a •••■« *••■•««•« •• a^lS' 
 
 ■■•— W—— ^afcaM«^«i 
 
 A PROTEST 
 
 AOAIN3T THE 
 
 I INCREASED TAXATION 
 
 ADVOCATED BY THE 
 
 CANADIAN OPPOSITION 
 
 AS 
 
 I THEIR NATIONAL POLICY, i 
 
 BEING AN 
 
 I ADDRESS TO THE ELECTORS OF MONCK. 
 
 [I 
 
 i^ ■ 
 
 BY J. D. EDGAR. 
 
 THE GLOBE PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY. 
 
 1878. I 
 
 a 
 
 m 
 ^ • 
 
Jr 
 
 / . 
 
 :'. t 
 
 .^f, 
 
 \- A, 
 
vjt:r yh^d^..^ (3f^<.^ 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAOC 
 
 Adiiress to the Electors of Monck -*..., 5 
 
 Protection in the United States - - . . . ^ .7 
 
 The Interests op the Mother Country 10 
 
 Duty on Barley \\ 
 
 Duty on Oats 12 
 
 Duty on Whkat I4 
 
 Duty ox Cop^x ]4 
 
 Duty on Wool 15 
 
 Chances for Agricultural I'RjrRcTioN I5 
 
 Who Pays the Dutifs ? i; 
 
 Effect of American Dutifs on Pricks in Cavauv - - - 17 
 Our Trade Relations with the Unitko S.ates - - - - 17 
 
 Opposition Policy Interpreted 18 
 
 Balance of Traoe 18 
 
 Duty on Coal 20 
 
 Protection for Manufaoturkls 21 
 
 Conclusion - -' - 33 
 
v.-/ 
 
 r. 
 
 i -s 
 
 f^ ^' 
 
 1 ■ A<-8J 
 
TO THE 
 
 ELECTORS OF MONCK. 
 
 Gentlemen : — 
 
 At the unaninioiis call of the Reform Convention of your 
 County, I have taken the field as Candidate for the House of 
 Commons. In this contest a new issue has been raised, and the 
 Country is asked to adopt what the Opposition call a *' National 
 Policy," and to send Sir John A. Macdonald back into power to 
 carry it out. My opponent has published, and distributed amongst 
 you, a reprint of several speeches Avhich he has delivered in Parlia- 
 ment, mainly discussing the "National Policy." Although no one 
 in the House seems to have felt it necessary to reply to them, still 
 by answering them, I am given a convenient opportunity of laying 
 before you the views Avhich I think ought to prevail upon this 
 question, especially so far as it embraces what is called Protection 
 for the Farmer. The general management of affairs by Mr. Mac- 
 kenzie's Administration I am prepared to defend in public against 
 all-comers during the canvass, and in these pages it Avill not be 
 dealt with. 
 
 At this sea.«:.on you are all busy gathering a most bountiful 
 harvest, and have but little time to go out to political meetings ; 
 yet you are asked by the Opposition to cast your vote at the coming 
 Election to turn out the Government upon this question of Protec. 
 tion, without a fair opportunity of hearing it dismss^d. They say 
 that you are deeply interested in it, and I admit that you are. 
 Taxation touclics your pocket, and the Tariff closely affects your 
 prosperity. You are told that you must submit to more taxes for 
 your own good, and I ask you not to believe it. I also ask every 
 Conservative elector to study this question before going blindly 
 to vote to increase his taxes. In the following pages an effort 
 
6 
 
 has been made to discuss, plainly and briefly, Jhe chief points of 
 the " National Policy," and if the elector will sit down and read, 
 with an honest desire to understand what is most to their own in- 
 terest, I have no fear of the result. The conclusion they will 
 inevitably draw is, that to increase taxation is no way to get richer, 
 and that this '' National Policy " means National Ruin. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 J. D. EDGAIl. 
 
 July 15th, 1S78. 
 
 : ' ' • • ' . ' .;■ ■ , . - - f . ■ ■■ 
 
A PROTEST 
 
 AGAINST THE INCREASED TAXATION ADVOCATED 
 
 BY THE CANADIAN OPPOSITION, AS THEIR 
 
 NATIONAL POLICY. 
 
 Protection in the United States. 
 
 There are many things about the United States and their people, 
 which we can admire ; and that their experience should be fruitful of 
 lessons to us I am prepared to admit. I can go still further, and agree 
 with Mr. McCallnm in thinking that we may learn much from their 
 experience of a protective tariff. The deplorable results of their ex- 
 periment of protection might well cause all patriotic Canadians to dread 
 the advent to power of a lyaxty in our midst pledged at all hazards to 
 try the same rash experiment upon us. ^Ir. McCallum devotes jnuch 
 of his eloquence to praising the American high tariff, which he claims to 
 have produced the following results : (1) A rapid increase in popula- 
 tu,n ; (2) Extraordinary manufacturing pro8]jerity ; (3) Great commer- 
 cial success. I will briefly notice these points in their order, and endeavor 
 to ascertain if we have any good reason to envy our neighbours, or to 
 imitate their example. As to increase of population, it is undoubtedly 
 true that the United States as a whole has largely increased, but where 
 has that increase been ? It has been chiefly in the broad plains of the 
 Western States, wkich opened their arms to receive the surplus popu- 
 lation of ohter countries, and offered them the cheajjest and richest 
 lands to be had in the world. The New England States forced a pro- 
 tective tariff u[)on the country, and enjoyed its benefits to the fullest 
 extent, yet they have furnished abo\it (500,000 emigrants to other 
 States of the Union, and in many localities the'- population is absolutely 
 decreasing. 
 
 Then, as to the manufacturing industries of the United States. It i^ 
 among them, the highly protected and therefore fortunate class, that 
 we should surely find unmistakable signs of prosperity. As to their 
 condition, I propose to give you, first, as an authority, the famous New 
 England Protectionist, General Ben. Butler ; and secondly, the recent 
 proprietor and present correspondent of the Toronto Mail, the pro- 
 tectionist organ in Canada, and then some leading Americans. 
 
 And here is what Gen. l^utler, a protectionist, and hailing from the 
 large manufacturing State of Massachusetts, had to say at the last 
 
session of Congress Ho was appealinj^ to have tlie (loverninont pro- 
 vide money to settle tlie distio-jiiud urtizaus of the cities oji fariu lands 
 and said : 
 
 " There is no fact more patent, no mncti more ])ortcntous and alarmin/j 
 "to all who carefully cxaiiiiiie the stiitc of the country than tho ifreai J<nk 
 '^ of emphi/mi'.at for the industrial chiHscs (»f men and woiuku in the Midile 
 " and Eastern States, and some two or more <»!' the hii>^fr cities of the West. 
 *' By industrial classes, I mean those who .support themselves hy >vage8 for 
 "their labor, whether skilled or unskilled. 
 
