The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-05-10

! tlllb IlONeHicilb Al oIpobi' iOh W ANoH'c'''
and it was mere accident that the political
! trick did not come to be known az Henry
wandering" NJ. W. H.
Reciprocity.
We have before us volume Of nearly
six hundred pages entitled Reciprocity.
! by Prof. j LA RENEE LA GHtlN and Prot
! II. PARKER WILLIS New York: the Baker Il
TAYLOR Coz. The authors do not profess
to offer an exhaustive treatment OF the
/ subject. All Of the important questions
relating to reciprocity could not be included
in the space at their command There are
duties, for example, on certain staples
in regard to which reciprocity might fur
uish relief 10 large class Of consumers;
bur; a full discussion of some OF these is
necessarily renounced. We are told, how
ever, that second volume might possibly
I've devoted to the questions raised by such
commodities as lumber, wool, coal and
similar products We do not purpose here
To follow tho authors in their discussion
of the general expediency Of adopting
policy of reciprocity. but we shall avail
ourselves Of the facts collected by them
70 show what were the positive results
Of our reciprocity treaties with Canada
and with Hawaii. Such concrete data
afford sounder basis for conclusions than
hundred priort arguments.
Why did the British Government exert
itself TO secure tho reciprocity treaty be-
/, tween the United States and Canada
which waa signed on June 8, 1894, and
after being ratified by Congress, was APP
proved by President Pierce on Aug. OF
the same year? We can answer this ques
ton by quoting q statement made by Lord
Elgin, Governor General OF Canada, in
letter addressed to Earl Grey in November.
lsie, Fittings lin Canadal remain on their
present footing. there Is nothing before us
but violent agitation. ending In con-
vulsion or annexation, And l much fear
that no measure but the establishment OF
reciprocal trade between Canada and the
States. or the imposition OF tdiscrimi-
natingl duty on the produce OF the States
when imported into England will remove it. :
When Lord Elgin came to Washington
cor the purpose of negotiating reci-
prooity treaty he found large Demo-
cratic ms ority in the Senate opposed to the
project.
He was, indeed. informed by President
Pierce and Mr.. Marcy, then Secretary Of
State, that 1t would probably prove I'M
possible to carry such treaty through
the Senate. According to Laurence Oil
phant, member of Lord Elgin's stah,
tho ratification OF the proposed treaty
was secured partly by social influences
and partly by shrewd appeals to the politi-
cal interests Of the Southern Senator's.
To say that the treaty was "foated through
on champagne" is, of course, absurd: but
it is probable that good many pro-slavery
Senators, who did not want the number OF
Free States increased. we're swayed by
Lord Elgin's assurance that II reciprocity
were refused. the Canadian provinces
would request admittance to the Union.
The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada,
which went into effect on March 10, 1855,
provided not only for a reduction OF duties.
but also for complete free trade in a list
Of articles which were to be recIprocally
admitted without restriction by the two
countries in all cases where the goods
in question we're the growth and produce
of the exporting nation. II Ia certain that,
at the outset, the arrangement was popular
in both countries and that the injustice
afterward alleged to be inherent In it was
not complained of until long after the
treaty had been proclaimed. Our farmers
mAnIeSteu hcN oPPoSA.ASi W N''~
reciprocity in raw products provided for
by the treaty. Our manufacturers, on
their part, although their goods were not
included In the free-trade schedules, seem
70 have been satisfied to find themselves
placed, as they had been placed by earlier
action of the Provincial Parliament. on
footing OF equality with English competi-
tors. The anthracite coal interest had been
hot tF,
OF the Canadian provinces the output OF
the Pennsylvania mines was beginning
to find q market. Bituminous coal miners
were too remote to feel any dread OF Ca
madam rivalry. On the whole, therefore,
the treaty was received without pronounced
opposition on this side Of the border. and
it was naturally welcomed on the other.
The hopes entertained concerning the OPP
Grafton Of the treaty seemed. for time,
to be justified by the course Of trade.
The exports of the United States to Canada
had in 1850 amounted in value to only
Ss,Ss5,17O. and our imports from, that coun-
try to 1896, 800. BY 1854 our exports to
Canada had risen to ga 900 900, and in the
same year our imports from Canada had
increased to $s.00O,O0o. In 1855. the year
when the treaty became operative. our
imports from Canada were more than fifteen
million, and our exports to that country
nearly twenty Eight illion dollars. On the
whole. our exports maintained higher
level than our imports up to 1895, but in that
year our imports were valued at $a3,ls3 s72.
and our exports at only s27 500 $40. That
is to say, In the year before the treaty went
into effect our exports exceeded our i'm
ports at the ratio Of 2 to /, whereas. ten
years later, our imports considerably sur
passed our exports. Under the circ,im-
stances, it is not surprising that, on Jan.
49, 1895. joint resolution Of Congress
denouncing the reciprocity treaty was
approved by the President. and that our
reciprocal relations with Canada came 10 n
close on March II, 1906. There ID no doubt
that. reviewing their eleven year, expert.
ence. the people OF the United States had
arrived at the conclusion that the advan-
tages accruing to Canada under the treaty
had proved greatly superior to those OBJ
tanned BY themselves.
The second experiment made with reci-
procity by the United States was undertaken
In 1870. We refer to the treaty with Hawaii.
which went into effect IL The year named.
and Continued unintsrTuptsdly until The