Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-06-21

procity proposed was not reasonable or equal
Ldkewise he declined proposition that the
privileges Of the coastins trade on the Atlantic
and In the lakes be reeiprooslly open to Cana
tons were informally discussed by the confer.
ence. A commission 70 AZ the boundary sepa.
rating Alaska from British territory was the first
The next was the regulation respecting wreck.
age on the great lakes and tho rules governing
the same. The third was the appointment %
to examine and report the measures necessary
| to arrest certain practices which are detrimen-
tai to the ash in both countries. The fourth
was that Of placing line Of buoys on the line
between the two countries on the st. Croi1
river whore it loses itself In Psssamaquoddy
river. These several subjects were fsvorsbly
considered by the conference. They viii be
subjects for confederation In an official confer
enoe, or some Of them may be disposed of by
legislation between the two countries. The
fifth was an informal engagement to repeal
and abandon the drawback of 10 cents q ton
treal and shipped therefrom to Europe. By
the American railways running from Ogdens-
burg and Oswego and other American ports
the shippers pay the full 20 cents ton, while
in effect those by the way Of Montreal pay only
cents. It was understood that the Canadian
commissioners, who were all three members OF
the cabinet, would see to the withdrawal Of this
discrimination. It is obviously in violation OF
the provisions Of the twenty-seventh article Of
the treaty Of 1871. We learn Of late that 1t has
been reimposed for the year 1892, and unless
we resort to some form Of retaliation our ship
pers and transportation companies will be sub
jected continually to this unfair charge.
The Secretary further points out that the
reciprocity treaty of 1854, which the Canadians
proposed to use az q basis for q new treaty, was
confined to natural articles produced by both
countries In abundance, and forming no basis
n n thea
OF 1891, which took from this country some
thing which the others did not produce and
gave US something which we did not produce.
The treaty of 1874 which failed OF ratifca-
ton by the Senate, embraced long and impor-
tant list of manufactured articles. In conclu-
sion Secretary Blaine says: 1.-The trade statis-
tics for 1880 show that the total exports from
Canada into the United States amounted in
value to $40, 042 900. and Of this sum e38, 442,-
900 consisted of natural products. The chief
competitor Of the United States for the import
trade of Canada Is Great Britain. For the last
fiscal year the import trade was as follows:
From the United States, s53, 6S5.657; Great
Britain, S42, 047. 526; all other countries. S17-
GIL ,941. If Great Britain should be permitted
TO enjoy gratuitously the benefits conferred
upon the United States by means of q reci-
procity treaty, its benefits to the latter country
would in q great measure be neutralized."
MR. FOSTERS REPORT.
L u
Of June 6, 1892, from Mr.. John W. Foster, in
which he says that after the adjournment Of
the first conference the subject of discriminate
ing tolls on Canadian canals was again brought
to the attention of the Canadian government
through the British minister by a note from
the acting secretary Of state, March II last, but
no response was made, and on April o new
order in council was issued re-enacting the re-
bate provisions against which the United States
hal 49, HA1 L.
the Canadian commissioners denied that they
had givens any assurances that the alleged dis
elimination would be removed, and that they
had promised only to have their government
consider the matter. They insisted that the
canal tolls were not a discrimination against the
United States nor violation of the treaty Of
1871. Secretary Blaine controverted this view
and ON the 4th instant the Canadians proposed
to modify the order in council by allowing the
transhipment in American ports Of cargoes des-
tined for Montreal without loss or rebate on
condition that free navigation Of the Hudson
from the end Of New York state canals to New
York city.
The Secretary of State declines to entertain
the proposition as q satisfactory settlement of
the question.
The Canadian commissioners said they did
not feel authorized at present to agree to a re-
moval OF the rebate on canal tolls, but stated
on their return to Canada the subject should
be again submitted without delay to the do
minion ministry, and they hoped to be able
within two weeks to submit to the government
OF the United States some new proposition on
the subject. 1t was therefore, agreed that the
present conference should be terminated with
the understanding that the Canadian govern
ment would be expected to make some further
Communication on the subject to the govern
ment OF the United States but without preju-
dice to any action which the latter government
might see proper to take.