 " All classes of employers of every branch of bu.siness have been rcduc'ni'j 
 *' tlip wimbcr of their cmiilojiecH and tlir ratvs of vtujis within the strietest 
 "and sternest pos.^ible limits, until hmidn'ds (if ihnnKdud-t of indn.strinas 
 *^ mi' n and women and their fa inilien, iiiko hnvr. lnriUfore lived from, wagcM, 
 *^ are reduced to the point of starvation furfhevuiidot einpfoi/iiicid,, or are 
 *' barely eking out existence upon the too ineof/re returns from their labor, 'i'lie 
 " state of things has come while bountiful harvests have been gathered in 
 " year after year, and the granaries of the West are bursting with breatl- 
 " stutts ; her plains and meadows teeming with cattle, sheep, and swine 
 " for meat, and all this in a<ldit'on to the millions of dollars' worth of pro- 
 " visions loaded upon the shijjs of tlie merchant murines of Euroj)e to sup- 
 " ply the wants of the poor of other nations. We lind the evil to bo of a 
 * ' two-fold character : 
 
 " First. Insufficient emploi/mentfor labor for millions of men and women 
 ''who would labor if theyj^ould Jind emplo'imrnt. 
 
 " Second. Insufficient icaf/es for tin; labmers who are emjdoyed to meet 
 " the ordinary necessaries, not to say comforts of life. He who labors and 
 " produces ought to enjoy. 
 
 "That these constitute an evil so extensive as to be a j»ub1ic wrong, both 
 "in the ordinary and legal acceptation of the term, need not be argueJ. 
 "This is too painfully apparent to him who reads current history." 
 
 Is that an attractive picture of the results of protection as painted 
 by one of its most ardent American advocates if 
 
 My second witness is a gentlem m who was Managing Director of 
 the Mail newspaper company during all its existence, and was after- 
 wards, and until recently, sole proprietor of that journal. He was pre- 
 sent at Pittsburgh to witness the Hanlan- Morris boat race, and wrote 
 from that place a sparkling letter over the well-knc»vvn signature of 
 *' Quartz," which appeared in the il/ai/. of the 24th June, 1878. Des- 
 cribing the natural advantages of the position of that great manufac- 
 turing city, he says : — 
 
 " It was obviously one commanding many thousands of miles of in'and 
 "navigation, and constituting any town built upon it the very gateway of 
 "the West. The river system of Pittsburg gives her access to the hearts 
 " of eighteen of the finest States in the Union, and her railway system 
 "places her within twelve hours of the great Atlantic ports and within 
 " half that of the Upper Lakes. Despite all these advantaj^es, however, 
 "and the progress once made by reason of them, to-day Pittsburg isgroan- 
 " ing under severe depression of its trade. One-half of its numerous furnace 
 "fires are unlighted, and at many others the men are working only half- 
 "time." , ^ • ' 
 
 William Cullen Bryant, who died only last month, full of years 
 and honours, was one of the most distinguisheil among the literary 
 men and editors of the United States. He recently drew the follow- 
 ing eloquent picture of the result of Protection in his own country : — 
 
 " And what years, my friends, were these ? Years of languishing 
 " enterprise, years of despairing industry, years of strikes, years of 
 

 
 " contention butweon thceniployuiM ixnd oinploytMl, yeai-H which ahowe*! 
 "the spectacle of hiWorers by liundreds looking in vain for occupation, 
 *'an«l hun<.'er-i)inche«l families shivering in their nnwarrned garrets. 
 " All this while the protective system, as it is called, has been in full 
 "force. Kverjthing is proteeted, that is to say, everything imported 
 "inbtthe conniry is taxed as it never was before. If the protec- 
 " tive systeni be the ground of commercial i)ro8perity, the country 
 "should now be prosjjerous beyond the ground of all previous ex- 
 " perience. Our mills, now silent, shouhl be in constant employment ; 
 " not a willing arm should be idle, not a spindle should cease to hum. 
 " Is it not time f<»r a reaction ? Are wo to go on in this manner inde- 
 '•tiniteiy, f We have tried the protective system as fully as is pos- 
 " sible. We have tasted its fruits and they are bitter. Let us now 
 *' have a sea.son of free exchange. I have no do\ibt, for my own part, 
 " that a liberal system of revenue laws, especially combined with a re- 
 "turn to specie i)ayments, W(juld make an instantaneous and most 
 "fortunate change in the condition of the country. Yes, ray friends, 
 '•the time for a reaction has arrived, and we are determined it shall 
 " have a fair field. Free trade has slept while its enemies have been 
 " i)erf«)rming their unhappy experiments upon the piiblic welfare, and 
 "now we look to see it rise invigorated by its long slumber. 
 
 " Let me say that I am in favor of protection, but of a protection j 
 
 "of a kind very ditierent from that which for many years past has j 
 
 " «lealt so cruelly with the interests of the country. 1. am for protect- j 
 
 " ing the consumers, the class whose numbers are counted by millions. 
 " I am for protecting this class in its natural and proper right to ex- I 
 
 "change what it produces in whatever market it can exchange it to 
 *' most advantage. 1 am for rescuing it from the hands into which it 
 " has fallen, and which i)lunder it with as little remorse as the rovers 
 " of the Barbary States, in the early part of this century, pillaged the 
 " merchant ships that entered their sea-t. " 
 
 At page 20 of his pamphlet, Mr. McCallum gives a quotation from 
 Secretary Evarts, now a member of President Hayes' Cabinet, in 
 which he favours the protection delusion. He seems to have grown 
 wiser since, because in a more recent utterance he tells some citizens 
 of Pennsylvania what condition Protection has brought them to. Mr. 
 Evarts says : — - . . 
 
 " In your own great state (Pennsylvania) I perceive that in the 
 " production of iron, there are to-day 478 furnaces out of blJist, out of 
 " a total number of 714, representing an idle capital of $100,000,000. 
 " The capacity of these furnaces is at least double the demand. If hat 
 " is true uf iron is true of other industries.^' 
 
 Can it be believed that while these are accurate descriptions of the 
 condition of the manufacturing industries of the United States to-day, 
 under a complete system of protection, there are still politicians so 
 dull as to believe that we are to be influenced by the experience of that 
 country in favor of increased protection for manufacturers. 
 
 Of course we are told that England is still struggling along as best 
 she can, under the nustaken notion that Free Trade is a good thing for 
 manufacturers, and our Tory politicians are very sorry for her miser- 
 able condition. I think we can afford to accept her yet as an example 
 for us, and for the world, of splendid and unprecedented success. She 
 has been Free Trade since 1842, in which year her exports amounted 
 
10 
 
 to scarcely 23.') millions of dollars ; while they have How increased to 
 the unheard of amount of upwards of one thousand two hundred and 
 forty millions of <lollars ! However, as manufactured goods are so 
 well protected in the United States, we might expect to discover that 
 England is behind them in that sort of exports. What do we find as 
 a fact ? The total export of American manufactured goods last year 
 to all countries was but 72 millions ; while England actually sent into 
 the United States alone 84 millions of manufactured goods, besides 
 supplying the rest of the world ! If we desire to become a wealthy 
 country, we must foster our shipping interests ; all history teaches us 
 that lesson. Tyre and Sidon, Carthago, the Italian republics of the 
 middle ages, Holland, Spain and England have been great, and powerful, 
 and wealthy, only so long as they maintained the control of the com- 
 merce of the world. What has been the effect of the protection policy 
 of the United States upon their own shipping interest ? I am able on 
 this point also to quote an authority which the conservatives will not 
 venture to dispute. No longer ago than in the session of 1874, when 
 Dr. Tupper was discxissing the tariff changes proposed by Mr. Cart- 
 wright, — he warned the finance Minister against copying the protective 
 policy of the Americans, and used the following words while doing so. 
 " Let the Hon. Minister look at the neighbouring Republic and he 
 "would find that the policy of that country had swept their flag oft' 
 ** the seas, and given to others the carrying trade of the world." 
 
