New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-12-26
TITO KINDS OF RECLPEOCITY.

General Grant and Mr. Trescot negotiated a
commercial Treaty with Mexico Tor the uhite"
States two years ago. Ii was ratllich DS tue
American Senate last spring, but awaits certain
legislation by Congress before going INTO erect
MIR Foster, by citing this convention aS !"
precedent and argument for that when he mas
recently concluded with Spain invites what
proycs to be an interesting comparison between
the two.
oar importatons from Cuba and Porto klco
for the year ending June 80, 1851, amounted
in value to %GI,O7l,9 1873. OF these over ~ per
cent were dutnbc. The Madrid treaty entirely
wipes ont the tax on $56,O0o,0OO OF tins
amount aud materially reduces IL on THooo'-
600. By his process thr United States would
losc obont $4,000. 900 of revenue. From
Mexico we imported in the last fiscal year to
the value of %9.OtG, 1856. Upon less than hall
this amount we pay duties and the treaty with
| that country reduces these taxes only T'o,'V'
an napprcciablc amount.
| Fortv-niur nlticths of our imports from CuDa
! and Porto Rico are sugar ana tobacco ana tne
| Spanish treaty pieciptates serious II moi
ruinous competition with the prodnctlon ol
those commodities in the United States \
br,tfnl influence Is thus cXcrtcd upon large
| business interests. The Mexican treaty does,
indeed, admit sugar free, and tobacco at SUB
stan,av reduced rates; but the amount OF the
former article now imported across the h0
G,ande Is only about one one-tiOnSandlh part
Of that brought from Cuba and Porto lic0 ANA
of the latter the proportion Is abOut one iori-
hrn,l,elh part Mrxico does not ptoducr
SUGAR enough FOR ley own Needs, ana cannot
q, ltsst Ijr nanv yeats. seriously compete with
,hr snrat riB8ets ~ this country Not obes
,be Nip.han iipait aint ~ formidable titali5
with aaf 0ihef American iAhus'it;
lbe iva epaUlsh islands ~ question sel tsi
as las ai,Daif hepn siairil ie iht tdlil ~
ali l,00N,0d0 yearly. The Madrid tieAltl h
stimulating the cultivation SIT ann tiHnH lN
sugar and tOtaGGa promises larlhli Va enlarge
these figures. But We sold to the People ut thGse
islands last year only Tl2, T3l lso WoTli al our
prodncts 0ess than in 1850, aud cannot rea-
sonaby hone, even under the treaty, to increase
the amount by more than about Tl,oOO,ouO
Our trade with Mexico shows a constantly
increasing excess of exports In lSSO we SOFA
her goods valued at $G,OG0,91l aud bought "a
! tribe more than this. In 1883 we sold
! SlL31O,992. much more than double the
| former amount, while our purchases rose to only
trihe over SSO0O,OOO. When the treaty
with that Republic goes into effect we remove
the taxes from only nine articles now dutlable,
and Welding us only 100000 of revenue. But
| Mexico adds to hcr free list sixty-scVen
articles many of which we are anxious to sell
! her. and on which an average OF so per cent Is
paid in duties at her custom houses; the exact
amount of this export trade has not been COM
putcd bat the advantage gained is, beyond
question, largely in excess OF the concessions
granted to Mexico, and must be attended by a
fresh development of Our export trade. Fur
thcrmore it should be remembered that Cuba
offers lis a market of 100000 consumers, ana
Mexico of 100000.
However much, therefore, these treaties
resemble each other in theory, in effect they
appear widely TO differ. Both cmbody the
abstract principle of reciprocity. But while
there is yet much to be desired which the
Mexican convention does not secure, the
balance Of its concrete advantages seems to be
decidedly in favor of the United States ; in the
other the scales turn heavily against this
| country,