The Minneapolis journal., 1902-07-19
MR., TAWNEY's ARGUMENT

n te Journal publishes elsewhere
day detailed argument against reci-
procity with Cuba. written by Congress-.
man James "A. Tawney and published first
in the Chicago Record Herald. Mr. Taw-
ney as leader of the anti-reeiprocity
fight Is as able as any one else to give
a full account of the subject from the
standpoint Of the beet sugar advocates.
AS T h g. J ourn a wishes it's readers
to be acquainted with both sides of this
controversy It gladly reproduces what: Mr..
Tawney has to say. ,%ss=. X <s T.
|. To comment briefly on his paper: No
one denies that Cuba. was comparatively
prosperous last winter. The crop was be-
ing prepared in expectation that the
United Stat es would keep Its reciprocity
promise. Naturally, ~1aborers were gener-
ally employed. The, construction Of rail-
ways, a, temporary work. of course, gave
employment to many thousands of men.
The reduction of the tariff on Cuba
sugar was not expected to benefit Ameri-
cans directly. It was expected to in
crease greatly the. trade Of this country
with Cuba, and that would benefit Ameri-
cans. -, r'..~t 4, r ---s: ''.:*
II reciprocal tariff reduction of 20
per cent. the reduction authorized by the
high protective Dingley tariff itself, Is. an
essential blow at the protective policy,
then the whole reciprocity scheme is in
conflict with the protective system, and
the sooner the republican party ceases to
try to ride simultaneously two such in
compatible steeds the better
Mr.. Tawney sneers at the proposition
as one to give industrial prosperity to
foreign country. Viewed only in that
light, it is better than his plan of taking
hard money out Of the United States
treasury to pay to the government of
foreign country without any returns what
ever In trade to the people of this coun-
try.
As to the statement that it would pre-
vent the further development of the beet
sugar industry in this country, we may
say that the sugar trust seems to be
quite willing to buy beet sugar mills and
start others and take the chances on the
future. AS to the antitrust argument.
~
swelled UP with prosperity they will have
trust as strong as that Of the refiners.
AS their sugar Is sold at the price fixed
by the refners, we fail to see what, ben
eht the consumer gets out of beet sugar.
We deny that reciprocity with Cuba
seeks an exchange of Cuban products at
the expense Of American industries On
the contrary, we believe that it will gen.
orally oeneht them, and that the beet
sugar Industry can and will continue to-
ENJOY abundant prosperity with the 20
per cent reduction. Mr.. Oxnard has told
us that there is money In beet sugar. with
the tariff absolutely abolished. not only
as against Cuba, but as against the
world.
II the sugar producing capacity Of Cuba
IS practically unlimited, as Mr. Tawnev
says 1t is, and yet Cuban sugar can he
produced cheaper than beet sugar In the
United States, we must, we consumers if
we stand with him. consent to nav for
ever bonus to our beet sugar men. once
their capacity is equal to the demands
OF the domestic market. The only excuse
lot protective tariff on sugar is the
nope that the time will come when we
can an ! produce all the sugar we need as
cheap or cheaper than the Cubans or
other peoples.
II (Mr. Tawney was in favor Of the Pavna
bill with the Norris amendment, why
didn't he vote for 1t when he had a
chance, instead of against it?
|
Finally. Mr.. Tawney,s frank argument
against all forms Of reciprocity with Cuba
Is an interesting commentary on the.
/ plank he helped shape at Washington.
which was brought to the Minnesota re-