'iiiiaiii 
 
le Fnitecl States, 
 fate of Portland 
 the coast, Avhich 
 interests, but are 
 ift ; and that not 
 iner ports in the 
 s on imports and 
 , forwarding and 
 I'k. In the same 
 ae a grand Pacific 
 San Francisco, 
 ining a national 
 lid divert all her 
 might befall the 
 'Ook part in the 
 5oard of Trade 
 be an important 
 srted to Bulfalo, 
 
 great lines of 
 noney in estab- 
 ; and the Cana- 
 n summer, and, 
 nest districts in 
 
 the prosperity 
 .1 and Toronto, 
 iting trade for 
 lian, and it is 
 estern trade at 
 ■e route, where 
 
 in Xew York 
 and American 
 3rth Ame'"2an 
 
 to Quel)ec in 
 Cape Breton, 
 fong Ivong or 
 er conception 
 f^nited States. 
 
 By placing greater restrictions on our trade with Australia, with 
 Hong Kong and Yokohama, we should destroy or greatly impair the 
 chance of the successful establishment of the lines of steamships we 
 hope soon to ,ee from the Canadian port on the Pacific to Australia, 
 !N"ew Zealand, the Sandwich Islands, China and Japan, which give 
 promise of opening up a trade of great value to our farmers. Instead 
 of increasing our duties twelve per cent, against Australia and those 
 other countries, we should rather try to make arrangements by which 
 our duties on imports from them should be repealed or diminished, as 
 we might then open up a market, still dissimilar to our own, capable 
 of unlimited development and of incalculable value. 
 
 A word must be added upon the graphic picture drawn by !Mr. 
 Erastus AViman of the prosperity promised to our farmers as the 
 certain result of Commercial Union. It is always an easy matter to 
 descant upon the benefits that would flow from abolishing taxes. The 
 advocacy of such a cause always ensures a certain amount of popu- 
 larity. And if we could get the markets of the United States to sell 
 in, without altering in any way either our more valuable trade with 
 other countries, or the am'untof internal taxes we .should have to pay, 
 and without discriminating in tariff in favour of one foreign nation and 
 against our own Empire and other foreign nations, we should be great 
 fools not to take it. And Mr. Wiman, as a wily speculator, takes care 
 not to dwell on that feature of the case. This point, however, I think 
 has been sufficiently discussed. But I think it is worth while to tear 
 the mask off the picture he has drawn of the results that would 
 accompany his policy. Sam Slick's Airthly Paradise, or ^fartin 
 Chuzzleworth's Eden are almost tame by the side of Erastus' fancy 
 picture, I do not believe that the well-being and prosperity of the 
 farmers of the United States generally are greater than of our own. 
 In sonie specially rich and fertile districts or in the immediate neigli- 
 bourhood of large and populous cities what he says may be to some ex- 
 tent true ; but there are many parts of the United States, in Maine 
 and other States and ir many southern districts, where the condition 
 of the farming population is far from enviable. The Americans flock 
 from these places in thousands to the "Western States or the great 
 North-west of Canada. 
 
 The following I cut from an editorial in the Montreal Star : — 
 
 F.\RMER3 AND FREE TRADE. 
 
 "The advocates of Commercial Union maintain that free trade with the 
 United States would be of immense benefit to the farmers of Canada. This natur- 
 
