•Ju IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 UifU |2S ■50 "^^ Mb ^ 1^ III 2.2 lAo IIIII2.0 U ill 1.6 ■•1- V] ^. ^^' ?>> v: j> # "-^ d? / Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTES.N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 o ^ % V C^ Ux w ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHJVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de mrcroreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the bast originsi copy availabie for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, oir which may significantly change the usual method of filming, ere checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exempisire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui puuvenf exigur une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. r~~3^Coloured covers/ I I Couvertjre de coulaur □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul6e □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es r~y Pages restored and/or laminated/ I I Pages restaurdes et/ou peUicuides □ Cover title missing/ Le tit titre de couverture manque B Pages discoloured, stained or foxad/ Pages ddcolor^es, tachetdes ou piqudes □ Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en coule-.tdows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitlod from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une rest^juration apparaissent dans Ee texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. D D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalemant ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. n Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldrrentaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 2AX 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Pubiic Archives of Canada L'exsmplaire film6 fut reprcduit grdce d la gAndrosit6 de: La bibiiothdque des Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considoring the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keepino with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de I'exempiaire fiimd, et en conformity avoc les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont fiimds en commenpant par le premier plat et en tar Mnant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impres3ion ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tou'i les aijtres exemplaires originaux sont fiimds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the fymbol —^-(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidro image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symboie -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely :ncluded in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left tc right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s A des taux de reduction diffdrents, Lorsque le docum:^nt est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichi, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d drcite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammed suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 I ^mmrn ■i Our National Pi-furh. IlKINC I 1\'I' l.i'/i'ri'.l^S 1.^ HON. .IAM1']S ^ ()r\(i. FN Ol'i'OMi'h >N ] () GOMMERGiALi tlN10N ^AS rKDi'OSl.l M AM. Impepial RedepatiGP, A.M. I ;:. 1 .Ni ii \ ! I ;i i. wi.i I i K i-i" :.M \ I-:-. I o I I THE TR'JS FUTURE OF ^3kKkdk AS A PART OF NORTH AMERICA. :f»i?,ice lo CEisr'^.L's. I'OKON'K): I'liiNTKi) A.Ni) I^jii i.sini) iiY K. a. "SU l,\■.^s. K! AdilHiiU) Stioi-t lOast. PUBLISHERS NOTICE, The first edition of this pamphlet being exhausted, and urgent requests having been received from many parts of the Dominion for its re-publication in first class typographic style for general circulation, I have secured from the Hon. James Young, the exclusive right to do so. The letters are given almost verbatim as they originally appeared in the Giobe, including the head lines. Orders fcr several hundreds of copies have already been received, and it is confidently hoped that the leading opponents of Commercial Union, and friends of Canadian nationality, will pvchase a sufficient number to circulate freely in their several localities, so as to help keep public opinion right on this momentous question. The prices of the pamphlet are loc. per single copy, $7.00 per 100, and $25.00 per 500 copies. Orders sent to the undersigned will receive prompt anention. R. G. Mcl.EAN, Toronto,"7anuary 2nd, i883. y ^ ^ No. 13 Adelaide St. East, TORONTO. OUR NATIONAL FUTURE. THE COMMERCIAL UNION -AND— Imperial Federation Schemes. lests ition I the most P m i s. i and ■> and I ^- : ulate 1 this ZntereatinK Ii«tter from BON'. JAMBB TOITirO, of Oalt— A Canadian wbo bas Faith in Canada— Commercial 7niop and XmroTial Federation Alike Hostile to Canadian Nationality. As a Canadian to the " manner born," who, notwithstandin)? the development of so;iie grave political evils, retains faith in the fiitnre of Canada as a distinct p.irt of North America, I exceedingly regret the present agitation of two questions — proceeding from opposite directions— a ZoUverein or Customs Union with the United States, and Imperial Federation. It is not quite twenty years since Confederation took place, and although some progress has been made, our most pressing political problem, from a national stand- point, continues to be the consolidation of the various Provinces composing the Do- minion. When opening Parliament in 1867, Her Majesty's representative. Lord Monck, officially declared the newly-formed Union to be " the foundation of a new nationality." This language, put into His Excellency's mouth by his constitutional advisers, could bear no other legitimate meaning than that Canadian nationality was, and ought to be '.hp i;ltimate aim of British America. I do not .see how any patriotic citizen, at least without deep regret, can take any lower view of the true future destiny of Canada, and it appears to n.e that Imperial Federa- tion, the outcome of super4oyalism, or an American ZoUverein, its reverse and oppo- site, are alike hostile to it.; successful accomplishment. Our present and imperative duty is to make Confederation a success under the ■fgis of the British flag, and wild speculations as to our future necessarily have a dis- turbing and baneful effect. They encourage the idea that Confederation is a fragile bond, to be broken lightly by any ProVince whose demands have been denied or wliose pride has been piqued ; wherf^as the pact of Confederation is as solemn and binding as that of the United States, and