A Poor Exchange

4. hundred years ago Thomas Jefferton declared for "Peace, commorce and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliance with none." This has been one of the guiding principies of our 'iolons, and because of it we have had few serious difflcnlties with foreign nations. To be.sure the protective system, fastened upon us in 1861, has done much to destroy our coinmerce with the rest of the world. But then it treated all nations alike, and besides it was a policy Vhich, while it has injured most other nations slightly, bas been a veritable curse on our own people. Henee so long as ve do not complain others surely should not do so, though they may pity us for our shortsightedness. But this new fangled economie doctrine called "reciprocity," which has been hitched up with "protection," whüe it may induce a few other nations to lower their duties and untax their people, and can do us but little harm by taring four or five articles, makes a radical departure from Jefferson's sound policy, which already threatens to involve us in serious commercial difficulties that may later lead to open hostilities. The attempts to coerce foreign nations to change their revenue policy and the discrimination made against many countries have already produced complaints and threats. The Independence Beige has contained a nuinber of articles bj' Señor Ibane, accusmg the United States of unjust designs upon South America. In one of tliem he says: "That the reciprocity treaty with Brazil was wrested from Senor Fonseca by illegitimate me ans; that 1he United States openly snpported Balrnaceda against the national rising in order to obtain from Chili a commercial tpeaty wholly in favor of the North American Union; that the ïtepublican party will renew it with f resh vigor if the Democrats do not ottst it from power; that it will likewise atteinpt to coerce Argentina unless the latter combines with Brazil and Chili to resist Yankee encroachment." He then appeals to the countries of western Europe to combine with Soiith American countries to resist the commercial designs of the United States. This is onlj' one of the rnany manifestations of a spirit of resentfulness that is growing out of this mischief working policy. One or twö of the South American countries that have made treaties of reciprocity already feel dissatisfied and threaten to annul thern. The blighting effect upon commerce between the Unite3 States and (,'anautt, ul ue ?.icKmiey bilí, and the unceremonious way in -which we refused to treat with the Canadian diplomáis sent here twice since the adoption of reciprocity now seems likely to lead to a tariff war with Canada. Our trade with this country exceeds our trade with all other countries of the western continent. And besides, it is the only one of these countries in which the balance qf trade is in our favor. If our bungling attempt to prop ap the decaying system of "protection" ■with "reciprocity" impairs our commerce with Canada it will do more injury here than it could possibly do good elsewhere. f We extract the following from the New York Times of April 28: Signs are growing that a tariff war "with Canada may not be much longer delayed. There have been whisperings of this prospect since the McKinley bill shut out this market from (Janadian farmers. The people across the border long ago learned to rnake allowances for campaign needs in this country, and stood suubbing good naturedly so long as it did not affect trade. Nowthattheir pockets are touched, they feel like hitting back. They sold 11,000,000 bushels of barley here every year until the present tariff carne into forcé. Now they ell 2,000,000 bushels. In return they bought our manufactures. The impression has been fostered by the high tariff men that Canada would be the gainer by a trade arrangement between the two countries. Figures show the contrary. It appe,ars, indeed, that the balance of trade has been very largely in favor of the United States. Any retaliatory legislation by the Dominion govemment would hit American manufacturers much more seriously than the McKinley bill affects Canadian farmers. In discussing j-esterday the prospect of such retaliation, a gentleman who has made a thorough study of our commercial relations with Canada, both from the United States and the Dominion point of view, said: "It can be shown that the cl;:u:-;c of the McKinley tariff which aiïeet our coinmerce with Canada, .and the coiiditions of the reciprocity lueasure which exclude that country f rom ij operatiom . are unjustifiable and impolitic and pletely subversivo' of the very ob, which the vaunted joint policy professes to accomplish. "If the actual position of this commerce warrantsWd sustains the proxosition much mischief ïnay result f rum persistence in a policy of exclusiveness toward the United States' northern neighbors, a policy which must undoubtdly imperil and will inevitably greatly curtail a natural trade, which, even in its present hampered conditions, is of more real valué to this couiitry than can be reasonably expected from all the reciprocity treaties which have been arranged. "As already shown, the value of the itnports into Canada from the United States during the year ending June 30, 1890, was $60,449,366, of which there was 'entered for consumption' $52,291,973. The valué of the merchandise iniported nto the United States f rom Canada was 09,043,977, of which there was 'entered :or consnmption' $32,416,156, showing ;bat Canada purchased from the United itates for its own consumption durir g hat year, in excess of like purchases by the United States from Canada, $19,75,817. "The imports into the United States may be summarized as follows: Raw products of the farm. the forest the rivera and the lisheries $28,000 000 Manufactures and miscellaneous. . . . 