The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1886-09-29
The Proposed One sided Treaty.

To the Editor Of the Press:
1t appears that Canada and Great Britain
are negotiating a treaty for the United
States called reciprocity treaty. Webster
defines a reciprocity treaty as ia treaty con-
cluded between two countries comforting
eQuat pricitegeS as regards customs, or cbarg-
es on imports, and other respects" The
same authority also defines reciprocate Ito
give and return mutually, to requite." Let
us see if the profit derived by the interchange
of commodities proposed by Canada would
accrue alike to the interests of both countries.
Our Canadian neighbors seem to possess the
cons ummate faculty, in etfecting trade or a
treaty of getting everything, and giving
nothing in return. Wouldi it benefit the New
England lumbermen to have lumber placed
on the free list? Would it contribute to the
profit and prosperity of the New England
farmer to have our markets flooded with hay,
grain, wool, potatoes and other articles OF
Canadian production? Articles nearly all of
which are abundantly produced by our own
people and of which we have enough and to
spare? And when we approach the subject
of fish, that article which has caused the
whole controversy between the two coun-
tries, the article for which we paid five and
half millions of dollars, and gave our vast
markets free for the privilege of taking in
SdUduIdH WdbElo, Aduu UliCll ulu NV euhO
anyD when we approach this subject we
wish we could weld an inspired pen. If
there are any who believe that free fish
would benefit the people of New England,
or any other section of this broad land, let
them consult the owners of fishing vessels.
and the men who man these vessels, from
Cape Cod to Eastport; and they will pc as
Sured that the entry OF Canadian hSh INTO
our markets free would strike death-bloW
to that once vast, but now crippled and tot
tering industry, the New England fisheries.
The term reciprocity then, as applied by
the Canadians, is a misnomer; it is ''delu-
sion and q snare" Retaliation would pc
more fitting term. What have we received
lenity shown them and their vessels? They
have seized, and imposed upon our vessels
heavy fines for trivial offences; they have
harassed, bulldozed and imprisoned our fish
common privileges due from one civilized
people to another, and now they are ready to
say to the United States, give us your mar
kets free, and in return we will give you the
privilege of fishing in our waters. Sublime
concession; munificent generosity. But we
leave it to the common sense and good judg-
ment of the people of New England to judge
which country would have the advantage in
the proposed transaction. But we feel GER
tain that a treaty alleged to be reciprocal,
but so manifestly in the interest of Canada,
and SO disastrous to New England interests,
will never be passed or ratified by the Sen
ate of the United States. With the aid of
the five and half millions paid by the Uni
ted States for a privilege, which was no priv
ilege, the Canadians were enabled to build
large fleet of fishing vessels with which our
fishermen have been obliged to compete,
with every advantage in favor of the Cana
dams, and now the only saving power for
this disheartened ana deserving class, is
dnty on fish of all kinds large enough to
keep Canadian fish out of American markets.
l.. II. NJ.