year had been quite unsatisfactory enough, in proportion to the exports, without any arrangement to give Americans easier access to our markets. What was wanted was a reciprocity of tariffs. We now purchase some $60,000,000 worth of manufactured goods in the United States, two-thirds of which could be made in Canada. While this vast volume of the product of United States labour is purchased by us, the producer of food in Canada is practically prohibited from selling food products to the United States labourers, who make the goods that he purchases." On November 19th, a National Reciprocity Convention met at Washington with members present from the leading commercial centres of the Republic, and with Mr. Theodore S. Search, of Philadelphia, as Chairman. The discussions brought out many and varied expressions of opinion upon tariffs and reciprocity. On November 20th, Mr. Charlton addressed the Convention at length and laid stress upon the fact, that in the last fiscal year Canada had imported $119,000,000 worth of American goods, while the United States had only taken $70,000,000. Of the latter $30,000,000 was bullion, so that the balance of trade against Canada-deducting bullion also from the American export-was over $71,000,000. He declared that, in his opinion, nothing less than Reciprocity in the natural products of the mine, the forest, the fisheries and the farm would be satisfactory to Canada. That this The Convention adjourned on the following day after passing a Resolution in favour of the establishment of a Reciprocity Commission to investigate conditions in connection with any proposed arrangement; another in favour of a new Government Department having charge of Commerce and Industries; a third in the following terms: Convention recommends to Congress the maintenance of the principle of protection for the home market, and to open up by reciprocity opportunities for increased foreign trade by special modifications of the tariff in special cases, but only where it can be done without injury to any of our home interests of manufacturing, commerce, or farming." While the opening work of this gathering was being done, Mr. Osborne Howes, Chairman of the Reciprocity Committee of the Boston Chamber of Commerce, was addressing the Commercial Club of St. Paul. He declared that Canadians were, with some reason, dissatisfied at the treatment they were receiving from the United States. They have increased their purchases from us fourfold during the last 20 years, while we bought from them little more than we did in 1880. They have put upon their free list about half of what they imported from the United States, and taxed the remainder 25 per cent. We taxed nearly all Canadian products, our average tax rate being about 50 per cent. Unless we can, in a reasonable time, come to some trade understanding with her, either the Canadian tariff would be made higher, in which event our annual sales of $110,000,000 would drop to half that amount, or, through the Customs Federation with England, English goods would be admitted in Canada duty free, while England would impose a duty on foreign products. Following this meeting came another address upon the subject of Reciprocity from Mr. Charlton-this time to the Merchants' Exchange, at Buffalo, on December 3rd. He went over much the same ground as on previous occasions and declared, finally, that if something was not done the American tariff might probably be copied by Canada and “a kind of reciprocity secured thereby that will minimize American trade and give it the shrunken proportions now characteristic of the Canadian exports to the United States." In the evening he was banquetted by the Liberal Club, of Buffalo, and stated, in the course of his speech, that Canada was prepared "for any reasonable arrangement" about trade policies. He concluded as follows: "The trade principle that applies to all the States of the American Union could be extended to the British American Provinces and Territories with precisely the same results, and while the two countries are likely to retain their separate autonomy, it is in the interest of each to apply to the greatest possible extent the system that governs the relations of American States to each other, and to secure to the greatest attainable extent the material advantages that would result from union." In view of the late President McKinley's reference to Reciprocity in his Buffalo speech, considerable discussion took place in the United States as to President Roosevelt's probable opinions and probable policy in this connection. In Canada the subject was not widely talked of, but on November 2nd, Mr. A. H. U. Colquhoun contributed an article to the Toronto News, which described, from a Canadian standpoint, the situation to some extent. He dealt with the functions and position of the President and then continued :— We But, as matters stand, we are not called upon to do anything at all. The attitude of Washington toward us has been so uniformly selfish or truculent that the duty of dealing with the niceties of economic policy is not imposed upon us. are really taking a holiday. Both the great parties in Canada now fully understand the aims of Washington politicians. The Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier has the same insight in these matters as was possessed by Sir John Macdonald. A Government