IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) {./ V^ <^w^ 1.0 I.I 1.25 ■u liU |2.2 Z I4£ 12.0 |l.8 U I L6 IJ4 ^/. 0/ ? ^^ ,\ A :\ V \ V •«l)^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checlced below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I — I Covers damaged/ D D D Couverture endommag6e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou peliiculAe I — I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I — I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents r~7| Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microf iimt le meiiieur exemplaire qu'il lui a At6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exempleire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. r~n Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/oi Pages restauries et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( Pages d6coior6es, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary materic Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ r~y| Includes supplementary material/ I — I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 fiimies d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. □ This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de rMuction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce A la g^nirositi de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont film^s en commen9ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration, soit par le second plat, seion le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fiimis en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole y signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s A des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, it est filmd d partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^ •|,M ■Jul ."if •v\ ' i J* \ ,.v "i A » ^ '/•U: » .'V )• 'i-^i $ \?i^ '% ^^V ,. ?^ -■.• V f ■yi '} ■^^ , - •H-. >*i ■\. ?» ^MI^ri^M^ The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854. Vo R . n I>XJBIl.I0A.XI01SrS OF TUB American Economic Association. Vol. VII. No. 6. | Six nvmiieu 4 tii«« P>IOa t4.M * TBAB. THE Reciprocity Treaty witli Canada of 1854. BY FREDERICK E. HAYNES. Ph.D. American Economic Association, November, 1803. COPYHIOIIT. 1802, BY AMBBICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION. BALTIMORE : FROM THE Press of Guggknheimkb, Weil & Co. }81S. TABLE OF CONTENTS. I'Adh. Articles ok tuk Rixiimiocity Tukaty 7 H ISTORY OK TH K TrKATY i) Thk Working ok tub Treaty 30 Appendix: Trauk Statistics 59 The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854. The treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on June 5, 1854, was designed to regulate the commercial relations between the United States and the British possessions in North America. It was negotiated at Washington by William L. Marcy, Secretary of State of the United States, and by the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, Governor- Gen- eral of the North American provinces, acting for their respective governments. The treaty consisted of seven articles, of which the first two related to the fisheries, the third to reciprocal trade, the fourth to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, the fiftL to the duration and abroga- tion of the treaty, the sixth to the extension of the provisions of the treaty to Newfoundland, if that colony indicated a desire for such extension, and the last article to the ratification of the treaty. The third and fourth articles, to the discussion of which I intend to devote this paper, are as follows: Art. III. It is agreed that the articles enumerated in the sched- ule hereunto annexed, being the growth and produce of the afore- said British colonies, or of the United States, shall be admitted into each country respectively free of duty. Schedule. Grain, flour and breadstuifs of all kinds. Animals of all kinds. Fresh, smoked and salted meats. Cotton-wool, seeds and vegetables. 8 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [424 Undried fruits, dried fruits. Fish of all kinds. Products of fish and all other creatures living in the water. Poultry, eggs. Hides, furs, skins, or tails, undressed. Stono or marble, in its crude or unwrought state. , Slate. Butter, cheese and tallow. Lard, horns, manures. Ores of metals of all kinds. Coal, t Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. Timber and lumber of all kinds, round, hewed and sawed, un- manufactured in whole or in part. Firewood. Plants, shrubs and trees. Pelts, wool. Fish-oil. Bice, broom-corn aad bark. Gypsum, ground or unground. ' Hewn or wrought or unwrought burrs or grindstones. ' Dyestuffs. Flax, hemp and tow, unmanufactured; unmanufactured tobacco. Rags. Art. IV. It is agreed that the citizens and inhabitants of the United States shall have the right to navigate the river St. Law- rence and the canals of Canada, used as the means of communica- tion between the great lakes and the Atlantic ocean, with their vessels, boats and crafts, as fully and freely as the subjects of Her Brittanic Majest} , subject only to the same tolls and other assess- ments as now are, or may hereafter be, exacted of Her Majesty's said subjects; it being understoc '1, however, that the British govern- ment retains the right of suspending this privilege on giving due notice thereof to the government of the United States. It is further agreed that if at any time the British government should exercise the said reserved right, the government of the United States shall have the right of suspending, if it thinks fit, the operation of Article III of the present treaty, in so far as the province of Canada is affected thereby, for so long as the suspen- sion of the free navigation of the river St. Lawrence or the canals may continue. It is further agreed that British subjects shall have the right freely to navigate Lake Michigan with their vessels, boats and crafts so long as the privilege of navigating the river St. Law- 425] The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. 9 rence, secured to American citizens by the above clause of the present article shall continue; and the government of the United States further engages to urge upon the state governments to secure to the subjects of Her Brittanic Majesty the use of the several state canals on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States. And it is further agreed that no export duty, or other duty, shall be levied on lumber or timber of any kind cut on that por- tion of the American territory in the state of Maine, watered by the river St. John and its tributaries, and floated down that river to the sea, when the same is shipped to the United States from the province of New Brunswick.' History of the Treaty. Previously to 1845 the trade between the United States and British provinces was burdened with a system of differential duties which discriminated against foreign importations into Canada in favor of British to such an extent as to prevent any extensive trade. In 1845 the British government changed its com- mercial policy by authorizing the Canadian legisla- ture to regulate its own tariff. In 1847 the Cana- dian legislature removed the existing differential duties, and admitted American goods on the same terms as those imported from Great Britain. This change of policy seems to have been the result of two causes; (1) of that change of policy in Eng- land which manifested itself in the abolition of the Corn laws in 1846, and in the repeal of the Naviga- tion laws in 1849; and (2) of local causes in Canada. 'The Canadian rebellion of 1838-39 was the result of the long continued hostility between the English in Upper Canada and the French in Lower Canada. '"Treaties and Conventions of the United States." pp. 448-453. 10 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [426 The attempt of Pitt in 1791 to settle the dispute by dividing Canada into two provinces had failed. The long pent-up feeling broke out in open rebellion in both the provinces. To pacify the people the British go'^'ernment decided to reunite the two provinces and give to the consolidated province a responsible gov- evTi*nent in accordance with the recommendation of Lord Durham's report of 1839. This was done in 1840. The constitutional grievances were, however, not the only ones. The people of Canada saw, with in- creasing discontent, the rapid strides of the United States in wealth. They longed to share in that progress, and hence the desire of annexation began to be felt. Lord Elgin, the governor- general fiom 1847-1864, recognized the conditions, and through his efforts the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 was nego- tiated, giving to the people some of the advantages possessed by their more fortunate and richer neigh- bors. ' In March, 1849, Lord Elgin called Lord Grey's attention to the subject: "There has been," he writes, "a vast deal of talk about 'annexa- tion,' as is unfortunately alwavs the case here when there is any- thing to agitate the public mind. ... A great deal of this tali: is, however, bravado, and a great deal the mere product of thought- lessness. Undoubtedly it is in some quarters the utterance of very serious conviction; and if England will not make the sacrifices which are absolutely necessary to put the colonists here in as good a position commercially as the citizens of the States — in order to which free navigation and reciprocal trade with the states are indispen- sable — if not only the organs of the league, but those of the govern- ment, and of the Peel party, are always writing as if it were an admitted fact that colonies, and more especially Canada, are a bur- den, to be endured only because they cannot be got rid of, the end may be nearer than we wot of."* ' "Letters and Journals of Lord Elgin." Edited by T. Walrond. London, 1872. pp. 100, 102 and 104. 427] 71ie Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. 11 Again, in November of the same year, he writes: "But if things remain on their present footing in this respect, there is nothing before us but violent agitation, euJing in convul- sion or annexation. . . . And I much fear that no measure but the establishment of reciprocal trade between Canada and the States, or the imposition of a duty on the produce of the States when im- ported into England, will remove it."' Such being the state of feeling in Canada in re- gard to matters of trade, the address' of the Parlia- ment to the Queen, praying that the prospective changes in the laws regulating the admission of for- eign grain into the British markets might be made with some reference to their needs, came as a natural consequence. This address also contained a specific request for the opening of negotiations with the United States for the admission of the products of either country into the ports of the other upon equal terms. This address, made on May 12, 1846, received a favorable answer on June 3, 1840, and thus became the first direct step in the negotiation of the reci- procity treaty. Accordingly, in December, 1846, the British minis- ter, Mr. Pakenham, acting under instructions, com- municated with the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert J. Walker, upon the subject. The United Slates gov- ernment proved to be favorably disposed to the propo- sition for freer trade with Canada, and upon consul- tation it was decided to proceed by means of concur- rent legislation by the United States and Canada. Steps were therefore taken for the completion of this plan. ' "Letters and Journals of Lord Elgin." Edited by T. Walronu. London, 1872. pp. 100, 102 and 104. '■"'House Executive Documents." First Session Thirty-first Con- gress. Vol. VIII, No. 04, p. 2. 1849-50. 12 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [428 In 1847 the Canadian Parliament, immediately availing itself of the power conferred upon it by the Imperial government, to regulate duties on the pro- ducts both of foreign countries and of the mother country, the duties on American manufactures were lowered from 12A to 7+ per cent., and those on British manufactures were raised from 5 to 7^, ihub placing the United States on an equality with the mother country.' The memorandum of the Hon. W. H. Merritt, sub- mitted to the United States in the summer of 1849, contains a copy of an act of the Canadian Parlia- ment '"to provide for the free admission of certain articles of the growth or production of the United States of America into Canada, whenever similar articles, the growth and production of Canada, shall be admitted without duty into the said States. "^ In 1848 a bill was drawn up by the committee on commerce of the House of Representatives, and strongly recommended by the Secretary of the Trea- sury. This bill passed the House without opposition in 1848, but failed to receive the attention of the Senate on account of the pressure of other business. At the next session it again failed to be acted upon by the Senate for the same reason.-' In January, IbSO, a similar bill was reported by the committee on commerce, and recommitted "with a view to provide therein for the free navigation of the river St. Lawrence, and to assimilate the same to the bill now pending before the Senate of the like *> "House Executive Documents." First Session Thirty-first Con- gress. Vol. VIII, No. 04, pp. 3-4. ^Same, p. 14. '"House Executive Documents." First Session Thirty-first Con- gress. Vol. VIII, No. 04, p. 3. 429] The Reciprocity Treat ij of 1854. 18 character." The committee on commerce, through its chairman, Robert M. McLane, requested the Sec- retary of State to inform it upon the subject of the navigation of the St. Lawrence. Secretary Clayton, after communication with the British minister, in- formed the committee of the readiness of the British government to concede the navigation by treaty.' The introduction of this new feature seems to have caused the first consideration of a treaty in reference to the pending negotiations. Finally at the next session the subject was taken up again as a matter of legislation by the introduc- tion in the House of a tlU for reciprocity of trade between the United States and Canada and for the free navigation by American vessels of the canals and waters of Canada. Late in the session the mat- ter was debated, and an amendment suggested, which provided for the importation of American manufac- tures into Canada at the same rates as those at which British manufactures were imported.' After 1851 no serious attempt was made to obtain reciprocal trade by means of concurrent legislation. There were probably two principal reasons for this neglect, (1) the disturbed political condition of the times, and (2) the situation in regard to the north- eastern fisheries, arising from differences in interpre- tation of the convention of 1818. The beginning of the negotiations in regard to re- ciprocity had arisen from the discontent in Canada, but the introduction of the question of the fisheries ^Congressional Globe. First Session Thirty-first Congress. Part II, page 1009. 