Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-01-12


tire tranquility, which has not been for a
moment disturbed. This is plain advan-
tage which cannot be denied; but, so far as
| have been able to examine official returns,
do not find any further evidence showing
the violation of the treaty in this connec-
ton, While opinions. even among he most
interested in the fisheries, are divided
There are partisans for it in Gloucester
masses, partsans against it in Maine. If the
treaty related exclusively to The fisheries,
| should not be willing to touch it; but
the practical question is whether the SEEM
ing advantage in this respect is sufficient
to counterbalance the disadvantages in
other respects. Next comes the navigation
OF the st. Lawrence. But this plausible
concession has proved to be but little more
than name. 1T appears that during the
first six years of the treaty only four hun-
dred American vessels, containing 1850
tons, passed seaward through the st. Law
renee, and during the same time only nine
teen vessels, containing 5,446 tons, returned
by the same open highway. These are
very petty amounts, when we consider the
value of the commerce on the lakes,
which in 1856 was $5S,727,320; or
when we consider the carrying trade
between the United States and Brit
ish provinces. Take the years 1857 to 1862,
inclusive, and we shall find that during this
period the shipping of the United States
which cleared for the British provinces, was
10707, ,239 tons, and the foreign shipping
which cleared during this same period, was
1881 300 tons; while the shipping of the
United States which entered at our Gus
tom houses from the British provinces, was
1005G, 1873 TONS and the foreign shipping
which entered was G455,520 tons. | mem
tion these things by way of contrast. In
comparison with these grand movements,
the business which we have been able to do
on the st. Lawrence seems to be trivial. 1t
need not be considered as an element in the
present discussion. The treaty may be seen
next in its bearings on the commerce be-
tween the two countries. This has in
creased immensely; but it is diff
cult to see how much of this in
crease is due to the treaty and how
much is due to the natural growth of pop
ulatiOn and tine facilities OF transportation
in both countries. There are also railroads,
furnishing prompt and constant means of
intercommunication which have gone into
successful operation since the treaty. In
the three years Immediately preceding the
treaty, the total exports to Canada and the
other British provinces were S,2l6,5l8,
and the total imports were $225SS, ,577,
being Of exports to imports in the
proportion OF 100 to 46. In the ten
years of the treaty the total exports
to Canada and the British provinces were
$256,35O,931. The total imports were
$20O300,7S6. According to these amounts
the exports were in the proportion of 100
to rs. The total exports to Canada in the
three years Immediately preceding the
treaty were $3l, ,SGG,SG5, and the total i'm
ports were $6,5S7,G74. being in the proper
tion of 100 to 52; while the VIII ole exports
to Canada alone, during the 10 years of the
treaty, were $l7G,371,9l1, and the total i'm
ports were $lGl, l,474,3l7, being in the pro-
portion of 100 to 81. / present these ta-
bles to lay before you the extent and nature
OF change of commerce between the two
countries.
In the view which / take on the present
occasion, it is not necessary to consider the
much-debated inquiry as to the effect of a
difference between the amount of exports
and imports, involving as it does the whole
perilolls question of the balance of trade
The Reciprocity treaty cannot be main
tanned or overturned on any contested prin-
ciple Of political economy.
Messrs. Ramsey and Howe spoke against
the repeal of the treaty and Messrs. Sher-
man and Collamer spoke in favor of it.
Pending consideration OF the resolution the
Senate adjourned.
HOUSE.
The House resumed the consideration of
the proposition for Constitutional amend
ment to abolish slavery throughout the
United States.
Chiffon A. White, of Ohio, opposed it, on
the ground that Congress had no power to
make such an amendment.
Mr.. Smithers, of Delaware, advocated
the amendment, as both constitutional and
beneficial.
Nessrs. Townsend and Holman, of Indi-
| ana, severally gave reasons why they
| would vote against the amendment.