would even ask him to besmirch his sacred ballot by condemning a policy that means so much to him and the generations to follow him. Does anybody say that because the Nova Scotian fisherman sells his fish to an American at better prices that his loyalty is being injured?" To the Montreal Herald on Mch. 13th Hon. B. F. Pearson, a Nova Scotian capitalist and member of Mr. Murray's Government, pointed out that a period of scarcity was coming in the United States. "The time arrived a few months ago when some of the wise men of the nation took stock of the situation, and being cognizant of the inevitable hunger and scarcity of foodstuffs impending decided on a policy that would induce Canada to afford them assistance. In order that the people of the United States might be fed, it became necessary that corn should be brought from our virgin North-West to feed them." As to the manufacturers and the increasing opposition to the Agreement he had this to say: "The industrial interests of Canada who have enjoyed the monopoly of the Canadian market for forty years have forbidden the consumers to buy in the cheapest market; they now take another step and forbid them to sell where they make the most profit."

On Apl. 26 the Legislature of Prince Edward Island by 14 votes to 13, passed the following Resolution: "Whereas such Compact, if it becomes law, will open up to Canada a market for her surplus products to many millions of people thereby greatly benefiting the agriculturists, horticulturists, fishermen, and lumbermen of the Maritime Provinces; and whereas trade will be greatly extended and the development of our natural resources promoted by the policy of the free interchange of natural products; Therefore Resolved, That this Legislative Assembly strongly endorse the efforts of Messrs. Fielding and Paterson, on behalf of the Government of Canada, in securing terms so favourable to the material interests of the large majority of the Canadian people and to express the belief that the carrying into effect of such Compact will result in untold advantages to Canada as a whole, the Maritime Provinces in particular and more especially to Prince Edward Island." The Conservative Opposition, led by Mr. J. A. Mathieson, moved an amendment declaring that the proposed Reciprocity arrangement would injure the East and West transportation development upon which Canada had spent so much money; would check the growth of trade with Great Britain and subject the agricultural products of the Island to undue United States competition and to that of 12 other foreign countries; would remove protection upon the products which the people had to sell and make no reduction of duties upon those which they had to buy; would reverse the Provincial policy of encouraging the production of highly manufactured farm products and tend to create a retrograde system of agriculture by the sale of raw products; would cause a condition. where any sudden change at the option of the United States might

create disastrous results; and would cause instability of prices and a growing subserviency to the American Congress. It was rejected by the party vote of 14 to 13.

In Saskatchewan the Legislature declared, unanimously, on Mch. 8th, in favour of Reciprocity-both parties joining to shape a suitable Resolution. Mr. D. M. Finlayson (Lib.) moved one embodying the general idea and, without affecting the sense, it was modified in certain terms with the following result: "That this House is of opinion that the proposed Reciprocal trade arrangement between Canada and the United States will be of benefit to the people of Saskatchewan; that, while expressing this opinion, this House is nevertheless of the opinion that the proposed arrangement does not fully meet the desires of the people of Saskatchewan with regard to general tariffs within the Empire; also, that, in the opinion of this House the said Agreement, by its promotion of the prosperity and development of Canada, will thereby greatly strengthen Canada's power for Imperial defence and thus directly assist the British Empire; and further, that in the opinion of this House the duties on agricultural implements should at an early date be further reduced if not abrogated." The mover declared that the opposition to the Agreement in the East was chiefly from interested manufacturers who had become rich through the tariff and at the expense of the consumer. He promised to make changes in the wording of the Resolution if they would induce the Opposition Leader to give his support the only important change being the eventual elimination of eulogistic references to the work of the Canadian Commissioners at Washington. Mr. T. H. Garry (Lib.) seconded the Resolution and declared the farmers of the Province to be a unit in its favour.

