Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-07-27
THE TRUE POLICY.


Mr.. Blaine's letter to Senator Frye, on
the subject of reciprocity as connected with
the sugar duties, is correct so far as it refers
to the desirability of establishing reciprocal
relations for the purpose OF improving our
exports to the sugar producing countries
| But so far as it can be construed to favor a
postponement of the sugar reductions until
reciprocal duties can be secured by treaty,
it is all wrong.
1t is not likely to be a profitable task to
inquire into the influences which secured
the rejection OF the reciprocity treaties
which would have increased our exports to
Mexico, Cuba and Porto Rico. in exchange
for free sugar. Both sides to the present
controversy must agree that the rejection of
those treaties was stupid blunder from
national point of view. At present the
question is one that can be best put in the
form suggested by Mr.. Blaine's words. he
says:
Let us see what is proposed Our Government
has heretofore collected a heavy duty from
sugar amounting one year, in the aggregate, to
fiftyeight millions of dollars CESS 900 0oo), and
able period. We wish now to cheaper sugar by
removing the duty. The value of the sugar we
annually consume is enormous Shall we pay
for it all in cash, or shall we seek reciprocal
arrangement by which large part of it may be
paid for in pork and beef and -four, in lumber
and salt and iron, in shoes and calico and fur
niture, and thousand other thingsf
Now, the question as raised, if not by Mr..
Blaine, at least BY those who quote him for
the defeat of the sugar reductions, takes the
following shape: The country is now paying
the cost of its sugar, including TIE duty, al
most wholly in cash, and will continue to do
so as long as present arrangements stand.
Will change be most promptly reached by
removing the burden of the duty and hold
ing out a statutory provision as the strong
est inducement for the sugar producing
countries to make reciprocal reductions, or
by permitting the burden to stand and only
holding an indefinite understanding in favor
of reciprocity, which, as these governments
have learned by experience, has no binding
force?
1t ought to be plain that the former
course is the direct road to the goal which
Secretary Blaine desires, and that the post
ponement of sugar reductions by the tariff
bill means an indefinite continuation Of the
present state of affairs. Is it likely that
Mexico or Spain, after having completed
reciprocity treaties in 1888 and 1884, only 10
have them rejected by Congress, will invite
a repetition of that rebuff on no better as
suranee of the acceptance of treaties than
they had then? On the other hand, an
amendment like that proposed BY Senator
Pierce will afford a statutory guarantee to
these countries that ii they give our prod
ucts free entry to their ports, the privilege
of free sugar will be continued to them. 1t
would also convey the equally binding
warning that if they do not do so, the priv
ilege will be transferred to other countries.
There can be little doubt that with the sug-
ar duties reduced on such proviso, the re-
ciprocal trade for which Secretary Blaine is
working would be fully established within
year. We do not believe that Secretary
Blaine is opposed to the tariff bill with the
Pierce amendment. But as be is extensive
ly quoted by those who wish to defeat the
sugar reductions altogether, it is pertinent
to point out that such a course would not
only perpetuate the present excessive and
unnecessary cost of sugar, but would indef-
initely delay the extension of South Ameri-
can trade.
On the other hand an equally extreme
view is taken by those who, like the New
York Press, characterize the Pierce amend
ment as ''free sugar with string tied to it."
or like Republican Senator quoted by the
New York Tribune, who asserts that it means
that if those countries do not give us some
more trade the President will re-impose an
annual burden of s57, 900, 900 upon our own
people," 1t should recognized that the OBJ
ject Of extending our exports to these coun-
tries is an important one. 1t is not so i'm
portant as the reduction of the burden i'm
posed by the unnecessary sugar duties, be-
cause the extra cost imposed on our farming
population alone by those duties, exceeds
the entire amount of our trade with the
West Indies. But il that trade can be ex-
tended without defeating the reduction it
should be done. The argument that this
proviso means the re-imposition of all the
sugar duties is unfounded. 1t is vital
point that sugar can be brought to this
country from the Spanish West Indies from
the Danish West Indies, from the British
West Indies, from Mexico and from Brazil.
not to speak of San Domingo. Hayti, Venez-
uela and Colombia. Every one of these
countries will understand that if it does not
accept reciprocity the other sugar producing
countries will have an advantage over it in
a trade aggregating $40, 100000 annually,
amounting to 20 or so per cent of the value
OF the product Upon such an enactment
there can be little doubt that free and cheap
sugar for this country would be permanently
secured concurrently with the extension of
onr trade in provisions and manufactured
goods to those countries.
II our statesmen can not unite on proposi-
tion which so clearly harmonizes all legiti-
mate commercial purposes the conclusion
will be somewhat irresistible that internal
political considerations will have more in
fuence in producing the difference than the
of trade.