find the price to him lower than before, and the result will be a differential advantage in favor of our manufacture of such goods. Cases of this kind, however, as things now stand, must be comparatively rare. The kinds of goods, of which a large country like the United States would furnish only a small portion of the required supply, are comparatively few in the class of raw materials; while in manufactures the commercial systems of the Western world are now such that foreign countries are very unlikely to grant us any such differential advantage as would put us in a more favored position as to manufactures than other producing countries. We have often tried to get into just such a position of differential advantage, but have never succeeded in so doing. We have always found either that the reciprocity treaty concluded with us was only one of a series of similar treaties whereby we merely obtained the status of the most favored of foreign countries, or else that the country with which we entered into relations was so small that we were able to send it the whole of its desired supply. In such cases the result was simply that our manufacturers had a somewhat wider market in which to compete with each other. In no case did they gain a practical subsidy by being able to sell their whole product at a price which, by the operation of the foreign tariff, applied to a much larger supply of the same commodity imported from other countries (than ours) into the market in which we had been granted the advantages of reciprocity.

It may now properly be asked whether we may not, however, gain much advantage from having foreign markets open to us, so that we may enter them upon the same basis as other foreign countries. This is practically the same question that has already been raised in connection with the interest of the consumer, viz: whether it may not be worth while to pay a subsidy to foreign producers of certain articles, this subsidy to be paid out of the pockets of our consumers-in order that our manufacturers may gain a broader market for their com

modities in the ports of the country with which we enter into the reciprocity arrangement. There is evidently involved here a question of social justice. Is it, in short, right to burden our consumers with the payment of a practical subsidy to foreign producers in order that our producers may gain a somewhat larger market? Clearly, some persons would answer such a question in the negative. Problems of social justice, however, seldom play much part in tariff discussions, and it may be worth while, therefore, to confine the argument to the question whether the subsidy thus paid by us will be met by a proportionate advantage enjoyed by our producers. Evidently, that will not be the case unless our producers are able to secure a higher price for their commodities in the ports of the foreign country than they would have obtained had there been no reduction in the tariff. There is no reason to suppose that they could get a higher price; for in most commodities our productive capacity is so large that a slight increase in foreign demand is met at once by an increase in the domestic output of goods. For instance, if a market is open for our wheat and corn in Cuba it is not to be expected that the price of those articles in general would be higher. Cuba's demand is small. But, even if it were large, the result would be an increase in our corn and wheat producing area, rather than a rise in the prices of those products. It is very hard to see, therefore, how our producers would profit from reciprocity in any way that they would not profit from tariff reductions. The case comes back to the same point that was reached when we studied it in connection with the consumer's interest. If the arrangement is limited in its scope, either through the smallness of the demand or through the unimportant character of the articles upon which it bears, there is no general gain to be acquired either by producer or consumer. Under certain conditions, reciprocity may result in a subsidy to certain interests at the expense of certain other interests. Under general and broad extension of the policy,

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