 Canadians have made marvellous strides forward in the extent of 
 their mercantile marine. We rank to-day as the fifth maritime power 
 in the world, having a greater tonnage than either (lermany or Franco. 
 Can we aflbrd to adopt a protective [policy and have our Canadian 
 commerce *' swept off the seas." 
 
 Dr. Tupper had not taken the stump in favour of the National 
 Policy when he addressed his warning to the Finance Minister. To 
 show how accurately he stated the terribly disastrous effect of Protec- 
 tion upon American shipping interests, it is a fact that recently in one 
 month forty-six steamers sailed from the port of New York, laden with 
 American produce, under foreign flags, and not one owned by American 
 citizens. And whereas in 1855 there were engaged in the trade between 
 America and the United Kingdom 1,854,308 tons of American shipping, 
 in 1875 there were engaged barely 730,338 tons. Whereas in 185") 
 there were employed in the same business, 420, 2G8 tons of British 
 shipping, in 1875 there were 3,643,184 tons. And in 187G out of 
 total export and import trade of ^1,208,741,702, no less than $920,- 
 715,044 were carried by foreign vessels ! ! ! 
 
 The honest conclusion to be drawn from the unfortunate condition 
 of things existing among our American neighbours is, that even if 
 Protection be not altogether responsible for their misfortunes, it has 
 been powerless to relieve them, and has without doubt, considerably 
 aggravated them. 
 
 The Interests of the Mother Country. 
 
 At page 7 of the pamphlet, we find some very touching expressions 
 of loyalty to the interests of the mother country in this matter of the 
 tariff. He reports hiipself as having said : — " That policy should, as 
 '* far as possible, be framed in the interests of the mother country, to 
 "which we were bound by so many ties, and to which we were under 
 **«o many obligations." I am sure any one reading that senti- 
 
11 
 
 ment would imagine that the great ami "truly loyal" cunsorvative 
 party were supporting Sir John's national policy in order to please the 
 mother country, even if it be unpopular with all intelligent people 
 in Canada. It is a pity that such generosity should not be grate- 
 fully appreciated in England, when, in Mr. McCallum's judgment, 
 the policy was framed, as far as possible, in the interests of the 
 mother country. The London Times is the great organ of public 
 opinion in England, and when the news of the defeat of Sir John's 
 national policy had reached them, an editorial article was devoted to 
 the subject, from which the following is an extract : — 
 
 "In these days, when so many are drawn away from the right faith, it is 
 a matter of satisfaction to find that a motion in favour of re-adjusting the 
 Canadian tariff in a protectionist sense has been. rejected by the Dominion 
 House of Commons. 
 
 The worst symptom of the movement" in Canada in favour of increased 
 protective duties is that Sir John A. Macdonald has }>ut himself at the head 
 of it. We do not for a moment suppose that he can give it success, but hia 
 action is much to be regretted in the interest of a reputation that requires 
 rather careful handling. 
 
 '^■^****** 
 
 The chance was left open to him of reconstructing his shattered party 
 and of returning at some future time to powei. The temptation to anti- 
 cipate this future seems to have been too strong for him. Bad times, an 
 inelastic revenue, restricted trade, and unremunerative industry are all fav- 
 ourable to an Opposition. In some way or other the Government are held 
 responsible for every evil that happens, and the Opposition gain support 
 through mere vague discontent. 8ir John A. Macdonald has seized the 
 opportunity of such a juncture to raise the cry of a modification of the 
 tariff, in the hope of rallying around hini all who have any protectionist 
 leanings. It is not believed that he shares their errors himself — this would 
 be inconsistent with much of his past career, and, indeed, his intelligence 
 would not permit him' to be deceived by the fallacies he may countenance — 
 but he is confident that he can play with these allies for a time, and he 
 would get rid of them somehow if he again became Minister of the Crown." 
 
 Surely if any politicians deserve to be pitied they are Sir John and 
 his followers. If Mr. MoCallum be a reliable authority upon any sub- 
 ject, it is upon the policy of the Opposition, and we learn from him 
 that their national policy was to be "framed in the interests of the 
 mother country." The moment it became known in England it was 
 repudiated antl denounced, and they paid Sir John the doubtful com- 
 pliment of believing that he used the cry while he had no faith in its 
 wisdom, and w^ould " get rid of it somehow if he became Minister of 
 the Crown." They praised his intelligence at the expense of his 
 honesty, if Mr. McCallum be really in earnest, I am afr.aid we can 
 only admit his honesty of purpose at the expense of his intelligence. 
 
 Duty on Barley. ..., , ,, , . ^^r,. 
 
 It is claimed by the Opposition, or the "Taxationists," as they 
 should be properly called, that the Canadian farmer would be benefited 
 by putting a duty on barley that is imported into Canada. Now there 
 are several reasons why that course could do us no good in the world. 
 We raise a great deal more barley than we require for our own use, 
 and therefore we have a large surplus to sell out of Cana<la. By sto^. 
 
12 
 
 ing all iiapurtatiun of Anieiican barley we cannot aftect the price here, 
 because we have already more than we consume, and must sell at the 
 price paid by our foreign customers, neither more nor less. We cannot 
 afford to buy American barley unless we can sell it again at a profit, 
 since we do not require a bushel for our own use. If by a duty we 
 were prevented buying it, the only result would be that we would lose 
 these profits. Could that benefit the farmers ? This sounds well in 
 theorji, you may say, but what are the actual figures of the barley we 
 export and of what we import ? I can tell you. In 1877 we bought 
 369,801 bushels, at 49^ cents per bushel ; and we sold eighteen times 
 as much, or 6,587,180 bushels, at 69 cents per bushel. We paid no 
 duty on what we bought, but the unfortunate Americans had to pay 
 their government 15 cents per bushel, in addition to the 69 cents they 
 paid us. Their barley that we bought was inferior to ours, and I be- 
 lieve it was mixed in small quantities with our superior article, and sold 
 back to them at 69 cents with their own duty added ! It thus seems 
 that our tariff sometimes works quite as well in practice as in theory. 
 England is now a large customer of ours for barley, and it scarcely re- 
 quires to be pointed out that the highest price which we can receive 
 tor barley is what they are willing to pay us for it in the English 
 market. Let us suppose an American buyer is competing with an 
 binglish buyer for a farmer's barley in Canada, The Englishman has 
 to pay no duty when he takes it home, but the American has to pay 15 
 cents per bushel. The American says to the farmer, *' I must have 
 '' your barley because it is of so good a quality, but you ought to let 
 " me have it 15 cents a biishel cheaper than the Englishman, because I 
 " pay that amount of duty to take it into my own country, and he pays 
 " none in his." Would not the Canadian farmer smile pleasantly, and 
 say, " Oh no, Mr, Yankee, I am going to let the man have my barley 
 " who pays the most for it ; and if the Englishman can afford to pay all 
 ** it is worth you will have to do the same, and pay your own duty 
 "besides." Yet throughout Mr. McCallum's pami^hlet, and through- 
 out all the Opposition arguments upon this t.ariff question, the 
 attempt is made to make intelligent Canadian farmers believe that they 
 are paying the American duty on barley. 
 
