Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 13, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 April 1892 — “Reciprocity.” [ARTICLE]

“Reciprocity.”

Reciprocity is Republican free trade; and, like Republican “protection,” a “fake,” so far as it concerns the mass of voters whom it Is fondly expected to hoodwink. There is, however, this difference between Republican “protection” and Republican “free trade:” “Protection”' benefits only the hoinp manufacturer; reciprocity will benefit foreign consumers as well as home manufacturers. Both agree in they can hurt, but cannot help, our own consumers and producers (outside of a few manufacturers), and for these reasons: 1. By the reciprocity clause the President is authorized to frighten foreign governments until they lower their import duties and lighten the burden on consumers. This he has done and Is doifig. The foreign consumer, who is being untaxed by reciprocity, may be thankful to his Republican friends in this country. 2. The clause does not authorize the President to lower any duties on our Imports (the only way in which our tariff burdens can be lightened), but it does give him power to raise them and thus to increase the burden on our own consumers. This he has already done to scare foreigners who, imitating the United States, insist upon maintaining the same kind of “protection" that we have enjoyed for the last thirty years. Who shall be most scared at this threat? Foreigners, who are glad to sell in our markets, or our consumers, who are compelled to buy in them? If, McKinley says, the foreigner pays the tax. then our. consumers need have no fear, but the foreigner should tremble. If« the duties to be placed on sugar, coffee, tea and hides are not paid by the foreigner they will come out of the pockets of our consumers; in which case the latter should turn pale at the President's threat, for they are already attempting to carry unbearable burdens of this kind. 3. “Protection” has given manufacturers the monopoly of our markets. Reciprocity attempts to give them special advantages in foreign markets. This will be a boon to them, because, in order to prevent cheap goods (so detestable to many good Republicans), they have been maintaining trust prices at home. Now, if foreign Governments lower their duties so that foreigners can afford to buy of us, our manufacturers will be able to dispose of more of their surplus products at remunerative prices, and not be compelled, in order to prevent lowering home prices, to dump them on foreign markets at any price, as they often do now. 4. Reciprocity cannot help the farmer, for whose benefit it was ostensibly, interlopated in the McKinley tariff bill, for the very good reason that the great bulk of the staple agricultural products, oottoq, com, wheat, meats, etc., are sold in markets that cannot possibly be changed by any reciprocity treaty. In 1890 our total exports of agricultural proucte were about $600,000,000. Of, this amount, $380,000,000 went to Great Britain. This is the market that for years has determined the prices of our foreign products, and, so long as we must sell any considerable amount of our surplus in this market, it will continue to determine prices. For the lowest market In which products must be sold fixes prices In all other markets. Reciprocity treaties, which would make

our product* free In -all the market* ei the world, could not materially help the farmer; for two-thirds of his surplus products are now sold to free-trade nations, which have no “tariffs to swap.” Even Blaine will not pretend that his reciprocity scheme will find markets, outside of Great Britain, for all of our farm products. The farmer now sells in a free-trade market, hence reciprocity cannot raise his selling price. He must buy in protected markets, or, what is the same, if he buys in foreign markets he must pay two-thirds the cost price of his goods to get them lifted over the tariff wall between the market and his home. Reciprocity cannot lower this wall, and hence cannot lower the cost of his goods laid down at his door. So far as the farmer is concerned the benefits of reciprocity are not reciprocal, and there is no more hope for him in Section 3 than in any other section of the McKinley bill.