In January, 1875, Mr. Fish negotiated a treaty with the representatives
of the Hawaiian Islands by which there was to be a free exchange of
specified products and manufactures.
By the fourth article the King agreed not to dispose of any port or
harbor in his dominions or create a lien thereon in favor of any other
government. When the treaty came to the Senate it had no original
friends, and it met with determined opposition, especially from Sherman
of Ohio, and Morrill and Edmunds of Vermont. The reciprocity feature
annoyed them, they fearing that it might be used as a precedent for
reciprocity with Canada.
I was early impressed with the importance of securing a foothold in the
islands and I considered the exclusion of other nations as a step in
the right direction. The trustworthy estimates showed that the
reciprocity feature would work a loss to the Treasury of the United
States of more than half a million dollars a year. This the supporters
of the treaty were compelled to admit, but after argument the requisite
majority ratified the treaty and upon the theory that the political,
naval and commercial advantages were an adequate compensation. Upon the
renewal of the treaty the King ceded Pearl River Harbor to the United
States. After the expiration of the fixed period of seven years during
which the two nations were bound mutually, there was a class of men who
were anxious to abrogate the treaty, and at each session of Congress
for several years a proposition was introduced for that purpose. By
something of argument and something of art, the scheme was defeated.
The opposition, led usually by Holman, of Indiana, consisted largely of
Democrats. Their reason was loss of revenue. That fact was always
admitted by the friends of the treaty. It was claimed also that there
was no advantage gained by the country from the introduction of rice
and sugar from the islands duty-free. It was asserted by the
combinations the prices were as high on the Pacific Coast as on the
Atlantic. On the other hand the Louisiana sugar planters opposed the
treaty on the ground that they were unfavorably affected. As the
importations from the islands never exceeded four per cent of the
consumption of the country, the treaty had no perceptible effect upon
prices. The sugar and rice interests were reinforced by the delegations
from Michigan, Ohio and Vermont, who opposed the treaty under an
apprehension that it would operate as a precedent for a revival of the
system of reciprocity with Canada.
The fact of the annexation of Canada to the United States, whether the
event shall occur in a time near or be postponed to a time remote,
depends probably on our action upon the subject of reciprocity.
Canada needs our markets and our facilities for ocean transportation,
and, as long as these advantages are denied to her, she can never attain
to a high degree of prosperity. England may furnish capital for
railways, but railways are profitable only where there is business and
production on the one hand, and markets on the other. The system of
qualified intercourse tends to make the Canadian farmer dissatisfied
with his condition, and as long as there are cheap lands in the United
States he will find relief in emigration.
The time, however, is not far distant, when the Canadian farmer will be
unable to sell his lands in the Dominion and with the proceeds purchase
a home in the States. When that time arrives he will favor annexation
as a means of raising his own possessions to a value corresponding to
the value of land in the States. The body of farmers, laborers, and
trading people will favor annexation, ultimately, should the policy of
non-intercourse be adhered to on our part, and they will outnumber the
office-holding class, and thus the union of the two countries will be
secured. It is apparent also that a policy of free intercourse would
postpone annexation for a long time, if not indefinitely. Give to the
Canadian farmer and fisherman free access to our markets and there will
remain only a political motive in favor of annexation. The English
government is pursuing a liberal policy in its dealings with the
Dominion, and there is no reason for anticipating a retrograde course
of conduct on the part of the home government.