Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1902-08-28
What Il Reciprocity

A few weeks ago our good RsPubli'
can friend, the Kansas City Journal,
scoffed at the idea that there was any
other kind Of reciprocity but Republic
can reciprocity. We desire to call ito
attention, and also that Of Congress.
man Long, to the following article
from theAmsrican Economist, the lead
ing protection paper in the country,
which preiaces its remarks with sx-
tracts from Democratic sources:
From the Free Trade Almanac, 1902:
RECIPROCITY is iree.trade. Partial
reciprocity is . step toward free
trade"
US. Senator Blackburn (Dsm.. Of
Kentucky, at Board Of Trade dinner,
Newark, N. j., January l6, 1902:
Reciprocity means nothing more Or
less than Democratic iree-trade hid
den in homeopathic doses"
"Neither Blaine nor Mckinley ever
advocated or approved Of any scheme
Of extending our foreign trade at the
expense Of our domestic production.
They knew that such brand OF rec
iprocity' could only help the for
eigners and hurt our own producers.
In bis last speech on earth President ,
Mckinley expressly stipulated tor !
only such plan Of framing trade
treaties as should not injurs any
domestic industry" and should not
'curtail our home production. On
the 9TH Of June, 1901, President Nc
Kinley said to Representative Robert
W. Taylor:
81 favor only such reciprocity as
will not take from one single Ameri-
can workingman bis job
THAT was the Mckinley idea Of
reciprocity when he delivered his
Buffalo speech, and it was always the
Blaine idea Of reciprocity. But it is
not the idea which progressive TO-
ward iree.trade) Republicans enter
tain. 1t was not the idea which gov
erned the Kasson treaties; 1t is not
the idea which governed the proposed
reciprocity Legislation in behalf Of
Cuban relief Every one Of these
treaties sacrificed in greater or less
degree the principle Of protection;
hence their defeat by stalwart Re.
publican protectionists.
Zone word as to the new notion
expressed by some Of the abrogation or
reduction only Of such duties as are
j, needed for the support Of home in.
dustries.' As delicately and politely
as possible we beg to say that this Is
absolute nonsense. The removal or
the lowering, Of duties mot needed
would have no more effect in promot'
|, ing reciprocity than would a paper
wad in disturbing the serenity Of Gil
braltar. II the duties are not needed
by our home industries, what good
will their abrogation or reduction DO
the foreigner who wants to sell more
of his competitive goods in this mar
ketP No, no; that isn't what the
foreign producer wants at all. He
wants us 10 remove or reduce duties
that ARE needed! II we don't do
= that for him we don't do anything
q for him. Reciprocity Of the pro-
gressive' plan contemplates the in
: creased admission Of competitive
goods to the American market and
the equivalent displacement Of do
nestle production in similar lines OF
\ goods. Therefore, the Troy Press is
n right in characterizng such reciproc-
: ity as "a direct and damaging attack
i. on the principles Of protection "a
. euphemistic word to sugar q free
. trade design the old free-trade
scheme dressed In different colors;'
r and the 'progressives' either know
little or nothing about reciprocity, or
else they are deliberately engaged in
helping free.traders to fight protec.
ton. In this respect they do not Diff
;. or from the general body Of pro.
Q gressivs' Republican newspapers
J. which clsmor for reciprocity"