The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-12-30
The Cuban Treaty.

It is reported from Washington that
there is some strong opposition developing
in the senate to the Cuban reciprocity
treaty and that it's ratification will be
opposed by Burrows and other senator's, as
veheinently as they opposed it last winter
and spring. :., .y.<.
The reports as to the treatys prospects
have, been and are conf1ictly. The Ma
tional Association of Beet Growers will as
semble in Washington on Jan. s, the ami
versary Of the battle of New Orleans and
Saint Jacksons Day, and the attitude Of
this element will, no doubt, be emphati-
.cally indicated then. No doubt we shall
hear from the Michigan gentleman who,
last winter, testified before the commit
tee that the beet sugar men would sure
ly "go to the WALL if a reduction of 10
per cent were made, although he very
positively made the statement that the
beet sugar interest was protected to the
extent Of 81 per cent! Doubtless Mr.. Ok
nard will exploit his former arguments
against the 20 per cent reduction and ig-
more, as he did before, the fact that he as
sured capitalists that investment Of money
in the beet sugar industry would pay
fine profit, even II free trade absolute in
sugars were enacted by congress. The
sugar refining interests Of New York pro-
TESS to believe that the Cuban treaty
will be accepted by both countries with
out any trouble. The treaty itself is a
very favorable one for the United States
~
schedules A, B and c, embodying reduc-
lions of the Cuban tariff on numerous arti-
cles of American production necessary to
Cuba, to the extent Of Is, 80 and 40 per
cent show. Fatuous indeed, is the oppo-,
sition to such an advantageous treaty.
It is, urged by some opponents of the
treaty that, If such treaty is effected
with Cuba, Germany and other countries
will demand like concessions under the
most favored /: nation" s. clause This
whole subject was threshed over last
winter and it was conclusively demon
strated that the most favored nation
clause does not stand in the way Of the
mutual reduction of duties on trade with
Cuba or any other country as shown by
a number of precedents. The United
States government has from the founda-
ton construed the clause as permitting
commercial concessions ITO a country
which are not gratuitous, but in return for
equivalent concessions to which no other
country is entitled, unless it renders SINH
lar or equivalent concessions. In 1894
Germany demanded that her salt be
placed on the free list because congress
had free-listed that article, while Ger
many maintained duty upon foreign
salt Our government denied the claim
because Germany made no equivalent con-
cession. Germany in the event of the
ratification Of the Cuban reciprocity
treaty may demand like concessions, but
it is only necessary to refer her to her
withdrawal of her claim for free listed
salt exported by her to this country in
1894, upon the refusal by our govern
ment, on justtfable grounds to admit her
demand. Germany has only recently en-
acted a tariff law against our wheat and
corn and other products and raised her
minimum tariff to exorbitant figures and
if she wants concessions she must make
concessions to us.
It is announced from Havana that there