The Washington times., 1901-09-26
Reciprocity and Free Trade.

The New York Tribune" labors
strenuousiy to overthrow the Demo-
cratic contention that reciprocity is a
step in the direction of free trade. AS
| is usually the case with those endeav-
| oring to maintain an untenable prop
! osition, our New York contemporary
| is only able to make a plausible show
ing by confusing the issue, and laying
undue stress upon mere names. A
glance at its reasoning will make this
point perfectly clear. In late issue
that paper says:
.'Reciprocity is obviously in the very nature
ot the a development of protection and not
OF free trade. Its existence is possible Only
under protective system II is entirely impos-
sihle under free trade. Reciprocity is system
of give and take. Of do Ut des- But you can
not hope to take something unless you give
something in return. and you cannot give any
thing unless you have something to give. The
nation which has already given away thrown
Away all it had can give nothing, Tor IT has
nothing LETT to gige. Now, in trade, the things
to be given are commercial advantages and priv
ileges, expressed in tariff reduction. If a nation
has tariff system it can seek and expect 10 get
tayors or advantages from another by offering
tariff reduction TO that in return But if
it has tariff, il it is practcing free trade. IL
has nothing TO offer Ii give nothing. and
1t can hope 10 get nothing.
In the foregoing excerpt we have a
series of statements which, while tend
/ ing to befog the issue, at the same
! time when taken together fully sus-
tain the Democratic claim.
| 1t is true that reciprocity, technical
ly considered, is development of pro-
| lection, and that its existence is possi-
bic only under protective system. 1t
| is not, however, a question of how the
reciprocity now under discussion was
| developed, the point is, what does it
mean? 1t certainly means freer trade
between the two countries entering
| into such a treaty. This is what the
! late President Mckinley declared it to
mean, in words the import of which it
| is impossible to mistake. If freer trade
| between nations is not step toward
| free trade, what would constitute such
| step?
But giving the word reciprocity the
full, broad significance of mutually, it
| is not true that it cannot exist under
free trade On the contrary, free trade
| between two countries Is reciprocity in
the most complete sense OF course.
when there is free trade between two
countries they would never think of
negotiating a reciprocity treaty with
| each other, for there is already perfect
| mutually On the other hand, as The
Times has repeatedly stated, reciprocity
| is free trade as far as 1t goes. If the
| United States says to Germany, "Ad-
| NIT certain American goods, duty free.
and we will do the same by certain of
your goods" and the proposal is ac-
cepted, that most assuredly would be
| free trade between the two countries
| in those goods. If the United States
gees further and says. Admit all OF
our goods without duty and We will
treat yours In the same way" that pro-
posal. If agreed to. would make trade
| between Germany and the United
, States absolutely free. In the face of
so obvious a fact, what becomes of the
argument that reciprocity is a princi-
| pie Of protection in contradistinction to
| free trade?
1t is the existence OF a protective pol
| icy that makes reciprocity treaties nee
essary. and in that sense 1T may be con-
|
| Mr. McKinley's Administration were a
! development of protection to use the
| words of the Tribune" But the word
| development does not accurately ex-
| press the idea. The reciprocity of Pres
! ident Mckinley was an admission that
/ protection had been carried too far,
| and that there must be a modification
| of the policy in the direction of free
| trade. To say that the free admission
| of more articles at American ports is
J protective rather than free trade in
! principle is too absurd for serious con-
! sideration.
The Tribune sees nothing In the
question Of reciprocity. except the sin
| gle point that in negotiating such a
treaty we must have something to trade