.7 
 
 n 
 
 !t 
 
 24 
 
 ally leads to the enquiry, are the farmers of the United States, as a class, much 
 better off than the farmf^rs of the Dominion, and are their prospects brighter ? It 
 is said that a /ery large jjroportion of the farmers of Canada are in debt, and 
 that farm lands have, in many places, greatly depreciated in value. There may 
 be too much truth in this, but is the condition of United States farmers in this 
 respect any better? Have they no mortgages on their farms and are they able to 
 pay one hundred cents on the dollar of their indebtedness ? This is what is stated 
 in the report of the Washington Department of Agriculture respecting the farmers 
 of New York State : ' On the whole, farmers are more in debt tlian they were ten 
 years ago. There are a large number of farms which were purchased a few years 
 ago and mortgaged, which now would not sell for more than the face of the 
 mortgages, owing to the depreciation of the farming lands which, on an average, 
 is fully thirty-three per cent, in ten years. Probably one-third of the farms in 
 the state would not sell for more than the cost of the buildings and other improve- 
 ments owing to this shrinkage.' Now, it must be admitted that the farmers of 
 New York state are in as good a position to benefit by free trade with the fifty 
 millions of citizens of the United States as those of any part of the Dominion can 
 Iiossibly be, and they l.ave enjoyed that advantage for a very hmg while ; yet we 
 see that they have not ft und it possible to keep out of debt, and in spite of their 
 nearness to the sea and to tlie greatest home markets of the United States, they 
 have not been able to keep up the value of their land. There is food for reflection 
 in these facts." — ^ta;-, Friday, June 3, 1887. 
 
 And tliere is one circumstance to be taken into account in 
 cosidering this question, and that is the natural differences of climate 
 and situation. No Commercial Union is going to abolish the Canadian 
 winter. Our country is northerly and our people are a northern 
 people. In the same way as the north of Scotland is less rich and 
 fertile than the south of England, in the same way as the conditions 
 of life in Xorway, Sweden, Denmark and the north of Germany are 
 different from what they are in the south of Germany, Belgium, 
 France and Italy, so the people of the north of North America must 
 submit to the disadvantages as well as enjoy the advantages of their 
 northern position. No trade arrangements that can be made will 
 prevent the suspension of vegetation during the winter season, nor do 
 away with the necessity of some considerable part of our labour, wealth 
 and energy, being devoted to the production or purchase of warm 
 clothing and fuel, from which southern people are exempt. The 
 further south you go, at all events until you reach places where the 
 climate becomes so hot as to be enervating, the greater, no doubt, will 
 be the surplus production in proportion to the amount of labour devoted 
 to it. But nearly every part of the United States that is even in a 
 slight degree superior to our more northerly districts in this respect, 
 has already been settled, and now settlers must choose between the 
 bracing and healthy climate of our Canada and of the Northern 
 
 I 
 
 ^<IIV 
 
25 
 
 ;.s, as a class, much 
 ;pect8 brighter ? It 
 a are in debt, and 
 value. There may 
 tes farmers in this 
 tnd are they able to 
 lis is what is stated 
 pecting the farmers 
 than they were ten 
 chased a few years 
 an the face of the 
 ich, on an average, 
 •d of the farms in 
 and other improve- 
 hat the farmers of 
 •ade with the fifty 
 the Dominion can 
 ong while ; yet we 
 d in spite of their 
 rnited States, they 
 1 food for reflection 
 