1849-50. -Congressional Qlobe. Second Session Thirty-first Congress. Vol. XXIII, p. 22, 150-51. 1850-51. 14 The Reciprocity I'realy of 1854. [430 interested the maritime provinces exclusively. In this way the negotiation became extended so as to include all the British possessions in North America. It is probable, however, that without the existence of the fishery problem, the maritime provinces would have been included in any reciprocity measure, for in 184U the British charge d'affaires, writing to the Secretary of State, says that he has lately received an instruc- tion directing him, with the concurrence of the lieu- tenant governor of New Brunswick, to negotiate for the extension of reciprocity to that province upon the same conditions for which it may be conceded to Canada.' Just at the end of the session of Congress in 1853, Mr. Breckinridge moved for the suspension of the rules for the introduction of the resolution requesting the President "to arrange by treaty the questions connected with the fisheries on the coasts of British North America, the free navigation of the St. Law- rence and St. John, the export duty on American lumber in the province of New Brunswick, and re- ciprocal trade with the British North American col- onies on the principles of liberal commercial inter- course." Finally the English government determined to send the Earl of Elgin, then governor-general of Canada, to Washington. The party on leaving England con- sisted only of Lord Elgin, Mr. Francis Hincks, then prime minister of Canada, Captain Hamilton, A. D. C, and Lawrence Oliphant, private secretary of Lord Elgin; but at New York it was joined by Colonel '"House Executive Documents." First Session Thirty-first Con- gress. Vol. VIII, No. 64, p. 4. 1819-50. 431] Jhe Reciprociiy Treaty of 1854. 10 Bruce and one or two Canadians, whose advice and assistance upon commercial questions were needed.' Upon arriving at Washington Lord Elgin announced the object of his visit to President Pierce and the Secretary of State, Mr. Marcy, who told him that it was entirely hopeless to expect that such a treaty as he proposed could be carried through with the oppo- sition which existed to it on the part of the Demo- crats, who had a majority in the Senate. They as- sured him, however, that if he could overcome this opposition he would find no difficulty wjth the execu- tive branch of the government. With this object in view, the conversion of the Democratic majority in the Senate, "Lord Elgin and his staff approached the representatives of the American nation with all the legitimate wiles of accomplished and astute diplo- macy. They threw theraiselves into the society of Washington with the abandon and enjoyment of a group of visitors solely intent on pleasure." "At last, after several days of uninterrupted festivity," writes Oliphant, "I began to perceive what we were driving at. To make quite sure. I said one day to my chief, 'I find all my most intimate friends are Democratic Senators.' 'So do I,' he replied drily."* In a letter written at the time Oliphant describes more minutely the methods used by Lord Elgin in his personal intercourse with those whom he wished to bring over to his side: "Lord Elgin pretends to drink immensely, but I watched him, and I don't believe he drank a glass between two and twelve. 'These gentlemen were intended to act as delegates from the dif- ferent provinces to advise in regard to matters concerning them. "Reminiscences of Sir Francis Hincks."' pp. 234 and 315. ^"Episodes in a Life of .\dventure." Lawrence Oliphant. 1887. p. 40. ' ' ■ '■ :.■: ■ ' ' • 16 The Reciprocitji Treat fi of 1864. [432 He is the most thorough diplomat possible, — never loses sight for a moment of his object, and while he is chaffing Yankees and slapping them on the back, he is systematically pursuing that object. The con- sequence is, he is the most popular Englishman that ever visited the United States."' At last, after about ten days of social activity, Lord Elgin informed Mr. Marcy that if the govern- ment was prepared to adhere to its promises to con- clude a reciprocity treaty with Canada, he could assure the President that a majority of the Senate would be found favorable to it. "Mr. Marcy," says Oliphant, "could scarcely believe his ears, and was so much taken aback that I somewhat doubted the desire to make the treaty, which he so strongly ex- pressed on the occasion of Lord Elgin's first inter- view with him, when he also pronounced it hope- less."' The next three days were occupied with the arrangement of the details of the treaty, which had to be hurried through, as Lord Elgin was due at the seat of his government.^ "We are tremendously triumphant; we have signel a stunning treaty. When I say we, it was in the dead of night, in the last five minutes of the fifth of June, and the first five minutes of the sixth day of the month aforesaid, that in a spacious chamber, by the bril- liant light of six wax candles and an Argand, four individuals might have been observed seated, their faces expressive of deep and earnest thought not unmixed with cunning. Their feelings, however, to the acute observer, manifested themselves in different ways; and •"Life of Lawrence Oliphant," by Mrs. M. O. W. Oliphant. 1891. p. 120. ^"Episodes in a Life of Adventure." pp. 43-44. ■ ' ^The principal cause of the failure of former negotiations arose from the refusal of the British government to treat, unless the coal of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were included in the free list. "Reminiscences of His Public Life," by Sir Francis Hincks. p. 233. Montreal. 1884. 433] The lieciprocilji Treaty of 1854. 17 this was but natural, as two were young and two aged,— one, indeed, far gone in years, the other prematurely so. He it is whose meas- ured toneH alone break the solemn silence of midnight, except when one of the younger auditors, who are intently poring over volumi- nous MSS., interrupts him 1o interpolate 'and' or scratch out 'the.' They are, in fact, oheckinghim, and the aged man listens while he picks his teeth with a pair of scissors, or clears out the wick of the candles with their points and wipes them on his hair. He may occasionally be observed to wink, either from conscious 'cutoness or unconscious drowsiness. Attached to these three MSS. by red rib- bons are the heavy seals. Presently the clock strikes twelve, and there 18 a doubt whether to date it to-day or yesteiday. For a mo- ment there is a solemn silence, and he who was reading takes the pen, which has previously been impressively dipped in the ink by the most intellige it of the young men, who appears to be his secre- tary, and who keeps his eyes wearily upon the other young man, who is the opposition secretary, and interesting as a specimen of a Yankee in tliat ca|)acity. There is something strongly mysterious in the scratching of that midnight pen, for it is scratching away the destinies of nations; and then it is placed in the hands of the venera- ble flle, whose hand does notshake, tliough he is very old, and knows he will be bullied to death by half the members of Congress. The hand that has used a revolver upon previous occasions does not waver with a pen, though the lines he traces may be an involver of a revol- ver again. He is now the Secretary of State; before that, a general in the army; before that, governor of a state; before that Secretary of War; before that, minister to Mexico; before that, a member of the House of Representatives; before that an adventurer; before that a cabinet-maker. So why should the old man fear? Has he not survived the changes and chances of more different sorts of lives than any other man? and is he afraid of being done by an English lord? So he gives us his blessing, and we leave the old man and his secretary with our treaty in our pockets." ' In this rather grandiloquent style Oliphant de- scribed the signing of the treaty in a letter written to his mother upon June 7, 1854. Doubts have been expressed as to the means em- ployed in the negotiation of the treaty. Enemies of Lord Elgin at home and in the provinces said that it '"Memoir of the Life of Lawrence Oliphant, and Alice Oliphant, his Wife," by Margaret 0. W. Oliphant. Vol. I, pp. 130-132. 2 \ 18 The Reciprocity Treat ij of 1864. [434 was bought with British gold. American opponents of the treaty declared that it was ''floated through ou champagne." While there is no reason to believe that open bribery was used, there does appear to be ample evidence that the second charge was well founded, and Lord Elgin's secretary does not hesi- tate to admit its substantial truth, for he says in his account of the negotiations that "without alto- gether admitting this, there can be no doubt that in the hands of a skillful diplomatist that liquor is not without its value."' Although the means used in the negotiation of the treaty were not such as to reflect credit upon those engaged in them, the preceding attempts to obtain reciprocal trade privileges show that it had a sub- stantial movement behind it and was not merely "floated through on champagne." An act to carry the treaty into effect was passed by Congress and approved by the President, August 5, 1854. This act (Thirty-third Congress, First Session, Chapter 259, 1854), provided that — • ■ • ' " Whenever the President of the United States shall receive sat- isfactory evidence that the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain and the Provincial Parliaments of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova 8cotia and Prince li^d ward's Island have passed laws on their part to give full effect to the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain he is hereby authorized to issue his proclamation declaring that he has such evidence, and thereupon, from the date of such proclamation," the provisions of the treaty should take effect.^ The President issued his proclamation March 16, 1855.^ '"Life of Oliphant," p. 109. "Episodes in a Life of Adventure," p. 38. • • ' -• ':' • * ""Statutes at Large," Vol. X, pp. 587-88, 1851-55, " "Statutes at Large," Vol. 10, p, 1179. Acts to carry into effect the treaty were passed by Canada, September 23, 1854; Prince Edward 4351 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. 19 For the first few years the treaty seems to have been popular. The condition of the country remained prosperous. In 1857, however, came the great crisis ot that year, and before the country had fairly re- covered from the effects of that disturbance, the slavery question had reached such a stage that war alone could settle it. The "irrepressible conflict" came and the reciprocity treaty was doomed. As we shall see later, the treaty was far from satisfac- tory, even to its friends, looking at it from a purely economic point of view. But it would never have been abrogated on account of its defects, for those could have been remedied by negotiation. It fell a victim "to the anger which the behavior of a party in England had excited in America."' Moreover, there were the inevitable commercial disturbances of a time of war. One slight attempt was made in 1858 to extend re- ciprocity; but it failed. The first proposition, made May 18, proposed to place certain products upon a footing with the articles exempted from duty under the reciprocity treaty of 1854. The second proposi- tion was in the form of a joint resolution authorizing the President, "whenever he shall receive satisfac- tory information that hay and hops, being the products of the United Sates, and exported thence to any of the British North American provinces, are admitted Island. October 7, 1864; New Brunswick, November 3, 1854; Nova Scotia, December 13, 1854; and Newfoundland, July 7, 1855. "British and Foreign State Papers," 1854-55, Vol. XLV, pp. 878-884. The treaty passed the Colonial legislatures with a total of only 21 dissentient votes. "Episodes in a Life of Adventure," Oliphant, pp. 52-53. The principal opposition came from Nova Scotia, and wag due to the fisheries clauses. "Hinck's Reminis- cences," pp. 233-36. '"Canada and the Canadian Question." Goldwin Smith, p. 141. - J 20 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [436 free of duty, to issue his proclamation declaring hay and hops, the products of those provinces, shall be admitted free of duty."' In March, 1860, the House passed a resolution re- questing the President to give it all the information in his possession relative to the working of the treaty. Particular information was requested as to "Whether the provincial government of Canada has not, through its legislature, violated the spirit of said treaty; what has been the practical effect of the third clause upon the interests of the respective countries; what meas- ures, if any, have been taken to procure correct in- formation touching the practical operation and effect of the third article upon the interests of the American citizens, and whether, in his opinion, the third article could not, with advantage to Amercan interests, be either amended or rescinded.'' From this time on until the final abrogation of the treaty, it remained a frequent subject of controversy between the friends and opponents of the reciprocity policy. Elaborate reports were made from time to time by the committee on commerce of the House. Of these reports the most exhaustive was that pre- pared by Elijah Ward, of New York, for the com- mittee on commerce, and presented to the House on February 5, 1862.' This report states in a clear and thorough manner the position of the friends of the treaty. Mr. Ward, while criticising many of the features of the treaty, and especially referring to the ^ Congremonal Olobe, First Session, Thirty-fifth Congress, pp. 2212 and 3016. Part III. ^Congressional Olobe, First Session, Thirty-sixth Congress, p. 1357. Part II. '"House Reports of Committee," Second Session, Thirty-seventh Congress, 1861-2. Vol. Ill, No. 22. 