Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1880-03-19

eating, ''by jingo" Englishman in excess,
seems to have lost both his temper and his
case before the bar of the legal profess
sion. At least, such is the opinion OF
American lawyers who have read the pam
phlets Of both disputants, just at hand.
The Reciprocity Question.
COMMERCIAL RECIPROCITY WITH CANADA M
PRACTICABLR-sPEECHo OF HON. CHARLES
II. JOYCE OF VERMONT.
The subject Of reciprocity with the Do
minion of Canada has had its periods of re-
yival and discussion ever since the abroga-
ton of the treaty of 1854 The people of
the Dominion have felt severely the loss of
free access to American markets resulting
from the abrogation of the old one sided
treaty, and have been generally anxious for
renewal of the arrangement, in some shape,
while extensive interests on this side the line
have favored u return to the policy of re-
ciprocity The subject was brought up
afresh during the last session Of Congress,
by the introduction of a resolution, which is
still pending, for the appointment of three
commissioners to confer with commissioners
on the part of Canada, and to ascertain on
what basis reciprocity treaty can be ne
gotiated.
The resolution was opposed by Colonel
Charles H. Joyce, Representative of the
First District of Vermont, i'll clear and
able speech, delivered in the House on the
18th ut.
If we had space in our columns, we should
be glad to give Col. Joyce's speech entire
but must content ourselves and our readers
with some extracts from 1t. Col. Joyce said
The people of Vermont have repeatedly,
| through their Legislature and in public as
semblies and conventions, entered their
solemn protest against the renewal of any
reciprocity treaty with the Dominion OF
| Canada and the Republican convention in
my Congressional District, in August. 1874,
| expressed the same determined opposition
by unanimously adopting the following REQ
luton
E,,o,rsL. Tha, believing that the renewal of the
reciprocity treaty would prove seriously detrimen-
tal 10 the agricultural interests and the laborng
classes Of our State, We are opposed to It's renewal
| in any form.
! From this, sir, the House will see that in
opposing this or any other scheme OF recip-
roci,y not only act in strict accordance
with my own convictions and judgment ol
what is right, but in exact harmony with
the wishes and desires of the people repre-
sent.
! In discussing the proposition now under
consideration, in order to uncover and ex.
pose the whole scheme, and place the mattel
IN clear light before this House and the
country, shall first call attention TO tht
meaning, scope and novelty Of commercial
reciprocity treaty; second. inquire whether
the President and Senate have the constitu
tional power to bind the Government by en-
tering into such treaty. third, review ant
examine the history of such treaties TO which
our Government has been party; fourth
inquire as the causes which led TO the treaty
of 1854 with the Dominion of Canada; fifth,
show the injurious effect of that treaty upor
the producers, manufacturers and laborer:
of this country; sixth, demonstrat,
the fact that the duties we col
ect upon imports from Canada do not en-
hance the price of the article to the con
sumner here, Us claimed by the advocates o
reciprocity; scventI, give the reasons why
the United States cannot afford to enter int
such treaty with Canada eighth show
why the Canadians desire this so-caled com
mercial reciprocity with the Cuuited States
ninth, inquire as to the policy of granting spe
cial favors, and whether such an arrange
ment AS is proposed would in any manne
conflict with our commercial obligations 4
other nations.
As to the first point, Mr.. Joyce maintained
that reciprocity treaty between Canad;
and this country means that we must, il
all our dealings with the people OF that pro
vince, adopt the theory OF free trade, an'
reduce the price of labor upon our farms, il
our mills, factories and quarries TO the Cana
da English standard" He claimed that rec
iprocitv treaty is thing of recent origin
quoting Senator Morrill, as saying such
treaty us reciprocity treaty was unknown n
the time the Constitution WAS formed, AM
to-day thee is not one existing in the worl,
between ANY nations here or elsewhere. |
is wholly a new and modern invention.
On the third point, the speaker held tina
.'the Constitution Cf the nited States pro
vi,lcs that the Congress shall have power Il
Law and collect taxes duties. imports, excise
and TO regulate commerce with foreign M
tions. while il prohibits the States from do
ing it, and requires that all bills for ralsin
revenue shall originate in the House of Rep
resen,atiyes," but that "a reciprocity treat
assumes 10, and would il entered into u
proposed, regulate cur commerce, work
complete Change IN our tariff system oil rails
ing revenue on imports from foreign nations
entirely ignore ard annul the power OF Con
cress over the subject. and openly and pa
. pabIy violate both the letter and spirit of th
, Constitution.
As to the causes which lci upt the treat
with Canada in 1854, Mr.. joyce said Whe
the treaty Of 1854 was entered into its de
sign and plirpOs.. was not alone comnercia
rtciprociiv, bat It's an,hnrS and advocate
fondly hoped that il would prove the gate
way TO annexation but the culd-bloodc
malignity manifested ly the people OF Cans
l ia during the dark days OF our civil war di'
sipaied all such golden ani;;iralions, an
, convinced the people OF the niicd State
t that sordid love of gain and desire fc
: filthy lucrc were the motives which actuate
1 them and not solicitudc for our welfare c
e a wish TO aid us in paying the taxes an
G bearing the burdens of our Government.
IL With reference TO the injurious effects {
II the treaty of 1854, the speaker stated tha
''in 1850, only about three years before tn
, treaty went into operation, our exports
1 Canada amounted in round numbers to -
I 500, 900, ard our imports from Canada
= = 81. 600, 900; while in 1854. the last year G
d, the treaty, our exports to Canada amounte
: to so. .356,572, and our imports from tn,
: country the same year To S54, 1l4,3 ,3So. |
/ 1859 We exported to Canada certain mani
3 facturcd articles valued Al 81, lS5, SIG, viii
Il in 1868 we exported of the same articles onl
y 81, $40. sol. In 1851, the year the treat
It took effect and went into operation, the in
Ii ports from Canada TO the United State
II composed of the manufactures and prodn'
/. ,ions of Canada, amounted only To the SUI
~ of SI9, ,3s3, 455, while in 1865, the year IL
@ treaty was abrogated, they amounted 10 S39
r 5S2, sos And the manufactures and pr
i ductions OF foreign countries imported mi
q this country from Canada amounted IN ioI
I to IS, ,921 500, but IN 1866, under the open
:, iion of the treaty, they had incre eased 10 u
u enormous sum Of S54. ia. 3S3. While I'll
II amount exported from the United States
3 Canada, OF both domestic and foreign mani
8 facture and production, was i'll 1854, S2i
IS 56li $50. in 1866 it had only increased
It S.ygl.Sl4. If no treaty had e.
C listed. we should have collected Of her duriu
that twelve years, Of customs duties, ) 10
S73. $50. and she would have collected of I
only =, $50, $50. From tins calculation
:. appears that during the time of its existent
= that treaty released from the payment I
. customs duties total sum of 81, 333, 20I
: value more uf Canadian goods than it did
-, American aud that it also enabled tanat
"a To escape the payment of Sl3, WI,
, ing the balance between Slb3'5, sou au
y y - 600 $50 in customs duties to us whit
u she would have been compelled to pay II 1
S ., such treaty had existed
u i'rior To- that treaty the tride, with the pr
> tinces Ind always been in our favor, and
n population on each side of the line had !
IL creased this trade had also increased, III
/, always to our advantage.
e But the treaty went into operation, pop
r I,tinu and business continued to increase