Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Letter of Gerrit Smith on the Reciprocity Treaty.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 604

[col. 1]

Hon. H. Hamlin, U. S. Senate

DEAR SIR: I learn, with surprise and regret, that you are not decidedly in favor of the "Reciprocity Treaty ;" and that, possibly, you may oppose its adoption. Believing, as I do, that the people of Maine are to benefit more by the Treaty than an equal number of people in any other of the States, I had supposed, that the Senators of Maine would be especially favorable to it. But I am informed, that it is, as an inhabitant of Maine, that you hesitate to support it.

Perhaps, as I have never seen the Treaty, and have no precise knowledge of its character, and am too much occupied with various urgent matters to learn more of it now, I ought not to make this communication. Nevertheless, my interest in the Treaty is so deep, that I must express it, although at the risk of betraying great ignorance of its provisions.

I am in favor of free trade between our country and the British North American Provinces. I am in favor of it for the general reason, that all parts of the world should obey the laws of nature, and enjoy free trade with each other. I am in favor of it for the particular reason, also, that, these Provinces, being our neighbors, restrictions on their trade with us, are especially inconvenient and injurious. If we must be strangers to any portion of our fellow-men, let it not be to our neighbors. To multiply ties, and extend intercourse, and grow into homogeneousness, with our

[col. 2]

neighbors, is especially important. And all this we shall not fail to do, if we have, free trade with them. We may never be one in name with our British neighbors. But free trade with them and its resulting social connections, and ever-growing assimilations, would make us one with them in reality. And if we are one with them in reality, it is comparatively unimportant, whether we shall ever become one with them in name. The free trade of Canada with the, United States, will be the virtual annexation of Canada to the United States. Many suppose, that it will lead to its literal annexation. I am more inclined to believe, that commercial annexation will, at least for the present age, supersede the desire far political annexation. And if, in the end, Canada shall become a part of this nation, the greater the likeness between her people and ours, the greater the prospect of harmony and prosperity, in such union. In this respect, therefore, as well as in others, the assimilating influences of free trade constitute an argument in favor of our establishing free trade with Canada. It is on these, its assimilating influences, that I base my opinion, that free trade will supersede the present desire for annexation. When free trade, combined with other causes, shall have reached the effect, the world over, of making the man of one nation like the man of another, the tendency, in my judgment, will be not so much to the uniting as to the subdividing of nations. National pride

2

[col. 1]

and jealousy will then have abated; and then men will peacefully apportion themselves into smaller nations, for the sake of greater convenience.

But it is said, that the Treaty under consideration does not provide for free trade in all property. I am aware, that it does not, and I add, that I am, sorry it does not.

The argument for free trade in all property I regard as unanswerable. Nevertheless, I do not claim, that the argument, for free trade in rnanufactures is as strong as the argument for free trade in natural productions. With some plausibility may Government say, that it must protect the labor of its subjects against the overwhelming competition of foreign labor; and with more plausibility it may say, that there are many foreign fabrics, which minister to luxury, and immorality, and ruin; and the importation of which should, therefore, be discouraged, if not, indeed, forbidden. But whatever may be said, in regard to the "many inventions, which man hath sought out," nevertheless to the free exchange, among all nations, of what God hath made, no objections can be raised but what are palpably at war with divine ordinations - but what, in a word, are palpably atheistic.

The first and highest duty, then, of a nation, in respect to the freedom of trade, is to admit into the list of free articles all natural productions. To perform this duty is to acknowledge and honor the Deity. To refuse to perform it, is glaringly to deny and dishonor Him. Moreover, to perform this duty, and to allow the free exchange of the products of God's hands, is to open the way for performing the other duty of allowing the free exchange of the products of man's hands. Now, the plainest and most sacred of these two duties our provincial neighbors stand ready to perform. They propose a free exchange with us of natural productions. We cannot refuse their proposition and be innocent. To say, that we will not consent to an exchange of natural productions, unless it be accompanied by an exchange of manufactures, is to prove ourselves to be most unreasonable ; as unreasonable as the man who should refuse to deal with his neighbor in wood and water, unless he is, also, permitted to deal with him in pins and penknives. It is, also, to prove ourselves to be most hyp-

[p. 2, col. 2]

ocritical; for, in claiming, that these Provinces should allow free trade with us in manufactures, we must, if honest, claim, that they should allow it with Great Britain also. But are we ourselves willing to have free trade with Great Britain? We are not. I am; but we are not. Are we ourselves willing to defray the cost of Government by direct taxes? We are not. I am; but we are not. We are hypocrites then - palpable hypocrites - if we would lay upon these Provinces the necessity of supporting their Governments by direct taxation, and yet shrink from supporting our own in the same way.

