The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1890-09-03

dition. How can this state Of affairs be
remedied? You have heard a great deal
said within the last ten years by our demo-
cratic friends about the iniquity of the re-
publican party Keeping up the war tariff.
AS matter of fact, the war tariff has not
been kept up, but has been amended over
and over again, until the revision of 1888 left
scarcely trace of the actual tariff that was
in operation at the close Of the war and for
few years afterward.
During the war we were compelled 70 tax
almost everything in the air in the water,
on the earth and under the earth The ne.
cessities OF the government were so great
that we could allow scarcely anything to
ne imported without paying tribute, and I
tnlnk no patriotic man can deny that that
was wise policy. We were not, then study
ing the philosophy of trade relations but
how to save the life of the nation. Money
was the primal necessity, and we seized it
wherever we could reach it lawfully, but
during the last eighteen years a great change
mas been made. So entirely has the war
tarlit been abolished that in the fiscal wear
ending June 80 1889, the articles admitted
lt t e, were considerably more than one-third
ported articles that paid duty exceeded
S4ooVOO,VOO IN value, and the imported arti-
cles that paid no duty exceeded so56 0o0-
600 in value.
DUTIES REPEALED A FAVOR
The inevitable tendency is, I think
toward an increase of the free list Orr
great mistake was made when we bepan to
repeal the war duties on so large an afnonnt
OF imports. Any duty repealed was favor
ana an advantage to the exporting country
and we have asked nothing in return. In
stead OF this course (Which / must say was
one oil carelessness and wastefulness bv
Doth political parties) every repeal of DUTY
should have been preceded by a most thor
ough investigation, and whenever il was
tound practicable to export anything from
the United States, and thus establish re-
clproclty OF trade, it should have been done
l DO not, OF course, intend to declare or to
imply that we could have secured the free
admission OF S256, 100000 of American prod-
ucts into countries whose products we pur.
chase annually to that amount. The richer
country can not expect to get complete
reciprocity in amount from countries less
wealthy; but whatever we should have re-
celVed would have been clear gain, and in
all future repeats of duties whatever we
may be able to get will be a clear gain 1t
- n0O question OF setting deliberately to
work TO establish reciprocal exchanges.
But with all the duties we have thus far
repealed 1t has been question of whether
we should get something or get nothing.
we have chosen with our eyes closed.
TO get nothing. hope now, with our eyes
open, that we shall in future choose to get
something. We encounter opposition to
this policy from those who declare that if
we enter into reciprocity of trade with one
country we must do so with all countries,
and thus indirectly bring about complete
free trade.
NO FEAR OF FREE TRADE.
do not see the logic of this, and | am
sure the fact will not prove what is pre.
dlcted. We may enter into reciprocity with
one nation because we find advantage in it.
We may decline to enter into reciprocity
with another nation because we see no adj
vantage in it. Reciprocity is simply pol
lev OF circumstance n bp of Oh 70
ably or adversely, according as its opera
tons may make or lose for us. To say that
because we enter into reciprocal relations
with one country on one thing we must
enter into reciprocal relations with all other
countries on all things is, to my mind, as alb
surd as to say that if buy horse to-day
must necessarily buy drove of asses to-
morrow. All objections of that kind are, L
am sure, unfounded and will not stand the
test of argument or practical trial.