The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-07-09
mo PREFERENCE, NO EMPIRE"
Chamberlain's New Policy for England
Revival or Sir Charles Tupper's OF lsSS.


To THE EDITOR OF THE suN--SI: Like
many other so-called inventors and discov-
erers. Chamberlain Is not the author OF the
policy Of preferential trade between the Home
Government and the colonies Until within
a few years Canada imposed the same import
duties against England which she did against
the United States, and all the rest OF the world.
In 1897, think. she gave upon goods imported
from Great Britain a preference OF l2H per
cent This was increased to Is per cent,
and later to 30 l-3 per cent, where the prefer
ence now stands In order to put this prefer
ence In force as against the most favored
nation clauses In Great Britain's treaties, GER
tain treaties between Great Britain and Ger
many and Belgium had to be denounced by
| Great Britain This action offended Germany
against Canada. and Germany imposed her
maximum duty upon goods imported from
Canada. and Canada now. in turn. imposes an
additional duty Of 80 1-3 per cent. on goods
| imported from Germany. The offer OF this
\ preference from Canada to the mother coun-
| try was made after repeated failures on the
| part Of Canada to secure some fair and reason
able reciprocal relations with the United
States, either by treaty or by mutual tariff
concessions. The United States has for many
years persstently and determinedly refused
| to enter into any such trade relations with
| Canada.
| In 1883 the Liberal party In Canada. the very
same party and the same leaders now In
power. went 80 far In this effort as to 20 to
the country with single plank in their plat
| form, and that plank was unrestricted trade
with the United States, and tariff against all
the rest Of the world. including the mother
country. The United States rejected this
| offer The Liberal party. so long In opposi-
| ton. came into power. and Sir Charles Topper.
! the veteran statesman, became the leader OF
the Opposition. and he was in opposition when
! this tariff preference was given by the pres
| ent Government to England. He vehemently
denounced the granting OF this preference to
| England. unless England. in turn. granted to
| Canada some advantages in the English mar
ket over the United States and other highly
protected countries. He insisted upon tho
establishment of what he called mutual
preference" policy between England and her
/ colonies. Sir Charles had advocated this
policy long prior to the advent of the present
Government to power.
| was present with tho representa- lives OF
the Canadian Government at Washington in
1883 during the negotiation of the Baird
| hamherluin Atlantic Fishery treaty. Cham
berlain and Sir Charles were personal friends.
and this question Of iner-empire preferential
trade was frequently discussed. Sir Charles
advocating it and Chamberlain opposing 1t.
Chamberlain told me that England did not
care n damn about the fish. but that she
wanted to secure such arrangements with the
| United states as would satisfy Canada, but
that England was n free trade country, and
mediate her own colonies. all o. which, in com:
mon with the rest Of the world, had erected
high terir walls against her, This was seven
or eight yenrs before Canada had granted an
| unconditional tariff preference TO England
| But times and conditions have changed, and
90 has Joseph ,Chnmherlain. and this change
has been complete and radical from the posi-
| ton which he took at Washington In 1885,
and practically maintained ever since that
time uE to the present. N9T ne HOSTS .,d ms
| and insc-ibes upon i the motto mo prefer
! ence. no empire" He has now become con:
vert to the, doctrine which Sir Charles urged
| upon him fifteen years ago that In making
when he ha d something to give as we'll as some
thing ws ree col tt sagns to Ch9 en-
| fishery treaty. that in the negotiation OF
purely commercial treaty. and one In which
he question Of terrtorg and the i1'TemSe Of
WIS not In comnendinG, position: that every
country in the world had tho free use OF her
TnS IL the T aa not Of
which she did not have 20 pay very high
o tn ch mS Rs cS or 81 hg and
aaGps the S ow the press y both Rsm
c cri Hi has iT made new and Erent dis
| coverv There Ia nothing new about II.
II the United States had given Canada any
| fair tariff or ira de treatment in response TO
her numerous overtures, Canada would not
now surrender this advantage in exchange
| for any proposed inter-empire preference.
and without her COOPERATION no such prefer
! encc viii be established and especially so rs
| such trade nrranrement will undoubtedly be
accompanied with the colonies sharing with
| Al. lNtr NFN Lao h,trH
! and expense Of Fnrland's army and navy, -,
II Chamberlain's policy succeeds, It VIII
cost the I'ritcd States the free marke OF Great
| CanWda. Would II not be wise for the United
States in order TO prevent the carrying out o.
this policy, to make very, liberal trade rela.
order TO fix national boundary, line Few
miles east or west in the eternal SHOWS OF
Alaska. or 10 close the bays or inlets OF the
A,asknn consts against Canadian or British
ships. to go to the expense Of allowing Canada
to ad the neither country in closing to the
United states market which Is free and TAX es
more than one-thrd Of all our eyports'
OF course il is not At NIL sure that Chamber
lain's policy so-cNllcd will succeed. CANADA
may not think it to her advantage TO assume
her share Of the burdens of the English army
and navy TO secure the benefits Of an inter-
empire preference trlde and she may not
relish that portion OF Pelfour,'s speech at tn
he srys "lt must not be supposed that be-
cause sclr-Govcrnmcnt had been given to the
colonies they could he regarded MS separate
politicpl entities On the contrary. they are
Integral parts Of the British Empire" Ger
many evidently does not agree with Mr.. Bal
four four in framing u special tarir provision
against goods imported from Canada. and
Cnnndn herself would seem 20 take issue with
Rolfour in retniatinG against Germany direct
without going bv WAY of Downing Street. In
fnct in the whole construction of her tariN.
rnd in the negotiation Of treaties with the
United states. she shows herself to be very
much Of n srparnte political entity, Whether
this policy IL good or bad for Canada or the
empire, whether II succeeds or fails, Joseph
| chamberlain Ia not the father Of II, and, so far
MS know. Sir Charles Tupper is. Whatever
question there may be about the policy being
good or Ind "a Canada and the empire: \ is
very plain that il is not good for the United
states md the time s now opportune for tho
I'nitcd states to serve her own best interests
hy being honest and neirhborly. by. keeping
her two best customers. instead Of losing both
or waving n high license for keeping a market
that for more than nifty years has been free
to us -,
zen, md write from the standpoint OF some
Familiarity with the commercial relations eX-
sting between the two counries and be-
lirvnr that II would be to the interest OF the
United states to deal in II more liberal spirit
with Canada in matters of trade
AKRON, Ohio, June ~ s. J. RrTcHrE.