National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-01-08
Reciprocity Treaties.

on imports there are two ways 20 be consid-
cred One Is an unconditional reduction, as
was done on coffee and tea, which, by the
consumer. In the case of Coffee Brazil put
on an export duty, and simply took to her
self what tho United States gave up.
Tho other way is by reducing the duties
under special agreements with other coun>
tries to remove the duties on American mann
features, thus getting qnd pro quo. Sup
pose, in the case of coffee, instead of taking
off the duty altogether, our government
had proposed reciprocity treaty with
Brazil, offering to remove tho duty from
Brazilian coffee, on condition that Brazil ros
other manufactures. Instead of lamenting
over the fact that tho exports of British cot
tons to Brazil are as 81 yards to 1 of Ameri-
can, as does the secretary of state in the last
volume Of the commercial relations of the
United States, we should have been rejoicing
over our control of that market, and instead
of paying for balance Of $30,000000 of our
purchases from Brazil through Great Britain
and other countries we should have paid in
American goods, carried in American ships,
and got our coffee cheaper besides, as such an
arrangement should stipulate that no export
duty should be charged.
Wo have one reciprocity treaty, that with
Hawaii, the only objection to which is the
loss Of revenue, and that is always over esti-
mated. The secretary of state does not mon
ton this trade perhaps. because, as Secretary
| Folger correctly stated in his letter to con.
gress on the subject, it partakes SO much of
the nature Of interstate trade. Tho Ia
,odiiaI Gd.cttc points out that the United
States are getting the lions share of that
bargain. The exports of the island
last year were $s,299,o1670, and
tho total imports were 4,97i,510.01.
This would show that there was balance
to BIO accounted for of 1894, 506.69, of which
the islands received in specie $685. 702.66 as
their share, while there remained to the
United States S2,77s, so4.o3 as profits beside
the profits on our three millions Of merchan-
disc. This did not 60 to other countries
because the imports from all other countries
into Hawaii have already been deducted. 1t
remained in this country. A part was
freights as the vessels in the trade were
almost without exception American.
The year before the treaty was
mado the trade Of the islands was
rapidly being absorbed by the Australian
colonies of Great Britain, when Mr.. Fish
sagaciously turned it to our shores with most
satisfactory results. While tho Hawaiians
point out that the balance Of trade was
against them nearly three millions, as they
sent out eight millions in value and got back
but four millions they are we'll satisfied on
account of the impetus given to trade; this
profit of about 30 per cent. on the, total
value Of our imports was made post
BILE, Of course, by the remission OF
duty under the treaty, but it illustrates
the advantage Of making reductions in
the tariff for equivalent considerations.
our cltlZenS bOlu OV3r POOuuJOuO Worpu Vi
goods, where they sold formerly about $780,,
600, and imported about $s,oOO,0OO at profit
to themselves of about 50 per cent, owing to
tho fact that they controlled the trade. The
reciprocity treaty with Mexico is q step in
the right direction, but it should be remem-
bered that the treaty with Hawaii negotiated
by Mr.. Fish forbids export duties being
: levied on goods admitted into our ports,
free of duty and also prevents Hawaii from
granting free admission to goods from other
: countries, which, as Secretary Folger re-
marks, makes the trade parteke Of the nature
of interstate commerce.
If proportionate results could bo obtained
by such treaties with Mexico and Brazil, the
loss in revenue would be more than made W
in advantages to our citizens, while simply
reducing the tariff on Mexican and Brazilian
Q products is of as much advantage to British
and European merchants engaged in com
merce with those countries as to ours.