Our complaints of the illiberality of these Provinces are very blameworthy, not only in the light of what I have already said, but also in the light of the fact, that, more than seven years ago, they abolished all differential duties between their mother country and ourselves ; and placed themselves in the same commercial relations toward us both. By reason of this generous treatment of us, and of our contiguity to them, we enjoy the monopoly of supplying them with iron castings, agricultural implements, and, in short, with nearly all coarse manufactures. How valuable to us is this abolition of differential duties; is manifest from the fact, that our trade with those Provinces has doubled since 1846, the year of the abolition; and that the exports are double the imports. The effect of this abolition on the trade of the Provinces with Great Britain, though not correspondently great, is still very great. This trade has fallen off from one-fourth to one-half.

I referred to our inconsistency in urging the Provinces to adopt universal free trade with us, and thereby virtually urging them to adopt universal free trade with Great Britain, also. I proceed to inquire - what would be the effect upon ourselves of the success of this inconsistency? In other words - what would be the effect upon ourselves of free trade between these Provinces and Great Britain, whilst the present restrictions upon the trade between ourselves and Great Britain are continued? The effect would be a serious diminution of our revenue, and a serious damage to our manufactures, and a serious damage to our morals, also: - as in that case, goods to an immense amount would be brought from Great Britain into

3

[col.1]

these Provinces for the purpose of being smuggled into the United States.

On the one hand, it is objected to the Treaty, that its list of productions is not full enough ; and, on the other, that it is too full. I admit, that it is not full enough. Consistency demands, that it should include all natural productions. And when I speak here of natural productions, I mean them, not only as they come from the earth, but, also, in that next stage of forms, which human labor gives to them, for the purpose of making them more portable - such as wood in the board, as well as in the log, and wheat ground, as well as unground. Iron in the pig, as, well as in the ore, should be included in the Treaty; and if it is not, it is, probably, because of the fear on the part of the Provinces of thereby letting in Scotch and other pigs, duty free. So, too, unrefined sugar, if not included in the Treaty, should have been. But, I trust, that they, whose natural productions are not included in it, will, nevertheless, not condemn the Treaty. I trust, that they will, rnagnanimously, allow its justice in the main to outweigh its particular injustice; its justice to others to outweigh its injustice to themselves. At the same time, however, that they cannot but feel themselves to be wronged by the Treaty in this respect; they will be consoled by the reflection, that the adoption of it will be the adoption of the principle of the free exchange of natural productions; and, therefore, that the productions, in which they are especially interested, cannot remain, for a long time, excepted from the scope of this principle.

It is held, in some quarters, that wheat and flour should not be in the list of free articles. But why should they not be? Because our flour and wheat will, as is alleged, sink in price under the free competition of Canada wheat and flour. But, were this apprehended depreciation really to take place, nevertheless, free trade in the productions of Nature is an ordination of Nature, which cannot be innocently violated. But would there be such depreciation? I see not, that the Treaty is to be credited with such a beneficent operation. Our country and Canada do each grow a surplus of wheat ; and, hence, in the case of each, the foreign market regulates the price. The surplus

[p. 3, col. 2]

of each country goes to foreign markets ; and whether the Canada surplus goes upon the St. Lawrence, or across our country, cannot affect the price of our wheat. The competition for that surplus and ours being in foreign markets exclusively, must be the same, whatever the route to them. I say, that the competition is there only. This is virtually, if not literally, true. For what if a little of the Canada surplus should come into our country for consumption, it could only have the effect to displace the like quantity of our surplus, and to liberate it for foreign markets. Were any proof needed, beyond what is afforded by the reason of the case, that foreign markets rule the price of the surplus production, we might instance the fact, that, for eleven-twelfths of the year, wheat in bond in the city of New York bears as high a price, as wheat, that is not in bond. Indeed, it is sometimes higher, since the repeal of duties between the British-North American Provinces, for flow it can go duty free from our ports to the lower of those Provinces.

