Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 July 1892 — A TALK BY TELEPHONE. [ARTICLE]

A TALK BY TELEPHONE.

MOTIVES OF THIS NEW BUNKO GAME EXPOSED. Wholesale Cat In Wages in the Protected Iron and Steel Industry Tariffs and Prices Go Up, While Wages Go Down—monopolies and Millionaires, The Reciprocity Fake. United States—Hello! hello! South America—Hello! , U. S. —Is that you, South America? S. A.—What do you want? U. S.—This is United States. You know, we put a reciprocity clause into what we call the McKinley bill, that we passed here last fall? S. A. —Yes, I heard you did. U. S.—Well, that clause authorizes the President to put duties on teo, coffee, sugar, molasses and hides. S. A.—Arn’t you mistaken? I thought your constitution gave your Congress full and exclusive power to lay and collect taxes, duties, etc. U. S.—Yes, so it does, but I haven’t time now to discuss a constitution more than a hundred years old and made to suit different times. As I was going to say, the President can put a duty of 3 cents per pound on your coffee, 1£ cents per pound on your hides, and 2 cents per pound on your sugar; if, in his opinion, you unduly tax the goods imported into your countries from the United States. It is to learn what you intend to do in regard to this matter that I called you up. S. A. —Well now, I'll tell you frankly, Jim B 1

U. S.—Please mention no names. S. A. —I beg your pardon, but this is What I think: If your President wishes to put a tax on these articles—all of which are now on your free lisb—and your people don’t object to paying it, I don’t see why we should. As to what kind of duties we should have, I think we can decide for ourselves without any foreign interference. U. S.—Of course we don’t wish to interfere, but don’t you understand that if we tax our imports of these articles frojta your countries and not from other countries, you will lose some of your trade up hero?

S. A. —Oh, yes, of course we might lose a little with you, but we would gain about as much with other countries. If you tax raw hides and increase their cost to you, your manufacturers will make fewer gloves, shoes, etc., but Europe will make more; so if you tax sugar as you have been doing, your canners and preservers will do less business and Europe will do more in this line. I see clearly that while such a policy might injure us a little it would harm you much more—so much more that I can’t think you would be so foolish as to adopt it, but only intend it for a bluff. No; we don’t care to swap any tariffs this year. U. S.—But wait a little; don’t talk quite so loudly. After I shall have explained a few things you may take quite a different view.

8. A.—Well, go on. U. S. —You see we, have had a high .protective tariff here for thirty years. S. A. —Yes, I know that’s what you call it. I agree, though, that it’s high. U. S. —Well, the Republican party that made this tariff has been telling the farmers and laborors that it was to help them by giving them homo markets, high wages, etc. 8. A.—You didn’t have to give reasons to your manufacturers, I guess. They didn’t object to a policy that Would give them exclusive ownership of your “homo markets” and U. S. Please wait until I am through. As I was going to say, the farmers, who expected everything of protection, became spendthrifts, and, because nearly half of. their farms were mortgaged, and because farms east of the Mississippi River have lost half of their value, during the last fifteen years, they got it into their heads that “protection" was to blame for all their extravagance and foolishness. The same kind of an absurd idea was taking Eossession of the wage-earners, who, ecause they have to do more work or Bee their wages reduced nearly every year, began to think that protection was at fault, though it was explained to them that it was due to over-produc-tion, excessive competition, etc. Well, anyway, by 1890, when McKinley was revising the tariff, a few of us saw ciearly that the protection system could not stand much longer, unless it was again repaired, with a view to helping the larmer. It was for this purpose that I—that is, we —hit upon this scheme of reciprocity to open markets in your countries for our farm products. S. A. —Yes, I see; but you don’t expect to find markets for farm products down here? We are in the farming business ourselves, and unless your farmers look well to their laurels they will soon lose some of their markets in Central America and the West Indies, where we are already selling flour and other agricultural products. It is implements of agriculture rather than products of agriculture that we want. It is strange you did not think of this before you promised the farmers to find newYnarketfe for them down here.

