The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-05-04

the coarser and cheaper articles used
by the poor and laboring people. The truth
is, that when the tax on refined sugar, the
bounty paid 10 sugar producers, and the IN
creased tax on other articles are taken into
consideration and paid. the consumers OF cheap
sugar will have paid more than they ala before
raw sugar was made duty free. ii cheap sugar
is what the republican party wants, 1t can sun
cheaper il in a large measure by repeating the
bounty provision, and by putting refined sugar
on the free list. BY so doing the public treasury
would save from Sl0000,000 TO Sl2OOOO OO an
nually now paid out account of sugar
bouniies, the people would save annually
$l5.OOO,CO0 on account OF the tariff
on refined sugar and Claus Spreckles and
the sugar trust could retire from business
and live out the rest OF their days on their Ill
gotten gains. On the authority OF the follow
ing Associated Press dispatch, which appeared
in the morning papers of the 18th inst, am
glad to announce that in that event Claus
Spreckles and his family would not materially
suner:
"SAN Francisco. April IAN intimate
friend Of Claus SPREE les, in speaking on the
recent sale by Spreckles of his Philadelphia
refinery TO the trust, said: The formation OF
the trust about five years ago was surprise to
Spreckles, but he still more surprised
when the trust gave him the option OF going IN
with them or being crushed. TIER offensive
way OF blufhng him reused the old mans
wrath, and he defed them. While they were
laying their plans 10 shut down the re-
fineries here he went 10 Philadelphia, punt
a three-million-dollar refinery ana opened an
active fight In their own camp They stood the
competition until this winter. when they be
came weary of the struggle and agreed to
Spreckles terms-,S.UJQCOO Tor his PhIadel-
phia refinery and liberty to control all the
sugar interests on the coast. So Spreckles came
back with his $5O00000 in profits ready TO
meet the Hawaiian planters ana secure control
of all the sugar crop of the islands. Spreckles
did generous thing with the coin he wrested
from the trust DE gave 100000 each to his
three children. The old man Is worth fully
$40, 600, COZ, all made out OF sugar"
What n blessing cheap sugar has been to
Claus Spreokles. Il has enabled him TO keep
the wolf from the door.
Reciprocity.
The same congress that gave US cheap sugar
also gave US a small relish Of free trade, called
reciprocity. and put it in the Mckinley bill.
This reciprocity consists of putting raw sugar,
moIasses coffee tea and raw aud uncured
hides on the free list. and requires that the
countries exporting all or any of such articles
shall take from us our productions OF all
kinds free of duty. 1t is also provided that if
any of the countries producing and exporting
such Articles or any OF them, imposes duties
or exeotions upon the agricultural or other
products OF the United States, which the
president deems reciprocally unequal and un-
reasonable, he may by proclamation restore
all of said articles 10 the dutiable list, and they
at once become subject to tariff taxes. SO,
cheap sugar and molasses and cheap tea
and coffee are at the mercy OF the presldents
discretion. To vest such extraordinary power
in the president is unwise If not dangerous.
For many years before the passage OF the Nc
kinley bill tea and coffee were on the Tree list.
and no president had the power under any cir
cumstances, TO subject them to a tariff duty.
But under this reciprocity clause he may sub
ject them TO q tariff tax whenever In his opin-
ion the countries producing and exporting
them not conducting themselves according
to his ideas OF reciprocal equality.
But what desire more particularly TO call
attention to is the Glasses of our people who
are being benefited By this system of reciproc-
ity, and for whose benefit il was intended. Sec
rotary Blaine, its author, declared at the outset
that it was intended to benefit the farmer by
opening up to him a market Tor his surplus
productions. and that such was its purpose was
declared by the leaders OF the republican party
] generally.
If this reciprocity clause was intended for
the farmers alone, why was 1t not limited to Gg-
riculturel productions? Why does it contain
the words "or other products OF the United
| States? Like republican legislation and con-
| duct generally, il was intended TO deceive. Its
real purpose was to open up an additional mar
/ ket for the products of manufacture, not the
! products of agriculture. BY the very terms Of
| its provisions Il applies only TO countries pro-
! ducIng and exporting sugar, molasGes, tea, col
| fee, and raw aud uncured hides. These .coun-
| tries in the main are Mexico, Cuba, Central
| America, and South America. They are agri-
cultural countries. and some of them produce a
surplus of agricultural products. 1t is not ag-
| ricultural countries that our farmers desire re-
/ ciprocal trade with. 1t is the thickly settled,
| densely populated countries who are engaged
| in pursuits other than agriculture that the
| American farmer desires liberal trade relations
| with. The statistics show that since our pres
/ n tF0da relations have bppn established with
| these countries, or some OF them, that the eX-
| port business of our manufacturers with them
| has largely increased. These countries will not
/ buy farm products from our farmers because
| they raise such products themselves. But they
| will buy agricultural implements of all kinds,
steel rails, structural iron, locomotives, railway
| cars, and indeed almost everything our manu-
| facturer1 produce, because they want such arti-
| Giles and unable to produce them them
selves. That this scheme of reciprocity is wild
ening our manufscturers' markets is apparent
! For the four months ending July 81. 1890, our
| exports of machinery TO Brazil were OF value
| about $315000 For the same period in 1891
under reciprocity, they were nearly SS1J,OOO
| l cannot take time to 20 minutely into details.
| as | would like TO do, TO show you the small
amount of our agricultural productions, and
the large amount of our manufactures tho peO'
| pie living in the countries with whom we have
trade relations under this reciprocity clause
| take. They desire agricultural implements
their agricultural industry, rather than our az
| ricultural products. Under this clause OF the
| Mckinley bill these countries are becoming
| large purchasers of our manufactures but moi
OF our agricultural products.
This provision was cunningly devised
scheme TO further aid the protected Industries
of this country and not the farmers. IL it wai
| intended to aid the farmers why was not reel
procity extended to the great countries OF Eu
| rope as well as to these small South American
states? Why was IL not extended 10 Italy
France, Belgium, Austria, Germany and En-
gland, all densely populated countries, mo-
! given TO agriculture. but largely dependent Oh
foreign countries for their agricultural sup
plies? We have nearly 81, 600. 900 annual az
ricultural surplus which could be sold at
profitable advantage by our farmers If we hac
liberal trade relations with those countries
Every one knows that Great Britain, and not
South America is the market Tor our farmeTs
During the year ending June 80. 1891, we sols
10 Great Britain almost $300000O0 worth o
cattle, and to all South America and the Yves
Indies less than $4,000. During the SAINT
period we sent TO Great Britain nearly S24,
900. 0O0 of corn, and to South America less thar
$40, 0G0. OF wheat we sold to Great Britain
during the same time almost So, 900, OOO, and Il
South America less than s., 100000 OF whea
-four for the same time we sold 10 Great Britain
near 36O000o0 and to South America abou
S5O00OO0 As Mr.. Mills well said:
Ave are able 10 produce an annual surplu
of agricultural products valued at 81, 900, 600,
600, but we could not find a market for il In tn
countries of the western hemisphere IL vi
should have full reciprocity with them all. l