THE RECIPROCITY BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3236, 5 June 1911, Page 5

THE RECIPROCITY BILL.

A CRISIS IN THE SENATE.

PRESIDENT TAFT’S ACTIVITY

[UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT.] WASHINGTON, June 2. A crisis has developed in the Senate. A fight over the reciprocity proposals is expected, when the Democratic Free List Bill may be offered as an amendment to reciprocity, with the object of embarrassing the Democrats. President Taft is using his influence with the Republicans in the hope that they will avoid offering an amendment •which is likely to wreck the Bill. There are daily conferences at the White House. President Taft is confident that the Senate will pass the reciprocity proposals if amendments are not offered Iby Democrats. The senators are ready to reject the Free List Bill amendment if certain Republcans do not stifle the Free List Bill’s committee stage, thus preventing Democrats recording a straight-out vote for a free list on meats, flour,, and agricultural implements, but Canada will not- agree. If the United States now free-listed' these commodities on the nation benefit, Argentine meats and Australian mutton (will be allowed to enter, to the consequent injury of the American farmer.

“FARMERS BEING ‘BUNCOED.’ ”

REAL SOURCE OF OPPOSITION.

(Received June 5, T 2.15 a.an.) NEW YORK, June 4. President Taft, addressing the Western Economic Society at Chicago, said that the opposition to reciprocity did not come from the American farmer, but from the lumbermen and printing paper manufacturers. He asserted farmers were 'being ‘lbuncoed’ at the instance of special interests, and said the fate of reciprocity did not rest with the Senate, but with the American .people. He believed the real opposition to reciprocity to be exaggerated with a. view to influencing, votes in the Senate. He would be surprised if, in six months time, any opposition remained.

HIS LOVE FOR BRITAIN.

A STIRRING SPEECH BY SIR WILFRID LAURIER.

Responding to one of the toasts at the banquet at which the visiting Premiers were entertained by the Pilgrims’ Club, Sir Wilfrid Laurier unexpectedly indulged in some plain speaking. , -> The Canadian Premier declared that much as lie loved the people of America he loved those of Great Britain better.

Canada, in sharing the North American continent with the United tSates, had a double interest in the proposed arbitration treaty between Britain and the United States.

“Thank God,” dramatically exclaimed Sir Wilfrid, “the relations between the two peoples were never so good as they are to-day. “Canada and the United States will continue to show the world that the two nations with the longest boundary can live in peace and mutual respect, without a fortress or a gun on either side of the boundary. “We believe,” concluded Sir Wilfrid, “that the day will come when there will be an alliance of all peoples springing from England’s loins, ensuring the peace of the world for ever.’ The American Consul-General, Mr. T. L. Griffiths, in the oourse of his response, said: “The imagination is profoundly stirred as we try to anticipate the beneficial results that will follow if England and the United States enter into a covenant of peace which would govern the mutual relations of more than 500,000,000 people.”

he is afraid of being accused of playing into the hands of the Conservatives. The “Morning Post” states that it is better that the Declaration should be ratified -with the consent of the Dominions than without. The future will prove to'the critics that the Dominions will be unable to blame this country when their own representatives have permitted them a full share of responsibility.

MR. FISHER’S ATTITUDE CONDEMNED.

WILL AUSTRALIA FORGIVE?

(Received June 4, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, June 3. The 'Standard” states that Mr Fisher has shown a strong desire to get into line with the other delegates, but Australia considered the Declaration too great a. menace for trade. “It would have been better if Mr. Fisher had not displayed such a. desire to be convinced,” the paper adds, “and be had come under the Home Minister’s pressure and drifted away from Australian opinion. Australians will find it hard to forgive their delegates for standing aside, and would not have forgiven them if they had voted.

“BEST FOR THE EMPIRE.”

SIR JOSEPH WARD’S OPINION.

Tho “Evening Standard” interviewed Sir Joseph Ward, who defended, the Conference .approving of the ratification of the Declaration, though he admitted. that there was room for a considerable difference of opinion as to the details. He spoke for himself an the views he expressed, and the overseas representatives approached the subject with absolutely independent minds, and arrived, at the decision that it was best for the Empire. V