that would accept the terms offered at Washington would soon cease to exist. President Roosevelt delivered his first Message on December 3rd, and it contained a long reference to this topic. "Reciprocity," he declared, "must be treated as the handmaid of Protection. Our first duty is to see that the protection granted by the tariff in every case where it is needed is maintained, and that Reciprocity be sought for, so far as it can safely be done, without injury to our home industries. Subject to this proviso of the proper protection necessary to our industrial well-being at home, the principle of Reciprocity must command our hearty support." Where existing duties were no longer needed, or only partly needed, these might be utilized in making arrangements "for the constantly growing surplus for which we must find markets abroad." One of the comments made upon this address and the speeches of Mr. Charlton, was that of the Philadelphia Inquirer, on the following day, which stated that under existing unjust conditions it would not be surprising if Canada should retaliate in its tariff arrangements. "There are other countries from which she can purchase her merchandise and the loss of one of her largest customers will be a severe blow to this country." An article which appeared in Industrial Canada at the opening of the new year, 1902, gave the respective Canadian and American tariffs upon the principal farm products of the two countries, and showed that in no case was the American tariff lower, while, in some cases, such as beans and pease, it was 200 per cent. higher, and upon cheese, hay and hops, was 100 per cent. higher. Butter, for instance, had a Canadian duty of 4 cents per pound and an American tax of 6 cents per pound; cheese was, respectively, 3 cents and 6 cents; eggs were 3 cents a dozen and 6 cents a dozen; wool was free into Canada and the duty into the United States was 11 cents per pound; hides were free in one case with a 15 per cent. duty in the other; beans were, respectively, 15 cents and 45 cents a bushel; oats 10 cents and 15 cents a bushel; pease 10 cents and 30 cents a bushel; wheat 12 cents and 25 cents a bushel; hay $2 and $4 per ton; hops 6 cents and 12 cents per pound; potatoes 15 cents and 25 cents a bushel. Other products having a specific duty in one country and an ad valorem duty in the other worked out very much along the same lines of discrimination. Trade and By the terms of the special Treaty with France, which was negotiated in 1893, it was provided that the Canadian duties on soaps, nuts, prunes and plums should be reduced; that France and French Colonies should rank with any third Power in tariff advantages granted by Canada; and that certain Canadian products-including canned meats, condensed milk, fresh-water fish and lobsters, apples and pears, preserved fruit, building timber, wood pulp, common paper, boots and shoes and some other specified articles should be subject to the minimum duty in France, Algeria and French Colonies. Under the provisions of this Treaty $599,424 worth of goods were imported in 1901-of which $576,512 worth was entered for consumption in Canada-with a duty collected of $148,331. The total imports from France in 1873 were $2,023,288 and remained at about this figure until 1897, when they were $2,601,351. They then rose steadily until 1901, when the total was $5,503,405. The exports to France were $31,907 in 1873, and in 1897, $690,696. They then advanced slowly to $1,581,331 in 1901. The chief dutiable imports in the latter year were fancy goods, $269,988; fruits, $161,561 ; furs and manufactures of, $126,521; silk manufactures, $559,845; spirits of all kinds, $702,705; sugar, molasses, etc., $794,304; woollen manufactures, $643,024. The free goods totalled $827,412. The principal exports to France were breadstuffs, $272,832; fish and fish products, $608,744; metals, minerals and manufactures of, $268,409; woods and manufactures of, $289,967. The total trade with France in 1901 was $7,084,736. During the previous year there had been some advocacy of closer trade relations with France, through better steam communication and improved commercial agencies. On May 14, 1901, Sir Richard Cartwright, Minister of Trade and Commerce, moved a Resolution in the House of Commons, declaring it to be "expedient to make provision for a subsidy, not exceeding a sum of $100,000 per annum, for a steamship service between a port or ports in Canada and a port or ports in France." He explained that there had been for many years an Act on the statute-book offering a similar subsidy of $50,000, but it had not been acted upon. Under the new proposal, the services would be twelve during the summer months and six during the winter; the Canadian ports would be those of Montreal and Quebec in the former season, and Halifax or St. John during the winter; the French ports would probably be Havre and Boulogne, with the right of going also to some Mediterranean port if deemed desirable. It was expected that considerable trade would be developed with France, which had a well-to-do population of 40,000,000. Pulp, iron, coal, agricultural implements and food products were some of the things which might be sent in large or larger quantities when the service was established. This was really a joint subsidy, the French Government giving an almost similar amount