2,330,272 Total $30,220,272 "The imports into Canada from the United States: Kaw products of the farm, the forest, the rivers and the flsheiïes $20,943,81)0 Manufactures, as per table furnislied. 22,988,497 Total S,896,393 "For the better understanding of tliis important subject other tables may be furnished, all tending to establish the Eollowing f acts asexistingat the time of the enactmeut of the McKinley tariff : "1. That Canada's purchases of produce and merchandise from the United States were over 60 per cent. larger in value than tüose of the United States from Canada. "2. That the exporte óf manufacturad goods from t je United States to Canada amounted to about $23,000,000 during the year ending June 30, 1890, and f ormed more than one-seventh part of our entire exports of tuis class of goods to all foreigu countries, our whole exports of those for that year amounting to $151,000,000; "3. That, taking the whole of Canada's imports of raw products and merchandise into consideración, the average rate of customs duties on imports from the United States was much lower than the average rate on imports from Great Britain. "4. That even on manufacturad goods the imports into Canada from the United States weré admitted on as favorable terms as those from the mother country. "5. That in manufacturad goods Can ■„ ada purchasod from the United States a larger proportion of the following descriptions than it imported from Great Britain, viz., manufactures from metáis and general hardware, miscellaneous and f ancy goods other than dry goods drugs and dyes, books, paper and other stationery, manufactures from leather, india rubber and gutta percha. '6. That Canada admitted from the United States free of duty a larger amount of products and merchandise than the United States admitted from Canada in the same time. "7. That the rates of duties in Canada even on manufactured goods were very much lower than the rates in the United States under which Canadian goods of the same class would have been admitted into the United Sfátes. "In view of such f acts it is difficult to conceive what justification congress could find for the unjust and harsh treatment inflicted on this commerce hy the prohibitory duties which were levied upon almost every article of produce which Canada used to furnish to American markets. It is equally diffiftlt to understand the position taken by the piosêllt itu.niiiintiivHou and its organs in belittling the importance of this' commerce and in asserting that any measures taken toward its extensión would prove to the ndvantage of Canada only, and to the disadvantage of this country. This position can only be sustained by the willf ui perversión of f acts and by the concealment of the true position of the case. "It seems extraordinary that the New York Tribune should be so prominently engaged in the crusade against Canadian commerce. On this balance of trade question its course is especially inconsistent. Again and again it has contended that one of the prime objects of the reciprocity policy with the countries to the south is to reduce the large balance of trade now existing against the United States, and that this is a most praiseworthy effort on the part of the government. But in the case of Canada, where the balance of trade is so vastly in favor oï the United States, it cannot find any argument in favor of this commerce, can see no advantage in maintaining it and only disadvantage in extending it. "The present administration at Ottawa is favorable to such limited reciprocity between the two countries as the fmancial position of the Dominion will permit. Public opinión in Canada is overwhelmingly in favor of such an adjustment of the custóms tariff s of the two countries as will tend to the rapid increase of their intercommerce on terms alike equitable and to mutual advantage. Canadians are smarting under a sense of unmerited injustice inflicted upon them through the iniquitous duties levied on their produce under the McKinley tariff. "They demand redress. They propose that all the raw products of each country, together with a limited list of manufactures as may be agreed upon, shall 13e admitted into either country free of duty; that the fisheries of each country shall be open to both on equal terms; that the canals and mland rivers and Iakes and coasting trade shall be f roe to both, and that American manufactures shall continue to be admitted into Canada on as favorable terms as those of Great Britain. "It is .-incerely to be hoped that the ! ., 1 1 rom!! nes may be able to arrive at a ■- and equitable arrangement . ■ l erms upon which their commerce ;:a i ! : uted in future. The politicians wlio aiiect to believe that Canada is too ciaven to resent and too weak to retaiiate are living in a fool's parause. If congress persists in maintaining the present prohibitory duties on Canadian products and in exhibiting the present position of hostility, the Canadian parliament will be cornpelled by an outraged electorate to deal out to the United States 'measure for measure.' "A war of trames and of transportar tion routes may seem to invite an inconsiderable loss to a great country like the United States, but not the less it is a loss, and one which can be and ought to be avoided by the exercise of a little Bpirit of equity, and without any loss of dignity on our part.' "