Rohan Anand Student #: 996880629
A Detailed documentation and analysis of The Reciprocity Movement and Treaty of 1854
TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Policy & The Treaty
Negotiations at Washington
Early Popularity and Criticism
Effects of Reciprocity
Abrogation of the Treaty
Reciprocity and the Confederation
Great Britain's abrogation of protective tariffs in 1846 led Canada to look for new export opportunities for its products. It turned to its neighbour to the South, the United States1 and an agreement called, 'The Reciprocity Treaty' was signed on June 5th 1854, with the aim to regulate commercial relations between the United States and the British possessions in North America2 i.e. Canada. Reciprocity meant, the attempt to create in North America, a single market area, covering several distinct political jurisdictions, in which certain specified types of products could be freely exchanged.3
The Reciprocity treaty consisted of seven articles; the first two related to the fisheries, the third to reciprocal trade, the fourth to the navigation of the St. Lawrence river, the fifth to the duration and abrogation of the treaty, the sixth to the extension of the provisions of the treaty to Newfoundland and the last article, to the ratification of the treaty.4 Its principal provisions5 were; firstly, American fisherman were given free access to Canadian (British colonies) coastal fisheries and could land on-shore to dry nets and cure fish. Similarly, Canadian fishermen received the same privileges to American fisheries, north of the thirty sixth parallel. Secondly, import duties were abolished on a wide variety of products (grain, flour, coal, livestock, fish, timber etc.) imported into Canada (British North American colonies) from the USA and vice versa. Thirdly, vessels owned by the USA, were allowed to use the St. Lawrence and other Canadian canals on the same basis as domestic carriers. In turn, Canadian vessels were allowed similar privileges on Lake Michigan as well as recommended that the individual states take similar actions for canals under their jurisdiction.
1. http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=345 as on Oct. 21st 2011
2. 'The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854' by Frederick E. Haynes (American Economic Association)
3. 'Canadian Economic History' by Aitken and Easterbrook - Development Strategy: 1849 - 1867
4. 'The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854' by Frederick E. Haynes (American Economic Association)
5. 'Canadian Economic History' by Aitken and Easterbrook - Development Strategy: 1849 - 1867
The Canadian economy has always been linked in great part to its exports. Until the middle of the 19th century, Great Britain and its empire, which was comprised of various colonies, including Canada, benefited from a protectionist economy based on a system of preferential tariff rights. This system imposed higher custom duties on products coming from territories outside the British Empire.6 However, this system became increasingly disputed and in 1846, Great Britain changed its commercial policy by authorizing the Canadian legislature to regulate its own tariff.7 At the time, the first option was to follow the mother country in its unilateral adoption of free trade. This was not economically desirable or politically feasible. The second extreme was immediate political and economic union with the USA. This might have led to a violation of national identity and disloyalty to Britain. The third alternative was a middle-path, where the aim was to attain economic advantages from the USA and safeguard political interests along-with preserving Canada's cultural identity. This could be done through reciprocal reduction or abolitions of taxes, duties etc.8 Thus, in 1847, Canada removed the existing differential duties and admitted American goods on the same terms as those imported from Britain. This policy seemed to be a result of two causes. Firstly, there was a change of policy in England which manifested itself in the abolition of Corn Laws and the repeal of Navigation Laws in 1849. Secondly, there were local conditions in Canada i.e. a feeling of discontentment. This could be stemmed down to the Canadian Rebellion of 1838-39 which was a result of the hostility between English Upper Canada and French Lower Canada and the related constitutional grievances. Coupled with America's growing wealth harboured a feeling of negativity amongst Canadians, which was recognized by Governor-General Lord Elgin and gave birth to the Reciprocity Treaty.9
6. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006710 as on Oct. 21st 2011
7. 'The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854' by Frederick E. Haynes (American Economic Association)
8. 'Canadian Economic History' by Aitken and Easterbrook - Development Strategy: 1849 - 1867
9. 'The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854' by Frederick E. Haynes (American Economic Association)