no more can any Province withdraw without the con- sent of the whole, than could th'; Sla^e States in i860 from the rest of the Republic. Under these circumstances tliose restless spirits who want a ZoUverein, Imperial Feder- ation or any other immediate radical change in our present relations with Great Britain, are, it appears to me, not only impeding the consolidation of the Dominion, but encour- aging ideas in regard to its stability which may lead tc more .serious consequences. MY OBJECTIONS TO A ZOLLVEREIN, however, lie far deeper than this. I may say that a " Customs Union," as understood .'icross the line, or "the complete Reciprocity " of the Butterworth Bill, simply means a ZoUverein after the German model, and should not be confounded with Reciprocity as it existed under the Treaty of 1854. That Reciprocity in all raw products, and even some branches of manufactures, would benefit both countries immensely, no unpreju- diced person acqtiainted with our International commerce can for a moment'doubt. The people of Canada have always been ready to agree to this. But our neighbors have refused further Reciprocity ever since the expiry of the Elgin Treaty in 1866, when it was more or less openly avowed by Cotisul-General Potter at the Detroit Commercial Convention, that the action of his Government \\r1sinfluencp4by our political position. wUK NATIONAL FUTUKE. in other wDrds, it was clearly intimated that by exchanging the i.ritish Lion for the American Eagle, we ccnild have Reciprot it j in the fullest sense of the term. This con- tinues to be the secret of the commercial poKry of our neighbors towards Canada, and I desire particularly to point out that a Zollverein, or Customs Union, with Free Trade between the two countries and a Continental tariff against the world, including Great Britain, is ONLY AN OLD ACQUAINTANCE WITH A NtW FACB. It may be presented in the pleasing guise of " complete Reciprocity," but every intelligent person must see that what is proposed is simply a Zollverein, which is not only irreconcilable with our continued connection with Great Britain, but a sort of half way house on the road to annexation. Political union uas followed com- mercial union in Germany, and he must be very blind who thinks it would be different on this Continent. To discuss the commercial results of a Zollverein at length is foreign to my pres- ent purpose. That many advantages would flow to (Canada therefrom is undoubted. But there is a bronze as wel! as a silver side to the shield. Certainly our rising manu- factures would suffer under free competition with the (Ider, larger and richer establish- ments of the United States, and the hopes entertained that the Maritime Pro;aiK-:s, with their stores of coal and iron, will, ere many \ears, tiecome the New Engl^.iid of Canada, would be indefinitely postponed. Canadians who occasionally rush air ng the great through lines of American travel to New York or (Chicago, naturally come back with VERY liXAGGPRATED IDEAS OF OUK NEIGII1!( KS' I'KOSPEUITY. Let tnem g) mto the country districts of the various States; let them compare northern Maine and New Hampshire with our Maritime Provinces, or Michigan. Ohio, or any other State, with Ontario ; let them contrast the territories of the Cireat Northwest, and it will be found that our general prosp.^rity does not compare unfavor- ably with theirs. So far as Ontario is concerned, I know no part of the United States in which the masses of the people are healthier, wealthier, or happier, and the immense resources of the Dominion are yet but very partially developed. But I shall not dvvcll further on the commercial aspect of the question, for no high- spirited people would change their nationality as they do a garment, or weigh their patriotism solely by the almighty dollar. My protest against a Zollverein is that it is UTTERLY ANTI-CANADIAN, and subversive of the idea of an independent national future. Mayor Hewitt, of New York, at the recent Canadian Club dinner, described the proposition as one in which " the United States would make the tariff for Canada." This happy phra.se hits off the proposed Commercial Union exactly, and how long, 1 ask. would Great Britain continue connected with Canada aft^r the Frysand IngallsandBlainescould fashion the Canadian tariff at their own sweet wills, or how long would, we occupy a position of pitiful de- pendence on Washington legislation, alike hara.ssing and uncertain, without 'inding annexation to be the only release from an intolerable position ? To discu.ss the details of such a policy is needless. The broad facts amply show what it means for Canada, and it is time the mist was cleared from our eyes and we looked the question straight in the face. It is time people realized that the .hief differ- ence between a Zollverein and annexation is, that one is a straight and the other a tortuous and troublous road to the same destination, and for my part, if things ever came to such a pass with Qanada, I would greatly prefer the former to the latter. But I have greatly mistaken my fellow Canadians if they are not overwhelmingly opposed to altering upon either road, and equally as overwhelmingly resolved, that when the day does come — as come some day it must — whei r lada shall sever from Great Britain, the true destiny of British America will be le.iii d, as foreshadowed by Lord Monck, in the establishment of a great Canadian nationality on the northern part of thic Continent. As this article has already extended to considerable length, I must defer referencj to Imperial Federation till another occasion. GaL, April and, 1887. .juu national futuke LiETTER N0. 