Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-03-22
BACKGROUND OF EVENTS
BY PAUL Y. COLLINS.

Kelvin in Canada wrote to Lord Gray
in London as follows:
There has been a vast deal OF talk
about annexation. A great deal
of this talk, however, is bravado and
great deal is the mere product of
thoughtlessness. Undoubtedly, it Is I'm
some quarters the utterance of very
serious conviction, and If England
will not make the sacrifices which are
absolutely necessary to put the colo
nists here in as good position CONNER
cfally as the citizens of the States
in order to free navigation and recip-
rocal trade with the States-if not
only the league but those of the gov.
eminent and the Peel party were not
always writing as if it were an ad-
mitted fact, that colonies, and more
especially Canads, are a burden to be
endured only because they cannot be
got rid of, the end may be nearer
than we wot Of" Getters and
Journals of Lord Elgin, 1922
So away back, Is years ago, 1t ap-
peared that Canada threatened to
favor annexation to the United States.
as an alternative, IL United States
reciprocity were refused by authority
OF England. Even before that, when,
in 1S47. Canada gained her own
Parliament, the first thing that
Canadian Parliament did was to raise
her tariffs against England from
per cent to III, and to lower the
duties on goods imported from the
United States from 1914 to ia per
cent. Then, in 1910, Canada passed
bill creating a free list on i'm
portations from the United States,
conditional on a similar list to be
created by our Congress. Such a
bill passed the United States House in
1S4S, but not the Senate. In 1854.
Lord Elgin came to Washington and
negotiated a reciprocity treaty, and
the signing is thus described by his
secretary, Lawrence w. Oliphant, in
a letter to his mother
I'VE are tremendously triumphant:
we have signed a stunning treaty.
When 1 say we ii was in the dead
of night, in the last 5 minutes of the
9Th of June and the first minutes
OF the 9Th, that, in a spacious cham
Der, by the brilliant light of six wax
candles and an Argand. four indi-
viduals were seated. their faces ex-
pressive of deep and earnest thought.
not unmixed with cunning"
That treaty. duly ratified, estab-
lished a free list of butter, rice, dye
stuffs, ETC., but not grain nor other
farm products except fax, hemp and
tow. 1t seemed to work favorably
until the bitterness of the Civil War
led to American resentment against
Canadian and English sympathy with
the South, and on January IL and II,
1865, the Senate abrogated 1t, through
the advocacy of Charles Summer.
John Sherman, Zachariah Chandler
and others, against the protest OF
John P. Hale, Alexander Ramsey and
Thomas A. Hendricks.
X X
We have no reciprocity treaty with
any nation except Cuba, and with
Cuba 1t is only in relation to sugar.
on which we grant special reduction
of 20 per cent under other tariffs on
foreign sugar, in consideration of her
giving United States imports a special
reduction of from 20 to 25 per cent
advantage over similar imports from
other countries.
The question rose I'm the matter of
Cuban reciprocity as to whether we
could make special reductions with
out violating the most favored ma
ton clause" in many other treaties.
James Bassett Moore, one of the
highest authorities on international
law. has given his opinion that where
such concessions are made in con-
of valuable returns there
Is no violation of the most favored
nation clause"
X \ y
There can be no real reciprocity,
however, except when it deals with
products not equally produced in
both countries. For example, Brazil
produces coffee, which the United
States does not. The United States
raises corn, which Brazil does not.
If Brazil gave us free entry for corn,
we could admit Brazilian coffee free,
without violating our agreement to
give other coffee-producing countries
the most favored nation" rates.
unless they reciprocated as to our
corn or some other product they can
not produce. 1t is argued that Cam
ada produces nothing that our own
farms cannot raise, and that there
fore we cannot have true reciprocity
with that rival country. Manufac-
-urers do not accede to that view
1t has been suggested by a Govern
nent official that If Canada would
let our Western farmers have free
navigation of the ST. Lawrence to the
sea. in return for entry of Canadian,
grain into the United States. that
would be reciprocity" The answer
10 that, as given by the st. Lawrence
River Improvement Association, is
hat we already own in perpetuity
absolute right to navigate the entire
st. Lawrence. on. the same basis as