IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) T / o {•/ Qx. V '^ / / o 7 /A /A Photographic Sciences CoqxFcition 73 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY 14580 (7t6) S73-4503 «' ^ iV \ '% ""^4%'' ^ T ^■OE^BB ¥ Mp< w- &?/ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut canadien de microreprcductions 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 checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de c^t exemplaire qui sont peut-Stre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous J Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur n Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde n Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es D Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e D Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul^es □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque n Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolor^es, tachet6es ou piqu^es Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ ere de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) n Pages detached/ Pages d^tachees Showth'ough/ Transparence □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur n Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale do I'impression n Bound with other material/ Rolid avec d'autres documents D Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire D D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ^t6 film^es. Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par im feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. ont 6t6 filmies A nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; y This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd an taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X MX y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canaoa L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g^n^rosit^ de: Bibliothdque nationals 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. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on tkie last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant par le premier pla* et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'imptession ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illuittration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END 'j, whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaTtra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to he 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 cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent etre film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 12 3 4 5 6 l.-^ MR. A DELIVERED AT THEIR ANNUAL MEETING IN TORONTO, APRIL 29, 1896. ALSO ^ NATIONAL POLICY AND PREFERENTIAL TRADE RESOLUTION'S ADOPTED AT THAT MEETING. TORONTO: Can A DI AN M AN UFACTUItEIt Pu BU8IIIN^5a^!Im ADDRESS OF JWFt. J\. E. ICEA^P PRESIDENT OF THE CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION DELIVERED AT THEIR ANNUAL TVIEEXING HELD IN Toronto, April 29, 1896. } President Kemp made the following address : — Gentlemen oj the Canadian Manufacturers' Association : — It affords me great pleasure to meet so many members of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, on this our twenty- first anniversary. Your presence here indicates the contin- ued interest in the objects and welfare of the Association. The inception of this Association dates back as far as 1874, when a number of manufacturers, without regard for party distinction, gathered for the purpose of consulting with each other on the question of tariff protection, to save Can- adian industries from unfair foreign competition. The out- come of their deliberations, after full discussion, was the —4 conclusion that the success of their respective enterprises de- pended upon the adoption by the Government of a sound tariff system, and what we now know as the National Policy, was the result, in no small degree, of the stand then taken by these men. The Association was first known as the Ontario Industrial Association, and, as the name would indicate, its influence was confined chiefly to this province. . When the Government adopted the system of tariff protec- tion, the Ontario Industrial Association widened its field of action by becoming more national in its objects and became the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, whose members to-c.ay, may be found in all the Provinces of the Dominion, and whose influence has contributed largely in moulding and educating public opinion to the principles of tariff protec- tion. The objects of this Aosociation are : — To secure by all legitimate mentis the aid of both public opinion and governmental policy in favor of the development of home industry, and the promotion of Canadian manufac- turing enterprise. To enable those in all branches of manufacturing enterprise to act in concert as a united body, whenever action in behalf of any particular industry or of the whole body, is necessary. To maintain Canada for Canadians. We are ail convinced of the great advantages of organiza- tion. Manufacturers found it necessary to organize before tne National Policy became a fact. They found it necessary to continue that organization to maintain the policy for which their organization was first sought, and to-day more than at any other time we should be on our guard, ever watchful of the enemies of this cause, lest through party strife and the introduction of less important questions, those who opposed the National Policy at the outs tart, and who have opposed —6— I it ever since, some of whom are still influential in Canadian politics, become the instruments whereby the present tariff system which is so admittedly favorable to Canadian indus- try, shall be abandoned. I make this assertion advisedly and on the strength of statements made by the enemies of protection on the hustings, in parliament, and through many other mediums, all voicing sentiments hostile to manufactur- ing industries in this country. American manufacturers have realized the importance of organizing, and a little more than a year ago there came into existence in the United States, the National Association of Manufacturers ; the first conven- tion of which was held in Chicago in January last, and it is probably the strongest and most influential Association of manufacturers which ever existed on this continent. Mr. Thomas McDougall, of Cincinnati, a member of that Associa- tion, made this statement when refeiring to the recent tarifi adjustments of the Cleveland administration : — Tt is because the manufacturers of this country were not so organized, did not make themselves so felt, when that crusade was being carried on against their interests, that we stand where we do to-day, with hundreds of millions of bal- ance against us in Europe, on things which we ought to make but which they make for us, and we pay with our gold. What need more be said after the great object lesson which we have had in the experience through which we have gone in 1893, 1894 and 1895. We can profit by the experience of others. This Associa- tion which has done such good work in the past, may be on the eve of a period of greater activity and importance in in- fluencing public opinion to the great truths of protection, especially in these days of industrial strife, labor-saving machinery, improved methods of manufacturing, cheap foreign labor and capital, bankrupt stocks, over-production, panics, — 6— etc. At no time in the past has production in other countries been so great ; and at no time were other nations as active in seeking out new markets in order to relieve the pressure felt in their own, and at no time has transportation, either by sea or by land, been so cheap. We have men of respectability and influence in public life in Canada who never tire of propounding theories on these questions, whose practical busi- ness experience is limited, and whose ideas have become crystalized through research in reference to the questions in other countries, whose conditions are altogether different from ours. There have been indications since the National Policy was inaugurated, that nearly all politicians were inclined to recognise the importance and necessity of a well- defined, moderate tariff protection policy for the welfare of the country. Peculiarly situated as we are, adjacent to the industrial centres of the United States, which country maintains a high wall against our manufactured products, over which only by the merest accident can we get access to their markets for any commodity whatever. The membership of this Association is composed of men of both political parties, who in their respective provinces in provincial elections often vote in a way which might be con- sidered directly opposite to the way they vote in federal politics, yet in federal elections cast their vote in favor of the party who maintain the principles of the National Policy. Therefore this Association has never specially interested itself in the legislation which usually occupies the attention of our local assemblies. The policies which we most frequently hear discussed in regard to our fiscal question, are free trade ; free trade as they have it in England ; tariff for revenue only ; unrestricted 1 -7- reciprocity; commercial union; the National Policy of a protective tariff. The term '* free trade as they have it in England " was invented not only to catch the unwary voter who takes but a superficial view of the question, but also to appeal to the loyalty of British subjects and to suggest England's commer- cial supremacy. England is a free trade country, and the suggestions to do awav with all "vexatious tariffs," and to have " freedom of trade," are mere catch phrases, but let us see how such conditions would effect us, England has a tariff for revenue only. She raises her revenue chiefly by direct taxation, inland revenue, death duties, stamps' taxa- tion, income taxes, and duties on tobacco, tea, coffee, cocoa, etc. She taxes vinegar makers, medicine vendors, keepers of refreshment houses, every person carrying a gun, male ser- vants, carriages, makers and dealers in sweets, etc. The income of men of all classes is reduced by this free trade tax by the enormous sum of $75,000,000 annually. The free trade tax gatherer haunts every tea table, every candy store, dog kennel, gun rack, servants' hall, hawkster's cottage, farm house, drug store, restaurant keeper, trader's desk and every bank office. A British citizen is not free to go in or about one of these places on his daily business without being tapped on the shoulder by an income tax gatherer ; and yet by the Enemies of protection " free trade as it is in England " is put forth to captivate our people. It is a system which keeps a spy on every business action. The phrase "free trade as it is in England " is a fraud, a delusion and a snare in so far as it may be applied to this country. Unrestricted Reciprocity, or commercial union, is an old and exploded theory which was revived during the last session on the floor of the