437] The Reciprocitii Treaty of 1854. •n hostile policy of Canada in discriminating against American vessels using its canals under the provision for free navigation, believed in the general soundness of the policy of reciprocity, and advocated a revision of the treaty, In reply to this report the Canadian minister of finance made a defense of the policy of his prov- ince. The report took up in detail the several causes of dissatisfaction mentioned by the Americans.^ Besides the report of 1862 and the Canadian reply, there was a brief report made in April, 1864, from the committee on commerce. This also was the work of Mr. Ward, and really formed a supplement to his re- port of 1862. Tf, formed the basis of the final strug- gle in the House over the abrogation of the treaty. The final paragraph recommended — "Thai the President be authorized to give notice to the govern- ment of Great Britain that it is the intention of the government of the United States to terminate the reciprocity treaty made with Great Britain for the British North American provinces unless a new convention shall be concluded between the two governments, by which the provisions shall be abrogated or so mod- ified as to be mutually satisfactory to both governments; and that the President be also authorized to appoint three commissioners, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for the revision of the treaty, and to confer with other commissioners duly authorized therefor, whenever it shall appear to be the wish of the government of Great Britain to negotiate a new treaty between the two govern- ments and the people of both countries, based upon true principles of reciprocity, and for the removal of existing difficulties." - The report was accompanied by a joint resolution-* embodying the substance of the recommendations of the committee on commerce. This joint resolution ^"Reportof Minister of Finance upon the Report of Committee of Commerce of House of Representatives." March, 1862. ^"Reports of Committees." First Session Thirty-eighth Congress, 1863-4, Vol. I, No. 39. ■^ CongrtMional Gfc6«, First Session, Thirty-eighth Congress, 1863-4, p. 1387. V 22 Tlie Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [438 was the subject of the debate in the House upon the abrogation of the treaty on May 18-19 and May 24-26. In this debate Mr. Ward acted as the leader of the friends of the treaty, making two able speeches in its favor, at the opening and closing of the debate respectively. He was supported by Isaac N. Arnold of Illinois, Thomas D. Eliot of Massachusetts, John V. L. Pruyn and Thomas T. Davif% of New York, Rufus P. Spaulding of Ohio, J. C. Allen of Illinois, and L. D. M. Sweat of Maine. Justin S. Morrill of Vermont led the opposition, assisted by Frederick A. Pike of Maine, Francis W. Kellogg of Michigan, and Portus Baxter of Vermont. The mer- its of the debate were certainly with the friends of the treaty, for the opposition contented itself with denunciation of the treaty, and with invectives against the unfriendly policy of Great Britain. Mr. Arnold, of Illinois, offered an amendment to the resolution proposed by the committee on com- merce. This amendment authorized the President to use his discretion in abrogating the treaty in case of a failure in the negotiation of a revised treaty satis- factory to both governments.' Mr. Morrill of Ver- mont proposed an amendment in the nature of a sub- stitute for the resolution of the committee on com- merce. This provided for an unconditional abroga- tion of the treaty.* On May 26, 1864, the House voted upon the three propositions before it. Mr. Arnold's amendment was defeated by a vote of 64 to 97. Mr. Morrill's substi- tute met the same fate by a vote of 74 to 82. The . ' Congr»8sional Olobe, First Session, Thirty-eighth Congress, 1863-4, p. 2455. "Same, p. 2364. . ^v^W_ 439] The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. 23 original resolution of the committee was finally post- poned to the second Tuesday in December by a vote of 77 to 72, after having been read a third time. A motion to lay the resolution on the table failed by a vote of 73 to 76.' On December 13, 1864, the House took up the joint resolution and passed it by a vote of 85 to 57, forty members not voting. A good deal of party manoeu- vering preceded the final vote, the opposition led by Mr. Morrill attempting to substitute a resolution for unconditional abrogation. The second great debate upon the resolution occur- red in the Senate in January, 1865. On December 14, 1864, the Senate received the resolution from the House and referred it, after a short debate, to the committee on foreign relations. Senator Grimes of Iowa moved that the resolution be referred to the committee on commerce, as "it refers to commercial relations existing between this country and the provinces of Great Britain." In reply Sena- tor Sumner said that "every question of commerce between the two countries, even if it is the subject of negotiation, must be referred to the committee on commerce, and you may as well dismiss your com- mittee on foreign relations." Finally the resolution was referred to the committee on foreign affairs. This action of the Senate indicates the way in which the measure was to be considered. Instead of treat- ing the matter as one of commercial relations, the Sen- ate proceeded to act upon it as a political measure. ' House debate, Congressional Olobe, First Session, Thirty-eighth Congress, Part III, May 18, 2333-38; May 19, 2364-71; May 24, 2452- 56; May 25, 247fi-84; May 26, 2502-09. -Congressional Olobe, Second Session, Thirty-eighth Congress, 1864- 65, p. 35. ■ ,■■ / H The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [440 As I have already said, this was the attitude of the opponents of the treaty throughout the whole discus- sion. The committee on foreign relations, through Mr. Sumner, reported an amendment to the original reso- lution, providing for the unconditional abrogation of the treaty.' The debate upon the amendment lasted through the two days, January 11-12, 1865, and ended with the passage of the measure on the latter day by a vote of 33 to 8. The debate was long and thorough. The opposi- tion excelled in the brilliancy of its speakers. Charles Sumner, John Sherman, Jacob Collamer and Solomon Foot of Vermont, Zachariah Chandler of Michigan, James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin, ISTathan A. Farwell of Maine, and John Conness of California, spoke for the abrogation. John P. Hale of New Hampshire, Alexander Ramsey of Minnesota, Timothy O. Howe of Wisconsin, and Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana opposed the abrogation. The prestige of distinguished services was certainly with the opposition, but the strength of solid argu- ment rested with the friends of the treaty. Said Senator John P. Hale, in concluding his speech'' in favor of a revision of the treaty: " If the treaty is imperfect and needs amendment, that [the pro- posed amendment for revision] is the true, statesmanlike, Christian way of annulling it. . . . But if, on the other hand, smarting as we now are under what we believe and feel to be injustice on the part of these colonies, we resort to this legislation at this time, inthishour, under such impulses, it wil l tend to increase and intensify all the ^Congresidonal Globe, Second Session, Thirty-eighth Congress, pp. 71 and 95-97. '^Congressional 'Jlobe, Second Session, Thirty-eighth Congress, 1864- 65. Part I. pp. 204-00. 441] The Reciprocitjj Treaty of 1854. 26 bad feelings that have unhappily existed; will, in fact, retard, if not render utterly impossible any future progress in the line of reci- procity between these two countries." A brief quotation from the speech of an opponent will indicate the spirit with which the treaty was at- tacked. Said Senator Jacob Collamer of Vermont: " I acknowledge that I have some prejudice against this treaty. I am a little situated as my old neighbor .Tudge Cbipman was when he was called upon to testify whether a certain witness was a man of truth. He said he was not. He was then asked, 'Sir, are you not confcious that you labor under a prejudice against that man?' He answered, 'I think it likely that I am, I have detected him steal- ing two or three times.' "' Justice to the opponents of the treaty requires it to be said that the quotation just cited is an extreme example of the opinions of that party. The address of the late Hannibal Hamlin before the commercial convention at Detroit, in July, 1865, indicates the opinions of the more moderate opponents of the treaty. He said: "I was educated in the school of free trade, — not free trade in slices. I affirm that that is the most obnoxious system of legis- lation that can be devised by man. I am for free trade But what do I mean by free trade? Not that system which selects a few articles and makes them entirely free, rendering it necessary that you shall impose additional revenue upon other articles in order to make up for the deficiency. That is free trade in slices, and it cannot be defended upon any principle of political economy ever enunciated by any man."- On January 16, 1865, the House concurred in the amendment of the Senate to the joint resolution. The resolution, as finally passed, proposed an uncondi- tional abrogation of the treaty, <'as it is no longer ' Congressional Olobe, Second Session, Thirty-eighth Congress, 1864- 65, Part I. p. 210. For debates January 11-12, 1865, pp. 204-13 and pp. 222-34. -See pp. 59-61. The speech is given in the "Proceedings" of the convention, p. 100. 110 The Reciprocity Treaty of UU. [442 for the interests of the United States to continue the same in force."* This resolution received the ap- proval of the President, January 18, 1865.2 The treaty terminated March 17, 1866. Delegates from Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia arrived at Washington January 24, 1866, and remained there until February 6. The delegates were A. J. Gait, minister of finance, and W. P. Rowland, postmaster-general, representing Canada; A. J. Smith, attorney-general of New Brunswick, and W. A. Henry, attorney-general of Nova Scotia. After many days discussion the negotiations terminated unsuccess- fully.:* The unsuccessful attempt at renewal made by the provincial delegates was followed by an equally un- successful attempt to continue a semblance of reci- procity by means of legislation. During the last week in February a bill with such an object in view, was introduced in the House by Mr. Justin S. Morrill, chairman of the committee on ways and means, and was debated on March 6, 7, 9, 12. But even a bill, which offered terms that could only be called recip- ^Uongreisional Qlobe, Second Session Thirty-eighth Congress, Part 1, p. 277. The best speeches in favor of the revision of the treaty, delivered in the Senate, were those of John P. Hale, Congressional Olobe, Second Session, Thirty-eighth Congress, pp. 204-06, and Timothy O. Howe, Qlobe, pp 211-13, and pp. 226-29. These two speeches, with the two speeches of Mr. Ward, delivered in the House May 18 and 26, 1864 (see p. 22), state clearly and forcibly the views of the friends of the treaty. ^''Statutes at Large," Second Session, Thirty-eighth Congress, p. 566. "'Canada and the States," Sir E. W. Watkin, pp. 405-13. Con- tains report of the delegates, their proposals, the counter proposals of the committee of Ways and Means, and finally the reply of I . the delegates. 443] The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. 27 rocal by *< political" license, had no chance of success in the existing state of opinion in Congress and in the country. Mr. Morrill set the keynote of the de- bate when he said in his speech at the opening of the discussion, that "the treaty was an ill-omened one from the start, having been first extorted from us by the armed raid upon our fishermen in 1852, made by the combined armaments of the provinces, and led on by the imperial government; and secondly, won from us by the delusion that favor would beget fraternity. We are too old to be again deluded, and being quite able to withstand a bite, we shall be less likely to yield to a growl."' A few believed that the wiser policy was to cultivate friendly relations with the provinces, but the majority thought otherwise, and the bill failed to pass. One of the minority said during the debate that — " He would not have risen, .... if he had not voted last year, with others, for an abrogation of the reciprocity treaty, and if he did not lee now, from the tendencies and sympathies of the House, that the moment the bill passed from the hands of the com- mittee of the whole it would receive its final death blow. He did not believe that there would have been thirty votes obtained in this House last year for the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty with Canada, but for the explicit understanding that some sort of re- ciprocity in trade would be forthwith re-established, either through the treaty-making power, or through the legislative power of the government. The people of the United States were ground down by the internal revenue taxation, and he had not felt at liberty to let the reciprocity treaty stand, without being at liberty to make some sort of bargain with the people of Canada, that whatever our internal revenues might be, the same would be levied, either by them or by us, on our imports from them. It was exclusively on that understanding that he had voted for the abrogation of the treaty. And he now saw in the additional claims of those who repre- sented the lumber interests, and the coal and other interests of the country, that advantage was to be taken of the present opportu- ^ Congressional Globe, 1865-66, IV. «h 6, 1866, p. 1210. ■■:^ . >v 28 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [444 nity, and that never again were we to have reciprocity with the neiKhboring provinces If that were to be so, he never should regret any vote that he gave in his life as he would regret his vote of last winter, to abrogate the treaty. He had given it with the understanding that it should be substantially renewed,'" Why was the treaty abrogated ? Charles Francis Adams,- minister to Great Britain, wrote February 2, 1865, to Secretary Seward that in his belief "all these measures [for abrogation] were the result rather of a strong political feeling than of any com- mercial considerations. I should not disguise the fact of the prevalence of great irritation in conse- quence of the events that had taken place in Canada; neither should I conceal my regret, as it seemed to me to be one of the cardinal points of our policy, both in a political and commercial sense, to maintain the most friendly relations with the whole population along our northern border." Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts, said in the Sen- ate, January 12, 1865: "When this treaty was negotiated it was believed to be for the general interests of the country, and in Massachusetts it was espe- cially believed to be for our fishing, manufacturing, commercial and railroad interests. I have ever been in favor of the treaty, and up to this time could never have been induced to vote against it. I am not clear now that it is not for the interests of the state I in part represent to let it stand. I am inclined to think it is for our interest that the treaty should stand as it now does. For the interests of the whole country I am of the opinion that it ought to be modified or per h aps abrogat ed . " ' ^ Congrtsaional Globe. Part II, 1865-66. March 7, 1866, p. 1250. For the debate see Globe 1865-66, February 27, March 6, 7, S, 12, 1866, pp. 1867, 1210-20, 1241-51, 1297-1302, 1333-43. -''House Executive Documents," First Session Thirty-ninth Congress, Vol. I, Part I, p. 111. 'Congressional Globe, Second Session Thirty -eighth Congress, Fart I, p. 233. 445] The Reciprocal/ Treaty of 1854. 29 A convention composed of boards of trade and chambers of commerce of the United States and British North American provinces met at Detroit July 11-14, 1805, by invitation of the local board of trade, to protest against the abrupt termination of the reciprocity treaty. This convention was com- posed of business men and others, representing the leading commercial bodies of the country. Repre- sentatives were present from New York, Michigan, Massachusetts, Maine, Illinois, Ohio, Canada (west). Prince Edward Island, Pennsylvania, Nova Scotia, Canada (east), Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, New Brunswick. Among these were Lyman Tremain, John V. L. Pruyn, late chancellor of the University of the State of New York, and Martin Townsend, of New York; Frederick Tarley, afterward president of the national board of trade; John Welsh, afterward minister to Great Britain; A. G. Cattell and William Elder, of Pennsylvania; Joseph S, Ropes, James E. Converse and W. W. Greenough, of Massachusetts; Morrison R. Waite, afterward chief justice of the supreme court of Ohio; James F. Joy, of Michigan, and others. The convention came "to substantial unanimity and they united in urging upon the gov- ernment at Washington the great importance of immediately opening negotiations with the British government for a new arrangement, at the least as liberal on both sides as the one about to expire had been, and as much broader as should appear practi- cable. Their action was approved by every board of trade atid chamber of commerce in the country taking any interest in the matter; it was disapproved, so far as we ever heard, by none."^ '"Proceedings of the Commercial Convention held in Detroit July 11-14, 1865." Detroit, 1865. I am indebted to the son of the 30 ' Tlie Kecijprocity Treaty of 1864. [44 G * ^ I . , ■ •■■■ And yet Mr. Lamed, in his report' in 1871 declares that the treaty was "justly abrogated in 1806 with the very general sanction of public opinion in the country." Do the opinions of a minister to England, of a senator of the United States and of a conven- tion of representative business men, count for noth- ing ?« * The Working of the Treaty. Of the effect of the treaty upon the commerce of the two countries Senator Sumner said in a speech delivered in the Senate in January, 1865, in favor of its abrogation : "This has increased immensely, but it is difficult to gay how much of this increase is due to the treaty and how much is due to the natural growth of population and the facilities of transportation in both countries. If it could be traced exclusively, or in any large measure, to the treaty, it would be an element not to be disregarded. But it does not follow, fjom the occurrence of this measure after the treaty that it is on accoxmt of the treaty. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is too loose a rule for ou r gov e rnmen t on the pr esent ocrasion "■' late Joseph C. Bates, of Boston, for the loan of a scrap-book con- taining clippings from newspaper editorials written by Mr. Bates. I quote above from one of these editorials. ^"House Executive Documents," 1870-71, Vol. VIIT, No. 94, p. 6. ^It is difflcult to determine the real attitude of the principal par- ties in regard to reciprocity. The bill providing for reciprocity with Canada, passed in the House in 1848, was reported by a Whig committee and passed in a House containing a Whig majority. On the other hand the same bill failed in the Democratic S'enate, and the opposition of another Democratic Penate threatened to cause the collapse of the negotiations in 1854. The other attempts to bring about reciprocity by legislation, and the first negotiation of a treaty was carried out by Democrats. Furthermore the sup- port of the policy of reciprocity in 1864-65 came from the Demo- crats, while the Republicans opposed it. Throughout the period the slavery question, or questions connected with it, determined the attitude of parties upon questions of less pressing importance. ^Congressional Olobe, 1864-65, p. 206. January 11, 1865. . . , . . ■■t---.:.v- 447] The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. / / If - Before beginning a discussion of the effects of the treaty three points must be insisted upon: (1) In a discussion based upon statistics, it must be remem- bered that the figures used are not mathematically accurate. Therefore conclusions drawn from them are subject to some qualification, although it is not intended to deal with distinctions so fine that they are likely to be affected by occasional inaccuracies in the details of the statistics. (2) The treaty was only one of several causes at work at the same time upon the commerce of the two countries. The increase of population, the improvement in the means of trans- portation through the building of canals and rail- roads, and the development of manufacturing indus- tries, were acting upon trade as never before in the history of the world. (3) The working of the treaty was disturbed by two economic events, the crisis of 1857 and the civil war of 1861-65. In sixty-four years, 1821 to 1885, the total trade (exports and imports combined) between the United ""'' States and the British provinces, increased from $2,500,495 to $88,214,020. The trade' by decades "^ has been as follows: 1821 $2,500,495 1861 $51,246,224 1831 4,926,747 1871 59,727,723 1841 8,624,750 1881 87,030,472 . 1851 19,543,469 • The increase of trade- by decades has been as fol- lows: " 1321-1831 $2,426,252 1861-1861 31,701,755 1831-1841 3.698,003 1861-1871 8,482,499 '1841-1861.......... 10,918,719 1871-1881 27,302,749 ''rhat is the amount of the total trade in each tenth year. ^Thatis, the amount of increase in the total trade in 1831 over 1821, 1841 over 1831, so on. For the statistics of trade from 1821-85 see Appendix, p. 59-61. »^. y , ttl The Jiecijn'ocify Treat!/ of I85i. [448 These figures show that the trade was compara- tively small up to 1840: that the decade from 1841- 51 witnessed the beginning of the great development of the last fifty years; that the decade from 1851 to 18(51 was marked by the greatest increase of trade which has taken place down to 1881; and that the decade from 18(51-71 saw the smallest increase since that of ]8:U-41. The decade 1851-61 included a por- tion of the period influenced by the reciprocity treaty, while that of 1801-71 covered the period of its abro- gation, and of the disturbance caused by the civil war. For the twelve years of the continuance of the treaty the total trade year by year was as follows: 1855 $49,000,000 1861 $50,000,000 1856 57,000,000 1882 48,000,000 1857 49,000,006 1863 46,000,000 1858 37,000,000 1864 1859 .. 45,000,000 1865 60,000,000 1860 48,000,000 1866 75,000,000 These figures show the effect of the treaty very clearly. The total trade for the last year before the treaty was $34,899,544, while for the first year of the treaty it was $57,041,594,' an increase of $22,- 142,050 for the first year under the treaty com- pared with an increase of $9,184,896 during three years (1850-53) before the treaty. Under the favor- able conditions furnished by the reciprocity treaty, the trade increased more than twice as much in one year as it had in there years without the treaty. 'I take the year 1856 because it was the first full year, the treity going into effect March 16, 1855. 449] The lieci/nocifi/ Treat n of 18r)4. 33 'r^ Phis increaHed trado continued with the usual fluc- tuations during the continuance of the treaty: r 1868 $^17,905,673 Total Trade \ i8(50 49,444,196 under Troaty of 1854. ) 1862 48,888,897 \ 1865 60,633,561 f 1844 18,181,618 Total Trade J 1846 9,344,150 before the Treaty. 1 1848 12,029.122 U8oO 16,788,141 [ 1867 $50,283,464 Total Trade ) |868 48,906,613 after the Treaty. ) 1870 68,134,776 U872 70,088,925 r 1875 $76,508,092 Total Trade \ 1877 76.732,919 under the Treaty of 1871. • 1 1879 (i9,677,055 \ 1882 103,976,742 An examination of the preceding figures shows that the abrogation of the treaty did not seriously disturb the amount of trade. At least the effect was not permanent; for the trade had begun to recover before the negotiation of the treaty of 1871. Of course a considerable portion of this increase may have been due, and undoubtedly was due, to the nat- ural increase of business, the result of the increase of wealth and of improvements in production and transportation, but is it not likely that the perma- nent effects of the treaty had something to do with this increase? May not the influence of the treaty have developed a trade which continued after its expiration? It seems probable to me, and if true, gives to the reciprocity treaty of 1854 an importance which has never been recognized. Besides the effect of the treaty, as shown by the increase of trade, the amount of the imports into the 'Went into effect July 1, 1873. 3 84 The lieciyroatj/ Treaty of 1854. [450 United States for 1806 (the last year of the operation of the treaty), $48,528,628, gives ground for the con- jecture that this unusually large quantity was due to the desire of business men to profit as much as pos- sible by the treaty. There are two reasons for this conjecture: (1) because the fiscal year ending June 80, 1866, was not coincident with the existence of the treaty, which terminated March 17, 1866. Conse- quently this excessive importation was the work of less than nine months. (2) This amount of importa- tion was not again reached until 1882, when $50,775,- 581 of goods were imported from the Dominion of Canada. ' Mr. Larned, in his "Report on Trade with the British North American Provinces," says that — "To a remarkable extent our present trade witli the provinces is what might be characterized as a pnre commerce of Cx^nvenience, incident merely to the economical distribution of products which are common to both countries. Wo exchange with them almost equal quantities of the cereals, and almost equal quantities, on an average of tlour. Except so far as concerns the barley that we buy and the Indian corn that we sell to thfcin, tliis trade orignates on neither side in any necessity, but is chiefly a matter of simple conveni- ence, of economy in carriage, or of diversification in the qualities of grain. Similarly and for the like reasons we exchange with them about equal quantities of coal. We sell them a certain quantity of hides and skins, and buy half that quantity of the same articles back from them. On the other- hand, they sell us provisions and wool and buy our provisions Knd wool to half the amount in return. Not less than one-third, probably, of the trade now carried on between the United States and the neighboring provinces is of that character, and the f; ct that it is kept up with so little diminution, notwithstanding the imposition of duties on both sides of the frontier, is significant of the value of the advantages that are found in it."^ _____ _ 'Another reason for the large imports in 1865-66 has been sug- gested to me by Professor Taussig: high prices in the United States due to paper money infiation, while yet there was gold in the country for export. ^"House Executive Documents," 1870-71, Vol. VIII, No. 94, p. 15. 451] The Reciprocity Treat n of 1854. 35 This "commerce of convenience" is natural enough when we consider the geograpical relations of the two countries. The British provinces are by nature divided into groups bearing a closer relation to adjacent portions of the United States than to the other parts of the British possessions. The maritime provinces are more intimately connected with the neighboring New England states than with the Can- adas, Ontario and Quebec, while the Canadas in their turn find tlieir easiest communication with the mid- dle states of the Union. This grouping of the various provinces has received still greater emphasis by the rapid development of the western provinces of the dominion, a development hardly begun at the time of the reciprocity treaty. The same reason for a ••commerce of convenience" appears when we examine the economic relations of the two countries. On this point Goldwin Smith says: "Let any one scan the economical map of the North American continent, with its adjacent waters, mark its northern zone abound- ing in minerals, in bituminous coal, in himber, in fish, as well as in special farm products, brought in the north to hardier perfection, of all of which the southern people have need; then let him look to its southern regions, the natural products of which, as well as the manufactures produced in its wealthy centres of industry, are needed by the people of the northern zone; he will see that the continent is an economic whole, and that to run a customs line athwart it and try to sever its members from each other, is to wage a desperate war against nature.'" Furthermore a "commerce of convenience" is not the only necessary commerce between the United States and the provinces. The maritime provinces have lumber, bituminous coal and fish which they ''•Canada and the Canadian Question." don, 18yi. pp. 283-84. Goldwin Smith. Lon- 86 The Reciprocity Treatxj of 1854. [452 desire to sell, and New England is anxious to buy. The Canadas, Ontario and Quebec, produce barley, eggs, and other farm products; horses, cattle and lumber, for the sale of which they look to New York and other neighboring states. All the provinces want to get American manufactures as well as the products of a more southerly climate in return. The argument of the opponents of reciprocity, that there cannot be profitable commerce between Canada and the United States, because their products are the same, is not true. The United States includes regions and productions almost tropical. Canada has bitu- minous coal, which is needed in parts of the United States, and an abundance of nickel, of which there is but little in the United States. Canada has a vast supply of lumber, and the United States needs all that it can get. Both countries produce barley, but the Canadian barley is the best for making beer. ^ "High as the tariff wall between Canada and the United State is, trade has climbed over it." In 1889 the trade between Canada and the United States was greater than that between Canada and any other country, and nearly as great as that between Canada and all the countries in the world put together.