For the last thirty or forty years we have been either ignored or buffeted by the United States and during that time we have taken our way, we have proceeded serenely, under the strong protective arm of the British Empire. Up to this present time we have been somewhat of a nuisance to the Empire; but now when we come to a point where we may be of use to the Empire, when we can send men and ships, if necessary, to her aid, then when we can be of some use to the Empire that gave us our liberty and our traditions of citizenship at the first beckoning hand from Washington we turn to listen; the first time anyone beckons we turn from the path that leads to the centre of the Empire and take the path that leads to Washington. So far as I am concerned, I say 'Not for me,' and, finally, I ask, 'Is it safe for 72 millions to bargain with 90 millions?' We may say we will take their terms but not pay the price. Sir, I think such a course is neither safe nor wise. If we take the terms we will have to pay the price.

A curious and much-discussed incident following this action was the attitude of the Manitoba Free Press, the able Liberal paper of Winnipeg, which was supposed to be owned or controlled by Mr. Sifton. It came out on Mar. 1st with a strong attack upon the opposition to Reciprocity as being not spontaneous but "planned, nursed, financed, stage-managed and advertised" by business interests centring in Toronto. Throughout the succeeding campaign this paper and the Regina Leader were the ablest exponents of Reciprocity to the Western people. The fact seems to be that the Free Press, though technically owned by Mr. Sifton, was really in the editorial charge of Mr. J. W. Dafoe and the business charge of Mr. E. H. Macklin under a term contract which included control of its policy. Accompanying these developments was the organization of the Canadian National League in Toronto with Z. A. Lash, K.C., as Chairman and the Anti-Reciprocity League in Montreal with Charles Chaput as Chairman, for the purpose of opposing Reciprocity and with active work in the circulation of thousands of pamphlets and the signing of petitions to Parliament protesting against the ratification of the Agreement.

The next step taken by the Liberal opponents of Reciprocity was the organization and holding of a great public meeting in Massey Hall, Toronto. It was held on Mch. 9th and the building was packed with an enthusiastic crowd. Sir Mortimer Clark presided and Messrs. Gourlay, White, George, Eaton and Allan, also of the 18 Liberals, were on the platform while speeches were made by Z. A. Lash, K.C., W. T. White, W. K. George, Arthur Hawkes and George T. Blackstock, K.C. The tone of the addresses was Imperialistic and anti-American, the spirit of the arguments was Canada for Canadians and the British flag, the element of thought chiefly appealed to was distrust of United States policy and ambitions. Mr. White summed up the situation to the manufacturers present as follows: "You are let go on suspended sentence; you are next." A long Resolution was passed declaring that Reciprocity would reverse the policy which had made Canada prosperous, hamper the country in its freedom to continue that development, check

the growth of Inter-Provincial trade, diminish Canada's influence in the Empire, and tend to commercial union and then absorption with the United States. The Agreement was denounced as made in secret, without consultation with or approval of the commercial interests involved, and an immediate Election to decide the issue was demanded.

Meanwhile, Mr. Sifton followed up his speech in Parliament by other addresses in the country. At the annual banquet of the Hamilton Manufacturers on Mch. 16th he was explicit on several important points. The United States last year had exported $400,000,000 worth of the very agricultural products which, it was contended, Canadian farmers would under Reciprocity send them; as for prices both countries were largely exporters and the general level in both countries was about the same; the market in Great Britain for perishable products, built up at enormous expense in agricultural education, cold storage and steamship facilities, would be abandoned for the United States market; the milling industry would be crippled in competition with the North-Western millers of the United States who were the largest in the world, with a profitable local market for by-products; the meat-packing and fruitproducing interests would be seriously injured. Limited Reciprocity meant the beginning of a logical and irresistible demand for complete Reciprocity; it involved the dominance of the seven million market and tariffs by those of the 90-million.