2. jr referencj imperial Fedaratlon Scheme doing more to Dislntegratw tW«n Unite the Bmplre —A Retrograde Step from a Canadian BtanApoint. It is easy to discover increased responsibitities and ditricuities, but no real advan- tages for Canada, in Imperial Fi^deralion. nor do 1 see how wi- can liave any closer or better connection with the Mother Country than exists at present. The idea at first j^lance is admittedly dazzling'. That the Hritish Isles should oecoine the centre of a grand Federr-tion of Free States, governed in all Imperial matters by one Parliament, hound together in peace or war, and circling the globe with ' 'hristianity and civlliz-ition, is a conception both dazzling and ambitious ; hut it appears, on a very curstu'y exfunination, more like a Jingo dream than practical states- manship, and a dream, too, which might readily develop into national nightmare. The well-intentioned and eminently respectable noblemen and others in Great Britain who seem bent on pressing this ambitious jiroject are, I fear, DOING MORE TO DISINTEGRATE THE FMI'IRE, ,it least so far as Canada is concerned, than their proposals would do to bind it together. Whilst unable to present any plan of F'ederat'on wliich the public mind does not at once dismiss as impracticable their agitation is doing much harm by creating widespread doubts as to the strength and durdiility of the ties which have so long and, upon the whole, so happily united us to the Mother-land. I^ike the agitation for so-called Com- mercial Union with the United States, the F'edcrationist movement is disturbing and impeding the consolidation of the Dominion, and if pressed and persisted in must ere long PRECIPITATE A CRIFIS in our Colonial relations, the end of which it is inpossible to foretell. In a brief paper such as tins, it is impossible to discuss so broad a question as Imperial Federation at length, and I shall have to confine my remarks chiefly to a few i)f the principal objections from a Canadian point of view'. So far as Great Britain itself is concerned, there is no evidence that our fellow- citizens there either believe in it-; practicability or advantages. With the exception of Lcjrd R(;sebery and the late Hon W. E. Forster, I ,'im not aware oi any influential statesmen who have taken part in the movement. Such eminent men as John Bright and Goldwin Smith have denounced it as absurd and impracticable, and it can be read- ily understood, that after building up the greatest and freest Monarchy the world has ever seen, to undertake to change its character and form — the laborious work of centur- ies — into a Federation combining heterogeneous races and countries, and to give to each a voice in the great Parliament of the nation, would not only be a dazzling but A .MOST DANGEROUS EXPERIMENT. With the history of ancient Rome before them, the people of Britain might well ask whether .such an experiment would not be more likely to presage the downfall of the Empire than its consolidation and perpetuity. Whatever else it may include, the projet necessarily involves the creation of a Federal Parliament which would meet in London, and in which the British Isles and the self-governing colonies would be jointly represented. This body would naturally have control of all questions of Imperial concern, such as peace, war. ships, colonies, the fisheries and cognate subjects of a general character. It is extremely doubtful whether the British people could ev^er be induced to hand over such vital interests to a Parliament which, if ba.sed on just principles of representation, might be eventually controlled by the colonists; and, on the other hand, if the latter were not fairly repre- ented, would be certain to end in dissatisfaction and disaster. FROM A CANADIAN STANDPOINT 1 Federation is a retrograde step. No such change in our colonial relations is possible UUK NATIONAL FUTURE. which would not deprive us of constitutional rights nnd privileges we now possess. It is trutt we might still havj a voice in these matters, but it would be in a Parliament meeting over three thousand miles away, in whose deliberations each colony would exercise but little infiuence, evti> when its representatives rose superior to ribbons, stars and garters Besides this, who believes that any considerable number of Canadians would ever agree that any other body than our own Parliament and representatives should have legislative control over our comtnt:rce, or that our peace-loving citizens, in nowise connected with Old World quarrels, should become direct parties to and partici- pants in wars which may at any moment redden Kurope with blood from Moscow to Constantinople? It is true we raised the gallant looth Regiment for the British army, and more recently New South Wales sent a valuable contingent to assist Gen Wolseley in Egypt. But it would l)e a great mistake to supp:)se from these spontaneous expres sions of loyal enthusiasm, that the colonies would bind themselves for ever to waste their blood and treasure in wars in Egypt, Indi^, Burmah and South Africa, in which THEV WOULD HAVE LITTLE OR NO CONCERN. I need not dwell upon other points, for I am persuaded the objections of Canadians to Imperial Federation are fundamental. Attachment to Great Britain and its Sovereign is almost universal among us. Whatever others may do or say, we gladly acknowledge how much the world owes to the British monarchy. But above and beyond all this, Canadians feel that their first duty as cit'ens is due to Canada, and that they are not prepared to move back the hands on the uial of national progress liy relinquishing any of those cherished rights oi Self-Government which our forefathers so long and so earnestly struggled to obtain. To combine the Colonies and Mother Country under one Parliament would be some- thing akin to putting new wine in old bottles. Disguise it as some may, our material and other interests are in not a few respects diverse What is best for them is not always best for us, and 7jice versa ; there is, consequently, much danger that, instead of binding the Empire and Colonies together, attempts to tighten the cords which unite us would increase the tension anr' SNAP THEM AStJNDER. There is nothing more vitally important to what I believe to be the true future of vhe Dominion than the present continuance of British connexion, and I am firmly per suaded that the existing union between (ireat Britain and Canada — albeit mainly tin; tender chords of national .sentiment — is the strongest and best which will ever bind us together. National sentiment may seem at first glance a fragile bond, but experi-'nce prove-, it to be a potent force. It was national sentiment which nerved three hundred Cireeks to withstand the mighty power of Xerxes at the Pass of Thermopyla; ; it was national sentiment which stimulated Britain to defy Napoleon when all Europe crouched at his feet ; it was national sentiment which, under Cavour, unified and regenerated Italy ; it wa.i national sentiment, under the statesmanship of Bismarck, which made Germany the foremost of Continental po^vers on the bloody held of Sedan, and ' see no reasos why NATIONAL SENTIMENT, if untampered with by avowed Federationists or disguised Annexationists, m ly not cou. tinue to happily unite Canada and the Mother Country for