Mr. F. W. G. Haultain, Leader of the Conservative Opposition or as it was formerly called the Provincial Rights Partystated that from the first announcement of the Reciprocity Agreement he had felt that "it was a move in the right direction" and, after reading many speeches made in other places, he now saw "no necessity to change his first impressions." He described

Canadian politics as narrow and Provincial-a sort of fatuous localism. "Even to-day people in one end of the Dominion clamoured for the Agreement because it suited their own occupation and business, and people in the other end of the Dominion. clamoured against it because it did not suit their particular industry or make for their interests." He thought, therefore, that he also was justified in taking the narrow view, "the more selfish view of the Western man." He dealt with the present prosperity argument by asking why not go in for more prosperity-could they have too much? He did not believe in disunion as a result of the Agreement nor would he accept any opinions he had yet heard as to Canada's future under its operation. As to the price of wheat he declared it to be regulated in Liverpool but added: "So

far as I can see I am inclined to think that for a time, at any rate, there will be a benefit in the price of Western Canadian wheat. But apart altogether from that, even if our farmers do not get one cent more for their wheat, I would consider it a desirable thing that their wheat should go to the United States because, eventually, there must be an important market there owing to the fact that the States will be obliged to restrict their exportation."

Mr. Haultain said he was ready to advocate the total abolition of the duty on agricultural implements. "The point about the Agreement which appeals to me is that it provides another market for the farmers and fishermen and other producers of food-stuffs throughout the whole Dominion. The great question is that affecting food-stuffs. To my mind it does not go far enough. I think there can be only one opinion as to the manufacturers pressing unduly on the people of the West." He argued at length against the Annexation fears of many people and in defence of the future loyalty and Canadianism of United States settlers in the West. Close trade relations would not create but would prevent closer political relations-through increased prosperity, contentment and loyalty. In conclusion, and amid loud cheers, Mr. Haultain said: "We out here are just as well able as magnates in the East; I say we are just as well able to decide what is patriotic and unpatriotic as they are. I am not prepared to sit at the feet of any of these eastern Gamaliels and study loyalty. If the proposed Agreement does not turn out as satisfactory as it is hoped or intended, it will be a simple thing enough to change it or to abrogate it. The arrangement can be done away with practically at once and that is another reason for trying the experiment."

The Premier (Hon. Walter Scott) followed and stated that he had not expected the debate to take a non-party line which was, therefore, all the more appreciated. He claimed that this Agreement was a greater matter than even the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway; no interest would be seriously injured and even the fruit men of British Columbia would find their land leap in value to meet the higher levels to the south. He dealt with certain local interests as follows: "If Saskatchewan wheat is to go to Minneapolis there is absolutely no necessity for the grain to go through to Winnipeg. There is no reason whatever why the facilities for handling the exchange itself, and all the paraphernalia that are now to be found in Winnipeg, should not be located in some one of the cities of Saskatchewan, in Regina, for instance." If nothing else resulted from the Agreement it would give Saskatchewan at once the future and inevitable market for its wheat. As to the Annexation argument he declared that there never would be any danger in that connection if the incoming Western settlers were given freedom of trade. The only danger lay in the pressure of high tariff restrictions.

Mr. Scott devoted some time to a study of Mr. Clifford Sifton, labelled him the Chamberlain of Canada, described him as ambitious for wealth, power and fame, hinted at his possibly superseding Mr. Borden in Conservative leadership and expressed himself as "knowing positively that for a year past Mr. Sifton has been seeking a good pretext for breaking with Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Now he has found one." The debate was continued by F. C. Tate, A. B. Gillis and William Elliott of the Opposition with George Langley and H. C. Lisle of the Liberal party, and the Resolution was then passed unanimously. On Mch. 23rd the Legislature, in passing a unanimous Resolution in favour of Arbitration and Peace, included the following clause: " And further that this Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan believe that one effect of the proposed Reciprocal Agreement between Canada and the United States will be to help to draw all the English-speaking nations into more friendly relationships, which is a consummation highly desirable, especially from the standpoint of the prospective, if not the existing situation, on the Pacific ocean, a situation of vital moment to Canada." A political aftermath of this discussion occurred at the Provincial Conservative Convention in Moose Jaw on July 7th when Mr. Haultain refused to accept the Hon. Vice-Presidency and a Resolution of unqualified opposition to the Reciprocity Agreement was approved.

