New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-03-14
OT7EER RECIPROCITY TALK.

Tho Democratic leaders in the Senate are now
asserting that the Reciprocity treaties VIII not
he abrogated by the passage or the alnehoeu
Wilson bill. Senator Vest was quoted III our
snccial Washington dispatches OF yesterday
nc saving that the commercial agreements with
Snoin and Germany would not be affected by
the hill. since the only purpose Of the repeal or
the Reciprocity section Of the Mckinley act
was TO revoke the retaliatory measures directed
AGAINST Uayti. Venezuela and Colombia, ana
70 nrovent the negotiation of any additional
treaties. Senator Voorhees, concurs in this opin-
ion stating that the section Of the Wilson Dill
which revokes the Reciprocity clause explicitly
nrovdes that it shall not affect "any act done
or any right accruing or accrued before the
said repeal" If these Senators are correct Ill
their Interpretation of the repeal clause, the
twenty Reciprocity treaties nego'la'eu uhuei
the Aldrich amendment can stand under the
Wilson tariff so long as Germany, SPAN br'-
I'll and other foreign countries do not choose TO
ohrocate them. We hope that they are right.
There is one thing which these Senators do
NOT oxnlain They profess to believe that the
sugar duties which they have added to the Will
son bin will yield large revenue But no"
can that be possible if the Reciprocity treaties
admit raw sugar to q free market and they
cover over SS7 227 $50 Tor over SO per ceht'' out
Of an aggregate of $1O1 ,263,327 imported in
1890 The remainder, less than IA per cent
omounting TO S14.O35, G5S. came from the Phil
ippine Islands, the Dutch East Indies ana olher
countries The percentages for 1892 and 1893
would be even higher, since the proportion OF
sugar imported from countries with which
1Anf
creased during those years. The imports of
sugar during the twelve months ending De
cember 81. 1893 were 1923, GGG,O73 pounds of
cane and 543, 2SS, 4S9 pounds of beet sugar Not
far from 80 per cent of that importation was
regulated by the Reciprocity conventions III
the treaties are not affected by the repeal
clause. 80 per cent of the imported sugar sup
plv will remain free. How, then, do the Sen
atoi : propose to raise great revenue from the
sugar duties and ut the same time to protect
the Louisiana planters, from whom bountles
are withdrawn?
The reply may be made that the sugar duties
will be imposed, but that the countries which
have negotiated Reciprocity conventions Will be
left at liberty to maintain treaty relations on the
new basis That is to say, Germany, Spain ana
the British West Indies. having made bargains
with the United states on tnc DiSlS Oh Tree raw
sugar will be magnanimousy allowed the priv
ege of holding on 10 the treaties when their
sugar is made dutiable. This is sheer folly.
The free market for sugar was the con-
cession which involved reciprocal favors from
them TO American exports. If sugar be taxed,
they cannot be expected to keep the treaties
in operation. They will not give great deal
if they are to get nothing.
Moreover. as Senator voorhees, quotes the re-
peal clause. 'al rights and liabilities under
said laws (the Reciprocity amendment shall
continue and may be enforced in the same
manner as if said repeal or notifications had
not been made" The rights" Of the countries
mentioned would seem to relate to Il free mar
ket for sugar and the liabilities incurred by
the United States impose an obligation not to
tax sugar imported under those conventions.
The only effective method of enforcing those
rights" and liabilities is that of rctalatory
measures against countries which neglect
10 make conventions; and the Senators both
agree that the main purpose Of the repeal Is to
revoke these measures and TO plnce Hayti,
Venezuela and Colombia on the same footing
as other nations. Do the Senators know what
they are talking about? We don't believe