The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-03-30

l sented at hearings given by Congress siona1 committees. They are custom 1 arily too inert to make their wishes | fOrcibly felt, although they may real ize that they have much at stake.
 | The leading and strongest objection
 made by the opponents of the treaty was to the So-called violation of the spirit of the treaty." on the part of Canada, because she increased her tar if on products of the United States not included in the reciprocity provis- 1 ions of the treaty, mostly manufac- | confessed that it was natural that Canada's course in this respect should i frritate the Americans. It needs but
 a moment to conclude that our manu- | featuring industries as a. whole must | have been much superior to those or Canada, and no doubt our nlanufac- | turers anticipated the development of 1 a most excellent and profitable trade | with Canada under duties higher | than were imposed at the beginning of the treaty. But Canada raised du- ties on imports through her tariff of | 1858 and it was done for the sake of making important internal improve | mentS that were considered necessary
 or very desirable for the development i of the resources of the provinces. Can | alS and railroads were built and inn l provements were also made in canals | and in the navigation of the St. Law renee river. MT. Frederick E. Haynes :. takes the ground that the object of l these works was much political as 1 commercial ttthe desire of the Canad- | ian statesmen having been to consoli- date the separate provinces and by an l increase in the material wealth of the l people to remove all diScontent. which l from the situation of the country, so
 easily developed into a desire for an | nexation to the United States MT. l Haynes points out that to obtain the l large revenues needed for the improve l mentS increase of taxation was essen .tial, and that the easier method seem l ed to be to raise the tariff. This, " 1 he adds, "could not be done in the SC
 of those articles included in the treaty l but could be done in the case of man l ufactured goods. This was done, and | then arose the grievance of which the :, Americans bitterly complained. 1 From year to year, as greater revenue was required. higher tariff was inn
 posed to the increa sing disgust of the | American manufactures"
 | In this connection it is important to | consider some things contained in a | report, dated May. 1860, and made by l John ". Taylor to the Secretary Of l the Trea Sury of the United States. In l this report MT. Taylor seems to have l taken a broad and unprejudiced view, 1 favoring Canada to an extent that l could hardly have been expected. He | compared at length the American tar | ifs of 1916 and 1857 with the Canadian l tariff of 1858 and found that Canada had done nothing more than to bring 1 her duties up so as to approach an | equality with ours. MT. Taylor even l claimed that the demand that Canada ! should put her duties back to where | they were when the reciprocity treaty | was ratified or endure the abcogation | of the treat ty itself bordered on arro- gance in view of the fact that the du- ties imposed under the tariff of 1857 were at least 25 per cent. higher than
 the corresponding rates of the Canad-i l ian tariff. Referring to the pamphlet ! nf MT Haynes gain I find that he
 admits that the complaint of the Americans might have had a, doubtful justification before the outbreak of the | Civil War, while the tariff of 1857 was | in force, but he adds: "It could have
 none at all after the war tariffs came 1 into existence Even under the tar1ff States upon cotton and woolen goods l was "A per cent, per cent. higher
 than the Canadian duty under the tar ! if of 1859"
 But such facts as have just been I cited had to contend with popular
 prejudice ana the self-interest of pro- ducerss and we all know that a biased
 mind seeks to justify itself rather than l deed it often steels itself with a per | tinacity that would be astonishing, | were we not aware that men are gov l erned far more by strong feelings en- I gendered by prejudice than they are l by nationality
 But the commercial and economical | objections to the treaty-that to which have made reference and others that
 either were advanced or may have 1 been advanced-were not the direct | and -prefominating cause of the abrO- gation of the treaty. Indeed. it may ! well be doubted whether these objec- 1 tions alone, untramme1ed by the com l plications leading to and following the opening of the Civil War would have | ended the efforts -t0 promote reciprocal
 trade between the two countries. l
 write advisedly: for. in spite of the more or less dissatisfaction here and there, there was a strong sentiment in
 the United States which favored the | continuance of liberal trade arrange nentS with Canada. This sentiment
 was unmistakably shown in a conven-
 tion held at Detroit, July 11-14, 1865. 1 The convention was composed or | prominent business men and others | representing the leading commercial | bodies of the United States and the ! British North American provinces and l came ito substantial Gnanimity, and
 they united in urging upon the gov
 portance of immediately opening nego- | tiations with the British government l for new arrangement, at the least as l liberal on both sides as the one about | to expire mad been, and much broader as should appear practicable. | Their action was approved by every | Board of Trade and Chamber of Com merce in the country taking any in tereSt in the matter; it was approv- | ed. so far as we ever heard, by none" " l Certainly the business interests in
 a bread sense put then1selves on rec ord deSirouS that reciprocity with | Canada should be continued in some form; but the unhappy political influ- enceS of the time were sufficient to l override wise utilitarian considerations, ! and were the direct cause of the abro- lgation of the treaty as is freely ac- knowledged by all writers on the sub ject whom I have consulted One of l them, Goldwin Smith. the famous his | torian, has expressed himself as fol-