reciprocity may result in increasing the scope of the demand for our commodities and in enlarging the volume of international trade. In so far as this process goes on, both producer and consumer are assisted, because it is an approach to freer trade. Reciprocity under limited, narrow, and partial conditions means an intensification of monopoly. As an instance of the latter kind of reciprocity, we may cite the case of Hawaii. As an instance of the former, we may mention that of Canada. No case is known wherein the producers of the United States have been able by means of a reciprocity treaty to acquire the same position with reference to foreign countries that Hawaii acquired in relation to the United States.

It is unnecessary to say much of reciprocity viewed as a policy of retaliation. We have seen that the reciprocity of the McKinley Act consisted primarily in a tariff threat. That is to say, we threatened that unless some concessions were granted us we would raise duties on certain foreign products. The concessions were granted to us in some instances, and in return we got presumably the slight enlargement for demand of our manufactures that has already been sketched as a possible result of such tariff concessions. Had we, however, imposed retaliatory duties on the products of any considerable number of countries, the result would have been to lay a heavy tax on our consumer because we did not think the American producer received fair treatment in foreign countries. We should have been cutting off our nose to spite our face. For such a policy of retaliation, there can evidently be but slender warrant.

It will be worth while to classify reciprocity treaties, in the light of what has just been said, according to the commodities upon which they bear. Much has been said of the benefit to our farmer under the treaties negotiated in accordance with. the McKinley and Dingley Acts, yet in most cases, as has appeared in the preceding discussion, it seemed that our exports of manufactures were, if any, the ones favored by the reci

procity treaties. It is certain that it is useless for us to try to foster trade in farm products with countries which already produce those products more cheaply than ourselves, or which can get them at much less expense from a nearer source. On the other hand, it is idle for us to think of increasing a trade in manufactures with countries granting, say, a reduction of twenty or twenty-five per cent. of their duties on our exports to them when our producers of those very articles claim that, in order to compete with foreign producers in their own home market, they need fifty or sixty per cent. of protection. If they cannot survive in our markets with such protection as twenty or twenty-five per cent., evidently they cannot compete in the foreign market with a concession only of that amount, unless they are selling to foreigners at lower prices than they are charging domestic consumers. If they are doing the latter, the sooner we know that that is what reciprocity means, the better. Of the question whether it is right to barter away one man's protection in order to gain a trade opening for another man, it is not necessary to speak. The usual argument states that we barter away only that protection which is no longer needed. To such a statement, of course, it is natural to reply that if the protection is no longer needed it should be withdrawn in the interest of our consumers. Certainly no one would object to having foreign countries cut down tariffs on other goods of our own production in return for our removal of a protection which was no longer needed. In that case, what has happened is that we have righted a wrong on our side, and that our consumers will profit to that extent. As for the benefit accruing to our producer, whether of agricultural or other products, under such an arrangement the result will doubtless be, as we have already seen, some increase in international demand which will be met by a corresponding increase of production on our side. This increase would counteract any tendency to a rise in the price of the goods unless such increase resulted in pushing the margin of cultivation to less

favorable lands-a result so slow in its operation that it may be neglected.

But, should we desire reciprocity? We should desire reciprocity if it will result in benefit to ourselves. And we have seen that it will result in this way only when it is broadly extended and when it produces a general reduction of our tariff duties on important objects in return for correspondingly important reductions to us. Certainly there is no reason why we should deprive ourselves of the immediate benefit of cheaper goods because we feel that we must wait until other countries are willing to get our goods as cheaply. But if we must wait before indulging ourselves in such gains until other countries are willing to do the same, the benefit will, nevertheless, be realized when the action finally comes, provided, as has been said, the reductions are of sufficient extent to make themselves felt. To make all this perfectly concrete, we may cite the instance of the proposed French treaty now pending before the Senate. There can be little doubt that the mutual reductions of duty provided in that treaty would be beneficial to both sides. Of course the fact that both countries raised their duties exorbitantly high, merely in order to let them down again through reciprocity negotiations, seems to the ordinary observer a futile operation. But the fact remains that duties are high and if they can be lowered as proposed by the French treaty, consumers and producers on both sides will mutually profit by the enlarged volume of international trade and the greater number of satisfactions resulting therefrom. Certainly there is one phase of reciprocity that we cannot favor. That is the kind of reciprocity which consists in monopoly concessions to a limited number of foreign producers which are paid for by our consumers (or vice versa, in monopoly concessions to our producers paid by foreign consumers). As things are organized in this world, no one ever gets anything for nothing. Such concessions could be made by us to others, or by others to us, only because it was hoped that compensation for the

