Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1890-08-07
TARIFF BILL AND RECIPROCITY.

There have been many voluble edi-
torials written in Democratic newspa-
pers and much talk INDUCED in to
prove that there is discord between
Secretary Blaine and Major Mckinley
in regard to the formers reciprocity
ideas, for which he desires provision
made in the tariff bill now before the
Senate. That there is any basis for any
such an argument no reasonable man
for one moment imagines. 1t all exists
in the ''lopsided" fancies of the Demo-
cratic editors. In the first place they
assume that protection and reciprocity
are antagonistic, when any one with a
very ordinary amount of perception can
see that there is no conflict at all be-
tween what Mr.. Blaine proposes and
what Mr.. Mckinley desires. These
Democrats assume that there is con-
flict, and there being conflict, Mr.
Blaine and Major Mckinley are at log
gerheads. The premise is false and the
fallacy is apparent. While Major Nc
Kinley was busying himself with inves-
LEGATIONS on the tariff, Secretary Blaine
was studying reciprocity. Blaine was
pursuing one line of study, Mckinley
another. Mckinley deduced his conclu-
sions from facts before him with the
tariff bill as the result. Blaine's obser-
vations convinced him that reciprocity
would add to our commercial interests.
1t in no way detracts from Mr.. McKin-
ley's credit in framing the tariff bill that
a statesman of the caliber of Mr.. Blaine
should desire a feature incorporated
which wide observation and thorough
knowledge of affairs deems beneficial.
The Secretary's interposition was mas
ter stroke. Mr.. Mckinley, for the ben
eft of consumers, and in accord with
protection ideas, was about to remove
the duty from sugar, matter of about
$50,000,000 year. Mr.. Blaine cried
hold-we can make that serve two fold
purpose. Retain that duty until the su-
ar-producing countries will admit free
of duty the same amount of our products
as we do of theirs. Blaine simply went
farther and in different line than Nc
Kinley, and in just such a line as his
point of view would dictate as wise. 1t
casts no tarnish on the honor and luster
of McKinley's fame as the tariff cham
pion because the Secretary of State
commended the bill, but at the same
time offered suggestion. Then why
should there be strife between McKin-
ley, or the Republican leaders, and Mr..
Blaine? There is nothing to disagree
about. Hence the falsity of the Demo
cratic palaver. Reciprocity may he ben
eficial and it may not. At anyrate there
is nothing to lose and everything to gain
by the venture. The duty on sugar
could well be borne for another year,
and its retention would be gratifying to
many sections of this country. The
Democracy had enough keenness to per-
ceive that such a stroke would deal ca
lamity to them, and hence the racket
and the columns that have been written.
They magnifed an atom of presumption
into mountain of fact They fear,
and with just cause, the combined eff
forts of the master intellects and states
of Blaine and Mckinley. A
measure embodying the united ideas of
these men would be the highest legisla-
tive product of the age. Some such a
measure will without doubt be enacted
into law before this session of Con-
gress adjourns.