one-third more than our English competitors are in that market, and beating them at their own game. When we can do that, do you think that making free trade on agricultural implements between the United States and Canada would affect the price of an agricultural implement in this country to a single farmer? You know it would not, and is intended for no other purpose than to defeat a bill that reduces the taxes levied on the American people.

Now, when the proper time comes, when a Democratic Congress is assembled, when a Democratic Ways and Means Committee can present a bill, then I say to this House that the American farmer will receive what is just and right [applause on the Democratic side]; that we will not attempt to mislead him by putting agricultural implements on the free list from Canada; we will either put them on the free list or at a low revenue tariff coming from England and Germany, as well as the rest of the world, where there can be real competition, and so the American farmer can get some reduction of the price of farming machinery out of the measure.

Now, that being the case, I say to you Democrats who are worthy of the name, you men who are willing to stand for a cause that you believe is the cause of the people, let that side of the House throw these amendments at you, if they want to do so, but it is for you to stand here like honest Representatives of the people and support the bill without amendment. Do not think for a minute that your constituency have not the brains to understand this situation. If they offer these amendments to defeat a bill that we believe is right, as far as it goes, let us stand as one man and vote them down [applause on the Democratic side], with the distinct understanding in the country that within a year the great Democratic Party will be in action in this House [applause on the Democratic side] and will be prepared to carry out its pledges to the people and will be able to do ample justice to the farmer as well as to the great body of the American people.

Therefore I appeal to you that when this bill is considered under the fiveminute rule, as it must be to-night, do not let the column that the American people are depending on on this side of the House be broken, but stand as men and true Representatives of your constituencies, and put this bill through without an amendment, for an amendment means the defeat of a just measure; and the people will say that we have been true to our principles and true to our pledges. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. DALZELL. Mr. Chairman, in the observations that I shall make upon the pending measure I shall not undertake to go into details. I shall not attempt to sort out the various items of the several schedules and estimate how much we shall gain or lose in any particular item. I shall not discuss free pulp, free wood, free paper, free lumber, or the fisheries question. It will be my purpose rather to treat the question upon broad general principles and their relation to our policies, past, present, and future.

To my mind the question involved is more important than any question with which Congress has been called upon to deal for many years [applause on the Republican side], except, perhaps, in the case of the general revision of the tariff.

It is for that reason a matter of sincere regret that we are forced to its consideration with undue haste and without any information upon many matters of vital importance with respect to it. Why were these particular items included in these schedules, and not other items of the tariff bill selected as the subjects of legislation? We do not know and we have not been told. What effect will this discriminatory treaty with Canada have on our commercial relations with other nations with whom we have entered into treaty negotiations? We do not know, and no opinion has been vouchsafed to us from anyone competent to speak. Not only is this a misfortune as far as the committee that ought to have carefully considered this bill is concerned, but it is a misfortune so far as the public are concerned.

The unreasonable prejudice against the Payne tariff bill was created and fomented by the newspaper greed for free paper. That newspaper greed for free paper is behind this free-trade movement. [Applause on the Republican side.] The opponents of this measure have no forum in which they can be heard, and so the public are kept in ignorance of the facts, and a false sentiment is created in favor of newspaper interests.

4328-S. Doc. 80, 62-1, pt 3a-27

Up to the time the President's message informed Congress that he had entered into a trade agreement with Canada, the House of Representatives, where all bills raising revenue must originate under the Constitution, knew nothing at all about it. It is safe to say that no Member of Congress had been consulted either about the project or about its details. On January 28, two days after the message, a bill drawn in the State Department—the bill now pending with a material amendment-was presented in the House. On January 31 it was unanimously adopted at a caucus of the Democratic Party in this House. [Applause on the Republican side.] After less than a week of hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill was forced to a vote. Amendments submitted by the administration were admitted; all other amendments were denied consideration, and within two days the bill was reported to the House. By the terms of the bill four general classes of products are affected: First, leading food and agricultural products, rough lumber, some raw materials and print paper, and all these are put on the free list; second, secondary food products, such as fresh and canned meats, flour, and partly manufactured food products, on which rates are reduced and made identical; third, manufactured commodities, such as motor vehicles, cutlery, sanitary fixtures, and miscellaneous articles, on which the rates are mutually reduced; fourth, a small list of articles on which special rates are given by each country. Canada reduces the duty on coal and cement, and the United States reduces the duty on iron ore and aluminum.

