Evening star., 1902-04-11
MR. LONGS ARGUMENT
Representative From Kansas
Favors Reciprocity.
REPUBLICAN DOCTRINE
BENEFITS TO THIS COUNTRY AND
TO CUBA.
Review OF Conditions as Brought Out
at Hearings Before the Ways
and Means Committee.

and Means Committee.
| What the ways and means committee has
to offer in the way of logical argument in
| favor of the plan of the majority of that
committee for reciprocity with Cuba was
given to the House today in the speech of
Representative Long of Kansas. Mr.. Long S
address was a careful review of all of the
conditions both in this country and in Cuba,
as adduced by the committee in its eXhaus-
tive hearings this subject.
Reciprocity Republican Doctrine.
With this information before the commit
tee as a basis, he argued first that the
pending bill followed republican precedents;
that it was not an attempt to revise the
| tariff; that the maintenance of a protective
tariff was not involved, but that the future
| of the principle of reciprocity was involved
in the fate of the pending measure.
IF we cannot have reciprocity with
Cuba he declared, I'VE cannot have it
| with any other country. The defeat of this
bill would mean that the republican party
had refused to follow the leadership of
| Blaine and Mckinley and it would mean
that reciprocity was no longer a part of the
republican faith. If reciprocity is to be
restricted to articles that we do not pro-
| uuCe III tnlS country, II Will mean dH dDdH-
| donment of that doctrine"
Mr.. Long read with emphasis the reci-
| procity plank in the republican platform Of
1886, in which the repeal of the reciprocity
| arrangements negotiated by the preceding
republican administration was deprecated
as a national calamity. One of these reci-
procity arrangements referred to, he de-
| clared was with Cuba, and the present un
dertaking was simply to renew and extend
that agreement. He further emphasized
the republican attitude in favor of reci-
| procity by referring to the Dingley tariff
law, which was the act of the party as soon
as it again came into power in 1896, and
which contained specific provisions in fur
! therance of reciprocity treaties, and sugar,
| he declared, was one of the articles men,
| toned to be made the subject of such reci-
| proclty.
Industries Amply Protected.
Mr.. Long then turned his attention to the
question of whether any industry would
| suffer, and, in answering it, he analyzed
| the conditions in the tobacco industry, the
cane sugar industry and the beet sugar in
| dustry in this country at great length. He
! told of the cost of production and manu-
| facture and marketing, and quoted the
| evidence of experts before the committee.
| The conclusion he reached was that the
| proposed 20 per cent reduction would not
| injure the tobacco industry, and would still
| leave protection upon sugar higher than
on any other industry except tobacco, and
| surely" he declared with the duties on
| illdHuldCluTeu TOBACCO amounting to ITO
| per cent, reduction of 30 per cent can be
made without harm to that industry.
AS to sugar, he declared that Cuba could
| not compete with beet sugar in Chicago,
| which was the principal beet sugar market
| for Michigan. 1t would cost just $4.453 per
| 100 to place refined Cuban sugar on the
market in Chicago, and in contrast with
| these figures Mr.. Long quoted from the tes-
| timony of n. H. Stewart president of the
| kalamazoo beet sugar refinery showing
that the cost of placing refined beet sugar
| on the Chicago market was S4O11
| Continuing on the subject of prices Mr.
| Long declared that the beet sugar also had
an advantage in the Kansas City market
which was the selling place for Nebraska
| and Colorado sugar He asserted that the
| Oxnard sugar refineries feared no competi-
| ton with Cuba on the new basis, as shown
before the committee. Mr.. Long also de-
| clared that the new tariff would not result
| In lowering the price of sugar.
For Whose Benefit
| He dwelt some time on the question as to
who would really receive the benefit of
| the reduction, and based his conclusion
that the Cuban planters would get the ben
eft, on the showing made when the Porto
| Rcan tariff was reduced, which was that
| the Porto Rican got the benefit of that re-
! duction. However, he declared, "if the
| sugar trust or any other corporation should
purchase all the Cuban sugars before this
| law is enacted, then they would receive
| the benefit of the reduction this year If
! the price of sugar in this country is lower
| ed as a result of the concession on Cuban
! sugars, theCuban planter is not benefited
| and this legislation would be in vain. On
| the other hand, if there is fall in the
| price of sugar there is no question that
| the owner of the sugar at the time of the
| passage of the law will get the benefit of
! whatever concession is made
| I'VE have had two notable examples in
| recent years as to the effect of concessions
made to other countries. When the reci-
| prOcity treaty with Hawaii was made there
was fall in the price of sugar in this
country, but the Hawaiian planter got the
| benefit of free sugar When the concession
| was made to Porto Rico the Porto Rican
| planter got the benefit, and in the very
nature of things similar benefit, to the
| extent of the concession will inure to the
| Cuban planter.
'If there is no injury to the domestic
| beet-sugar industry, and If the benefit of
| the concession reaches the Cuban planter,
| why should not reciprocity with Cuba be
| secured. 1t is in line with the best definitions
| of reciprocity, and meets all the require
ments of that doctrine as defined by Blaine
| and Mckinley it's two great eXponents in
| this country. The first consideration in
| every reciprocity agreement should be that
| no substantial injury should result to any
| industry in this country Reciprocity with
Cuba meets this requirement. We must not
| reject reciprocity because one or more in
! justries in this country declare they will
be ruined. If We stop simply because some
| of our citizens declare they Will be ruined
| by the proposed arrangement, no reciproc-
| ity agreement could ever be made"
Benefit to This Country.
| There was another vital point in the con-
| sderation, Mr.. Long declared, and that
was as to what the United States was go
| ing to get from Cuba. He expressed no pa
tience with the cry that we were simply
giving charity to Cuba. The concession we
! would get from her in reductions in tariff
would, he asserted, equal, If not far ex-
| ceed what we were doing out to her. To
support this argument Mr.. Long detailed
| the trade relations as shown by the figures
of the exports and imports during the rec!-
| procity period extending between 1891 and
1894, and again since that time, when there
| was no reciprocity.
I'm 1891" he said. 1.-The last complete fis-
cal year before the agreement went into eff
feet, our total exports to Cuba amounted
to $12, ,224, $685. In 1893, the first complete
fiscal year after the agreement was in
force, our exports amounted to $24,157, ,698.
In 1896, the first complete fiscal year after
the agreement was abrogated, our exports