Weekly expositor. (Brockway Centre, Mich.) 1882-1894, 1890-12-05
CANADIAN RECIPROCITY.


This question is Gordon-knot.
Within it are tangled inexplicable
treaty relations, retaliatory measures,
mad prejudices. and above all, the fact
that there are three ends to the string,
The United States cannot treat with
Canada for the mutual benefit Of both.
There is Great Britain to consult: a
fantom which offers no substantial
benefit to Canada itself, but whose
tabled greatness" serves great pur-
pose in the mouths of INSCRIPTIONS
demagogues. TO be called disloyal to
the British government is too often
considered stigma. Few men dare
to speak their own convictions on an
nexation. But there are some men
there who have mental sight piercing
enough to see through the glittering
phantom of "loyalty" to their own
good. One of these is Edward Van
Cortland Wright. He sees no good
reason why on one side of an imagin-
airy line a country rich in resources
should lie undeveloped, while on the
other side magnificent cities have
sprung up, as it were, in a trice, the
farming-class are wealthy and mines
are running at their fullest capacity.
He sees Englishmen investing their
capital in America, and not in Canada
And he has the courage, although q
tory to protest against these things.
"If Canada is to be developed 1t must
be developed by Yankee enterprise and
capital" In this lies Canada's only
salvation.
However we have been speaking of
what would be for Canada's good alone.
There are other benefits in which the
United States would share. The adj
vantage would be by no means One-sid-
ed, but mutual. Still we are the more
powerful and so can better dispense
with Canada than Canada with us.
But Canada must move first. AS was
the case with Texas, she must free her.
self from Great Britain and then apply
for entrance into the Union. Never
theless annexation is at present far
distant. Reciprocity in trade is now
urged in lieu of it. But such relations
must be unrestricted to be efficient.
They must be as free as between the
States. No other arrangement can
prove of more utility than the other
numerous treaties which have been
made or attempted. The mooted ques-
tions of fisheries, shipment in bond and
all the subject which they embrace
must be included within it, 1t must
be mutual friendship. Not the quib-
bling enmity which has carped at
treaty provisions. claims the privilege
of shipment in bond of Canadian
goods, while it denies it to American
goods, pushes down the northern
boundary line from the 81 40 parallel
to the Straight of Juan de Fuca. and
continually. snarls about retaliation.
All these old treaty stipulations must
be done away with. But to do this
brings in another power. The de-
mands of Canada could easily be sat
isfied because they are identical with
ours. The British lion stands Gerber
us-like and must be quieted with an
oil-cake. England's demands are not
ours. They are, and have always been,
dramatically opposed to ours. The
substantial success we have attained
has always been her chagrin. But
every Canadian measure must be
sanctioned by the English government.
Will she countenance such measure
as reciprocity? We think not. 1t
would look like Annexation" In that
she would be right. Free trade rela-
lions would mean close friendship,
almost relationship. AS their hostility
to American institutions died out, the
"loyalty" fever would vanish. Then
the "good" of English alliance would
be questioned; and finally dispensed
with. Then what should Canada do
Declaim itself q free republic. 1t has
no use for Great Britain. Let it re-
pudiate her claim. Then friendship
would be easy. Her trade relations
could be fittingly arranged. The United
States has no desires for self-aggran-
dizement. A sister republic would be
cherished; and Canada's best interests,
in so far as they are connected with
the United States would be assured.