many years to come But as certainly as the .son reaches manhood and leaves the parental roof, ats certainly comes the day when powerful ('olonies attain their majority. This lesson is written all over the world's history That day came for Britain's first born, the United States. It is now approaching for this great Colony, and ''; ought to be the prayer and aspiration of every citi/en, that at the tiroper time and in cordial alliance with Great Britain, Canada may fulfill Lord Moncx's prediction by peacefully and gracefully taking a place among the nations, which, by its resources, people and institutions, it will be amply fitttd to adorn. '. Gait. April 30th, 18S7. . ' \-*.L.. ■ OlJK NATIONAL FUTUKi:. LiETTER NO. 3. Oonunerclal Union a ZVatlonal ai well as a Oommercial Qu«atioii- Its Bffacts on Canadian Induatrlea-Tltc Question of Patanta— Which la our beat Markat. I ;uii pleased iliat 1 he Clobc h.is taken the broad groird that CmntTKaTial IJiumi is not a party qiifslioii, and evidently aims at a tlioniUK'h ventilation of tlie whole siilijtct Kogardint^ it as one of momentous importance to the fnuirc of ("anada. and scarcely less to the Liberal party, I feel it to bo my duty to offer some additional reasons why foin- lucrcial Union appears to me at once impr cticable and undesirable. I quite agree with Mr. VViman and Mr. Butterwort'h (with the former of whom I have been on terms of friendship lor thirty years wiih increasing admiration and respect), that there ought to be freer commercial relations between the United >)tates and t'.mada But who is to blame for the tariff wall which exists ? Certainly the United States. They annulled the Llgin-Marcy Treaty in i86(i, much against tanadu's will, ;ind though the "balance of trade" had been nearly 8100,000,000 in their favor, the Hrown-Th(>rnton Treaty of 1874 was cavalierly ignored by Congress, and both the federal and State Governments, sr) far as I have seen, have f!ver since ai ted consistently on the view announced by Consul-(ienei;d Totter at the time of the famous Detroit Commercial Convention, that Canada could have the fullest Reciprocity bv political imion, but not otherwise. AFTliR MAINTAINING THIS ATTlTUDt: lor twenty years Mr. Butterworth prop')sed to Congress last year a substitute measure, which he ciUed Commerci d Unif)n. This prtjposition may seem little, but means much, and its sub.stance may be briefly stated as follows : — (1) Complete freedom of trade between Canada and the States, and (2) the adoption of a joint continental tariff against the world, including Great Britain. This idea is not original, being simply the revival of Horace (ireelevs pro[ osal of an American Zollverein after the German model. It was scouted in Canada when first proposed twenty years ago, but we are given to understand that, as revamped by Mr. Butterworth, the President, cabinet ministers, governors, judges, legislators and the people of the United States have receive^ the proposal with almost universal favor. In discussing this (juesticm it is high time every candid writer ceased to speak of Reciprocity and Commercial Union as the same thing. They are materially different. Recipnjcity is one thing. Commercial Union (juite another. The former is simply a Commercial question ; the latter is, in addition, a national and political (juestion of the most \ital character. Many of its advocates seek to shirk or ignore this But it is impossible It is of the VEK\' KSSICNI K OK MR. l/in TK RWOR Til 'S BII.I.. ample proof of which, if any were needed, might be found in the fact that whilst in (.'an- ,ida its friends are c(.)nstantly protesting it won't affect British connection and lead to Annexation, its popularity in the States arises chiefly from the belief that it would speedily bring about these very results. The proposed measure, therefore, must stand the test politically as well as rommercially ; but before considering these 'points, let me briefly glance at. without discussing, what I regard as a few out of many incorrect assumptions. (i) How absurd it is, not to say unpiatriotic, to speak of Canadians, especially our farmers, as being poverty stricken and suffering serious disadvantages as compared with our American neighbors. Sixty millions of people will naturally have l.i ger cities, larger industries and larger wealth than five millions. But, as 1 have had occasion to remark before, I do not believe that in the most favored parts of the Union the masses of t he people are we-ilthier, healthier or happier than in our own noble Province of Ontario, whilst in the majority o'. the States and territories their position is quite inferior to ours in almost every re.spect. (2) Equally fallacious is it to assume that the Canadian farmer pays all the duties on the horses, cattle, barley, etc., which are exported across the lines. For forty years the Liberal party has been taught differently, and the d monstrations of Adam Smith, OUR NATIONAL FUTUHK confirmed by all great living political economists .- wW as by practical <;xj)erii;nce, clearly prove xh^ contrary. (\) I may abo notice the assumption so frc(iiienily induljjtid in, that Commercial Union wohUI opi-n up to our farmers a market of 60,000,000 of cunsumi-is With t'etitors, for a nation which exports over If 31)0, 000, 000 worth of farm products annually cannot require to import similar articles for their own ctmsumptioti Now, how would such a sweeping measure as c;onimercial Union AKKK< r OUR I'RINCII'AI, INOUSTRIBS? Some would undoubtedly be benefited ; others as certainly crippled and injured. Cur fisheries would not, if seems to me, be improved. Our sea toilers would .secure an open market, but this would be more than oflset by lieiug crowded off their fishing groiir.ds i>y New KuKland hshermen, who would have the best chance in American markets, and who might soon reduce our unrivalled fisheries to the same condition as their own. Th^ remov.d of duties would give a temporary stimulus to the lumber trade. Hut, as our neighbors are annually becoming more dependent on oiir lumber, it can hardly be doubted that the duty almost invariably falls on the American consumers, and its removal would be sure to be fodowtd by a readjustment of prices. Exchanges would be more easy, which is always an advantage, and production would probably be stimulated , but, with the exception of a few large limit holders, the latter would be an injury rather th-r.i a beneht to Canadians, as our future wealth and prosperity