Whilst the British-American colonists retained a considerable preference in the British market, they seemed to have no incentive to attain reciprocity with the United States. However, around 1846, the question of reciprocity entered the sphere of practical politics. The agitation for reciprocal free trade with the United States originated in the atmosphere of political discontentment which, in Canada, resulted from the proposal to repeal the Corn Laws. The movement gathered momentum in the economic downturn which followed the path of repeal legislation. It developed in the same environment of commercial distress from which came also the movements toward free trade, national protection and annexation to the United States. From three of the colonies, but first and most effectively from Canada, came the pressure which impelled the British Government into the attempt to secure an agreement with the United States. This agitation reached its climax about 1850 or 1851. After that, as prosperity returned and the prospects of securing a treaty appeared as far off as ever, the demands for an agreement became less frantic. Theoretically all the colonies but Nova Scotia remained in favour of a fair treaty of reciprocity until the agreement was signed. But, after 1851, the Lower Colonies, particularly Nova Scotia, becoming more aware of the value of a fishing monopoly10 began to consider the possibility of an alternative policy to reciprocity. Even in Canada the querulousness which, in 1849, had marked Canadian demands for free trade with the United States, subsided into a very real but more placid desire for a reciprocity treaty. Only in Newfoundland, where the agitation had been slow to gather force, was the demand for a treaty more vigorous after 1850 than before it. When the treaty was finally negotiated, the decisive influence, as will be later shown, was not pressure from the colonists, but an entirely different set of forces10
10. Almost from the beginning of the negotiations USA demanded access to Canadian coastal fisheries to balance the greater benefit which Canada would derive from a reciprocity treaty. A significant feature of the later negotiations (1852-1854) was disinclination in the Lower provinces to open the fisheries. The British Government was intent on reaching a settlement with the USA w.r.t. the fishery dilemma.
11. 'The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854: It's History, Its Relation to British Colonial and Foreign Policy and to the Development of Canadian Fiscal Autonomy' Vol. 9 by Donald C. Masters
BRITISH POLICY & THE TREATY
British policy in relation to the Reciprocity Treaty was dominated by motives of political expediency. At no time during the negotiations was the Government prepared to consider the project solely on its merits as a commercial measure. Since its immediate effect was to establish differential duties against the United Kingdom, certain British colonies not included in the arrangement and foreign countries, the treaty constituted a significant breach in the system of free trade which had been established as the commercial policy of the Empire.12
Firstly, there was an exception of Earl Grey; however, no British statesman raised this awkward question of principle in the period preceding the signing of the treaty. The government in England was, prepared to sacrifice a rigid adherence to principle for the attainment of an immediately desirable object.13 Secondly, in order to mollify the malcontents in British North America, the Peel and Russell administrations agreed to undertake the negotiation of a treaty. On the other hand, these negotiations assumed an entirely new complexion in 1852 when the Derby administration decided upon effective measures for the protection of the North American fisheries. The American protests were violent and aggravated the situation. Also, the desire to settle this question soon became the primary motive behind the efforts of the English government to secure a treaty. In 1854 the demands of British America had become a secondary consideration and the real object of British policy was to avoid a possible collision over the fisheries.14
12. Series G, vol. 151, Labouchere to Head, July 15, 1856
13. Accounts and Papers [of the British Parliament]. 1856, vol. xliv, Booth to Merivale, June 26, 1855. United States Tariff Commission, op. cit., p. 22.
14. 'The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854: It's History, Its Relation to British Colonial and Foreign Policy and to the Development of Canadian Fiscal Autonomy' Vol. 9 by Donald C. Masters
NEGOTIATIONS AT WASHINGTON:
Negotiations for the principles of the treaty were conducted in an intense environment. The American Civil War was a result of the struggle between North and South and Washington did realize that. The US parliament considered all possibilities to counter the sectional struggle and the discord that made cross-border business impossible. Amidst this, the Reciprocity bill was introduced. Its many vicissitudes become comprehensible when clubbed with the general political developments of the period. Albeit, the strife made it difficult to acquire nondiscriminatory consideration, without biases, once it was finally able to secure a spot in the Congressional agenda.
The American opposition to reciprocity was based on various reasons. Firstly, wheat-producing states (Virginia & Maryland) were apprehensive of competition from Canada.15 Political volatility enhanced the American opposition to reciprocity and the senators from those states opposed the idea to admit goods without duty into the North from Canada whilst the South would import those goods from other countries after paying taxes. A quote from Senator Crompton in a memo, 'Southern gentlemen many of whom loudly profess the principles of free trade, have opposed this measure on the sole ground of its being one in which the Northern States of the Union were generally anxious to concur.'16 A second consideration worth noting was that the slavery struggle was between two equally powerful parties and any sign of exertion from one was of significant concern to the other. The belief that reciprocity with Canada would fast-forward its annexation17 was a major reason for hostility from the South.
