* * * "18 Pur New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward's Island, shall have passed laws to give full effect to the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain * [he is hereby authorized] to issue a proclamation declaring that he has such evidence, and thereupon, from the date of his proclamation, the [following articles] shall be introduced into the United States free of duty." suant to this provision, President Pierce issued a proclamation promulgating the treaty on March 16, 1855, and it thereupon went into effect.14 It was passed by the colonial legislatures of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland, with an aggregate of only twentyone negative votes.15 In its ultimate form, the Canadian treaty covered the navigation of the St. Lawrence, the subject of trade relations, and the fisheries question. For the present purpose, the important part of the treaty is contained in the third article, which gives the schedule covering the products affected by the tariff section of the agreement. It was not merely a reduction of duty that was provided for, but complete free trade in a list of articles which were to be admitted without restriction by the two countries mutually in all cases where the goods in question were the growth and produce of the exporting nation. 16 Whatever may be thought of the course of our trade under this agreement, it is certain that the arrangement was popular at the outset in both countries, and that the injustice afterward said to be inherent in it was not thought of until long after the treaty had been proclaimed. It must be conceded that a part of the contemporary approbation of the treaty was due to the fact that it seemed to dispose effectually of the fisheries question and to secure for our traders important 18 Congressional Globe, 33d Congress, 1st session, Vol. 28, Part 3, p. 2202. p. 389. 16 Oliphant, "Episodes in a Life of Adventure," ante cit., p. 53. navigation privileges. A great deal, however, was said of the expected results of free trade, in enabling our consumers to get cheaper commodities, while not destroying the protective principle. As a writer in the North American Review expressed it: 17 "The friends of a protective system have declared all along that the aid they sought from the government was designed to be only temporary, that after a while the industry of the country would be able to stand on its own feet, work in its own way, and bear up with its own strength against all competition. The passage of the reciprocity treaty-all sections and all interests conspiring, borne onward by every current, favored by every breeze of popular feeling and general conviction-fulfils the predictions, redeems the pledges, and discharges the obligations of the protectionists, and at the same time realizes the visions of Free Traders, * * * but so far as our business relations with the British North American provinces are concerned, the circumstances connected with the consummation of the reciprocity treaty prove that all is ripe and ready for free trade. Every interest seemed at last to unite in welcoming it." The treaty had been skilfully worded. Its articles had not been selected at haphazard. The anthracite coal interest had been subdued and soothed in its opposition to free trade in coal, by finding that in some of the Canadian provinces the output of the Pennsylvania mines was beginning to find a market. Bituminous coal miners were too remote to feel any dread of Canadian competition, so that, on the whole, the coal opposition from which active work had been anticipated became paralyzed, or broke completely down. Manufacturers were, of course, best satisfied with the situation. They recognized that improved trade with the provinces meant an enlargement of their own home market and, while no manufactured goods were included in the free trade schedule of the treaty, which was limited to raw products, they realized that the main object of the agreement would be accomplished could the eyes of Canadian merchants be turned toward the United 17 "The Reciprocity Treaty," North American Review, October, 1854, Vol. 79, P. 479. States. By the earlier action of the Provincial Parliament they found themselves placed on a footing of equality with English competitors, as regards manufactured exports to Canadian markets. They could thus meet Great Britain in sales to Canadians with a good chance of success. Contrary to what had been expected, our farmers manifested no particular opposition to the agricultural reciprocity provided for by the treaty. It was true that the free entry of grain, animals, meats, vegetables, fruits, and other products of the field and forest into the United States, would seem to imply an incursion upon the home market of the American farmer. This seeming, however, was largely unreal. It was true, of course, that a large surplus of grain was, even at that early day, produced by Upper Canada, but the same was not true with Lower Canada or the coast provinces. Canada is divided into several geographical divisions, each of which belongs logically to a corresponding division of the United States. In the absence of tariffs, each of these regions would