House of Commons. It is highly impracti- -us- eable as has often been shown. Annexation is on the face of it. It means nothing less than adopting Ihe tariff of the United States, with such amendments as may be made from time to time, against the rest of the world. It means dis- crimination against Great Britain which alone is sufficient to render it an improper subject for discussion, and of which e Hon. Edward Blake said, — " Unrestricted Reciprocity, with- out an agreed assimilation of duties, is an unsubstantial dream." But leaving this feature out of the question for argu- ment's sake, do men look so lightly upon the question as to think of the very serious matter involved of adjusting our- selves to the industrial and commercial conditions of the United States, and of changing our channels of commerce en- tirely to fit into those of another country, only to be subject possibly to a greater and more serious change after a few years when the Government of that country may give notice to Can- ada that they desired to cancel such an arrangement. It was hoped that we had long ago heard the last of this scheme, but we find it brought to the front again in the House of Com- mons on January 28th last, when Sir Richard Cartwright re- affirmed his conviction that in this policy of continential free trade, or unrestricted reciprocity, the people of Canada looked for relief from the existing system of protection. Any Cana- dian to properly advocate this cause must be endowed with a pessimism and lack of faith in his country which should not be cultivated by the manhood of a young and vigorous nation. The idea that we have no future before us, only in so far as we become absorbed in American institutions, is repulsive to every right-thinking Canadian. In discussing the history of the National Policy, we natur- ally revert to the condition of things which existed immed- iately after the United States, in 1866, cancelled the reciproc- — 9— ity treaty of 1854. We go back to Confederation, and to the reciprocity treaty which we tried in vain to make with the United States in 1874. We accept Confederation as it has been handed down to us by wise statesmen, and we mean to continue it. I have no sympathy with, or tolerance of those who imagine they are doing either their party or their country a service, when they undermine Confederation by talking about the secession of any province. In adjusting the tariff question, a spirit of give and take must predominate. One province has to give way sometimes to meet the peculiar conditions of another province. It is the work of a demagogue to advocate in one province a tariff policy regarding that province, which he would not freely discuss in a sister pro- vince. • We recall the conditions that prevailed during the civil war in the United States, when our manufacturers were not troubled with American competition because of the industrial disarrangement which obtained there. We also remember that when, after the close of that war, that country gradually settled down to legitimate pursuits, and her workmen had returned from the army to the workshop and to the factory she gradually regained what she had lost and progressed so remarkably in manufacturing that our own manufacturers were forced to cry for a policy of protection which would shield them from United States competition and secure to them their own home market, while they had no chance of gaining that of the United States against a virtually prohibi- tive tariff. The petitions of our farmers, our artisans and our manufac turers were not heeded in Ottawa in the years from 1874 to 1878 when Sir Richard Cartwright was Finance Minister To show what a state of things then existed I need only refer —10— to what the Hon, Thomas Workman, the Liberal member for Montreal West, said in Feb. 1876 in the House of Commons : I have just come to this House from the counting house, from the bankers, the merchants and the manufacturers, therefore I know how very great the depression is in these three most important branches of the industry of the Domin- ion. For the last eighteen months there has been a gradual shrinking of values and curtailment of trade, until we have now arrived at a condition which in forty years' commercial experience I have never seen equalled. I know this^ that the manufacturers of the country are in a very depressed state, that this depression has been gradually going on and increas- ing until at present nearly one-half of the manufacturing establishments in and around the city of Montreal from which I come, are closed up, and the other half are working on one- half or perhaps two-thirds time. Any number of hands have been discharged and are idle to-day, while those who are em- ployed are only earning wages from seventy-five to eighty per cent, of what they earned before'. \ vast amount of misery and distress prevails around Montreal in consequence. These words will bear all the more weight when we remem- ber that Mr. Workman's own party was then in power ; that he was a man of business and connected with one of the larg- est wholesale concerns in the country, and also connected with financial institutions of importance. In the same year we find these words from Sir John A. Macdonald, addressed to the then Premier, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, in the House of Commons : — My hon, friend must have felt in his heart that he might have expected the strong support of this side to any reason- able proposition that could have been made for an incidental tariff to protect our manufactures, and give them some aid, some alleviation, comfort and assistance in this time of distress. In the session of 1877 the growing discontent had culmin- ated in -•* great dividing question between the two parties, and —11— in March, 1878, Sir Jolin A. Macdonald moved thi8 resolution in the House of Commons : — That this House is of the opinion that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a National policy which, by the judicious readjustment of the tariff, will benefit and foster the agricultural, the mining, the manufacturing and other inter- ests of the Dominion ; that such a policy will retain in Can- ada thousands of our fellow countrymen now obliged to expatriate themselves in search of the employment denied them at home ; will restore prosperity to our struggling indus- tries now so sadly depressed ; will prevent Canada from being made a sacrifice market ; will encourage and develop an active interprovincial trade ; and move, as it ought to do, in the direction of a reciprocity of tariffs with our neighbors, and will, so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, gradually tend to procure for this country eventually a reci- procity of trade." This motion was defeated, as were many more on a like sub- ject. Elections were held in Sept., 1878, and the National Policy party whose rallying cry was " National Policy and reciprocity of tariffs," was returned to power with a majority of sixty-eight, and the National Policy was put into effect in 1879. From 1879 to 1887 no hint was ever made by its opponents that they had any faith in it, but in 1887 the Hon. Edward Blake, then leader of the Liberal party, made the following statement : — No man, I care not how convinced an advocate of free trade for Canada he may be, has yet suggested — no man I believe, can suggest — • a practical plan whereby our great revenue needs can be met, otherwise than by the continued imposition of very high duties on goods similar to those we make or can make within our bounds, or on the raw mater- ials. I invite the most ardent free trader in public life to present a plausible solution of this problem, and 1 contend that he is bound to do so before he talks of free trade a» practicable in Canada. I have not believed it soluble in —12- my day, and any chance of its solubility, if chance there were, has been destroyed by the vast increase of our yearly charges and by the other conditions which have been created. The thing is removed from the domain of practi- cal politics. ^ Mr. Blake had evidently become convinced that free trade as it was then preached, and as it is still preached, was a myth ; and that a tariff protection on " goods similar to those we make or can make within our bounds," was the proper policy for this country. I have no hesitation in saying that party politics makes a football of the interests of this country. A large majority of the people of Canada are vitally interested in the maintenance of the principle of protection, yet never was a question of so much importance so dragged through the mire of party strife, and never was a question that means so much to so many, kicked about so persistently to gain party advantage. It is not practicable for this country to adopt a Revenue tariflf, or free trade, without depopulating the country, so long as the United States maintains a high tariff against us. Our home market is necessarily contracted, and we cannot afford to share it with nations whose tariffs make it impossible for our manu- facturers to gain an entrance therein. If we arrange our tariff the way the opponents of the National Policy say it should be arranged, we invite the manufacturers of every nation to freely enter our market, while we cannot possibly reach theirs. We replace the products which we ourselves can make with those made by over-producing countries. We throw our work-people out of employment. We invite misery and distress. We vacate houses, reduce real estate values, contract the market for agricultural products and furnish extra work only to assignees. Under su«h a condition, there ^ -13— would be such an exodus of population to the United States, as has never yet been witnessed. At our annual meeting, two years ago, a past President of this Association, Mr. Edward Gurney, made the statement that he regarded men who advo- cated such policies as being as dangerous as anarchists, meaning no doubt trade anarchists, who would, if allowed, undermine our commercial fabric. While it has been the policy of a certain class to designate manufacturers as monopolists, and give them many other similar titles, there is no occupation where intelligence, stability of purpose and perseverance are more necessary to success, than in the manufacturing business in Canada. Many a tale of disappointment and defeat in struggling to launch new enterprises on a successful career, could be told by some present. We know how near to each other the paths of success and failure often approach ; how in these days of commercial rivalry every effort has to be put forth to stem the tide, and we can truthfully say there is for us no royal road to fortune. We can heartily endorse the words of Mr. Hague, the veteran banker, who in one of his annual ad- dresses said : — "Experience is showing that it is more and more difficult to carry on business successfuly. There was a time when almost anybody could make money, either out of farm- ing or any other pursuit; in these days it is impossible to suc- ceed without