BoletiÌn mercantil de Puerto Rico. (San Juan, P.R.) 18??-1918, 1901-12-06
SAN JUAN, DECEMBER 6
Editorial Comment.

It ia now admitted on all hands that tue
friends of reciprocity have. SO far as an.
politicsl action ID the GEAR future is concer |
ned, reached an impGse Nothing can bres'
the deadlock which tue refusal OF senators To
ratify pending treaties has brought about |
Reports from Washington are unanimous
rs to the conservative tone of the Presidents
recommendations Oh reciprocity and tarlti
revision in his message. But thrOugheu
the discussion, there Is an underlying
conviction that the principle of RECIPROCITY
Is not given up at all, that it is only post
.poned until it can be shaped into practIc-
able scheme. Ga this account the COLL
ing action of Congress is OF unusual impor-
tance.
The stage which the question has nov
reached may be expressed IN the ihqu'ry,
What is reciprocity, and Who is authorized
to define i'll In despatch from Washing
ton the junction OF Congress in tut
matter is declared to be that OF aa interpre-
ter of the business interests of the naLlon.
There is no doubt thai both the Pres dent
and d-congress are waiting to sse whether the
great manufacturing industries are hf.Aly
resolved upon special efforts Tor tue devel-
opmenG of export trade and soOat lioe these
efforts are to take, and until there Is some
indication of that line the political prospects
of reciprocity are no more than a ne0ulouS
haze of conjecture. Upon the business IN.
terests, and specially upon the manufactur-
ers, rests the responsibility Of rendering the
emphatic declaration of the MCKINLEY ButfA
10 speech into specific statements of recipro-
CITY for recommendation to congress. Even
=. Deen their contention tnsG tGe mani.
featuring intereste are opposed to this move
ment, and that the National Association is
not of sufficient authority to speak for the
manufacturers as whole. This remains to
be seen, and the discussions to be begun in
Congress next Tuesday, however emphatic
in their support of new commercial treaties,
will do more important work than that in
opening the whole question with the purpose
of collecting as far as possible the unofficial
voice of the manufacturing interests OF the
whole country in a verdict that shall be
final.
That President Mckinley based his speech
upon intelligent sympathy with the predo
minant wish of the manufacturing interests
there is no doubt. There Was no politics IN
his convictions on reciprocity except that
which the actual condition AID urgent need
of those interests demandetaccordlng to his
Interpretation of them. That the adherence
of his successor to these convict Ons may net
find expression in more specific recom-
mendatIonS than were EMBODIED IN the
Buffalo speech itself is possible, tut 1t rs due
only to the completely Of the problem aud
the necessity OF considering II IN Lue larger
aspects which 1t has now assumed. lhs
treaties negotiated by Sir. b aine aud u0d+r
the Mckinley bill were made before tue
great fact OF expansion forced upon Us the
necessity OF regulating the trade of foreign
possessions and of arranging for closer com.
mercial relations between this country and
Cuba The fact that the horizon of recl-
procity has been widened by expansion was
the basis of the late Presidents convictions
upon the urgency Of large export trade. The
deliberations Of the representatives Will,
therefore, be watched with the greatest iu
terest ON account of the highly complex
problem witch confronts them, and by reason
of the conviction that the CONCLUSION they
reach must in due time shape legislation.
The London Spectator, in a spirit of
friendship, proposes GnaS England shall
give her public lDstead OF her tacit assent
to the Monroe Doculne, Will the eTpecta-
tion that the other nations of Europe will
follow her example, thus removing all
cause for fnture irritation ON the subject.
But the Spectator knocks ths whos plan
into smILneIeens BY the innocent require
ment taat the United States shall first
define the Monroe Doctrine. No American n
statesman is bold enough to attempt that
feat. Some CT 0ur greatest men have svught
to define it it the forum of debate wnere
they we're not responsible for any results to
1ow from their w0rds, but no Que has ever
ventured 10 give 1t definition applicable
TO all cases, and We venture 10 say tDat no |
one living could be drawn by borss power
to an inkstand shere be should Do cOmpe led
20 write such q definition. Daniel w sDster
once gave comprehensive statement OF tie
Doctrine BY ssyiDg that case for its ex.
ercise lmeanlng case iOr our interference
in the affairs of another American state j
smust be danger to our security, or danger,
manifest and imminent danger, tv our es
sential rights and our essential interests.v
But if this were inscribed on parchment as
our understanding OF the Monroe Doctrine,
England and ali the Powers would say: I
5. We have always believed in that. It is 9
doctrine Of universal app icatiol. Wei
apply IL to our own affairs daily. Vel
c5nl1 not keep house without il. We
tkonght that the Monroe Doctrine was
something peculiar 10 Notwithstanding
not known Dtfore Monroe's time but nov
4, sppfafa 10 be as old as the hills and ap-
picable 70 ell ages, countries, and cimes.n :
Then zoe should DO Just where We were