New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-08-25
PROTING TOO MICH.

"Tbe Philadelphia Record" has character
istic way of writing down what it describes as
the Reciprocity humbug" 1t points tri-
umphantly to the fat that during the last
wear the exports of wheat, -four, corn and cattle
70 Great Britain have increased from SI3,-
G4S.12O to S132,677, 9O1-over so per cent.
II is confident that the reciprocity mongers'
will not assert that this increase of trade is
due to their bcasted policy. That is true
There will be no such claim. But how about
the other horn of the dilemma? Is not 1.-THE
Record furnishing strong evidence that tho
terrible Mckinley act has not operated as the
Democratic press two years ago predicted that
it would? Then they were " cOcksuro' that
tho new Chinese wall would ruin the countrys
expert trade by interruptng commercial ex-
changes. 1t has done nothing OF the kind III
the case of England, as our Free-Trade OPP
ponent kindly demonstrates. Nor has 1t had
that effect with foreign countries as a whole as
the following table shows conclusivcy:
FOREIGN COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES
ie",. ,s.7 70 1861 sSPGs 900 sa $500
Average 1876 10 lo0O..... a30Oo0'000 o,oo% ,'t
one year. 1892 ,03o, 333.026 o2',3ol'.oi
The Mckinley act which our Democratic
critics never cease to condemn as prohlDitOry
law, dosing the American market against for
eign Countries and paralyzing the export trade,
as secretary Foster has taken pains to demon
stratc, has increased the mportatons from an
average of 80 80 per capita during the period
running from 1S47 to 1861 to Sl2 81 in 1892.
That does not look like the erection of Chinese
wall against the world. At the same time, the
exports, which, during the good old Demo
cratic days. OF revenue tariff, avel aged - I3
per capita. have been increased TO S1j II under
the Mckinley act. That does not seem to
Justify the Democratic assumption that the
American export trade has been irrctrievably
damaged by the new tariff.
In fact the only conclusion which can bo
drawn from the statistics of foreign commerce
sine, 1890 is that the Mckinley act has been
followed by an enormous expansion of the OK
mort trade. a large increase of free importationS
and a reduction Of importationS competing di-
ractly with home manufactures From 1877
to 1857 the percentage Of free to dutiable
goods wa, II to So; and from 1857 to 1861
the percentage was - To IS. In 1897 the free
importatons were 55.4 per cent and the duti-
able goods were 4i.6. The free list has been
enlarged. and concessions have been secured in
return in the Reciprocity treaties by which the
export trade has been greatly expanded, as Is
shown nv the statistics of trade with Germany
the Spanish West Indies and Brazil. At the
,amc time. the duties on competing manu-
features have been regulated so as To secure
employ mcnt for American labor and the de-
velopmont OF home industries.
Our + ree-Tradc opponents, instead OF attack
ing the Reciprocity policy so clumsily as tn
vindcaic the Mckinley act as whole, would
do we'll t. study Lord Salisbury's Hastings
.pecch. and to profit by that candid confession
# tho failure Of Free Trade That astutc
statesman appreciated the value of the Reel
piocity policy, even if American Free Traders
do not and ne was constrained to admit that
the English Nation would do well to initiate
il in some particular. When an English Prime
Minister has borne his testimony to the eff
cheney and wisdom Of that policy, it would be
an indication Of presence OF mind If American
+ rec Traders were to subject themselves TO
c,eatly needed restl Amt in their furious on
>laughts upon reciprocity mongers."