The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-07-21
WHAT MIR. BLAINE PROPOSES.

The Chronicle which favorS free sugar,
thinks Mr.. Blaine's proposition TO continue
the duties on sugar until sugar producing
nations take off the duties on American
breadstuffs inconsistent with Mr.. Blaine's
position on the tariff question. The init
nation is thrown out that if we make re-
ciprocity treaty with one nation we must
with another. If we agree to receive SUI
gar, which at present we are obliged to i'm
port, free Of duty in consideration of free
market for our agricultural products it is
assumed that we must also receive on the
same terms goods which we need not i'm
port unless we find it our interest TO do so.
Following ont this line of argument the
Chronicle concludes that if we take sugar
from the South American countries free in
exchange for a tree market for our bread
stutfs we must admit such products as En-
gland may have to send to us in return for
the free market England gives for such
products as we have surplus of. The ar
gument is fallaciOus in at least one respect
Nations making reciprocity treaties consider
first their own interests. They do not
knowingly make such treaties in the inter-
est of another nation. In pursuance of this
policy of enlightened selfiShneSs we may
make q treaty of reciprocity with one ma
ton and decline TO enter into such an ar
rangement with another nation. Cuba, for
example, sends US somewhat more than
S50,000,000 worth Of sugar each year. AT
present this Cuban sugar is a necessity to
US. We may, therefore, say to Cuba that
we will admit its sugar free il it will admit
our breadstuffs free. But, should England
say that because we admit Cuban sugar
free In consideration of free market for
American breadstuffs we should also admit
English iron and woOlens free because En-
land admits our breadstuffs free, we might
with reason reply that we did not want
England's iron or wooden goods, but that If
she had any surplus products which we did
want we would take the reciprocity propo-
sition into consideration, so far as it relates
to such products. Mr.. Blaine's proposition
is to make a market for American surplus
products by an agreement TO take sugar
without duty in exchange Of such products.
There is nothing inconsistent in such a
proposition with the purpose of protec-
tive policy. That purpose is TO place a tax
on articles of foreign product which COM
pete in our markets with home products.
The protective tariff applies in full only to
products which we do or may supply our
selves with in quantities large in proper
ton to the consumption. Prospectiyely it
applies to sugar, since there is every reason
TO believe that in a few years we may, at
present prices, produce ali the sugar we
need for home consumption. The House
Tariff Bill proposes to give the sugar mar
ket away; Mr.. Blaine proposes TO utilize il
for the benefit Of farmers. Of the two,
Mr.. Blaine's proposition is preferable. but
in our opinion it would be still better to
continue the duties on foreign sugar in the
interest Of the home industry. 1t will be
time enough TO open our markets TO free
sugar when experience has demonstrated
our inability to supply our home market.