Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-06-28
ONLY A BIG BLUFF.
LITTLE DANGER OFF FOREIGN TAR
IFF RETALIATION.
PROTESTS CUT NO FIGURE.
MOST OF THEM COME WITH DECID-
EDLY POOR GRACE.
Could Afford TO Adopt Retaliato-
ry Measures-They Sell Us
More Than They Buy
From Us.

Is about TO establish be seriously considered
by congress in the final shaping of the
tariff bill, or, If not considered, will the
enactment of the tariff law be followed by
any adverse results IN our commercial or
other relations with those countries?
This is a question which members Of
congress are asking each other seriously
Just now and are also asking government
officials whose records are relied upon TO
show the history of former occasions of
this sort and their result. The opponents
of the bill are pluming themselves upon the
fact that sundry countries have. either by
diplomatic utterances or discussions in
their legislative bodies. and the press. ex-
pressed dissatisfaction with certain feat
ures of the proposed tariff law and a dis
position to make protest of some sort
against II. While this is true as regards
number Of countries, It does not give the
experienced tariff students or legislators
the slightest uneasiness. It is no new
thing to them. Similar protests have come
10 them and to the government time after
time in former considerations of tariff
measures, and they have been politely re-
eeived. as these are carefully filed in a
convenient pigeonhole and never heard
from afterward, either in the framing Of
the bill or in their bearing upon future
commercial relations of those countries
with the United States. =.
This custom Of fling protests against
pending tariff measures Is altogether
one-sided one as relates to the United
States, and the nations which have made
these protests. Tariff laws come and go
with other nations and the United States
pays not the slightest attention. A protect
I've system grows apace in Europe and else
where, and such nations as France, Ger
many, Austria-Hungary, Spain and others
which are now scolding about our pro-
posed new tariff, increase year by year. or
from period to period, their protective
tariff rates, and IN all these cases, the
world over, the United States has never
entered a protest of general character
against anybodys tariff laws or proposed
tariff legislation. There have been occa-.
sions in which attention OF foreign gov
ernments has been called to certain of
their laws or regulations which seemed to
bear unjustly upon a single industry in the
United States or discriminate against pro-
ductions Of this country as compared with
those Of other countries. but there is no
case on record in which the government OF
the United States has offered any protest
to a general tariff measure proposed by
other countries which would bear with
equal weight upon all nations sending their
produce 20 the markets of those countries.
That any nation should assume TO offer
q protest against a proposed law by an
other nation, which law Is to bear with
equal weight upon the productions of all
nations. article by article, seems rather
absurd, but that these protests should
come from nations which themselves have
q high and steadily growing protective
tariff adds very much to the interest, not
TO say the impertinence. Of such a prop
osition. 1t seems a little curious. for in
stance, to observe that Italy, which collects
about S5.OOO,O00 year tariff on American
petroleum, and equally high rates on many
other articles, should be offering a protest
gff fhnr ~ fo11x ar of ruufa
legislation by the United States.
Some people might suppose It a trihe in
appropriate for Germany, which collects a
tariff Of S2S5.60 per hundred kilos on certain
grades Of clothing and 1900 marks per hun
dred kilos on other articles of a similar
character. TO assume to offer a protest
against tariff measures of any other coun-
try. There might seem TO be a slight i'm
propriety in a protest from France which |
places duty of $3.50. 30 per hundred kIlos on
smoking tobacco and $500 francs per hun
dred kilos on cigars or cigarettes. So. also,
there might appear reason for criticism up
on a protest from Spain, which In her tariff
places a trifing duty of 1900 pesetas on |
every four seated coach or calash imported |
and s75 pesetas on each omnibus and dill |
gence.
But there is a practical business side TO |
this question Of protests against our tariff, |
and especially as to the probability of any
action following these protests. It is one |
thing to make a buff while a measure Of |
this character is under consideration, and |
quite another to call" the tariff and COM
mercial hand of such a nation as the Unit |
ed States. especially under the circum- /
stances existing with those countries which |
are reported as limiting at retaliation in /
case their protests are not regarded
Among the countries which are reported /
as offering objections, either officially. unof-
hcially or In public prints, In reference to
our new tariff are Japan. China, Austria
Hungary, Germany, France. Italy. Turkey,
Greece Spain, Netherlands, Switzerland /
Argentine. Mexico, Canada and possibly |
Brazil Less than half this number have
filed formal protests at the state depart
ment. but there have been sundry grum-
'blings and mutterings ameng the others, |
either in their legislative bodies, in the In
tives here and elsewhere. or in the public
The practical business question with re-
gard TO these people and governments is
whether they can AFFORD to take any retail |
iatOry steps against a tariff which makes
no discrimination against any one of them
individually. II they were to attempt retail
iation by adverse legislation. which should
exclude American, products from their
markets or discriminate against our pro-
ductions II any way, II would be expected
and very properly, that the United States |
would return the compliment by excluding
or discriminating against the Droducts ~ |
the country which had taken such action |
The practical business results of an occur
renee OF this kind would be that nearly |
every one Of the countries in question |
would suffer a greater loss in the sale Of |
her products than would the United States |
OF the fifteen countries included in the |
above list. thirteen sell more goods to the
United states than they buy from us and |
the total sales Of the fifteen countrie in |
question 10 the United States are hundreds |
of millions Of dollars greater than our sales |
20 them. The results would be that N thew !
should undertake TO exclude our goods |
from their ports, similar action on our mart |
would cut on much larger market for |
their producers than would their action M |
feet the markets OF our producers. An at
tempt at retaliation by the countries IN |
would, therefore, be much more disadynn- !
tageous 10 them than to the United States !
Hence the improbability that the nations |
which are Offering these protests have the |
slightest expectation that their action will |
be anything more than mere blum or he |
followed by any attempt at retaliation by |
them in case their protests are unheeded
A few examples of the commercial rela-
tions existing between some Of the nations |
in question and the United States will he |
sufficient TO show that there Is no proba- |
bility that they are going TO endanger their |
own business and the markets for their |
own producers or any step which might pos
sibly close the ports of the United States
against their productions. In the state
ments which follow, a ten years period
has been covered I'm showing the CONNER
cial relations between the United States
and the countries In question. in order 20
give a fair average showing Of the sales
OF those countries 10 people OF the United
States and the return sales OF our products
TO those countries. II will be observed in |
the statements which follow that in prac- |
tically every case, the countries now sug-
resting retaliation which would affect COM
- =. Il