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 had 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: 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 12 per cent, 1897 to 1898, then of 25 per cent to 1900, and of 33 per cent since that time. 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, gives 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 aban if it can be called reciprocity, is Democratic, not Republican, reciprocity. In a magazine article published a few years ago, Mr. Williams, of Mississippi, now Senator-elect from that State, said: There is also a tariff revision by piecemeal, which is the handmaiden of the other system. This is the tariff revision by reciprocal trade agreements with other nations. Much can be done along this piecemeal line of tariff revision under a Democratic or approximately a Democratic law. No wonder that this bill was adopted by a Democratic caucus. The Democrats of the House were shrewd enough to recognize their own. No wonder that the bill is going to success under Democratic leadership and the folds of the Democratic banner. Republican reciprocity is reciprocity in noncompeting articles and nothing else. The late Postmaster General Charles Emory Smith thus defined it: When rightly understood the principle is axiomatic. Brazil grows coffee, but makes no machinery. We make machinery, but grow no coffee. She needs the fabrics of our factories and forges, and we need the fruits of her tropical soil. We agree to concessions for her coffee; she agrees to concessions for our machinery. That is reciprocity. And I know of no better definition for its purpose than that given by President McKinley in his 1897 inaugural address: The end in view He says always to be the opening up of new markets for the products of our country by granting concessions to the products of other lands that we need and can not produce ourselves, and which do not involve any loss of labor to our own people, but tend to increase their employment. This proposition involves the granting of concessions to the products of Canada which we do not need and which we can produce ourselves, and which involves a loss of labor to our farmers. It is Democratic and not Republican. Reciprocity, according to the true Republican view, contains the following elements: (1) Products admitted to the United States must not compete with those produced by us. (2) The countries traded with must be such as would take our surplus of manufactures and of farm produce. (3) The concessions obtained by us must be fully equivalent in the volume of trade thereby gained to those made by the countries with which the arrangements were entered into. Republican reciprocity has been indorsed in a number of Republican platforms. The bill is class legislation of the most obnoxious character. It singles out from all the beneficiaries of tariff legislation the farmer. Everything he produces is put upon the free list-everything he buys is a protected article. His corn and wheat and potatoes, his hay and oats, his live stock are all on the free list. His farm wagon, his plow, his harrow, his reaper, his thrashing machine are all taxed. Everything in the shape of meats and foods of all kinds are on the dutiable list. True, farm products are interchangeably free between the United States and Canada, but every sane man knows that this is intended to open up not the Canadian market to the United States farmer, but the higher priced American market to the Canadian farmer. And the farmer is to get nothing. The supposed benefits that are to accrue to the United States at the sacrifice of his interests, for which he pays, are in the shape of new markets for the manufacturer. There are only two American manufactures of any consequence involved in the agreement. The paper manufacturer, whose interests are absolutely sacrificed, and the Harvester Trust, which has a factory in Canada to supply its customers there. The American manufacturer in general needs no lowering of duties to enter the Canadian market. The Canadian is naturally and can not, if he would, avoid being our customer. The trade statistics already cited furnish conclusive proof to that effect. Every tariff law of either party for the last 50 years has recognized the farmer's right to protection equally with every other class. Less than two years ago the present tariff law was made. Some of the men who are now advocating this measure placed the duties in that bill on the farmers' products to protect the farmer against his Canadian neighbor. That law was pronounced by the President of the United States the best tariff law ever placed on the statute book. In what respect has the farmer's condition changed in these two years or less? How comes it that he is less entitled to protection now than then? Is there any reason for concealment? Is it worth while to attempt to deny that this is an abandonment of the policy of protection? It seems not. When the President's message was sent to Congress this manifest sacrifice of American interests was sought to be justified on lofty philanthropic grounds: Good will to our struggling neighbor, of the same language and traditions and all that sort of thing, a fantastic combination of altruism and revenue. Now, however, the advocates of the measure find themselves driven by the logic of the situation to confess that this is free trade and was intended to be so far as it could be secured and that it ought to be free trade altogether. A new definition is sought to be given to the term protection. It is said not to apply as between parties whose production is substantially similar, and then it is asserted that Canadian production and American are substantially the same. The assertion is not borne out by the facts. The average of Canadian wages is below that of American wages. The value of Canadian lands is below the value of American lands. The Canadian gets his raw material from abroad at a lower import duty than does the American. He prefers others to us at the customhouse. The Canadian manufacturer of metals is paid a bounty. A recent report of the Tariff Board sent to Congress by the President gives the following comparative statement of cost per ton of product of the following items in the United States and foreign mills: The last Republican platform says: In all tariff legislation the true principle of protection is best maintained by the imposition of such duties as will equal the difference between cost of production at home and abroad, together with a reasonable profit to American industries. * Among those whose welfare is as vital to the welfare of the whole country as is that of the wage workers is the American farmer. The prosperity of the country rests peculiarly on the prosperity of agriculture. * Upon this platform of principles and purposes, reaffirming our adherence to every Republican doctrine proclaimed since the birth of the party, we go before the country asking the support not only of those who have acted with us heretofore, but of all our fellow citizens who, regardless of political differences, unite in a desire to maintain the policies, perpetuate the blessings, and make sure the achievements of a greater America. If this bill becomes a law, it will mark the downfall of the protective system. JOHN DALZELL. |