p.6......It is now almost twenty years since the Republican party declared that, in accordance with its policy, the protective tariff and reciprocal trade agreements belonged together. To be sure, the party did not succeed at that time in electing James G. Blaine, President, but the people accepted just the same the trade policy which he formulated, and when Harrison became President it was brought into practical use to great advantage for American trade.

In 1903, almost all of the trade agreements which the United States have concluded with other powers will expire and it cannot be denied that in many European states there is dissatisfaction with our high tariff tenets. One maintains that these place American manufacturers in position to stipulate here, at home, for oneself, high prices and sell the surplus of goods for lower prices in foreign countries, where the protective tariff, in way and manner, is seen to function as an indirect export premium. The threat of a "European tariff-society," with a view to shutting American products, need certainly not frighten us, but, of course, it were better if through trade 2agreements, based on reciprocal remissions, endeavors were made to insure for our country the continued good will of the European nations among the great cultural countries; trade obligations must, in order to become permanent, be based upon reciprocity, on the theory of "live and let live."

Especially advantageous were the reciprocal trade agreements with the Central and South American states with which our political interests invite us to maintain the closest possible trade obligations; yet how these,during the free-trade friendly Clevelandian administration, were sacrificed is already an old story.

When the power of the people was returned to the Republican party, it had among other things, bound itself to promote not only a sound mint practice, but, even, both tariff protection and reciprocal trade agreements. What the tariff protection and mint practices regulation concerns ,it has, long ago, fulfilled its promises, and this circumstance, more than anything else, do we have to thank for the national well -being which obtains throughout the country. But what has 3become of the reciprocal trade agreements? Is it not possible that the senate, or at least certain senators, in this question have permitted themselves to be lead more by local interests than by solicitude for the public good?

It is still not too late, but if the good circumstances shall continue, something must be done soon in regard to the institution of new reciprocal trade agreements.