Year: 1874

|


The question of commercial reciprocity OF
free trade with the Dominion of Canada
should not be decided on any other than the
broadest principles Of political economy.
That it would benefit certain members of the
Boston Board of Trade, the New York Cham
ber of Commerce, and similar organizations
in some other localities where trade with
Canada forms part of their commercial
transactions is freely admitted. Foreign
goods that can be purchased at less cost and
sold at the same price with our own products
afford, of course, larger margins for profits.
Hence, the demand from this source for re.
ciprocal free trade with Canada.


But this is not matter to be decided upon
the claims of sectional or class interests. No
statesman would peril his national reputation
by forming judgment Of the merits of the
question upon any such basis. There are
grave national interests at stake which cannot
be ignored. Nor is it right to charge the
President and the Secretary Of State with
having committed themselves to the policy OF
| Tree Idut WltH Sdudua, VI uuy NtHSi ioAciSii
country, while the very genius of the Gov
ernment and the Administration is based up
on the principle of an equalized tariff for rev.
enue to the United States Treasury, and a
fostering protection to home industries. How.
ever strongly the President is inclined to
favor our excellent northern neighbors, lie
will never sacrifice home interests to those of
a foreign power. Our excellent and accom-
modating Secretary of State may have an
mpulsive sympathetic leaning toward his
New York mercantile friends who are clam.
oripg for free trade with Canada; yet his
craftsmanship is founded upon too broad a
basis to consider this reciprocity movement
upon any other than national principles. And
upon what other than similar grounds can
the question be examined and disposed of in
the United States Senate2


Will it be safe to ignore the interests of
our own wool growers by admitting Canada
wool free of duty? And if we decide to ad-
NIT northern wool duty free, why rot make
wool from South America free also ? 1t is no
part of the policy of an independent National
Government to make invidious distinctions in
its dealings with foreign powers. Why admit
wheat duty free from the Dominion of Can
ada, and not from Russia or France Our
readers may not have forgotten that at the
commencement of the late war Baltimore
grain and flour merchants had actually COM
menced the importation of wheat from France,
which they claimed could be made profita-
BILE branch of business, against the interests
of our Western farmers. The new tariff i'm
posed few months afterward to meet the
cost of the war, changed the Baltimore trade,
and their mills were supplied as usual with
wheat from our own producers. Coal and iron
ore are claimed to be aourdant in the provn.
ces but not more so than in our own coun-
try, and who would go from home for the pro-
ducts of labor which can be supplied by home
industry? Lumber is abundant in Canada,
but no one believes, and none but those pecu
niarily interested will assert, that free lum-
Der from Canada is going to lessen sensibly
the cost of lumber to American consumers.
1t will bring larger profits to dealers; hence
the demand for reciprocal free trade. And
so soon as the United States demand for
Canadian wool goods should be found to in
crease--as it would with the duties removed
our neighbors would resort to a former
practice, under similar circumstances, of
placing an export duty on logs, by which, as
their own official returns show, from thirty to
fifty thousand dollars were annually gathered
into the Dominion Treasury.


Butter, cheese, ham, pork, bricks, cord
wood, horses, cattle, barley, potatoes, oats,
&C., are articles of import from Canada; and
when thesspecious argument is used that they
furnish only the articles we want. but do not
produce, and'rice rersa, it is mere blind,
without foundation in fact. To allow their
products free access to our markets, without
foundation in fact. To allow their products
free access to our markets, without paying a
reasonable duty for the privilege, while our
own producers are paying their pro rata on
the public debt, directly or indirectly. would
be stretch of generosity of which no nation
has ever yet been guilty, and it is not likely
that the United States of America will be the
first to afford a precedent for such consum-
mate injustice to its own people. II is an ex-
traordinary stretch of presumption to imagine
that Congress could entertain the question of
free trade treaty of reciprocity with any one
country to the exclusion of others.


POLITICAL.