largely depend on the conservation of our forests. The dazzling picture of wealth drawn from the rapid development of our " moun- tains of iron ancl copper " will hardly bear close scrutiny. The boasted riches made in the States from these industries have been almost wholly absorbed by a small circle of iron and cop])er monopolists, and almost every dollar of it has, in consequence of their enormous protective duties, been wrung fron the pockets of the farmers and other pro- ducing classes. It may seem a somewhat surprising statement, but judging from the remarks of the Hon David Wells, Prof. Sumner and other American political economists, it is doubtful IF A SINGLE DOLLAR HAS REALLY BEEN AUDED to the wealth of the United States by all the iron and copper produced ; in other words, it is doubtful if the nation as a whole would not have been richer if, instead of forcing up the prices of these staples by enormous bounties and duties until mining and smelting would pay, they had allowed their people to buy the immensely cheaper iron and copper of England and other countries. 1 will only add on this point that there still remain many "undeveloped" mountains of iron and copper in the United States, but the monopolists aforesaid can always be relied upon to retard or crush out their develop- ment, and that we in Canada would fare any better can hardly be expected. We nov come to our merchants, manufacturers and farmers, and it is these classes which Commercial Union would most deeply affect. Promptly as the trade barriers > were thrown down, that numerou-. and respectable class known as "drummers" would sweep over the Dominion with a zeal begotten of " pastures new." The immediate effec would be business disturbance and upheaval, to be almost certainly followed within twelve months by a serious commercial crisis, beginning among our merchants and manufacturers, but extending to our monetary institutions and more or less affect- ing all classes. When the wrecks were cleared away and things had settled down again, it would be found that a considerable portion of our importing trade from Cireat Britain and abroad had been permanently transferred from Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, Winni- peg and other Canadian cities to Portland, Boston, New York, Chicago and St. Paul Proof of the soundness of this view may be found in the action of the members of the Toronto Board of Trade, who almost unanimously decided against Commercial Union, and who are not only competent but THE BEST JUDGES how it would affect our mercantile intere-ts. That the measure would seriously cripple our existing Canadian manufactures is generally admitted, and. indeed, is so self-evident as scarcely to require argument. As a Liberal I have opposed the exorbitant protective duties of our present tariff, but I OUR NATIONAL FUTUKE have nev«:r advocated or lu-lievi d that our iiiaiHifa( liin^s coidd subsi-l antl Hoiirish if ex pp ied to absolutely free competilion from lUv imnii'use Hritish and American establisli inenls. It is unrt-asonable to exp<;ct tliat they could, and the very last tiling tbat the United States manufacturer would consent to, would be to open his markets to Mrilish Koods, althouf^h, (alas for consistency 1 he would like us to ojxin ours to him ! " Hut," it is constantly asked, " why c.innot the Canadian manufacturer compete with the American on e(jual terms '' Ask the- latter why he cannot compete with tiie Mrii'sh manufacturer on »'n by American mrmufacturers if Commercial Union were adopt- ed, ib as certain as thav man is human, and the rt^sult of such unfair, condjined with legitimate competitioi\, would not only check the further growth of manufactures among us, but cAi'SE \vii)I';si'ki-:ai) kiin among those which at present exist. " But," we are told again, " with C'ommercial Union we would have all the United States to manufacture for, and that ultimately the be t of our manufacturers, reinforced by Americans and American capital, would have immense establishments sending Canadian goods All over the Continent." This is a pleasing dream, but only a dream Indeed, this is one of the crucial points at which, it appears to me, Cominercial Union absolutely fails. Two facts must, 1 think, make this perfectly clear t(J every unprejudiced mind. They are as follows : — First — All descriptions of American in.anufactures are extensively covered by patents, either wholly or in part. These pate its run for long terms of years and pre- vent competition "ith the patented articles in any of the States or Territories of the Union. Many of these same manufactures are made in Canada, but few of them have been patented here ; consequently, whilst the Americans could over-run our limited market with their patented goods, our manufacturers who n ake the same article or parts thereof, would continue to be as completely shut out of the States as they areat present. Second— Under Commercial Union the commencement of large industrial est;d)lish- ments in Canada would be checked if not altogether prevented. It would offer a premium to manufacturers to avoid (ranada, for the very obvious and powerful reason, that if they located here the repeal of the treaty would lose them eleven twelfths of their market and entail serious loss both in real estate and plant. On the other hand, by locating in the States they would be certain of the whole of that large market and enjoy ours also whilst the treaty lasted. Under these circumstances, I submit, that whatever else may be said in favor of Cf)mmercial Union, it wuuld inevit.!ibly be most disastrous to Canadian manufactures, both at present and in future. I shall not enlarge further on this point, except to say ; what this would mean, not only to our leading cities, but to such places as Stratford, Woodstock, Bpfintford, Gait, Berlin, Paris, Osh iwa, and other rising towns and villages throughout the Dominion, requires no prophet to foretell. Ai^riculture being admittedly our chief industry, if it could be proven thit Co.n- mercial Union would greatly benefit our farmers, without entailing serious disadvantages upon them, it would certainly receive my most favorable consideration. That SIMPLE RECIPROCITY WOULD DO THIS everybody is agreed. The benefits would not be so great as under the former treaty, for there would be no Crimean war, no Slave-holders' rebellion, no Grand Trunk con struction to raise prices abnormally high ; but the complete freedom of exchange of all