On Mch. 20 a great anti-Reciprocity meeting was held in Windsor Hall, Montreal, and addressed by Mr. Sifton in ringing terms and amidst energetic applause. Other, but brief speakers, were the Chairman, Mr. Charles Chaput, Z. A. Lash, K.C., of Toronto, T. Chase-Casgrain, K.C., of Montreal, and Prof. S. B. Leacock of McGill. After describing himself as a life-long, fighting Liberal, Mr. Sifton delivered a clear-cut analysis of the proposed policy from standpoints and with arguments very similar to those of preceding speeches. In referring, however, to Canada's present prosperity the speaker said: "The result of our tying ourselves up with the people to the south of us will be our continued enjoyment of the prosperity we now have until the next financial panic in the United States when we will have the honour and the pleasure of joining them in financial embarrassment." He dealt at length with the Trust question: "Then take the Chicago packers! The Meat Trust is the greatest in the world, except the Standard Oil Trust, and it can produce cheaper than any competitor. It has such an organization and such an enormous business, making use of every part of the animal to such advantage, that if the Trust were to buy cattle in Spokane, Washington, it could ship them to Chicago, work them up in the packing-houses and then ship them back to Spokane and undersell any competitor who bought the cattle on the market there and butchered it locally! Now, what chance do you think the small meat-packing establish

ments of Canada have against that Trust? Not the slightest chance."

Two other points were dealt with as follows: "The railways in Canada spend about 50 per cent. on their labour and material in Canada. This is for the benefit of Canada-they go about it for the purpose of building up their business, of course, but that is the effect. We are going to cut off this. By this Treaty, which will carry the trade north and south, we are going to take off a large slice of the earnings of the railways. Take the pulp and paper business. Do you think that our friends to the south of us got that clause about pulp and paper to ornament the Agreement and fill so much space? It looks innocent, but it is not so innocent as it looks and just as surely as this Treaty comes into effect you will find that the Government of Quebec will be put in a difficult position. The Government of Quebec will be crowded on every side and by hook or crook, in some way, these regulations regarding pulp-wood will be abrogated and our American friends will get our pulp-wood as they want it." England had paid a terrible price for Free-trade and the worst sufferers had been the farmers. As to general relations with the United States Mr. Sifton said: "Every sane man in Canada knows that our American friends want every water-power on the international boundary lines. They want our market for their manufactures, our pulp-wood, our timber. They want our coasting trade. We have magnificent boats built in Canadian shipyards-perhaps some of you do not know this-built on the Great Lakes within the last two years, but our good friends to the south would like to grasp these for themselves and in this arrangement they will drive our vessels off the water." He concluded with a strong appeal for the right of the people to decide the issue. A Resolution was passed amid cheers condemning the Agreement because the Government had no authority to negotiate it; because of the expenditure of hundreds of millions on East and West development in trade and transportaion which would be wasted; because it would prevent growth in interImperial trade and prevent Empire fiscal arrangements; because it would curtail Canada's fiscal freedom and general progress; because of the danger of being forced into a condition of abrogation or acceptance of Reciprocity in Manufactures; because Canadian nationality was threatened and at stake. Preceding the meeting, and during the preliminary torch-light procession, a band of McGill students who did not agree politically with the large section cheering Mr. Sifton and who afterwards made things lively within the hall, seized the visitor's carriage and threw it into a snowbank. There was also trouble at a meeting held in the McGill Union to hear Mr. Sifton-who was finally unable to make himself heard and a subsequent apology was proffered from the student body.