15. Series F.O. 5, vol. 515, Bulwer to Palmerston, September 23, 1850. Elgin Papers, Crampton to Elgin, August 15, 1848.
16. Series F.O. 5, vol. 498, Crampton to Palmerston, March 5, 1849.
17. Elgin Papers, Crampton to Elgins April 15, 1852. P. A.C., Series C.O. 188, vol. 13, Head to Pakington, Separate and Confidential, December 16, 1852. Congressional Globe, New Series, 2nd session, 38th Congress, pp. 204 ff.
They were possibly jealous; as any possible accession of Free State territory to the union would not be favorable. However, by 1849, considerable signs of Abolitionism had been detected in the apparently harmless reciprocity measure. A third obstacle to reciprocity was the almost complete indifference with which trade prospects with Canada was viewed in the US. Thomas Keefer, wrote to Merritt in 1850 that the Americans were as ignorant of Canada as the English. Furthermore, in 1852 Lord Crampton reported the general apathy which he had faced in the attempt to negotiate reciprocity and fishery treaty.18 This indifference was a result of the engrossing nature of the domestic situation and the exclusion of manufactures from the agreement. Merritt also goes to say that this was vital because, 'American manufacturers were afraid of competition from Great Britain through Canada'.19 A fourth obstacle to the treaty was the vigilant opposition of the Protectionists and this surfaced mainly during the Whig administration (1849 to 1852) a period that was in itself, predominantly protectionist.
While numerous circumstances contributed to the failure of each successive proposal for reciprocity, key factors can be concluded as, the interplay of sectional politics, an anti-British prejudice, the paralyzing force of indifference, a forceful protectionist opinion and thereby inferring the ineffectiveness of British diplomacy.20
18. Archives of Ontario, Merritt Papers, package 21, Keefer to Merritt, December 23, 1850. Series F.O. 5, vol. 547, Crampton to Malmesbury, Private, September 6, 1852.
19. Series F.O. 5, vol. 500. Crampton to Palmerston, July 9, 1849, enclosures. United States Tariff Commission, Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, p. 67.
20. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854: It's History, Its Relation to British Colonial and Foreign Policy and to the Development of Canadian Fiscal Autonomy' Vol. 9 by Donald C. Masters
EARLY POPULARITY AND CRITICISM
The English parliament worked on eradicating the incongruities prevalent by reciprocity however the treaty was judged on a basis of comparative freedom.21 There was a relative harmony that existed in the Canadian fishing areas and the Commander of the British navy reported, in 1855, that fishing vessels in the hundreds were observed in the waters around Prince Edward Island and peace existed between the fishermen of both countries. 22 The treaty appeared to be accepted by America in this early phase, and relief was felt that a mutually agreeable settlement had been reached.23
Substantial evidence of support toward the movement was seen as President Pierce was recorded to say that the treaty had given 'an immense impetus to trade between the United States and the colonies.'24 Myron Clark, Governor of New York in late 1856 also said 'the operation of the treaty was highly beneficial to them.'25 The treaty was even more popular in Canada and it is documented that W. H. Merritt desired to increase the scope of reciprocity albeit was content with the prevalent operations. He pointedly said 'its beneficent effect on both sides of the boundary has exceeded the expectations of its most sanguine promoters.'26 Firstly, access to the American market caused an incremental value of fish from Newfoundland in a time when a spike in supply compared to the demand would have decreased it.27 Secondly, a representative of Prince Edward Island reported to Lord John Russell in1855 that the treaty had been received with 'universal satisfaction in this Island.'28 Thirdly, in spite of a prevalent sense of discontentment in Nova Scotia, its residents came around to accept and enjoy the advantages that reciprocity had to offer.
