Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 18, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 May 1892 — BRAZIL IS BENEFITED, [ARTICLE]

BRAZIL IS BENEFITED,

BUT THE AMERICAN FARMER IS NOT. the New York Tribune Forgets fti Own Country While lauding the Reciprocity llunco Game—Four Years of Education— Continuation of McKinley’s Account. Brasil and Reciprocity. The New York Tribune of April 28 says: “That Brazil has no reason to oomplain of the operation of the reciprocity treaty is shown by the official statistics of its trade with the United States. The convention went into effect on April 1, 1891. During the five months ending Sept. 1,1891, the exports from Brazil to the United States amounted to $39,703,752. This was 4 gain of $14,861,315 over the exports for the corresponding period of the previous year. In view of this enormous increaso In the Importation of coffee, sugar, hides and other Brazilian products, the advantages derived from the reciprocity convention are incontestable. When disgruntled politicians In ltio de Janeiro and Blaine-hatlng journalists in the United States assert that Brazil was oheated in that treaty they do not venture to face the statistics of international trade under reciprocity conditions. “This is not all. Brazil in negotiating the reciprocity treaty secured a free market for three of its staple products. A year after the convention went info effeot, duties were reimposed upon the coffee, sugar and hides of Venezuela, Colombia and Hayti. This Involves a discrimination of enormous value in favor of Brazil. In 1890 the importation of coffee from the three countries into the United States amounted to 70,096,700 pounds, or about 15 per cent, of the supply. With a duty of 3 cents this Involves a discrimination of $2,282,901 against those countries on coffee alone. Brazil is profiting so heavily from the reciprocity policy that no sane statesman in that country will seriously propose the abrogation of the treaty." This is unusually good loglo to be found in this paper, but it brings up the question as to whether the Tribune belongs to North or South America. The two parties to the reciprocity treaty of April 1, 1891, were Brazil and the United States. Brazil has undoubtedly the bulge on Venezuela, Colombia and Hayti and is to be congratulated on having thus obtained a free market for its coffee and hides, while its South American competitors, because it does not suit their convenience to bow to reciprocity, are deprived of such a market. But why should the Tribune extend congratulation? Is it oontrolled by some Cobden Club in Brazil? What about the other party to that treaty? The idea has been promulgated in the United States, where the present reciprocity boom originated, that reciprocity was not so much to benefit Brazil or some other foreign country as to provide good markets for our products—especially for farm products. Is it doing this?

Senator Vest, in his speech of Feb.i 25, 1892, shows that of the $1,169,592 increase, from April 1 to Sept. 1, 1891, In our exports to Brazil, $800,148 came: from steam engines, machinery, etc., whioh are admitted free of duty into Brazil, not only from the United States but from any part of the world. The total increase is, however, only normal for the last two or three years, and, as it is made up mainly of artloles already on the free list, is in no way due to reciprocity. As to farm products, Senator Vest shows that there has been a falling oft during this period in our exports of flour, bacon, lard, and naval stores to Brazil. The total decrease in our exports of farm products for the first nine months of this trealy was $525,455, according to Congressman Herbert. This same authority finds that the increase of the exports of other products, as compared with agricultural products to reciprocating countries, is over 5 to‘l against the farmer. This is what might have been expected. It was a “wild goose chase" to go hunting for markets for farmers in these highly agricultural countries, whose markets for agricultural products have always been comparatively Insignificant. Our total exports of foreign products to South America in 1891 amounted to $12,085,598; to the West Indies, $16,966,856; to Central America, $6,450,775; to Mexico, $4,085,819; to British Honduras, $240,817. Total to countries south of us, $35,506,226. Our exports of agricultural products to Great Britain in 1891 were $375,629,926; and to all of Europe, $580,154,914. It is overcrowded, manufacturing Western Europe that wants our farm products and not the backwoods, half-civiiized, South American countries. It is strange that this fact did not ocour to the early advocates of reciprocity, so that we would not now be wasting our time trying to play reciprocity with the wrong countries.

Another Important fact Is often lost Bight of, namely, that the only effect upon the farmer of this jug-handled reciprocity is to Increase his already unjustly heavy tax burden, by placing a duty of lg cents on sugar, 3 cents on coffee, 10 cents on tea, and 1J cents per pound on hides. The total of all these duties, if enforced, would amount to about $10,000,000. The Tribune finds that the duty of 3 cents on coffee would discriminate against Venezuela, Colombia and Hayti to the extent of $2,282,901. This means that so far as these countries are concerned, Biazil would have a monopoly of our coffee market and that her coffee growers could, as they undoubtedly would, charge the American consumer about 5 cents more for ooffee.

Beciprocity is only a bunco game that is being worked on the American farmer since the old one of “protection” has begun to lose its attractiveness. What next will the manufacturers try to hold their monopoly of our markets, when the farmer gets his eyes open to the real meaning of reciprocity?