Feb.

6. The Democratic Caucus by a vote of 90 to 22, and ultimately on motion of Champ Clark by unanimous consent, passes the following Resolution: "Whereas the Canadian Reciprocity Agreement negotiated by the Reciprocity Commission of the Dominion of Canada and the President of the United States, formulated in accordance with the Democratic platform demands, is a reduction of some of the prohibitive schedules in the Payne tariff law, will tend to expand the trade of the United States in the Dominion of Canada, and is in part a recognition of the principles the Democratic party has contended for on its own platform, therefore, be it resolved, that this Caucus endorse Canadian Reciprocity and bind ourselves to vote for a Bill carrying it into effect."

Feb. 11.-The Ways and Means Committee reports to the House recommending adoption of the measure and the Agreement by a vote of 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats against 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat. The Report says: "The Bill takes a long step towards establishing a policy of unrestricted trade for North America. He must be blind indeed who does not see the significance of Canada's remarkable pre-eminence in United States commerce. No other nation so strongly resembles America in methods of production, in scale for living, and in racial characteristics. The forces of nature draw the two countries commercially together with a potency which cannot be nullified by mutual tariffs and other devices whereby statesmen keep nations asunder.... The benefit to us would be enormous if we could sweep away the tariff between the two countries. It would have an effect on our trade of another Louisiana purchase. If Canada's commerce is so important to us when she has only 8,000,000 people, what will be the magnitude of our trade when she has 25,000,000?"

Feb. 14.-The McCall Bill passes the House by a vote of 78 Republicans and 143 Democrats against 87 Republicans and 5 Democrats -221 to 92.

Feb. 15. It is received by the Senate and referred to Finance Committee. Feb. 24. The measure is reported to Senate without recommendations, and a discussion follows without any action being taken. Mch. 4.-Congress is adjourned and the President issues a Proclamation calling a special Session of the new Congress-in which there is a large Democratic majority in the House and a reduced Republican majority in the Senate for April 4th. The Message states that this Session is convened so that the Houses may consider and determine whether Congress shall, by the necessary legislation, make operative the Agreement with Canada.

Mch. 4.-Before the issue of this Proclamation President Taft summons the Republican leaders in both Houses, and Mr. Champ Clark, the Democratic Leader in the late House of Representatives, and Oscar W. Underwood, the Leader in the coming House, to meet him and his Cabinet and discuss the situation. Apr. 4. The United States Congress, convened in extraordinary Session to deal with Reciprocity is made up of 228 Democrats and 160 Republicans in the House of Representatives with 50 Republicans and 41 Democrats in the Senate.

Apr. 4.-The President's 2nd Message transmitting the Canadian Agreement to Congress urges its acceptance and makes this statement: "The Agreement in its intent and in its terms was purely economic and commercial. While the general subject was under discussion by the Commissioners, I felt assured that the sentiment of the people of the United States was such that they would welcome a measure which would result in an increase of trade on both sides of the boundary line and would

open up a reserve of the productive resources of Canada to the great mass of our consumers on advantageous conditions and that would, at the same time, offer a broader outlet for the excess products of our farms and of many of our industries." Apr. 12.-A Bill embodying the Agreement with Canada is presented to the House of Representatives by Oscar W. Underwood (Dem.) and referred to the Committee of Ways and Meanstogether with a Democratic Free List Bill covering a hundred articles and products not specified in the Agreement.

Apr. 15.-The Report of the Committee of Ways and Means unanimously recommending the Underwood Reciprocity measure to the House of Representatives states that "the Bill takes a long step toward establishing for the continent of North America a policy of unrestricted trade and commerce, recognizing natural conditions that have been too long ignored." A clause is added upon suggestion of the recent Democratic Caucus authorizing and requesting the President to continue negotiation with Canada for a further extension of reciprocal relations. At the same time the Farmers' Free List Bill is reported by a strict party vote-the Republicans refusing their support.

Apr. 21.-The House of Representatives passes the Reciprocity Agreement measure by a vote which includes most of the Democrats and a small minority of the Republicans-a total of 267 in favor and 89 against. The vote stood-64 Republicans for and 78 against; 203 Democrats for and 11 against. Defeated amendments offered by Republicans numbered 35.

Apr. 24.-The Reciprocity Agreement is received by the Senate and referred to the Finance Committee.