 Duty on Oats. , ", 
 
 It appears that the Americans impose a duty against us ii]:on oats, of 
 10 cents per bushel, and we are asked to imitate their example. Let 
 U3 see if they are very much helped by their duty, and if it has raised 
 the price upon the other side as compared with our prices, wheie we 
 have no duty. It seems to be a fact, which the Opposition are proud of 
 boasting about, that at times American cargoes of oats are sold in 
 Canada, and hence we are advised to put on a duty to keep them out. 
 But is it not singular, that, in spite of the 10 cents duty, oats are so 
 very cheap over there as to enable people to buy them, pay all freights 
 and charges, and after all sell them at a profit here in comijetition witli 
 our oats i If we feel ourselves badly off at our prices, what must be 
 the feelings of the poor American farmer, who with his 10 cents pro- 
 tection cannot get anything like our prices at home t Surely, if the 
 " taxationists" are in earnest in their pity for the unprotected Canadian 
 raiser of oats, then their tender hearts should bleed for the thoroughly 
 protected American farmer who gets so much less for his oats, even 
 
13 
 
 although he has to pay so much higher for manufactured articles to 
 '^ protect" somebody else. Nor can I see how the American duty of 
 10 cents does us any harm, because we certainly do not wish to take 
 oatsfor sale into the United States, where the price is so much lower 
 than here. 
 
 There is a large quantity of oatmeal manufactured in Canada every 
 year, and shipped to England for sale and consumption. We raise 
 more oats than we consume, and the market for our surplus oatmeal 
 of course regulates what the miller can afford to pay for the oats he buys 
 to grind. Whether he buys Canadian or American oats he can only 
 give the price that will make it worth his while to buy and to grind, 
 and to ship to England at some profit. If American oats were ex- 
 cluded, the miller could not afford to pay one cent more for Canadian 
 oats, than would be justified by the price of oatmeal in England, whero 
 he has to make his sales. If his mill be of large capacity, he is glad to 
 keep it running, by buying all the oats he can get. If indeed one 
 miller should decline to give a fair price, there would very soon be 
 found some other millers to compete with him, and to pay all the Eng- 
 lish price would warrant. The American owner of oats has exactly the 
 same opportunity of sending them to the English market as we have, 
 and he would never send them to us at a price upon which we could 
 make much of a profit by shipping to England. It therefore seems 
 clear that our farmers cannot be in any danger of the Americans send- 
 in!4 in o^-ts to reduce prices here. Such seems to be the result of 
 theory. Let us take an actual example by way of illustration , 
 
 The following commvinication, which was addressed to the Mall 
 some time ago, but has not yet appeared iu its columns, tells its own 
 story : — 
 
 "Editor of the Mail: 
 
 " My attention has been called to the Mail of the 17th inst., in which 
 appears the following : — 
 
 " ' A Farmer writes to the St. Thomas Timefi that at Springfield and 
 Tilsonburg American oats are being received by thousands of bushels, leav- 
 ing home-grown oats without a market. Although a * Liberal ' in time past, 
 he says that he will certainly oppose at the approaching election the Gov- 
 ernment that refuses to do justice to the country's agricultural interests.' 
 
 *' It is a fact that American oats are being received here in large quan- 
 tities, but it is not a fact that home-grown oats are left without a market. 
 The proprietor of the oat mill at Tilsonburg has constantly kept a buyer 
 on the market here, and every bushel of oats offered on this market, fit 
 either for meal or feed, has been boTight, and at as high a price as paid else- 
 where in western Ontario. Farmers have brought oats to this market from 
 a distance of over twenty miles. In addition to this he has kept a buyer 
 continually at Waterford, Delhi, Aylmer, and St. Thomas. He has also 
 purchased at Springfield, Kingsniill, Hagersville, Thamesville, Bothwell, 
 Chatham, Corinth, Highgate, and Alvinston, From these points he has 
 received upwards of one hundred car-loads since the last harvest. Th« 
 price paid for oats has been governed entirely by what the oatmeal would 
 bring across the Atlantic. If a duty were placed upon American oats he . 
 could not have bought tliem ; neither could he have paid a higher price for 
 home grown, because he has paid as high as the price of oatmeal in Eng- ' 
 land would allow. 
 
 " Could sufficient oats be got here, then there would be no necessity for 
 importing ; hence it follows that the large mills located here would be 
 
14 
 
 obliged to stop for several months each year, anil the American mills would 
 manufacture and send to England instead of the Canadian mills. A duty 
 on American oats would thus limit our manufacture of ontmeal, and very 
 greatly damage our railway business, and bring not tlie slightest benefit to 
 our farmers. 
 
 " Tliis is a question of vital importance, and shouhl be regulated by 
 common-sense business principles, and not as mere party political liumbug 
 or clap-trap. Having a close connection with this business, I have been 
 enabled to look at it from a practical standpoint. 
 
 ''Thanking you for the space kindly allowed. 
 
 ••Tilgoiiburg, April 23rd, 1878." 
 
 " I am, &c., 
 
 "R. T. WILLIAMS." 
 
 Duty on Wheat. 
 
 Another delusion which the Opposition are seeking to impose npon 
 fanners, is that by placing a duty on wheat and keeping American 
 wheat out, the price will be raised here. Let us see how this is : We 
 have more wheat than v/e require, and sell our surplus in England. 
 The buyers of wheat have cable messages every day from Liverpool or 
 London, informing them of every change in the market there, and they 
 are guided entirely by that information in the i^rices they pay here. If 
 not a single bushel of American wheat came into Canada, the buyer 
 could not aftord to pay any higher price for ours than the English 
 market would warrant. Canadians undoubtedly buy large quantities 
 of wheat from the Americans, and just as in the case of similar pur- 
 chases of oats, it is bought because it can be sold at a profit in England. 
 In the four years ending with 187(j we exported 42 millions of dollars 
 worth of wheat and flour. We could not have done anything ap- 
 proaching to that large and profitable amount of business with our own 
 surplus, but during that time we handled thirty million dollars woith of 
 American wheat and flour, upon which our millers, grain dealers, 
 vessel owners, sailors, banks and railways made their profits. All 
 these vast benefits to Canadians would be put an end to if the wheat 
 were kept out by a duty, and the Canadian farmer would not get one 
 cent a bushel more for his wheat. By the wisdom of our tarifl' we have 
 brought American produce here, and made it i:>ay toll to our people c»n 
 its way to Europe. And because the foolish Americans have injured 
 themselves by putting a duty on wheat, we are asked to do the same, 
 and thereby destroy all our valuable handling of their grain. 
 
 Duty on Corn. 
 
