IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

:/.

«.

fc
^

1.0

I.I

1:^128

2.5
22

120

1.8

L25 11111.4 111 1.6

^»

^>'

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

1980

Technical Notes / Notes techniques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original cupy available for filming. Physical
features of this copy which may alter any of the
images in the reproduction are checked below.

D
D

Coloured covers/
Couvertures de couleur

Coloured maps/

Cartes gdographiques en couleur

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Certains
ddfauts susceptibles de nuire d la qualit4 de la
reproduction sont notds ci-dessous.

D
D

Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

Coloured plates/
Planches en couleur

P
o
fi

C(
Ol

TI
fi
in

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu6es

Tight binding (may cause shadows or
distortion along interior margin)/
Reliure serr^ (peut causer de I'ombre ou
de la distortion le long de la marge
int^rieure)

Show through/
Transparence

Pages damaged/
Pages endommag^es

u|
bi
fc

Additional comments/
Commentaires suppl^mentaires

Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

Pagination incorrect/
Erreurs de pagination

Pages missing/

Oes pages manquent

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Maps missing/

Des cartes gdographiques manquent

Plates missing/

Des planches manquent

Additional comments/

CovTK^ ntaires suppl6mentaires

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 reproduces avec le
pi'js grtnd soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire filmi, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall
contain the symbol —►(meaning CONTINUED"),
or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever
applies.

Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la der-
niire image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas:
le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole
V signifie "FIN".

The original copy was borrowed from, and
filmed with, the kind consent of the following
institution:

Library of Parliament

L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce h la
g6n6rosit6 de I'dtablissement prdteur
suivant :

Bibliothdque du Parlement

Maps or plates too large to be entirely included
in one exposure are filmed beginning in the
upper left hand corner, left to right and top to
bottom, as many frames as required. The
following diagrams illustrate the method:

Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour dtre
reproduites en un seul clichd sont film6es d
partir de Tangle supdrieure gauche, de gauche it
droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images n^cessaire. Le diagramme suivant
illustre la m6thode :

No. 2.

INFORMATION FOR THE ELECTORS.

4., "i:.i

'•ri*.:

THE LIBERALS

I. ,■ ; \\

>, > >

AND

.;.i.-!;.<,.

THE TRADE POLICY.

The position of the Liberals on the general trade policy of
Canada has undergone many and remarkable changes. In the
time of the old reciprocity treaty, they were generally ii favour
of it and of a revenue tariff upon manufactured goods, as indeed
were both political parties at that time. After the abrogation of
that treaty in 1866, they proclaimed themselves favourable to an
attempt to have it renewed, although not at the price of national
honour or material interests.

The Hon. George Brown, a shining Liberal light, thus ex-
pressed himself with reference thereto : —

" But be this as it might, it was not for the people of Canada
to be influenced by any puch anticipation. They had shown
their ability to open new markets for themselves when the
American market was closed against them, and the clear path
lor them was to follow with redoubled energy and perseverance
the policy on which they had entered. . . . Let them seek to
develop their great natural industries, and especially the agri-
cultural, shipping, fishing, mineral and lumber industries. Let
them open up new mai'kets adapted to their traffic, and let the
Canadian flag be found floating on every sea."

The Globe newspaper in 1869, when the new leader of the
Government, Sir John A. Macdonald, wan trying by delegation
ana otLerwise to induce the United States government to renew
the old treaty, thus alluded to the question : —

'* Hon. Alexander Mackenzie in a speech said : ' I deprecate
the idea of cringing to the Americans. I appreciate fully the
benefits of reciprocity, but I do not think it becomes us, under
present circumstances, to make -any efforts for its renewal. I
believe that we should pursue our trade policy without regard to
reciprocity."

And Sir Kichard Cartwright, in Charlottetown, in 1878 made

this declaration : —

" If you say you are going to frighten the United States into
reciprocity by imposing certain duties on articles now coming in
from that country, all I have to say is this, that the men who
tell you that reciprocity with the United States is essential to
your existence are, in my opinion, playing a most unwise and
unpatriotic part. I don't deny the advantages of a free and fair
exchange with the United States, but I say that Canada ip not so
dependent as these men would have us suppose, on the markets
of the United States j that we are able to hold our own with the
United States in any market that is equally open to the corapeti-
tioD of us both." — Speech at Charlottetown on Aug. 16th, 1878.

