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

| canadian reciprocity is an old queS-
ton in the United States. 1t is one
that has not only been discussed but
one that mas been tried by the people
Oh the United States. In any discus
sion of this subject, therefore, we
should give due heed to experience O.
those years when reciprocity between
tne United States and Canada was in
force. In the gubernatorial campaign
Iof last fall in Massachusetts, A. w.
Castor, the democratic candidate. adj
lNocated in the strongest possible terms
the adoption of Canadian reciprocity
| 1t was during this campaign that Will
liam H. Moody, secretary of the navy,
Massachusetts man, took occasion tC
answer him. This speech may be said
to have represented the position of the
administration on the reciprocity pro-
position, inasmuch as like nearly all
the addresses of the cabinet officers,
I it was submitted to the President 1t
set forth in a positive manner the po-
lsition of the republican party regard
ing the policy of reciprocity. At this
time, when the attention of Iowans has
been called to this question it will be
we'll to review the position of the re-
publican party as set forth by Secre
tary Moody in his recent speech, that
Iowans may keep in the safe republic
can highway.
Among other things that are enter
ing into the debate in our state is the
subject of reciprocity with Canada. 1
ISnnnncn va orr q II in o1 Of n ;,,c&
ciprocity with our next-door neighbor,
but 1T must be reciprocity in which we
should gain something as well as they.
If were asked whether am in favor
lof reciprocity with Canada l would
ask in return what kind of reciprocity
THE luestioner had in mind. In enter
ling into any system of reciprocity with
any country | should always regard
American interests in the first place.
II would not enter into any reciproc-
lily with Canada which imDeriled the
existence Of our fisheries, whose eXis-
|tence l conceive to be of the highest
concern to the public. We can not
be for any reciprocity proposed by
Canada regardless of it's effect upon
our own interests, and it becomes ne
|cessarily important, therefore, to con-
slider what kind of reciprocity our
Canadian friends have in mind. We
shall obtain light upon the subject by
considering the history of reciprocity
between the two countries.
We made one reciprocity treaty with
Canada in 1854, called the Elgin treaty
The list Of articles admitted reciprocal
ly free by the terms of that treaty
included the products of the mine, of
the farm, of the forest and of the deep
sea; it did not include single manu-
featured product That treaty lasted
until 1866. The results were favorable
to Canada. but were not deemed favor
able to our country by the statesmen
|of the times. Canada was anxious to
procure a prolongation of the treaty,
but We declined to continue the ar
rangement. Whether We gained or
lost by our refusal, will refer to the
eminent Canadian statesman. Mr..
Charlton, member of the Canadian
parliament and a member of the pres
ent joint high commission He made
a speech on the subject in the house
of commons last February and l will
read something from that speech:
In 1856 (Which was the end of the
reciprocity period) the United States
was our chief market in agricultural
products, while we imported almost all
of our manufactured goods from Great
Britain. Now this condition of things
is reversed-actually and absolutely
reversed. Today England is our chief