 Mr. McCalliim and the Opposition generally advocate a duty on com 
 to prevent its coming in from the L^nited States. We will, therefore, con- 
 sider whether Canadians generally, and Canadian farmers in particular, 
 are the losers by the present state of aJQTairs. It must be perfectly ap- 
 parent that all who desire to purchase Indian meal as a cheap and whole- 
 some article of food, when wheat flour is often too dear for them, would 
 not submit to have its price raised by a heavy duty. How would it then 
 affect the farmer ( A large portion of the Indian corn imported is pur- 
 chased by the farmers ; and is it likely they would buy it unless it were 
 profitable for them to do so ? It is very evident why it is a profitable 
 transaction. Taking the returns for the last five years it will be found 
 
15 
 
 that at the average prices a fanuer could buy nearly two busheis of 
 com for one bushel of peas or barley. Did it not, therefore, pay him 
 well to buy corn for feed, and to raise peas and barley to sell, instead 
 of using those articles for feed ? Sometimes a farmer may not raise 
 enough wheat for flour for his family, or perhaps he may have sold too 
 much and not kept enough, is he not, in such cases, glad of the chance 
 to buy the cheap American Indian meal ( L'y reference to the Cus- 
 toms Returns it will be seen that in the Spring of 1877 there were im- 
 ported at Dunnville, from the United States, 10,470 bushels of com at 
 an average of 52 cents per bushel, and 200 barrels of Indian meal at 
 $2 per barrel. It was all sold in the village of Dunnville, and chiefly 
 to farmers. Would those who purchased it ^esire to be prevented 
 from doing so again by high duties ? 
 
 Duty on Wool. 
 
 The prices obtainable for wool this season have been unusually low, 
 and it has been suggested that if we only had Sir John Macdonald in 
 power again, the price of wool would at once go up. Let us see if this 
 be not an audacious attempt to pull their own wool over the farmers' 
 eyes for political purposes. The simple point to be inquired about is, 
 Have we a sufficient demand in Canada for our own wool, so that the 
 price would go up if the American wool were kept out ? There are 
 large quantities of woollen tweeds manufactured in Canfwla, but they 
 do not manufacture tweed from our wool at all, because it is not suit- 
 able. If our farmers chose to abandon the raising of Liecester and- 
 Cotswo.d, and other long-woolled sheep, and introduced Merino and 
 flne-woolled varieties, they might supply our home demand. It is open 
 to them to do so, but 1 am much mistaken if they desire to be forced 
 to do so by politicians. I am told thsit long-woolled sheep are more 
 Ignited to our climate, mature sooner, have a more valuable carcase, and 
 produce more wool. Therefore it is to the advantage of the Canmlian 
 farmer to raise that kind of wool, even if the Canadian manufacturer 
 does not want it, and has to buy the sort he requires from the Ameri- 
 cans. Surely it would be tolly for us to put a duty on the foreign 
 wool, the raw materials which our manufacturers have to buy, when 
 we cannot undertake to supply it to them ourselves. Yet this is one 
 of the changes which the Opposition are advocating so loudly. 
 
 Chances for Agricultural Protection. 
 
 There arc always some people guided by mistaken ideas, and per- 
 haps there are a few Conservative farmers who have been persuaded by 
 i their leaders that agricultural protection, in the shape of high duties 
 upon the products of the farui, would be a good thing for them. To 
 such men I would say — " Sir John Macdonald knows you can never 
 " have agricultural protection. He was in power for many years, and 
 *' he abandoned the idea, and last session showed that he could not get 
 *' the Conservatives from any other Province to vote with him in its 
 "favour." In 1868 Sir John had a large majority at his back, and 
 repealed the duty on flour. He said on that occasion : " The flour tax 
 I " had been imposed as an assei'tion of the independence of the country 
 I " against American exclusive legislation. It had been maintained in 
 " this view until it had been found to work oppressively on certain 
 
'* sections of the coiinminity, and so now it was repealed as a step in 
 '' the right direction.'" It seems that to-dpy he is promising the farmers 
 and millers to take " a step in the wrong direction." In 1870 Sir John's 
 government did introduce a tax upon grain, flour, and meal, and the 
 Toronto Leader thought they were wrong, and that they knew them- 
 selves that they were wrong. In 1871, the House, in which Sir John 
 had a large majority, deliberately repealed these duties, and thereupon 
 the Leader rejoiced in these words : '* We must, therefore, exjtress our 
 " unfeigned satisfaction that the sense of the House has been so unmis- 
 " takably pronounced in favour of the abolition of duties, and that 
 " the exploded theory of protection, receives such little favour ui the High 
 *' Court of Parliament." It .appears, then, that according to the chief 
 organ of the Conservative party at that time, the thetjry of i)rotection 
 Avas "exploded" in 1871 ; yet the whole party, big guns and little 
 guns, are trying to fire it oft' again in 1878 I 
 
 But let us see what happened in the very last sessicm at Ottawa. 
 On the 8th April, 1878, Sir John Macdonald sui)ported and voted for 
 the following resolution: " Whereas a large quantity of wheat and 
 "j flour has been imported into Canada within the last few years, this 
 *' House is of opinion that the interests of Canadian farmers would be 
 " promoted by the imposition of a <luty on these articles." Now hero 
 was a chance to show the farmers of Ontario what Sir Jf)hn coidd do for 
 them by the assistance of the Conservatives from other Provinces. 
 You are told by Sir John and Mr. McCallum that you Ontario farmers 
 cannot prosper without a duty on wheat, that without it you are 
 ruined, — wth it you are rich — and surely here was an occasion for all 
 the Conser\atives in the House to »"illy round their chieftain, and cast 
 a solid vote for a duty on wheit. They may think this is a good elec- 
 tion ci*y here, where there is Avheat to sell, but they know it would be 
 a fatal policy in other places where wheat has to be bought. However, 
 it is my duty to let some o: fchc Ontario farmers know how Sir John's 
 and Mr. McCallum's Conservative friends voted on that question. 
 Against it, 148 votes were reeordei^, while only 28 voted for it. They 
 could not get one solitary (Conservative from either Quebec, New 
 Brunswick, or Prince Edward Island to vote with them, and only one 
 from Nova Scotia. In those Provii.ces to-day the Conservatives are n(' 
 doubt pointing with pride to that vote against the duty on wheat and 
 flour. Is not this a specimen of petty political humbug for a gre.at 
 party to be guilty of I It will surely be hanl for honest Conservatives 
 to countenance such unworthy tactics and such hollow shams as this 
 cry for agricultural protection is proved to be. 
 
