Sir F. Sandford
It appears from the Presidents message in todays "Times" that
the renewal of a treaty for reciprocal Trade with Canada has not
been favourably considered by the Administration as the
advantages of such a treaty would be wholly in favour of Canada.
Some arrangments however for the regulation of Commerical
intercourse between the US & Canada may be desirable.
Copy of this to
Govr of
B.C. & Canada & F.O. & inform writer
that this has been done & perhaps referring him to the
Pres
ts message.
The matter stands thus.
A year ago (
Oct 5, 1868, 10993
B.C.) persons in England started
the idea of a Reciprocity Treaty bet
n B.C. and the U.S.
Correspondence followed.
It appeared that the F.O. considered the occasion for raising
such a Question inopportune. While on the other hand the Leg
ve
Council of
B.C. and certain merchants & others who are probably
persons of influence in the Leg
ve Council send thro the
Govr
(4619 & 5396/1869) express[ing] themselves to the foll
g effect.
1.
Legislative Council
.in +4 +0
(a) It is desirable to consider a Treaty
wh wd admit a list of
articles (there enumerated) free of duty bet
n U.S. &
B.C.
(b) but that they are not prepared to say in the [deal?] that a
Canadian reciprocity
Treaty
wd be good for them.
.in -4 +0
2.
Merchants & others
Agree as to (b), observing that the old Canadian Reciprocity
Treaty
wd be objectionable, as it admits agricultural, dairy &
Horticultural productions
wh require protection in
B.C.
Agree as to (a) observing that the articles of real importance
are Coal, Lumber, Fish, Oil, & Cranberries. The rest
signify comparatively little & may be much left to discretion of
framers of Treaty.
Seem not to know their own minds as to the value of a treaty in
the abstract (wh is natural).
But hope that the Colony will
be secured the option of coming
into any Treaty which may be made.
We have promised
B. Columbia (1303) and the F.O. have
promised us (1421)
that the matter shall be "borne in mind." And we must take care to
redeem our pledge. ([Crips?] 1421 is not here.)
I should be disposed first (as we do not know in what shape
or at what time the question may come upon us) to send
Mr Rose
copies of the enclos
es to 4619, and 5396, and a copy of this
asking for any suggestions.
We
shd then see 1
t what are the objections, if any, to the
probably one sided proposal of the British Columbians (one sided
as to agricultural produce &c I mean) 2. Whether there are any
objections to the proposal
which is their
pis aller
but the substantive proposal of the present letter writer & I
suppose of the English companies. 3. Whether the matter can be
so treated as to advance or retard confederation.
Till we have communicated with
Mr Rose I would not answer this
letter.