The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-08-18
WE MUST STAND BY CUBA.

The main argument used by opponents
Of reciprocity with Cuba Is, that The chief
beneficiary would be the American sugar
trust. This contention Is not borne out
by the evidence put before the committee
on ways and means during the first ses-
sion of the F'ifty-seventh congress. That
evidence showed that of the 9OO.OOO tons
anticipated sugar crop in Cuba for this
year, only 10000 tons were owned by
American interests, and that all the rest
was owned by Cuban and Spaniards, who
mainly reside in Cuba.
The sugar trust is not the principal ad-
vocate of sugar tariff reduction for Cuba.
The only item of proof to the contrary is
the mere pittance of $500 which Mr..
Havemeyer gave Mr.. Thurber towards
the expense of the latter's Cuban recip-
rocity campaign. A drop in the bucket
compared with the trusts financial abil-
ity and necessity, were 1t ikely to be
vitality affected by the failure or success
of the bill. What Is $500 as against the
millions for the sugar trust cry of the
opponents of broad minded interpreta-
ton of our interest in Cuba, and of our
obligations towards here.
Hon. Serene Il. Payne, chairman of the
committee on Wavs and means stated
our obligation clearly and conservatively
when he said on the floor of the house,
I'VE are in the position of a guardian
every dollar of the principal and inter-
est, and yet every guardian, be he right
minded man, Is interested when that ward
goes into the world. to use every endeaNo?
that he consistently can, to make the
career of that ward successful" Cuba
came to us as a ward or trust. self-im-
posed, it is true, but still trust. and
We should not try to escape any of the
obligations of that trust, expressed or in,-
piled. After bringing a child into the
world, we are bound to educate 1t, and
to help it get start in life.
The Cuban reciprocity bill as drawn
by Mr. Payne, approved by the commit
tee, passed by the house, and shelved by
a contingent of the senate, does not in
jure in the least degree the sugar planters
of the United States. 1t does not give
benefit to Cuba at the expense of those
planters nor (actually) at the expense Of
our people. 1t simply means that our
people will. to the very limited extent Of
Its provisions, stop taking that much
money out of one pocket and putting 1t
into the other. nationally speaking This
is undoubtedly SO while We, with all our
dependencies, only produce 500, 900 900
pounds of the 1900 600 pounds of sugar
we use each year.
But our opponents say "Why not cover
the point under the law providing for
reciprocal treaties" At the time the Gu
ban reciprocity bill passed the house, this
was impossible as there was no one In
Cuba to make a reciprocal agreement or
treaty. 1t could only be done by passing
such law as Mr.. Payne proposed, The
hope and expectation now is that such
treaty will be negotiated this fall, in ac'
cordance with the provisions of the Ding
ley tariff law, although the time limit in
those provisions may have passed.
The proposal to pay money directly to
Cuba would establish too dangerous
precedent. and probaly result In scandals,
II distributed to Cuban planters as pro
posed, far more aggravated than those