looked for certain defeat in their constituencies if they opposed it. The press, though in the main dividing upon party lines, had also a number of exceptions. The Ottawa Citizen and Ottawa Journal, and the Kingston Standard mildly approved Reciprocity; the Victoria Colonist and Winnipeg Telegram mildly condemned it. The statement of the Journal on Jan. 27th was as follows: "The acceptance by the United States Cabinet of such an Agreement is, frankly speaking, a staggering surprise. If Congress accepts it an excellent thing, we think, will have been accomplished for this country." On May 9th, after President Taft's "parting of the way" speeches had sunk into the public mind, this paper frankly confessed to the opinion that a new issue had developed-more important than one of mere trade. These were normally Conservative papers. The Toronto Globe, Montreal Herald, Winnipeg Free Press, London Advertiser, and Halifax Chronicle, amongst Liberal papers, were enthusiastic in their eulogies of the Agreement in both principle and policy. La Presse of Montreal (Lib.) said on Jan. 27th that "the principal characteristic of the new arrangement is that it is a step towards free-trade, because concessions accorded to the United States must also be given to such countries as share in the favoured-nation treaties and it tends, too, towards a general reduction of the tariff. The Government has drawn back from the policy of protection which has prevailed for thirty years in Canada." La Patrie (Lib.) of Montreal did not like the policy and the Nationalist journals were rather uncertain. For a brief interval, also, the Ottawa Free Press, the Government organ at the capital, felt very doubtful as to results and on Jan. 28 said: "Unless the Dominion Government is prepared immediately to increase the British preference, the step which Canada is asked to take is a grave one, indeed. In the opinion of the Free Press the removal or reduction of the tariff against England should precede, not follow, reciprocity with the United States." At the first glance it was believed that the Agreement would commend itself to certain great interests. The Western farmers would, clearly, welcome a free United States market for wheat and oats; the farmers of Ontario were said-even by the Toronto News of Jan. 27th-to desire the removal of American customs duties on live-stock, dairy products, vegetables, eggs, etc.; the Quebec habitants would, it was thought, appreciate a neighbouring free market for hay, vegetables, and dairy products; free fish would naturally be an attraction to the Maritime Provinces. On the other hand it was obvious that there would be a great disturbance in Canadian trade and transportation interests generally, in the flour-milling industry, in the supplies of lumber, poultry, bacon, and fruit to the Canadian West, in the prospect of a British preference. Despite all this a vigorous Conservative organ in Toronto represented much of the shifting, uncertain public opinion of the mom ent when it said on the day after the Parliamentary announcement: "Under all the circumstances, however, The News recognizes that Washington has offered terms which it is difficult for Canada to reject, although we frankly regret that our trade is to be turned into American rather than into Imperial channels and that Canadian raw material must be sacrificed, and some important Canadian enterprises prejudiced, by an Agreement which, whatever its advantages, may have results in the long future far more vital to the national life and our Imperial connection than we can now foresee." Opposition soon stiffened, however, and The News itself became, almost at once, a conspicuously able and aggressive opponent of the whole policy. Its arguments covered the entire field of anti-Continentalism and of pro-British thought and policy. Reciprocity was described as an attempt at national suicide. The Agreement had no element of permanence, it was a policy of commercial separation from the Empire, the issue was one of a united or divided Canada, Dominion transportation interests were to be sacrificed to Mr. J. J. Hill and his Great Northern. The most notable of a series of leading articles along these lines were published on Jan. 31, Feb. 2nd, Feb. 4th, Feb. 7th, Feb. 27, Mch. 13, Apl. 4, and Apl. 18. The Montreal Star was equally vigorous in its attitude and on Feb. 4th published a full-page editorial appeal to Sir Wilfrid Laurier as "the one man who can save Canada." He was told that Reciprocity was an American trap into which the guileless Canadian emissaries had fallen and that Confederation would be cut at a dozen vital points; that the diversion of food exports from East and West lines to the South would shatter the steel frame-work of the Dominion, isolate the Provinces by the sea and negative their industrial future; that Quebec would become the back-yard and lumber camp of New England and the West look to Chicago and St. Paul instead of Toronto and Ontario; that the protective tariff on manufactures would soon follow the rest and Canadian railways become mere feeders to the Hill system; that the ultimate end would be Annexation. The following is a summary of opposing expressions of public opinion as they developed in number and grew in strength: Jan. 13.-A Delegation representing the Canadian Manufacturers Association, led by W. H. Rowley, President, lays before the Government of Canada an elaborate Memorial reviewing many reasons for opposing Reciprocity. Jan. 27.