products of the farm, especially on the frontiers, would be both convenient and profit- able, and add to the prosperity of both countries. But, as I have remarked before, OUR NATIONAL. FUTUKK \ Reciprocity is one thing, Commercial Union qi ite another. The latter would open the markets of both dountries, but only on certain conditions specified by the United State , and these conditions, as I will endeavor to pn)ve, would largely, if not wholly, destroy its advantages to our fariTiing comninnity. The conditions referred to are the adoption of a Continental (arift and discrimination against our trade with the Mother Country Our farmers, we are told, are suffering from an oppressive system of Protection, which is annually becoming more unbearable. But what g.ain would it oe to them, by accopling the above cord'tions, to place themselves under the still higher and more exacting Protection of the nited States, whose policy appr aches nearer the Chinese principle of non-intercourst thar any other modern ( jovernment ? We are also told that oi?r farmers are suffering from high taxr.tion, levied largely for the benefit of other favored classes. This is, unfortunately, too true, but farmers' votes have upheld the high taxation system, and they have the povv-r to undo it , what relief, however, would it be to their burdens to place themseh-es under what would practically be the United States tariff, which is at least ten percent, or fifteen per cent, higher than thr taxes they have to pay at present ? Whilst improving our farmers' American market. Commercial Union, unlike Reci- procity, would INJURE THEIR HOME AND HKITK-H MARKETS. These three markets absorb nearly all our agricultural produce, and the former, I submit, is the least important to our farmers for the following rea.sons ; (i) Because our lle'ghborg raise annually over I2, 210,000, coo worth of the same products which we raise; (2) because the British ir. the consuming market for the surplus products of both countries and determines the price , and (?) because they take less of our products than the home or British markets, and what they do buy, except horses, barley* and a few other articles, is either re-exported or displaces produ^j^ of their own— in either case adding ;o the competition of o^r d'rect shipments in theMother Country It is the very marrow of the question to determine the relative value of these three markets to our farmers, aud v/e are fortunately now in posses-iion of some reliable data which may guide us in doing so. The able head of the Ontario Bureau of Statistics, Mr. Archibald Blue, in .x carefully prepared statement now in my possession, makes the value of everything proiluced on Ontario far.ns in 18S6 to have been close upon $i6o.ooo,- 000. Adding ^140,000,000 for all the other Provinces, which must be a moderate estimate, we reach a total production for the Dominion of 1(301,000,000. Assuming that one-half of these products were consumed by the farming community themselves, the surplus was disposed of as follows : — Surplus farm production 8150,000,000 Exported to Greai Britain S22,543,<>36 [Inited States ''5.495.783 " elsewhere i ,678,493 39,718,212 Home market consumed ^i 10,281 ,788 Although only an approximate estimate, the.se figures clearly indicate that the home market made by our manufacturing, lumbering, mercantile and othe; classes is incomparably the best which our farme'-s possess, whil'^ *hat of Britain ranks second and that of the States third. As indicative of the relative value of the two l.-^.tter, I subjoin a statement of our total shipments of products of the farm fyooda " not the produce " of Canada included) to each respectively since 1880 :- Yeax-. ■ United States. * "• 1880 ...: ; ^^13,177,724 1881 14,199,767 1882 16,297,206 1883 1884. 188s. '1886. . 18,776,272 14,512,522 • 15.542.53.3 . 15,931,188 $108,437,212 Great Britain. *25.;93.,17 34,087,366 35.7<^>3.i94 -9.557.01 -2 25.750.89f 30,449,446 v 26,700,404 f208,IO2,II0 OUR NATIONAL FUTIJKH DurinR the last seven years, therefore, Britain took more agricultural products directly from the Dominion than the Slates did by nearly $100,000,000. This makes it tolerably clear that it is our jirincipal market for foreign export, and its superiority is fnihanced by the fact that wiiilst the Motli'^r Country fends us comparatively no farm p'oducts in return, our AMERICAN NEUillBOKS ARK ACTIVK CCMPF.TITORS « not only in the ''oreign, but in our own home market. In order to throw fuither Hgiit (in this important pv)int I have c')mpiled from Dominion records the following table of (iin chief ;gricultur.^. A century a. 6 our neighbors began the Revolutionary war rather than submit to " taxation without representation," and I cannot understand how any Canadian .vho desires the continuance of the present independent po .ition of Canada c uld ever consent to hand over the tismendous power of taxation, not only without representation, but into the hands of a nation with which we are not even politically connected. Now, suppose Commercial Union to b? ac ually in force, what would the position of Canada be ? We would be under the Continental tariff, nominally controlled by a joint commission, but practically by the States. Our Inland Revenues would- be sim- ilarly controlled. There would be a joint purse for the moneys collected, but as our neighbors would put in, say two hundred to our twenty millions, naturally the purse OIK NATIONAL FlITUKK. O ;c! to, but it al taxatiiin niillions. It Canada, liscriminat- liis " concii- eaty, mucli ) a discrini- ored nation le mifjht be- 3iit waving sh Conner consent to f a . ival ? ily protec- ke no g-eat With all J here is in some re- nder Corn t b?r them tent. This principle," a ruinous Dolly doinf,', kari of the X spirit or Continental s. I know ited, would I have said he propor Dwever this not expect any com- ild appoint jmmission- ommercial ands of the ionary war stand how )o,ition of n, not only ! not even he. position oUcd by a id- be sim- )ut as our the purse aforesaid would be kept at Washington, and if we did not draw the whole of our per capita allowance of revenue from the American capital, whatever deficiency there was at our own ports would certainly be drawn from there Can anyone imagine a more dependent and pitiful position for the Dominion aii'l its Government to occupy ? We would occupy a position wondrously like being sUr,)orted by an annual subsidy from the United States, and our Government would be like