New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-02-25
VOT TUO or 4 KIND.

Free Traders are naturally incensed because
tho Administration has received with co0lneSs
The oyerures from Canada for a renewal OF the
Rccinrocty Convention abrCgaed many years
ago They denounce Republican Reciprocity as
sham because it does not square with their
ec,ponic jdeas Commercial union with Canada
they want because it would mark long advance
in the direction Of Free Trade. They asseI> that
the Administration is inconsistent in soliciting
loss restricted intercourse with tropical America
and then rejecting Reciprocity offers from the
Dominion. That is not just criticism. The
Reciprocity policy of the Administration has been
regulated entirely by the Tariff bill adopted by
the last Republican Congress- The President
has not gone outside the limitations imposed by
the Aldrich amendment in the conventions which
hc has sanctioned with Brazil, the Spanish Vest
Indies. Germany and other countries. II he had
agreed TO consider Reciprocity on the terms pro-
roscd bv the Canadian Government he would
have been forced to act independently OF the
tariff policy to which the last Congress committed
the Republican party. Consistency required a
sharp discrimination between Reciprocity ground
cd uDon Protection and Reciprocity based upon
Free Trade This discrimination has been WISE
" made.
Reciprocity as it has been embodied in the
conventions already negotiated has not involved
the sacrifice Of the Protection principle. 1t Is
based upon the modification of high revenue as
distinguished from Protective schedules. The
United States imports enormous quantities OF
sugar. molasscs, coffee and hides. Duties levied
mon those staples would be sources of revenue
without tending to promote the development OF
home industries. The United States in Offering
free market for these staples asks other coun-
tries 10 reduce their revenue schedules as an
equitable exchange. Flour cannot be produced
in tropical America, and the high duties levied
upon it in Brazil, Cuba, the British West Indies
and Venezuela are simply large sources OF reve-
nue.. Those duties do not protect home indus
tries, but simply increase the cost OF living for
consumers The same principle applies to gen
oral provisions, petroleum and the manufactures
on which the duties have been reduced in the
Reciprocity conventions. High revenue duties
have been taken off on each side for the benefit
of consumers without any sacrifice OF home in
dus-iill interests North or South.
With Canada Reciprocity cannot be applied
in the same way. II produces what the North
crn belt of the United States from Maine to
California produces. Each country protects its
own industries by high tariff. Neither can
throw down its tariff barriers without abandon
ing tho Projection principle. That is why Reel
prociiy with Canada is something essentially
different from Reciprocity with the West Indies
Brazil Mexico OF Venezuela Yhc one is Free
Trade, while the other is not incompatible with
tho Protection of home industries. As the Ad-
minis1ation does not represent the Free-Trade
party, II il not usting after Frce-Tnde Reel
procity. 1t is content to carry out the homo
geneous Tariff and Reciprocity policy which the
last Republican Congress adopted.