I said, that, whether the Canada surplus wheat shall find its way to foreign markets upon the St. Lawrence, or across our country, cannot affect the price of our wheat. Nevertheless, we are deeply interested to have it take the latter route, and so add immensely to the business of our canals, and railroads, and storehouses, and shipping, both on our lakes and on the ocean. It may not add immensely to it, just now. But it will soon. There is no assignable limit to the production of wheat in that best of all wheat countries, Canada West.

It is true, that, if, in a year of famine in our land, there should be a free admission of Canada food into it, such free admission would reduce the price of American food. But what right-minded man would not have the price of it reduced, in such circumstances? With what right-minded man would not this contingent benefit of the Treaty be an argument for the Treaty?

It is said, though I do not believe truly, that Pennsylvania would not have coal come into the list of free articles. But, why should it not? Who believes, that the Maker of the coal did not make it free for every part of the world, that wants it? Who, then, can set up all honest argument against its free transmission? Moreover,

4

[col. 1]

ree trade in coal between us and the British Provinces is obviously of great importance, not to those Provinces only, but to our nation also: and much, therefore, as Pennsylvania may be disposed to go for herself, she should be still more disposed to go for the nation. She should be more patriotic and benevolent than sectional and selfish; and, I trust, that what she should be, she will be. But, is Pennsylvania to be harmed by free trade in coal? She is not. All the British Provinces need her anthracite; and Canada West would take from Erie immense quantities of her bituminous coal. She, already, takes much, notwithstanding the duty.

But, I prefer to take a wider view, and to look at the effect of this free trade in coal upon larger portions of our country than a single State. The consumption, in that part of our country east of the Alleghany ridge, of the bituminous coal of the British Provinces, would, were it free of duty, be very large. I would here remark, that this coal cannot properly be regarded as coming into competition with anthracite. It is highly bituminous. I have heard, perhaps not correctly, that the volatile parts in some of it are sixty per cent. To illustrate the dissimilarity between this and anthracite - whilst the one is wholly worthless for making gas, the other is so inferior to it for steamships, that the Cunard line, notwithstanding it touches at Halifax, supplies itself with anthracite.

We desire to supply the lower British Provinces with wheat, flour, corn, rice, pork, and many kinds of merchandise. But, in order to do so, the charges of transportation must be very small. How can they be made so? I answer, by our consenting to receive from those Provinces that great amount of tonnage, which they will be able to furnish us, providing we allow them to send us coal, as well as such other coarse commodities, as fish, plaster, and grindstones. Their cargo to us will, in that case, pay, or nearly pay, freight, both ways, inasmuch as their cargo to us will be full, and our return cargo to them light, and inasmuch as one of the laws, which govern the carrying of property, is that it is carried cheapest in that direction, in which there is the least to carry. Indeed, in this case, the return cargo would

[p. 4, col. 2]

be so light, as, probably, to be no more than would be needed for ballast.

I close under this head with the remark, that if the Treaty should have the effect to cheapen wheat and coal, such effect would be no argument against it. As we care more for the whole human brotherhood than for a part of it; and as the are more concerned to have fuel and food accessible to the poor than to have them bring great prices to their owners, so the lower the prices of coal and wheat, the more we are to rejoice. I said, under the head before this, that the law of free trade in natural productions, cannot be innocently violated. I add, that it cannot in any wide and just view of the case, be profitably violated. For every such view must include, not the wheat-growers and the coal-owners only, but all other classes also; and who is there, that, in the light of the wants and interests of the great whole, does not see cheap bread and cheap coal to be among the greatest of human blessings ?

There are complaints from your State, that the Treaty includes lumber in the list of free articles. But, surely, this should not be complained of. Even if it is so, that the free competition of Provincial lumber would create loss anywhere, such loss would fall, rather on the comparative handful of persons, who own the lumber lands of Maine, than on the mass of her people. The trees of these owners might not advance as fast in price, as they had done. But the working of them into lumber would, probably, be as amply remunerated as ever. But, again, when a great beneficent national measure is proposed, Maine should not, and Maine will not, shrivel herself up into a merely selfish view of that measure.

Even if the Treaty were so liberal and so just, as to provide, that ships, built in the Provinces, may receive our registers, and have every right of ships built in our own country, Maine, although our great ship-builder, and having, in such case, a new and powerful competitor, should, nevertheless, not object to the Treaty. Even if she may pessibly (sic) lose somewhat by the provisions of the Treaty, in regard to lumber; and even if the Treaty had gone so far, as to bring her a new competitor in ship-building, Maine nevertheless should remember that, on account of

5

[col. 1]

her geographical position, she is to be an especial gainer from its general provisions. The millions of new customers, that the Treaty gives her, are at her door; and, to this respect, she can serve them cheaper than the other States can. The proposed free trade, together with the freedom of the St. Lawrence, would add immensely to the business of the Montreal and Portland Railroad - immensely to the business of a State, which is emphatically a State of navigators.

