The morning call., 1890-07-16
n1AINE.s SECOND sHor.

Mr. Blaine has followed up his remarks
before the Appropriation Committee with
letter to Senator Frye of such power that is
difficult to see how Congress can resist
his conclusions. He shows how 40 600. 600
of sugar-growing people, who likewise con-
snme grain and provisions, which they do
not produce, would probably be quite will
ing to admit our grain and our provisions
free of duty in exchange for our admitting
their sugar free; and that if we admit their
sugar free without STIMULATING for like con-
cessions on their part to our agricultural
produce, the whole benefit of the proposed
new tariff will 90 TO the foreigner, and no
benefit at all to our people. In MI Blaine's
terse words, there is not section nor
line in the entire Mckinley bill that will
open a market for another bushel of wheat
or another barrel of pork" And next to
cotton, wheat and pork are among the most
important commodities which We export.
The effect of the opening of South Amer
lean markets to American food products
would be larger than the movement might
at first be expected to produce. In an arti-
Gle of universal consumption like wheat,
supply and demand are so nicely balanced
that a very slight increase in consumption
leads to an advance in the value of the
whole crop. A new customer for 20, coo
bushels of wheat might cause an advance Of
) cents bushel in the whole crop of $780,
100000; that is to say, the money gain to
the American wheat-grOwer might be nearly
twice the whole actual value of the 10000
600 bushels. So with provisions. Supply
and demand are so evenly adjusted that
new demand even for a moderate quantity
would affect the price of the whole crop.
Regions which have been in the habit of
relying on this country for their pork and
beef and cereal food will hot cease to con-
sumo them In consequence of a small ad-
vance in their cost, and yet that small adj
vance would amount in the aggregate to
very largo gain to the American producer.
We have in our sugar importations a lever
which we can use to pry open the markets
of the West Indies and South and Central
America for our farm products. Mr.. Blaine
Is right when he says that tariff which
negleets to use that lever is uniustiiable.
MIR. Blaine has made valuable sugges-
tons to the Republican leaders in the
House. The removal Of the duties on sugar
is in antagonism to the general policy of the
Mckinley bill. 1t is considered conces-
sion to the agricultural interest, but it is of
doubtful value. The removal of the duties on
sugar may not materially affect the price of
sugar in this country, but the possibility
that it may will deter investments in the
beet-sugar industry. Under MI Blaine's
proposition to take off duties from countries
only which admit our breadstuffs free We
shall at least get something in exchange for
. the injury free sugar will do to ouy beet
sugar industry. But it is a question If Mr.
Blaine might not wisely go a little further
and oppose free sugar on any terms. There is
little doubt Of our ability to produce all the
sugar we can consume without an increase
of the present market price. This would
be better than an exchange of American
breadstuffs for foreign sugar. In few
years we shall have little or no wheat to
sell and il we allow our beet-sugar industry
TO be killed we shall be compelled to i'm
port sugar, whether we export breadstuffs
or not.