U. S.—lt is unnecessary to castreflections like this upon our intelligence. "When polities is running high hoce* and the tide Is going against us, we must devise some expedient to turn it. We can’t always do what is best or promise what is likely to be fulfilled. S. A.—Oh, yes, I begin your reciprocity was only a piece of "Jingoism” to catch the farmers’ votes and keep the Republican party in power. U. S. —No, not exactly that; but I don’t care to stop to explain everything now. I desire only to give you a few tips so that you will not take matters so seriously, and jump on reciprocity as if it were intended for a sound economic doctrine, instead of a political scheme. This was the mistake made by most of the leaders of Republicanism here when the scheme was first broached. For instance, Senator Dolph said “The cause of protection is being betrayed;” Senator Hale and Tom Reed ridiculed the plan; Major McKinley called it a “Blaine fad,” and objected to having it inserted in his tariff bill; the American Economist, our great organ of protection, ridiculed the idea of “trying to revise this defun t and obsolete system of discrimminations; and this, too, in order that we make the effort to sell packed meats to meat-packers and breadstuff's to the exporters of grain.” I could mention dozens of other Republicans who made fools of themselves by not thinking twice before they spoke. They are all sorry now that they were so premature. It is is amusing now to hear McKinley talking for “protection and reciprocity;” and to read in the American Economist that “reciprocity is the handmaid of protection. ” The truth is that they recognize that Senator Hale spoke the truth when he said, “The reciprocity feature is the part of the measure (McKinley tariff) which has floated the whole act . . . and kept it from being swamped.” Now you understand our predicament. We must make the farmers believe that we really expected that reciprocity would open up new markets for them abroad. S. A. —But isn’t the scheme a sad commentary on your “home market” theory? Doesn’t it admit that protection can’t make home markets? U. S.—l don’t care to discuss theories now when, we are confronted by conditions. But will you not try to help us out by revising your tariff schedules a

little—jnst enough so that we can show our farmers that reciprocity has really opened markets for them, ornt least that it has been the means of inuucing countries to permit our agricultural products to enter their market under lees duty? It matters but little to us that these same markets want manufactured and not agricultural products. Flease make some change so that we can announce that “reciprocity treaties” have been made, and that we can continue to import sugar, coffee, and hides free. S. A. —We will consider your case; but another objection occurs to me just now. Isn’t such a policy of discrimination contrary to the policy adopted long ago by your own and several other American republics, which is opposed to “entangling alliances" with countries? U. S.—Bosh! That’s an exploded idea up here, except with a few Democrats who have had but little practical experience in state and foreign affairs for over thirty years. S. A.—We may be able to accommodate you a little, as you have for years had some of our most important exports on your free list; and, besides, we don’t care to be boycotted by your country. We do, however, think that you should have adapted your reciprocity to fit countries that want agricultural products and that have a large commerce. Our people down here don’t trade much anyhow. The whole of South America takes less than 2 per cent, of your agricultural products, while Great Britain alone takes 60 per cent. Reciprocity with us may help some of your manufacturers in the same way that “protection” has helped them, but it can’t help your farmers and I should think they would soon see through your little game; though if you insist we shall Canada—Hello! hello! Is this United States? U. S.—Y r es, yes, and I am certain I am talking to Canada; she always puts in when not wanted and gives me a cold j chill. Please state your business. C. —I called you up to learn what kind j of a reciprocity treaty you intend to! make with us.

U. S.—We are not considering any reciprocity treaty with you, and we are not certain that we shall do so. We do not care to dicker with you. C. —But our 5,000,000 people purchase as much of you as the other 51,000,000 people on the Western hemisphere, and we are the only oountry that buys more from you than we sell to you. For the last forty years you have had a balance of trade in your favor of over 000, while the balance of trade against you with these other 51,000,000 people was over $1,000,000,000. U. S.—Really, Canada, I don’t care to talk with you now. I would have to. explain too many things. I will only say that the farmers of New York State, so far as I can learn, don’t want free trade with you even “in spots,” such as reciprocity would give, and you know New York is a doubtful State. Goodday.