a practical knowledge of business, close applica- tion} the adoption of new methods and appliances, and the exercise of sound judgment and self-restraint in giving credit." Men who say that manufacturing enterprises in this country are removed from the region of competition and conflict, have moved in a very narrow circle. They have either intention- ally blinded themselves to their surroundings or they are in- —14— sincere. Manufacturers not only have competition amongst themselves, but they have worse. Their greatest enemies are those who at some time in the past have held this market ; have enjoyed all the benefits of selling to us without assisting in developing our country ; have enjoyed the privilege of sup. plying merchandise, the labor on which was expended by other than Canadians. It is the competition of these wealthy long-established foreign concerns, who have time and again tried to destroy our new industries, for there is no competition a foreigner fights so hard and so persistently as the local manu- facturer. A result of the National Policy is that manufactured goods, as a general thing, are as cheap in Canada as in the United States, and yet it is considered the duty of opponents of that policy to canvass the country far and wide in search of some article which may possibly be dearer, and if such be found to raise a shout of exultation, and declare that in their opinion everything should be cheaper in a young country than else- where; that under free trade everything would be cheap. Yes> indeed, under free trade everything would be cheap and every one would feel cheap. "Cheap" is not a word of hope or of com- fort, or of cheer. It is the badge of poverty, and the signal of distress. Nothing can be cheap which would enforce idleness upon our people, or drive ohem to seek homes in another country. The opponents of protection have borrowed from England the cry of " reducing the cost of living," which chiefly refers there to the cost of food products. It is a safe assertion to make that in no city on this continent of the same size, can a man with a family live as economically as in Toronto. In no ple-^** on this continent can the necessities of life be pur- chase ^ better advantage to the consumer. Our tarift' protects Canadian industries wliile it does not -15 destroy foreign competition. It erects factories, mills, fur- naces and machine shops. It provides a home market for farm produce. It brings the market to the farmers' door, and gives value to many things he produces, which under other circumstances would be of little value to him ; products which it would not pay to ship to distant markets. It gives employment to our urban population, and to those who through choice flock to centres of population in order to earn a living. It affords subsistence to the poor. It gives protection to the farmer against cheap farm products from the United States, and it renders us more independent of the commercial disasters of other countries If the principle of protection, as it applies to beef, were abandoned, and the duty on that article removed, it would enable the mammoth dressed beef establishments of Chicago to capture our market, and enable concerns with immense capital to start branches in every town and city in Canada, besides our now fairly prosperous butchers. It would force the small butcher out of business and give us beef raised on ranches in the United States, instead of that raised by our own farmers. There are several extensive dead meat concerns in Chicago, which would participate in this trade, one of which kills over two million cattle annually, the total value of their sales in cattle, hogs and sheep, amounting to $100,000,- 000 annually; they liaving in use 3,000 refrigerator cars and own 200 branch establishments. These great concerns have pushed their business to such an extent that they control the meat markets of New England and other Eastern States. The effect they have had on the cattle industries in these States may be illustrated by a reply received from the commercial editor of the American Agri- culturist published in New York City, in answer to an enquiry on the subject : — -16— You ask what effect the business has upon the meat markets in New England and other Eastern States. If by this you mean the effect of the dressed beef business on small butchers throughout the east, it can be answered that in a general way it has very largely destroyed the business of the latter. The big dressed beef concerns of Chicago have estab- lished branches in every city and town of considerable size throughout the east, ship their meats to these depots in their own refrigerator cars, and through their own agents, and sell all their meats direct to retail marketmen. Through the utilization of every part of the animal at the big packing centres, the dressed beef concerns are enabled to sell the sides of meat at such low prices as to practically crowd out the small butcher, who in former times would buy live cattle in his own neighborhood and prepare them for market at his own slaughter house. What has been accomplished in the New England and other Eastern States by these big western dressed beef con- cerns would undoubtedly be accomplished in this country but for the protection afforded our farmers, and what applies to the beef industry applies with equal force to other farm pro- ducts which are wisely guarded by a protective tariff. The duty on wheat and other grain has proved of great benefit to our farmers, as well as the duty on live animals, hogs, etc., yet we are constantly told that this protective principle must be abandoned. It is a settled fact that we must raise a revenue, and there are but two ways by which our politicians propose to do this. One school proposes to select from a group of imported articles those which are necessary to the wants of our people and for which we must rely upon foreign countries for our supplies, and to put upon them a tax or duty, but allow the articles which come to us from abroad, in competi- tion with those which we make or can make, to come in free of duty, or subject to a revenue tariff which is practically the -17- same. This is the revenue tariff policy. The other school proposes that the articles which we cannot produce, and which we must import, except luxuries, shall be free of duty, while those articles which come in competition with home produce shall pay the duty. Our contention is that the tariff should be levied on competing and not on non-competing products. Put the duty on the products made by the foreign competitor, and charge him for the privilege of doing business in our market. Home competition together with foreign competition will regulate the price to the consumer. In the face of all the evidences of the benefits of the National Policy to both the agricultural and mechanical classes in this country, we find that on every conceivable occa- sion a class of politicians who never tire in their condemnation of protection, and desire to see it destroyed, have for years bent all their energies in this direction. I have no fear of such a result coming from an honest, intelligent enquiry into the question, but we must look with apprehension upon the influences exercised by those who have never taken the pains to enquire into what has been actually going on around them within the last fifteen years. Mr. Snyder, of Waterloo, a Liberal, claims to be a protec- tionist and in favor of the National Policy, but can he subscribe to all the planks of his party's platform, as adopted at the Liberal convention in Ottawa in June, 1893, and to which we are referred by such gentlemen as Mr. Patterson of Brantford. Here are a few extracts from this platform: — The customs tariff of the Dominion should be based, not as it is now upon the protective principle, but upon the require- ments of the public service. It has decreased the value of farm and other landed pro- perty ; oppressed the masses to the enrichment of the few; -18— checked emigration ; caused great loss of population ; impeded commerce, and discriminated against Britain. In this and in many other ways it has occasioned great public and private injury, all of which evils must continue to grow in intensity as long as the present tariff system remains in force. The issue between the two political parties on this ques tion is now clearly defined. It is a fortunate thing for Canada that we have an elector- ate who are capable of exercising their franchise intelligently on this important question. It is our duty by every legiti- mate means to show the benefits of protection to this country, to place before the people correct facts and figures, and if we are true to our cause there need be no fear. But if business men fold their arms and leave this question entirely to the dis- cussion of partizans, to be debated but too largely from the standpoint of exploded theories, and having in view circum- stances which existed when some of us were children, we should not expect to keep our cause in that prominent place that its importance demands. I have referred to the great advantage of protection to the farmer in creating a home market for his products, and shield- ing him from foreign competition I will refer to the benefit the National Policy has been to the country at large in en- couraging and sustaining in our own midst various industrial enterprises, and providing diversity of employment to our working classes, which cannot but be a great advantage to any country. One of the most recent illustrations of the benefit of the National Policy is in the establishment in this country of bicycle factories. Without a protective tariff on bicycles it is doubtful if the industry would ever have gained a solid foot- hold here. Manufacturers in the United States who had —19— formerly exported bicycles into Canada, have been induced to establish factories here. The theory that manufactured goods cost the consumer more in this country on account of the tariff, or that an equivalent of the duty levied on the foreign article v/ent into the pockets of Canadian manufacturers when the article is produced here, is exploded. With regard to bicycles, the consumer not only benefits by having 'them manufactured in our midst, but the industry is of untold benefit to our work- people. Hundreds of hands are obtaining regular employment in these bicycle works who would otherwise be idle or forced to leave the country. Within the past year, in Toronto alone, no less than four large bicycle factories have been erected, and in many other places throughout the country this industry has developed with equal vigor. Of the several bicycle works that have been established in this country by Americans, perhaps one of the most important is that referred to in The Toronto Globe a few days ago, that of Messrs. H.A.Lozier&Co., who come amongst us from Toledo, Ohio. The Globe's article states that in this establishment are employed four hundred hands, and that the plant and machinery cost more than $200,000. I am informed from