These were all indicative of a policy at once honourable and
manly — of a willingness to ti*eat for a fair measure, but not to
cringe for favour, or to despair if reciprocity was refused.

"When, during the Liberal regime from 1874 to 1879, and after
the failure of repeated efforts to obtain a measure of reciprocity
from the United States, it became evident that some other policy
was necessary to develop the industries, to protect the labour and
expand the resources of Canada, and the Liberal-Conservative
party advocated the national policy, a moderate protective fiscal
system, as necessary to Canada, the Liberals threw their whole
force against it. They declared the protective system to be a
"barbarous" one, that it was simply *' legalized robbery," that
it would diminish the revenues, impoverish the people, enrich
the monopolists, and in short bring only evil upon the country.
They were then free traders in principle, emulated the British
system, and inveighed against Protection in all its forms, citing
that of the United States as the most dangerous of all. The

JgW --tor

*■ *

defeats of 1878 and 1882 did not diminish their opposition to
Protection nor lighten their assaults upon its pi'inciples and its
alleged effects.

Along with their opposition to the National Policy, they
pleaded for a reciprocity treaty with the United States on the
old lines of that of 1854, and blamed the Liberal-Consei'vatives
for not successfully accomplishing it. * -* '

Defeat and the more cogent argument of good results seen
on every hand which it wao impossible for them to declaim
away, brought a change in 1887, and the leader of their party,
Hon. Edward Blake, announced that change in his celebrated
Malvern speech in January of that year, in these words : —

" No man, I care not how convinced an advocate of free trade
for Canada he may be, has yet suggested — no man, I believe, can
suggest — a practicable plan whereby our great revenue needs can
be met otherwise than by the continued imposition of veiy high
duties on goods similar to those we make, or can make, within
our bounds, or on the raw materials. I invite the most ardent
free trader in public life to present a plausible solution of this
problem ; and 1 contend that he is bound to do so before he talks
of free trade as practicable in Canada. 1 have not believed it
soluble in my day; and any chance of its solubility, if chance
there were, has been destroyed by the vast increase of our
yearly charge and by the other conditions which have been
created. The thing is removed from the domain of practical
politics."

In these plain words he renounces in the name of his party
their former heresy of free trade as impracticable, and bound
himself, Sir Richard and his followers, to adhere to the policy of
Protection in all its essential conditions.

On this platform he appealed to the country, but the country
distrusted the genuineness of the party's conversion on the eve
of a general election, and maintained its faith in the old policy
of 1878 and in its consistent adherents.

Shortly after the elections of 1887> Erastus Wimau, a Canadian
resident in New York, conceived the idea of a new propaganda.
This was to bo the salvation of Canada, or rather of the shattered
fortunes of the Liberal party, and he was to be its chief
apostle.

It wae, in fact, the child of a United States politician of little
note named Mr. Hitt, and was known as Commercial Union.

The idea Wou simply that: —

1. The tariff of the United States should be adopted by
Canada.

2. The Customs Houses were to be abolished between Canada
and the United States, but maintained against the rest of the
world.

3. The import duties collected in both countries were to be
pooled and divided on a per ca;?<fa basis between the two countries.

This was preached through Canada and the United States by
Mr. Wiman. It was enthusiastically adopted by the Liberal
papers in large part, by the Liberal leaders, Mr. Blake and Mi*.
Mackenzie excepted, and for a time promised to become the
evangel of the party in Canada.

Sir Richai-d Cartwright, in 1888, on March 14th, moved the fol.
lowing resolution in the House of Comnjons : —

" That it is highly desirable that the largest possible freedom
of commercial intercourse should obtain between the Dominion
of Canada and the United States, and that it is expedient that
all articles manufactured in, or natural products of, either of said
countries should be admitted free of duty into the ports of the
other (articles subject to duties of excise or of internal revenue
alone excepted) ; That it is further expedient that the Govern-
ment of the Dominion should take steps at an early date to
ascertain on what terms and conditions arrangements can be
effected with the United States for the purpose of securing full
and unrestricted reciprocity of trade therewith."

