The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-01-11
Facts about Reciprocity.

mad tnat ne could not refer to scraps from Holy
Writ in support of his doctrines; and in politics
no cause was ever so desperate that figures
might not be found to establish its identification
with patriotic purposes. The dsxterous use of
statistics thus becomes an art of some import
ance in political discussions, for by little mani
pulation they may be made to justify the most
opposite conclusions. Only let the result aimed
at be well understood, and long rows of figures
are always at hand to hasten and verify it, A
skilled statistician combines the capacity OF the
vulgar aIithmetclan with the sleignt-ot hand of
Mons. Hermann and the value OF his labors is
not seldom Of as much practical Importance.
We have known the identical same set Of
figures employed to fortity Numerically oppO-
site POSITIONS; the manipulator beng the same
in both cases, and the conclusions arrived at in
both beILg equally clear. We confess, there
tore general want ot faith in whatever comes
before us i'll the shape OF hguIes and nothing
else. We suspect quackery and imposture from
the start We button tight our pockets as
though in designing and doubtful company.
When presented in 6ushe measure, crude and
ill-assorted as in the Canadian argument on the
reciprocity question: they are entitled to very
little attention.
Out of full measure of chat let us sift few
grains of wheat-not as the basis of ar argu-
Inent but as illustrative of some of the points
to which we have directed attention, in relation
to the reported visit OF provincial agents to
Washington. Perhaps we may thus show more
plainly now unequal nave Deen the profits de-
rived from the arrangement which by courtesy
has been called reciprocity, and how undesirable
would be its continuance in anything like the
present shape.
OF course, since the commencement of the
treaty, trade between the British Provinces and
this country has increased, but only partially as
q consequence OF the treaty. The growth of
population and other causes naturally account
for part OF this result; and vet another part
has proceeded from the undue encouragement
given to the Canadian producer at the expense
OF our own people.
The Treasury document presented to Congress
in 1864 reveals the inequality of the benefits con-
terred by the treaty in the respective proportions
Of articles made dutiable and free. Take the
records OF the Custom House at Cape Vincent as
fair standard of appeal in the matter of from
tier commerce. In 1858, the year preceding the
formation of the treaty, the imports from Canada
at that port amounted in value to $l87,370, of
which $S56l were admitted Free under the then
tariff, leaving balance subject to duties OF
Sl7SS00 which, at about twenty per cent,
yielded revenue of $36,S90. The articles since
imported have continued IN about the same pro-
portion; but with this difference in respect of
revenue-that of imports amounting to $751;, $40,
the amount free under the treaty is Sl71, ,287,
leaving but about three per cent. of the whole
subject to duty; in other words, entailing an
annual loss OF revenue by reciprocity. in this
single instance, of $35, 1885, This being the loss
at one port an application of the rule of three
will enable any body dosrous of prosecuting the
investigation to calculate the aggregate annual
loss OF revenue, under reciprocity, which this
country has suffered during the last ten years.
But was there not a corresponding saving of
duties on our exports? The same document
supplies an answer. In six months of 1853 we
exported from the Cape Vincent district $l64, ,327
paying duties thereon IN Canada amounting to
S32 865. On the same goods, under the treaty,
we should have paid in duties $31, l57. So that
while under the treaty we surrendered to Canada
S35,9S6 in duties we gained from Canada in
duties only S170S.
Wa hoNya for foly 4ha 90 81,
the purpose of our illustration. To complete it,
let US glance at the Cape Vincent returns for
1862. In that year the total importations from
Canada at that port we're $5S7,96l, of which
S563, l84 we're admitted free; the balance subject
to duties being about five per cent. of the whole
Our exports TOR the same port during the period
were $22S, 407, of which $l6,6E0 passed into the
province free-the amount subject to duties
being, say ninety-three per cent, of the whole.
Thus nearly all we import is free under the
treaty, while nearly all the export is dutlable
under It, the taxable proportions, roundly
speaking, being five to ninety-three.
We know not where to look for more tho.
rough one-sided bargain. As the Cape Vincent
Collector Iemarks:-"We offer a premium of
ninety-tVe per cent. or our former revenue for
Canadian competition in our markets, while
they pay us but five per cent of theirs to COM
pete with them in their markets. So far then,
the trade OF this district IS an indication OF
the relative advantages OF the Reciprocity Treaty
to the two countries interested, they are in about
Canadas."
Moreover, under the treaty, cur ratio of ex-
ports 10 imports has largely declined. In 1852,
1858, 1854 the exports to Canada and the other
provinces exceeded the aggregate imports ll3
per cent In fhe first four and half years of the
operation of the treaty, the average excess in
our favor had declined to Al per cent; in 1860
and 1861 things were reversed, and the imports
exceeded the eXport1; in 1862 our exports were
again ahead per cent and IN 1860 80 per cent.
Apart, then, rom the question of revenue it is
apparent that the aggregate growth of trade
under reciprocity has not kept pace with the ad.
vance in Canadian exports.
In this connection, two facts require passing
notice, with the view OF correcting misrepresen-
tatiCns in which the provincial agents lnduloe
when the grCsJ amount OF tre lie on either size
is in question. Wheat is the most prominent
article in our exports, having for several years
! amounted IN value TO nearly one-third of the
! whole The admission Of the article was, how.
ever, permitted prior to the treaty. for the bene
| tit OF Canadian mlllers and shlpOwne1s; and the
Treasury report on foreign and domestic com
/ merCe printed in 1864, shows that much of what
| appears as an export of wheat On our part tC
! Canada is, in effect a transit Uade, and should
! therefore, be deducted when mention is made o
! our exports.
Again: OF the dutiable articles imported from
! Canada, and tor which that province claims
/ credit in the general balance, the greater pt.y
| portion are not of Canadian orgn, but simply
! reach this country VIA thar route We hayg
made an approximate estimate, from data fur
nished over Mr.. Chases signature, with tae fol
lowing RESULT
1857 1860. 1868
Amount OF duty-paying
tlcles imported from
Canada ;...,... .:.".s69l,O97 s494582 s!o5, ,l3
| Not of Canadian origin or
| manufacture .,','''','.' o3JZl4 5tlO0I 2lS,28
|
Total amount of Canadian
goods, proper, charged
with duties IN L. S..,,.. oo3 Slb3 ,415 S216 S4
m tha 9th ha nC fho