another source, that these very Americans whom .we so gladly welcome, have been more Canadian than many Canadians. In supplying themselves with machinery they kept several of our machinery manufacturers employed almost exclusively upon their work for quite a term. As they were to sell their product to Canadians, they adopted the principle of having every machine possible for their use, of Canadian make. Machine shops which were not in a position to supply, and had never before made such machines as were required, were supplied with all necessary drawings. Messrs. Lozier evidently adopted the true American principle in estab- lishing their factory in Canada. J was glad to learn by the -20- article in The Globe, that the representative of that journal saw with his own eyes that a bicycle was actually macJe in the factory referred to, from "start to finish," a fact of which the same paper was very skeptical about a year ago. The estab- lishment of this factory, like that of all others in our midst, has been, and is, a great boon to the community, and I direct those who may desire to form an unprejudiced opinion on the workings of the National Policy, to visit the homes of the men to whom have been given steady employment in these factories and enquire of them if they desire such legislation as will in effect close them up and transfer the business elsewhere. The bicycle industry is only one of the recent developments under our National Policy ; there are many others which have come into existence within the last year or two, to which I am unable just now to refer ; but we are told thafc the legislation which brings about these results must be abandoned, that this is a policy wrong in principle, which does harm to Canada ; which causes great loss of population, which checks emigration, and which impedes commerce. It cannot be demonstrated that the Canadian consumer pays more for manufactured goods, to the extent of the duty imposed^ than the consumer in countries where like conditions prevail. Labored arguments have been advanced to prove that the manu. facturer has profited to the disadvantage of the consumer, but this is not true. Since the National Policy was inaugurated, the profit on merchandise which could be imported, but which has been produced here, is represented in the labor bestowed upon such product, and in the various returns of our great financial institutions and the many evidences of prosperity surrounding us. The savings of our people have greatly increased since 1878. The deposits in our chartered banks in 1878 were $70,856,253, and in January, 1896, they had increased to '\ —21- $190,493,856. The great increase in the amount of life in- surance in force is also an indication of thrift. In 1878 the the total amount of life insurance was $84,751,937, while in 1895 it had increased to the enormous sum of ^319,781,939. The capital invested in industrial establishments in 1881 was $164,957,423; in 1891, $354,620,750. The number of employees also increased proportionately, while the wages paid out nearly doubled, being in 1891 $100,663,650. The total value of out-put of our industrial establishments in 1891 was $476,258,886. There were then 776 establish- ments whose out-put was over $100,000 annually. Omitting establishments whose annual out-put was under $2,000, the out-put of all others was $444,003,694 in 1891, while by far the greatest increase between 1881 and 1891 was by estab- lishments whose out-put was valued at over $50,000 annually. Our foreign trade forms but a small proportion of our commerce. The best customers for both farmer and manufac- turer are the Canadian people themselves who consume by far the greater portion of all the country produces. Notwith- standing our great inter-provincial trade, and the large quan- tity of goods we manufacture, which replaces the foreign product, our imports have increased from $93,081,787 in 1878, to $123,474,940 in 1894, and our exports have increased from $79,323,667 to $117,524,949 in the same period. In making these comparisons we must not lose sight of the fact of the great depreciation in values of all commodities within the periods named, so that all these figures relating to 1894 would really be greatly increased, if values were equal to those in effect in 1878. A matter in this connection which will be of interest to us, is the fact that according to recent reports, our exports for the first quarter of this year, to Great Britain increased ninety per cent. —22— 1 1' I'll ^he tonnage of sea-going and inland vessels arriving at and departing from Canadian ports, exclusive of coasting vessels, has increased in round numbers from twelve millions of tons in 1878 to twenty millions of tons in 1894. But the greatest indication of the importance of our inter-provincial trade is found in the traffic of our railways. In 1878 our railways carried nearly eight million tons of freight and earned |20,- •^00,000. In 1894 the tonnage was three times greater and 'the earnings nearly $50,000,000, while the working expenses, number of passengers carried, and miles of roads in operation more than doubled in the same period. The increase in our postal facilities also emphasizes the im- portance of the increase in our commerce since 1878. In that year the letters and postal cards mailed were 50,445,000 pieces, while in 1894 the number had increased to 132,097,200 pieces. Fire insurance in force in 1878 was $409,899,701, and in 1894,1836,067/202. To the latter amount should be added the insurance carried by many large concerns in mutual com- panies which make no return to the Government. In 1881 we imported and manufactured $401,287,672 worth of merchandise, and in 1891 $589,544,010 worth, show- ing an increased consumption in 1891 over 1881 of $188,256,- 338. In 1891 our own manufactured products which we consumed exceeded our imports in the proportion of four to one. It will be seen by these figures whether the protective prin- ciple has occasioned great public and private injury, etc., all of which evils must continue to grow in intensity as long as the present tariff system remains in force. The policy which has brought about the beneficial results which I have indicat- ed, is to be changed, we are told, to free trade or a Revenue tariff or Commercial union as the case may be, but neither of —23— ' these policies can be brought about without great disaster to the country. In view of the eiforts constantly being made by the enemies of protection, can Canadian manufacturers be reproached for believing statements of policy, put forth on the hustings, in parliament, at conventions, all aimed to destroy it ? Are we to believe what we hear regarding the various policies which they declare to be best for this country, but which are directly opposed to that which we have been pursuing for years 1 I ask, have any of the men who have for years advo- cated these impractical policies indicated in any public way that they have changed their minds 1 Has not the effort by them been persistent and well directed to try to educate the people to believe that the manufacturers are the enemies of the country, and that they are leeches in the community ? Have not individual industries been attacked, and their affairs paraded before the public in a most unjustifiable man- ner, the object being to set one class of the community against the other for party purposes ? I regret that time will not permit me to refer in detail to instances of which I have knowledge, of this kind of treatment to which some of our industries have been subjected. During the past year, this Association, through the medium of a circular, made enquiry of manufacturers throughout the country asking their views on our present system of protec- tion, and also regarding a tariff for revenue only, or free trade, in substitution for the present arrangement. The cir- cular was promptly and intelligently responded to, and the information gained was of a character which showed that the manufacturers were practically a unit in their advocacy of the National Policy. If the information thus obtained could be so condensed as to be available for publication and distribu- «n —24— tion, I am sure it would convince the most ardent advocate of a revenue tariff or free trade, of the utter folly of adopting any such policies for this country. In almost every part of the Dominion it was found that industries have sprung up of which but little was known ; and the fact was developed that one industiy stimulates another ; and that the wants of one concern encourages others to make articles to supply them, thus creating a round of establishments, one dependent upon the other. The amount of merchandise we consume, according to the most reliable statistics obtainable, shows that our wants are continually increasing, and that the purchasing power of our people has increased. Manufactured goods are much cheaper than they were in 1878. Sugar is less than half the price. Cotton goods are 40 to 50 per cent. less. Woolen goods fully 40 per cent, less, and farm products are cheaper ; yet the farmer can to-day have many more of the necessities and luxuries of life, in exchange for what he produces, than he could in 1878. The standard of living has certainly been advanced under the National Policy. A good deal has been said about the United States being Canada's natural market, considering our geographical situa- tion, and what a great advantage it would be if we could obtain larger access to it. By all means let us do all within reason to secure as great advantages in that market as is possible, but if we are ever to have a limited reciprocity with the United States, politicians must cease expatiating upon the erroneous ideas that we cannot get along without a more ex- tended market in that country. Let them stop encouraging the United States Government to legislate against Canada, with a view to coercing us into abandoning our rights in our own market. The best results can never be gained by such i» —25— ' 1 tactics, and the sooner they are abandoned the better it will be for us. We should within reasonable bounds cultivate the market of the United States, but in doing this we should not forget the importance of the market of Great Britain for our food products, in respect of which we occupy a unique position, situated as we are in this favorable climate with but a short ocean voyage to separate us. The United States, like Canada, produces more food products than is required for home consump- tion. Great Britain, on the other hand, is yearly demanding increasing supplies, of just such products as we are most favorably situated to supply. We are able to supply to Great Britain the more refined products of the farm, those l^etter paying products, which, by Government aid, we should get well established in that market. We have been spoiled by depending too much on the American market. From time to time the American tariff has been adjusted so as to almost prohibit our exports of- products which they had formerly taken from us in large