Samson shorn of his locks. As they no longer controlled the tariff or its revenues, they would be impotent to dis- charge many of the functions of (iovernment. They would be UNABLE TO INDKKTAKE NEW PUBLIC WORKS and improvements so necessary to the growth and prosperity of a country like Canada. If an Indian rebellion broke out they would be at their wits end for money to put it down, and Canada would occupy a position at once painful and comical in case of trouble arising between Great Britain and the States. Whenever the tariff was changei at Washington, our Parliament would have to cry "ditto ; " when new rules and orders were issued as to Customs, our Government would have to cr\ ' ditto " again ; and when they altered their '.nland Revenue taxes, "ditto" would again be our cry Our merchants and all others affected would ha^e to conform to these changes, and we may rest assured that in a commission composed of ten Americans to one Canadian, their policy would at least not be to build up the trade of Montreal and Toronto at the expense of Boston and New YotU. If the tariff was raised we would have to pay higher taxes. If it was lowered our subsidy might decline so that bankruptcy would stare us in the face, and then, indeed, we might be forced to ' look to Washington ' whether we liked it or not. It is needless, I feel assured, to press this point further. Even if the United States Government acted in this inatter with perfect good faith, the proposed arrangement as to the tarifi and joint purse would (ilVE KISE TO CONSTANT OIKKEKENf-KS between the two countries, and in all such cases, as the weaker party, we would have to knuckle under. Place ourselves once in such a position, and O-ir experience in regard to the fisheries and other questions abundantly proves, that however just and generous Americans generally are, the average Congressional politician, and all whom he could influence, would use their vantage ground for all it w.is worth to realize the national dream of the Monroe doctrine ; " No pent-up Ttica contracts our poweis. The whole boundless coiilinpiil is ours." Many in Canada who have expressed them.selves favorable to Commercial Union are under the belief that it is compatible with the continuance of British connection, but I think it must be apparent from the foregoing reasons, not to mention others, that the combination of the two things is quite impracticable. And this leads me to notice the statements frequently made by V :. Goldwin Smith and others, that " All Canada was enthusiastic over Commercial Union," that " eve yone admits its benefits," etc. If it had been said that all Canada was enthusiastic for Reciprocity and freer commercial relatioi s, it would be correct enough, but there are no solid grounds for saying that of Commercial Union. \ few meetings, most of them sparsely attended, furnish little evidence of Canadian opinirm, more especially when most of those present were under the belief that they were only voting for Reciprocity of a rather more extended char- ;'Ct3r than before Besides, in almost every case, the resolutions passed contained a having clause in favor of British connection, whirh fact indicates what tne opinions of the inasfes of Canadians will be when the true bearings of the question are fully dis- cussed und understood. Our people ."re WARMLY IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY or any fair and sqaare measure to secure freer trade between the two countries, but in- stead of being "enthusiastic for Commercial Union," it is my firm beliiif that Mr. Smith will find, when the people of Canada thoroughly tmderstand both its commercial and H OUR NATIONAL FUTURE. St. ! political consequences, that it will prove but little more popular than his abortive win and beer agitation. .,.,... Howevei sincere some may be in ihinkin;,' otherwise, Commercial Union is incon sistent with the continuance Oi British connection or a national future for Canadii John liright, in his recent letter, says that Protection w-s a first step towards separatimi of Canada from ICngland, and that Commercial Union would be "another and mon serious step" in the i,ame airection. There can be no doubt of the correctness of Mr. Bright s view, and those Canadians who have heretofore thought differently— and many have honestly done so— have only to read the accounts of the Detroit meeting,' to leant " whither they are drifting." Mr. Goldwin Smith there came out flat-footed for Anne.x ation, and Mr. Butterworth, though still employing ambiguous phrases, clearly indicated Annexation as the final result when he said—" It is apparent to all that in the consuni mation of what is now proposed, THE MONROE DOCTRINE BECOMKS AN ACCOMPLISHED FACT throughout all this continent." There can be no uncertainty as to the meaning of the language used by the leading Commercial Unionists at Detroit, and yet we find it frequently asserted on this side ot the lines that to support Commercial Union is the best way to prevent Annexation It is remarkably curious, if this be correct, that every Annexationist in the land is doin^,' his level best, in talking or writing, i.i favor of the Buiterworih sch;;;ne ! And in using the word Annexationist I do nnt intend to convey any reproach. I have no fault to find with anyone who holds that or any other view. I disclaim any sympathy with a mere loyalty cry ; ;md, on the other hand, much less do I sympathise with sneers at loyalty as if it were a crime for a Canadian to be loyal to his own country. But whilst treating Annexationists with all respect, it is the manifest duly of those who hold, like myselt, that Canada has a nobler and better destiny befort her. to warn our fellow-countrymen that Annexation is the natural aad logical resul' of such a grave step as Commercial Union, and that to pretend that the latter would pievent the former, is not less preqps terous than to say that th'^ best way to prevent your boat going over Niagara Falls would be to shoot it over the Chippawa rapids. In our circumstances as part of the British Empire, Commercial Union is n' '• \ AN IMPRACTICAliLE NATIONAL POSITION. We would no sooner get there, to use a current phrase, than it would be apparent lo everyone, that, united with Britain politically, but with the States commercially. Canad;' had become a sort of national Hermaphrodite, half British and half Yankee ; that such a position was at once inconsistent and intolerable, and that \va n.ust eith:r go forv.ard to Annexation or try to retrace our steps, regretting the folly of which we had bei.;n guilty. That Canada c^uld adopt the 1 tt r course if thoroughly united, might be pos sible, but we would not be united upon it, and we would find that, having slidden hall way down a precipice, it is very hard to scramble back to the top, but very easy to slide down to the bottom For my own part, I do not believe we would ever find.it practicable to draw back, for I regard Political Union as the natural corollary of Com mercial Union. But that we could either go backwards o.