The Lafayette gazette. [volume] (Lafayette, La.) 1893-1921, 1895-02-23
THE RETALIATION POLICY.

THE RETALIATION POLICY.
Republicans. Making Party Capital OF an
| Cnimportant Issue.
| The discussion over the retalia tory
policy of Spain and Germany Is becom-
ing somewhat hysterical. It is pressed
upon pu blic attention with a view to
| making party capital. We have al
| ready exposed the misrcpresen tations
that have been circulated witt, refer
snce to it. An edito,ia l in a republic
an paper on this subject must be
classed as phcnomenaIy fair unless it
! contains as many misstatements IS
| sentences. The bizarre feature of the
discussion is that the repu blicans,
while claiming to be the only good
Americans on earth without even
versally take the foreign side of the
question, protesting that Spain and
Germany are right and we are wrong.
There is in this certain element Of
consistency for which, in a spirit of
fairness, we must give the republicans
credit. 1mPri1nis, 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 q
policy of retaliation against a country
for 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 a commercial
treaty granted special advantage to
our exports. In n more comprehensive
way. he looked to absolute free trade
among American countries, and John
Sherman said he was almost pe:-
suadcd' 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 retalia ton which went into
the Mckinley bill as section ;.
The Aldrich anne ndment to the Nc
KinIey bill, numbered section 3, and
Inisnamed "the reciprocity clause
provided for retaliation against such
countries as did not, in the Judgment
of the president. levy fair rates Of
duty on commodities exported from
the United States. 1t was not neces-
sary that any state should levy more
tax on our products than similar
articles from other countries. It was
sufficient that these rates should be
deemed by the president ''rcciprocally
unfair and unequal Our state de-
partment called the attention of Il
number of countries to this provision,
and especially the countries 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 tina t if they
made the reductions desired of them
by the Harrison administration they
could not collect revenue enough to
their governments These
reasons did not satisfy President Har-
rison as to several countries. Tie is
sued proclalna tions taxing the coffee
of Venezuela and several other coun-
tries. Some other South American
states that made no concessions es-
capped, for what reason has never been
explained, 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
undertook to say what tariff !
rates other countries should levy for |
strictly revenue purposes. where there |
was no discrimination against US at |
Ill. We required them to discrirnin- |
lite in our favor, even to the sacrifice |
IF needed revenue. on pain of having |
I discriminating tax put upon certain
IF their exports to the United States.
fhe principle underlying this action.
formulated, would have been some
hing like this: eve have right to
ldopt retaliatory measures against
my other country that refuses to dis
:riminatc in our favor
Thus the Mckinley bill set the pace
md other countries have not been
low to fall into it. HIRE is Spain, for
undertaking to retaliate up
N us because we find it necessary to
evy a revenue duty on sugar. The
ugar duty is necessary to the support
# our government, but Spain does not
iced that any more than Mr.. Harrison
eeded n similar explanation from GER
ain Spanish A merican countries. Thus
pain is simply initiating the former
atuous policy of the United States. by
axing her own subjects by way of re-
aliation against us for raising our
evenues in our own way.-Louisville
ourier-Journal.
NOTES AND COMM ENrs. I
III that greedy fool measure, twice