quantities. The reason their tariff has been adjusted so as to shut out our products, was that they were not in need of them, being able to get along with- out them, because they could produce them in their own country. Not so the case with Great Britain ; and were our products once well established in that market there is no reason to fear that they would adopt the same policy towards us as the United States has. The Australian colonies had no market like that of the United States for their farm products, yet what have they done 1 We find Australian butter in Eng- land in great quantities. This butter is made in a country subject to drouth and excessive heat, such as we know noth- ing of here. It is carried in cold storage to Great Britain, crossing the equator, on an ocean voyage of 12,000 miles. r —26— So aggressive have the Australians been in regard to this pro- duct, that many will be surprised to learn that the steamships which ply between Montreal and Liverpool, carrying Canadian passengers, use Australian butter purchased in Liverpool for the round trip, in preference to buying Canadian butter in Montreal. This is remarkable when we consider the disad- vantages of the Australian climate and how much better adapted this country is than that to supply butter to Great Britain; and it proves how little attention we have really given to such an important matter. The Government have recently been encouraging the butter industry, which, before long, it is hoped, will out do even the cheese industry in im- portance. The enterprise shown by the Australian colonies in sending butter to England is on a par with or may be exceeded by the enterprise shown by New Zealand in sending dressed mutton to England in cold storage. What applies to butter applies also to dead meats and many other articles. The fact is we have an unlimited mar- ket in Great Britain, far more advantageous to our farmers when once we get our products established there, than that of the United States. It is to be hoped that something will be done to give our dead meat industry a start, so as to share to some important extent in the British market. Of all the British possessions which send food supplies to the United Kingdom, Canada is undoubtedly the most favorably situated, owing largely to the short ocean voyage. The British market is an ever increasing one. It is esti- mated that in 1891, 55 per cent of the food consumed in the Britit!i Isles came from abroad, therefore every inhabitant is dependent upon outside supplies of food for 189 days in the year. If development there is as great in the next as in the last twenty years. Great Britain will require to obtain three- quarters of their food supply from abroad. I I I I I -27— It may be interesting to know the value of the British market for all foodstuffs, and for what Canada supplies at the present time. In 1894 the United Kingdom imported food- stuffs, which we assisted in supplying, as follows : — Animals, living, for food ^4,237,455 Wheat, barley, oats, peas, beans, flour and corn 232,297,429 Dressed meats 110,594,951 Butter 65,489,268 Margarine 14.818,075 Cheese 29,644,708 Eggs 18,426,801 Lard 13,424,292 In 1894 we supplied of these articles to the British Empire, including not only the United Kingdom, but all the colonies, as follows : — Animals, living, for food $6,608,000 Butter 1,059,855 Cheese 15,475,716 Eggs 510,360 Dressed meats 3,905,498 Wheat, and other grain, fruit, flour, hay, etc. 13,879,726 It will be seen, therefore, how little we really supply of these products. Give us as large and extended markets as possible for both manufactured and agricultural products, for experience has taught us we must not be dependent solely upon the United States. Some people are dazzled by the splendor and greatness of American enterprise, while they can see no good in their own country. We admire all that is good and noble, and we admire the pluck and progress of our neighbors. They have built up their country on the principle of America for Americans. Let us imitate their national pride and self- reliance, but let us discountenance any sentiment which seeks r —28— to belittle our own country and its institutions. Let us put a premium on enterprise, and pursue a policy which will bring our young men to appreciate the greatness of our resour' s. We may admire the American Republic, but we ad .e our own country more, and we admire the great jjimpire of which we form so important a part. We will never consent to become political nonentities, with our national life extinct. The name of Canada will never go into oblivion by its people being swallowed up in the excite- ment and sympathies of the great Republic. Canada has already risen to the dignity of a nation. We are no longer a mere colony. We have an abiding faith in the great re- sources of our country, and in the intelligence, thrift and perseverance of its people. RESOLUTIONS. The following resolutions were read, discussed and adopted : — THE NATIONAL POLICY. Moved by Mr. W. H. Storey. Seconded by Mr. J. F. Ellis. Whereas, from its geographical position and commercial en- vironments, the prosperity of the Dominion of Canada depends largely upon the maintenance of a fiscal policy which will foster agriculture, mining, manufacturies and every other interest ; And whereas, the National Policy of protection to Canadian industries, inaugurated in 1879, has prove-d itself w^ll suited to the re(]uirements of this country, inasmuch as it has been of inestimable advantage to all classes of our people ; -29- A policy which makes the interests of Canadians par- amount to those of foreigners, by preventing this country from being made a slaughter market for the surplus products of foreign nations ; A policy which, while fully protecting Canadian industry and enterprise, loyally refuses to consent to trade arrange- ments with foreign countries which will, in any way, dis- criminate against Great Britain ; A policy which has enhanced our national credit in the money markets of the world, and placed Canadian securities at the head of all British colonies ; A policy which gives confidence and stability to capital, ensures prosperity to our manufacturing industries and enables our artisan to maintain a scale of wages far in excess of those which obtain in European countries ; A policy which, by retaining our skilled artisans at home at wages which enables them to live in comfort, has provided our farming population with a profitable home market for many lines of agricultural products which cannot be exported; A policy which, since 1879 has increased uur National pay roll by over $40,000,000, and the products of our factories by over $165,000,000 per annum, has also increased our foreign trade by $87,000,000 per annum and brought it up to the highest level it has ever reached ; A policy which, during the past seventeen years has done much to enhance the price of our farm products by preserving the home market for the Canadian farmer, also guarantees them additional advantages in the near future by inaugurat- ing a system of direct marketing, cold storage facilities and fast steamship communication with that consumer of the world's surplus products, the Mother Country ; r —30— A policy which has encouraged and developed inter-pro- vincial trade, and welded this vast Dominion into an homo- geneous whole ; A policy which has produced amongst Canadians a feeling of security, of national pride and of commercial and in- dustrial independence, without which no people can ever attain to the acme of national prosperity ; And whereas, by popular vote at four general parliamen- tary elections, the people of the Dominion of Canada have unmistakably declared themselves in favor of a policy which will afford adequate protection to Canadian manufacturing industries j And whereas, in response to these popular verdicts over $188,000,000 additional capital has been invested in manu- facturing enterprises in Canada since the inauguration of the present protective policy in 1879 ; And whereas, nothing imperils the security of capital, or paralyses industrial or commercial enterprise more surely or quickly than uncertainty in regard to the trade policy of the country ; Therefore be it resolved : — That this Association places itself upon record as opposed to any changes in the present tariff sys- tem which will imperil the safety of our existing Canadian in- dustries and subject them to unfair competition from foreign manufacturers ; Resolved : — That in the opinion of the Association, the prosperity of this country imperatively demands a fixed and definite policy of protection to Canadian industries of every kind from the general principles of which there shall be no deviation. —31- PREPERENTIAL TRADE. Moved by Mr. W. K. McNaught. Seconded by Mr. R. W. Elliott. Resolved : — That this Association endorse the objects of the Third Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire, to convene in London in June of this year, in as far as they relate to bringing about a closer bond of unity be- tween Great Britain and her colonies upon a basis of prefer- ential trade within the Empire. Resolved : — That this Association accepts with pleasure the invitation extended to it to be represented at the said Con- gress. Resolved : — That the Executive Committee be instructed to make such arrangements as they may. see proper with regard of such representation, giving all necessary instruction to such delegates as the Committee may select regarding the views they may present at said Congress. THE ASSOCIATION WILL BE REPRESENTED IN LONDON. At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Associa. tion, held May 4, 1896, it was Resolved : — That in accordance with the resolutions regard- ing the representation of the Association at the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire, to convene in London in June, Mr. J. Castell Hopkins be requested to act as a delegate from the Association to said Congress, and that he be fully empowered thus to act. Mr. Hopkins has accepted the invitation. I\ STARTLING COMPARISON. l^eveiitie Tariff's G Lean Kiiie Protection's G Fat Kine Paper Read Before the Annual Meeting^ of the Can- adian Manufacturers' Association, Feb. 27th, 1895, by W. K. McNaught. In view of the fact that the opponents of Canada's national policy of protection to home industries are at present unusually active in trying to impress upon our people the truth of their assertion, that this country is growing poorer year by year in con- sequence of unwise tariff legislation, and as they propose to subsi- tute for the present system a tariff for revenue only which will gradually attentuate into free trade, I have thought the time op- portune to make some comparisons in order to see how their statements agree with the actual facts of the case. So far as the manufacturers of Canada are concerned, it is now generally conceded that they have developed in a wonderful degree since the adoption of our present fiscal policy. Even the oppon- ents of protection admit this, although they (jualify the admission by asserting that they have been built up at the expense of the rest of the country. The following table, showing the development of our manufacturing industries from 1881 to 1891, although far less favorable than if made from the inception of the present policy in 1879, is still sufficiently accurate to prove beyond a per- adventure how completely this important department of our na- tional life has been revolutionized by our present protective policy. -33— 1891. 