- forwards without embroiling Great Britain and the United States, or creating serious civil disorder in Canada, and possibly bloodshed, is OPEN TO THE VERY GRAVEST DOUBTS. I hope my fellow- Canadians will weigh well all the consequences, political as well as commercial, likely to follow such a far reaching measure as C:>mtnercial Union before deciding upon it. If I have written warmly, and perhaps at too great length, it is be- cause I feel it to be a question of momentous importance to the future of Canada, and because, as a lifelong Liberal, I would regard it as a great, perhaps fatal mistake, if the Liberal party became committed to the Butterworth scheme. Our great leaders, George Brown, Alexander Mackenzie and Edward Blake— a noble ♦ri(;— -never at any time expressed themselves favorable to a Zollverein. Mr. Brown, we. know, was strongly opposed to it, as being antagonistic to the c ntinuance of British Connection , and as a politic. i! weapon, while its advantages are attractive on the surface, when the Pi OUR NATIONAL FUTURE. bortivc win people come lo understand its numerous commercial drawbacks and political conse- (jiiences, in my humble judgment any Party adopting it would find it a veritable boom- iiang in their hands. For, after all, although our electorate have great mistakes, the people generally warmly love Canada, and it" this question ever goes so far as to be threshed out and s-fied at the polls, their good sen.se can be trusted to say to our Ameri- can neighbors :—" We ardently desire freer commercial relations with you; we are warmly in favor of a new Reciprocity Treaty or any other fair measure, dealing out even- handed justice to both, and doing no injury to either; but we are not prepared, under the guise of Commercial Union, to surrender our country for commercial advantages which would be just as benehcial to you as they would be to us !" As was stated in a former letter, Commercial Union is UTTERLY ANTI-CANADIAN, and leads directly away from that National future which ought to be, and is worthy to he, the hope of every true Canadian. There exists throughout Canada the kindliest feeling towards the United States. For my own part, I adii ire the great Republic with its noble work for humanity and freedom, and 1 like the American people. But as a nation they have their dangers. They have still unsolved their Negro problem, the Mormon scandal, the Socialistic conspiracy, which steadily becomes more dangerous, arid Lynch law, which coitinues to prevail over a large part of the Union. The Con- tinental Sunday, too, with its open Theatres, Concert halls and Baseball matches, is be- coming alarmingly common. Ca.iada doubtless has its dangers and difhculties also, but 1 firmly believe that, for the present, we occupy a better position than any other, as a self-governing Dominion under British protection, and, when the circling wheels of Time bring this connection to an end, that we have territories vast enough, resources immense enough, institutions good enough and a people with character enough, to estab- lish and maintain a Canadian Nationality which will be honored and respected all over ,the world. Gait, Sept. 17th, 1887. I Correspondence with XCew Tork Chamber of Commerce. CnywwBER OF Commerce of the Statl of N?:w York, New York, November 5, 1887, Hon. Jame.s Young, Gait, Ont., Canada. Dear Sir, — The Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York has appointed a special committee in accordance with the enclosed resolution. Our committee desire to hear all that may be said for and against Commercial Union between the United States and Canada , and we would be pleased to have an expression of views from your good self upon this subject. Very truly yours, F. B. J--... ;*- REPLY. Thurher, Chairman of Committee. Galt, Nov. lolh, 1887. F. B. Thurbek, Esq., New York City. Dear Sir, — I beg respectfully to acknowledge your letter, as chairman of a . _...,„ . , „ , . r .. of My special committee of the New York Chamber of Commerce, asking for " an expression of my views" on Commercial Union between the United States and Canada. In reply thereto, I think I cannot better meet your views than by sending to you, which 1 do to- :() OIJK NATIONAL I'UTrKK 1 (lay, copies of a pamphlet containing four letters recently written by ma to the Turonti. GMf, chietlv on that subject. These letters are suffuieni ly full to ii-ndei it unnecev>sar\ for me to take up the valuable time of your committee by a re-siatenienl of my opinions and 1 will, therefore, add only a very few observations. There exists almost universally throughout Canada not only the most friendi\ feelings towards the United States, but an ardent desire for freer commercial relation . between the two countries Not that we canno( prosper otherwise. On the contrary notwithstanding some grievous misgovernment, Canada never developed or prospered more than during the twenty years since the Reciprocity Treaty expired. But our people have always recognized that both countries wcjuld \k- benefited by more freedom ol tr.ade, and much regretted that your government, acting doubtless in its discretion, abrogated Reciprocity in i!Sf)(>, and has not seen its way to entertain favorably the ad- vances which the Dominion has since made in that direction. Whilst these views generally prevail, very strong ol>jecti(jns exist to the Zollverein or Commercial Cnion, proposed by Mr. Hntterworth, of Ohio. Its friends here have held a number of meetings, mostly unopposed, wh :ial relation . h(; contrary >r prospered ir our people : freedom m s discretion. ably the ad- le Zollvereiii Is here have il resolution ^ere with om f Canadians on it. lures of Mr ues with thi of our own nada. Tiiesc isistent with nee with our t more, than :)ublic would such a fatu ould occupy iendly to the union undtM )f free tradr national and p of the two ercial basis 1.1 acceptable the interc-.ts y- as YouNc;.