On foregoing list of articles (including oils): Average maximum French duties, ad valorem.. Average of concessions, ad valorem Average of French duties proposed under treaty, ad valorem... Average rate of duty, ad valorem, now charged by United States... Average rate of duty, ad valorem, as proposed by treaty...... ....... Per cent. .... 71.2 34-2 47.6 3.2 44 68 It thus appears that, including our cotton seed oil and petroleum, a rebate of duties was secured by us on goods shipped from this country to France amounting to $4,516,615. Without the item of oils the concessions gained by us amounted to $257,735. As against these concessions to us the rebates of duty we granted came to $828,138 in a trade equal to that of the fiscal year 1898. This showing makes it apparent that the treaty was an advantageous one for us, if we regard those treaties as good which succeed in pushing into foreign countries a larger amount of our goods, duty free, than we import from them under the same conditions. But this can, in no broad view of the situation, be considered a legitimate standpoint. The question is not whether larger concessions of duty are granted in terms of dollars than are granted by us to the goods of the foreign country with which we have negotiated any particular treaty. The question is whether, after the treaty has been adopted, we shall succeed in building up a trade which was not in existence before and which would not have come into existence had we not succeeded in entering into the agreement. It is a question of competition and the real point at stake is whether we need the concessions granted by the treaty in order to place ourselves upon equal terms with foreign countries which are our competitors. This may be illustrated by a familiar simile. If there is sufficient water at the mouth of a harbor to enable vessels of the customary draught to enter that harbor, it matters little or nothing whether the depth of the water on the bar at the mouth leaves only a few inches or many fathoms to spare. If the vessels can pass at all the harbor will be open to navigation, otherwise not. With our status in the industrial world, it is impossible to expect that we can compete on favorable terms with rival manufacturers, many of whom have much lower freights to pay and who are at the same time favored by differential tariff rates in getting their goods into the competitive market. It might very well be that precisely the small amount of concession gained by such a treaty as that with France would just suffice to give the American manufacturer the necessary inducement and opportunity of getting his goods into the French market in competition with German and Swiss and other producers." Considering the French treaty from the standpoint of internal legislation, it seems that, whereas we got practically the whole of the reduction granted under the minimum tariff of France, saving a relatively small list of reserve articles, we granted to the French producer by no means the maximum rate of reduction provided for in the Dingley tariff. Whereas the average of the concessions (or percentage of reduction of It deserves to be noted in regard to the French treaty that the Dingley rates had been set too high in order to furnish a good starting point for reciprocity negotiations, while France had also raised her maximum schedules with the idea of general commercial negotiations with the outside world, and thus both countries were in excellent condition to begin bargaining with each other. The first effort toward reciprocity had been a tentative suggestion by the British government in behalf of its colonies, whose agriculture had long been in a depressed condition. It was not very long, however, before France "concluded to open a negotiation and Mr. Patenotre came to" Mr. Kasson "with a proposition for the whole twenty per cent. reduction provided by the 4th section of the tariff bill in exchange for the whole minimum tariff of France on" American goods. (Mr. Kasson's own statement on this subject is to be found in Senate Document, No. 225, 56th Congress, 1st session. See p. 63.) In other words, France offered to let down her tariff bars to the whole of the then legally authorized extent, in return for similar action on the part of the United States. This Mr. Kasson decided he could not accept. A break in the negotiations then occurred until Mr. Cambon came to the United States as French Ambassador. The discussion was again resumed and Mr. Kasson proposed "a moderate reduction along the line of specific French articles in exchange for their grant of the minimum tariff." A treaty on this basis was finally consummated. In other words, what happened was that Mr. Kasson entered into a process of bargaining with the French Ambassador whereby in return for the French minimum tariff he attempted to give as little as possible by way of concessions in exchange. (Mr. Kasson described the conditions with reference to the French system as follows: "The French tariff system is peculiar. * * * * They have a general tariff which applies to all the world, and is, as a rule, highly protective. They have another scale called 'the minimum tariff' varying from 15 per cent. to as much as 100 per cent. reduction below the general tariff and