75,768 $353,8.36,817 367,865 $99,762,441 $255,983,219 $475,455,705 Variation. Increase. Per Ct. 25,845 51.8 $188,534,194 114. 112,930 44.43 $40,333,439 67.86 $76,064,626 42.3 $165,769,637 53.5 CANADA'S MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES UNDER A REVENUE TARIFF AND UNDER A PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 1881. No. of Establishments 49,923 Capital Invested $165,302,623 No. of Employees 254,935 Wages Paid $59,429,002 Cost Raw Materials $179,918,593 Value of Products $309,676,068 From this statement it is evident that not only has the enormous sum of $188,534,194 been invested in Canadian manufacturing in- dustries between the years 1881 and 1891 as a direct result of the present tariff policy, but that the national pay roll has also been increased by $40,333,439 per annum. This being the case it is not surprising to learn that the present output is far in excess of that of revenue tariflf times, the actual figures being $475,455,705 in 1891, as against $309,676,068 in 1881, an annual increase of $165,769,637 or over 53 per cent. These figures tell their own story so plainly as to call for no further comment. FOREIGN TRADE NOT AN INFALLIBLE BAROMETER OF PROSPERITY. But, say the opponents of protection, Canada is suffering from commercial congestion, and the only remedy is to have the duties lowered to a revenue tariff basis in order to promote trade with foreign countries. While I am not of those who desire to purchase the products of foreign artisans in preference to those of our own Canadian fellow -citizens, I am free to admit that viewed simply from a theoretic stand-point it certainly looks reasonable that duties would bring increased foreign commerce, because, naturally, in a great many lines, the surplus goods of foreign manufacturers would be forced into this market at slaughter prices low enough to make them take the place of goods now manufactured by Can- adian artisans. While it is problematical whether the substitution of goods of foreign for those of domestic manufacture would be of any real benefit even to the farmer, there can be no doubt what- ever as to the injurious effect that such a state of affairs would have upon the manufacturer whose capital would be jeopardized by such unfair competition, or the artisans who found that they would either have to throw aside their handicraft and turn farmers, or else be content to have their wages lowered to the level of the —34— European competitors whose products were supplanting their own in this market. If, as is generally conceded, diversity of employ- ment is absolutely necessary for the building up of this country, then the effect of such a policy would be disastrous in the extreme. I am no believer in the theory that the foreign trade of every country must of necessity be the true barometer of its prosperity. Under certain conditions this would be the case, but it is also possible that a country might be the most prosperous in the world and have absolutely no foreign trade whatever. In spite of these theories it is nevertheless true, that the prosperity of Canada depends in some measure upon its foreign trade, simply because we have a surplus of products which our people cannot consume, which have to be disposed of. It must be remembered, however, that our foreign trade forms but a small portion of our entire trade. In other words the largest customers that the farmers and manu- facturers of Canada have are the Canadian people themselves, because they consume about nire-tenths of everything the country produces, as against one-tenth which they dispose of to outsiders. But this is a digression. As I said before, our free traders insist (for the present at least) that the only possible salvation for Canada is a low revenue tariff, which they assert will not only make this a che^ip country to live in, but will so stimulate our foreign commerce as to make every Canadian industry prosperous. On the face of it, it seems reason- able to suppose that a revenue tariff would mean increased foreign trade, but, like many another petty theory, this one has been com- pletely shattered by the actual experience of this country. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REVENUE AND PROTECTIVE TARIFF. The Cartwright revenue tariff which obtained during the ad- ministration of the Hon. Alex. Mackenzie was originally 15 per cent. ad. valorem, but was afterwards (on account of the increase in the expenditure of the Government from $19,174,647 in 1873 to $24,465,381 in 1879) raised to 17 1-2 per cent, ad valorem. Al- though by thiti tariff, duty was levied upon the luxuries imported for the wealthy at the very low rate of 15 and 17 1-2 per cent, ad valorem, the necessities of our artisans and farmers -were unjustly discriminated against by levying duty on them as follows : — Sugar, 43 per cent. ; rice, 35 per cent. ; molasses, 25 per cent. ; tea, 23 per cent.; coffee, 10 1-2 per cent. As these are necessities which can- not be pr(*duced in Canada, it is evident that the consumers had to pay the entire duties, amounting to nearly $3,500,000 per -35— '"O annum, which was levied upon these articles. These, however, are only samples of the way in which a revenue tariff discriminates asainst the interests of the masses and in favor of the classes. On the other hand our protective tariff aims to admit free (or nearly free) all raw materials and articles of necessity which can- not be produced in this country, and to protect the Canadian manufacturer and farmer by levying duties upon such products as can be profitably made or grown in the country. Thus the necessities of life, such as tea, coffee, sugar, rice and molasses which under the Cartwright revenue tariff were heavily taxed are under the present protective policy practically free, and the con- sumers are saved at least $5,000,000 of duty each year which they would have to pay on the amount of these articles at present imported into Canada, were the Cartwright revenue tariff in force. Since the present protective policy came in force over 113 articles have been placed upon the free list, which were dutiable under a revenue tariff. On the other hand luxuries of all kinds, such as are imported for the use of tlie wealthy and which were taxed under the Cartwright revenue tariff at the low rate of from 15 to 17^ per cent., are at present under our protective tariff taxed at from 30 to 50 per cent., or more than double the old rate. Although far more money is collected under the present tariff system, the lion's share of it is levied ujjon the luxuries imported for the wealthy, while our farmers and artisans practi- cally escaped it by using Canadian made goods upon which no duty is paid whatever, and which, quality considered, are as low in price as similar articles of foreign manufacture are abroad. A FAIR COMPAllISON OF THE TWO SYSTEMS. Fortunately for the decision of this question, Canada has had a pretty thorough trial of both of these fiscal systems, and a com- parison of the results of each forms an object lesson so plain that the man must be wilfully blind who cannot draw the true infer- ence therefrom. The periods I have selected for comparison are (1) from 1874 to 1879 inclusive, being the last six years of Canada's revenue tariff' of 15 per cent, and 17i ad valorem as administered by Sir Richard Cartwright, and (2) the last six years of our pres- ent protective tariff, from 1889 to 1894 inclusive, a period when, according to our free traders, this country has been brought to the very verge of national bankruptcy by our iniquitous system of tariff legislation. I have selected the last six years of Canada's revenue tariff period, because during the first six years after Con- federation (18(38 to 1874), the United States was but slowly recup- ■am ' ' —36— erating from the effects of a icirible civil war, and on account of a deprecated currency and the abnormally high price of labor, her manufacturers could not be considered in any sense as dangerous competitors. However, after war prices had settled down to val- ues founded upon a gold basis, and her manufacturers had devel- oped their enormous resources, the effect of United States compe- tition at once became apparent. This is the only period, there- fore, in the twelve years of our revenue tariff system when the same relative commercial conditions obtained between Canada and the United States as have been in force during the past six years. The figures are as follows : — IMPORTS INTO CANADA FOR HOME CONSUMPTION UNDP^R A REVENUE TARIFF, 1874^79. Fiscal From From From Other Total Year. Great Britain. United States. Countries. Imports. 1874 103,076.437 $54,283,072 $10,044,660 $127,404,169 1875 60,347,067 50,805,820 8,465,770 119.618,657 1876 40,734,260 46,070.033 7,928,925 94.733,218 1877 39.572,239 51,312,669 5,415.575 96,300,483 1878 37,431,180 48,631.739 5,136,658 91,199,577 1879 30,993,130 43.739,219 5,609,259 80,341,608 Totals.. $272, 154,313 $294,842,552 $42,600,847 $609,597,712 IMPORTS INTO CANADA FOR HOME CONSUMPTION UNDER A PROTECTIVE POLICY, 1889-94. Fiscal From From From Other Total Year. Great Britain. United States. Countries. Imports. 