I confess that if it would not endanger the adoption of the Treaty, I should be glad to see a provision in it for the free exchange of registers. The poor objection, that it would afford us ships at a cheaper rate than we can build them, would be overruled by the consideration, that the American people are pre-eminently a commercial people, and that, in their eye, therefore, such an objection would constitute the most winning argument in favor of the Treaty. The American people prefer cheap ships to dear ones, even though all the cheap ships were built in foreign lands, and all the dear ones in their own land. They care more to have a ship navigated by Americans than to know where it originally came from. Their concern with its business is far greater than with its building. Surely, America will not long continue to hinder her navigators from getting their ships where thev can best get them.

But I pass on to other matters. In my judgment, we would be bound to approve and embrace this Treaty, even if it were silent in regard to the Fisheries and the St. Lawrence; for it would, even then, be a just and impartial Treaty - a benefit to both parties - a blessed influence upon the world. But, providing, as it does, for our free enjoyment of both the Fisheries and the St. Lawrence, how eager should we be for its operation! I do not say, that we should be eager to thank England for allowing us this free enjoyment. She should long ago - she should always - have acknowledged our right to it. It is true, that we would not go to war with her, for the sake of establishing this right. The right, however, is none the less clear. The right of our nation to navigate the St. Lawrence to its mouth, grows out of the fact, that we dwell upon its bank. This doctrine, in the case of other rivers, England

[p. 5, col. 2]

has herself repeatedly urged. Then, as to the Fisheries - they either belong to the whole world, or there is no God. England should be ashamed of her heathenish selfishness, in withholding from the word this food, which the bounty of Heaven has provided so abundantly for the world. A true Christianity will yet bring on the day when one man shall look upon another as a brother - ay, and even as another self. It will be no grateful recollection to Englishmen, in that day, that Englishmen were, once, so selfish, mean, and wicked, as to refuse to let a hungry fellow-man catch fish by their side.

But, notwithstanding our right to the Fisheries and to the St. Lawrence is as clear as England's, I shall, nevertheless, rejoice in our permission to use them. For two reasons, especially, I shall rejoice in it. First, England will never be disposed to recall the permission; for England, along with the rest of the world, is becoming more, and not less, enlightened and liberal. Second, use and time will turn this permission into prescription; this privilege into right: this conditional grant into absolute and unending enjoyment. I do not forget, that Vattel says, that title to seafisheries cannot he gained by prescription; nor do I forget, that his reason for saying so is, that such title cannot be lost by disuse. Of course, I am willing to waive all claim to the possibility of prescription, if it is conceded on the other hand, that I do not need prescription, because my title is perfect already. I will here remark, that it would be idle for England to acknowledge the common right of all nations to the fisheries of the sea, so long as she should deny to those nations that access to the shore, which is essential to the enjoyment of the fisheries. The simple truth is, that our right to the fisheries involves our right to the shore, to just the extent, to which the latter right is needed to make the former right available. To deny us such right to the shore, is to deny our right to the fisheries.

The value, to this nation, of its free participation in the fisheries, would be great, and ever increasingly great. They already furnish a very considerable item in our food, notwithstanding the restrictions upon our use of them. These restrictions removed, and our consumption of fish would be indefinitely extended.

6

[col. 1]

I have heard it objected to the Treaty, that it requires our Government to abolish the bounty on codfish. I am glad, if it does abolish it, or in any way provide for its abolition. There, is plausibility in the call for our patience under duties on foreign manufactures, or, in other words,. under bounties on our own manufactures. There is plausibility in it, because the promise is made to us, that, ere long, our manufactures will be well established, and self-sustaining; and that then we shall be relieved of paying bounties on them. But, it is not pretended, that the skill of American fishermen is ever to outgrow the need of a bounty. On the contrary, if there is need of a bounty now, there will be the same need of it, a hundred years hence. It comes to this, then, that the objector to such a provision of the Treaty would have us go on forever, paying bounty on cosh fish (already several hundred thousand dollars a year) - and all this, not for the purpose of our getting, either now or ever, cheaper or better codfish, but solely for the purpose of having Americans, instead of foreigners, catch the codfish, that we eat.

