Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-06-17


| Indignation, by nfaming their patriotism, ma
tional pride, and lust Of territorial aggrand-
| izement
THE RECIPROCITY AND FISHERY TREATY.
That Treaty for the settlement Of the Re-
ciprocity and Fishery Questions, has been
agreed upon by Lord Elgin and MIR. Marcy is
generally understood
The impression-an we suppose it correct--
is that it must now be submitted to the Sen
ate of the United States to the Colonial Legs-
latures, and to tho Home Government in Eng
land, the concurrence OF all these parties being
necessary to its ratification.
1t is somewhat interesting to note the COM
mcnts of the Press upon tho subject
The New York Herald, which will insist that
Mr.. Marcy has never displayed any consider
able information on any topic but that Of old
clothes, unable to find fault with the treaty, is
scandalized at the idea Of submitting it TO the
Colonial Legislatures. To think OF the Senate
Of the United States putting itself on level
with the petty Governments OF Canada, Nova
Scotia, and New Brunswick, and subjecting its
action to their revision 1t trusts Mr.. Mason
will take care to vindicate the dignity Of the
Senate. Rather inconsistent this for cham
pion of aSquatter Sovereignty /" The Cues
tions arranged by the treaty are American
Questions-th concern the interests Of the
Colonies and tho United States. The British
Government pursues a generous, reasonable,
democratic policy, in submitting them to the
decisions of the Colonial Legislatures; and we,
Americans, repudiating Ccntralism, advocating
popular sovereignty, are the last people to conl-
plain of such course
The action Of our Senate is subjected to no
rovision--it is the Treaty which is to be sub
mitted, at the same time, to the Senate, and to
the Colonial Legislatures, and to the Home
Government If they all agree to it, it is to
take effect The notion that the dignity OF
the Senate is to suffer from such an arrange.
ment, is nonsensical
The New York Tribune finds some fault
with it. it docs not provide for real recirro
city--there is to be free trade only in the raw
products of both countries-it should be ex-
tended so rs to embrace also the manufactured
products--as it is the Canadians will be the
gainers--our Western farmers may be dam
aged--on the whole however, it will not seri-
ously object, as it may prepare the way for
ultimate annexation!
We can see no force in the objections Of the
Tribune The farmers Of Ohio Indiana and
Wisconsin, need fear no competition with the
Canadas. Ohio alone raises rs much wheat
rs both the provinces. Do these States ever
dream of suffering from the competition of the
new States to be organized in Minnesota, Ne
braska, and Kansas? How can they be dam
aged by free trade in natural products with
the Canadas? Is not their soil as good? Are
not their resources rs great? Are they not as
we'll situated in regard to transportation
Arc they conscious of any inferiority in re-
spect to enterprise, sagacity, energy? As it is
nearly oil the wheat and -four imported into
this country from the Canadas, is re-exported
to the other provinces and to England; and
then, we export to the Canadas and the other
colonies, some two millions Of breadstuffs Of our
own produce. The notion that protection is
necessary to the grain growing interest of a
region 40 fertile 30 inexhaustibe in resources,
as the great West, seems almost insulting to its
industrious cultivators.
The Richmond (va) Enquirer speaks eau
tiously, but on the whole rather approves Of
the Treaty, although it assumes that the North
gains moro from it than the South.
.We believe we may safely affirm. however,
that the treaty comedies to tho citizens Of the
United States an equal participation with
British subjects in the fisheries on the coast Of
the Colonies; that il provides for reciprocal
free trade in certain articles between the States
and the Provinces that it secures to American
vessels the privilege of navigating the Canada
canals and the ST. Lawrence on the same terms
with British vessels; and that IL modifes, in
some respects, British duties on American OK
ports. especially the duty on manufactured
tobacco SO much as to the positive provisions
Of the treaty. Ii will he observed, on the other
hand, that il does not concede the right Of
registry to British-built vessels in tho ports OF
the United States and that il does not throw
open our cosstwise commerce to the colonies.
1.-THE treaty iscommendablo 20 far as il ac-
complishcs an extension Of the principle of free
trade and removes the causes of controversy
which have heretofore interrupted the friendly
relations between tho United States and the
adjacent British Provinces. But, il is not pos
sible to pronounce any more decisive and com.
prehensive opinion on it's mcrits, until we have
more complete and authentic information Of it's
details. Until we know what particular arti-
Giles Of commerce between the States and tho
Colonies are exempt from impost under the
treaty, il would be rash to speak positively of
its operation as regards the distinctive inter
ests Of the North and the South. We must
confess, that as the case now stands the North
appears to monopolize the essential advantages
Of tho treaty. IL is understood that the projet
Of treaty win soon be submitted to the Senate,
when, perhaps, our present impressions may be
corrected by more trustworthy information
Il Il imnossihle 10 say what are the terms of