Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1904-02-06

u.ai PiouuCtS WOulQ a1IOrQ reason
able adjustment. Nothing short of
this would do it, and this concession
Oh Tree trade in natural products must
be granted by the United States with
out a solitary concession from Can
ada further than those we have al
ready made. We can not afford any
more
His view is sufficiently clear. Mr..
Charlton is an eminent statesman, a
member OF the dominant party in Can.
ada, and one Of its representatives on
the Joint high commission. Surely he
means what he says, and surely it is
the purpose of the Canadian govern
ment to give us no further foothold in
their market for our manufactures.
Without some reciprocal concessions
on the duties now levied upon our
manufactured products, will our friend
the democratic candidate for govern
or. tell us in what way reciprocity of
this kind would benefit us?
Il would be pleased to receive de-
monstration from him or from any one
ELSE. The same kind of reciprocity
proposed to us is what the late Nelson
Dingley used to call jug handled, rec
iprocity. 1t is all upon one side. 1t
is the kind of reciprocity in which we
should give all and receive nothing.
We have never yet made treaty with
Canada in which their statesmen did
not get the better of our own in the
bargaining. For one, | believe in
guarding American interests and not
fostering Canadian interests. Canada
has come to be protective country.
The Canadians, as they have right to
90, are seeking to build up their own
manufactures, and are not seeking to
open their markets to our manufac-
lures any further than we al
ready occupy them. would
be glad if Mr.. CASTOR would I'M
dertake to negotiate specifically a
treaty with Canada which would give
the further outlet to our manufactures
which he and | alike desire. AS, of
course, he cannot do that, | would be
glad ii he would suggest specifically
what sort of a reciprocity treaty with
Canada he means when he refers to
an arrangement of that kind.
When there is in sight a treaty in
which lies mutual benefit, no one will
support 1t more heartily than I. But
When treaty is offered us which is
expressed by the one who makes the
offer as intended for the fostering Of
Canadian interests alone, l applaud the
patriotism which brings it to me for
consideration, but as an American I
must respectfully decline to support
it, II it Is true, as it is, that we are
year by year selling more goods to
Canada than we buy of her, that is
true in a large sense of all our for.
eign trade. That is the fruit of our
republican policy, which has enabled
us since the Inauguration of William
Mckinley to show a balance Of trade
in our favor of nearly three billions of
dollars
ut is now and then suggested that
for the purpose of forcing us into a
reciprocity, Canada may raise our du-
ties to the point where they will pro.
hibit the entry of our products into her
market, and discriminate against us
and in favor of the rest of the world.
For one, l would not legislate under a
threat. We have submitted without a
murmur to a preference of 1913 per
cent in favor of our principal rival.
Great Britain, and If it is proposed to
discriminate against us in favor of the
whole world, and to wiring from us by
the fear of that concessions which
otherwise it would not be for our in
terests to make, then I say that no
self-respecting nation can tamely sub
mit -