The Republican journal., 1884-12-25


of those with Guatemala and San Salvador
have substantially been agreed upon. and good
progress has been made upon that with the
United States of Colombia.
The ratification of these treaties will pro bab-
lv lead directly to the negotiation of treaties
with other American powers anG colonies; in
deed. a movement is already noted in the
British West Indies to secure reciprocity
treaty with the United States. With the eX-
ception of the Nicaraguan treaty, which relates
to an interoceanic canal. all these are CONNER
clal treaties. and though differing considerably
in detail they are all modelled upon the reel
procty treaty with Mexico.
There Is hardly a manufacturing or produc
tive interest III the country which is not direct
ly and very seriously interested in these trea-
ties. 1t is held by the Executive Department
of the government that it would be an i'm
propriety for it to make public their provs-
ions, such action belonging. in its opinion, eX-
cluslvelv TO the discretion of the Senate.
Fortunately these treaties cannot 20 into Op-
GRAFTON without legislation by the House, when
there will be opportunity for discussion. The
Mexican treaty is now awaiting such legisla-
ton. Says the Herald correspondent: THE
knowledge of the existence of so MANY treaties
makes it certain that this one with Mexico now
before the House cannot be brought up for
action without p.ecpitaling general tariff de-
bate of an exceedingly interesting and impor
tant character, and on that is likely to draw
new lines of division on the subject to both
parties.
Through the enterprise of a New York paper
the provisions Of the Spanish treaty have been
made known, and generally discussed. Under
this treaty some of the burdens are removed
from American vessels visiting Cuban and
Porto Rico ports; bat its adoption will ruin the
sugar interest OF louisiana and, it is thought,
affect iniuriou>ly our tobacco growers and
manufacturers. without benefit to the con-
sumer> of sugar or users of tobacco. In fact,
the treaty appears to be a one sided bargain, in
which the Spaniard has the advantage. The
Spanish Government under this treaty is still
to levy an export duty on tobacco and an i'm
port DUTY on flour, the latter our principal an
ticle Of export 10 Cuba and Porto Rico. We
give up Il revenue of at least so, 900 900 d year
for tie privilege of selling products to the
amount of eleven millions. As an exchange
well says. this treaty gives TO these West India
planters Il market Of sixty millions of people
for their most valuable products, while il gives
to American producers market of only two
millions of people. most of them in condition
Of The rudest simplicity and witL no wants
outside of the natural products of their own
soil. or. AS more forcbly stated by The
American Protectionist: Negroes with tropi-
cal wants only and Chinese Coolies, existing
i'll Il state of slavery. will form poor customers
for our silk. iron. wooden and cotton manufac-
urcr>. But they will compete with American
labor in manner TO WORK great INJURY to large
numbers of our w0rkingmen.' Mr.. Wharton
Barker, of Philadelphia. in letter to Senator
Morrill,, also takes strong ground against this
and The Mexican treaty, and against what he
terms this 'tNiclou> method for opening COM
mercal relations between two countries" Of
The Spanish treaty he says:
The adoption of the proposed treaty with
Spain. in behalf of Cuba and Porto Rico. would
give these Two Islands virtual monopoly of
The American market. The sugar planters of
West Indian islands not 50 favored would be
crushed under the weight of the unequal COM
petition OF The Spanish islands. Think of what
Ibis would mean. The Spanish West Indies
share with Brazil the di>graceful distinction of
maintaining negro slavery after every other
American State has rid itself of this abomina-
lon. The treaty would make Us the chief
ralron> Of slavery in the Western world. 1t
would put such premium on slave grown
sugar. by removing the duties from it alone, ds
would ENABLE the slave owner to crush out the
competition of the planter who hires his W work-
men instead OF owing them.
Similar objections are urged against the Mex
lean treaty. This treaty, as well as the one with
Spain, provides for the free importation of to-
bacco. The result would be, as Mr.. Barker
says, 10 force our farmers and tobacco plant
eIs TO compete with the slave labor of the Span
i>h colonies, and with the laborers of I; country
like Mexico, where the standard of living is as
low as in any country called civilized, and
where the means of sustaining existence is to
be had with hardly any eXerlion." And Hon.
W. ID. Kelley states that American specuators
have bought up large tracts of sugar and corn
lands Ill Mexico. together with rich iron depos-
It's in close neighborhood with our own border,
which they propose to utilize by a labor system
which would not be tolerated in the United
States" Another point made against the Mex
lean treaty is that it discriminates against agr-
cultural products, as shown by elaborate tables
witch will be presented when the matter is dis
cusseG in the House. The Massachusetts Con-
gressmeh are said to quite generally favor this
treaty, and the investments of Massachusetts
capital in Mexican and connecting railways no
doubt have weight with her delegates in Con-
gress.
As to the Sandwich Island treaty, there is
not shadow of an excuse for its continuance.
The original treaty was a notorious job, the
details of which are familiar to many who were
in Washington at the time. AT the start it put
a million dollars year into the pockets of
Claus Spreckles, of San Francisco, and his as
sociates, which would otherwise have gone in
to the United States Treasury. and gave this
ring monopoly IN sugar on The Pacific coast
and virtual possession of the Hawaiian Islands.
1t has not reduced the cost of sugar to the con-
sumers or benefited single individual or inter-
est outside of these speculators. 1t has been
ruinous to the Hawaiians, whose lands have
come into possession of the ring, and who work
their plantations with coolie labor, which is
practically slave labor. Whatever be the fate
of the other treaties there should certainly be
no perpetuation of this job and swindle.
The schedules of .he reciprocity treaty with
st. Domingo have not been made public. One
item, however, is known that is of interest to
the grain and provision trade, says the New
York Herald. American flour is to be admit
ted free. While the treaty with Spain reduces
the flour duty about half. or to S3 Il barrel, the
st. Domingo market will be entirely free for
this article. 1t is understood that the treaties
with Guatemala, Salvador and the United
States of Colombia are each very liberal in the
matter of American grains and provisions. 1t
Is quite as important, however, to know what
we are to give in return for these concessions.
The free trade press are telling but one side of
tie story. The remark of The American Pro-
tectionist that, ''There is not much doubt that
some special interest is always at the bottom of
commercial treaties, and such treaties cannot be
too carefully scrutinzed before being adopt
ed", is significant an should be needed.
Give the mugwumps turnover and let
them go, says Democratic paper. But the
wugmumps made II turnover themselves and
we don't think they banker after another.