The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1869-12-02
M Representations of the Opponents of
=. u RaeiPPocirY.

81
GoLp CLOSED in New York last night at
122.
M INSTRUMENTATION of the Opponents of
b. - Reciprocity.
The resolutions passed at the last session of
Congress directing the State Department to
open negotiations with view to treaty Sc
curing to US the tree navigation of the st.
Lawrence and the freedom of the Canadian
fisheries, and the establishment of reciprocal
free trade between Canada and the United
states, have been obeyed by Secretary fish IN
the most perfunctory manner lie evidently
has notions of his own on the subject, and
easily satisfies himself with a merely formal
performance of his duty. Consequently no
progress has been made, and the ostentatious
announcement recently made from Washing
ton that two members of the Cabinet declare
that there is no present prospect Of a new re-
ciproeity treaty is superauous. The tempora-
ny current Of public feeling against such a
treaty Is strengthened by an impression wide
ly prevalent among those who look forward
with eagcrness to see all the British posses
sions on this continent annexed TO the Uni
ted States that the inhabitants of the Do
minion will remain for a greater length of
time content with their present situation if
they can have the benefit of American mar
kets without closer political union. This
impression seems TO us to be decidedly errone-
Gus, out IL Is not our present purpose to I'M
dertake to dispel it. We wish rather to call
attention to the utterly untenable grounds
upon which the opponents Of reciprocity base
the opinion that neao treaty would give all
the commercial advantages arising from it TO
Canada, and to the Misrepresentation which
are made use of to support that opinion
THESE misrepresentation have appeared nore
recently in dfsingenuous letter published by
Speaker Blaine, followed up by editorial arti-
Giles in the Kennebec Journal They consist
mainly in statements to the following effect,
though they DO not make declarations that in
their form are so clearly fallacious:
First, any treaty that we may hereafter ne
gotiate with respect to reciprocity will tie
characterized by the same inequalities and de-
fects that marked the treaty of 1855.
Second, the fact that Canada has no system
OF internal taxation corresponding to ours
renders it unjust that our producers, who pay
an.excise tax, should be forced to compete
with untaxed Canadian producers in our own
markets.
Third, those persons who are most CON
Versant with the subject, like ex-Secretary
McCulloch and Senator Sherman. regard re-
ciprocity as unfavorabIe to American inter-
ests.
The answer to these unfounded allegations
is as brief as the statement of Them 1t is the
very height of absurdity to argue from the
old treaty to any That can be contemplated
now. There is no sane man in the country
soho wants the treaty of 1855 restored. I'm
der that arrangement it is true that the adj
vantage was mainly on one side, and that our
goods sent to Canadian markets to large
extent paid duties, while Canadian goods
came In free. When the treaty expired in
1860 the Canadians offered to make valuable
concessions to us for the purpose of Saving it.
and have since offered larger ones. No
Canadian imagines that the United States
can second time be induced to enter into a
compact from which we reap so small adyan-
tage. The treaty that is wanted now, and
can De obtained, is one that really giues re-
clprocity, To the second objection, which is
more specious than the first, it is answered
that Canada has eyinced willingness to
make her system of internal taxation con-
form to ours, SO as TO place the citizens of the
two countries in the same condition. and
make the free exchange of their productions
equitable. To the :hrd objection it is an
swered that all the arguments of ex- Secretary
McCuiloch, Senator Sherman and other au-
thorltes that have recently been quoted here
have reference to an arrangement that is now
obsolete, and have no more to do with real
reciprocity than with the Ecumenical Coun-
Gil.
The conclusion of the whole matter is that
Speaker Blaine and his associates are endeav-
ofing to make valid objections to one thing
available as arguments against thing totally
unlike it. Besides this little piece Of sophis- |
Try they have only to say that the prerogative
Oh the lower branch of Congress "to regulate
commerce" is intringed by the establishment
OF commercial regulations by treaty. Con-
1850 'iAAS new ~ oioCONCIcQ OF
constitutional law is valid there is yet
method of establishing free trade between the
two countries; viz, by concurrent legislation.
An adjustment by the latter method would |
be extremely difficult and complicated. |
Either party could greatly embarrass the other
by watching its opportunity and putting an
end to the legislative reciprocity by an act of |
repeal. But the thing can be done, and if |
Mr.. Blaine and his friends are really in favor
ofany system Of free trade with the Prov
inces, SO that we may not be cut off from the
navigation of the st. Lawrence, so that our |
fisherman may not be excluded from pro- /
vInclal hshing-grounds and so that there may
De such intimate and extensive commercial
relations as both countries will find mutually
oenehcial, let them 60 TO work in earnest in
their own way