IV.
"RECIPROCITY OR RETALIATION."
This is now the battle-cry of our Neo-Protectionists. They maintain that if foreigners keep out our products by hostile tariffs, we should threaten to do the same with theirs.
One of two things must happen: they will either open their ports, and we shall then have Reciprocity, or we shall close ours, and we shall then have Retaliation.
I have already discussed what might be the outcome of Reciprocity, that is free trade, to ourselves as a nation.
As regards the world at large, all are agreed upon the benefits that would ensue from an adoption of Free Trade. But, we might be driven to Retaliation, and that involves many important considerations which our Neo-Protectionists steadily keep out of view.
Let us look at some of these.
Let us assume that all the difficulties which might arise from "the most favoured nation" clause in existing treaties are obviated, and Retaliation pure and simple set up.
We should find ourselves in a most absurd and anomalous position.
Pray observe that when I use the terms "we," "us," "our," I mean the nation, the community, and not any particular class composing it. The distinction is an important one, but our Neo-Protectionists steadily ignore it. In discussing these questions it is found convenient by them, according to the exigencies of their argument, to use ambiguously the terms "we," and "us," and "our." When they use these terms, what is in their minds is, some class and its supposed particular interests; which they would have you identify with the nation and its general interests—two things which may be diametrically opposed.
For this purpose "we" and "our" are convenient ambiguities.
The absurd and anomalous position in which we—that is the nation—should find ourselves is this:—The facts and figures I have adduced prove to demonstration that under the existing system of what our Neo-Protectionists are pleased to call one-sided Free Trade, and by means of