 nto account in 
 
 ences of climate 
 
 5li the Canadian 
 
 are a northern 
 
 is less rich and 
 
 tlie conditions 
 
 f Germany are 
 
 lany, Ijelgium, 
 
 America must 
 
 ntages of their 
 
 be made will 
 
 season, nor do 
 
 labour, wealth 
 
 diase of warm 
 
 exempt. The 
 
 ices where the 
 
 no doubt, will 
 
 labour devoted 
 
 at is even in a 
 
 1 this respect, 
 
 3 between the 
 
 the Xorthern 
 
 American "Western States, and the hot, unhealthy, fever-stricken tracts 
 of tlie more southerly states. Nor must I omit the advantage that 
 Mr. "Wiman himself has pointed out, that our North-west has two 
 hours more sunlight every day than the country to the south. None 
 of these things are going to be changed by Commercial Union 
 or annexation. We are a northern people, but, fellow-Canadians, 
 do we not possess the virtues of northern nations ? I do not 
 think the eulogy Mr. Wiman passes upon our farmers is unde- 
 served. The Canadians, like the Scandinavians, the Norwegians, 
 Swedes, Danes and Scotch, are a hardy, healthly, manly race. They 
 are accustomed to a certain degree of toil and hardship ; but that only 
 makes the better men of them. But there is one of the virtues of 
 our farmers that Mr. Wiman forgets ; one of the characteristics of a 
 northern people is the national love of independence ; and I do not 
 believe Canadians propose to surrender their independence, to sell their 
 birthright, to tear up the roots of the British nationality their fathers 
 founded in this northern land, for the allurements held out by a 
 Canadian who has already abandonetl his allegiance to our Sovereign 
 and our Empire. Do not be deluded then, Canadian farmers, into 
 believing that Commercial Union is going to make your soil more 
 fertile, your prosperity greater than it is. All it will do is to sap and 
 undermine the foundations of the great nation, an integral part of the 
 mightiest Empire the world has seen, which you and your fathers 
 have laid. Give up your plan of forming such a nation and you stand 
 disgraced before the world as a people who forgot their noblest 
 destiny and were content to sink into insignificance and self-effacement. 
 Mr. Gold win Smith sometimes draws a parallel between the rela- 
 tive positions of Scotland and England and of Canada and the United 
 States. But he fails to point out that Scotland, when independent of 
 England, was not herself part of a great Empire, with the countries of 
 which her trade was greater than with England itself ; Scotland had 
 not control of half a continent, and had no large flourishing trade with 
 the other countries, even of the then accessible world ; she had slight, 
 if any, communication with the states now composing the German 
 Empire, or with the Scandinavian natioas, the products of which were 
 also similar to her own, there was little she could send them ; she was 
 much more distant from France than was England itself. AVhile 
 Canada possesses all these advantages, all these means of maintaining 
 an independent attitude as regards her southern neighbour ; Vancouver 
 
/J 
 
 ^> 
 
 Wi 
 
 ;ii 
 
 1 '. -. 
 
 l! 
 
 hi 
 
 irl 
 
 •t 
 
 Pi 
 
 
 26 
 
 is nearer Japan than is San Francisco, Quebec is nearer Liverpool than 
 is New York, Liverpool is more than a thousand miles nearer Yoko- 
 hama by the Canadian than by the American route ; our shipping, our 
 canal and railway system is complete in itself and capable of preserv- 
 ing our commercial as well as our political independence. Again, 
 during the period of Scotland's, as well as England's, greatest advance- 
 ment, she has not had free trade with England alone, but open ports 
 to all the other countries of the world. This, then, is the aim Canada 
 should keep in view, if once she can be persuaded to abandon her 
 protective policy. While, if we really Vielieve in protection for our 
 manufacturers, it is required more against manufacturers in the United 
 States than elsewhere, as they are our chief competitors in the articles 
 we manufacture most readily. 
 
 The conclusion Ave come to then seems to be that the advantages 
 that have been pointed out as likely to flow from Commercial Union, 
 are only such as would flow in greater degree from free trade with the 
 rest of our Empire, and in still greater from free trade with the 
 world. If we are to make any exceptions and try to foster trade with 
 any one country in particular, it should rather be with one whose 
 products are dissimilar from our own, which wants to buy what we 
 have to sell, not with one which wants to sell the same things as we 
 ourselves. It is suggested above that it is not the countries that are 
 geographically near, that are commercially complementary to one 
 another, but those that possess advantages for the production of 
 different commodities. Dissimilarity of products is identity of 
 commercial interests ; and it cannot be the will of the Almighty that 
 the people of this continent should shut themselves up together and 
 isolate themselves from the people in the rest of the world. If 
 the United States want to show their goodwill to Canada or to 
 England let them off'er free trade with the whole Empire, and then 
 we shall be able to treat with them. 
 
