The Minneapolis journal., 1902-07-19
DEFENSE
Insurgent Leader Makes Careful
Written Argument
AGAINST CUBAN RECIPROCITY
Signed Article by the Minnesota
Man in the Chicago Rec
5t 4 45 ord-Herald.

| Y 4 s4i ord-Herald.
1.-THE following defense of the course Of
the insurgents" in congress on the Cuban
reciprocity bill has been written by Cen
gressman J. A. Tawney of Minnesota. their
leader, for the Chicago Record-Herald's An
swers by Experts -
The opposition of myself and those who
with me opposed alleged reciprocity Win
Cuba was based upon facts, not sentiment.
First, those who advocated reciprocity
by reduction Of the duty on the prod
! ucts of Cuba did so, as they at hrst
claimed, because 1t was necessary TO re-
Elieve the Industrial and financial dis
tress Of the island and the people from
hunger and threatened starvation we
are told that 1.-The stomachs OF the people
were empty This claim and these state
ments were, by the admission of those
appearing before the ways and means
| committee of the house in behalf OF
this legislation, shown to he absolutely
false and without foundation.
1t therefore appeared conclusively from
the testimony OF those who wanted the
legislation that it was being sought upon
false representations. 1t. was likewise
shown by their admissions that 1t was
not intended to and would not benefit
any American except those who nave
| invested money in foreign country for
|
of that country with half-civilized labor,
and who were thus seeking this legtsla-
tion that the product of this labor might
be brought into our market under spe-
cial tariff privileges and sold more profit
ably in competition with American Tree
labor. 80.
It also appeared from the testimony Of
the same witnesses, including Colonel
Tasker H. Bliss, a United States army
officer, acting as collector Of customs at
the port of Havana, that not to exceed
80 per cent of the proposed reduction OF
duty would inure to the benent or o;ne tne
| Cubans, the remaining 70 per cent going
to the American sugar re1ners, Wnlcn
means in fact the sugar trust.
Blow at Agriculture. -.
| Another reason for our opposition Is
the fact that the proposed plan OF reel
procity with Cuba by a reduction OF the
duty on sugar would constitute In es-
sence an abandonment of the protective
principle, although it removes only one
fifth of the duty on raw sugar imposed
by the Dingley law. This abandonment
would be most unhappy because applied
to the pursuit Of agriculture In the most
conspicuous instance in which speclhc
and manifest protection is given to the
farmer, and at the moment when the
sugar beet and sugar cane industry IS
not only in it's infancy, but in an infancy
SO luSty anu proMlS1uS oo " -
strate the certainty Of a rapid and pro-
digious growth
The proposition is to undertake to IN
sure commercial and industrial prosperity
in Cuba, foreign country and a foreign
government. If we undertake 1t, when
and where are we to stop! Inc pIopo-
sition is startling one, entirely outside
of our governmental functions and our
constitutional power. The proposition
implies that at the expense of our own
labor, our own capital, and our own
industry, and largely at the expense OF
a single American industry, without any
benefit whatever to the American people,
we are asked to extend the paternal hand
to a foreign people, who are not In dis
tress, whose labor is fully employed at
Is per cent greater wages than IT mas
lever Aoefore received, on the ground that
obligated to insure their industrial and
comm ercial prosperity, even at the sac
| rif1ce of our own interests
Injury Already Done.
Entirely independent Of the effect OF
this legislation on the beet sugar In
i dustry as a present fact in established
concerns, it would destroy the further de-
i yelopment of that industry. From the
/ mere agitation of the question, with the
, powerful influence recently discovered be-
hind it, the scores of beet factories that
ment will no doubt be abandoned: An
| industry which has grown five-fold IN
| the last four years and more than doubled
in the last year has indeed the certainty
OF a future development so stupendous
as to beggar prophecy and appeals with
| cogent force to our national pride. -.
In so far as the proposition processes to
be in the line of republican reciprocity
I and those who have viewed this ques-
tion in the light L have, assert that 1t IS
essentially a denial of that great policy.
Republican reciprocity, wise reciprocity,
does not seek an exchange OF products At
the expense of any American industry.
It does not give commercial advantage
to any foreign product which comes into
competition with our own products. it
does not seek an exchange OF products
which deprives any American artlsan OF
his work or any American farmer OF an
opportunity to profitably till his soil. 1t
Is the corollary of the greater policy OF
protection This was explicitly declared
by President Mckinley in his last speech.
Exchange Would Entail Loss.
Reciprocity as proposed by the presi-
dent and sought for by the sugar trust
and It's large contributions to that end,
united with funds held in trust by an
L officer Of the American government 1or
the benefit of the Cuban people, Is not
republican reciprocity. It does not have
4 the Endorsement OF the sanction or the
party. 1t seeks an exchange of Cuban
products at the expense Of American in
| dustries, It proposes to give commercial
advantage to foreign products which com
pete with our own products, products,
too. which we can produce in quantities
sufficient to supply our demand II the
policy of protection as embodied IN ex-
listing laws for the benefit OF the sugar
nroducine industry is not disturbed. =
Another reason for our opposition Is
the interest that the sugar trust has in
crippling and finally destroying the beet
sugar industry, its only competitor.
In q comparatively short time the beet
sugar industry of the United States VIII
he producing all the sugar we consume.