The bill involves a revision of our tariff law. It involves millions of our national revenue. It involves our commercial relations with other nations. And yet it comes here to be voted on after a week's consideration in committee. We protest against its passage for the following, amongst other reasons: First, it involves a trade agreement with Canada similar to the one that existed heretofore from 1854 to 1866, and the operation of which proved disastrous to the United States. As a business proposition it is wholly indefensible. Advantage under it accrues to Canada without any corresponding advantage to the United States. It is uncalled for by the great body of our people.

Second, it is un-Republican. It proposes reciprocity in competing products, which is absolutely inconsistent with the policy of protection. It is an abandonment of the protective policy and an espousal of the doctrine of free trade. [Applause on the Republican side.] It is in violation of the history, the traditions, and the pledges of 50 years of our Republican platforms. [Applause on the Republican side.]

Third, it is class legislation of the most obnoxious character. It selects from all the classes of the community the farmer and deprives him of the protection accorded to all other classes. It compels him to produce in a free-trade market and to buy in a protected market. It is in the interest of the foreigner and against the American.

The same undue haste that has prevailed with us seems to have prevailed also in the Canadian Parliament. The press report says that at the opening session a French conservative nationalist attempted to defer the discussion. J. D. Monk declared there had not been enough time for proper study of so large a question, and moved an amendment regretting that the measure was being submitted without proper consideration. For the Government, Mr. Fielding replied

that the question was not new and there had been no undue haste in its presentation.

It is the reciprocity agreement of 1854 over again, with comparatively little change-He said.

It promises prosperity to the people of Canada, and this house would make a gravo mistake and do a grave wrong if it refused to take advantage of it.

An examination of the provisions of this bill and of the terms of the treaty of 1854 will confirm Mr. Fielding's statement that the two are substantially the same. There is this difference, however, that under the treaty of 1854 we obtained something in the shape of fisheries concessions, while under the present proposed treaty we obtain nothing.

There was a reason for the making of the treaty of 1854, while at the present time no reason exists for the making of any such treaty.

I read from what Mr. Blaine said in his book, Twenty Years in Congress, relative to the making and the effect of the treaty of 1854:

On the 20th of October, 1818, a treaty was concluded at London containing as its first and most important provision an absolute surrender of some of our most valuable rights in the fisheries.

From the execution of this treaty as might have been seen-the misunderstanding between the two countries in relation to the fisheries became more complicated

The right in the fisheries conceded by the treaty of 1854-originally ours under the treaty of 1782-and unnecessarily and unwisely renounced in the treaty of 1818-was not given freely, but in consideration of a great price. That price was reciprocity of trade, so called, between the United States and the British North American Provinces in certain commodities named in the treaty. The selection, as shown by the schedule, was made almost wholly to favor Canadian interests. There was scarcely a product in the list which could be exported from the United States to Canada without loss, while the great market of the United States was thrown open to Canada without tax or charge for nearly everything which she could produce and export. All her raw materials were admitted free, while all our manufactures were charged with heavy duty, the market being reserved for English merchants. The fishery question had been adroitly used to secure from the United States an agreement which was one-sided, vexatious, and unprofit able. It had served its purpose admirably as a makeweight for Canada in acquiring the most generous and profitable market she ever enjoyed for her products.

The correctness of Mr. Blaine's declaration that the treaty was vexatious, one-sided, and unprofitable appears from the fact that in the last year and threequarters of its life we remitted to Canada duties amounting to $70,152,163, and the balance of trade was against us in the sum of over $28,000,000.