 IMPERIAL RECIPROCITY. 
 
 filft 
 
 The argument contained in the above pages is destined to show 
 that it would be detrimental to our agricultural, shipping, railway, 
 importing and other trade interests to purchase Commercial Union 
 with the United States at the expense of trammelling our trade with 
 other countries, even under the present condition of afflxirs. And 
 Canada can at the present time look for a slight preference over 
 
 "^^^M 
 
 ^ 
 
27 
 
 Liverpool than 
 s nearer Yoko- 
 ir .shipping, our 
 ible of preserv- 
 :Ience. Again, 
 eatest advance- 
 but open ports 
 )he aim Canada 
 abandon her 
 tection for our 
 i in tlie United 
 1 in the articles 
 
 he advantages 
 nercial Union, 
 trade with the 
 'ade with the 
 iter trade with 
 th one whose 
 > buy Avhat we 
 3 things as we 
 ntries that are 
 iutary to one 
 production of 
 identity of 
 Almighty that 
 ) together and 
 le world. If 
 ranada or to 
 lire, and then 
 
 ined to show 
 ping, railway, 
 lercial Union 
 ar trade with 
 iffairs. And 
 ference over 
 
 1% 
 
 m 
 
 s 
 
 foreign countries in the other markets of our Empire, from the more 
 fact that trade follows the flag. That is to say, Avhere the things 
 offered by Canada and by a foreign country in a British market, are 
 and are known to be, of equal value, and at the same price, wo may 
 look for, and in many cases Avill receive, a preference. I have lieard 
 an influential Australian journalist say that if xVustralians could get 
 the same things from Canada that they can get from the United 
 States, they would take them at the same price, or would even pay a 
 trifle more to get them from a country under the same flag. I>ut I 
 have now to point out to you the possibility of arrangement being 
 made by which we shall have a distinct advantage in the markets of 
 every country in the British Empire. A new economic scliool has 
 arisen in England, advocating that trade within the Emi)ire should be 
 placed upon more favourable terms than trade with foreign nations, 
 with a possible exception in favour of those nations that are willirg to 
 grant reciprocal trade advantages to the whole Empire. In atldition 
 to the Fair Trade League which has been interesting public opinion 
 in England for some years, there has been started recently an 
 organization called the ]>ritish Union, with its head(piarters at 
 Manchester, with the avowed object of bringing about a readjustment 
 of the tarifl" in the muther country so as to impose duties upon imports 
 from foreign countries, leaving the markets open to the colonies ; 
 expecting that in return the colonies will, while retaining the right to 
 control their own tariffs, make a concession in favour of the other 
 countries in the Empire as compared with foreign nations. Tlie 
 London, Sheftleld and Glasgow Chambers of Commerce have 
 pronounced in favour of the policy, and possibly some others that I 
 have not heard of. 'Jhe organ of the milling interests, 2Vie Millur, lias 
 declared in its favour, the whole agricultural interest, landowner, tenant 
 and agricultural labourer, is directly interested in its adoption, in order 
 that, to some extent at least, the competition of foreign nations in 
 breadstufts and all other farm produce may be diminished. Lord 
 Salisbury considers that such a policy would give England a lever to 
 negotiate better with foreign nations upon commercial matters, and 
 has written that he would not consider such a policy "Protection." 
 Lord Carnarvon, the framer of our Confederation Act, has expressed 
 himself as convinced that England will be forced to adopt such a 
 measure if she is to retain her commercial supremacy. i>e signs of 
 the times are every day becoming more and more marked that such a 
 
i 
 
 % :!Hl! 
 
 n 
 
 <i \ 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 '11 
 
 m 
 
 5 (. 
 
 5 '1 
 
 
 \ {M 
 
 |i;ii 
 
 i; 5 
 
 il I 
 
 28 
 
 policy will very soon be forced upon the attention of the rulers of the 
 country. England is becoming more and more democratic ; every 
 democratic nation besides her luis adopted a protective policy ; and 
 it has been only by bribing the working people with exemption from 
 the income tax, that they have been prevented from resorting long 
 ago to retaliatory measures against the protective duties of foreign and 
 even of colonial countries. 
 