This is in substance, but not in detail, Mr. Hitt's and Mr.
Wiman'splan. The resolution was silent as to details, but was
accepted by Mr. Wiman as equivalent to his own scheme and as
such received from him equal and like advocacy as his own.

Since 1887, Mi*. Laurier, the leader of the Liberal party.
Sir Richard Cartwright, Mr. John Charlton, Mr. Longley,
A.ttorney-General of Nova Scotia; Prof Goldwin Smith, and
other lights of the party, have been in constant communication
with Mr. Wiman, Mr. Hitt, Mr. Butterworth, and others. United
States politicians at Washington ; have made missions to that

r,
d
»n
)d
at

city and to New York and Boston, and have cabaled with raon there
for the purpose of inducing them to assist in the successful carry
ing out of their plan.

What then is this new policy upon which the Liberal leaders
have settled as the policy foi* the Canadian people ? Let its
sponsors and originators answer.

Mr. Hitt says: —

" What is commercial union with Canada ? It means, as set
out in this resolution, the adoption by both countries of precisely
the 8:ime tariff of duties, or tixes to be levied upon goods coming
from abroad ; abolishing altogether our line of custom houses on
the north, by which we collect tariff duties on goods coming
from Canada ; abolishing their custom houses along the same
line, by which they collect duties upon goods wo send into
Canada ; and leaving intercourse as unrestricted between this
country and Canada as it is between the States. The line of
custom houses would follow the sea and include both countries.

" The internal revenue nystems of taxes on liquors and
tobacco in the two countries would also have to be made uniform
in both.

"The proceeds of taxation thus collected would be equitably
divided, and the fairest way would seem to be in proportion to
population."

Mr. Butterwort) "vs ; —

"The adoption oi ..e system proposed would involve the
assimilation of tariffs, r^vtos and internal revenue taxes, and pos-
sibly an arrangment for pooling receipts from customs, and a
division on some equitable basis." — Address by Hon. B. Butter-
worth, before the Canadian Club, N.Y.

Mr. Wiman says : —

" That as against the world, the same rates of duty should be
collected by Canada as are now levied by the United States,
while between the two countries of North America the customs
line should be completely obliterated." ^

Prof. Goldwin Smith says : —

"Commercial Union, would of course, involve assimilation of
tariffs which, however, would present no insurmountable obstacle
to negotiation. It would also involve an assimilation of the
liquor (excise) duties."

Mr. Laurier, at the pavilion in Toronto, October, 1889,
declared for " a uniform standard of customs and tariff duties."

^ On every platform from which he has spoken since 1888, he has
nailed the flag of unrestricted reciprocity to the mast, and cited
as his co-workers in the United States, Mr. Hitt, Mr. Butter-
worth, Mr. Blaine, and others.

This identifies him and his party with the plan proposed by
them and their co-workers and which has been outlined above.
The adoption of this policy for Canada means: —

1. That her tariff of 30 per cent, on dutiable imports is to be
exchanged for that of the United Stales, which averages about
60 per cent.

2. That Canada is to discriminate against and practically
prohibit imports from Great Britain and the rest of the

3. That Canada is to lose in this way from present revenue
over $8,000,000 now collected on imports from the United States;
at least $2. 600,000 now collected on sugars and molasses from
other countries, and which on assimilation of tariffs must be
made free: and about S6,000,000 now collected on imports
from Great Britain and other countries, which would under
the new plan be hereafter imported from the United States, —
a grand total of from $16,000,000 to $18,000,000.

4. That this deficiency in revenue would have to be made up by
direct taxation ; and would fall with telling force upon the farmers
of the country, and men of small holdings ; being a sum of about
$3.50 per head of the population, or $17.50 for each family.