21. Arthur Harvey, The Reciprocity Treaty, Quebec, Hunter, Rose & Co., 1865, p. 5
22. Series G, vol. 150, Labouchere to Head, Confidential, May 12, 1856, enclosures
23. First session, 36th Congress, House Executive Documents, No. 96
24. Third session, 34th Congress, Senate Executive Documents, No. 5, President's Annual Message, December 2, 1856
25. Accounts and Papers [of the British Parliament], vol. x, 1857, p. 11, Head to Labouchere, January 17, 1857
26. St. Catharines Journal, November 29, 1855
27. P.A.C., Series C.O. 188, vol. 37, Darling to Sutton, April 14, 1857, enclosure
28. Series C.O. 226, vol. 85, Daly to Russell, April 10, 1855
In conclusion, when the treaty came up for renewal, it would be justifiable to infer that although readjustments may have been needed, the treaty had been beneficial to Canada and to the United States.29 However, in Canada, there were signs of the protectionist movement, which later turned out to be the key igniter of disharmony between America and Canada's relationships. Merritt, a strong advocator of free trade, had realized that Canada laid a strong foundation for manufactures. He has been recorded to suggest that although he was keener to secure complete reciprocal free trade, if that failed, Canada should increase its import duties to keep American manufacturers at bay.30 Other members of the Canadian parliament were less vocal in their views towards protectionism. Towards the latter part of the year, the general consensus seemed to conclude that the existing 12.5% import tax was not enough to protect Canadian manufacturers, who required a duty around 30%.31 Trouble seemed to be stirring when most former promoters of reciprocity seemed to start changing their opinion towards the promotion of Canadian protectionism i.e. the original cause of the movement in the United States against the Reciprocity Treaty.
29. Correspondence of the Governor. General's Secretary, Doyle to Monck, April 28, 1864, enclosure
30. Report on Trade and Commerce, May 26, 1855. St. Catharines Journal, November 29, 1855
31. Ibid., November 22, 1855; April 24, 1856
EFFECTS OF THE TREATY
The impact of reciprocity was no doubt small for the USA i.e. an increase in exports to Canada by 7 percent however; its effects on Canada, albeit much more positive, have always been a debate. Post the treaty came into being; the Canadian economy grew swiftly with a spike in exports to the USA by 33 percent with dominance from southern Ontario. Trade had doubled between the two countries within a decade and for close to a century economists termed the reciprocity era as a 'halcyon period' for the Canadian economy.
Around1968 however, this optimistic view was challenged by two economic historians, Officer and Smith, who believed that the development of trade was a result of the advent of the Canadian railways and the American Civil War. They also stated that prior to the tariffs; the strong prevalent smuggling can be a factor for unreliable statistics.32 The allowance of free trade brought these transactions to the forefront and increase in trade that was documented was not an adequate representation of the economic growth. This is substantiated by the fact that there were extremely poor wheat harvests in the United States and Great Britain in 1855 coupled with the Russian wheat supplies being cut off due to the Crimean War. Obviously, this attributed to a good year for Canadian wheat, irrespective of the tariff. Furthermore, Canadian manufacturing was hampered due to the trade as well. For example, milk and barley export decreased the Canadian cheese and beer trade. Economists now regard that the economic boom that followed post the signing of the reciprocity treaty as a consequence of the mentioned external factors.33
On the other hand, the treaty did encourage the Nova Scotia coal mining business. The province was moving toward free trade before the reciprocity treaty was signed however, it still resulted in direct gains. The economic landscape altered because demand for some
32. The Canadian-American Reciprocity Treaty of 1855 to 1866 by Lawrence B. Officer and Lawrence B. Smith
33. Officer and Smith (1968) through http://www.jstor.org/stable/2115515?seq=2 as on October 31st 2011
commodities i.e. coal, increased impressively whilst that of other goods remained unchanged. The Reciprocity Treaty supplemented the earlier movement toward free trade and boosted the export of commodities sold mainly to the USA.34
In lieu of analyzing the effects of the treaty, we need to keep in mind that firstly, the figures are not always a 100 percent accurate as its empirical data. Thus, conclusions drawn are subject to some qualification as there might be some inaccuracies in the details. Secondly, the treaty was only one of several factors relating to the commerce of the two countries at that time. Changing demographic landscape with an increase in population, the improvement in the transportation system with the advent of canals and railroads and the development of manufacturing industries, were all acting upon trade as they had never before in the history of the world. Thirdly, the working of the treaty was affected by two major economic events, the crisis of 1857 and the civil war of 1861-65.