 During a recent visit to England I came in contact with a large 
 number of the most prominent and promising young political leaders, 
 Conservatives, Liberal-Unionists, Gladstonian-Liberals and Radicals, 
 some of the ablest and most farseeing young men of all shades of 
 politics, men who have given careful attention to the study of the 
 political problems that have to be worked out by the coming 
 generation, but who arc free from the blind historical reverence for 
 the great free trade movement of 1846 ; and I found a general 
 disposition among them to give favourable consideration to some such 
 policy a;- this : the imposition of a uniiorm imperial duty on imports 
 from every foreign nation into every country of the Empire, to be 
 levied on manufactures, on articles of food, including breadstuflfs, and 
 on such raw materials of manufactures as can easily be produced in 
 sufficient quantities within the Empire ; this uniform imperial duty 
 to be independent of existing tariffs, each country to continue in other 
 respects to have free trade or protection as it chose, and to regulate 
 its tariff as it saw fit, subject only to this restriction : that no lower 
 rate of duty should be charged on imports from any foreign nation 
 than on the same articles imported from every part of the Briiish 
 Em})ire. 
 
 An interesting paper, containing the germ of this proposal, was read 
 by Mr. Thomas Macfarlane, E.K.S.C, at Montreal, and has been 
 published, under the title "A United Empire." It is, as I under- 
 stand it, the policy contemplated by the resolution in favour of 
 considering Imperial Reciprocity, adopted by the committee of the 
 Imjjerial Federation League in Canada. 
 
 Such an arrangement has been styled by Sir Charles Tupper a 
 lower tariff within the family, and a higlier tariff on foreign nations. 
 It would be no breach of the most favoured nation principle, as that 
 does not interfere with the internal fiscal arrangements of any coun- 
 tries that are united for purposes of foreign policy, as all the 
 countries of the British Empire are. The realization of this would 
 
 at. 
 
 iktk 
 
 igtm 
 
 _T<33<fi0i^jm 
 
nilor.s of the 
 ocratic ; every 
 e policy ; and 
 ceiiiptiou from 
 I'o.sortinLC Ion<r 
 of foreign and 
 
 [;t with a large 
 )litical leaders, 
 and Radicals, 
 all shades of 
 study of the 
 Y the coming 
 I reverence for 
 Lind a general 
 ■ to some such 
 ity on imports 
 Empire, to be 
 'cadstuffs, and 
 ! produced in 
 imperial duty 
 tinue hi other 
 ad to regulate 
 that no lower 
 foreign nation 
 'f the British 
 
 osal, was read 
 ind has been 
 !, as I under- 
 in favour of 
 nittee of the 
 
 les Tupper a 
 •eign nations, 
 ciple, as that 
 of any coun- 
 as all the 
 f this would 
 
 29 
 
 bring about a species of Zollverein or Commercial Union of the 
 British Empire, embracing many countries wliose products are essen- 
 tially dissimilar. This would give Canada distinct and substantial 
 preference in the market of the oMotlier Country, whoso im})ort 
 of articles which Canada can produce is $690,000,000 a year, 
 and in the markets of all the countries belonging to the greatest 
 trading people in the world. Surely, sucli a uni(jn would be infin- 
 itely more valuable than Commercial Union with the UniLed States. 
 It would induce millions to settle in our great wheat-growing 
 districts of the North-West, and would open up the largest and best 
 trade we could ever hope for. Such a policy may be adopted soon, 
 to the advantage of every country in our Empire. A Commercial 
 Union with the United States would cripple Canada and prevent her 
 taking advantage of it. 
 
 Tliere is only one circumstance to be borne in mind in connexion 
 with this, and it is that if the United Kingdom makes such a radical 
 change in her commercial policy as this, if she even temporarily a1)an- 
 dons absolute free trade in the interest of her colonies, it will only 
 be as part of a general scheme for re-organizing the relations between 
 the different countries of the Empire, it will only be upon the colonies 
 entering into a partnership with the Mother Country for the perpetual 
 management in common of all the foreign affairs of the Empire, every 
 part receiving a recognized voice in the control of Imperial affairs, 
 and agreeing to contribute a fair and proper share towards the main- 
 tenance of Imperial defence. By this I do not mean the participa- 
 tion by Canada in Asiatic and African wars, in which her interest 
 will be very remote. If such wars arise, though the whole Empire 
 would certainly present an unbroken front to the enemy, the cost 
 would be assessed chiefly upon those parts of the Empire directly in- 
 terested in them, in the same way as local improvements in a town 
 are assessed upon the special localities benefited by them. What I 
 mean we should contribute to is the maintenance of the army and 
 navy upon a peace footing, after we had been consulted as to the 
 extent of such forces required. Nor need our contribution be upon 
 the basis of our population. The United States constitution lays it 
 down that all direct taxes shall be uniform and in proportion to 
 the numbers of the people, and that all indirect taxes shall be 
 uniform ; so that under annexation we should have to contribute ac- 
 cording to population to the maintenance of their army and navy. 
 