1889 $42,317,389 $50,537,440 $15,818,618 $109,673,447 1890 43,390,241 52,291,973 17.083,370 112,765,584 1891 42,047.526 53,685,657 17,611,941 113,345,124 1892 41,348.435 53,137.572 22,492,936 116,978.943 1893 43,148.413 58,221,976 20.334.641 121.705,030 1894 38,717,267 53,934,100 21,342,616 113,093,983 Totals.. $250,969,271 $320,908,718 $115,684,122 $687,562,111 Total increase ) or decrease in >• — Decrease. Increase. Increase. Increase. prot'n period, j $21,185,042 $26,066,166 $73,083,275 $77,9 4,399 CANADA'S IMPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN. In examining the returns of Canada's imports, it is well to bear in mind that our imports from Great Britain and foreign countries, other than the United States, consist at present, as they have alwaye consisted, principally of manufactured goods, so / / -37— that a simple comparison of the figures in the two periods is all that is necessary to furnish a true test of this department of our national commerce. A glance at the returns will show that dur- ing this revenue tariflf period our imports from Great Britain gradually decreased year by year, so that in 1879 they were $32,- 083,307 less than they were in 1874, a shrinkage of over 50 per cent., in six years. It is true that in 1872, 73, 74 and 75, our im- ports from Great Britain mounted up to over $60,000,000 each year, but these four years are so exceptional as to indicate a com- mercial boom for which the country had apparently to pay dearly for later on. It will also be noticed that the aggregate imports from Great Britain during the Revenu3 Tariff period, shown in these tables, exceeded the aggregate during the past six years by $21,185,042 ; this, however, is easily accounted for by the abnor- mal imports in the boom years of 1874 and 75 noticed, above, and the further fact that under our present tariff policy Canadian manufacturers have in many lines taken the place of the British. It is worthy of remark, however, that this is the only instance of a decrease in all of the trade tables given herein, as all the other comparisons show a decided increase in favor of the protec- tive policy period. Apart from the years 1874-75 it will be noticed that the general average of British imports into Canada has been considerably higher under protection than under a revenue tariff. Under pro tection our imports from Great Britain have gradually risen from where they were in 1879 to an average of $40,000,000 per year, and even 1894, a year of great depression, as it is pronounced by free traders, shows over $8,000,000 more of British imports than 1879. CANADA'S IMPORTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. Canada's imports from other countries as these records show, gradually declined during the six years of a revenue tariff from $10,044,660 to $5,609,259, a shrinkage of $4,435,401 per annum or 44 per cent. Under protection they gradually revived until they have not only reached the highest figure recorded under a revepue tariff (that of 1874) but continued to advance year by year until they reached their zenith in 1892 of $22,492,936. Even 1894, depressed as business was, shows an increase over 1879 of $15,733,357 or nearly 300 per cent. •38— CANADA'S IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES. Canada's imports from the United States differ somewhat from those of other countries, inasmuch as they have changed so much in their character as to materially affect the comparison of the two periods. In the first or revenue tariff period our imports from the United States consisted principally of manufactured gf)ods, a state of affairs which was becoming more accentuated every year owing to the depression in that country at that time and the necessity of slaughtering their surplus goods in order to raise money. Since Canada adopted a protective policy our imports from the United StMtes have undergone an almost com})leted change. The bulk of tiiv3e imports now consists of raw materials for use in our factories and the conversion of these raw products into manufactured goods, instead of being done as formerly by American artisans in the United States, is now performed l)y Canadian artisans in our own country. That this is so is readily apparent from the comparative table of factories, workmen, wages, outi)ut, etc. ; given in the earlier part of this paper. Even with this great advantage it is interesting to note how im- ports from the United States gradually shrunk during the revenue tariff period, the year 1879 showing a decrease of $10,543,853 over that of 1874. Under protection, however, they, like the others began gradu- ally to revive and a comparison sh6,135 1877 41,567,469 25,775,245 8,532,079 75,875,393 1878 45,941 539 ?>,2U,898 8,1.37,2.30 79,323,007 1879 30,2S> .8 27,105,501 8,030.030 71,491,255 Totals.. $249,504,987 $176,275,397 $49,055,237 $474,895,057 EXPORTS FROM CANADA UNDER THE PROTECTIVE POLICY. Fiscal To Great Year. Britain. 1889 $38,105,120 1890 48.353,094 1891 49,280,858 1892 04.91 10.549 1893 64,080,493 1894 68,538,858, 5:18, 850, or $;}2,24;i,L*W more than in 1870. For the entire six years the protective tariff period shows an increase of $83,700,580 over the revenue tariff period. Our exports to the United States during the revenue tariff period, although unhanjpered by the hostile legislafif)n of the McKinley tariff, gradually shrunk in volume and was $0,078,810 less in 1870 than in 1874. Under a protractive policy they gradually increased and 1804 showed increased exports to the United States of $8,644, 4,'39 over -10- 187&. The aggregate for the six years shows a total increase of $67,629,489 in favor of the protective as against the revenue tariff period. Canada's exports to *' other countries" practically remained stationary during the revenue tariff period, while under our pro- tective policy (which is always on the qui vive to exploit new markets as well as build up the old) they have increased so that the year 1894 shows an increase of $5,030,036 over 1879. As the figures show our total export trade gradually decreased during the revenue tariff period until the last year 1879 showed a shrinkage of $17,860,673 over 1874. Under our protective policy they have gone in exactly the oppo- site direction^ 1894 showing an increase over 1879 of no less than $4(),OI-r3,694. For the entire period of six years, the protective period shows a total increase over the revenue tariff period of the enormous sum of $159,512,631. This brings us to the comparison of Canada's total foreign trade during the periods under consideration and here again it is apparent that the period covered by a protective tariff does not suffer in any way by the comparison. Here are the figures : TOTAL FOREIGN TRADE OF CANADA.-IMP0RT8 AND EXPORTS UNDER REVENUE TARHTF. Yearl V^^^^' 187i ??217,.')r)5,510 1875 2()().9or,262 1876 171,176,781 1877 17o.203,:i')5 187« 172.10o.4o4 1879 16;M55,682 Total.... $1,093, 704,044 ^4f^^^ Value. 1889 .$204,414,098 1890 218,«>07,390 1891 218,384.934 1892 241,369,443 1893 247,6;i8,«20 181« ^ . 240,g9{),889 Total increase or doorcase in protocUoii period lotal ...$1,371,414,374 Increafee. $277,650,330 From these it is apparent that under a revenue tariff our foreign trade gradually declined until in 1879 it was $64,109,828 less than it was in 1874. Tliat this state of affairs has been entirely changed under our protective policy no one can dispute, for the returns show that in 1893 our foreign trade reached the highest point ever recorded in Canadian history, while the total for 1894 was $87,544,267 in excess of that of 1879. The aggregate for the periods of six year« —41— shows an excess in the protective period of no less than $277,650,330. SOME PERTINENT DEDUCTIONS. Now for the application. It is evident from the foregoing that our National Policy of protection to Canadian industries has not restricted our foreign trade in any way, because as the returns show : (1) Our total imports have increased $77,964,399 during the last six years of protection as compared with the last six years of the revenue tariff policy. (2) Our total foreign trade has increased $150,512,631 during the same period. (3) Our total foreign trade has hicieased $277,650,330 during the same period. It also proves that this country must be steadily growing richer year by year, because we are not only importing and paying for more foreign goods than we formerly did under the revenue tariff system, but we are manufacturing more goods in Canada, nearly all of which are consumed in our own country. CANADA'S RELATIVE POWER OF CONSUMPTION UNDER A REVENUE AND A PROTECTIVE TARIFF. A comparison of the years 1881 and 1891, the only years for which the returns afford an accurate comparison, will illustrate this. In making up this table I take no account of the agricultural products consumed by our people as it is an unknown quantity and would not materially affect the matter either way. I also assume that all the goods manufactured in Canada are consumed in this country. 1881 1891 Value of Canadian manufactured products consumed in Canada «309,(rr6,068 |J75,445.706 Value of foreign goods imported into Can- ada ^. 91,611,«04 11.3,315.124 ToUls _ 1401,287,672 |;.SS,80(\H'29 401,287,672 Increased conRumption of goodi In 1891 over 1881 _ ^ $187,613,167 THE IX)aiCAL CONCLUSION. From the figures given in this article, it is self-evident that under our National Policy of protection t© native industries, both —42— our domestic and foreign trade have increased to an unprecedented degree, and that out home trade has not been increased at the expense of our foreign trade. It will also be seen that however faulty our present tarift' may be from a free trade standpoint, it has proved beyond a per- adventure by its practical working, that a fiscal policy which offers adequate protection to Canadian industries is absolutely necessary for the })rosperity of this country. That the purchasing power of the country has been vastly in- creased is evident from the fact that while our population has in- creased from 4,324,810 in 1881, to 4,833,239 in 1891, a gain of 11 1-2 per cent. ; our power of consumption increased during the same period from $401,287,672 to $588,800,829, or over 45 per cent. That such a magnificent result could be brought about by a policy which free traders assert is slowly but surely impoverishing the countr3% is contrary to the facts of the case and common sense. It has given prosperity to our farmers and artisans, stability to our manufacturers and ca{)italists, buoyancy to our foreign com- merce, and has beyond doubt rendered us more independent of the effects of the comme.ciai disasters of foreign countries than we were at any former period of our history. While we may not be as prosperous as we could wish, still when we look around us at the condition of oUier countries, we ought to be thankful that we are in as sound and healthy a commercial condition as we are. Certainly we have nothing to fear by comparison. r WHO PAYS THE DUTY? Another Fallacy Exploded by the Logic of Common Sense. Liberal politicians are unanimous in asserting that under our present protective policy, the consumer pays the entire duty levied upon foreign goods imported into Canada. Such an asser- tion diametrically opposed to the facts, and if you will read the following paragraphs, you will be convinced of the utter fallacy of this old and very misleading statement. Under free trade (such as obtains in Great Britain), almost tJie only goods on which custom duties are levied are those which can- not be produced at home. Where similar goods are i)rv)duced in the country an excise impost, equal to the duty u})on the foreign article, is levied upon them in order to make sure that the native producer shall have no advantage whaterer over his foreign com- petitor. In all such cases it is evident that the consumer must pay the entire amount of the customs tax, whether it be imposed in the form of duty or excise ; and while such a system undoubted- ly produces a revenue, it affords no protection whatever to the native producers of the country into which such goods are im- ported. The principle of protection is almost the opposite. While ad- mitting raw materials for manufacturing i)urposes, and the princi- pal articles of necessity amongst the masses, which cannot l)e pro- duced in the country, free of duty a protective tariff is levied upon goods which enter into competition