Conservative * 9
RECIPROCITY.
[ By GBNEHAL HAZAUD STEVENS. ]
Reciprocity has become the idol of
the hour. It is advocated by proteo-
tionists as a means of relieving the
galling burdens of protection , and by
free traders as a moans of educa
tion. Like other popular idols , I
feel sure that its reigii will be brief ;
for I believe that as a principle reci
procity is a mistake , and that , in
practice , reciprocity , or at least any
that can bo had under the present
Congress and administration or under
protection unspioes , will prove of
the kind that "palter with us in a
double sense , that speak the word of
promise to the ear and break it to the
hope. "
Commercial reciprocity means the
mutual removal of restrictions upon
trade between two or more countries.
It means , therefore , a step toward
free trade ; the greater the reciprocity ,
the longer the step toward free trade ;
and complete reciprocity is free
trade. In this aspect , and as a
means of education by arousing dis
cussion , the free trader welcomes
reciprocity.
At best , reciprocity is but a cir
cuitous , way of accomplishing piece
meal what can bo done better and
easier directly by acts abolishing or
reducing duties. Reciprocity grant
ed , one country works discrimination
against others with similar products.
They , too , will demand concessions
for their trade with threats of retali
atory tariffs. If granted , rates and
varieties of duties differing with
every country will render the tariff ,
complicated enough at best , confu
sion worse confounded. If denied ,
retaliation is the next step a step
already determinedly taken by Can
ada in giving a preference of 83 per
cent to England over the United
States , and by Russia. Thus the
policy of reciprocity loads to discrim
ination , retaliation , and war itself by
reason of the bad blood it may en
gender. Nay , it is preceded by , it
begins with , discrimination and re
taliation ; for , according to its Re
publican sponsors , duties must be
first raised in order to have a largo
margin to concede a good bargaining
power , as they euphemistically term
it. And it has been repeatedly
charged that certain duties of the
present tariff wore increased for this
very purpose , or at least that it wai
made the excuse for raising them ,
and notably the duty on hides.
Moreover , such a policy disregard !
Washington's wise advice , "Friend
ship to all nations , entangling al
lianoes with none , " and substitutes
for this noble rule of conduct the
sordid bargains , the unequal an <
over-changing discriminations of
trade treaties. This great republic
ought to govern its foreign policy by
principles of justice and sound
economic laws , and treat all nations
alike. Then it would need no com
mercial treaties and few political
ones.
Every one admires Shakespeare's
declaration that " it is more blessed
to give than to receive ; " but what
poet or preacher has over proclaimed
; hat it is more blessed to sell than to
buy , which seems to bo one of the
fixed ideas upon which reciprocity is
based ? But is the idea sound ? Is not
what one receives a better end of the
trade than what he gives ? Would
any man make an exchange unless lie
believed ho was getting at least a
full equivalent , if not more , for what
lie parted with ? Would not any ou'o
be more anxious to obtain the neces
saries he was destitute of , perhaps
suffering for , than to rid himself of
his surplus articles ?
The theory of reciprocity also rests
upon the twin delusion that by de
priving ourselves of what wo need
we can distress other nations and
constrain thorn to buy of us. We
may inconvenience them to some ex
tent ; but the world is wide , and they
can look elsewhere. It is our own
people who cannot escape the distress
of our restrictive and retaliatory
tariffs , the increased cost of living ,
the added burden on manufactures by
the deprivation or enhanced prices of
the raw materials , like wool , hides ,
ores , lumber , chemicals , etc. Thus
we punish our whole people in the
vain effort to force other countries to
open their markets to some of our
producers.
As a general rule , trade is an equa
tion : both parties to it get about
equal value , and both are benefited.
As a rule , men trade for what they
need , giving in exchange what they
can bettor spare , and thus are en
abled to supply their wants from
the products of every country and
every clime at the lowest cost , or ,
what is the same tiling , at the least
expenditure of labor.
Thus the denial of trade works the
deprivation of the comforts of life.
Free trade is the best weapon , it is
the only weapon , with which to fight
a hostile tariff. Open wide your
markets. The country which closes
her's against you will damage her
own people ton-fold as muoh as she
can possibly hurt yours. You wil
have the whole world wherein to find
supplies and market your products
and no country which deprives her
people of like advantages can compete
with you. If your products excel ,
6hey will find their way into every
market despite hostile tariffs. The
very smugglers will force them into
the forbidden ground.
What a misuse is the conjunction of
the two words , so loudly .vaunted ,
protection and reciprocity , a very
contradiction in terms ! An examin
ation of the doctrine officially pitty
forth by inventors of proteotion-reoi-
will I think convincoNarfy v
prooity , , arfy ts
candid mind that the two can iSp < C- , * * '
more bo made to work together than/ "
daylight and darkness. It is set
forth in the last National Republican
platform as follows : "Wo favor the
associated policy of reciprocity so
directed as to open our markets -on
'avorablo terms for what wo do not
ourselves produce in return for free
foreign markets. " As there are com
paratively few tilings used by men
bhat wo do not ourselves produce ,
and most of them are on the free list ,
it offers next to nothing and demands
everything. Our protectionist friends
have no objection to free trade in
soiling their own wares , but they are
duly horrified at permitting other
people to sell theirs. This platform
proclaims the open door abroad ,
but the closed door at home. As a
patent prescription for getting some
thing for nothing , it is worthy the
study of all political quacks. The
contrivers of it , however , seem to
have forgotten that it takes two to
make a trade.
The reciprocity provisions of the
Diugley tariff went a stop farther ,
but a very short one. It authorized
the President by treaties which must
be confirmed by two-thirds vote of
the Senate to reduce duties not
more than 20 per cent of existing
rates for terms not longer than five
years , and to place articles not the
natural products of this country on
the free list. The greatest reduction
possible under it would leave an 100
per cent , duty at 80 per cent. , a 50
per cent , one at 40 per cent. ; and it
does seem that any infant industry
which needs more protection than
that is hardly worth raising.
Moreover , it held out the threat of
retaliation to any country which re
fused to yield to the blandishments of
such protection-reciprocity by mak
ing it the duty of the President to
impose duties on tea , coffee , and
some other articles in case it "im
poses reciprocally unequal and un
reasonable duties on products of the
United States. " And , finally , it re
quires such treaties to bo negotiated
within two years from the passage of
the act , a term which has long since
expired. The treaties already nego
tiated are moribund in the Senate ,
no more can be negotiated ; and this
chapter of reciprocity is ended. It
served to catch the votes of tariff
reformers. It obstructed real reci
procity , as its contrivers intended ,
and proved an effective"abatis in
front of the fortress of protection.
The shrewd protectionist politicians