-The Orillia Board of Trade passes a Resolution declaring the present time inopportune for a Reciprocity arrangement. Jan. 27.-R. S. Gourlay, President Toronto Board of Trade (Lib.), refers to American strength and ambitions and states in the press: "I dread the influence and the fruitage of this influence from the standpoint of our national life and our present Imperial aspirations, even though the outcome of this great change in our tariff policy may be an increased financial prosperity." Jan. 27.-J. W. Flavelle, of Toronto, states that Reciprocity will kill InterProvincial trade in Canada. "Western cattle will be marketed in Chicago in place of Toronto and Montreal. The cured hog products consumed west of the Great Lakes will be imported from Chicago and Western United States packing points. The egg, poultry and dairy products required for the West will be supplied from Chicago and other Western producing centres. The advantage in freight rates and the lower first cost of these lines in the United States will give all the Western trade to United States packers and dealers. In pork meats the 14 cent a pound duty will not offset the advantage in freight rates and lower cost of raw product enjoyed by Western States producers. Ontario will market her surplus eggs and dairy products, exclusive of cheese, in the Eastern States. The immediate effect will be to create North and South trading conditions in place of East and West." a keen fight against Reciprocity with a leader declaring that "Laurier hauls down the flag of Canadianism in trade," that it is a question of Canadianism or Continentalism, and one of selling Canada's destiny for the hope of Cash. Jan. 28.-The Toronto Telegram (Ind.-Cons.) commences Jan. 30.-The Montreal Produce Merchants Association passes a Resolu"view with grave appretion unanimously declaring that they hension the proposed reciprocal Agreement, and would respectfully urge that the Government appoint a Royal Commission to take the evidence of farmers, producers, and dealers, and those interested generally, in order to ascertain their views and to learn to what extent they will be affected, before consummating the proposed Agreement.” Jan. 31.-At the annual meeting of the Montreal Board of Trade, after addresses from a number of prominent local men and upon motion of Huntley Drummond and Robert Meighen the following Resolution is passed by a vote of 60 to 44: That we believe that the sober sense of the country as a whole is against any change in the trade policy under which Canada has grown to her present admitted state of prosperity; That we consider it to be the bounden duty of every Canadian to resist to the last anything that might endanger our status as a component part of the British Empire, and that we fear such a treaty as proposed might easily prove to be the entering of a wedge that would eventually result in a separation of our interests from those of the Motherland. That we hereby record the unalterable opposition of this Board to the proposed Reciprocity treaty with the United States, which treaty would involve the country in dangers not yet fully realized; and we consider that the Government should first ascertain the opinion of the whole country on this question and receive a definite mandate thereon before committing it to a change so revolutionary as this reversal of its entire policy, threatening not only the trade, but also the more vital interests, of Canada as a nation. Jan. 31.-President George L. Cains, of the Montreal Board of Trade, in. his annual address to that body, denounces the Agreement as ruinous to the Port of Montreal, as possibly decreasing the price of Canadian products sent to the United States and increasing the cost of living here, as suicidal to the trade interests and Imperial aspirations of Canada. Feb. Feb. 1. The members of the Toronto Live Stock Exchange pass a Resolution opposing Reciprocity. 3.-A Return presented to Parliament shows the Boards of Trade of Welland, Deseronto, Brampton, Sault Ste. Marie and Cobalt, Seaforth, Perth, Brockville and Port Hope in Ontario, with Van- Feb. 6. Mr. H. H. Dewart, K.C.-a Liberal who afterwards modified his views-writes to The Globe as follows: "I believe that the present proposals are reasonably calculated to bring about positive advantages to the Canadian farmer with a relative minimum of disturbance to manufacturing interests. But that is not the whole question. The proposals must be considered from the more important standpoint of their ultimate effect upon our national life and existence and their relation to Imperial diplomacy. It cannot be urged that there is any mandate from the people for such a sweeping fiscal change." Feb. 7. The Dominion Millers' Association passes a Resolution unanimously declaring its disapproval of Reciprocity so far as it concerned the Milling industry. Feb. 10.-The Fruit-Growers of Eastern Canada in a Delegation of 2,000 men meet the Government at Ottawa and present a Memorial of vigorous protest against the Reciprocity Agreement as being ruinous to the Fruit industry of the Dominion. Feb. 13.-A large Delegation of Ontario and Quebec Meat Packers wait upon the Government and Mr. J. W. Flavelle presents an elaborate Memorial declaring that their industry in Canada will be practically destroyed if the Agreement goes into operation. Feb. 15.