He then stated that France will afford a large market for refined lead, sulphate of lead, and other smelting products. Along with these specific statements coming from interests which expected to reap benefit from the treaty went various bits of testimony based on more general grounds. From statements before the Committee it appeared that whereas our tariff contained some 705 numbers, of which we made concessions by the treaty on about 126, leaving 579 numbers untouched, there were contained in the French tariff 654 numbers of which only nineteen were reserved or excluded from the operation of the treaty. Furthermore, our average reduction, owing to the fact that we had granted but five per cent. on so many articles and but ten on many others, amounted to only six and eight-tenths per cent., while the average reduction made by France, leaving out the single item of oils (both mineral and vegetable) on which concessions had, however, been temporarily granted, was twenty-six and one-tenth per cent. Including these it rose to forty-eight per cent. It was plainly argued before the Committee that the ratification of the pending treaty would almost inevitably result in a large increase of American exports to France. We had furnished to that country in 1898 thirty-six per cent. of her free imports (expect silk and wool), while the dutiable imports in those articles in which we enjoyed equal competition under the same rate of duty as other countries, thirty-five and three-tenths per cent. had been furnished by us. On the other hand, in those commodities in which we were subjected to the maximum rate of duty, while other countries competing with us had been admitted to the minimum, we furnished only one and four-tenths per cent. From these facts it was held to be a fair argument that could we once attain a footing of equality with other countries, enjoying the French minimum rates wherever they did, we should increase our exports to France in proportion as had been the case with our non-dutiable exports to that country. Of course this argument proceeded on the assumption that we could compete as successfully in the dutiable as in the nondutiable articles, which was perhaps not true. On the other side of the controversy, the protectionist legions were marshalled in great numbers. The knit goods manufacturers vigorously protested against the treaty. All of the old-line arguments were urged. The industry needed protection to begin with. Then a pledge had been given by the Dingley bill, and capital had been invested subject to that pledge. Again, the machinery used in the industry came from abroad and had to pay duty. Under examination the manufacturers admitted that they already supplied about ninety-five per cent. of the home demand and that only about five or six per cent. of the goods supplying that demand were imported. They contended, however, that these importations were of the better grades which they wished to fit themselves especially to introduce. Of course, the manufacturers harked back to what they held to be the original idea of reciprocity. In the words of one pleader on the subject: 8 "Our idea of reciprocity was that reciprocity should come to us on lines that should not interfere with our industries. We have understood that that was Mr. Blaine's idea—that reciprocity was consistent with protection, because it would bring in raw materials or other stuffs we did not make, and permit us to give that we did make to other countries which did not make them there. There would be no competition on either side; and we do not think reciprocity is fairly constructed in the present bill, because it brings in the things which we compete with and which we manufacture. So far as we are concerned, you might just as well put a twenty per cent. less tariff in the Dingley bill." * * * Some other manufacturers dealt a good deal in generalities. The producers of braids argued that the treaty would reduce the revenue and establish a dangerous precedent leading to similar demands by other countries. It would injure the Republican party because it would alienate the protected inter Ibid., p. 135. ests upon which that party depended for its support. It would be injurious to the manufacturer of other lines of goods because it would create uncertainty, since manufacturers could never know that their protection would be maintained, and would be kept in a constant state of apprehension lest their protection should be given away by a reciprocity treaty. Loud protests came from the manufacturers of brushes, spectacles and optical instruments, perfumes, decorated tiles and bricks and cheap jewelry. A great deal of similarity, however, ran through the whole discussion. Inasmuch as the French reciprocity treaty was the only one negotiated under the Dingley Act which infringed upon the protected preserves of the manufacturers, and inasmuch as it so clearly subjected to a test the possibility under present conditions of carrying such treaties through Congress in the face of the combined opposition of the protected interests, it is worth while to study with some care the bearing of this treaty and its different clauses. There are several points of view from which such a treaty may be considered. It seems to be bad economics to attempt to judge any agreement of the kind by a mere reference to the balance of trade under it, yet it is usual to refer to the trade balance as one of the criteria by which to test the relative advantage or disadvantage of a given reciprocity treaty. Looking at the French agreement from this point of view, which is, at all events, the one that commends itself to the judgment of the practical man as a rough and ready standard, it appears that the gross amount of tariff concessions granted us by France was very much larger than that granted to France under the same agreement. In the following computation is given a comparison of actual concessions granted by the United States and by France, under the treaty as they would work out, supposing trade, after the negotiations were over and the treaty had gone into effect, to continue on the same basis as during the year 1898: COMPARISON OF THE ACTUAL CONCESSIONS GRANTED BY THE UNITED STATES AND BY FRANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PENDING TREATY, BASED UPON UNITED STATES STATISTICS OF IMPORts and EXPORTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1898, THE EXPORTS BEING THOSE OF DOMESTIC ORIGIN ONLY. [Prepared especially for the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, January 29, 1900, by Jos. S. McCoy, Government actuary.] Statement of United States imports from France of concessional articles, with amounts of revenue to be conceded on the articles. Per [Based on the imports of the fiscal year 1898, United States statistics.] |