Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

There has been no delay or suggestion of delay on the part of the President in connection with this legislation pending the collection of statistical data or the completion of investigations by the Tariff Board. On the contrary, the President has urged immediate and favorable action by the Congress, naming reasons fully in accord with longestablished Democratic principles. Quoting from his message of January 26, 1911:

No yardstick can measure the benefits to the two peoples of this freer commercial intercourse, and no trade agreement should be judged wholly by customhouse statistics. We have reached a stage in our own development that calls for a statesmanlike and broad view of our future economic status and its requirements.

The Ways and Means Committee of the Sixty-first Congress, following the thought of the President, stated in substance in the report above referred to (Rept. No. 2150, 61st Cong., 3d sess.) that to lower duties on the necessities of life would increase the purchasing power of the customer and contribute to his prosperity, inasmuch as trade with nations is the same as with men; and that no taxes are so objectionable as those levied on the necessities of life, because these taxes bear most heavily on the persons least able to endure them.

Notwithstanding the urgent reasons given by the President to the Sixty-first Congress for immediate action upon this agreement, that Congress expired without having taken definite action, and the President has convened the Sixty-second Congress in extraordinary session for the purpose of considering this measure.

This reciprocal agreement is in the interest of the great majority of the people of the country, and is in accord with the well-established Democratic principle of guarding the welfare of the masses.

The committee recommend the passage of the bill.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. (REPT. No. 3

Part 2

RECIPROCITY WITH CANADA.

APRIL 18, 1911.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state

of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. DALZELL, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the

following as the

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY.

[To accompany H. R. 4412.]

The undersigned members of the Ways and Means Committee can not agree with the majority of the committee who have favorably reported the “ Bill to promote reciprocal trade relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes.

Said bill is essentially a Democratic bill, in line with the historic free-trade policy of the Democratic Party, and at variance with the historic protective policy of the Republican Party.

The bíll was passed in the House of the last Congress substantially without consideration in committee, and under a drastic rule which prohibited amendment in the House. It was passed without even having been read, having, however, been first adopted by a Democratic caucus. The purpose of the bill is to carry into effect an agreement with Canada revising our tariff laws. That agreement did not originate in the House of Representatives where, under the Constitution, all measures raising revenue must originate. The agreement was made by the Executive on his own authority, so far as has been disclosed, without consultation with anyone authorized to speak for the party in power. Certainly no party convention suggested or authorized it.

The agreement was made without authority of law. There is nowhere in the Constitution of the United States an authority delegated to the President of the United States to make such an agreement. There is nowhere in the Constitution any authority for Congress to validate such an agreement. The President's power to negotiate with foreign governments exists nowhere outside of the treaty-making power. The treaty-making power does not extend to revenue measures; they belong exclusively in their initiation to the House of Representatives. Even if the treaty-making power could be invoked to sustain an agreement relating to tariff changes, such

HR-62-1-vol 1-2

power must be exercised in the manner prescribed by the Constitution; the agreement must have the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senate. The requirement of the two-thirds vote in the Senate can not be avoided by calling the treaty a “trade agreement” and securing its indorsement by a majority vote of the two Houses. The action of the President is an invasion of the constitutional prerogative of the House of Representatives to originate revenue legislation. To say that this bill originated in the House of Representatives is merely to juggle with words. The bill is merely the form, the agreement is the substance. The agreement is not submitted to the House of Representatives for consideration and legislation, to be perfected and amended in accordance with the judgment of the House. It is submitted by the President in his message to be approved.

Under the Constitution the power is given exclusively to the House of Representatives to select the subjects of taxation and measure the rate of tax. In this case the President and our Canadian neighbors have selected the subjects of taxation and fixed the rate of the tax. The House has no duty to perform but that of confirmation.

When this bill is enacted it will simply be an illegal validation of an illegal act.

We protest against the passage of this bill, for the following amongst other, reasons:

(1) It renews a trade agreement with Canada similar to one that heretofore existed from 1854 to 1866, and the operation of which proved disastrous to the United States.

As a business proposition it is wholly indefensible. Advantages under it will accrue to Canada without any corresponding advantages to the United States. It is uncalled for by any great body of our people.

(2) It is un-Republican. It proposes reciprocity in competing products, which is absolutely inconsistent with the policy of protection. It is an abandonment of the protective policy. It is in violation of the history, the traditions, and the platforms of the Republican Party

(3) It is class legislation of the most obnoxious character. It selects from out all the classes of our community the farmer and deprives him of the protection accorded to all other classes. It is in the interest of the foreigner and against the American.

“ The agreement of the bill is the reciprocity agreement of 1854 over again, with comparatively little change," says Mr. Fielding, one of the Canadian commissioners, speaking in the Canadian Parliament. “It promises prosperity to the people of Canada, and this house will make a grave mistake and do a grave wrong if it refuses to take advantage of it.”

