"Che Conservative. i
THE SHAM OF RECIPROCITY.
By Nornmn P. Hcssoltinc , of the Boston Bar.
The national republican platform of
1896 declared as follows regarding
reciprocity :
' ' Protection and reciprocity are twin
measures of republican policy , and go
hand in hand. Democratic rule has
recklessly struck down both , and both
must bo re-established. Protection for
what wo produce , free admission for
the necessaries of life which wo do not
produce ; reciprocal agreements of mu
tual interest which gain open markets
for us in return for our open market to
others. Protection builds up domestic
industry and trade , and secures our
own market for ourselves. Reciproc
ity builds up foreign trade , and finds
an outlet for our surplus. "
In pursuance of this plank in the
platform , section 4 of the Diugley
Act of 1807 , partly as an antidote to
its high protective features and partly
as an effort to keep the party true to
its pledges , gave to the president of
the United States , by and with the
advice and consent of the senate
8 $
fe ate , within a period of two years
after the passage of the act , au
thority to enter into commercial treat
s- . ies with foreign countries by which
our duties might bo reduced as much
as 20 per cent. , and certain natural
products , not of this country , might bo
put upon the free list in return for
compensating reductions allowed to
this country.
Under this section , President McKinley -
Kinley appointed Hon. John A. Kas-
son , who , previously on the "Ways and
Means Committee , had acquired con
siderable experience with tariff sched
ules. Ho at ouco sot about his task ,
and in a short time had succeeded in
formulating treaties with France , the
Argentine Republic , Danish West
Indies , and British West Indies. The
two first named wore the most import
ant. France agreed to make an aver
age reduction of about 30 per cent on
about 600 articles ; wo agreed to make
an average reduction of 6.8 per cent
on about 200 articles. France , al
though a protective country , had a
tariff far lower than ours ; yet she al
lowed us substantial advantages ,
while we , having an exaggerated
protective tariff , only made slight re
ductions on a few schedules. The
most important concession was on cot
ton knit goods , which were reduced
from 64 to 51 o Per cent ; cheap imita
tion jewelery was reduced 5 or 10 per
cent ; French silk was admitted at 55
instead of GO per cent ; and there
were slight reductions in the paper
schedules.
To the Argentine Republic , in return
for very advantageous terms vo grant
ed 20 per cent reduction on wool.
To the West Indies , who favored
among other articles American canned
goods , wo lowered _ the bars on tropi
cal fruits.
It was a glorious effort to increase
our commerce and to gain an outlet
for our surplus product.
When these matters became public ,
there was a frightened cry from dependent -
pendent protectionists. Manufactur
ers assorted that the reduction on cot
ton knit goods meant irreparable in
jury. A paper factory in Lee , Mass. ,
was in an agony of despair at the pros
pect of a reduction in t xo paper sched
ule. The gentle shepherds from Ohio ,
pasturing sheep on $100 an acre land
and of the Rocky Mountains , where
government ranges can be had for
nothing , raised a mighty shout at the
enormity of 20 per cent reduction on
wool. Under the Diugley [ Act the
finer Andean fleeces wore practically
prohibited , and the reduction would
bo welcome to manufacturers. Cali
fornia protested because West Indian
fruits were to compete with her
own.
own.The
The most amusing objection came
from novelty factories in Providence
and Attleboro , which are supported by
kindly disposed customers who chari
tably tax themselves some 65 per ceuf.
They addressed the New England con
gressmen as follows :
"Should the French treaty be rati
fied , the homo market will again be
crowded with foreign-made goods ;
and to compete with the same labor ,
which enters largely into the produc
tion , must necessarily be the sufferer.
"In 1897 we petitioned for a tariff
of 75 per cent. The enactment of the
Dinglcy bill , fixed the rate at 65 per
cent , which does not fully reach the
point of equalization.
"To now infringe on that percentage
even 1 per cent would be a blow at
labor and the persons dependent on
the jewelry industry. We earnestly
appeal to you to use your utmost en
deavor to have the treaty rejected. "
The Home Market Club , our in
dustrial Mentor , not believing that
President McKinley was guilty of
such heresy , until his last message to
congress , began to pass resolutions.
It thought that the wool reduction
was an outrage , for the wool schedule
was arranged after a long conference
"between the growers and the manu
facturers. " It is not apparent from
this statement that the question of
revenue or of consumer's interest
was of any consequence in this matter.
The organization further declared
that the treaties "are not based upon
the true principle of reciprocity ,
which is the exchange on favorable
terms of dissimilar and non-compet
ing products , and that , on the con
trary , they are based on the principle
of free trade , and will introduce a
damaging , if not ruinous , competition.
In addition to this , they disturb the
harmony of adjustment between in
dustries , which is an important char
acteristic of the tariff law , and will
therefore introduce such inequalities
as to unfavorably affect all business. ' '
Senator Elkins.of West Virginiade
clared : "I shall fight these treaties
to the bitter end. They are wrong
in principle and ruinous in practice.
The republican party made a mistake
in suggesting reciprocity in its plat
form and in enacting a reciprocity
law. "
After a favorable report by the Sen
ate Committee on Foreign Relations ,
Senator Aldrich , of Rhode Island
( anxious for his novelty constituents ) ,
moved that the matter be referred to
the finance committee ; and , although
Mr. Kasson secured an extension of
time for ratification to save some of
the treaties from defeat , they were
never allowed to come to a vote , and
perished before they were born. The
senate adjourned , and Mr. Kasson re
signed in disgust. Reciprocity is de
fined in the Standard Dictionary as
"mutual equality of rights and bene
fits. " In modern journalism it is
frequently styled "a sickly republi
can twin. ' '
The foregoinc facts constitute the
best evidence of the insincerity of the
republican declarations regarding so-
called reciprocity. The [ arguments
against the treaties were fallacious
excuses. The only "dissimilar and
non-competing products" to use the
expression of the Home Market Club
in which we can trade are raw ma
terials from the tropics , as coffee ,
chocolate , tea , and spices. The
tropics include the West Indies , Mexico
ice , Central America , and South
America as far south "as Rio Janeiro ,
Malaysia , Southern India , and Central
Africa. These countries are and al
ways will be industrially and com
mercially the poorest. The people
from whom we derive our origin , the
nations which furnish us the finest
examples of art and science , the lands
which give us the greatest incentive
to industry and inventive achieve
ments , and where our merchants turn
to seek in friendly commercial inter
course the accumulation of honest
wealth , are still by republican tariffs
to bo closed to traders sailing under
the stars and stripes. How many of
our machines can the tropics take ?
How many shiploads of breadstuffs ,
the imports of an active metropolis ,
can we send to the indolent natives
brtsking in the meridian heat of per
petual summer ? Yet the fruit-grow
ers of California beg to be saved from
competition with even them.
Mr.Kasson , in a letter to the Boston
Merchants' Associationsaid"Instead :
of contenting ourselves with the bar
barian position of supplying raw ma-
