Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1895-01-10

Republicans Making Party Capital OF an
Unim portant Issue

The discussion over the retaliatory
policy Of Spain and Germany is becom-
ing somewhat hysterical. It is pressed
upon public attention with a view to
making party capital We have al
ready exposed the Misrepresentation
that have been circulated with refer
ence to it. An editorial in a repub bic
an paper on this subject must be
classed as phenomenally fair unless it
contains as many misstatements as
sentences. The bizarre feature of the
discussion is that the epublicans,
while claiming to cbe the only good
Americans" on earth (without even
excepting dead Indians), almost uni
versally take the foreign side of the
question, protesting that Spain and
Germany are right and we are wrong.
There is in this a certain element of
consistency for which. in a spirit of
fairness, we must give the republicans
credit. Imprimis, they are entirely
consistent in defending their own
party and attacking the democrats.
whether one or the other is right or
wrong. What is more to the purpose,
they are consistent in defending
policy of retaliation against a country
tor regulating its tariff rates in ac-
cordance with the requirements of its
revenue. They are quite wrong, how
ever, in ascribing this policy to Mr..
blaine. The idea of the latter was to
continue the tariff on sugar in the
Mckinley bill. but to take it off the
sugar produced by any country when
ever the latter by commercial
treaty granted special advantage to
our exports. In more comprehensive
way, he looked to absolute free trade
among American countries, and John
fisherman said he was almost per-
isuaded' to agree with him. It is hard
to say why free trade would be any
more of blessing with American
countries than with others, but at any
rate Mr.. Blaine did not advocate the
policy of retaliation which went into
the Mckinley bill as section 8.
The A1drich amendment to the Nc
Kinley bill, numbered section s, and
misnamed ''the reciprocity clause"
provided for retaliation against such
countries as did not, in the Judgment
tof the president, levy fair rates of
duty on commodities exported from
the United States. It was not neces-
sary that any state should levy more
tax on our products than on similar
articles from other countries. 1t was
sufficient that these rates should be
deemed by the president ''reciprocally
unfair and unequal" Our state de-
partment called the attention of a
number of countries to this provision,
and especially the coun tries producing
sugar and coffee. AS to coffee, no
change was made by the Mckinley
bill. 1t had been on the free list since
1872. Still coffee producing countries
were held up and asked to admit our
products free, or at less rates than
similar articles from other countries,
on the ground that their coffee
came in free. Several of the Spanish
American countries pointed out that
they made no discrimination against
the produce of the United States; that
they levied no duties for protection,
but only for revenue, and that if they
made the reductions desired of them
by the Harrison administration they
could not collect revenue enough to
support their governments. These
reasons did not satisfy President Har-
rison as to several countries. He is
sued prOclamatiOnS taxing the coffee
sof Venezuela and several other coun-
tries. Some other South American
states that made no concessions es-
lcaped, for what reason has never been
iexplaened, though possibly it may
have been the strong sentiment in
New England in favor of free hides.
Now here was a case where our gov
iernment undertook to say what tariff
rates other countries should levy for
,strictly revenue purposes, where there
was no discrimination against us at
all We required them to discrimin-
ate in our favor, even to the sacrifice
of needed revenue. on pain of having
q discriminating tax put upon certain
of their exports to the United States.
The principle underlying this action.
If formulated. would have been some
thing like this: Eve have right to
adopt retaliatory measures against
any other country that refuses to dis
-criminate in our favor"
Thus the Mckinley bill set the pace
and other countries have not been
slow to fall into it. Here is Spain, for
example, undertaking to retaliate up
on us because we find it necessary to
levy a revenue duty on sugar. The
sugar duty is necessary to the support
of our government, but Spain does not
heed that any more than MIR. Harrison
needed a similar explana ton from GER
tain Spanish-American countries. Thus
Spain is simply initiating the former
fatuous policy of the United States, by
taxing her own subjects by way of re-
taliation against us for raising our
revenues in our own way.-LOuisville