The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-12-01
The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada.

The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada.
The anticipated inquiry by Congress into |
be working of the so-called reciprocity treaty |
between this country and Great Britain has |
excited good deal of uneasiness in Canada, if |
we may judge by the large space which the |
subject occupies in the provincial newspapers
The Western Canada papers see in the coming !
inquiry the natural result of the recent alleged |
hostile legislation on the part of Canada to-
wards the commercial interests Of the United
States which are affected by it.
In few weeks full statistics Of the trade
betwe cen the United States and the British
prov noes will be laid before Congress, and
tlis country will then be enabled to Judge I'M
ders'andingly as to whether or not the treaty
has fulfilled the expectations of its friends; and
| if not, how far the falling off may have been
the result of hostile legislation on the part Of
Canada, since the ratification of the conven-
| ten. The Montreal papers assert, in reply to
our intimation that the present Canadian tariff
was drawn up in the interest of the Grand
| Trunk Railroad, that, so far as that corporation
| is concerned, it would be to their interest to
have the treaty abrogated, as they would thus
secure all the carrying trade Of Western
Canada This is doubtless true, and it is for
this reason that the newspapers throughout
Western Canada 60 generally complain Of their
| new tariff as a measure likely to lead to an
| abrogation Of the treaty, because of its being
| go framed as now to compel in violation of the
/ of Tho 10 e xtn
to 60 down the ST. Lawrence which formerly
found its way to New York and Boston. We
seem, also, to have offended the provincial
| dignity Of our contemporaries by stating that
| the illiberal restrictions of the new Canadian
tariff were toe small matter to have any par
ticular effect upon public feeling in the United
States. Yet the fact is, nevertheless, true, and
it is fortunate for the Canadians that it is 30.
The Canadian trade is participated in by q
very few of the Northern States, and only in
particular localities of those States. We're it o
matter Of general importance, no reciprocity
treaty could stand for day which did not in
clude an interchange of all articles grown in
either country. But the reciprocity treaty
| involves other questions, and hence the i'm
/
Our previous article on this subject was
written simply to correct the impression that
the treaty must remain intact for ten years,
and that, whilst the Canadians claimed they
could annul it, our hands were tied. We stated,
first, that Congress can abrogate any treaty, no
matter what its limitations. That is simply
question Of power. And secondly, that the re-
| ciprocity feature Of the treaty being dependent
upon an act of Congress, Congress had an un-
doubted right, if it saw fit, to repeal that act,
without going to the extent Of abrogating the
| treaty. The idea of the Canadian papers, that
| the Supreme Court could intervene and prevent
this, is simply an absurd piece of ignorance
AS to the question of "honor" which they al.
| lude to, we do not for moment anticipate that
our government will adopt any steps not con-
sistent with that chivalrous spirit which has al
| ways characterized our national conduct.
If it can be shown that the letter not only,
but the spirit, Of the reciprocity treaty has
we do not believe Congress will interfere with
ii. But if an investigation of the matter dis
closes the fact that the Canadian tariff recently
adopted has been drawn up SO as carefully
| to divert from the United States class of
goods or certain articles which at the time the
treaty was effected found their way to the
ocean through our channels; and if it is also
made apparent that the Canadian tariff now
makes discrimination, in fact against our
markets which did not formerly exist, then
indeed a serious question is presented to Con-
gress, whether the honor of the country and its
interest will permit the continuance Of treaty
the essential spirit Of which has been grossly
violated. When the question assumes this
shape, Congress, as we have already demon
strated, has the constitutional power to act and
protect the honor of the country.
Many stringent States rights statesmen of the
South find serious objection to the treaty in
that clause by which the federal government
has assumed To cede to the subjects Of the British
crown the right Of piscary not only in the terri
torial seas ofthe respective States north of So 3d.
but in the rivers and even creeks Of those States
We are aware that Lord Elgin insisted npon the
word creeks being inserted, and held that it sig
niGed merely arms Of the sea, to which Mr.. Mar
cy yielded; though the popular use Of the term, |
in this country, applies it to rvulets and brooks
also. The Senators from North Carolina and
Virginia voted for this treaty. The States
rights doctrine, however, advanced by Cover
nor Wise, in his celebrated oyster fundum mes
sages maintains the constitutional right of the
respective States to the exclusive control and
regulation Of the entire right Of piscary within
marine league Of the shores Of each State, as
| possessed by all independent nations. We
should not be surprised if this feature Of the
treaty, violative as it is contended by many to
DC OF the constitutional rights of the States, |
should form an important topic in the discus |
sion at the approaching session.