* The treaty was intended to provide for the ex- change of natural products between the two coun- tries, and with very few exceptions these products were in the crudest possible condition, just as they were taken from the field or forest, or dug from the soil, or obtained frcm the sea. They were raw ma- i"The Canadian Question," p. 287-88. -1889— Canada and Great Britain, $38,105,126 exports, 142,249,555 imports; Canada and the United States, $48,522,404 exports, $56,- 368,990 imports. . 453] The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. 87 terials in the fullest sense of the word, and may be grouped under five heads: products of the mine, of the forest, of the sea, animal products and agricul- tural produce. Products of the Mine. — Coal, ores of metals of all kinds ; stone or marble, un wrought ; grindstones, wrought and unwrought ; slate ; gypsum, ground and un- ground. Products of the Forest. — Timber and lumber, round, hewed, sawed ; firewood ; pitch, tar and turpentine. Products of the Sea. — Fish and fish products. Animal products. — Animals of all kinds ; meats, fresh, smoked, salted ; hides, furs, skins, undressed ; poultry, eggs, butter, cheese, tallow, lard, horns, ma- nures, pelts, wool. Agricultural products. — Grain, flour and breadstuffs ; cotton-wool, seeds and vegetables ; dried and undried fruits ; plants, shrubs and trees ; rice, broom-corn and bark ; flax, hemp and tow; tobacco, unmanu- factured. In this list a few are included which may, per- haps, not be fairly classed as raw products. For instance, flour, smoked and salted meats, dried fruits ; timber and lumber, round, hewn and sawed. But these form a small number compared with the total number provided for by the treaty. 88 The Reciprocity Treatif of 1854. [454 The trade for the ten years, 1853-1863, may be summarized as follows : ^ Products of the Mine (imported into United States). — 1853 1 58,400 1856 84,228 1860 318,537 1863 1,114,831 Products of the Forest. — 1853 \ 2,589,898 1856 3,345,284 1860 4,019,278 1863 3,679,559 Products of the Sea. — 1853 73,422 1856 140,948 1860 185,873 1863 957,166 Animal Products. — 1853 1,107,870 1856 2,375,388 1860 3,557,912 1863 3,133,463 Agricultural Products. — 1853 4,949,576 1856 1 1,864,836 1860 10,013,799 1863 7,005.826 The largest imports before the treaty were of agricultural produce, and in 1863 they remained still the largest, having also made the largest gain — about three millions — during the decade. The second place, both in 1853 and in 1863, belonged to the products of the forest, the gain, however, being inferior to that made by animal products. Animal *For detailed statistics see Appendix, pp. 63-64. 455] . The Mecijjrocihf Treat t/ of 185 i. ' 39 products occupied the third place at the beginning and the ending of the period, while the gain was superior to that made by the products of the forest. The fourth and fifth places were held by fish pro- ducts and the products of the mine, the latter dis- placing the former between 1853 and 1863. Turning now to the imports from the United States into Canada, we have the following figures : Products of the Mine (imported into Canada).— .1853 $ 126,586 1856 488,984 I860 406,688 1863 647,965" Products of the Forest. — 1853 66,620 1856..... 302,904 I860 i;]7,392 1863 134,281 Products of the Sea. — 1853 383,436 1856 411,716 I860 227,112 1863 281,023 Animal Products. — 1853 570,587 1856 2,896,838 I860 1,679,912 1863 3,050,294 Agricultural Products. — 1853 668,113 1856 3,809,112 I860 4,603,114 1863 3,137,447' As is the case of the United States imports, the largest item in the Canadian in 1853 was that of 'For detailed statistics see Appendix, pp. 63-64. 1; 40 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [456 agricultural produce, and this proportion remained the same in 1863, the increase being remarkable — about seven and a-half millions.' The second place was held by animal products, both at the beginning and at the end of the period, the gain also being next in amount to that of agricultural produce. Products of the sea occupied the third place at the beginning, but had fallen to fourth place at the end, with the additional disgrace of having had a decrease instead of a gain during the ten years. Products of the mine rose from fourth place to third from 1853-1863, making a gain in amount next to that of animal products. Finally products of the forest held and retained the fifth place. The following figures show the amount of the trade in a few leading articles i^ Animals (imported into United States.) — INCREASE. 1862 $1,532,957 1865 6,503,318 $3,970,361 Barley. — 1862 1,095,443 1865 4,093,202 2,997,759 Timber. — 1862 2,526,658 1865 4,515,626 1,938,968 Oats.— 1862 634,176 1865 2,216,722 1,582,546 ^ These figures are liable to considerable qualification, being at best rough estimates. See Appendix, p. 63, note. ^The figures are taken from the reports of the Minister of Finance of Canada and of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. Separate tables for articles included in the treaty are given for Canada, 1858-1863; and for the United States, .July 1, 1861, and June .SO, 1866. 457] The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. - 41 Wool.— ,„„„ IKCKIABK. 1862 569,839 1865 1,527,275 967,436 Meats. — 1862 128,935 1866 850,328 721,393 Coal. — 1862 614,556 1866 1,210,004 595,448 Grain, all kinds (imported into Canada).— 1858 2,078,464 1863 5,062,610 3,984,146 Meats. — 1858 544,366 1863 1,238,923 694,557 Coal. — 1868 242,700 1863 548,846 306,146 Animals. — 1858 240,186 1863 620,835 280,649 Hides. — 1858 125,000 1863 384,951 259,951 Cheese. — 1858 90,045 1863 294,327 204,282 Wool.— 1858 11,101 1863 208,868 197,757 Flour. — 1858 750,580 1863 898,029 147,449 43 The Reciprocitu Treaty of 1854. [458 These figures show that the articles of first import- ance on the side of the United States were those of animal products, and barley, timber, oats, wool, meats and coal ; on the side of Canada grain occu- pied the first place, followed by meats, coal, animals, hides, cheese, wool and flour. If barley and oats were combined in the United States imports as they are in the Canadian under the single head of grain, ! ' they would take the first place, and grain would then be the largest import into both countries. Of course these figures are not for the same years and some slight allowance must be made for the varying conditions of the two periods. The period 1858-1863 covers only a part of the war period, while the years 1862-1865 are wholly included in that period. As was said at the beginning of the discussion, the course of trade under the treaty was disturbed by two great economic events, so that no certain in- ference may be drawn from the actual course of trade. Moreover, the whole period of the treaty was almost too short to allow sound conclusions to be drawn from the figures representing its progress. The trade between the United States and the other . British provinces from 1849-1863 can be summarized as follows: the figures are taken from a table of lead- ing exports to British provinces other than Canada from 1849-1863.' Wheat.— 1849 332.765 1853 208,956 1856 268,959 1860 90,049 1863... .^. .^^. 110,333 'See Appendix, p. 66. 459] 2%e Jiecijirocih/ Treaty of 1854. 4;{ Wheat Flour. — 1849 1,518,922 1853 784,498 1856 3,120,787 I860 3,044,243 1863 4,420,748 Indian Corn. — 1849 126,791 1853 105,404 1856 136.774 I860 85,915 1863 131,552 Meal, Corn and Rye. — 1849 625,691 1853 135,040 1856 631,959 I860 206,881 1863 286,238 The most noticeable features in the&e figures are the decline in the amount of exports in wheat, corn and rye meal, and the large increase in wheat flour. The population of the maritime provinces was small and their resources were undeveloped. New England had not yet come to need the raw materials of which the provinces possessed an abundance, and therefore the resources were not developed during the continu- ance of the treaty. These reasons probably explain to a considerable extent the failure of the treaty to produce a greater effect upon the trade. The remark- able increase in the export of wheat-flour from a million and a-half to nearly four millions and a-half may be explained by the fact that the United States imported wheat and re-exported it in the form of wheat-flour. The following figures show the relative amount of trade between the United States and Canada, and 44 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [460 between the United States and the other British provinces : United States Imports.' Canada. Other Provinces. 1850 4,285,470 1,358,992 1853 5,278,116 2,272,602 1866 17,488,197 3,822,224 1860 18,861,073 4,989,708 1862 15,253,162 4,046,843 United States Exports. Canada. Other Provinces, 1850 5,930,821 3,618,214 1853 7,829,099 5,311,543 1856 20,883,241 8,146,108 1860 14,083,114 8,023,214 1862 12,842,504 8,236,611 The proportion of trade with these two groups, the Canadas and the maritime provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and New- foundland, seems to have been little affected by the treaty. The imports from Canada were three times as large as those from the maritime provinces in 1850 and in 1862. The exports, too, bore abo .t the same proportion to each other in both years, those to Canada being somewhat less than twice as large as those to the maritime provinces. The effect of the treaty appears much more striking in the Canada trade than in that to the maritime provinces. From 1853-1856 the imports from Canada were more than trebled, while those from the maritime provinces do not double. The exports to Canada during the same period nearly treble, while those to the other pro- ^Statistics of comparative amounts of exports 1849-1863; of imports 1850-1863, Appendix p. 65. 461] The Jiecyrrociti/ Treahj of 185-4. 4ft vinces again do not double. The total trade between the United States and Canada was in — 1853 13,107,215 185(1 ;J8, 371,438 The total trade between the United States and the maritime provinces was in — 1853 7,684,145 1856 11,968,332 During the discussion over the abrogation of the treaty the common assertion was that the United States allowed the principal Canadian exports to enter free of duty, while Canada, on the other hand, imposed a duty upon exports of manufactured goods of the United States. The following figures show the amounts of free and dutiable goods imported into the United States and Canada in several different 3^ears from 1850 -18(52: United States Imports.' Free. Dutiable. 1850 787,599 4,856,863 1853 1.418,250 6,132,468 1856 20,488,697 821,724 I860 23,180,971 690,411 1862 18,770,737 529,258 Canadian Imports. S'ree. Dutiable. 1850 791,128 5,803,732 1863 1,125,566 10.656,582 1856 9,933,586 12,770,923 I860 8,746,799 8,626,230 1862 19,044,374 6,128,783 Of the United States imports the amount of free importation increased from $787,599 in 1850 to 'Comparative amount of free and dutiable goods, 1850-1867, Appendix, p. 64. 46 The Reciprocily Treaty of 1854. [402 $28,180,971 in 18fi0, while that of dutiable goods decreased from >J^«, 132,468 in 1853 to )S^r)29,2r)8 in 1802. Of Canadian imports the free importations increased from !t<7i)l,128 in 1850 to $19,044,374 in 1802, while the dutiable goods remained about the same, amounting to 1^5,803,732 in 1850 and to )^(),128,- 783 in 1802. An actual increase in tlie amount of dutiable goodw occurred from 1853-1850. The figures for these years were as follows: 1853 10,6o^ 40 Sugar (other) 27>^ 20 llyi 21 30 Boots and Shoes... 12>^ Uyi 20 21 25 Harness 12;^ 17 20 21 25 Cotton Goods 12j^ 13>^ 15 16 20 Iron Goods 12^ 18>^ 16 16 20 Silk Goods 12>^ IZyi 16 17 20 Wool Good 12K 14 15 18 20> The complaint of the Americans might have had a doubtful justification before the outbreak of the civil war, while the tariff of 1857 was in force. It could have none at all after the war tariffs came into exist- ence. Even under the tariff of 1857, the tariff rate of the United States upon cotton and woolen goods was 24 per cent., 4 per cent, higher than the Canadian duty under the tariff of 1859. But the justification of the complaint does not rest with the comparative rate of duties. No formal complaint of a violation of the treaty was made by either party. The United States claimed that the treaty was made with the understanding that the tariff of Canada would remain the same as it had been at the conclusion of the treaty. But no clause to such an effect had been added to the treaty, and the United States could expect only a strict adhesion to the terms of the treaty. 1 "House Executive Documents," 1859-18(i0, Vol. 13, No. 96, p. 10. Report of Israel T. Hatch on reciprocity treaty, March 28, 1860. // 50 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [466 The following figures show the effect of the higher Canadian tariff upon the exports of ma,nufactures from the United States:' Cotton Manufactures. — 1858-59 $363,016 1862-63 64,495 Iron Manufactures, {except Pig Iron). 1858-59 761,619 1862-G3 395,907 Boots and Shoes. — 1858-59 211,147 1862-63 22,860 Tobacco {Manufactured). — 1858-59 1,205,084 1862-63 76,026 House Furniture. — 1858-59 136,765 1862-63 66,718 Books. — » 1858-59 154,034 1862-63 25,164 Hats. — 1858-59 116,150 1862-63 14,078 Musical Instruments. — 1858-59 104,534 1862-63 67.445 Unenumerated. — 1858-59 ' 624,534 1862-63 401,227 These figures show a marked decrease in the exports of American manufactures to Canada from 1858 to 1863. Undoubtedly the increase in the rate 'For detailed statistics see Appendix, p. 66. 