(i) Total Trade between Canada and the USA increased by 87% from 1821 to 1885
34. Marilyn Gerriets & Julian Gwyn, 'Tariffs, Trade and Reciprocity: Nova Scotia, 1830-1866,' Acadiensis, Spring 1996, Vol. 25 (2)
35. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 by Frederick E. Hayes
There were other indirect impacts of the treaty too. Firstly, over the decade, the large cities around the lake showed great progress in terms of its population growth (ii). Along with that, the rural areas too grew tremendously, attracting high volumes of immigration population (iii). These states did not grow in similar proportion and were definitely connected with the lakes in some way, thereby enabling it to maintain its relative standing as compared to the provinces of Canada that demonstrated a growth of 36 percent.36
(ii) Increase between 2 census periods. Data from
'Reports of Boards of Trade'
(iii) Population of these states and of Canada, given by the official census reports
(iv) Value of real estate as given in the census report
After taking a deeper dive into the trade data available from 1855 to 1866 (v) depict the effect of the treaty very clearly. The total trade for the last year prior to the treaty was close to $34 million
36. The Reciprocity Treaty - Its Advantages to the United States and Canada by Arthur Harvey (3rd Edition)
(v) Year over Year (YOY) trade during the continuation of the Reciprocity Treaty
37. The Reciprocity Treaty - Its Advantages to the United States and Canada by Arthur Harvey (3rd Edition)
ABROGATION OF THE RECIPRICITY TREATY
In my opinion, it was surprising that Canada allowed an agreement that was so beneficial to be terminated without a concerted effort to hold on to some of the benefits it brought to the nation. The authors of the paper referred to think it would be correct to state that Britain at the time appeared to be indifferent of Canadian interests.38 However; I personally agree with Donald Masters that this was, 'a most inadequate estimate of British and Canadian policy in relation to the treaty.' Canada, at the time, was quite aware of the potential consequences of abrogation and Britain too was concerned with the interests of the colonies. However, history depicts that despite this, they were both equally unsuccessful in preventing the abrogation of the reciprocity agreement.39
In 1866, the Reciprocity Treaty was abrogated by the USA for numerous reasons. Some highlights are that, firstly, the American officials felt that Canada was singularly gaining from reciprocity. Secondly, they were against the protective Cayley-Galt Tariff that Canada was proposing on imported manufactured goods and thirdly, there was a feeling of betrayal towards the British for supporting the South in the Civil War.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the state of Maine played an important role due to its geographically strategic location. Reciprocity benefited Portland, giving it an edge in its trading situation with Montreal and other Canadian areas in the vicinity; however the officials of Maine worked successfully to terminate the treaty. This could be attributed to their feelings towards Canada's role in the Civil War. The continental economic integration envisioned by promoters of the treaty was further conflicted by both, the Portland railroad and the Bangor lumber interests.40
38. Laughlin and Willis, Reciprocity, p. 56
39. 'The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854: It's History, Its Relation to British Colonial and Foreign Policy and to the Development of Canadian Fiscal Autonomy' Vol. 9 by Donald C. Masters
40. Graeme S. Mount, 'Maine and the End of Reciprocity in 1866' - Maine Historical Society Quarterly, 1986, Vol. 26 Issue 1
Next, the fiscal requirements of Canada that needed higher revenues, led to the increase in duties charged on manufactured goods. The frontier towns of New York State, who faced a massive decline in the export of such articles, complained that the spirit of the treaty was being shattered. Successive increase in the taxes of course acted as a catalyst to the protests and the United States government became stricter towards Canadian merchants. Acts like, asking for proof that the exported wheat was actually 'a growth and produce of Canada' along with charging a heavy consular fees, caused Canadian trade with the US to decrease.41
The New York State legislature at the time claimed that the Canadian government was unfair in its policies and implored to the Congress that it should protect American interests from the 'unjust and unfair system.' This statement was refuted my Hon. Mr. Galt, the Canadian Finance Minister equivalent of the time, calling it, 'unjustifiable' regardless, a resolution was introduced to the American Congress in 1865 and the President was agreeable in suspending the existing treaty.
It is interesting to note, that the two areas that were significantly benefitted by the treaty and hence at a major disadvantage with the abrogation were, firstly, those beside the Lakes i.e. their natural outlet being by the St. Lawrence and the artificial one by the Hudson, and secondly the North Eastern States and Provinces.41 The 'effects' analysis section of this paper highlight the impact of the reciprocity treaty to these sensitive areas.
