Rusk On The Tariff

The following is an extract from a letter on protection and reciprocity recently written by the secretary of agriculture, Ilon. J. M. Rusk: On all articles except those we cannot produce or manuf acture ourselves und er any circumstances 1 would levy a duty sufficient to make foreign goods cost, when landed and duty paid in any port of the United States, fully ás much as the cost of manuf acturing the same gooda in this country amounts to; and this I believe in, without any reference to the old accepted argument of "infant industries." 1 would stick to this principie all the way through, except only in the case of foreign goods coming from countries which could make sucii concessions on American goods as would fully offset any concessions we might make to them, tor 1 arn a believer in reciprocity. In fact, so long ago as April, lb90, in a conimunication which I prepared to send to all persons - and they were legión - who addressed me on the subject of agj ricnltural depression, 1 referred to the advantages of reciprocitj'. At the same time I think it will very seldom be found necessary to surrender adequate protective duties on any foreign goods such as we can manufacture in this country. Our reciprocal relür tions witli countries in the températe zone, growing largely the same kind of agricultural products and living under comparatively the same couditions, will always be very limited. But just as we have exemplitied in the case of sugar, of which at present we do not produce a j quantity sufficient for our domestic snp ply, so in regard to tea, coffee and spices, which come to us from tropical or semiI tropical couutries, there is a considerable opportunity for the exercise of this sound economie principie. I would have America buy these goods in countries that buy American goods, putting a duty upon such as come to us from countries that put a duty upon our goods. It is American labor we want to protect, and American homes, and I do not, as a consistent protectionist, regard as a subject for tree trade any article into the production of which, in a form available for use, American labor enters. If the conditions are such, for instance, in Canada, that a Canadian farmer can raise certain crops more cheaply than we can, I would protect our American farmers by putting such a duty on these products that Uanadian farmers could not undersell them. In the same manner I would protect our fruit growers from Mediterranean frnits, and would encourage the ñber industry in our own country, so that eventually the bulk of our hemp, flax and other vegetable fibers should be produced at home. I am for the protection of the American laborer's home and labor, but I am equally intent on protecting the American fanner's home aud labor.