Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1890-09-11
RECIPROCITY AND PROTECTION.

procity advocated by free traders
practically antagoniZes it. That is VIII.
good many protectiOnists have ieal
ously regarded propositions for reciprocal
trade. The reciprocity ideas they hav
been most frequently called upon t.
discuss, and to oppose, have been pre-
sented by free traders and have beel
aimed to destroy, or impair, our pro
tective system. For this reason thei
attitude toward reciprocity general!
has been guarded. or unfriendly; ant
hence it is that some of them have beel
not little surprised at the direct an(
comprehensive proposals of Secretary
Blaine, Senators Sherman and Hale, ant
the Senate Finance Committee in regard
to reciprocity with the countries O
Central and South America, Canada
and the West Indies.
There is, however, reciprocity that
makes for protection; kind of reciprocal
trade that is in perfect harmony will
both the theory and practice of pro
lection; which supplements and strength
ems the policy of protection. That kline
of reciprocity is implied in the pro-
tectionist principle that we should have
free trade with all the world in the arti-
cles we can not proftably produce, and
protective tariff on what we. cal
protiitably produce when foreign com
petition requires it. This is expressed
in Senator Blaine's recent letters anG
speeches, in the amendments proposed
to the tariff bill by the Senate Financia
Committee and Senator Sherman, but il
is nothing new in the history, plans, Oh
legislation of the Republican party.
The war of the Rebellion made neces-
sary tariff on everything we imported
and tax on about everything we pro
duced, directly or indirectly. When the
war was over the Republican party
quickly abolished the internal taxes, ex-
cept on liquors and tobacco, which were
reduced, and set on foot a progressive
revision of the tariff on protection lines,
as fast as the needs of the government
permitted. In 1867, our imports OF
merchandise were s395,000,00O and oul
receipts from customs $l76000.000. The
ad valorem duty on all imports was 45
per cent. In 1889, our imports of mer-
chandise were $745,000,000 and the
customs collections S22l 100000, the ad
valorem duty being 30 per cent. This
shows reduction of IS per cent in the
rate of duty on all imports. This was
not effected by indiscriminate or hori-
zontal reductions. The duties were
lowered, somewhat, it is true, on numer-
Gus articles needing protection, because
they did not need so much protection as
before; but the greater part, by far, of
the reduction was made by long steps in
the direction of the freest kind of trade
in On-competitive products. In 1871,
a Republican Congress placed 300
dutiable articles on the free list In
1873, another Republican Congress
added 13O articles more to the free list
The FOrty-seventh Congress, also Re-
publican, revised the whole tariff and
still further increased the free list by
$50 articles. And now the Mckinley
bill adds nearly 100 article more on
which the duties collected in 1889 were
500, 1886, 900. to the free list. During the
past twenty years the Republican party
has adopted, including the Mckinley
bill, absolute free trade in about $50
articles that, if now dutiable at the
rates abolished, would pay S130,000,000
into the treasury That is an exhibition
of the protection that makes for reci-
procity, or the reciprocity that makes
for protection.
With the Republican party the tariff
question is a matter of business; of
markets, not of maXims." 1t proposes
to secure all the advantages that reci-
procity, or free trade, can give this
nation as whole, and at the same time
to derive and hold all the advantages
accruing to the policy of protection.
The dividing line is not question of
theory, but of the practicabllity of
adequate home production. Whatever
we can sufficiently produce should be
protected from destructive foreign low
wages competition. In whatever we
can not so produce we should have alb
solutely free trade. That is the principle
of the Mckinley bill and of every other
Republican Tariff bill since the war.
The amendments in the Senate referred
to simply propose that the free entry of
certain products to our ports shall be
made the means of securing the free
entry of some of our products to the
ports of the nations from which our
free list goods are received, which is in
complete harmony with the principles of
the Mckinley bill. To do this it is
necessary to give the President power
to re-enact, by proclamation, the tariff
on certain products as against the ma
tiOns that refuse to reciprocate The
Senate amendments do not propose to
impair the protective policy of this
county or of the nations with which we
seek reciprocal trade; for, in the main,
the products proposed to be exchanged
are non-cOmpetitive. The proof of this
will be found in the fact that every
Democratic and Mugwump free trader
will oppose the reciprocity ideas of Mr..
Blaine and Mr.. Sherman as fully as they
do the most protective features of the
Mckinley bill.
There is reciprocity that makes for
free trade in home products that re-
quire protection. That is the free trade
idea of reciprocity. There is a recipro-
city that supplements and strengthens
the policy Of protection. That is the
kind of reciprocity the Republican lead
ers favor, and which the Republican
party Will adopt. When this distinction
is understood it will be seen that there
is no division or conflict in the Repub-
lican part on the tariff question.