 Who Pays the Duties ? " " 
 
 An argument often used in favour of our putting additional duties 
 upon imported goods, is, that the producer pays the duty. At page 22 
 of his pamphlet, Mr. McCallum quotes very elaborate figures to show 
 that we, the Canadian jiroducers, are paying all the duties that the 
 Americans collect upon the articles they import from us. He also 
 argues that the Americans pay all the duties collected by Canada upon 
 goods imported from them. It has already been shown that the Ameri- 
 cans have to pay their own duty upon our barley and other grains which 
 they import and consume. But let us assume for a moment that he is 
 
17 
 
 right, and that pio.lucers and not consumers pay the duties. He saja 
 that last year " This country bought from the United States $46,005,- 
 "384, and collected oflf them 84,104,487 ; but if we were to charge 
 " them at the same rate that they charged us, we should have collected 
 " 13,Hl9,(il •").'' Now, if it be true that foreign producers have to pay 
 Jill duties j>laced upon iniported goods by consumers, I wonder M". 
 IMcCallum has not hit upon a simple but efficient plan of making the 
 Chinese pay all cmr revenue. They certaiidy are the producers of tea, 
 and we .are the consumers : what could be simiiler than raising the duty 
 on tea as higli as necessary to meet the revenue required by us, and of 
 course the Chinese would have to pay it ! Does not this example show 
 how \itterly childish is all that array of figures based upon that silly 
 theory ? And yet you cannot read or listen to an opi)08ition orator who 
 does not start oiit with assuming that if we put duties on foreign goods 
 tiic foreigners will i)ay them. 
 
 Effect of American Duties on Prices in Canada. 
 
 From the brief consideration already given to the question of the 
 tffcct t)f American duties upon certain grains, it has become evident 
 that in those cases, at least, their duty is far more onerous up<m them 
 selves than \\Y><m lis. It is a remarkable fact, which was brought out in 
 the House of Commons last session that since the Americans 
 liave ]iut their duties on our produce, the average of our prices has 
 l)een higher. For ten years prior to 1804, and when there were 
 no dnties, we received an average of $77.50 a head for horses ; 
 from 1860 to 1876, while the duties have been on, we have received an 
 average of $94.53 per head. For sheep Ave received $2.75 ; since the 
 duties, $2.76. For wool, the average before the duty was 30 cents, — 
 since then, 34?,c., although it is very low now. Before the duty, wheat 
 averaged $1.13 ; since then, $1.24. There is no doubt that while the 
 duties placed in the American tariff against our produce in 1866, are 
 both injuriyus and annoying, they had the effect of stirring us up and 
 forcing us to find new markets and outlets for our produce ; and it 
 would never be worth our while to submit to all the misfortunes con- 
 nected with protection merely as a retaliation for these American 
 duties. 
 
 Our Trade Relations with the United States. 
 
 To do justice to Mr. McCallum it must be admitted that he has 
 ciuse of complaint against the United States for imposing duties 
 which hamper and injure the freedom of our trading with them. 
 It is true that they probably suffer more by the restrictions than 
 we do, but that only shows how foolish people become when they 
 have been deluded by protection arguments. It is quite manifest that 
 we cannot force the people of the United States to alter their tariff to 
 suit our wishes. Four millions of people cannot expect to dictate to 
 or coerce forty millions. Without being at all cowardly or submitting 
 to any national humiliation whatever, we may as well frankly admit that 
 if we will not allow ourselves to be coerced by the Americans, neither can 
 we expect to coerce them. That being the case, it seems clearly to be 
 our interest not to cause them needless irritation by our tariff. It is 
 essential to us that we should trade with them, because they are by 
 far our best customers jind largest purchasers of our products of the field 
 
18 
 
 and the forest. If they were foolish enoiigh to put duties upon our 
 produci so high that their own people could not aflford to pay them, and 
 we were to lose the chance to sell in their market, it would be a death 
 blow to the prosperity of our farmers. From our geographical position 
 we must always regard with the keenest anxiety the trade policy <»f our 
 neighbours, and yet we find Mr. McCallum saying, at page 7, — " He was 
 " sick and tired of the Government paying any attention whatcmr as to 
 "the effect its jiolicy would have on the United States." There is 
 statesmanship for you I Let us hope, however, that the Government 
 will continue to pay some attention to the farmers' interest in this 
 matter, even if it makes Mr. McCallum more sick and more tired of 
 being in opposition. 
 
 Opposition Policy Interpreted. 
 
 When there is so much doubt about what the opposition really 
 mean by their National Policy, it is most gratifying to have a clear 
 definition given of it by so thorough-going an opposition partizan as 
 ilr. McCallum. We find him saying at page G : — " The Opposition 
 " claimed that the Revenue should be collected on articles imported 
 ' ' that came in competition with those manufactured by our own 
 people." This is a brilliant way, certainly, of collecting a revenue. 
 The protection promised to manufacturers is such an increase in the 
 duties npon certain articles as will shut out foreign competition, .and 
 so enable the Canadian manufacturer to supply the whole Canadian 
 demand. Unless the articles are shut out by the duty, the manufac- 
 turer will not have the home market to|himself. AVhen the articles 
 are shut out by the duty, I think it must be clear to any school boy 
 that no duty can be collected on them. Yet Mr. McCallum has tried 
 t<» delude the electors of Monck with the idea that the revenue can be 
 collected on the importation of those very articles which he proposes 
 to shut out. If he has succeeded in deluding himself by such non- 
 sense it is too bad that he should venture seriously to make such a 
 [statement in Parliament, as the representative of this intelligent con 
 stituency. When his friends heard of his making this speech at Ottawa 
 they should have talked to him about it, and prevented him from pub- 
 lishing it again. I hope his supporters feel proud of him now. But 
 the best part of the joke is, that he says this is the plan the Opposition 
 have decided upon for collecting the revenue 1 If they can hit upon 
 no other plan of raising the necessary revenue it would be cruel to 
 place them in power again, for they are sure to want to spend a great 
 deal. , 
 
 Balance of Trade. 
 
 There is scarcely a page of Mr. McCallum's pamphlet, there is 
 scarcely a speech made by any opposition orator, in which we do not 
 find references to the balance of trade being against Canada. The op- 
 position are distressed beyond measure that it is so, and they always 
 forget to lell you that it was rather more so in those good old days 
 when Sir John was in power. So large are their sympathies that they 
 go the length of embracing England in the same category of ruined 
 nations with ourselves, because the balance of trade is against her too, 
 and has always been so in proportion to her jirosperity. Poor old 
 England ! it is a jnty she has no statesmen to guide her like Sir John 
 
10 
 
 [nd Dr. Tupper and Lachlin McCalhim, who would try to save her 
 
 iftra Free Trade doctrines, under which she has prospered and in- 
 
 [reased in wealth and power and splendour beyond the wildest dream 
 
 |f any other nation since time bej^an. Why are Beaconsfield and 
 
 alisbury wasting their energies on an Eastern question while the Con- 
 
 lervative leaders in Canada are pointing out to the world . that unless 
 
 Enghmd and Canada export more than they import they will soon be 
 
 fnined ? I begin to have my doubts of the loyalty to the mother land 
 
 )f our Conservative statesmen, when they do not at once rush across 
 
 (ho Atlantic and tell England that they have, discovered she is a ruined 
 
 lation, and point out to her that Protection is the only cure. The 
 
 ^)ronto Mail has already raised a voice of war.iing, as the following 
 
 extract, published on 25th June last, will show : — 
 
 " England has no ' Chinese wall,' and yet she does not manage to sell 
 [o forfcigncrs nearly as much as she buys fioiri them, taking lu-r own official 
 igares. During ISoo, the total real value of inijiorts and exports into and 
 roin tlie Uuitei} Kingdom (bullion and specie not included), is given as 
 
 lollows :"— 
 
 Imports. Exports. 
 
