The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-10-02
pRorEor1oNrsr INCONSISTENCIES.

The Republicans are engaged in the
difficult task of trying to explain how
high protection secures the home mar
llet to the people of the United States
and at the same time telling them what
great benefits were conferred upon
them by the reciprocity clause Of the
Mckinley bill. In his speech at Indian
apolis, Governor Mckinley said there
were two ways of securing the home
market:
There are two ways, my fell
erican market to the American peo-
ple-two ways. One is to put protective
duties high enough upon the foreign
products to make it difficult to bring
them in. That is the Republican way.
That is the American Way. That is
the Harrison way. There is just one
other way. The other way to preserve
| this market and stop foreign importa-
ton Of competing products-is to reduce
American wages. We can hold this
market if our worllingmen will work as
! cheap as the foreigner will.
American wages have been high be-
! cause American workmen produce more
in the same time than the workmen of
other countries do. A high tariff has
merely had the effect to curtail their
market in which to buy. If the home
market is in such danger, why seek to
let in others if they will let US into
their markets? Americans would not
buy in any foreign market what could
be supplied at home. Yankee shrewd-
ness is far too keen for that
The Mail and Express, which is
Republican of Republicans, speaking
of our trade with Brazil under the re-
ciprocity clause Of the Mckinley act,
says:
After the passage of the Mckinley
bill with its reciprocity clause the ex-
ports from the United States to Brazil
increased in one year nearly SO, 100000.
In 1889 our exports to Brazil aggre-
gated $15,600,000 In 1892 they had in
creased to $2S.240, 900. In return for Civ
ing to the sugar, hides and coffee Of
Brazil free market in the United
States, the Brazilian government gave
TO our manufactured and agricultural
products either free entry or more ia
vorable tariff than was given to other
nations. Under this reciprocity agree
ment our merchants were Rapidly talk
ing possession of the market for for
eign goods in Brazil
All this as the result of reciprocity.
Very good. But did it ever dawn upon
the advocates of reciprocity that the
same thing. but to a much larger ex-
tent, would happen if tariff restrictions
were removed? Two tariffs are double
restriction against trade England has
no reciprocity treaty with Brazil. vet
in this same year of 1892, she shipped
to Brazil manufactured goods to the
amount of f3e1O,92O, or, reduced to
American money, in round numbers
SS9,50o. 600. This was accomplished by
the exercise of common sense in trade
and commerce. And the articles that
England shipped We're manufactured
cotton. woolen goods. wrought and I'M |
wrought iron, Goals and machinery. |
Very much theSame class of goods sent
from the United States.
England did all this because she had
no tariff, and not because there was no
tariff on British manufactures in Brazil. |
The Brazilian customs duties upon all |
articles of British manufacture average
40 per cent For the year 1892 the Bra
zilians paid for protection" to their
home market some ST., 900 on Brit