to vessels which were under the French register; ours would, of course, be under the British flag. The staples of our imports from France now were silks, fine woollens, wines, brandies and fancy goods. The chief increase in trade would, therefore, probably be in exports. Sir Richard Cartwright added that, while the contract was being formally made with the Franco-Canadian Company, this concern was to be re-organized into a Canadian Company, with men such as Senator MacKay, Senator Drummond, Senator Alfred Thibaudeau, Mr. Henry Miles and Mr. Alfred A. Ayer, of Montreal, Mr. J. R Booth, of Ottawa, Senator Melvin Jones, of Toronto, and Mr. F. H. Clergue, of Sault Ste. Marie, as incorporators. At present, he added, much of the trade with France was done through American ports. Mr. Tarte, Minister of Public Works, referred to existing arrangements in Paris. Mr. Hector Fabre, C.M.G., had been for twenty years a sort of immigration and diplomatic agent in that city, but with limited means a total allowance of $3,500-and without facilities or natural ability to press the development of trade. A man should be appointed of trained commercial intelligence to act with him. Mr. Tarte was very hopeful in this connection. With our system of cold storage, and with a direct line of steamers, we could export our fruit to France, and sell it at very fine prices indeed. And what is true of fruit is true of other things. We can sell iron, coal, furniture and other things." The United States was doing much to push their trade with France. It was already very large, and there was an American Chamber of Commerce in Paris. Dr. Sproule did not think that Mr. Fabre had been very useful in the past for reasons not personal in any way except that he was not a commercial man. Some one should be appointed who was familiar with Canada's resources and products. Cold storage would have to be very carefully arranged for also. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who followed, was particularly glad to see the spirit in which this Resolution had been received. Mr. Fabre had been an excellent diplomatic agent, but the time had come to extend the work of his office and, he agreed with Dr. Sproule, to appoint a commercial agent as well. The Premier proceeded to point out that the tentative line of two vessels which had been established in the past year had left Montreal loaded down on each occasion, and quite unable to meet the demand for shipping facilities. He thought that the whole of the Norwegian and Swedish trade with France in pulp and paper might be transferred to Canada, and that France should also import much of its coal from the Dominion if proper steamship facilities were given. Mr. Tarte expressed his belief, at this point, in the possibilities of a trade in cheese and butter, both of which were very expensive in France. Mr. E. D. Smith urged careful attention to cold storage, and the proper ventilation of the vessels for perishable products such as fruit. Mr. F. D. Monk spoke of the desirability of retaining Mr. Fabre's services. Mr. F. B. Wade stated that the people of Annapolis, in Nova Scotia, had come to the conclusion that cold storage was not necessary for fruit, and that good ventilation would answer the purpose. He urged upon the Government that Maritime Province vessels carrying fruit should have in their subsidy-contracts a stipulation for the instalment of a forced ventilation plant. Mr. E. B. Osler favoured the appointment of commercial agents in France and other countries. Immigration would follow with much less actual and direct expenditure. On May 17th the subject was again discussed, when Sir Richard Cartwright stated that the port in northern France would probably be Havre, and the Mediterranean port, Marseilles. The exports to France last year were chiefly lobsters and agricultural implements. The former were included in the fish exports of $520,000, and the latter were valued at $208,000. Then there were $313,000 worth of bread-stuffs and $190,000 worth of lumber. He had strong hopes of an increased trade in pulp and coal. Iron would be an experiment. He hoped much from French capital, which had in recent years done so much for Russia. Increased immigration was doubtful, as the people were too proud of their own country. Mr. Clarke Wallace pointed out that while the exports to France, since 1896, had only increased $800,000, the imports had risen from $2,800,000 to $4,368,000. The proposed vote was a large sum of money in view of the trade involved, and he hoped good results would appear next year. The Bill, founded on the preceding Resolutions, was then read a third time, and passed. Under date of February 25, 1901, Mr. Harrison Watson, Curator of the Canadian Section of the Imperial the Imperial Institute, reported at considerable length to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He stated that the correspondence and commercial work of his office was largely increasing; that there was a marked increase in the volume of applications for information from British firms as to Canadian trade; that he attributed much of this to the Preferential tariff; that amongst the inquiries were many from outside countries. "It becomes more apparent," he added, "with each succeeding year, that Canada is bound to largely develop trade in the United Kingdom in Canadian Institute |