The San Francisco call., 1896-08-30
THE GOOD OF RECIPROCITY.

We believe the repeal of the reciprocity ar
rangen,ents negotiated by the last Republican
administration was National calamity,
and ne demand their renetcaE and extension
on, such terms as wiI equdlize our trade Nth
other nations remove the restrictions sohich
9,oW obstfuct the sale Of american products IN
the ports of other countries aud secure en-
tarqed markets for the products Of our farms,
forests and factories.
Protection and reciprocity are ttcin meas
etres Of Republican policy and go hand IN
hand. Democratic rule hos recklessly struck
doWn both, and both mast be re-eStdbliShed.
Protection for What We produce, free admits
Sto1 for the accessories Of life Which aoe don't
produce, reciprocal agreements Of mutual IN
tereSt Which gain open markets for as an re-
turn for our open market to others. Protec-
ton builds up domestic industry and trade
and secures our owll market for ourselves.
Reciprocity builds up foreign trade and finds
an outlet for our surplus.
Reciprocal trade is the oldest as we'll as
the truest method of commodity exchange
because it is based on equivalency inde-
pendent of money upon the one hand and
sentiment upon the other. It means
trade and barter" and is fair or free
trade. Reciprocal trade comes and goes
without let or hindrance, and, moreover,
quality and quantity, not money, deter
mine the equivalency. That is TO say, in
ternational reciprocal trade is made possi-
bic because A of one country has more of
given commodity than he wants but not
enough of another. B of another country
has surplus of that which A wants and
he is in need of some of that which A has
surplus OF. But they cannot yet ex-
change their commodities. They must
ascertain how much G of still another
country, who Is buyer of both AS and
BIS kinds of commodities, will pay in
money for a given quantity of a given
quality of their commodities. This de-
termines by the supply of and the demand
for such commodities.
1t is C's prices that enable and B to
exchange their commodities on the basis
of equivaIency,. but the money that G
would pay in must be the same in re-
demption. and purchase power in all three
OF the countries, otherwise there would be
no way OF knowing what the equivalent
of one commodity would be in another
commodity. There need be no reciprocal
trade relations between A and G, or B and
G, but there must be between A and B,
and they must be free to go and come be-
tween, their respective countries without
paying to either country anything for the
privilege. But there could be no recipro-
cal trade relations between countries
whose products were identical; on the
contrary, the true policy OF each would 5e
to secure itself against the competition of
the Others by customs duties. This is
theoretical reciprocity.
For results accruing from the principle
of reciprocity practically applied we need
only to turn to the operation of the prin-
ciple under the Mckinley act During the
operation of that act our trade with the
countries with which reciprocal trade re-
lations were established was more than
twice as much as it was before the McKin-
ley bill became law or has been under
the Wilson German act. We have not
only lost enormously directly, because of
the abrogation of the reciprocal trade
treaties made under the Mckinley act, but
because OF some of the provisions of the
Wilson-Gorman act. Several European
countries have adopted retaliatory meas
ures, and our farm products more espe-
cially are Disseminated against. In fact,
the farmer has been the worst hurt by the
repeal of the reciprocity act, for in addition
to losing good markets for his breadstuffs,
he is confronted by the greatest encour-
agement to the farmers of other countries
to increase their cheap-labor product for
consumption in Europe. Reciprocal trade
treaties are as necessary as protection to
this country, but Mr.. Bryan says both are
wrong, and that neither shall be if he is
elected.