-F. W. Thompson, Vice-President and Managing-Director of the Ogilvie Flour Mills Company, Ltd., tells the press that "since the announcement of the terms of this Treaty prices of wheat have declined in the United States to practically an export level, the same as our own, owing to the fear of free wheat, thus justifying the statement made by President Taft that this policy would result in reducing the price of agricultural products in the United States. The adoption of any policy which has for its object the lowering of the prices for agricultural products must necessarily be detrimental to the farmers of both countries." Feb. 16.-The Toronto Board of Trade upon motion of Sir Edmund Walker and J. W. Flavelle-after speeches also by W. F. Cockshutt for and J. E. Atkinson against-and by a vote of 302 to 13, passes the following Resolution: That the present unexampled prosperity of Canada is the result of the policy which has been pursued in the development of her trade and of her natural resources, and that any policy which would hamper the development of Canada's resources in her own way and by her own people, or which would check the development of trade between the various parts of Canada with each other or between Canada and the various parts of the Empire would be detrimental to the true interests of Canada and to Canadian nationality; That very large expenditures have been made upon railways, canals, steamships and other means of transportation between East and West and West and East, to promote such development and trade, and that the proposed Reciprocity agreement with the United States of America would seriously check the growth of such development and trade and would curtail Canada's freedom of action with respect to her tariff and channels of trade; That any present benefit to any section of Canada or to any interest therein which might accrue from said Agreement would be more than offset by the loss and injury to other sections and interests; that the proposed agreement would weaken the ties which bind Canada to the Empire; that to avoid the disruption of trade which after some years under said Agreement would result were said Agreement terminated and a protective tariff against Canada established by the United States, Canada would be forced to closer trade relations with them, which would still further weaken those ties and make it more difficult to avert political union with the United States. Be it resolved, that in the opinion of this Board the proposed Reciprocity agreement with the United States of America is opposed to the true interests of Canada, threatens Canadian nationality, and should not be consummated. Feb. 16.-Mr. Hugh Blain, a Director of the Toronto Globe, writes a letter which is read at the Board of Trade meeting and in which he says: "The present time appears to be most inopportune, when conditions have adjusted themselves to the needs of every class, when prosperity has been distributed with reasonable fairness among all our people, for a leap like this in the dark." Feb. 17.-The Executive of the Canadian Manufacturers Association issues a statement as to its reasons for opposing Reciprocitygiving the following as one of the strongest: "The proposed Agreement looks toward dependence upon the markets of the United States rather than towards the expansion of our home market which for years has demonstrated its ability to consume over 80 per cent. of all the farm products we raise." Feb. 20. To the Calgary correspondent of the Toronto News, Pat Burns, the celebrated Alberta rancher and cattle dealer, says that in some respects Reciprocity would benefit his business. "But," he adds, "do you suppose I, or any man, in this great West of ours, wants Reciprocity if it is to become a menace to the prosperity of the Dominion? No, Sir! The country has made us all out here. We want the country and we are going to keep it, keep it for Canada and our children, and not for the gain of a few paltry dollars which might come to some of us for the time being were this Reciprocity agreement to go through now." Feb. 20.-The Toronto News publishes despatches from a number of Presidents of Canadian Boards of Trade opposing the Reciprocity Agreement. H. L. Frost of the Hamilton Board speaks as "a former United States manufacturer "; Thomas Doherty of the Sarnia Board declares Reciprocity would “ disorganize prospective business ventures, curtail investment of capital, injure credit and increase the cost of living"; G. A. Coslett of the Fort William Board of Trade expresses the protest of his organization against the policy; Stewart Scott of the Galt Board and E. S. Anderson of the St. Thomas Board join in opposition; while the Secretary of the St. Catharines Board declares that Reciprocity would injure transportation interests, divert trade to United States channels, injure trade with Britain and seriously affect the local fruit industry. Feb. 20.-The Winnipeg Grain Exchange, by a large majority, declares that the Agreement is "not in the best interests of Canada." Feb. 20.-Eighteen prominent Toronto Liberals sign and make public an elaborate protest against Reciprocity. Feb. 21.-A large mass-meeting of citizens at Hamilton, Ont., after listening to an address from Hon. G. E. Foster, M.P., and to Mayor Lees' statement that they had received 33 branch factories from the United States, employing 8,000 men and turning over an outlay of $20,000,000 in the past 5 years, passes a Resolution unanimously declaring that Reciprocity would endanger Canada's British status, involve the country in many dangers, and should be referred to the people for approval. Feb. 22. At a meeting in Toronto of the Associated Boards of Trade of Ontario, upon motion of R. S. Gourlay, President of the Toronto |