Rensselaer Republican, Volume 23, Number 1, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 September 1890 — TARIFF AND RECIPROCITY. [ARTICLE]

TARIFF AND RECIPROCITY.

Delivers Another Speech on tile Subject. A public mass meeting was held on the 23th, at Waterrille, Maine. After Got. Burleigh had made a speech, President A. W. Small, of Colby University, introduced as “The leader of the Republican party and famous advocate of an Interesting and progressive protective tariff, Hon. James G. Blaine.” In regard to National questions, Mr. Blaine said: . >• “I wish to declare the opinion that the United States has reached a point where one of her highest duties is to- enlarge the area of its foreign trade. Under the Denificent policy of protection we have developed a volume of manufactures which, in many departments, overruns the business of the home market. In the field of agriculture, with the immense population given it by agricultural implements, we can do far more than produce breadstuffs and provisions for our own people; nor would it be an ambitious destiny for so great a country as ours to manufacture only wbat we can consume or to produce only what we can eat. We are, already, in many fabrics and in many products, far beyond that, and our great demand is expansion. I mean expansion of trade with countries where we can find profitable exchanges. We are not seeking annexation of territory. Certainly we do not desire it unless it should come by the volition of a people who might ask the priceless boon of a place under the flag of the Union. I feel sure that for a long time to come the people of the United States will be wisely content with our present area and not touch upon any scheme of annexation. At the same time I think we should be unwisely content if we did not seek to engage in what the younger Pitt so well termed annexation of trade. “For nearly thirty years now the United States has had the great advantage of a protective tariff—by far the longest utr*booken period that this industrial policy has been in force since the federal government’waaorganized. Happily, the great majority of our people, without strict regard to party lines, believe that the results to the American people from the protective policy have been incalculably bn nefleent, aggregating in a quarter of a century national and individual wealth beyond anything ever dreamed of before in the history of the world. Ido not mention protection because I do not intend to speak in reference thereto before this audience. That would be a needless, if not an impertinent effort. I merely wish to proclaim its victories. Without protection the United States would have been poor indeed after the ravages of the war, from JB6l to 1865. With protection every section «#%g flourished ana prospered, grown and gamed. Even where revenue duties have been laid with no expectation of developing industries t icro liavejin many Instances) been great financial and indusirial results. The heavy duty on silk was levied primarily not for protection, but simply to secure a large revenue from one of the luxuries of the ricti; but as a consequenco of the duty the silk industry has increased so rapidly that it constitutes one of the leading fabrics of New Jersey, one of the largest manufacturing States of the Union. I could readily advance other illustrations to the same effect.

“As I have already intimated, I am hero' to speak of the expansion of our foreign; trade, not by any novel process, not by any, mode that will shock or disturb home 1 indus-: tries, not by any mode that will invito our' people to rash experimeuts or that will launch us i u doubtful and dangerous invest-, ments. What I mean to speak of briefly is [ a system of reciprocity, not in conflict with; a protective tariff, but supplementary there-’ to and presenting a field of enterprise that i will richly repay the effort and energy of' the American people.