It could be inferred that the Canadians worked on negotiations for a new reciprocity treaty with a bargained approach, however the Americans opposed high tariffs and eventually a compromise was not reached. Later in history we go to see how John A. Macdonald created a system for Canadian tariffs called, The National Policy.42
41. The Reciprocity Treaty - Its Advantages to the United States and Canada by Arthur Harvey (3rd Edition)
42. L. Ethan Ellis, Reciprocity, 1911 (1968)
(i) Trade volume before, during and after the Reciprocity Treaty of 1856
Given that a large increase could be attributed to the natural increase in business over time along-with the increase in wealth and betterment to transportation and manufacturing capabilities, however, in my opinion, the permanent effects of the treaty definitely contributed to this. The treaty did develop a trade which was continued post its expiration, hence causing its formation and later abrogation to be a significant landmark in Canadian-American economic history.43
43. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 by Frederick E. Hayes
RECIPROCITY AND THE CONFERERATION
The Canadian Confederation can be attributed to a constitutional dead-end in the nation and what seemed like a necessary precaution against aggression from the USA. The economic advantages were a lot for various groups of people in Canada, including industrialists and that was dependant on the awaiting annulment of the Reciprocity Treaty. The Quebec resolutions make it evident that weightage was put on benefits that were supposed to mitigate the ripples of exclusion from the USA market. Benefits were expected and eagerly awaited from opening markets of Canadian provinces to each other's industries. Confederation was predicted to own a diversity that would protect it against the back-fire that industries often face. Canada seemed to have a prosperous future with the combination of the commercial system with wheat-growing states in the West and the fisheries and coal dominant provinces of the South thereby developing a path to profitable foreign trade similar to that which was conducted by America with British colonies of the time. This was driven by a more time sensitive commercial motive i.e. the possibility that the USA would terminate bonding privilege and the Reciprocity Treaty. Canada, at the time would be disconnected from all connection with Europe, during the winter. Confederation coupled with the early construction of inter-colonial railways was essential for Canada to have a winter route to the ocean, independent of America.44 The Canadian national policy of a reorganized railway to connect the East and the West gained approval of the Canadian industrialists and the Montreal financial and forwarding interests, both groups that had received barely any benefit from the Reciprocity Treaty.45 This had been significant in hastening the USA movement against reciprocity. Their necessity of revenue and influence also forced adoption of protectionist fiscal policy.
44. Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, Quebec, 1865, Galt, pp. 63-64; Brown, pp. 104-106; McCrea, p. 1720 Ross, p. 397; McGivern, p. 466; J. S. Macdonald, p. 650; Rose, p. 801
45. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854: It's History, Its Relation to British Colonial and Foreign Policy and to the Development of Canadian Fiscal Autonomy Vol. 9 by Donald C. Masters
The impact on Canadian trade caused by the Reciprocity Treaty was definitely significant; however, its impact on welfare is often fore-looked as it is relatively smaller. The measurement is still a grey area but the main factors involve firstly, gains from decreased transportation cost for products like wheat, oats, and barley due to free access as well as failure of Canadian infant industries like cheese and brewing prior to the protectionist period. Secondly, profits for Canadian consumers and producers were lesser than expected due to the lack of variation in prices until the Civil War. Thirdly, there was a major spike in exports to the United States; however some economics argue that it was offset by an increase in employment to some extent. Lastly, abrogation did not seem to bring much distress as trade with the USA did decline from its 1865 peak however picked up soon after reaching a high around 1870.46
The overall effects were ambiguous and it is quite clear that the Reciprocity movement alone did not provide the foundation for prosperity. The overall positive impact was a result of the effects of the treaty coupled with really strong forces like the construction of the railway in the 1850's and Civil War in the USA and the following inflation of the 1860's. 'Like many good things, Reciprocity was received with mixed emotions, enjoyed with scant appreciation and widely mourned when it was gone.'47 It had 'owing to the unwonted character of the events by which its existence was characterized, very little chance to show what it could do.' 48
46. The Canadian-American Reciprocity Treaty of 1855 to 1866 by Lawrence B. Officer and Lawrence B. Smith
47. Commercial Policy in the Canadian Economy by J. McDiarmid (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946), p. 122
48. Reciprocity by J.L. Laughlin and H.P. Willis (New York: Baker and Taylor, 1930), p. 64.