Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-10-21
RECIPROCITY AND RETALIATION.

The policy of reciprocal concessions in
the tariff toward different countries with
which we desire to increase our trade, has
already produced decided effects. The
theory of the opponents of the proposition,
that the enactment on that subject incor-
porated in the tariff bill, would not be ac-
cepted bv the Governments with which the
object was to improve our trade relations,
has heen shown by experience to be un-
founded.
Perhaps the promptest demonstration to
this effect comes from Canada, where al
though international feeling is supposed to
be somewhat strained, the tariff bill has pro-
duced the prompt removal of the export
duty OH logs and shingle bolts. This war
rants heopinion that Canada would accept a
measure OF reciprocity that would be largely
beneficial to the manufacturing interests of
this country. The Southern countries dis
play an equal disposition to accept the
terms held out by the tariff bill. Cuba has
petitioned the Spanish Government to re-
move the duties on our staples, with every
chance of success Brazil will probably
adopt the provisions called for as soon as
her new Government gets fairly into work
ing order, and Mexico is ready to do the
same. In short with one exception, all the
provisions of the act looking toward reci-
procity bid fair to produce their effect at an
early date. The exception is that with regard
to tea. The motive for including that staple,
and its effect on the Chinese Government,
are alike unknown, unless we suppose the
motive to have been the provision for pos
sible deficit in the revenue by laying up for
staple.
But the reciprocity idea also crops ont
in a new quarter, where it assumes the
shape, which was not altogether lost sight
OF in our measure, of retaliation. This
manifestation is in France where the in
crease of our protective duties on French
products has inspired decided disposition
to hit back. The policy said to have been
decided on by the French Government is
bill for minimum tariff on the products of
countries whose customs regulations are fav-
orable to French products, and maximum
tariff to be applied against countries where
the tariff is unfayorable. The United
States can hardly object to the policy out
lined in that measure, which goes no
further in the direction of either reciprocity
or retaliation than our measures do. But
the French are likely to lose sight of the
difference between high tariff on all pro-
ducts of certain classes and tariff which
discriminates against the products of GER
tain country. The United States has not
yet Disseminated against French products
as such, although we might have INDUCED
in such policy In retaliation for the dis
elimination of the French Government
against our exports of pork and lard.
Nevertheless the fact that the cognate ideas
of retaliation and reciprocity are likely to
work against our exports OF food products
to France, is development of the policy
that introduces some decidedly new factors.
Perhaps, however, if France should adopt
retaliatory policy we can console our
selves with the success of the same policy
on our side, in gaining control of the
markets of the Western Hemisphere.