‘•We shall find it instructive and valuable to examine into the sources of our im ports and the destination of onr exports itid to'strike a balance between the two, [> ke last year—lßß9. In that year our whole exports to all countries in the three continents of Europe, Asia and Africa, and to Australia, Canada and Hawaii amounted' in round numbers, to $858,000,009; and eur imports from all these countries amounted in round numbers t 05539,000,000, showing that from that vast trade we had i balance of $139,000 in our favor, equivalent to that amount of gold among our people. But when all the accounts were dosed, instead of havingsl39,ooo,ooo in our favor, wa had a balance of $13,000,000 against our foreign trade. We must therefore have lost $143,000,010 in our commerce with the countries outside of those to which I have referred. Where could wo have found such a large adverse balances Let me tell you; we lost forty-one millions in Cuba, from which our imports $52,0!X>,300, and to which our exports were only $11,000,003. Forty-one millions is a pretty large sum to lose in one island in a single year. In the republic of Brazil we lost fifty-one millions. Our imports from Brazil were $60,0)0,000; our exports to Brazil were $9,000,000. In Mexico We lost 110,000,000. Our imports from Mexico were $21,000,000; our exports to Mexico wore $11,000,000. To sum it all up, our imports from countries south of us,both insular and continental, on this hemisphere, were $74,000,000. The balance against us in our trade with those countries, therefore, is $143,000,000, exceeding our gains from all the rest of the world by $13,000,000. “By no figure of speech can we flatter ourselves into the belief that our trade with our American neighbors is in a prosperous condition. How can this state of affairs be remedied? You have heard a great deal said within the past ten years by our Demoocratio friends about the iniquity of the Republican party keeping up the war tar itT. As a matter of fact, the war tariff has not been kept up, but has boon amended over and over again until the revision of 1883 left scarcely a trace of the* actual tariff that was in operation at the close of the war and for a few years afterwards. During the war we were compelled to tax almost everything in the air, in the water, on the earth ana under the earth. The necessities of the government were so great that wa could allow scarcely anything to be imported without paying tribute, and I think no patriotic man can deuy that that was a wise policy. We were not then studying the philosophy of trade relations, but how to save the life of the Nation. Money was the prime necessity, and We seized it wherever we could reach it lawfully; but during the last eighteen years a great change has been made. ‘•So entirely has the war tariff been .abolished that in the fiscal year ending J une 30, 1889, the articles admitted free were considerably more than one-third of all the imports. To be exact, the imported articles that paid duty exceeded $488,000,000 in Value, and the imported articles that paid no duty exceeded $256,000,000 in value. The inevitable tendency is, I think, toward an increase of the free list. O.ur great mistake was made when we began to repeal the war duties on so large an amount of imports. Any duty repealed was a favor and an advantage to the exporting country, and we have asked nothing in return. Instead of this coarse, which I must say was one of carelessness and wastefulness by both political parties, every repeal of duty should have been preceded by a -most thorough investigation, and whenever it was found practicable to export anythin? from the United mates, and thus establish reciprocity of trade, it should have been done, Ido not, of course, Intend to declare, or to imply, that we Would have secured the free admission of |1356,000.0'0 of American products into countries whose products we purchase innuallv to that amount. The richer iountry can not expect to get a complete feoiprooity la amount from countries leas

(wealthy, bat whatever should have received would have been k dear gala, ana in all future repeals of duties whatever we may be able to get will be a clear gain. “it is not a question of setting daUber .ately to work to establish reciprocal ex. changes. But with all the duties we have {thus far repealed it has been a question of iwhether we should get something or fit inothing. We have chosen with our eyes ' closed to get nothing. I none now, with our eyes open, that we shall in future ,‘ehoose to get something. We enoounter .opposition to this policy from those who that if we enter into reciprocity of trade with one country we must ao so with 'all countries, and thus indirectly bring about complete free trade. Ido not see the logic of this, and I am sure the fact will ■not prove what is predicted. We may enter into reciprocity with one nation because we find advantage in it. We may decline to enter into reciprocity with another nation because we see no advantage in it. Reciprocity is simply a policy of circumstance to be determined favorably or adversely according as its operation may make or lose for us. “To say that because we enter into reciprocal relations with one country on one thing we must enter into reciprocal relations with all other countries in all things, is to my mind as absurd as to aqy that if I buy a horse to-day I must necessarily buy a drove of asses to-morrow. All objections ot that kind are, I am sure, unfounded, and will net stand the test of argument or a practical trial. Our people do not realize the great fact that if spec ie payment is endangered in this country it is likely to be endangered by our present system of trade with the Latin-American states. The few millions of gold that have gone out of the country within the last three months have created uneasiness in certain quarters as to our financial position. It is very extraordinary that the loss of these millions from banks in Wall street should be accounted so serious an event when we have lost a much, larger amount during the same period from the same condition of our trade with the countries south of us without ex.✓citing the least observation. When our merchants and bankers come to thoroughly appreciate this fact we shall receive aid and influence in the reform of our trade from a quarter tfrhich thus far it has been impossible to enlist.”