St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-09-19

celved. 1t IS possible that some farm
ers may derive benefit from the tariff on
barley, but their number is few COM
pared with the great number of farmers
in the country. and the amount OF bene-
fit is small. The very fact of imposing
duties on agricultural products ought to
be met with condemnation by protec-
ti0nists who desire to aid agri-
culture; for protectionists continu-
ally assert that the placing of protec-
tive tariffs on an article stimulates its
production and thus reduces its price.
Tie very doctrine of Mckinley and his
followers, when applied to agriculture,
condemns itself. If tariffs bring down
the price of all articles upon which they
operate, as protectlonists claim, why
impose them upon agricultural products?
They are already too low for profitable
production.
Reciprocity.
1t would not be just to the authors
and defenders of the Mckinley bill to
omit reference to the provisions in rela-
ton to reciprocity, which, it is claimed,
"have opened wide to us in other lands
commercial gates hitherto barred" to
the products Of our farms and factories.
These wide gates SO called are in the
direction. so far, of Cuba, Porto Rico
and Brazil. The friends of Mr.. Blaine
claim that he is entitled to letters
patent on these new gates. In one par
ticular only is he entitled to priority
of discovery in this matter. His idea of
reciprocity seems to be that it is only
desirable when confined to those coun-
tries where Spanish or Portuguese is
spoken, or geographically speaking, to
countries south of the United States.
But most people will conclude that if
reciprocity is desirable with Spanish
speaking states, it will also be desirable
with other governments, and espe
cially with countries where we have,
or can have, large trade and commerce.
Commercial treaties have recently
been concluded with Brazil and Spain,
by which certain products of the United
States are to be admitted into Brazil,
and into Cuba and Porto Rico, at either
reduced rates or free of duty. By these
treaties it is fondly hoped we may get a
market for a few more barrels of flour
and few more pounds of pork. But
the increased trade will be very little, if
any, and the effect on the general COM
merce of the country will not be per-
ceptlble. The theory is beautiful, but
the practice will be of little utility
to this country. What are the facts?
The whole population of Cuba and
Porto Rico is less than 4,000.000, and the
great majority of the people are ex-
slaves, the poorest kind of poorly paid
labor. Cuba purchased only $12.500,00
worth Of our products i'll 1890, and Porto
nico not one-fourth as much. Brazil
purchased during the same year about
$1,000, 900 worth of the products of the
United States. During the same year
we purchased from Cuba products
valued at S53, 600, 900; from Porto Rico,
s400O,0 900, and from Brazil $59.000,000.
Compare the trade of these countries
with that of Canada, Great Britain and
Ireland, Germany and France. With
these countries our trade in 1899 was as
follows:
Imports Exports
Countries into T. S. from T. S.
Canada ....... S39.000,000 $4,000 900
Gt.Brtain and Ireland 157,0o0,0l0 3s&0Oo,000
Germany. ............. 9s99o0s0 sS,0g9'999
France. ThO0O,0OO 5O,OOJ,010
Totals .......... ss7l, 00O,OOa S56I, 900, OGO
The aggregate trade of these coun-
tries amounted to over 5000, 1909, 0OG in
1890. In 1891, the present year, it will
probably reach S1,000,000,000. These
countries also take of our production
Sl91,000,0 600 more than we purchase from
them. Great Britain and Ireland alone
purchase nearly $3.50, 900 worth of
our products more than we do of theirs,
and the aggregate of the trade with
England is over 540,0O0,OO0 a year.
Why not Z have reciprocity with these
and other countries where the trade is
already enormous, and where immense
benefits are to be obtained by foster
ing and facilitating commercial eX-
changes? The Democratic party is i'll
favor of reciprocity. Not the narrow
and worthless article which is confined
to countries where labor is degraded
and poorest paid, and where the least
amount of business is practicable or
possible; but reciprocity with the
great governments and peoples of the
world, where there is wealth, ability to
pay, vast numbers of consumers and
where the greatest profits and advan-
tages are offered to all concerned. In
short. we favor reciprocity which will
secure reciprocal benefits.