May 17.-In connection with the Reciprocity Agreement President Taft sends to the Senate a Report as to the Pulp and News-print paper industries. The total average cost of a ton of ground wood-pulp at a mill in the United States is stated at $14.59; in Canada it is $9.56. The total cost of a ton of sulphite fibre in the United States is put at $31,39; in Canada it is $26.47. The total materials entering into the manufacture of a ton of news-print paper in Canada are shown as $16.89 and in the United States as $22.74. The labour cost of a ton of paper in the United States is shown to be $3.27 and in Canada $3.19. All other allowances for manufacturing costs in the United States are $6.87 and in Canada $7.45. Labour costs in all the items concerned run very closely alike. In accounting for the increased cost it is shown that at an American mill the average cost of a ton of wood for ground wood-pulp is $10.23; in Canada $5.70. The average cost of the ground wood-pulp entering into a ton of news-print paper in the United States is given at $13.27 and the Canadian value as $8.49. The average cost of the sulphite fibre in a ton of paper at a mill in the United States is given as $8.63; Canadian valuation at $7.41.

June 8.-The

Senate Committee defeats all amendments to the Bill except that of Hon. Elihu Root, which proposed that the Agreement should remain inoperative as to pulp-wood, pulp, and paper, until all restrictions on the export of unmanufactured pulp-wood should have been removed by the Provinces of Canada. This is approved and the Agreement passes on to the Senate with the one added recommendation. It is claimed, and admitted by Senator Penrose, the Administration Leader, that this clause was in the original Bill, but that its elimination took place in the Ways and Means Committee of the House.

June 26.-Without the formality of a roll-call the Root amendment is defeated in the Senate.

July 22.—After prolonged debate and the defeat of 16 amendments the Reciprocity measure passes the Senate by a vote of 53 to 27 -Republicans in favour, 21, and against, 24; Democrats in favour, 32, and against, 3.

July 26.-The Reciprocity Agreement Bill is officially signed by President W. H. Taft, Vice-President J. S. Sherman and Mr. Speaker Champ Clark.

Aug. 1.-The Farmers' Free List Bill is passed by the Senate together with an amendment admitting Canadian fresh meats and cereal products free, with or without Reciprocity, but the measure is vetoed by President Taft.

Annexation Utterances in the United States Congress and Press

The prolonged fiscal debates, the discursive arguments, the game of political attack and counterattack, which occurred in the American Congress between Jan. 26th and July 22, 1911, were not, upon the surface, of great interest to Canada although much was said bearing upon the Canadian controversy. The public in Canada certainly knew little of the American issues involved apart from certain references to Annexation. Why President Taft took his political life in hand in order to negotiate and then force this measure through Congress; why the Republicans should be pledged by their Leaders to a policy which the party majority in both Houses disapproved; why the Republican press should, as a whole, support a line of action which the Democrats logically and triumphantly claimed to be in accordance with their policy of many years past; why the latter party, when it became dominant in the Lower House, took up and put through by large majorities the measure of a Republican President which was expected to ensure his re-nomination and help his re-election-these were questions which received no clear consideration from the masses of the Canadian people.

Canadians did, however, understand the few distinctly Annexation utterances which reached them. These did not, as a rule, come over the wire from Washington; they came through in correspondence or were dug out of the Congressional Record by enterprising Conservative newspapers. In reality they were very numerous and, during the earlier stages of debate, before it was understood that such expressions of sentiment were unwise, they were enthusiastically cheered in Congress. It is not necessary to suppose that there was any "plot" for the ultimate annexation of Canada, or any general intention to carry it out, or anything but truth in President Taft's repudiation of political union or relations in his advocacy of Reciprocity. There was, however, and this is said deliberately, with due sense of responsibility, a deep and obvious sentiment in favour of any proposal or policy which would bring the great and growing

country to the north within the sphere of United States influence and detach her, no matter how indirectly, from her British and Imperial affiliations. There was the same opinion as to Manifest Destiny which has always lain at the root of American policy toward Canada whether it was coercive, contemptuous or conciliatory. The sentiment could not but find expression and there was really nothing to condemn in it from the proud and patriotic American standpoint.

