The Portland daily press., 1869-02-18
DAILY PRESS.
PORTLAND.
Thursday Morning, February Is, 1869.
Trade with Canada,
HOW THE GREAT WEST REG AIMS prcr-
PROCITY

HOW THE GREAT WEST REG Arms PFcT
PRocITY.
correspondent of the ST po,1 D..
one OF the most vigorous papers in the ,yoot
makes an ingenious argument showing III ~
since almost the sole products of Minnesota
wheat, barley, lumber and wool, are also the
products of Canada, the State must necessa.
riy be opposed to reciprocity. The Press
refutes this reasoning so neatly by arguments
that apply with still greater force to Maine
that we copy the entire article:
If the Eastern Provinces were States. and
Sekirk, Saskatchewan aud Columbia were
Territories, of the Union, with trade as free
across the present boundary as between Min
nesota and Wisconsin, would not our cores
pondent regard it as a good thing for the
commercial, and even the agricultural inter
ests, of this State? The removal of all re-
strictions on trade and intercourse between
Northern and Southern States-betWeen At
lantic and Pacific States-even between
States on the same latitude and having the
same productions, works well. We get on
without protection" SO termed, against
each other. Why should not similar results
follow an extension of the same freedom of
commerce ard communication to all adjacent
districts on this continent?
When the Erie Canal was proposed, the far
mers OF New York were urged to oppose II
because their home market would he occu.
pied by Western products. Such has been
the result; but has there not been full com
pensation to the Mohawk and Genessee
farmer? Is not the country, at all events. i'm
measurably the gamer?
Suppose line OF custom houses and pro
hibitory duties were drawn along the Ohio
and Missouri rivers. Would not ST. Louis
and all the country south of this line regard
their situation as unfortunate? and womb
the States north OF the frontier have cause
for congrarulation? So with Minnesota. If
the Red River and Saskatchewan districts
were filled with civilized people, would it NOT
be better to trade with them-to admit and
transport their products, taking the risk of
competltlon-rather than establish a prohib-
itory tariff and force their commerce to Mon
treal?
We are having the full effect Of an abroqa-
ton of the Reciprocity Treaty at this time.
Canada is loser, doubtless, by being forced
to send her agricultural products directly to
England, to Nova Scotia and to the West In
dies, instead OF over American railroads and
canals to New York and Boston, and thence
to these points, but what is the cain to oIlr
producers? We none the less meet Canal
an competition in those external markets,
while we throw away the profits of thecar-
rler and commission merchant. The freen
demand OF our agricultural products pay be
insignificant in comparison with The home
consumption, but is it not sufficient after all,
to make the difference between the good
prices of 1868 and the low prices OF 1859?
New England wants certain privileges in
the Canadian Fisheries, which We foollshly
surrendered by treaty in 1878. The North
western States would like toAave, not only
the freedom OF the st. Laurence river, but
such enlargements of the Welland and st.
Lawrence canals, as wiDpass vessels Of 1000
to 200 tons burthen rom the sea to Supe-
rior, forcing New Y,rk to double the capaci-
ty of the Erie anS Oswego canals and re-
ducing the cost of transportation on bushel
of wheat fully twenty-five per cent If we
can secure both obects-one important to
New Englard and the other even more vital
to the West-by an agreement to establish
the same freedom of trade and intercourse on
both sides Of the st. Lawrence from Superior
to tue Atiantlc, which we now have in the
Mississippi Valley from Lake Itasca to the
Gulf, would not our correspondent waive his
objections. with all their pausibirty? We
have confidence that he would do So
As Tor revenue, fixed duty on the Cana
dian and Mexican frontiers of five per cent
would doubtless yield greater return than
an average of fifty per cent. We do not 90
into the questson whether it is not wise poll /.
cy to retain the latter scale of duties as
against the labor plethora of Europe; but we
fail to see the application OF the argument of
protection against Cur neghbors on this CON
tinent. We can make them our friends-we i
can increase our wealth as individuals and a
community-we can in all respects, while
beIefltting them, receive an equivalent bene-
NJ, by trading with them-in perfect free
dom, whenever annexed to the American
Union, or under moderate revenue duty on
all our exchanges so long as present political
relations continue; and ifsspecial tariffs or
treaties are necessary to secure such a COM
munity of interests and intercourse. we can
see'no good reason against, and many con-
slderations in favor of their consummation.