turers and the

Agreement

There was no publicly organized demonstration The Manufac- of the Manufacturers of Canada against Reciprocity Reciprocity except in one deputation sent to Ottawa; there was, undoubtedly, the influence of industrial capital and industrial fears as to the future behind some of the opposing movements. Many of the 18 Liberals were manufacturers; some of the leaders in the Anti-Reciprocity League were manufacturers. Mr. W. H. Rowley, President of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, in a Montreal Star interview on Jan. 28th, denounced the Agreement as calculated to disturb industries, waste Canadian forests, fisheries, lands and waterways, and lead to Commercial Union with the United States. On the 13th of the same month, when Reciprocity rumours were rife, but before any Agreement had been come to, a Deputation waited upon the Government composed of W. H. Rowley, N. Curry, T. A. Russell, George Pattinson, G. D. Forbes, J. Kerr Osborne, R. McLaughlin, W. K. George, M. J. Butler, c.M.G., W. S. Fisher, W. Harty, M.P., F. Nicholls, D. R. Ker, C. C. Ballantyne, J. H. Plummer, C. A. Birge, Alex. Goldie, F. H. Whitton, W. J. Bulman, T. R. Deacon, J. R. Booth, R. J. Younge, and other representative manufacturers from all parts of Canada.

Mr. D. A. Gordon, M.P., in presenting the Deputation stated that the members of the Canadian Manufacturers Association had since 1900 invested $750,000,000 in pursuits which were now developing the country; Mr. W. H. Rowley stated that while

Practical Protection had been the origin and aim of the organization it now covered many fields of activity and varied national interests. Mr. T. A. Russell then read an elaborate Memorial stating that the Association represented $1,200,000,000 of invested capital and $1,000,000,000 of annual output, furnished direct employment to 435,000 artisans and work-people and distributed annually $250,000,000 in wages; and that it was opposed to any Reciprocity which would lower directly or indirectly the duties upon manufactured articles. As Canadians, they regarded the present as an inopportune time for the negotiation of a Reciprocity Treaty. "United States enterprises are developed to the highest state in point of capital, specialization of products and magnitude of operations. Canadian enterprises, because of their restricted markets, are not yet so developed and it would be obviously impossible for them to withstand the competition that would inevitably follow reductions in the present Canadian tariff. The United States already enjoys an enviable position in the matter of international trade. Dutiable products coming from that country into Canada are admitted under an average duty of less than 25 per cent., whereas they themselves in order to encourage and protect their own industries, have imposed an average duty of 43 per cent., the result being the present all-too-successful exploitation of the Canadian market by the United States people, as evidenced by Canadian trade statistics. Further, Canadian exporters are seriously embarrassed by the lack of facilities in the United States for transacting customs business and by onerous regulations requiring expensive entry fees, consular certificates, etc. Canada has made things easy for the United States exporter by establishing a port of entry in almost every town of any account while, practically, the only ports of entry in the United States are on the frontier where the duty has to be paid.”

The industrial view was summed up as follows: "In its relations to the manufacturer, the tariff stands in exactly the same position as experimental farms, grain inspection, terminal elevators, facilities for chilling meats, cold storage, shipping, the Hudson's Bay Railway and a score of other things stand in relation to the farmer. With the request for Federal assistance in surrounding their (the farmers') industry with such adjuncts as will contribute to its advancement and their own prosperity, we are in hearty accord, feeling hopeful that with a better and fuller understanding of the situation they will speedily join hands with us in a firm stand for stability of tariff, diversified home industries, and strong home and Imperial markets." Opposition was expressed to any Tariff reductions or trade treaties which, at the existing juncture, would unsettle the prosperous conditions then prevailing. Mr. T. R. Deacon of Winnipeg, in speaking, drew attention to the growing industries of the West. Winnipeg now had 241 manufacturing establishments employing 14,800 hands