Senator Morrill, of Vermont, who was thoroughly competent to speak upon this subject, said with respect to the results of that treaty:

Our exports to Canada in 1855 were $20,828,676, but under the operation of reciprocity, then commenced, they dwindled in 12 years down to $15,243,834, while the exports of Canada to the United States increased from $12,000,000 and odd to $46,000,000 and odd. When the treaty began the balance of trade had been $8,000,000 annually in our favor and that paid in specie, but at the end the balance against us to pe paid in specie in a single year was $30,000,000. Here was a positive yearly loss of over $5,000,000 of our export trade and a loss of $38,000,000 specie, all going to enrich the Canadians at our expense.

The treaty was denounced by Congress in 1865, and if I had the time I could cite to you the names, all along the line, of distinguished American statesmen who declared that this treaty had been against the interests of the United States and altogether to the advantage of Canada.

The first Republican leader who is recorded as having expressed an opinion on the subject of this treaty seems to have been the great Massachusetts Senator, Charles Sumner. He was chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate and reported the joint resolution for denouncing the treaty. On this occasion Mr. Sumner argued that the event had shown that the treaty was much more advantageous to Canada than to the United States; that, in short, it was unilateral and hence not reciprocal. He went on to say:

The reciprocity treaty has a beautiful name. It suggests at once exchange, equality, equity; and it is because it was supposed to advance those ideas practically that this treaty was originally accepted by the people of the United States.

And following on that declaration by Mr. Sumner comes the same opinion out of the mouths of Mr. Sherman of Ohio, Mr. Collamer and Mr. Foote of Vermont, Mr. Morrill of Maine, Mr. Chandler of Michigan, Mr. Doolittle of Wisconsin, Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts, and many others.

I take it to be clear, therefore, as a matter of history that the reciprocity treaty of 1854 with Canada resulted to the great disadvantage of the United States, and that if we should be guided by our experience on that occasion we should refuse now to enact into law almost the same treaty-substantially the same treaty, so far as results would be concerned.

The treaty was denounced. as I have stated, in 1865, and then what happened? No sooner were we released from its obnoxious and unprofitable terms than our commerce with Canada resumed its normal conditions. The results are well set forth in an article in the North American Review of February, 1904, which was written by Sir John Charlton, a member of the Canadian Parliament, and to which I desire to call your attention:

The nonprogressive character of the Canadian export trade to the United States is shown by the fact that, while the export in 1866 amounted to $44,000,000, the export in 1903, less precious metals and articles not the produce of Canada, was no more than $48,959,000. On the other hand, a comparison of Canadian import returns from the United States will show remarkable increase, as the subjoined table will demonstrate. Now mark these figures, the figures following upon the denunciation of the treaty of 1854:

Canadian imports from the United States for consumption.

These are imports from the United States into Canada for consumption, the goods which we sold her, and for which we got pay. Here is another branch of the same subject from Mr. Charlton's magazine article:

The subjoined table, showing the Canadian importation of manufactures from Great Britain and from the United States since 1898, will be of interest, especially when taken in connection with the fact that Canada has given a tariff preference to Great Britain, first of 12 per cent, 1897 to 1898, then of 25 per cent to 1900, and of 33 per cent since that time.

Mr. HARRISON. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield?

Mr. DALZELL. Surely.

Mr. HARRISON. In discussing the effect of the reciprocity of 1854 does not the gentleman from Pennsylvania leave out of account the fact that during that period a great war raged in the United States for four years, which paralyzed our industries?

Mr. DALZELL. No; I do not leave that out of consideration at all. The war had but little. to do with it. I propose to show that under the treaty of 1854 everything resulted to the disadvantage of the United States, and that the moment the treaty of 1854 was denounced everything, down to the present day, has resulted to the advantage of the United States, and that there not only now exists no reason why this reciprocity treaty should be enacted, but that it would be to our great disadvantage to open the markets of the United States to the markets of Canada.

Now, to come back again to Mr. Charlton. These are the Canadian imports of manufactures:

In 1903 the imports from Great Britain were $50,000,000 and from the United States $76,000,000.

Then I go on with Mr. Charlton:

This great increase in the sale of manufactures by the United States to Canada between 1898 and 1903, in the face of the Canadian preference in favor of British imports, gives evidence of the strong hold that the American manufacturer has upon the Canadian market and of his ability to meet all competitors in the market upon equal terms.