exceptional advantages would be made through the acquirement of political superiority or influence or territorial expansion. We have seen in what way these remarks apply in the case of Cuba. It is at this point that reciprocity assumes the form in which it was denounced by President Cleveland. It appears as a device for entangling our revenue system with that of foreign countries for the purpose of territorial expansion, or national aggrandizement.

Whether we can get reciprocity as a practical matter of fact depends very much upon whether we want it or not. Of course, if the public of this country were to issue a mandate at the polls to that effect, the policy would be inaugurated. But no such mandate is likely to be issued, save in some isolated instance like that of Cuba. The ordinary man does not think of reciprocity at all, or if he thinks clearly and carefully on the subject, he sees that unless it assumes a much more widely extended form than any that has yet been promised, he has no interest in it save in a vague and very general way. If, therefore, he sufficiently analyzes the situation to consider his own interest as a consumer, he is likely to become a tariff revisionist, rather than a reciprocity advocate. In short, the contest over reciprocity treaties, save in exceptional cases, necessarily narrows to a conflict of opposing interests. Some manufacturers would like to get openings for their goods and to stimulate the foreign demand for them. Others are unwilling to sacrifice a jot of their protection in order to build up the trade of their friends in other lines of industry, by enlarging the demand for the goods of others at their own expense. The ratification or rejection of reciprocity treaties, therefore, becomes a battle of special interests highly demoralizing to the legislative body. Always there is present the notion that it is unwise or harmful to make any inroad on the "protective principle," because of the disastrous results which may flow from a division of interests. There is an ever present fear that if one schedule is disturbed others will be, and so, even those

who are not directly affected by a reciprocity treaty are interested to prevent its ratification in the interests of conservatism and stability. While, therefore, we can of course, get reciprocity if we want it, in any specified case, we are not likely to get it in many cases because tariff revision is a much more ready and immediate road to change, if change is wanted; while if general change is not wanted, one interest will probably be about as strong in Congress as another, and matters will tend to remain undisturbed. Looking at the immediate prospects for the ratification of the reciprocity treaties already before the Senate, it seems certain that but few of them will ever be accepted. This, however, like every other political prediction, is precarious; but so far as present indications are of weight there is no manifest reason to believe that any of the important treaties will be ratified. If only one, or even a few of the less important arrangements should be accepted, the result would be merely a small subsidy paid by the American consumer to foreign producers in some unimportant countries.

It may be inquired whether it is to be inferred from what has been said that there is no hope for good results from reciprocity as a means of extending markets. Certainly, there is nothing to be expected in a general or far reaching way from the policy. We have failed to conquer the South American trade by our concessions on vanilla beans and chewing gum. We have declined to enter into closer relations with Canada. We have thus far failed to make even the smallest curtailment of duties on manufactures imported from Europe. If reciprocity is to be successful as a policy, it will need a total reorganization in its scope. Were we to grant to Canada the privilege of free entry of her raw materials into the United States-her coal, her lumber, her ores and her cereals-obtaining in exchange therefor similar concessions on her part, with perhaps a reduction of tariff duties on our manufactures sent to Canada, consumers on both sides of the line would be greatly advantaged and something would have been done in the direc