The most conspicuous reference to the subject was that of Mr. Champ Clark. This gentleman was known in Congressional lists as the Hon. James Beauchamp Clark and in the House of Representatives as the Leader of the Democratic party and the coming Speaker of the next House with its Democratic majority-the first since 1905; in the country as a strong, clever and humourous politician, a friend of W. J. Bryan and a possible candidate for the Presidency. At this time he was in the curious position of helping President Taft to put a Republican Agreement through Congress. The utterance which created special interest in Canada was delivered on Feb. 14, just before the Reciprocity measure was passed by the House after application of the not-often-applied rule shutting off debate. It was received, according to press cables to London, by the members standing and applauding enthusiastically; it was not recorded by the Associated Press in its report of the speech next morning in the Washington papers; only a guarded quotation at first appeared in Canadian papers with the statement that Mr. Clark was a national joker and that no importance attached to the remarks. The reference to the Bill was as follows:

I am for it because I hope to see the day when the American flag will float over every square foot of the British North American possessions, clear to the North Pole. They speak our language, their institutions are much like ours, they are trained in the difficult art of selfgovernment. My judgment is that if the Treaty of 1854 had never been abrogated the chances of a consolidation of the two countries would have been much greater than they are now. I have no doubt whatever that the day is not far distant when Great Britain will joyfully see all her North American possessions become part of this Republic. That is the way things are tending now.

The

There followed, with promptness, the President's letter to Congressman McCall saying that "this Agreement, if it becomes law, has no political significance. No thought of future political annexation or union was in the minds of the negotiators on either side. Canada is now and will remain a political unit.” instant protest of British and Canadian newspapers surprised Mr. Clark and he said on Feb. 16th to the Montreal Herald correspondent at Washington: "Why, I was only saying what I have said twenty times before as to the future relations of these two coun

tries. But nobody ever paid any attention to it before. I was only voicing my own opinion and spoke for nobody but myself." It may be added here that Mr. Clark maintained his attitude after the Canadian elections were over and Reciprocity was disposed of. At St. Louis on Sept. 25 he said: "In my speech in the House I gave as one of my reasons why I wanted Reciprocity that it would tend toward a union of the two countries; a sentiment which I had expressed a thousand times-and will express hereafter as often as it is pertinent. And nine-tenths of the American people are in favour of it. It would be a great and beneficial thing if the two countries were united."

On Feb. 16th Congressman W. S. Bennet (Rep.) of New York presented to the House a Resolution requesting the President "to enter upon and prosecute from time to time such negotiations with the British Government as he may deem expedient for the annexation of the Dominion of Canada to the United States of America." It was at once referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee and, after hurried consultations between the President and the Leaders of both parties, was voted down on the following day by 9 to 1. Similar Resolutions were presented in the Legislatures of Michigan and North Dakota but not pressed to a vote. Meantime there had been other utterances, similar to Mr. Clark's. On the 14th, Mr. Burton Harrison (Dem.), of New York, said: "This Reciprocity pact is the greatest economic advantage of the age. We have almost obliterated the frontier line and a few years of commercial peace will do the rest." Mr. E. J. Hill, a Republican authority on Tariff matters from Connecticut, said amidst great applause-according to English press correspondents: "If the proposition before this House was one of complete political union, to form a single magnificent country extending from the Rio Grande to Hudson's Bay, not a single man here would say it nay. All local jealousies and neighbouring rivalries would be forgotten in consideration of the greater principle, and they should be disregarded in our consideration of this lesser measure for commercial intimacy. So long as I live I shall never forget a speech by Speaker Cannon on the future of this country, in which he declared that one day not only the whole of North America, but, also, the entire Western Hemisphere, would be a single great nation."

NOTE.-The Montreal Star of Apl. 3 published this extract from the Report of Tariff Hearings before the Ways and Means Committee on Dec. 4, 1908, when the Payne-Aldrich Bill was pending in Congress:

Mr. Champ Clark: Nearly all those who are raising wheat in the Northwestern British possessions are Americans who have gone over there, are they not?

not?

Mr. Henry: A great many of them are; Yes, sir!

Mr. Clark: Nearly the whole outfit!

Mr. Henry: Yes, Sir!

Mr. Clark: Fixing to bring that country into the United States are they

Mr. Henry: I cannot speak for them.

The Chairman: I do not think you ought to give it away, if they are.

Mr. Clark: That is exactly what they will do; exactly what they did with