467] The Reciprocittj Treaty 0/ 1854. 51 of the Canadian duties upon manufactured articles, was one of the causes of this falling off. Yet it must be remembered that the civil war broke out during the period, and that the effect which it produced upon the export of manufactures must have been considerable, especially in the case of the cotton manufactures. The needs of the United States increased, while its power of production diminished. This, of course, applied to all branches of production. The following figures show the total amounts of the exports of American manufactures to Canada for the several years from 1858-1859 to 1862-18G3. 1858-59 4,185,516 1859-60 3,548,114 1800-61 3.501 ,642 1861-62 2,596,930 1862-63 1,510,802 The privilege of free navigation of the river St. Lawrence, conferred by the fourth article of the treaty, had long been a subject of negotiation between the United States and Great Britain. The United States claimed a right of free navigation as "a riparian state of the upper waters of the river and of the lakes which feed it."^ This privilege, granted temporarily in 1854, was given permanently by article XXVI of the treaty of 1871. Besides the privilege of navigating the St. Law- rence, that of navigating those canals of Canada whi'ih formed the means of communication between the lakes and the sea, was granted by the fourth article of the treaty. This privilege proved a bone of contention between the two countries. The interest of the United States in the navigation of the Canadian canals by its citizens upon the same 'Hall's "International Law," p. 118. Mil 52 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [468 terms with Canadians related to the increasing needs of means of transportation from the grain producing states of the northwest to the sea-coast. The rail- road system in the United States was still in the early stages of its development, the great through lines between the interior and the sea-coast not being completed until nearly ten years after the period of the reciprocity treaty. Great dependence was still made upon the canal system of the country, and many attempts were made for the improvement of the existing system. Doubtless, too, the blockade of the Mississippi during the civil war, thus cutting off one means of transportation to the sea, made the desire for any other possible avenue of communica- tion with the sea stronger than it would otherwise have been. The inadequacy of the existing means of trans- portation led, too, to a natural suspicion on the part of the producers of western grain that the owners of railroads and canals would use them for the further- ance of their own interests to the injury of the helpless producers. Thus early appeared the west- ern hostility to railroads, which later influenced the legislation of many states. Besides the western producers, anxious for a new avenue for the transportation of their products to market, a certain commercial element favored the continuance of free navigation, hoping thereby to profit by means of the larger trade which would be brought to their doors. This element seems to have been most active in the northern parts of New York, especially in Rochester, Oswego and Ogdens- burg. Their expectation seems to have been to obtain a large share of the business of transportation ••A 469] The Reciprociiy Treaty of 1854. " 53 from the west to the sea-coast. The course would naturally be, they thought, from the lakes through the Welland canal and Lake Ontario to their own T-'^harves. Then they would profit greatly by such a trade. But the interest of Canada in granting the privi- lege of navigating her canals to foreigners seems to have been clearly connected with the policy of internal development to which I have already referred. The canals were built for the benefit of Canada, and the grant of special privileges to Americans was expected to work towards that end. The diversion of a large part of the carrying trade from American canals and railroads would be a great gain to Canada and would surely cause such an increase of prosperity that all desire for annexation would die out of the minds of the people. Unfortuately the laws of nature were unfavorable to this scheme. For a good portion of each year the canals and rivers of Canada are frozen over, and consequently this new outlet for the surplus products of the west could have only a limited value. The attempt to thwart the laws of nature did not turn out as the projectors expected. In the report of Hon. W. P. Howland, finance minister for Canada for the year 1862,' the results of this policy are examined. He says that ''the move- ment of property on the provincial canals shows a steady increase." On the Welland canal the movement was: Tons Property. Tonnaqe of Vessels. 1859 709,611 856,918 1860 944,084 1,238,509 1861 1,020.483 1,327,672 1862 1,243,774 1,476,842 1" House Executive Documents" 1863-1864, Vol.9, No. 32, pp. 37-40. (Extract.) 64 The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [.70 On the St. Lawrence canals the movement was: 1859 631,709 765,636 1860 733,596 824,465 1861 886,908 1,009,469 1862 964,394 1,049,230 In 1860 the tolls on the St. Lawrence canals were abolished and those on the Welland canal reduced. The report of the finance minister says upon this point, that though there has been an increase in the movement of property by the St. Lawrence route since the change, this increase must not be con- sidered as due entirely to the remission of tolls. "The greatly increased production of cereals in the western states and the figures' presently introduced will show that in proportion to that increase, and to the whole volume of agricultural produce moved from Lakes Erie and Michigan to tide-water, we have not obtained so large a traffic since the removal of the tolls as we obtained prior to the adoption of that policy." 'Movement of American Breadstuffe. Year. Down the St. Laicrence. 2'hrough Erie Canal. 1856 1,209,612 bus. 15,342,833 bus. 1857 1,930,280 " 10,601,532 " 1858 1,876,933 " 13,757,283 " 1859 1,988,759 " 10,371,966 " 1860 1,846,462 " 23,912,000 " 1861 3,103,155 " 34,427,800 " 1862 5,320 054 " 39,240,131 " From this table it appears that for seven years the transportation of breadstuflfs by the St. Lawrence route was — 1856 7. 3 per cent. 1860 7.16 per cent. 1857 15. 4 " 1861.... 8.26 1858 12.01 " 1862. ...11. 04 1859 16.08 From "House Executive Documents" First Session, Thirty-eighth Congress, Vol. IX, No. 32, p. 38. Extract from Finance Minister's Report for Canada, 1862. 471] The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. 55 While the Canadian canals failed to reap the benefits expected from the reduction of tolls, the Erie canal materially increased its tolls. This increase amounted to an advance of seventy cents per ton on wheat and flour from Buffalo to tide water, and of forty cents per ton from Oswego to tide- water. The finance minister concludes from the results of the free canal system that the policy has been productive of benefit, neither to the producer nor to the consumer of western breadstuffs. He says that "it can be shown from trustworthy data that, in so far as the actual cost of transportation is concerned, western produce can be carried to tide-water much cheaper by the St. Lawrence than by any competing route." The cause of the failure of Canadian canals to obtain a large proportion of the western trade is due, in the opinion of the minister, to "the absence of sufficient competition among forwarders engaged in the St. Lawrence trade, to the financial relations between shippers engaged in the western trade and the capitalists of New York, and finally and chiefly, to the lower rates of freights from New York to Europe, occasioned by the greater competition at that port than is to be found at Quebec or Montreal." " There is but one course open for securing that quota of the western trade which the advantages of the St. Lawrence route give us reason to anticipate. If we can give to the owners of the largest vessels now profitably engaged in the trade of Lake Michigan the option of trading to Kingston and the St. Law- rence, or to Buffalo, as may be fomid most profitable, we shall have thrown down the barrier which now forces the main current of trade into the Erie canal. We shall have more than balanced the greater insur- /■('■ ftQ The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. [472 ance and freights charged from our seaports to Europe over the corresponding charges from New York, and we may thereafter expect Quebec and Montreal to take rank among the greatest grain marts of this continent." The value of the navigation of the Canadian canals can, I think, be safely inferred from this report of the Canadian minister of finance. Not- withstanding the importance attached to it by the inhabitants of the northwest, the results of its prac- tical use for a series of years were unsatisfactory if not insignificant. In spite of every effort to direct the carrying trade from the Erie canal the Canadian canals obtained only a small fraction of the total trade, and this small fraction seemed to bear a smaller and smaller proportion to the total traffic between the west and the sea-coast. An examination of the history and effect of the reciprocity treaty of 1854 leads to the conclusion that the measure was favorable to the development of trade between the United States and the British provinces. The statistics of trade indicate a greater increase of commerce during the continuance of the treaty than at any other time during the period from 1820-1880. This increase appears most clearly during the earlj"^ years of the treaty, for the later years were disturbed by extraordinary economic events. But dependence must not be had exclusively upon statistics, for there were features of the trade which cannot be illustrated by means of statistics. The "commerce of convenience" and the gain to both countries, and especially to the United States, of obtaining raw materials free of duty are subjects incapable of statistical illustration. Imperfections 473] The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. 67 there may have been, and certainly were, as was most natural in a first attempt at the settlement of trade relations on a new basis. These imperfections, however, were not the cause of its abrogation. The cause was political rather than economical or com- mercial. There is very little doubt, as has been said already, that the attitude of the English towards the North during the civil war, was the direct cause of the abrogation of the treaty. The evident hostility of the English aroused still more fully all the dormant resentment of the North, stirred as it was already by the southern rebellion. In such a state of feeling the result of any discussion of the treaty must prove fatal. And so it did. The controversy in regard to renewal began just as the hostility to England was strongest. The arguments of the friends of reci- procity were of no avail. The opponents of the measure appealed to the patriotism of the people, and to their self-interest as well. They showed the great loss of revenue caused by the existence of the treaty; they made it clear that the British colonists were profiting from the needs of the Americans; and they clinched the argument by reminding the people of the hostility of those very people who were grow- ing rich from their necessities. The majority are moved more by their feelings than by their judg- ment. The business sentiment of the country favored a continuance of the policj' of reciprocity, but it was overruled by the burst of patriotic feeling aroused throughout the nation. The unfortunate fate of the reciprocity treaty has given it a false position in the economic history of the country. As the first measure of its kind in the trade relations of the United States and Canada and 7 / 88 The ReciprocUif Trenfi/ of 1854. [474 with no successor as yet, it seems an isolated thing, unrelated to the preceding or succeci. g periods. But this was not really the case. The years from 1846-1870 witnessed the development of a policy on the part of the principal nations of the world in favor of the removal of many of the existing restrictions upon international trade. This policy was shown hy the repeal of the corn laws in England, by the develpment of the zoUverein in Germany, by the negotiation of numerous commercial treaties and by the reduction of import duties in various countries. In the United States the tendency found expression in the negotiation of the reciprocity treaty and in the reduced tariffs of 1846 and 1857. But this movement, unfortunately, was interrupted by the outbreak of the civil war in the United States and by the Franco-Prussian war in Europe. The conse- quence of these two events was the overthrow of the liberal movement in Europe and America. The United States needed greater revenues for the conduct of the war and for the payment of the debt thus incurred. Europe since 1870 has been an armed camp, and enormous revenues are needed to keep jj in constant readiness the millions of soldiers, the large navies and the costly defences required in such a state of affairs. With the downfall of the liberal movement disappeared the best 1 pes of better trade • relations between the United States and the British provinces. APPENDIX. 1820-1850. Trade Between the United States and the British Provinces. Imports United States from Exports United States to Year. British North America. British North America. 1821 $490,704 $2,009,791 1822 526,817 1,897,559 1823 463,374 1,821,460 1824 705,931 1,775,724 1825 610,788 2,539,964 1826 650,316 2,588,549 1827 445,118 2,830,674 1828 447.659 1,674,674 1829 577,542 2,764,909 1830 650,303 3,786,373 1831 864,9C9 4,061,838 1832 1,229,526 3,614,385 1833 1,793,393 4,471,084 1834 1 ,548,733 3,535,276 1835 1,435,168 4,047,888 1836 2,427,571 2,651,206 1837 2,359,263 3,28«,9(i6 1838 1,555.570 2,723,491 1839 '.',155,146 3,563,454 1840 2,007,767 6,100,001 1841 1,968,187 6,656,563 1842 1,762,001 6,190,309 1843 857,696 2,724.422 1844 1,465,715 6,715,903 1845 2,020,065 6,054,226 1846 1,937,717 7,406,433 1847 2,343,937 7,985.543 1848 3,646,467 8,382,655 1849 2,826,880 8,104,267 » t 60 Appendix. [476 The preceding table is taken from the report of the committee on commerce of the House of Repre- sentatives, which was drawn up by Elijah Ward and was presented in April, 1864. It is in the ''Reports of Committees," First Session, Thirty- eighth Congress, 1863-1804, Vol. I, No. 