Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1901-05-29
is NOT RECIPROCAL.
DR. aWBACkS ATTENDING SPE-
GAL TRADE TREATY PLAN.
CoGent Reasons Why the Proposed
Program of Reciprocity Will Not
Operate to the Advantage of the

ond lecture on Economic Aspects or
Reciprocity" relivered by Mr.. John T.
Young, of the San Francisco Chronicle,
before the College of Commerce of the
University of California, various
phases of the practical workings of the
reciprocity plan in the United States
are presented with marked clearneSs
and force. The lack of certainty in the
matter of revenue production which at
tends the operation of special trade
treaties is urged as an important objec-
ton to that process of charging our
trade with foreign countries. The ques-
ton of revenue is held constantly In
view by Congress when engaged in the
enactment of a tariff law, and the
schedules are so adjusted as to insure
with reasonable accuracy an amount
of revenue which, added to that de-
rived from internal sources, VIII meet
the requirements of the government.
Not so in the case of schedules altered
10 miscellaneous fashion through spe-
cial conventions. If, under these trea-
ty arrangements. the duties on certain
articles are materially diminished, so
must be the revenues. Moreover. the
consequences of this kind of tariff tin
kering may prove to be mischievous,
for, as Mr.. Young points out, If we re-
duce the duties on Russian beet sugar
to please the exporters of American
machinery. how shall we deny similar
reduction of duties to other sugar pro-
ducing countries without exciting jeal-
ousies and retaliation3 If. in order to
escape this kind of friction, we make
the reductiCn of sugar duties uniform
with all countries, as we must in the
long run. what then becomes OF the
revenue from sugar duties?
Another point OF the utmost import
ance is emphasized by Mr.. Young in
this connection-namely, that while
tariff laws may easily be repealed or
amended at any session of any, Con-
gress, commercial conventions consti-
tute contracts and obligations very diff
ficult to retreat from and which often
continue in force long after their work
ings are recognized to be injurious. At
best the process of abrogating com
lnercial treaties is a slow and tedious
one, and the effect is TO create rightly
in a direction where flexibility is high
ly desirable.
A reciprocity treaty is not necessarily
reciprocal. 1t may prove TO be quite
the reverse Mr.. Young cites the sup
posititious case of wine producers and
prune growers who were promised pro-
lection for their industry and are as
much entitled to it as are the makers
of machinery We enter into an ar
rangement with a foreign country
which contemDlates an increased pur-
chase on our part of foreign wines and
prunes and an increased sale on our
part of machinery. This may or may
| not prove to be the outcome under the
arrangement 1t is quite possible that
| the foreigner will send us an addition
al quantity of wines and prunes with
| out in turn taking from US an addition
| al quantity of machines. The practi-
| cal workings of reciprocal trade ar
| rangements may thus prove TO be far
fro.. reciprocal. Mr. Young raises the
question whether it is not an economic
blunder to assist our overgrown iron
concerns, by means of special trade
treaties, TO market their surplus prod
uct in foreign countries, and thus pre-
vent the creation in undeyeloped lands
of facilities which would enable the
| peoples of those lands TO supply them
selves with articles of iron, and at the
same time compel the domestic con-
sumner in our own country TO assist in
! this work of spoliation by charging
| him more for what he uses of the prod
| uct thus forced out than the foreigner
| is compelled to pay. Herein is sug-
gested an aspect of the reciprocity idea
which the trust smashers have certain
| ~ overlooked.
/ OF course, so thorough and deep
searching n student of cause and effect
in economics as Mr. Young has shown
| himself to be would not pass by the
| pertinent point concerning the true
definition OF reciprocity as expounded
! in the national Republican platform.
He directs attention to the fact that in
! their platforms the Republicans have
always insisted that true reciprocity
| consists In the exchange of non-com-
| peting products. This fact Is ignored
| by the advocates Of tariff tinkering by
trade treaties with a persistency that
carries it out of the domain of accident
and places it in the category of inten-
tional suppression.
The favorite theory of British Cob
denites and free traders that If we wish
| to trade with foreigners we can only
hope to do so by buying from them as
| well as selling to them is disposed of
by Mr.. Young as scarcely worthy Of
serious consideration in view of the
| facts of commerce as disclosed in the
statistics Of our foreign trade in the
last four years of adequate protection.
"Such a contention" says Mr.. Young,
scarcely deserves serious answer.
individuals and aggregations Of indi-
viduals known as nations do not buy
things to please the persons purchased
from; they buy because they need the
things bought. To buy for any other
purpose would be absurd: to buy mere
" to make trade brisk would be un-
economic and therefore silly Empha-
sizing his point. Mr.. Young brings his
lecture TO a close by an illustration Dor
rowed from an article which appeared
some months ago in the American
Economist. and which lie quotes, as he