with similar lines (whether manufactured goods or agricultural products), produced at hon>e. Luxuries are taxed at a higher rate than articles of necessity, and it thus aims to make living cheap, while providing work and fair wages for those engaged in its various industries. While it 18 evident that on such articles as tea and colFee, which cannot be produced in this country, the whole of the duty must be paid by the consumer if similar to those produced in (Canada, the question of who pays the duty must be decided by other and very —44— different considerations. If our market is satisfactorily supplied by our home manufacturers of a certain article and a manufacturer desires to displace it with similar goods made by himself, it stands to reason that he must deliver them in Canada, at a price at least as low as they can be purchased from the Canadian manufacturer. In such a case, as the sworn testimony, before our exchequer court amply testifies, the foreign manufacturer must and does pay the whole of the duty, or else he cannot sell his goods in this market. Between these two extremes there lie a great variety of ways in which the relative proportion of duty may be, and as a matter of fact is, divided between the Canadian buyer and the foreign manu- facturer, the division mainly depending upon whether the seller is more anxious to dispose of his goods than the buyer is to purchase them, and the amount and kind of competition his wares will have to encounter from those of our home manufacturers. Who pays the duty, then, cannot honestly be disposed of in the summary manner that Messrs. Laurier, Cartwright and McCarthy and many others have done, by simply asserting that it is always paid by the consumer. The truth is, that the facts in connection with each separate line of goods have to be thoroughly investigated before it can be fairly decided how the duty is paid on it, and to assert to the contrary is either an evidence of wilful misrepresen- tation or lamentable ignorance of one of the simplest of com- mercial transactions. Our Free Breakfast Table! And how Sir Richard Cartwright Taxed These Neces- sities of the Parmer and Mechanic. We are told that the National Policy was framed entirely in the interests of the manufacturers, and that it presses unduly upon the artisans, and farmers. To-day, as every person knows, we have a free breakfast table ; tea, sugar, coflfee, molasses and rice, all of them articles of necessity to the working classes, are now prac- tically admitted free of duty and are cheaper than they ever were before in this country. How were these necessities treated in 1878 under Sir Richard Cartwright's revenue tariff ? In that year, according to the trade and navigation returns, the following duties were collected upon them : Total Duty Percentage Article imports. collecteti. of duty. Sugar $5,982,078 $2,515,d55 43 Molasses 940,725 235,173 25 Tea 2,597,847 611,313 23 Coflfee 352,369 37,272 10^ Rice 241,572 83,669 35 Total $10,114,591 $3,483,083 Had the people of Canada been compelled to pay the same rate of duty on these necessities of life consumed by them last year, as they did during the Cartwright Revenue tariff period, their cost would have been increased by the following amounts : Sugar, $5,- 303,000 more ; tea, $826,611 more ; coffee, $66,550 more ; molas- •ses, $54,756 more. Thus in a single year, these necessaries of life under the Cartwright free trade as they have it in England policy would cost the Canadian people $6,350,917 more than they now do under our present protective system. In addition to these taxes which none could escape, duty was levied upon tin plate, an article of necessity in every household, m —46— and a large factor in our cannin;^ industries. This article under the N.P. has been placed upon the fiee list. In those days postage was charged upon all newspapers. Under the N.P. they are now carried free of charge, to the special advan- tage of the agricultural community. At that time no promissory note was legal unless it had paid a tax to the country in the shape of a bill stamp. This irritating tax has also been removed by our iniquitous protective policy, much to the satisfaction of the commercial community. To prove that we were being slowly but surely swamped by our jug-handed fiscal arrangements with the United States, it is only necessary to state that our purchases of manufactured goods from that country had risen from W,000,000 to $51,000,000 in the same period, and that we had imported from them in one year nearly $18,000,000 of agricultural produce, which, on account of its cheapness, simply displaced so much of the products of our own Canadian farms. While trade with the United States was expanding so enor- mously, that with the mother country was rapidly contracting. In 1873 our total imports from Great Britain amounted to $68,- 492,000, while in 1878 they had decreased to $37,431,000 a shrink- age of $31,061,000. In consequence of the unsatisfactory condition of our manufactur- ing industries, the imports of raw materials materially decreased, scores of factories were idle, or running only on short time, and thousands of our most skilled artisans were forced to emigrate to the United States in search of the employment they were unable to obtain in Canada. Among our merchants a similar state of affairs obtained. The business failures throughout the Dominion, which in 1874 were 906 in number and $7,696,765 in amount, gradually rose under the masterly inerita of Sir Richard Cartwright, until in 1879 (for the effect of which year his policy was undoubted responsible), they numbered 1,902 and aggregated the enormous sum of $'^9,- 347,937. As if to accentuate the folly of refusing to alter our tariff so as to meet the exigencies of the times and protect our own people from the unfair competition of foreigners, our national expendi- ture increased from $19,174,647 in 1873 to $24,455,381 in 1879,- while each succeeding year seemed to show a larger deficit than its predecessor. VVould not history repeat itself were the Liberals again to ac- ti^de to power ? Do not the utterances of Messrs. Laurier, Cart- \ —47— Wright, et al, show that they have the same visionary ideas on tariff matters, which if put in force would again ruin this country ? AN OBJECT LESSON FOR OUR FARMERS-LET THEM STUDY THIS CAREFULLY. If there is one assertion more than another that Free Traders are fond of impressing upon the Canadian farmer, it is that under no circumstances can a protective tariff be of any benetit to the farmer. They say that while the farmer has to pay the whole of the duty on every dollar's worth of manufactured goods he uses, that his own farm products cannot be protected in the same way. Is this assertion true ? We think not, and to prove that it is not, we ask our readers to look carefully over the following list of prices of farm produce in Toronto and Chicago, and say candidly which is the better for the Canadian farmer. These are the ruling prices on the day of the publication of this paper, and any person can readily verify them : Toronto. Chicago. Wheat, red, from farmers' wagon, per bush 80c. * 64c. cash Rye 58c.~60c. 36c. Oats 27c. 18jc. Barley 34c. 30c.— 33Jc. Butter, per lb L'3c.— 15c. 9c.— 13c. Eggs, per doz 10c. — lie. 75C.— 9^c. Potatoes, per bush. 17c. — 20c. 12c.— 15c. Sheep, per head $4.75— $5.25 $2.50— $3.80 Lambs $4.50—15.00 $3.75— $5.00 Fat cattle, per lb 4c. 3ic.— 4jc. Hogs, per cwt $3.95— $4.00 $3.05-$3.60 Veal, per lb 6^c. — 8c. 5|c. — 6c. These figures will furnish you food for reflection, and are worth more in this argument of jimtection vs. free trade, than a ship loads of assertions put forth by free trade theorists. If our farmers are as wise as we think they are they will hesitate a very long time beft)re they will vote to let the farmers of the United States have free access to the markets of this country. -48— WHAT RICHARD COBDKN, THE GREAT ENGLISH FREE TRADER, THOUGHT ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FARMER AND THE MANUFACTURER. " The farmer's interest is that of the whole community, and is not a partial interest, and you cannot touch him more sensitively than when you injure the manufacturers, his cumstomers." Cobden's head was level in regard to the tie between the farmer and the manufacturer. In order to be a strong and prosperous country, Canada must have diversity of occupations, each of which while dependent upon the others, also helps to make them pros- perous. Free Trade may be the best policy for England, but it certainly is not for Canada. The Laurier-Cartwright tariff policy would quickly wipe out many of our flourishing industries, and while the farmer would not have the manufactured goods he uses a cent cheaper than at present, he would lose thousands of his nearest a,nd most profitable ifcrstomers, the Canadian artizans who would have to emigrate to the United States where their labor could be pro- tected. No, farmers, it won't pay you to injure your best custom- ers, the manufacturers. LAURIER ON THE TRADE QUESTION-NO HOPE FOR THE CANA- DIAN MANUFACTURER HERE, ALTHOUGH HIS POLICY WILL BE COMFORTING TO THOSE OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Speaking in Quebec Mr. Laurier said : " Gentlemen, the dry way in which Quebec can recover its old time prosperity as a mari- time city is by adopting the policy of freedom of trade as it exists in the Mother Country, Old England. Such is the end we have in view." Mr. Laurier wants to see Quebec built up by a large in- crease of foreign trade. He desires to see more ships landing goods on her docks, cheap European goods, that will simply dis- place so many dollars worth of products now made in Canadian factories by Canadian workmen. This might be very nice for the workhousemen and carters of Quebec City, but we hardly think that the mechanics of Quebec or any other Canadian city will en- dorse such a scheme. No, nor the farmers either, unless they want to drive their best customers out of the country. I mmmm iHNiiPii .-»" «..* 4 .^^S V ^»'^ li THE. pANADIAN MANUFACTURERS' [j ASSOCIATION ■ ALBERT E. KEMP, President. J. J. CA88IDEY, Secretary. GEORGE BOOTH, Treasurer. Secr etary's Office. MoKinnon Buildi n g- Cor. Jordan and Melinda Streets, Toronto Tel. 1274. THE OBJECTS OF THIS ASSOCIATION AME : To secure by all legitimate means the aid of both Public Opinion and Gov- ernmental Policy in favor of the development of home industry and the promotion of Canadian manufacturing enterprises. To enable those in all branches of manufacturing enterprises to act in con- cert, as a united body, whenever action in behalf of any particular in- dustry, or of the whole body, is necessary. To maintain Canada for Canadians. Any person directly interested in any Canadian manufacturing industry is eligible for membership. Manufacturers desiring to hold meetings for the promotion of their business are invited to avail themselves of the Board Room of the Association for the piu^pose, which is offered to them free of cliarge. J. J. CA88IDEY, Secretary