From Montreal in these months had come another vigorous

66

Was

voice of protest in several trenchant epistles by Sir W. C. Van Horne, a man whose politics the public knew nothing of and who may, therefore, be called an independent although he had actively opposed the Unrestricted Reciprocity proposals of 1891-his only preceding political experience. On Mch. 8th a letter of his to Mr. Charles Chaput was published in the press and contained some of the most caustic things yet said against the Agreement. To my amazement and distress and shame I now see the magnificent work of a generation traded away for a vague idea or a childish sentiment the splendid commercial and industrial position we have reached, and our proud independence, bartered for a few wormy plums. I feel it my duty to join in the protest which is heard from every section of the country. To-day we are in an enviable position, with a commerce three times as great per capita as that of the United States, and without a cloud in our sky save the one which has just now been raised. Does not common sense tell us to stay where we are and to let well enough alone. there ever such an exhibition of crawling and cringing as Canada's representatives have just now given us at Washington? We have heard much of the dignified attitude of our Government on the subject of Reciprocity-a dignified attitude which was assumed after repeated snubs. We have been told that if there was anything more to be said about Reciprocity it must be said at Ottawa; but at the very first signal from Washington we have seen Canada's representatives hurrying there, and without consultation with one of our business interests, and apparently without consultation with their own colleagues, hastily assenting to terms vitally affecting our vast and complicated trade and commerce, and perhaps involving our political future. Let us not run away with the idea that if we make a mistake in this matter of Reciprocity we shall be able to correct it at pleasure. We may not be permitted to do it. It should be remembered that there are such things as vested interests, with nations as with individuals and corporations, and that the vested interests of nations, real or alleged, are terribly binding upon the weaker party. When Mr. Hill has extended his seven or eight lines of Railway into the Canadian Northwestlines which have for some years been resting their noses on the boundary line waiting for Reciprocity or something of the kind to warrant them in crossing; and when other American channels of trade have been established affecting our territory; and when the American millers have tasted our wheat and the American manufacturers have got hold of our markets; is it probable that we shall be permitted to recede? Not a bit of it. We are making a bed to lie in and die in." On Mch. 23rd Sir William told a banquet gathering in London, England, that three-fourths of Canadians were opposed to Reciprocity. Other incidents of this time were an address by W. T. White to a Sons of England meeting in Toronto and the declaration by D. C. Cameron, an active Liberal and

wealthy lumberman of Winnipeg, that while Reciprocity might be beneficial to his business it would hurt Canada, weaken the bonds between East and West, and make for closer connection between the Dominion and the States. As time went on this Liberal revolt increased in expression and grew in silent strength. Some of those who came out clearly against Reciprocity in addition to the names already quoted were the following:

John R. Barber, ex-M.L.A... Paper Manufacturer

John R. Booth.

J. N. Greenshields, K.C..

Millionaire Lumberman
Eminent Lawyer

Prof. N. F. Dupuis, LL.D.... Queen's University

Toronto.
Toronto.
Georgetown.
..Ottawa.
Montreal.
Kingston.
. Cobourg.
Orillia.

Ottawa.

Montreal.

Ex-Mayor and Liberal candidate... Owen Sound.

Prominent Manufacturer

President Canadian Club.

President Bank of Ottawa.

Exporter and Capitalist.

....London.
. Hespeler.
Montreal.
Galt.
Oshawa.

Vice-President National Exhibition. Toronto.

Toronto.

Ingersoll Packing Company.
Liberal politician

Mayor

Dundas.

Ingersoll.

Mount Forest.

Calgary.

Canadian Cereal and Milling Co.... Toronto.
Ex-President Produce Exchange... . Montreal.
President Ont. Vegetable Growers Weston.
. One-time Liberal M.L.A.
Ex-Mayor

One-time M.L.A.

ciation

Morrisburg.

Cornwall.

Calgary.

Winnipeg.

Toronto.

Rev. J. B. Freeman.
E. M. Trowern.

W. P. Niles..

Secretary Retail Merchants Asso

Ex-Liberal Candidate in Wellington. Picton.

There were, also, of course, Conservatives who changed their colours but they do not seem to have been so numerous. They included S. H. White of Sussex, N.B., Frank Clements of York in the same Province, Lee Flewelling of Rothesay, N.B., W. M. Jarvis, Silas Alward, K.C., and R. F. Quigley, K.C., Peter Lund of Wardner, B.C., Leslie McMann of Thorold, Ont., L. H. Edmonds of Blenheim, Col. J. F. Fraser of Burford, Lewis Wigle, ex-M.P., of South Essex, W. L. Wilkins of Norwood, J. S. Woods of Macdonald, Man., Harry Corby, ex-M.P., of Hastings, R. S. Eaton, President of the N. S. Fruit Growers Association, A. S. Swim of Nova Scotia, Sydney Purdy, James Robinson and Ernest Hutchinson of New Brunswick, D. K. Elliott of Winnipeg, Sir James Grant, M.D., of Ottawa, W. A. Fraser, the novelist, of Georgetown.

The Reci

ment before

the United

Meantime, events had been taking place in the procity Agree- United States which vitally affected the whole controversy in Canada, which promised to make or mar a Presidential candidacy for re-election in the States, which split up the two great Parties of the Republic in a state of temporary confusion and disorder. When President Taft, on Jan. 27th, presented the Canada-United

States Congress.