'M, p. 1-2. 1850-1885. Trade Between the United States and the British Provinces. ImporU United States from British North Attierica Year. British North America. from United States. 186C 5,179,500 11,608,641 1851 5,279,718 14,263,751 1852 5,409,445 ' 13,993,570 1853 6,527,559 19,445,478 1854 8,784,412 26,115,132 1855 15,118,289 34,362,188 1856 21,276,614 35,764,980 1857 22,108,916 27,788,238 1858 15,784,836 22,210,837 1859 19,287,565 26,761,618 1860 23,572,796 25,871,399 1861 22,724,489 28,520,735 1862 18,515,686 30,37;?,212 1863 17,191,217 29,680,955 1864 29,608,736 7,952,401 1865 33.264,403 27,269,158 186R 48,528,628 27,905,984 1867 25,044,005 25,239,459 1868 26,261,378 22,644,235 1869 29, 293, 766 21 ,680,062 1870 36,265,328 21,869,447 1871 32,542,137 27,185,686 1872 36,346,930 33,741,995 1873 37,175,244 , 45,193,042 1874 34,173,586 51,785,154 1875 27,866,615 48,641,477 1876 28,805,964 43,873,789 1877 24,164,755 51,568,164 477] Appendix, 61 Imixyrti United Statenfrun nrilUh Nitrth Americn Year. BritUth Niirth America from Uniteil Statea. 1878 25,044,811 49,186,384 1879 26,719,771 43,957.284 1880 32,988,564 40,610,949 1881 37,684,101 49,346,371 1882 60,776,581 53,201,161 1883 44,294,168 62,855,790 1884 38,399,835 57,740,714 1885 36,696,686 61,618,:535 These figures are from the ''Quarterly Reports of the Bureau of Statistics," 1885-188G, p. .'J71. The data for the United States are for fiscal year ending June 80. Those for the British provinces, 1850- 1868, are for the calendar year. Those for 1864 for the British provinces are for six months ending June 30, 1864. Exports to Canada and the Provinces. Year. Dome»tie. Foreign. 1821 2.009,336 465 1822 1,881,273 16,286 1823 1,818,113 3,347 1824 1,773,107 2,617 1825 2,538,224 1,740 1826 2,664,165 24,384 1827 2,797,014 33,660 1828 1,618,288 56,386 1829 3,724,104 40,805 1830 3,650,031 136,342 1831 4,026,392 35,446 1832 3,569,302 45,083 1833 4,390,081 81,003 1834 3,477,709 57,567 1835 3,900,545 14-,343 1836 2,456,416 194,861 1837 2,992,474 296,512 1838 2,484,987 238,504 1839 3,418,770 144,684 1840 6,895,966 204,035 //■' 62 Appendix. [478 I'i Year. Domestic. Foreign. 1841 0,292,290 364,273 1842 5,950,143 240,166 1843 2,617,005 107,417 1844- • • • b, 361, 186 1,354,717 1845 4,844,966 1,209,260 1846 6,012,666 1,363,767 1847 5,819,667 2,165,876 1848 6,399,959 1,982.696 1849 5,932,106 2,172,lftl 1850 7,758,291 1,790,744 1851 9,060,387 2,954,536 1852 6,655,097 3,853,919 1853 7,404,087 5,736,555 1854 15,204,144 9,362,716 1855 15,806,642 11 ,999,378 1856 22,714,697 6,314,652 1857 19,936,113 4,326,369 1858 19,838,959 4,012,76*' 1859 18,029,254 6,622,4VL 1860 18,667,429 4,038,899 1861 18,883,715 3,861,098 1862 18,652,012 2,427,103 1863 28,629,110 2.651,920 "House Executive Documents," 1863-1864, Vol.9, No. 32, p. 6. Years end September 30, 1821-1842, and June 30, 1843-1863. Statement Exhibiting in Contrast the Valuk or Kach Class of Imports, into the United States and the Province OF Canada, from the Other, Under the Treaty. 1850. 1851. A852. Into n. S. Into Gmdt. InUU. 8. 1 Into Canada. Into U. S. .'nto Canada, Products of the Mine- Products of the Forest Products of the Sea.. . Animals and Products AgriculturalProducts 41,587 45,505 21473 455.036 437,084 17,623' 62,516 1,279,929' 18,620 43,784 26,494 564,787 962,176 1,937.393 876,327 192 64,857 1,838,775 116,159 50,289 31,079 966,189 4,54,475 3.277,929 473,137 1,530,488 30,943 490,477 2,706,362 4,767,270 Total 990,685 3,843,416 l,748,13;i 6.1113,374 1,139,707 Pro Pro Pro Ani Agi 479] Appendix. 63 1853. 1854. IKV). Into n, S. Into Canada. Into D. S, Into Canada. 256,182 107,469 74,851 845,581 1,500,531 2,784,604 IitoU.S. 33,303 3,016,880 148,550 1.486,936 11,801,485 Into Canada. Products of the Mine. Products of the Forest Products of the Sea. • Animals and Products AgriculturalProducts 58,400 2,589,898 75,423 1,107,870 4,949,570 126,586 66,620 383,436 570,587 668,113 118,628 2,131,725 85,472 684,439 5,295,667 4J5,739 186,830 261,863 1,878,664 4,972.475 Total 8,779,166 1,815,342 8.305,831 16,476,( 93 7,725,561 1856. 1857. 1868, Into U. S. Into Canada. Into U, S. Into n. S, Into Canada. Products of the Mine. Products of the Forest Products of the Sea . . Animals and Products AifriculturalProducts 84,228 3,345,284 140,948 2,375,388 11,864,636 488,984 3A904 411,716 2,886,838 3,80!),113 189,894 3,393,068 154,417 1,974,516 7,100,413 509,494 411,820 314,226 2,134,339 5,272,151 93,405 3,290,>3 158,485 2,231,786 5,749,305 324,374 332,177 157,674 1,464,873 3,385,51V Total 17,810,684 7,909,564 12,812,308 8,642,030 11,514,364 5 564.616 1859. 1860. 1862. 1 1863. Into n. S. Into Ganu*. Into 0. 8. Into Canada. Into n. S. Into Canada. Into U. S. Into Canada. Products of the Mine. Products of the Forest Products of the Sea. . . Animals and Products AgriculturalProducts 227,911 3,524,850 201,583 3,391,772 0,278,351 328,139 132,113 183,575 1,758,428 4,671,883 318,537 4,019,378 185,873 3,557,912 10,013,799 406,688 137,392 227,112 1,679,912 4,603,114 1,073,565 2,980,477 1,087,013 3,134,303 8,860,003 510,081 181,519 208,'>45 2,658,217 17,717,84(1 1,114,831 3,679,559 957, 1(H! 3,183,46:! 7,005,82t) 647,06 134,281 281,033 3,050,294 8,137,447 Total 13,624,467 7,104,137 18,095,399 7,054,218 17,116,360 14,336 708 15,890,845 12,251,010 The statistics for the years 186(>-1860 are from the Reports of Committees (House), Vol. 3, No. 22, p. 36. Those for 1862-1863 are my own, calculated from the returns of the Minister of Finance of Canada and the Secretary of the Treas- ury of the United States given in their reports, p. 40, note. r(»> 64 Appendix. Imports into Canada from United States. [480 "House Executive Document," 1863-64, Vol. 9, No. 32, p. 8. Calendar year. "Report of A. T. Gait, Minister of Finance," March, 1862, p. 19, except for 1862. Total Import from Canada and Provinces. 1850. 1851. 1853. 1853. 1854., 1855.. 1856.. 1857.. 1858.. 1859.. I860.. 1861.. 1862.. 1863.. Pr«e by Ordi- nary Laws, 787,599 l,690,a52 980,389 1,418,350 639,143 906,786 1,081,611 1,016,343 563,532 3,609,430 3,734,385 2,494,997 1,618,185 Fret by Treaty, Total Frte, i Paying Daty, 7,197,337 19,407,086 30,380,210 14,752,355 16,384.416 30,416,586 20,047,525 17,153,552 15,760,343 Total Imports, 787,599 4,856,863 5,644,463 1,690,052 5,003,070 6,693,122 980,289 5,130,010 6,110,299 1,418,250 6,132,468 7,550,718 639,143 8.388,417 8,927,560 8,104,133 7,032,611 15,136,734 20,488,697 821,724 21,310,421 31,396,553 827,744 22,134,396 15,314,787 491,738 15,806,519 18,983.836 733,715 19,737,551 23.180,971 690,411 33,851,381 23,.543,5S3 520,411 33,063,833 18,770.737 539,358 872,383 19,899,995 "House Executive Documents," 1863-64; Vol. year ending June 30. 9, No. 32, p. 7; ^^^^ Appendix. 55 Exports from United States to Canada and Other Provinces. Exports Untied States United States Year. to Canada. to Other Provinces. 1849 4.234,724 3,869,543 18^0 5,930,821 3,618,214 1851 7,929,140 4,085,783 1852 6,717,060 3,791,956 1853 7,829,099 5,311,543 1854 17,300,706 7,266,154 1855 18,720,344 9,085,676 1856 20,883,241 8,146,108 1757 16,574,895 7,637,687 1858 17,029,254 6,622,473 1859 18,910,792 9,213,832 I860 14,083,114 , 8,623,214 1861 14,361,858 8,383,755 1862 12,842,504 8,236,611 1863 19,898,718 11,3S2,312 From "House Executive Documents," first session Thirty-eighth Congress, 1863-1864, Vol. IX, No. 33, p. 5. The years end Imports United States Ycav. from Canada. 1850 4,285,470 1851 4,956,471 1S52 4,589,y69 1853 5,278,116 1854 6,721,539 1855 12,182,314 1856 17,488,197 1857 18,291,834 1858 11,581,571 1859 14,208,717 I860 18,861,673 1861 18,645,457 1862 15,253,152 1863 18,816,999 From "House Executive Documents, eighth Congress, 1863-1864; Vol. IX, No are fiscal years, ending June 30. 5 United States from Other Provinces. 1,358,992 1,736,651 1,520,330 2,272,602 2,206,021 2,954,420 3,822,224 3,832,462 4,224,948 5,518,834 4,989,708 4,417,476 4,046,843 " first session Thirty- 32, pp. 6-7. The years 66 Ajjpendix. [483 Lkading Exports to Buitisii Provinces Other than Canada, FROM 1849-1863. June 30, 1849... ia50... 1851 .. 1853... 1853... 1864... 1856... 1856... 1857... 1858... 18&0,.. 1860... 1861... 1863... 1803... Wheat. 333,766 314,779 330,310 105,106 308,956 210,366 183,614 »J8,059 133,187 100,717 90,049 30,503 16,583 110,333 WhMt Flonr. I,.'>18,n33 l,a51,.54(i »4.j,337 OfH.OuO 784,498 955,484 1,753,395 3,130,787 3,881 80;j 3 018,913 3,963,171 3,044,343 3,065 319 3,199,308 4,430,748 136,791 67,731 00,lv«t 80,2141 105 404 149,088 l.'Vt 314 130,774 98,34ti 85,210 i>3,330 85,915 40,875 05,358 131,5,')3 Indian Corn. Heal, Corn and Rye, 635,691 431,113 389,510 137,718 l;)5,U40 378,395 703,304 («1,959 370,774 348,420 209,049 306,881 198,039 354,183 386,338 " House Executive Documents," 1863-1864, Vol. IX, No. 32, p. 18. 1858-1863. Manufactures Exported by United States to Province op Canada. Cotton Manufactures Hemp " [ia'»| Iron Manufactures [pj^^f^Qn^ ■Leather, Boots and Shoes Tobacco manufactured Glassware Earthenware House Furniture India-rubber Manufactures. •■ Carriages Books Paper and Stationery Jewelry Hats Tin Manufactures Marble & Stone Manufactures. Trunks and Umbrellas Clothing Wood Manufactures Candles and Soap Paints anil Varnish Copper & Brass Manufactures Musical Instruments Printing Materials Other Enumerated Unenumerated 1838-59. 1859-00. 1860-61. 1801-03. 1803-03. Total. $303,016 32,763 701,619 311,147 l,3a5,084 86,233 9,350 130,706 13,317 20,449 154,034 18,836 16,900 110,150 l.-.,451 53,88;i 5,470 9,373 45,146 11,450 27,lv3 00,511; 104,.5»t 1,771 31,990 6i4,.534 4,18,'5,616 314,491 31,971 716,597 137,475 863,P34 77,061 11,151 133,»51 5,ai6| 109,419! 79,1341 61,43(1 .'>,700 90,1U0 30,5a5l 109,009; 1,575 16,655 43,547 8,079 33 521 49,658 91,732 3,437 6,605 543,028 3,548,114 403,591 43,664 a39,43l 106,648 t83.875 83,9.')0 13,347 134,3.50 10,158 11,117 100,H34 74,272 13,954 79,010 4,:)03 97,977 2,577 11,163 36,593 9,568 39,903 16,909 122,800 5„'!34 12,770 649,903 3,601,043 240,442 10,378^ i 773,381 j 60,770, 203,081 121,3811 13,1471 li-8,829! 1,1511 35,0541 62,838! 72,376' 11,046 49,,505! l,376l 97,002 1,907 8,494 49,061 4..583 39,046 32,238 100,1X)7 4,259 8,190 388^229 2,596,930 04,495 10,566 395,907 22,800 76,020 87,(132 8,244 66,718 538 11,501 25,164 .55,171 5,044 14,078 48,293 ],4:i4 1,328 .58,303 3,438 30,094 .50,874 67,445 1,300 4.784 401,337 1,510,803 This table is from report of April, 1804, "House Reports," First Session, Thirty-eighth Congress, Vol. I. 39, p. 5. See also "House Executive Documents," First Session, Thirty- eighth Congress, 1863-1864, Vol. IX. No. 32, p. 15. 4831 Appendix. 67 Entered. Nationality of vessels employed in the carrying trade between the United States and British North American provinces : Year. American. Foreign Tonnage. 1857-58 from Canada 1,240,159 1,105,356 From other B. N. A. provinces 138,640 382,712 1858-59 from Canada 1,344,717 922,920 From other B. N. A. provinces. . . . 171,024 390,926 1859-60 from Canada 1.936,955 957,063 From other B. N. A. provinces 229,749 411,432 1860-61 from Canada 2,617,276 658,036 From other B. N. A. provinces 184,062 475,051 1861-62 from Canada 1,996,892 684,879 From other B. N. A. provinces. . . . 196,709 465,141 Total 10,056,183 6,453,520 Cleared. Nationality of vessels employed in the carrying trade between the United States and British North American provinces : Year. American. Foreign Tonnage. 1857-58 to Canada 1,133,584 1,104,650 To other B. N. A. provinces 319,985 461,245 1858-59 to Canada 1,364,580 1,012,358 To other B. N. A. provinces 242,407 475,329 1859-60 to Canada 1,982,586 1,083,506 To other B. N. A. provinces 371 ,257 516,646 1860-61 to Canada 2,678,276 896,124 To other B. N. A. provinces 291,812 599,430 1861-62 to Canada 2,025,670 731,123 To other B. N. A. provinces 297,172 509,928 Total 10,707,329 7,391,399 " Reports of Committee." (House) 1863-64, Vol. I, No. 39, p. 6. 68 Appendix. [484 Value of goods passing through the United States to Canada under bond : 1855 4,463,774 1856 4,926,922 1857 5,582,643 1858 2,057,024 1859 4,546,491 I860 3,041,877 1861 5,688,952 1862 5,508,437 1863 " House Executive Documents." 1863-1864, Vol. IX, No. 32, p. 36, from Canadian records. The principal portion of this trade passes over the railroad line, entering Canada at Island Pond, Ver- mont (by the Grand Trunk). PRINCIPAL REFERENCES. "House Executive Documents," 1849-1850; Vol. 8, No. 6i. "Message of President Taylor upon Reciprocal Trade with Canada," with correspondence, May, 1850. " House Executive Documents," 18.51-1862; Vol. 2, parti. No. 2, pp. 83-92. "Annual Message" of President Fillmore, December, 1851; with correspondence upon commercial intercourse with Canada. " House Executive Documents," 1852-185:5; Vol. 4, No. 40. "Mes- sage" of President Fillmore transmitting " Report of the Secretary of State upon the Negotiations for Reciprocity with Canada." "Reports of Commit*. >s," (House) 1852-53, No. 4. " Report of Committee on Commercfc on Reciprocal Trade with the British North American Colonies;" with statistics and correspondence. The Congressional Globe; especially Part 3, 1863-1864, May 18, 19, 24, 25 and 26, 1864; containing the principal debate in the House upon the treaty; and Part 1, 1864-1865, January 13 and 12, 1865, containing the principal debate in the Senate. "House Executive Documents," 1859-18()0, Vol. KJ, No. 96. Rejiort of Israel T. Hatch and James W. Taylor upon the treaty. "Reports of Committees" (House) 1861-1862; Vol. 3, No. 22. Rejmrt of Committee on Commerce upon the treaty, prepared by Eiijah Ward, of New York. "Report of the Minister of Finance, A. T. Gait, of Canada, upon the ' Report of the Committee on Commerce of the House of Rep- resentatives of the United States.' A reply to the preceding Report." March, 1862. " House Executive Documents," 1863-64; Vol. 9, No. 32. Letter from Secretary of Treasury on treaty, with many statistical tables. "Reports of Committees" (House) 1863-64; Vol. 1, No. 39. Report of committee on commerce upon the treaty, prepared by Elijah Ward of New York. "Proceedings of the Commercial Convention held in Detroit July 11-14, 1865." Published by order of the convention. Detroit, 1865. n Principal References, [486 W J/m V t" ?»'"'"«'"*'. financial and other subjects of Elijah Zhv«' If • ^?°i' ''^^= ''P""""y P^- ^^«7 and 88-99. Speeches delivered m the House of Representatives May 18 and 26, 1864 w .V* M ,*"^ '^® ^*'**®''- Recollections, 1851-1885. Sir E W Watkm, ' London. 