Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1892-09-01
Proving Too Much.


"The Philadelphia Record" has char
acteristic way of writing down what it
describes as the "Reciprocity humbug."
1t points triumphantly to the fact that
during the last year the exports of wheat,
flour, corn, and cattle to Great Britain
have increased from $73, ,648, ,120 to $780,
677, ,901-over 80 per cent. 1t is conf
dent that the reciprocity mongers" will
not assert that this increase of trade is
due to their boasted policy. That is
true. There will be no such claim. But
how about the other horn of the dilem
ma? Is not "The Record" furnishing
strong evidence that the terrible Nc
Kinley act has not operated as the Dem
ocratic press two years ago predicted
that it would? Then they were "cOck-
sure" that the new Chinese wall would
ruin the country's export trade by in
terrupting commercial exchanges. 1t
has done nothing of the kind in the case
of England, as our Free Trade opponent
kindly demonstrates. Nor has it had
that effect with foreign countries as
whole, as the following table shows COZ
clusively:
FOREIGN COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES.
Years. Exports. Imports.
Average 1sE to 1s6l....s 2O6,OOOOOO s3ts, ,0OOt 90
o. tp
One year, 1892. ,O3O,3S5,626 s27, ,3sl 2
The Mckinley act, which our Demo
cratic critics never cease to condemn as
a prohibitory law, closing the American
market against foreign countries and
paralyzing the export trade, as Secretary
Foster has taken pains to demonstrate,
has increased the importations from an
average of 1886 per capita during the
period running from 1S47 to 1861 to
$1261 in 1892. That does not look like
the erection of a Chinese wall against
the world. AT the same time, the ex-
ports, which, during the "good old Dem
ocratic days" of revenue tariff, averaged
$7.73 per capita, have been increased to
$15.71 under the Mckinley act. That
does not seem to justify the Democratic
assumption that the American export
trade has been irretrievably damaged by
the new tariff.
In fact, the only conclusion which
can be drawn from the statistics of for
eign commerce since 1890 is that the
Mckinley act has been followed by an
enormous expansion of the export trade,
large increase of free importations and
reduction of importations competing
directly with home manufactures. From
1047 to 1857 the percentage of free to
dutiable goods was IL to 88; and from
1857 to 1861 the percentage was % to 78.
In 1892 the free importations were 55.4
per cent and the dutiable goods were
446. 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 by the statistics
of trade with Germany, the Spanish
West Indies and Brazil. At the same
time, the duties on competing manufac-
lures have been regulated so as to Sc
cure employment for American labor
and the development of home indus
tries.
Our Free Trade opponents, instead of
attacking the reciprocity policy so clum-
silly as to vindicate the Mckinley act as
whole, would do well to study Lord
Salisbury's Hastings speech, ANN to profit
by that candid confession of the failure
of free trade. That astute statesman
appreciated the value of the reciprocity
policy, even if American free traders do
not, and he was constrained to admit
that the English nation would do well
to initiate it in some particular. When
an English Prime Minister was borne
his testimony to the efficiency and wis
dom of that policy, 1t would be an indi-
cation of presence of mind if American
free traders were to subject themselves
to greatly needed restraint in their furi-
GUS onslaughts upon reciprocity mon
gers"