tend naturally to become a simple competing area, including both the Canadian and the American portions of the division. Moreover, the free navigation of all rivers, lakes and bays, and the equal use on both sides of all canals and railways, tended to bind such sections of the country closer and closer together, and enabled our agriculturists to compete very successfully, in the sale of their products to certain Canadian markets, with the same articles produced in Canada, but necessarily brought a much greater distance overland. This situation was quickly realized by the farmers of New England and of the Northwestern States. In some Western regions, where prairie land was fertile and abundant, there was a lack of fuel and lumber, which had always constituted a considerable hindrance to progress. Free timber meant cheaper cost of production, better opportunities for building and greater comfort in the household. These advantages were such as to make themselves instantly felt. They were also appreciated by the ordinary consumer in the more densely populated districts of the country, where the price of fuel was already appreciably higher than it had been. Certainly there was little or no heed paid to the charges concerning illegitimate influence in the negotiation of the agreement. It was generally conceded in the United States that Lord Elgin had met the situation frankly and openly, and tha. his method of approaching the officers of our government was eminently sane and businesslike. On the other hand, the apparently substantial benefits expected to accrue to the United States seemed to justify the public in feeling that Mr. Marcy. had conducted the American end of the negotiations with skill and to our advantage. Much the same satisfaction-if anything, in a more intense form-was manifested on the Canadian side of the line. The annexation agitation was certainly moderated, and thus Lord Elgin's predictions were fulfilled. In the United States, also, the annexation sentiment was soothed, although in a different way. It seemed to be supposed that the successful consummation of the treaty implied a willingness on the part of Canadians to join us at some future date. "A people so identified [with us] it is argued, cannot long remain politically separated, but must be united by annexation. Events will probably justify this last line of reasoning," remarked a contemporary writer. "But whenever annexation comes," he continued, "be it sooner or later, the operation of the treaty will make it, beyond all doubt, a peaceful, amicable, and altogether salutary transition." 18 In the North, it was held that the step thus presumably taken toward annexation was a great blow to the South, which would find itself disappointed in preventing the acquisition of further non-slave territory. On the other hand, the Southern statesmen were inclined to congratulate themselves on having postponed annexation or annihilated it altogether by their assent to trade concessions. The bright hopes entertained concerning the operation of 18 Ibid., Vol. 79, p. 483. the treaty seemed likewise to be fully justified by the course of our trade. Our exports to Canada had, in 1850, amounted to only $3,585,170, our imports from that country to $1,320,399. The closer commercial relations, already beginning to come into existence between the two countries, seemed to be producing their effect in advance of the proclamation of the agreement, for trade grew rapidly throughout the early fifties. Exports to Canada rose to eleven, to twelve, and finally, in 1854, to twenty-four million dollars. At the same time, imports from Canada to the United States increased to five, six, and, in 1854, to eight million dollars. But, in 1855, the year of the proclamation of the treaty, imports were more than fifteen, and exports nearly twenty-eight millions. During the years from 1856 to 1860 progress was rapid. In the last named year our imports were $23,572,796. On the other hand, our exports in 1856 aggregated $29,025,349, and, although they fell off a little during the period just before 1860, they recovered after that date. They maintained a generally higher level than our imports until 1865. In that year imports from Canada amounted to $33,153,672 and exports to only $27,529,939. 19 The popularity enjoyed by the Canadian treaty at the outset, however, proved to be unfortunately shortlived. The crisis of 1857 had a destructive effect upon it. Both exports and imports fell off heavily in 1857 and 1858. Moreover, the slavery question became more acute, and the attitude of Great Britain seemed to be hostile to the North. This naturally tended to create an unfavorable disposition toward all our relations with Canada. Flaws began to be found in the treaty, where, under ordinary circumstances, no difficulties would have been held to exist. Besides this, the producers of certain articles not enumerated in the free list of the treaty began 19 The statistics here and elsewhere quoted are drawn from "Reciprocity Treaties and Agreements Between the United States and Foreign Countries Since 1850" (taken from the "Summary of Commerce and Finance," Nov., 1901), published by the Treasury Bureau of Statistics. |