THE RECIPROCITY MYSTERY

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXI, Issue LXII, 13 May 1912, Page 3

THE RECIPROCITY MYSTERY

It is not likely that the statesmen who first proposed a Reciprocity Treaty between Canada and the. United States had the least idea of the magnitude of their well-meant suggestion. Just now the Reciprocity scheme is playing an important part on the political stage in England, as well as in America. For after overthrowing Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and seriously compromising the reputation of Mr Taft, it is now being utilised by the Unionists as a weapon against Mr Bryce and Mr Asquith. In both countries it is extremely difficult to eliminate the prejudices that always obscure the real questions at issue in the field of party politics. But it is at least certain in the light of recent revelations, that Reciprocity, as between the Canadians.and the Americans is, as the Canadian Premier lately put it, dead, without hope of resurrection, and that British Imperialists are rejoicing devoutly over its decease. When Mr Taft first laid his Recipro- ! city Bill before Congress, he was careful I to disclaim any intention of allowing his country's commercial relations with Canada to extend into the political sphere. When the leader of the Democratic party boldly declared that Reciprocity was the first step toward annexation, and that Canada must ultimately be absorbed by the United States, the President repudiated this idea m the clearest and strongest terms. But the recent publication of Mr Taft's correspondence on this subject with Mr Roosevelt and others appears to have thrown new light upon the situation, and to have reawakened the suspicion that behind Mr Taft's proposals there was the deliberate intention to undermine Canada's political independence, or at least to prepare the way for her ultimate withdrawal from the Empire. It is still impossible to say precisely what Mr Taft meant by these letters, which in many important passages seem to be I capable of varying constructions. But certainly the general impression produced by the publication of this correspondence in England, Canada, and the United States is that Mr Taft, in spite of his eloquent disclaimers at the time, was much closer in sentiment and purpose to Mr Champ-Clark and the proFessed "annexationists" than he chose to admit.

It is not likely, in the heat and turmoil of a Presidential campaign, that the problem of the Taft correspondence will be satisfactorily solved. But even in England, where the question has natura'ly appealed to a smaller proportion of the general public, it seems that a general air of mystery has gathered round the Reciprocity negotiations, and that the whole episode and the chief actors in it are in serious danger of misconception. As we have already suggested, it is necessary to discount heavily Unionist evidence on this sub-

ject; for, in attacking Mr Bryce, the' Opposition is chiefly interested in embarrassing the Liberal Government. But even after allowing for partisan feeling, we must admit that the Unionists have

laised an interesting and difficult question. Precisely what Mr Bryce did or refrained from doing during the critical negotiations between Canada and the united States the outer world, which is denied the possession of diplomatic fucrets. is never likely to know. But it is Undeniable that Mr Bryce's wellknown views on Imperial questions lend color to the Unionist assumption-that, as British ambassador at Washington, he was not likely to consider it his duty to interfere between the Canadian and American Governments by making representations to the British Imperial authorities while the negotiations were going on.

For though Mr Bryce has never gone so far as Mr Gold win Smith, or even as tar as Mr Cobden or Mr John Bright,

in expressing "Little Englander" views, he is notoriously opposed by temperament and conviction to the somewhat aggressive and blatant form of Imperialism that many prominent Unionists have adopted. Mr Bryce apparently believes that the natural destiny of the over-sea Dominions is to develop on their own lines, and he is not disposed to regard as an overwhelming misfortune any tendency that the younger nations may manifest toward ultimately securing complete independence. It is largely this detached and impersonal view of the Empire and of Imperial interests that lias mad-' Mr Bryce so acceptable a British representative at Washington. But however far Mr

Bryce may have sympathised with thft Reciprocity scheme as a step toward international Free Trade, or even as

a prelude to a closer urion of the Anglo-Saxon nations in the Western world, it is vastly improbable that he either exceeded or neglected his Ambas-

sadorial duties while the two Govevn-

ments chiefly concerned were discussing j the proposals. Sir Edward Grey is doing no more than justice to Mr Bryce when he denounces the unfairness of the attacks now made upon him. But though we symoathise entirely with the views expressed by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, we must, as sincere believers in Imperialism, agree with the Unionists) that r*»ciorocitv between Canada and the United States would in all Probability have led to ultimate political union, and that its defeat was, therefore, a subject for satisfaction and congratulation to the whole Empire.—Auckland Star May I 10. .