Now, let me add to Mr. Charlton's figures in respect to the manufactures in Great Britain, so as to bring them down to date:

Manufactures imported for consumption into Canada from the United States and the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, our exports to Canada last year were $241,809,233 and our imports from Canada were $103,256,955; or in other words, in the present condition of our commercial relations with Canada, the balance of trade in our favor last year was $138,552,278, or 134.20 per cent, of exports over imports. Our

exports to all other countries were $1,622,682,411, and our imports were $1,459,667,296, the balance of trade in our favor being $163,015,115, or 11.17 per cent, of exports over imports in our world's trade, as against 134.20 per cent in our trade with Canada. The balance of trade in our favor last year, to repeat, was $138,000,000 and odd.

Now, I want to show you why this was so, from the standpoint of the Canadian statesman. On the 24th of February, 1903, Mr. Charlton made a speech in the Canadian Parliament on the subject of reciprocity with the United States, in which he showed how favorable existing trade conditions were to the United States in its trade with Canada. He gives us credit for our business policy. He said:

The American policy has been applied not only to us but to all the world. The object of the United States has been to sell all that it possibly could of the products of its soil and its mills and its workshops and to buy just as little as it could from other countries, and thus have as much of the balance of trade in its own favor as possible. The result has been that the balance of trade in favor of the United States last year amounted to $600,000,000 as against the whole world, $71.000,000 as against Canada. That is a good thing for the United States, and it will be her policy so long as the rest of the whole world will permit her to do it; but it is not good for us.

Then he goes on to say further:

Something must be done to change the trade conditions that exist between the United States and Canada. Free trade in natural products would afford a reasonable adjustment. Nothing short of this will do, and this condition of free trade of natural products must be granted by the United States without a solitary concession from Canada further than she has already made. We can not afford any more.

Mr. Chairman, what is the situation? Every word spoken by Mr. Charlton in 1903 is as true to-day as it was then. The United States is pursuing to-day the same wise policy that it pursued then, in pursuance of which policy our trade with Canada increases year by year and the balance of trade remains in favor of our own citizens.

From all sides evidence of the present satisfactory character of our Canadian trade accumulates.

The President tells us in his message that the entire foreign trade of Canada in the last fiscal year 1910 was $655,000,000, that her imports were $376,000,000, and adds, "Of this amount the United States contributed $223,000,000."

The Committee on Ways and Means in reporting this bill to the House, says: Our splendid trade with the German Empire takes only $258,000,000 of our exports each year as compared with $242,000,000 which we sell to Canada. France buys from us annually only $54,000,000; the United Kingdom only $307,000,000.

These last figures are exclusive of cotton exports.

In all our world commerce we have no trade relations that display such gratifying conditions as are displayed in our existing trade with Canadaeverything there is going our way.

Is it not an astounding proposition that we shall legislate away our advantages in the interest of the Canadians? Yet that will be the result of the passage of the bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. No concealment is made of the fact that we propose to give away $5,000,000 a year revenue in return for two millions and a half of Canadian revenue. In other words, we propose to trade a good American dollar for a Canadian half dollar. We propose to throw open the markets, the splendid markets, of 90,000,000 of prosperous people to the meager markets of less than 9,000,000. [Applause on the Republican side.]. Why, the proposition is so astounding that it staggers belief.

Mr. Chairman, I have not the time or I might go on to show how during every administration since the administration of Gen. Grant, during every administration since the denouncement of the treaty of 1854, Canada has been knocking at our doors, asking for a renewal of that treaty.

In all cases the opinion was expressed that our experience of a reciprocity trade in noncompeting articles with Canada had cost us millions of money and that so long as our trade was prosperous as it is it would be unwise, unbusinesslike, foolish to the utmost degree, to renew any such treaty.

In his first annual message to Congress, under date of December 6, 1869, President Grant alluded to the Canada treaty in terms of disapproval on account of its lack of true reciprocity. I quote this extract from his message:

The question of renewing a treaty for reciprocal trade between the United States and the British Provinces on this continent has not been favorably considered by the administration. The advantages of such a treaty would be wholly in favor of the British