according to articles. On certain articles the tariffs are identical: and they also have a free list. * Few articles are identical as to the general and the minimum tariffs, but on manufactured articles there is usually a very marked difference in the two rates. They give their minimum rate to other nations for a consideration only." All the countries of Europe, excepting Portugal have secured these minimum rates, and consequently supply the millions of dollars of manufactured products which France annually imports. The ratification will open the French ports to our manufactures. (Ibid., p. 64.) Just what was the nature of the pressure brought to bear by Mr. Kasson was very clearly indicated by that gentleman when before the Senate Committee at a later date. Mr. Kasson then said: (Senate Document, No. 225, 56th Congress, 1st session, p. 66.) "When we seemed to be near the point of disagreement, I told the French negotiators that I saw no reason why we should take part in their Exposition of 1900 if they were to continue to shut out e products of our indus tries by exceptional duties. # * I suppose that had some effect on the French government, because it was a plain truth." duty) made by France was 26.1, or including oil 48 per cent., the average percentage of reduction of duty made by the United States was only 6.8 per cent. It thus seems that from the standpoint of relative concessions, as well as from that of absolute amounts of duties yielded, the United States fared well in the French agreement. Examining the treaty from the standpoint of the protectionist, it would not seem that there was any occasion for alarm. The knit-goods manufacturers themselves, who were the most vigorous opponents of the agreement, admitted that under it only a very small percentage of the amount of such goods produced in this country would be likely to come in. The producers of silks thought the concessions of the act so trifling that they did not deem it worth while to offer any earnest opposition. The other interests which were concerned to prevent reciprocity did so chiefly not upon the ground of objection to the concessions as such, but upon that of fear lest the protective principle should be broken in upon. The real question at issue, therefore, with regard to the ratification of the treaty was this: Should we fail to secure for ourselves a promising field of trade which we were assured by experts would result in large sales of our manufactures, or, should we allow this probable gain (costing us little or nothing) to be outweighed by the fear of some individual interest that the tariff concessions thus granted might imply an ultimate infringement upon their "principle" of monopoly privileges in the home market? Although the French treaty had been urged forward in order to make a test case, and less was said about the other agreements, it is not open to doubt that there were features of the others which would have aroused possibly more opposition than was stirred up by the French treaty, had they been seriously pushed. In order to understand from what source this opposition was likely to come and what interests would be antagonized by the treaties, it is necessary to review in a general way the provisions of these other documents.10 The convention negotiated with Great Britain related, as we have seen, to Barbados, Guiana, Turks and Caicos Islands, Jamaica and Bermuda. In all of these treaties reductions were specified on sugars imported from those colonies into the United States. Owing to the height to which the sugar bounty system of Europe had been carried, it was practically impossible for these West Indian countries to sell their sugars on the continent, while the English market had been almost completely spoiled because it was the only non-competitive market in Europe, and it was deluged with bounty-fed sugar from almost every country on the continent. This sugar sold there at a price very much below the cost of production in the country of origin, and at a price somewhat below the cost of production in the colonies. As a result, the British colonies found themselves in very much straitened circumstances, and there was apparently nothing which could lift them out of the bad condition into which their industry had fallen, short of the abolition of the bounty system in Europe; but this was a method which would be slow and tedious in its operation, even if it were practicable at all. Their only other alternative was the opening of a new market for their sugars in which they would have an advantage over the bounty-fed sugars of the continent. This latter source of salvation was precisely what would be afforded by the United States, for the Dingley Act had ordered the imposition of countervailing duties equal in amount to export bounties paid by any foreign country on any commodity. Could the West Indies gain admission for their sugar to the United States, they would enjoy practically a differential advantage here, or, at all events, would be able here to meet the sugar of Europe on equal terms. Therefore, the reciprocity treaties with every one of the British colonies (except Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands) enumerated above, 10 The text of the treaties will be found in the Appendix. |