An examination of the provisions of the bill and of the terms of the reciprocity agreement of September, 1854, will confirm Mr. Fielding's statement that the two are substantially the same. There is this difference, however, that under the 1854 agreement we obtained something-certain fishery rights—under the present we get nothing.

That the treaty was one-sided, vexatious, and unprofitable appears from the fact that in the last year and three-quarters of its life we remitted to Canada duties amounting to $70,152,163, and the balance of trade was against us in the sum of $28,134,749.

Senator Morrill, of Vermont, who was thoroughly familiar with the subject, said:

Our exports to Canada in 1855 were $20,828,676, but under the operation of reciprocity, then commenced, they dwindled in 12 years down to $15,243,834, while the exports of Canada to the United States increased from $12,000,000 and odd to $46.000,000 and odd. When the treaty began the balance of trade bad been $8,000,000 annually in our favor, and that paid in specie, but at the end the balance against us to be paid in specie in a single year was $30,000.000. Here was a positive yearly loss of over $5,000,000 of our export trade and a loss of $38.000.000 specie, all going to enrich the Canadians at our expense.

Such were the disastrous effects upon our commerce of the Canadian treaty of 1854, a duplicate of which we are now asked by this legislation to enact.

The treaty was denounced by Congress in 1865.

No sooner were we released from its “one-sided, vexatious, and unprofitable” terms than our commerce with Canada resumed its normal conditions. The results are well stated in an article in the North American Review for February, 1904, written by Hon. John Charlton, a member of the Canadian Parliament. He says:

The nonprogressive character of the Canadian export trade to the United States is shown by the fact that, while the export in 1866 amounted to $44.000,000, the export in 1903, less precious metals and articles not the produce of Canada, was no more than $48,959,000. On the other hand, a comparison of Canadian import returns from the United States will show remarkable increase, as the subjoined table will demonstrate:

[blocks in formation]

These are imports from the United States into Canada for consumption, the goods which we sold her, and for which we got pay. Here is another branch of the same subject, from Mr. Charlton's magazine article:

The subjoined table, showing the Canadian importation of manufactures from Great Britain and from the United States since 1898, will be of interest. especially when taken in connection with the fact that Canada has given a tariff preference to Great Britain, first, of 124 per cent, 1897 to 1898, then of 25 per cent to 1900, and of 33} per cent since that time.

[blocks in formation]

This great increase in the sale of manufactures by the United States to Canada between 1898 and 1903, in the face of the Canadian preference in favor of British imports, gires evidence of the strong hold that the American manufacturer has upon the Canadian market and of his ability to meet all competitors in the market upon equal terms.

Mr. Charlton's figures come down only to 1903. If we add those of the succeeding years to date, we will find that the Canadian imports from the United States for consumption and the Canadian imports of manufactures show the same relative increases as in the years given.

The balance of trade in our own favor last year was one hundred and thirty-eight million and odd dollars.

On the 24th of February, 1903, Mr. Charlton made a-speech in the Canadian Parliament on the subject of reciprocity with the United States, in which he showed how favorable existing trade conditions were to the United States, and how unfavorable to Canada. He gives us credit for our business policy.

He said:

The American policy has been applied not only to us but to all the world. The object of the United States has been to sell all that it possibly could of the products of its soil and its mills and its workshops, and to buy just as little as it could from other countries, and thus having as much of the balance of trade in its own favor as possible. The result has been that the balance of trade in favor of the United States last year amounted to $600,000,000 against the whole world-$71,000,000 against Canada. That is a good thing for the United States, and will be her policy as long as the rest of the whole world will permit her to do it, but it is not a good thing for us.

He goes on to say:

Something must be done to change the trade conditions that exist between the United States and Canada. Free trade in natural products would afford a reasonable adjustment. Nothing short of this will do it, and this condition of free trade of natural products must be granted by the United States without a solitary concession from Canada further than it has already made. We can not afford any more.

Every word spoken by Mr. Charlton in 1903 is as true now as it was then. By the pursuit of a wise business policy in the interest of all her people the United States had at that time established conditions in Canada which were most favorable, and these conditions still continue.

Is it not an astounding proposition that we shall legislate away our advantages in the interest of the Canadian?

And yet that is the proposition contained in the bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. No concealment is made of the fact that we propose to give away of our revenues annually $5,000,000 in exchange for a surrender of $2,500,000 on the part of Canada; to throw open the markets of 90,000,000 people to the markets of 9,000,000. The proposition is so startling that it staggers belief.

This bill is un-Republican. Reciprocity in competitive articles is inconsistent with the policy of protection. It is too manifest to be the subject of argument that to impose a duty on a foreign article for the purpose of preserving the home market for a like home article and then lower or remove that duty so as to admit the foreign article into competition in the home market is to abandon in that case the principle of protection and to adopt that of free trade. Every duty imposed by the existing tariff law, less than two years ago, on the articles of the agricultural schedule was imposed to preserve the American market for the American as against the Canadian farmer. To remove those duties now to let in the Canadian farmer is to abandon protection and adopt free trade. Reciprocity of that character,

« AnteriorContinuar »