5. That whilst being called upon to pay this amount yearly
to the tax collector, the people would obtain none of the
advantages of free trade, but, on the contrary, would be placed,
according to Liberal teaching, under the galling yoke of a
protective tariff dc»uble that of Canada at present.

6. That the tariff-making power would be handed over to a
foreign country — made for us at Washington — and we should
virtually be left in the position of paying taxes without being
represented.

7. That entrance upon this path would inevitably lead to
complete dependence upon the United States, and to ultimate ab-
sorption therein.

^■v

If Canada and the United States are to have a common tariff,
it IB of the highest importance to know who is to make it and
what it is to be. Sir Bichard Cartwright and his supporters avoid
the discussion of this question whenever possible, and when com-
pelled to speak say it is merely a question of detail of little im-
portance that will be settled by a commission composed of rep-
resentatives of the two countries,

Their allies in the United States are not so indefinite. In his
speech at Detroit, Mr. Wiman said it would be settled by a com-
mission whose basis would be population, and that " the propor-
sion would be"|,ten members for the States for every one for
Canada." It can easily be understood what the position of
Canada would be under such an arrangement. It is perfectly
underetood across the line as has been well put by the New York
Post and Chicago Times. The New York Evening Post says : —

"If Canada agrees to have the same tariff as the United
States, the making of it must, of necessity, be left to the Ameri-
can Congress, or, in other words, the power to tax the Canadians
must be ceded to the United States, and the power to tax soon
carries all other powers with it. It is just as well for everybody
who is interested in this movement on either side of the line to
bear this in mind. The United States cannot allow a small
province like Canada to say what their import duties shall be, so
that Canada would have to allow the United States — in fact, if
not in form — to say what her import duties would be." .^v^-

On this point the Chicago Times speaks as follows : —

" It must not be forgotten that this proposition implies a
complete surrender by the Dominion Parliament to the Ameri-
can Congress of all control over the principal source of the
Dominion's revenue, the tariff. Whatever it may please the
American Congress to do j-egarding the tariff, that the Dominion
Government must forthwith accept. Our Congress would have
even more power over the Dominion under this an-angement
than it would in the event of political union, because the people
of the Dominion would have neither vote nor voice in Washing-
ton under the proposed commercial union. Not only would our
Congress prescj-ibe and change at pleasure all the taiiff taxes
exacted from the people of Canada, but our executive officers and
oup courts would make all the rulings and decisions affecting
rates for the Dominion as well as for the United States."

Hon. Mr, Butterworth, the mover of the first resolution in

CJongrees, upon which the agitation was founded, said of the
effect of this policy : —

" It is apparent to all that in the consummation of what is
now proposed, the Monroe doctrine becomes an accomplished
fact throughout all this continent."

This means that Canada would lose not only control of her
fiscal policy but also her connection with the Mother Country.
That many who are advocating this policy in Canada know and
are definitely labouring to bring about such a result is clear from
the evidence recently'' given by Mr. Wiman before the United
States select committee on relations with Canada. He said : —

" It is, to-day, impossible to elect a single, solitary member of
Parliament on an annexation platform. It would bo ruin to any
politician to set up and advocate annexation. On the other hand,
there is a vast number who havo not the slightest hesitation in
arguing strongly for a commercial arrangement, the result of
which might be — in their own minds — a political arrangement
to follow."

It is clear that such a policy would be for Canada annexation
without representation in Congress, and under it Canada
would be a second Egypt, without any voice in the control of her
own affairs. Against such a policy, Eeformers, like Hon. Alex-^
ander McKenzie and the late Hon. George Biown, have plainly
declared themselves. In his speech in defence of the proposed
treaty of 18'74, Hon. George Brown said : —

** I come now to the objections which have been urged against
the treaty from such quarters as entitle them to a formal answer.
The first of these is the allegation that the treaty discriminated
against Great Britain in favor of the United States. Nothing
could be more unfounded than this. It was perfectly understood
from the Ojoening of the negotiations that no article could be
free from duty in regard to the United States that was not also
free with regard to Great Britain, and nothing else was ever
contemplated for a moment."

