Weekly expositor. (Brockway Centre, Mich.) 1882-1894, 1891-09-11
A TALK ON RECIPROCITY.

whole world, that is of that part of it
which is most profitable, and are es-
Gaping the dangers which we all dread
from an unhampered competition with
the low scale of wages and living of
those foreign countries. We are all
aware that this policy is called "reci-
procity," and that it was originated by
James G.. Blaine. But too often we
loose the truth in a name, and thus no
longer consider the fact as such, or as
having any bearing upon our individu-
al welfare. TO be sure political war
cries are often mere hoaxes. They
really mean nothing palpably good,
and are intended by party leaders to
create a superficial heat of excitement
for campaign purposes. But here it
seems there really is something that
promises to be a benefit to us as farm
ing community. Let us look at it
calmly, and say for the time that if it
rebounds to the credit of any particu-
lar party it is none of our business.
A majority of the people have long
decided that they wish n protection
against the competition of foreign
countries. They have said by their
votes that the wool raisers of Australia
and Africa, the grain raisers of Canada
and the manufacturers of Europe have
an advantage over them in cheaper
labor, and, in the last instance, Il long
established and monled corporations,
which without protection would tend
to give them Il monopoly over this
country; so they have demanded a
tariff which shall not only answer that
purpose abundantly, but protect them
until such time as these industries get
on a firm basis in this country. If it
should seem, as it has in certain
branches of industry, that they could
never compete unprotected with for
eign cheap labor, they have said it is
better to protect it always by a certain
tariff than not to have such industry
in this country at all.
However, strong minority of the
people have argued by their votes that
by this policy of "proctection" we
have sacrificed the great benefit of
foreign trade, and that such unnatural
restrictions give trade an unhealthy
tone and work an injury to the coun-
try by depressing the poorer producers,
including laborers and artisans.
We do not attempt to argue on either
side, but simply to show the great diff
ference between the two national par
ties. 1t is impossible that there should
not be error in both as we'll as a great
deal of truth. But the error is political
fantasm, inserted for partisan jugglery
and is not worth considering. The
truth in both is what allows honest diff
ference of opinion, and must be con-
sidered.
Then we will not deny that an unlim-
tied high protection tends to confine the
trade to country and to that extent to
discourage foreign trade. At the same
time this may be good, if foreign trade
can give us nothing that our own peo-
pie could produce. But it happens
that we have some wheat, flour, pork
and beef, which we can not consume
at home. We need a market for these,
80 we will have to go to foreign coun-
tries with them. Still, we must bear in
mind, for the sake of dozen products
it is not wisdom to hazard the welfare
of thousand. 1t could not be wise
policy to throw open our ports without
restriction to foreign markets for the
sake of these few products, when we
consider that by doing so we will dis
troy the home market (Which is the
better market because the nearer) by
compromising other equally industri-
Gus people. Such action surely could
do little good, when Germany and
France had declared an embargo on
our pork and beef. Spain with high
tariff had shut us out of Cuba where
we would sell our grain and -four, and
there was the same restriction to trade
cereals with South American countries.
To throw open our markets without
any assurance of ever getting the cor
responding returns from those coun-
tries, would be like giving a man a
horse without first making bargain
and waiting for him to pay you for it..
He could do so or not just as he wish
ed. But as it might be most to their
advantage to get all they could out of
our country without paying for it, by
letting our produce in free of duty;
they might be exp ected to do that way.
The question was puzzl ling one,
how to command those ma rkets with
out making too great sacrifice. 1t
surely took brave man to do it, be-
cause any advances in that direction
by party bound to the policy of
'rhigh protection" would seem to be
surrender TO the principles of the OPP
posing party. However, the die was
cast. James G.. Blaine announced the