1887. Chap. XVIII. pp. 374-430. "The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States." Yn'rk'^fj/ Lawrence Oliphant." Mrs. M. O. W. Oliphant, New York, 1891. two volumes. Vol. I, Chap IV, 106-132 J6 ih 3S I. le ^ PUBLICATIONS OK THU AMERICAN Economic Association Volume vii AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, 1892. • •(.I'YKKMIT, l.S!):.', IIY AMEKICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION. CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII. % l.-THESILVER SITUATION INTHEUNITEDSTATES: By Professor F. \V. Tai'ssig, LL. B., Ph. I). I. The P]conoinic situation 1-118 II. Tlio Argument for Silver 2 and 3. -ON THE SHIFTING AND INX'IDENCE OF TAXATION: By Professor EinviN R. A. Seligman, LL.B., Ph. I). 119-310 4 and 5.— SINKING FUNDS: By Professor Edward A. Ross, Pii. D 311-416 6.-THE RECIPROCITY TREATY WITH CANADA OF 1854: By Professor F. E. Haynes, Pii. D 417-486 IE AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, Organized at Saratoga, September gtb, 1885, OFFICERS. President : Francis A. Walkeh, LL. D. Vice-Presidents : Charles F. Dunbar, A. B. Willi* M \V. Folwell, LL. D. Carroll D. Wright, A. M. Secretary : Richard T. Ely, Ph. D., University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. Treasurer : Frederick B. Hawley, A. M., 141 Pearl Street, New York City. PUBLICATION OOMMITTBB. F. H. GiDDiNGs, A. M., Chairman. Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa. H. C. Adams, Ph. D. J. B. Clark, Ph. D. E. R. A. Seligman, Ph. D. F. W. Taussig, Ph. D. Resolution of the Council. — All monographs or other scientific publica- tions bhall bear the names of the Committee on Publication. All communications of an editorial nature should be addressed to Prof. F. H. GiDDiNGS, Bryn Mawr, Pa. Orders for monographs and all communications of a business nature should be addressed to the Publication Agent, America" Economic Association, Baltimore, Md. EXTRACT FROM THE CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE IV.— Membership. Any person may become a member of this Association by paying three dollars, and after the first year may continue a member by paying an annual fee of three dollars. On payment of fifty dollars any person may become a life-member, extrnpt from annual dues. Note. — Each member shall be entitled to receive all reports and publi- cations of the Association. ERRATA. Nos. 2 and 3 On the Shifting and Incidence of Taxation. Page 18, Line 1. Erase part. <( ie^. EDMUND J. JAMES, Ph.D., Editor. This series consists of a number of valuable monographs representing the fruit of the most recent research upon the subjects of which they treat. Up to the present time, eleven numbers have appeared. VOIiUMI! I No. 1. — Wharton School Annals of Political Science. (Out of print.) No. 2. — Anti-Rent Agitation. Prof. E. P. Cheynky. Price, 50 cents. No. 3. — Ground Rents in Philadelphia. Boies Penrose, of the Philadel- phia Bar. Price, 25 cents. No. 4.— Consumption of Wealth. Prof. S. N. Patten. Price, 50 cents. No. 5. — Prison Statistics. Dr. Roland P. Falkner, Price, 25 cents. No. 6. — Rational Principles of Taxation. Prof. S. N. Patten. Price, 50 cents. No. 7. — Federal Constitution of Germany, with Historical Introduction. Prof. E. J. .Tames. Price, 50 cents. No. 8. — Federal Constitution of Switzerland. Translated by Prof. E. J. James. Price, 50 cents. Price of Nos. 2 to 8 in one order $2.40. VOLUME II. Our Sheep and the Tariff. William Draper Lewis, Ph.D., late Fellow in Wharton School of Finance and Economy. Price, cloth, $2.00. VOLUMI3 III. The first two numbers of the tbinl volume are announced for early publication. No. 1. — German Bundesrath. A study in comparative constitutional law. James Harvey Robinson. Price, 75 cents. This Institution is the very centre and core of the existing form of Rovemraent in Germany, and deserves to bo much better known bj students of constitutional gov- ernment. No. 2. — The Theory of Dynamic Economics. Prof. Simon N. Patten. Price, $1.00. A review and criticism of the new political economy from the standpoint of con- sumption. Price of Nos. 2 to 11 in one order $4.50. PDBLlCiTIOHS OF THE UNITERSITY OF FEllllSTLYAHIIl. Wharton School Studies in Politics and Economics. This series will consist of monographs by the students of the Wharton School of Finance and Economy. NUMBBB I The Recent Development of American Industries. By The Class of '91. Price, 50 cents; cloth, $1.00. All persons interested in the study of Economic, Political and Social Questions, whether in College, the Law, the Church or Business, should subscribe for the Annals of the American Academy OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. This Journal is now universally recognized as one of the foremost in its field and as an invaluable aid to every person interested in the great questions of the day. The following are a few of the subjects which have been treated of in recent numbers of the AnnA1,s : " Ethical Training in the Public Schools ;" "Ethics <.f the Declaration of Inde- pendence ; " " Municipal Government ; " " The Party System ; " ' 'The Australian System of Voting;" "Public Regulation of Industries;" " Socialism ; " " The Land System ; " " International Arbitration ; " "The Condition of the Russian Peasantry ; " " Prohibition ; " " Com- pulsory Voting ; " " The Referendum ; " " Wage Theories ; " " Soci- ology ; " "Congress and the Cabinet ; " " River and Harbor Legisla- tion ; " "Political Economy in Italy and in Austria ; " "Value;" "Interest ; " " Wealth ; " " Conception of Sovereignty ; " " Natural Law." etc., etc. These papers were contributed by leading writers of the United States and Europe. In July, 1892, the current number. Vol. Ill, No. i, appeared. It con- tains the following articles : Cabinet Government in the United States. Professor Freeman Snow, of Harvard University. Geometrical Theory of the Determination oe Prices. Professor L^on Walras, of the University of Lausanne, Switz- erland. ScHOOi, Savings Banks. Mrs. S. L. Oberholtzer, Superintendent of School Savings Bank Department of W. C. T. U. Theory op Dynamic Economics, Professor J. B. Clark, of Smith College. The Rates Question in Recent Railroad Literature. Professor S. Sterwood, of Johns Hopkins University. Basis oe Interest. Hon. B. F. Hughes. Book Reviews ; Personal Notes ; Miscellany. PRICE. $6.00 PER YEAR. The Annals is sent free to all members of the Academy. An invitation is extended to those who wish to keep abreast with the advance work which is being carried on along the lines of Political and Social Science, to enter into correspondence with the American Academy of Political and Social Science, for the purpose of investigating its aims and methods, or to apply to the Council for election to membership. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, STATION B, PHILADELPHIA, PA. Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, . . EDITED BY THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OK POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE. It con- The monographs are chosen mainlj' from among the doctors' dissertions in Political Science, but are not necessarily confined to these. Only those studies are included which form a distinct contribution to science and which are positive works of original research. The monographs are published at irregular intervals, but are paged consecutively as well as separately, so as to form completed volumes. VOLUME I. 1. The Divorce Problem— A Study in Statistics. By Walter F. WitLCOX, Ph. D. Price, 50 cents. 2. The History of Tariff Administrative in the United States, from Colonial Times to the McKinley Administration Bill. By John Dean Goss, Ph. I). Price, 5o cents. 3. History of Municipal I^and Ownership on Manhattan Island. By GEORGE AsHTON Black, Ph. D. Price, 50 cents. 4. Financial History of Massachusetts. By Charles H. j. Douglas. Price, |i.oo. VOLUME 1. Complete. Price, I2.00. VOLUME II. I. The Economics of the Russian Villag^e. (Ready in November, 1892.) By I. ly. HouRWiCH. For further particulars apply to Prof. Edwin R. A. Seligman, Columbia College, New York. THE NEW WORLD. A QUARTERLY REVIEW OF RELIGION, ETHICS AND THEOLOGY. March, June, September, December. I Each number will contain 200 pages, three-fourths of which will be devoted to articles of solid worth, and the remainder to careful reviews of important new books in the field which the periodical is to cultivate, and a survey of valuable and pertinent articles in other Reviews. The New World will be under the charge of an Editorial Board, consisting of Professors Charles Carroll Everett and Crawford Howell Toy of Harvard University, President Orello Cone of Buchtel College, and Rev. Nicholas Paine Oilman (the managing editor, to be addressed at No. 25 Beacon St., Boston). It will discuss the great problems of Religion, Ethics and Theo- logy in a liberal and progressive spirit. The cooperation has been secured of numerous eminent students of theology, and exponents of religion, at home and abroad; and the new quarterly will be open to able and ronstructive thinkers, with- out regard to sectarian lines. Th- v World which its editors have in mind is that which is dc . sloping under the light of modern science, philosophy, criticism and philanthropy, — all of which, rightly viewed, are the friends and helpers of enduring religious faith. To positive and constructive statements of such an order of things, as distinguished from the old world of sec- tarianism, obscurantism and dogmatism, The New World is pledged. The June issue of The New World will contain contribu- tions from E. B. Andrews, C A. Briggs, Mrs. Humphry Ward, Francis Tiffany, S. D. McConnell, Josiah Royce, Minot J. Savage, W. D. Whitney, T. K. Cheyne and other noted writers. In additions to the writers in the March and June numbers, the Editors of The New "'''^orld have reason to expect early contributions from James Martineau, C R. Lanman, James Bryce, C. P. Tiele, A. V. G. Allen, John W. Chadwick, R. Heber Newton, E. C. Smyth, ^-ancis E. Abbot, J. P. Peters, E. E. Hale, O. Pfleiclerer, Albert Reville and others. Single Numbers, 75 cents. Yearly »Subscription, 53.00. BOSTON AND NEW YORK. HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO., Publishers. ). 50L0GY. f which inder to tiich the lertinent editorial rett and ,t Orello nan (the Boston), id Theo- tion has 3gy, and the new :rs, with- ts editors light of y%— all of enduring s of such d of sec- VORLD is contribu- ry Ward, Minot J. writers, numbers, )ect early n, James Iwick, R. Peters, J3.00. JHERS. Papers of the Anjerican Historical Association. Five volumes of the Proceedings of the American Historical Associa- tion, indexed and handsomely bound in dark blue cloth, with gilt top, have been published. These volumes will be sent post paid, at 15 each, to subscribers. Members of the Association, on payment of seventy-flve cents will re- ceive post paid any one of these bound volumes in exchange for unbound numbers with title page and index, if returned prepaid in good condition for binding. Volume I. contains the re|)ort of the organization and proceedings of the Association at Saratoga in 1884, and also the proceedings for 1885, with special papers by Andrew D. White, on "Studies in General History and the History of Civilization;" by Dr. George W. Knight, on "The History and Management of Federal Land Grants for Education in the Northwest Territory;" "The Louisiana Purchase in its Influence upon the American System," by Rt. Kev. C. F. Robertson, Bishop of Misiimri; and a "His- tory of the Appointing Power of the President," by I'rofessor Lucy M. Salmon, of Vassar College. Volume IL contains the report of the proceedings in Washington in 1886, with special papers on "The Hipt-^-^, of the Doctrine of Comets," by Andrew D. White; "Willem Usselin^, Founder of the intchand Swedish West India Companies," by Dr. J. F. Jameson; "Churcii and State in the I'nited States," by Dr. Philip Schaff. Volume III. contains reports of the proceedings in Boston and Cam- bridge in 1887, and in Washington in 1888. Most of the papers read at these two conventions are here printed in full. Volume IV. contains a report of the proceedings at the Washington meeting in 1889. With this volume began the system of publication in quarterly parts, embracing groups of papers and important single mono- graphs like that of Dr. G. Brown Goode, on "The Origin of the National Scientific and Educational Institutions of the United States." Volume V. is now complete, and is the last of the series published by G. P. Putnam's Son's. .Future reports will be issued from the Smithsonian Institution. Since the incorporation of the American Historical Association by Cor . gress in 1889, tbe society has been associated with the Smithsonian Insti- tution and through Secretary Langley reports annually to Congress. The report for the year 1889 contains a general account of the proceedings in Washington that year, the inaugural address of President C. K. Adams, a paper on "The Spirit of Historical Research," by James Schouler, and a reprint of Dr. Goode's paper on "The Origin of the National Scientific and Educational Institutions of the United States," together with Mr. P. L. Ford's Bibliography of the published works of members of the American Historical Association. The report for 1890 contains an account of the proceedings in Washington for that year, abstracts of all the papers read, John Jay's inaugural address on "The Demand for Education in American History," a supplementary bibliography of the published works of mem- bers, and the first part of a bibliography of the publications of State His- torical Societies in tliis country. These reports are issued free to members of the Association, and can be obtained by others through Members of Congress, or on payment of one dollar per volume. Address all orders and payments to A. Howard Clark, Curator of His- torical Collections, U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. /^uggejiheimer, ff/'eil&_ (Jo_ ^^RE pleased to announce to tlu readers of this volume their readi ness to serve them iii any ivay, fivm the production of a Visiting Card tc a printed volume, of zuhich this it a specimen. QUR JJE EPARTMENTS: pRlNl ING. L ^ '^HOGRAPHIC. JOB PRINTING. BOOK PRINTING. CATALOGUE PRINTING LABEL PRINTING. RAILROAD PRINTING. SHOW CARDS. TOBACCO, CAN-GOOD\ and other LABELS. ADVERTISING CARD.' BONDS, CHECKS, Etc. JjOOK j^INDING. BLANK BOOKS. MISCELLANEOUS BINDING. QARD J^NGRAVING. WEDDING. RECEPTION. VISITING. DETAIL DEPARTAiENT: J^JECHANICAL DEPARTMENT. log East Baltimore Street, Cor, Lombard and Liberty Sl