The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-09-15
No Test OF Reciprocity.

For reasons best known to its pro-
motors, q movement is on foot to dis
credit the policy Of reciprocity. Our
experience with Cuba during the opera
ton of our recent treaty with that coun-
try is now being used as an illustration OF
the fallacy of the system.
In furtherance of this movement the
American Economist of Sept. quotes,
under the title, Of costly laundering, >
letter which appeared in the Des Moines
Capital. The writer declares that $50
called Cuban feciproeity has resulted
in loss and disappointment" But the
argument against reciprocity as policy
solely on tho basis of its alleged failure
in our experience with Cuba is as foolish
as the specific argument against reci-
procity with Cuba solely because certain
expectations have not been realized T.
The article quoted by the American
Economist sets forth an array of APP
parently convincing figures of exports
and imports. We bought more from
Cuba during the first six months of 1904,
under a reciprocity treaty, than we did
during the first six months of 1903, when
there was no treaty. Therefore reci-
procity is failure. While we increased
by some 5000, 900 our exports to Cuba
during the first six months of this year,
in comparison with the corresponding
term last year. if the exports of those
months be doubled, to represent the
business of q full year, they show no
material increase over the full fiscal year
1902. Therefore reciprocity is failure,
and we had better disabuse ourselves
Of any idea of adopting the system.
Cheated again. says the Des Moines
Capital. "a bad bargain without counting
the cost, says the Economist.
AS regards our imports from Cuba
since Jan. /, 1904, it may, be said that
had there been no reciprocity treaty
they would have shown as high a value
as thcy now DO. Tho chief article OF
import is sugar. We buy Cubas raw
sugars because we wa mt them. For many
years we have absorbed practically her
entire output. Her crop for last season
fell only u little below her banner crop
of 1904. Had it exceeded that years
production by rs per cent. We should
have taken that excess also, and no
American interest would have been in
jured thereby We should merely have
bought so much less from other West
Indian islands or from Asia or South
America. Cuba supplies only about one
third of our requirements Of the article.
Cuban sugar is good sugar, and we want
it. Reciprocity has not at all affected
thus far the volume of our purchases of
that Cuban commodity. -r..e
The slight reduction in the duty on
tobacco has had only a comparatively
limited effect on our imports of the weed,
and no ere has been injured We can
not grow the Nuelta Abajo leaf in this
country, and for every cigar that we
import from Cuba we manufacture two
hundred at home, We buy Cuban to-
bacco and cigars because we want them,
and. as in the case Of sugar, the modest
reduction made in our tariff on those
articles will have little or no effect on the
quantity purchased from the island.
The market price of sugar is not regu-
lated by the Cuban output or by our
tariff on it, The price of Cuban cigars
is regulated by combination of fac
tories now run largely by American CAPT
tai. Under the terms of the treaty there
was no reason to look for any material
influence on either the price or import
volume of sugar and tobacco.
Asfor our exports, no one at all familiar
with Cuban trade conditions would essay
the comparisons made in the article here
referred to. The writer Of it should have
- u, al,'G M sa.G.Hf. ~.