 *¥ 
 
 1 
 
ll 
 
 i ' i9- 
 
 # 
 
 30 
 
 Bui the British constitution contains no such cast iron rule ; at present 
 ■\ve pay nothing directly ; upon forming a partnership with the United 
 Kingdom and the other self-governing countries of the Empire, we 
 should contribute something, but it would be what was fair, con- 
 sidering our capital, realized resources, and the risk to which we would 
 expose the Empire. And I have little doubt that the whole of our 
 contribution could easily be paid out of that portion of the uniform 
 Imperial duty collected in this country. The control of the Imperial 
 forces would include the task of fixing the effective strength and dis- 
 po.sitiou of the army and navy and the diplomatic corps, their reduction 
 if, in view of a contemplated peaceful policy, their present numbers were 
 deemed to involve an excessive charge ; the method of apportionment 
 of expenses incurred for wars or expeditions in which we were not 
 concerned, and the right to invoke the aid of the whole of the 
 Imperial forces for the protection of our just national rights. We 
 cannot shut our eyes to the importance of these questions. We must 
 be in a position to defend our fisheries, our railways and our shipping. 
 The first of these we have recently come to see to be a matter of the 
 utmost moment, both in the Atlantic and the Pacific ; the freedom of 
 our railways to regulate their tariff in competition with American 
 lines has been called in question, and the interests of our shipping ex- 
 tend to every quarter of the world. Our ships trade with every 
 British and foreign country, sail under the British flag and claim the 
 services of British consuls in any port throughout the trading world. 
 These consuls must be appointed by, and responsible to, an authority 
 that we can directly influence. In a word, we must have a direct and 
 constitutional 'oice in moulding the foreign policy of the Emyire. 
 We can have that by a partnership for foreign affairs. In suoh a 
 partnership we could exert our influence to prevent useless wars, 
 which waste the energies and resources of the people for the mainten- 
 ance of large armies and navies ; to turn the attention of Imperial 
 authorities from the complications of European politics, and concen- 
 trate them upon opening up new channels for profitable trade and upon 
 the transference of population from the thickly settled districts of 
 the ]\Iother Country to the fertile plains of our o wn and other Colonial 
 territories. 
 
 The authority to direct such movements of population upon a 
 comprehensive scale can only be vested in a strictly imperial body, 
 containing representatives from every part of the Empire, and which 
 
 wmm 
 
 wm 
 
31 
 
 le ; at present 
 ;h tlio United 
 3 Empire, we 
 ms fuir, con- 
 ich we would 
 whole of our 
 
 the uniform 
 the Imperial 
 igth and dis- 
 eir reduction 
 umbers were 
 portiomnent 
 .ve Avere not 
 liole of the 
 rights. We 
 • We must 
 ur shipping, 
 atter of the 
 ! freedom of 
 1 American 
 hipping ex- 
 with every 
 I claim the 
 ling world. 
 a authority 
 
 direct and 
 le Em^'ire, 
 
 In such a 
 ik'ss wars, 
 e mainten- 
 l Imperial 
 id concen- 
 i and upon 
 iistricts of 
 )r Colonial 
 