 Foreign Countries £109,959,539 £ 87,832,379 
 
 British Possessions 33,576,3o8 28,287,326 
 
 Totals £143,535,897 £116,119,705 
 
 "And daring the yoar 1S76', as fullows ; — 
 
 Import -i. Export.<i. 
 
 Foreign Countries £290,8-22,r27 £186.626,713 
 
 Uritibh Possessions 84,332,576 70,149,889 
 
 Totals £375,154,703 £256,776,602" 
 
 From these figures it appears that while in 1855 the balance of 
 trade was against England to the extent of twenty-seven millions ster- 
 ling, in 1876 it had increased against her to the enormous sum of 118 
 HiilUons ! Vet the world knows that she has been making rapid ad- 
 vances in prosperity during the intervening period. This single fact 
 IS better than all argument that could be made upon this subject, and 
 
 I roves beyond possibility of doubt that a country can jirosper with the 
 tialance of trade against it. It stands to reason, too, that a country, 
 like an individual, should be at liberty to go from home to buy any 
 uticle that can be gotten better or cheaper abroad, and that a nation, 
 Uke a citizen, will be the richer for doing so. Take a familiar illus- 
 tration of a farmer who has a field of wheat ready to harvest, but his 
 leaping machine has just been burnt up. The Protectionist would say 
 t hat to prevent his weaPh being decreased by paying out money to 
 
 Ijbuy a new machine, this farmer slunild set to work and make anew 
 lUiachine at home. Now, it is <juite apparent that he could be much 
 nore profitably employed than in making a reaper for himself. If he 
 ould accomplish it at all it would be a waste of valuable time, while, 
 y attending to his harvesting he could easily make more money than 
 be cost of a machine. The same with a plough or any agricultural 
 mplement that he requires. It pays an individual or a nation to at- 
 oud to the particular industrial pursuits in which they most excel, and 
 
 II that way they are sure to gain wealth faster than by trying to make 
 erything they require. The fact that a nation is able to send abroad 
 
 !V( 
 
20 
 
 and Imy so much as England does, is proof how rapitUy slie is accumu- 
 hiting wealth at home. If she sends out money and gets back money's 
 worth, she is certainly no poorer by the operation. Let us take the 
 condition of our own balance of trade as evitlence to support my argu- 
 ments. Canada was, we all know, in a more prospeious commercial 
 condition in 1872 than in 1876. The great business depression exist- 
 ing all over the world has come upon us since 1872, In Mr. McCal- 
 liim's own ]>ami)hlet, at page 12, I find he gives the balance of trade 
 against us in 1872, when business was flourishing, as $28,701,019 ; 
 while in the hard times of 1870 it is given as only $i;J,8(K),783 ? I only 
 need appeal to any candid, sensible man, and ask him if it is not evi- 
 dence of a very poor side in ])olitics when the figures given in Mr. 
 McCallum's own speeches prove the utter weakness of his arguments. 
 Fancy asking you to believe that times were worse in 1872 than in 
 1870, because the balance of trade was more than twice as much against 
 us in 1872 as in 1870. How is it, too, that Sir John is not blamed for 
 allowing the balance of trade to be more than double as nuich against 
 us under his government as under the present administration ? 
 
 I do not pretend to say that a country may not be injured by over 
 importation of manufactured goods, just as it may be injured by over 
 manufacture of goods at homo. Bolh are mistakes, and, of the two, 
 over i)roduction is the more injurious, because then all the loss falls 
 on our own people, but those who over import (m credit often fail to 
 pay the foreign creditor, who is thus made to share in the losses. 
 
 Duty on Coal. 
 
 On page Mr. McCallum proposes to benefit the mining classes by 
 taking the duty olF Tea and putting it on Coal. He says " By trans- 
 " f erring the duty from tea to coal a great stimulus would be given to 
 *' the mining interests, and no hardship would be imposed on any 
 "class." Before making this statement he certainly should have as- 
 certained whether the mining interests desired or required a duty to 
 be placed upon ccal or iron ore. He had no doubt heard some con- 
 servative politician say so, and that was enough for his purposes ; but 
 I propose to call as a witness Mr. Myles, the owner of the Snowdon 
 Iron Mines, in the County of Victoria, in this Province, Avho is going 
 heartily into the working of them. Shortly after the announcement 
 of Sir John Macdonald's National Policy last session, Mr. Myles was 
 formally asked his opinion of it. I give the question and answer. 
 
 Question. — " What etlect would Sir John Macdonald's national poliey 
 have on the iron ore bus^iuess and that of smeltiuL^ works ? " 
 
 Answer by Mr. Myles. — "/< would utterly ruin them. The very agita- 
 tion of this 'uatiooal policy' scheme is calculated to upset all my plans. In 
 the first place, I would require 28,000 tons of coal a year, and a duty of 
 seventy-five cents or a dollar on that would put an end to the smelting 
 business. I must send iron ore to the States to bring back coal, and the 
 agitation of the national policy has already had the eU'ect of producing a 
 similar agitation in the States. I was over there the other day and called 
 on a gentleman in the business, who showed me a letter he was writing to 
 Washington urging that the American Government put a duty of one dol- 
 lar a ton on Canadian iron ore. Just see how 1 would be ruined between 
 these two fires. I want no* protection. Some Conservativfe^ in Toronto 
 came to me a few days ago, and said, ' Mr. Myles, the elections are soon 
 
! 
 
 21 
 
 cniiiiiig ofl", and wo w()\il(l like your assistanci!. You wnnt protection, don't 
 h'lU, for your iron ore?' I told them : ' No, gentlemen, no protection for 
 Jiiie. It would ruin nie. Just leave that question alone, if you please.' " 
 
 Most manufacturers use coal as a motive power and, if it l)c made to 
 cost more, they must raise the price of all the articles they sell to the 
 farmers. The castiufrs of all A^'ricultural Machinery would he raised 
 in price, andconseciuently the machines , so would carriages and waggons, 
 and particularly stoves. And recollect, you are asked to pay these ad- 
 <litional prices so that, in Mr. McCallum's words, '*a great stimulus 
 would be given to the mining interests," hut Mr. Myles, a large owner 
 f iron mines, says it would utterly ruin him too ! It therefore aeetns 
 clear that this important part of the national policy would do no one 
 any good, would ruin some people, and would do us all harm. 
 
 Protection for Manufactures. 
 