The objection, under consideration, is unreasonable. I add, that it reflects disgrace upon our country. It does so, because it implies, that, with the fisheries and all needed facilities therewith thrown wide open to us, we are, nevertheless, to be distanced in our fishing competition with our neighbors. I had supposed. that the boast of the Yankees is, that they can beat the British, in every thing. Must fishing be excepted front the boast?

I spoke of the St. Lawrence. Our free use of that noble river would be an invaluable benefit to us. Together with its lakes, it drains an extent of country, scarcely less than that drained by the Mississippi. Much of our craft upon those lakes is capable of ocean navigation; and during the five months in the year, in which it is locked up in ice, it would be upon the ocean, could it get there. Now, this addition to the service of this craft, would, of itself, render very important the opening of the St. Lawrence to us.

I am aware, that the reputation of the mouth of the St. Lawrence for safe navigation is bad. But it is such, only because it is navigated, at improper seasons of the year. Let it be navigated in no

[p. 6, col. 2]

other than the proper season; and let our canals and railroads be allowed to serve in its stead, the remainder of the year, and it will no longer have this bad reputation. Not only is the St. Lawrence the shortest route to England; but the fact, that it is the coldest route is, in regard to much important lading, an argument in its favor, instead of an objection to it. There is no assignable limit to the productiveness in Indian corn of our Western states and Territories. The time may not be distant, when, if the St. Lawrence is made free to us, tens of millions of bushels of this grain will go down this river annually for the European markets. And I would here inquire, why, if even this cold route should not prove cold enough to preserve shelled corn, corn might not be taken in the ear, were the heavy lading of lead and copper and copper ore combined with it? Perhaps, however, corn in the ear is too bulky to be transported far, in any circumstances.

What interest is to be damaged by the adoption and operation of this Treaty? Do our manufacturers say, that it will not help them?, But will it harm them? That is the more pertinent question. If it will not harm them, then, surely, they should not complain of it. They should rather rejoice in the benefit it will yield to other interests. But it will help our manufacturers also. Its immediate influence upon their interests will be good. Its prospective better.

Among the natural productions of the British North American Provinces, are not a few, that our manufacturers need, and will more and more need. Lumber, for instance. Our forests, which, by the way, it is very desirable to preserve to a considerable extent, are rapidly disappearing. What an invaluable advantage to our manufacturers, if they shall be allowed to draw freely on the immense forests of these Provinces! The more plentiful is lumber, the less will be the cost of building their manufactories, and of building the dwellings of their laborers. Besides, there are many manufactures, into which lumber enters more or less largely; and not a few unto which scarcely anything but lumber does enter.

There is another way, in which the Treaty will help our manufacturers. The proceeds of the sales in our country of

7

[col. 1]

the natural productions of these Provinces will be chiefly expended in our country: and such expenditures will be quite as much to the benefit of our manufacturers, as of our merchants.

I spoke of the prospective beneficial influence of the Treaty upon our manufactures. I referred not only to the vast territory, and to the rapidly increasing population of the British North American Provinces. There was a still more important reference, in my mind. It is an adage, that revolutions do not go backward. The exchange between this country and the British North American Provinces in natural productions, once made free, will remain free. And not only will the revolution never go backward, but it will go forward. Free exchange in natural productions will, as I have already intimated, beget free exchange in manufactures and merchandise. A trade half free will soon ripen into a trade all free. Half an acquaintance with our Provincial neighbors will be impatient for the other half.

I will close my too long letter. For

[p. 7, col. 2]

several years, our British neighbors hare been tendering us free trade in the productions of nature. But we have requited their great liberality with great illiberality. Professing to be the most progressive of all nations, we have, in this instance, clung, with the most obstinate conservatism, to a miserable old order of things. I wonder, that the patience of our British neighbors has not long ago been exhausted. Let us tax this patience no longer. Let us rise into an attitude worthy of the enlightened age, in which we live. Let us say to the British Provinces, that we are ready for free trade with them, and with Great Britain too, and with the whole world too; - and not only in the productions of nature, but in the productions of art also. Let the high and honorable position of commercial America be, that she shrinks not from competition with any nation, but courts the competition of every nation.

Very respectfully, yours,

GERRIT SMITH.

WASHINGTON, July 17th, 1854.