The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1891-08-08
RECIPROCITY VS.. FREE TRADE.
To the Editor of the Eagle.

To the Editor Of the Eagle.
There is tendency on the part of
| Democrats generally and a few Mug
wumpish Republicans occasionally, to
| confound reciprocity with free trade,
claiming that it is partial free trade. :"
Mr.. Mills, in a labored article in the May
Forum, among other shings says, in
speaking of reciprocity: eff its advo-
Gates are sincere in wanting to find
larger markets for agricultural products,
why do they not move for reciprocity
with Europe instead of with South
American Again he says: IF reel
procity with our country is good, reci-
procity with another country also is
good" Mr.. Mills asserts what he signally
fails in all of his arguments to prove.
From the standpoint of the protec-
ZIONIST there is just as much difference
between reciprocity and free trade as
there Is between a tariff for protection
and tariff for revenue only To my
mind proper definition would be about
this: Reciprocity is the unrestricted ex-
change between two countries of dis
similar products that cannot be pro-
duced in both, while free trade is the
unrestricted exchange between two
countries of productions that are posi-
bic in both. One proposes to sell our
advantages for all they are worth, while
the other proposes to give them away.
Reciprocity with Europe would bring
the labor systems of the two
countries in direct competition with
one another because the products
are similar. They produce what we
can, under proper conditions produce,
and they manufacture what we can
manufacture; provided always that there
is some barrier to offset the difference in
wages between the two countries. An
exchange of commodities between two
countries whose products are entirely
different can cause no friction whatever
between the labor systems in each, for
the obvious reason that one Is producing
something that, owing to climatic and
other conditions, cannot be produced by
the other The difference between the
standard of living and wages in two
such countries cuts no figure in an eX-
change in commodities because there is
no competition.
Now, if any one will compare the doc
trine of protection with this idea he will
see that it is in strict harmony with 1t.
Protection admits free of duty the pro-
ducts of countries producing what Is i'm
possible of production here, and reel
procity goes a step farther and compelS
a country SO favored to extend like
privilege to the products of our country
that can not be produced in the country
treated with. Then the greatest obiec-
ton to reciprocity with Europe Is that
we would have to buy with our agricul-
tural surplus the very things that we can
make ourselves. Free trade would
necessarily compel us to abandon manu-
featuring in order that we might make
the exchange; otherwise there would be
no necessity for the reciprocity proposed
by Mr.. Mills.
The proposition of the Mills school of
economists to remove the barriers" IN
order to increase the output of our
factories is an utter absurdity when
placed side by side with their other pro-
position to establish reciprocity that will
enable us to buy with our agricultural
surplus the identical things that we
manufacture. Unrestricted free trade
between two countries producing like
articles must inevitably lead to level
ing of the differences between their
labor systems; otherwise the one having
the greater advantage in the production
of an article will drive the other to some
thing else The inevitable outcome of
reciprocity with Europe, on the plan
proposed by Mr.. Mills. would be the
of manufacturing and a
return to agriculture by the peo
pie of this country, while Europe
IL ba lc
the chief reason why reciprocity is not
good with Europe. Free trade between
two countries producing the same things |
can be healthful only when all the con-
ditions touching living and wages are
the same in both, otherwise one must |
succumb to the other.
1t can not be denied that Europe pro- |
duces what we want in manufactures, |
but so do we, and in doing this we make |
an absolutely certain market for over 81 I
per cent of our agricultural products. !
The idea that Europe would buy more of !
us if we would ''throw down our bar |
riers' is an absurdity on its face, for |
it assumes that a people will buy |
our agricultural surplus merely !
for the sake of reciprocity whether they |
want it or not. If they can buy their |
agricultural products cheaper some |
where else than they can of us they will |
go there for them even if we did not tax |
them a cent to do business in our mark |
cts. South America produces a great /
many things that we cannot produce, |
and we produce many things that they |
can not, and both countries stand in |
need of the things that they can't pro-
duce, and an exchange of such cOmmod- |
tiles between the two without the inn
position of duties Is reciprocity but it Is /
not free trade according to the Mills idea, /
becauses it imposes a condition on both |
and at the same time does not bring |
the labor systems of the two countries /
in direct competition as would be the /
case as between us and Europe. 1t /
would be a nice sort of reciprocity for
Europe if we would remove our tariff |
barriers and let her ruinous competition !
drive our people out of the factories into
the fields, which would result IN
double production of agricultural
products. which would mean a reduc-
ion of about half in the price of them.
while the double demand for her manu-
lectures would enable her to charge any
price she pleased for them. This IS the
.two-edged-sword" kind of reciprocity
hat cut US both WAYS. while Europe.
and England in particular, would grow
at off Of us and laugh in her sleeve at
1ur stupidity.
This is the kind of reciprocity we are
urged TO adopt by Mr. Mills and his fol-
overs. 1t is the kind that the monkey
sta bIlshed when he ate the chunk of
,heese about which the two cats could
rot agree Reciprocity may be a specie