 There is to-day an import duty of 174 per cent upon most manufac- 
 tured articles. The Canadian, who manufactures on the spot for home 
 customers, has not this duty to pay, neither have his customers to pay 
 the charges for freight and insurance, &c., which, altogether, runup his 
 advantage against the foreign manufacturer to as much as 25 or 30 per 
 cent. This does seem a favourable state of affairs for our m.anufac- 
 turers, and most of them are prospering inider it to-day. As a result 
 of this duty we have to pay for manufaet\ired articles at our door 25 
 or .30 per cent more than we could afford to pay to a foreigner for them 
 in his country, and then pay the duty, freight, &c., to bring them 
 here. If this be not sufficient margin for profit to Canadian manufac- 
 turers it shews either that they have not the proper machinery, ex- 
 perience, or skill ; or else, that the article is not one which can pro- 
 fitably be made here. Take the case of Agricultural Implements as an 
 illustration of our successful nuinufacture. Some few articles of the 
 kind are sent in from the United States, but nothing to injure the 
 Canadian trade, which is very prosperous. It is home, and not Ameri- 
 can competition they have to dread. I suppose we could grow tea, 
 and I know we can grow silk worms, but there are other countries 
 where those commodities are raised and prepared for use perhaps 100 
 per cent more cheaply than we can do it. Would it be right to impose 
 a duty to be paid by all of us of 100 per cent on tea and silk, in order 
 to force them to be prepared here i Yet, if we are to have a Protec- 
 tive tariff at aU, it must be high enough " to protect," and to shut off' 
 outside competition. 
 
 Whether right or wrong, in the abstract, we have anything but 
 a free trade tariff in Canada. We have consented to pay high 
 duties upon many manufactured articles that we have to buy every 
 day, and the larger part of these duties do not go to the govern- 
 ment, but to certrin favoured ones amongst our fellow citizens. If 
 the taxes thus levied all went to the government they would be 
 spent in public works, &c., and we would all feel the benefit of them, 
 but the bulk of them go to manufacturers. To show you how this 
 works out, let us take the article of household furniture. This is a 
 thing we must all buy, and it is protected by a duty of iT-i per cent. 
 If you are in Buffalo and see some furniture which you could buy for 
 $100, you find out upon enquiry that in addition to freight you will 
 have to pay $17.50 at the Custom House as duty. You return home 
 and find out that you can buy the same articles from a Canadian 
 
inanufucturor, but of cour.se hu will ro^^uljite his price by the Buffalo 
 Hgures, and to encourago homo business you gladly pay him $117.50. 
 In this way you pay the tax of $17.50, but it goes to your fellow citizen 
 and not to the country. You are taxed to increase his profits $17.50 
 on each purchase amounting to IjilOO. That this is the result in the 
 case of furniture is proved by the fact that less than 8 per cent of the 
 furniture used in Canada is imported, and the rest pays no tax to the 
 government. Surely this is encouragement afforded !»}' farmers to manu- 
 lacturers ; and I am glad to think that the present goveniment is not 
 blamed by the farmers for having raised the tariff from 15 to 17^ per 
 cent, as they have done since they came intf) power. Y(m all know 
 that the great cry of the Conservatives in the cities just now is — 
 ** Raise the duty upon manufactures to encourage home industry — 
 make it 10 or 20 per cent more, no matter if the farmers have to pay 
 it." In this way they hope to get the help of the mainifacturers at 
 the electicms, 6f whom some few are greedy and blind enough to be 
 caught by these hollow and unnatural promises of prosperity held out 
 to them. I have heard it said in Toronto, by a Tory manufacturer, — 
 ** Mackenzie has adopte<l a policy to please the farmers, but we will 
 *' shew him that he cannot aftord to do that." Now. if it be ii^Tongfoi 
 Mr. Mackenzie to resist the demand of a few for legislation to enable 
 them to levy a tax upon the many, I admit he deserves to be con- 
 demned. But when lie honestly and fearlessly tells the manufacturers 
 that they are a highly protected class to-^lay, and when he appeals to 
 the electors to say whether they desire t(» be plundered in order to en- 
 rich a few, I can understand but one verdict from the countiy. I do not 
 believe in appealing to one class of the connnunity, but there is no con- 
 cealing the fact that the farmers form the basis of the wealth and pros- 
 perity of Canada, and if they prosper we must all prosper. To say that 
 they shall be taxed highly on all thiy have to buy — not to replenish the 
 public chest, but to increase the proHts of some manufacturers beycmd 
 their present handsome returns, — is poor statesmanship indeed. If 
 farmers believe in *hat policy let them vote and work for the opposi- 
 tion candidates, who are pledged to see the duties raised. 
 
 But what are the protectionist farmers to do if they fail to t\irn out 
 Mr. Mackenzie ? Those who are honest in believing that manufac- 
 turers must get higher prices, and that farmer.s must pay them, it 
 seems to me have only one course open to them. Let them put their 
 hands in their pockets like men, and pay extra prices to encourage 
 home manufactures. This can be done without altering the tariff, or 
 changing the Government. Whenever they buy any of the following 
 articles let them add on ten or fifteen cents to every dollar's worth, — 
 say on agricultural impliBments, boots and shoes, brooms and brushes, 
 furniture, carriages, barrels, millinery, edge tools, foundry and ma- 
 chine work of all kinds, saddlery and harness, saws and files, leather, 
 clothing, &c., &c. In this way they will feel all the advantages that they 
 imagine a change of Government would bring them, even if they cannot 
 place Sir John in power again. Of course the farmers who siipport Mr. 
 Mackenzie's policy do not believe in these extra duties and prices, and 
 therefore cannot conscientiously pay them — but that is all the greater 
 reason why Sir John's supporters should pay their tribute liberally. 
 Even if it does make them poorer, they will have the proud consola- 
 tion of feeling that they are carrying out the true principle of protec- 
 tion which alone is to save our unhappy country ! 
 
23 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 In tho ubscnco of siiflieiont ij'rounda of attack against tho Ministry 
 {[um whicli to make an appeal to tho country, tlio Opposition woro 
 forced to raiso some election battle cry to do service during this cain- 
 paij,'n. Tho National Policy is miserably weak when examined an<l 
 discussed, but their hope has been that it may catch the votes of some 
 who do not reflect upon tho subject. Their plan is to avoid full dis- 
 cussion, and to tell eiich elector only so much of tho taxation scheme 
 as is likely to please him. They appeal for your support by shewing 
 the benefit your business might receive from a tax levied upon an- 
 other. This may be attractive until you find out that they are 
 whispering in your neighbour's ear how much ho will be assisted by a 
 tax to be levied upon yourself. It is impossible to believe that an 
 attempt would be seriously made by any Government to adopt the 
 policy of the Opposition. If they were themselves t'> return to power 
 on this'hollow cry they would be found igno-niiiiously sneaking out of 
 the fulfilment of the pnmiises they have so lavishly and boldly maile. 
 Let us .shako ofi' the fit of tha blues, that the Opposition orators 
 are giving us by their incessant whining over our condition. Let us 
 awake from the nightmare of hard times and increased taxation, to 
 look at the brightening prospects that surround us to-day. Tho uni" 
 versal wave of business depression, which has swept across the world, 
 has touched us more lightly than any other civilized ct)untry ; and 
 Providence has made our land to ?milo with a rich and bounteous 
 harvest. Is this a timo to try experiments with our tariff, and ti> im- 
 pose taxes that are not required for revenue ? On the contrary, wo 
 should avoid all rash changes that unsettle the trade of a country, and 
 should aim rather to lighten than to increase the burden of taxation. 
 Our natural resources are unsurpassed, our people are thrifty and in- 
 telligent, and it requires but our own honest industry to start us 
 again on a bright career of happiness and prosperity. 
 
 I 
 
 
 ■i