The Dalles times-mountaineer. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1882-1904, 1897-05-22
A PERNICIOUS SYSTEM.

Notwithstanding the great states
man James G. Blaine was the father OF
reciprocity in the United States, and
for this reason alone it was accepted
by many, who never Investigated It's
workings, as a correct theory, calcu-
lated to directly benefit producers all
over the land in creating additional
markets for their products. still when
it is fully Investigated tbs found to be
the most abomniable system that was
ever attached to our principle of pro-
lection. Under it's workings, trusts
are fostered and flourish, and it is only
in rare instances that the producer has
widened his markets. The workings
of reciprocity are we'll shown in the
following from the Oregonian, wherein
its effect upon the sugar business is so
plainly illustrated that anyone can
understand:
1.-THE Hawaiian treaty does not bene-
lit consumers, because the refining OF
sugar is controlled by trust. The
Havemeyer refneries East and the
Spreckels refneries West have divided
territory. The Havemeyers do not
come west of the Missouri river, and
the Spreckels do not go east of it. The
Havemeyers make price in the East
based upon the cost OF raw sugar,
which pays duty. The Spreckels make
the same price in the West, with :
cent per pound added for transco' til
mental freights. So consumers here
pay the same price for sur ar tbev
would pay if it paid duty. Planters in
the islands and refners in San Fran
cisco divide the amount of the duty be-
tween them. 1t is pure bonus to
these two com biuations, more or less
common, of few rich men. Now the
bonus amounts to about $1,000. 600 per
year. Under the Dingley bill this will
be nearly doubled.
"Since consumers do not benefit by
this treaty, even revenue-reformers
think the treasury may as we'll get the
duty, especially at time when it is
necessary to put tax on consumption
to prevent a revenue deficiency. 1t is
absurd to give rich planters and re-
finers bonus of S., 100000 to S1O,O00,-
900 per year when it is necessary to put
tariff on tea anc to increase the tax
on beer to pay the expenses of running
the government,
This is not the only reason for op.
posing the treaty. Protectionists as
we'll as revenue-reformers desire it's
abrogation, except those to whom it is
q source Of private profit. The Ding
ley bill will protect the heet-sugar and |
beetroot industry everywhere in this
country except on this coast. Here |
the competition of coolie-grown cane
sugar, imported from the Hawaiian
islands free OF duty, will blast the
beetsugar industry in the bud, and |
give the market from the Pacific ocean
to the Missouri river to the Hawaiian
planters and San Francisco refners,
with bounty over the profits of Cuban
growers and Eastern refiners of II
cents per pound.
"The Hawaiian treaty is private
snap. 1t is against public policy,
against the interest of the govern
ment, contrary to the welfare Of the
people as both consumers and pro-
lucers. 1t cost the government rev.
enue. It gives a bounty to foreigners
and rich relatives at the cost of con-
sumers, and closes the market to those
who would diversity farming by grow.
Ing sugar beets."
What is true of the Hawaiian recip-
rocity treaty is true of every other re-
ciprocity treaty. Every article ad-
pitted under reciprocal arrangements
Is given to the consumer at exactly
the same price as if it paid a duty.
The only person deriving any benefit
3 the importer or the foreign producer.
The government is derived of revenpe,
although the consumer pays the duty
to the importer, who is the
,nly one enriched.