 
 shall Ije altogether free from concern with the local affairs of either 
 the Mother Country or of any country in the Empire. For all these 
 and other purposes, a reorganization of the Empire must take place, 
 and when it does, a Commercial Zollvercin or Imperial Reciprocity 
 must form a most important part. And it cannot be long delayed. 
 Canada, at least, has almost attained national manhood, and must be 
 prepared to accept the responsibilities, exercise the rights and assume 
 the oliligations attaching to that position. We are offered an 
 advantageous partnership upon equal and honourable terms with all the 
 self-governing countries of the Empire. The offer is made by many 
 distinguished statesmen, and will soon be ratified by the voice of the 
 people in the Mother Country, Australasia and the Cape of Good Hope. 
 Will it not bo the best use wo can make of our new dignity to accept 
 such an offer and enter upon this partnership for the perpetuation of 
 the great and noble Empire that has been founded by our fathers, 
 and that now exists under the flag we love, and under the Sovereif^n 
 whose jubilee we celebrate this year. 
 
 Montreal, 10th June, 1887, 
 
 . •.•■'. 
 
 m upon a 
 rial body, 
 md which 
 
") 
 
 mm 
 
 mm 
 
 « • • . • 
 
 
i:..: .'RIAL FEDERATION L._;..}UE 
 
 MEMBEFISHIP OPEN -"^^ "M "PITISH •^•''""■■rT^ DESIROUS OF 
 PRCSERVINCT: ;aLUNI. MEEMPIHt 
 
 Simpl.^ Annual Meml^ership in Eiiij-lanil an, I Canada, - $ I i( 
 
 Membnishlp, incluilinfr Subscrip'idn to Juiunal, --,.-. 2 I" 
 Membership, Subsrription to Journal, .uiJ t.i all pnblic.itions 
 
 of tin; Leaauo in Fnahnd and Canad 
 
 5. )0 
 
 itinl i II (•'!•, It'll i"ii ri ■III i'-/i :i'i /■'I'l'i'il inn lit hru II' in.\ I'liii ''( li'i'l III! 'i/i/l intl ii,i. I', 'ii 
 Sfrritii fii I'f '/' ■( I'.-'"/' ('. 
 
 ' .,.TY YEARS' PR.,., .ESS"— 
 
 Spc(^i:il Juliih'i' .Xiiiiilx-rnf "hupcrial '' ' : 
 
 Tlw Xuiii^' I- iiirlii'l. . r'.i!'i; I'v'.i:- i<" i'^ <t."\i:'- u I t|,\i; i:,\ M-. ■'•'{ . 
 
 ( ' ,loi|r mI |;^'jn'M;i,ir' i,,i| r,! I,!,.. I V , \ ■, 1,11 \' , Vi'K.S r .\!.\I' Ol' 
 
 'CHI-, I'.Li 1 1'-ii I'm rn:!'. 
 
 'J'/i' I'l'ii'i II!.-; (it (hi .\ (■' .'■</■ lift c(,s' ji, : I'lU'ii .■- - 
 l.srKMini I'.ili'i . 
 
 Tim: .\i.i \ "I i hk i:»;!ii;r. I'vC V.. Ifi.^,v,ir,. N'iiKvuf, V.\'... Nf.I'. 
 Tiir; !' ill I. \Mi'\ "I' I in: ( ' Ni iTii K i-, m h iM .\\\i : in-' .-•n r-i ..; i\ i.hmx,; Ci n.. , 
 
 i\ 1 -'.17 ,\M' l.^'S'. 1 '>■ .1. I '' iihi l.tiii W I, l.ii.i' Al rwinrya i'lMi,!; 
 
 \'iri < 'VIA. 
 Tin: Lv.- nv ywv l',Mri,:r. l'.y:-;ir .li^Lii I'., iliip-t, ',>,('., .M,!'., l.itr S-.li.'i- 
 
 (,- ii. i.i! ' I !-:ii..'l,.i. 1. 
 
 (iiiMwp! (., ('■:■-• n I' I!-:. \i. -■; i.i-( !'» , I ,;\,Mi:,\ r ix riii: IvMrnti:. J'.y ]'. 
 
 i , ii ■ili.i'.', I', irri-t'-l iiT- L.iW. 
 ,\i.\i,:si 1. ii\, ! Nii'r. !'\ :;;i' IliMiiv l;ark!,iy, i\.(,'. M.t ;,,K.(,' 1!., into (." 
 