Hon. Alexander McKenzie, is of the same opinion now as he
was when at the head of the Government. On the 8th of Janu-
ary last, in a reply to an address from his constituents, he said : —

" I could never consent to the zoUverein policy for obvious
reasons, but I cannot conceive why any one should object to re-
ciprocal free trade, secured by treaty, and not inimical to the

interests of Great Britain as the head of the empire. I shall feel
it to be my duty to vote in the direction of these remarks in
Parliament."

TRUE TTNRESTKICTED RECIPROCITY.

hiiVV

True Unrestricted Reciprocity, as interpreted by Hon. Mr.
McKeozie and advocated by a number of his followers, means
not only the broadest free trade with the United States but alsc
with Great Britain and all the world beside ; because it is clear,
that if there is to be no discrimination against Gieat Britain
her products must be admitted as freely to our market as those of
the United States. As our importations are mainly from those
two countries, absolute free trade is the natural consequence.
From the quotations above given it is clear that the United
States will not agree to such a reciprocity. We can easily under-
stand why. There would be the danger of smuggling into the
United States from Canada, pi'oducts admitted into the latter
free but on which the former levies a high duty, and because
Canadian manufacturers obtaining their raw materials free would
be placed at an advantage over United States rivals whose raw
materials would be heavily taxed. A large portion of the
Reform party have declared free trade to be a practical impossi-
bility for Canada. Hon. Edward Blake's speech at Malvern, in
1887, has already been quoted.

In his speech in Toronto, as reported in the Globe of October,
1889, Hon. Mr. Laurier, now leader of the Opposition, saidt —

"The British people will not to-day go back upon thepolicj'-of
free trade which they have adopted, and Canada is not in a posi-
tion at this moment, with the large revenue it has to collect, to
adopt any other than a revenue tariff at least."

Hon, J. W. Longley, of Halifax, in a letter published in the
Commercial Union Handbook, says : —

" Personally, I would regard absolute free trade as a better
solution of our difficulties. But this seems not to be a practical
question at the present moment. The most sanguine public man
would despair of being able to induce the Canadian people to
accept the broad doctrine of commercial freedom, and a revenue
derived chiefly from direct taxation."

If this aort of unreBtricted reciprocity, which would retain
control of our own affairs and of all our fiscal institutions, is op-
posed by the leading advocates of reciprocity on both sides of
the line, it is out of the question in practical politics, and is only
retained by the Opposition for the purpose of deceiving the loyal
and free ti'ade sections of the Reform party who are against any
reciprocity that would enclose Canada with a McKinley tariff
against all the world save the United States.

' It must he remembered that the policy of the Government will
give to the Canadian farmer all the advantages ho can get from
commercial union, and free access to the United States market
without the corresponding disadvantages of commercial union,
as proposed by Messrs. Wiman, Cartwright & Co.

THESE DISADVANTAGES.

J Ist. The loss of a large portion of our manufactories. Cana-
dian manufacturers would labour under the same disadvantages in
competing with the manufacturers of the United States, as the
latter claim to exist between them and those of Great Britain and
Europe, viz., less capital, shorter experience and smaller fac-
tories. The United States manufacturer, with his greater capi-
tal, experience and plant, is in a position at once to invade
Canada, while his Canadian rival with his limited m^^ans would
not be in a position to retaliate. The United States manufac-
turer would be working under precisely the conditions he now
finds about him, and would be ready instantly to take ad van
tage of the new market open to him.

The United States being the larger market, and the treaty
being only for a limited term of years, no Sianufacturer would
think of erecting a factory in Canada for the larger market which,
at the termination of the treaty, might be closed and his invest-
ment rendered worthless.

More serious still is the fact that a large quantity of the
goods produced in Canada have incorporated in them some
design, or some device covered by patent in the United States.
On the other hand, but compai'atively few such products^^of

United States factories would meet with such a bar to entrance
into this country. The Canadian manufacturer would thus find
his natural market cut into at all points, while he would be abso-
lutely prohibited from touching the trade of his rival.

.«oiii« Hi

.i^iijfvm ftiiAii'siij l>a:iifrpl :>ri-- '-ll/W iij^j-i' pkI'

si'.