 I',i :|- il' I ■ 1 ;!•■ ( '<•!' 'iix'. 
 KklImIiii- I )i. , i 1,1 h -^ikn r. r.y('.ni"ii I'.iKi'-, M.A., r. ,M.( ;. 
 Till, I'K'/i.M -. Ill' 1' I'M.v;; 1 1:.: r.\ I i"N. \'\ .-l. |.1.( :) A, Switjno, !■'. ]{, If 
 
 S.K',, ]■',;;, I '"\. In-t. 
 Tiii;T:,\i.i cr iiii-, rii:iii-ii l\M i ; i; i: Ni i\\ ,\M i l''i i iv ^' i-:.\);,~ \,i;r. I'.y :■•:!.) 
 
 i;. nrii.', i''.s.,'-;., I'M,. I ■,.!, hi-t, 
 
 X.\v,\i, \vi > ,M 11,1 T \KV !'i:-':i;i:->;. I'.v ('• il. ,'~^;r ( ', II. Nn.'i-iit , |\',( '. 1 ;. 
 
 « lu()\N 111 "•' !>' i; i;K--r!^N-;i ';i I ri! s. I'.y ( '.'ii.t,. .1 . (_,'. i;. (,'i.l..iiii., I,;.- i;..\i. \. 
 
 i)!.V';i;.\M;s axI' \\\\\ 
 
 '.'ho rhcio f:rnis :. r.c:'. ittra;*.;-; ?.■:.. u:::-il :u-:r.'.rv y. "::',;,' Tear:' Icccria'. rr:,-rc::. 
 To lie- luul trci.i H. H. LYMAN, Hon. Treasui^or, aS-'i- St. Paul Si., Mcuiti--,' 
 
'/ 
 
 : '^ 
 
 / 
 
 43 ST. VARGARET'S OFFICER. VICTORIA bT'^Eg.!, 
 
 I50,\1M)N, S.V/. 
 
 ye 
 
 i,>.).i 
 
 TnK llKJHT Hux. Till-; Ilsui. ok 1;m!.iii;ih.. 
 
 Vif{"Cl!)aii'm.iii : 
 Thk lln.irr Hon-. Ivuw.m'.w rir.vsih'M.'. ^^l' 
 
 Jllcu. (JTirr'-.iirfrs : 
 
 A. li, 1.CKIS';. 
 
 initrrn... 
 
 
 cy' 
 
 nn^iir in 6nn:ib]! 
 
 Viu- 4J liocut : 
 \i.Kx. M.-Xi:u,, M.l'., \^:- '. ^>iJt 
 
 Au<ni,Mct.u>:N,.!K., i.i ^^L .1 ^>i ',• ;^' >-:.., M<.nu-o:>l. 
 ,1. 11. Ul.^Sh:> iCity S"1i.;i.l' r' Oiii':^ ), T.'n'Uto. 
 
 ItoKY HbrbKHT Lxman, :;S4 si. I'nul Suv. t, M.mtmU. 
 
 Piibli^ined on the iBt > ' avcry -vioiah, ai Four ShilHriK^ 
 Ijor aDuuin, post iTo.', evorywboro. 
 
 IMP^' ^ I AL FEDERATTO N 
 
 JOUr HE LEA 
 
 THE M^ 
 
 CUNTAISI.Nli — 
 
 fVi/.: luf^>f.-afuni iqnm(illn:nn-rs<'nnnrdvl with fhr LniH-rial F'^'n-a 
 tion Movorimit Lhroiighout the Bnlish Einpvrr. 
 
 Ot5mm*b.'- Mt th« Ofi-loe-of UxeT-oaguo.or ITom the Hon. TrcnsMP-. 
 , or the t eotiue in Canada, «l the rato of On« Dollar 
 
 per armuiTi. 
 
 .f1 
 
 .) 
 
i9