The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-01-31
Grant and the Mexican Treaty.

NEW YORK, Jan. 23.-Gen. Grant
sent the following letter to the Wash
ington Evening Star relative TO the
pending Mexican treaty:
NEW YORK CITY, Jan. q, 1884.
Editor Washington Evening star:
In your issue Of Saturday, headed
'The Mexican treaty, the Senate de-
clineS to ratify at present" find the
following paragraph: "Why some sen
ators voted against it. A member OF
Congress said to Star reporter to-day
there were some votes, several of them
at least, cast against the Mexican
treaty in the Senate for this reaSon,-
you see, Grant and Romero were part
| nerS in Mexico and they obtained some
large concessions from that govern
| ment in relation to railroad and steam
boat lines. Now Grant is United
States commissioner and Romero MEX
lean commissioner, and both of them
| were exceedingly anxious to have the
| treaty ratified. 1t was suspected,
really nc say it was more than
suspicion, that these two men, part
ners in business, had big private it.
terests in that treaty; that it would
| aid them in the development of mon
| opolieS, as they were, and as no real
good could be discovered in the treaty,
at least nothing patent enough to out
weigh this suspicion, several senators
whom VIC know of, concluded 1t would
be the safest plan to vote against it.
The statement that Grant and Romero
are partners in Mexico and they OBJ
tanned some large concessions from
that government in relation to steam
boat and railroad lines, is wholly with
out foundation. Mr.. Romero and my
self never had in our lives any pecun-
iary transactions. or business transac-
tions of any kind, since the close OF
our rebellion and the expulsion OF
Macmillan from Mexico. There has
been sympathy between Romero
and myself, our views being coinci-
dent as to the relations that ought to
exist between Mexico and the United
States. We have both devoted much
time to bringing about more intimate
relations between the two republics.
and entirely gratuiLously on our part.
l myself have no pecuniary interest
in any improvements which are TAX
ing place in Mexico with American
capital, but feel a great interest in
their success.
In the paragraph quoted above you
oCsY IL W do 0uODCSbCNs GNU
cannot say it was more than suspi-
cion, that these two men, partners in
business, had big private interests in
the treaty; that 1t would aid them in
developing monopolies they want, etc.
AS stated above. Mr.. Romero and my
self were not partners in anything.
We have neither Of us, l certainly
have not, any more interest in the rat
ification of that treaty than any other
private citizen of my country. l be-
lieve it's ratification will be great
step towards establishing those rela-
lions between two contiguous repub-
lies which ought to exist, and which
would be of mutual advantage. L
might say here that in some argu-
mentS which / have read in the peri
odicals of the time have seen, urged
against the treaty the fact that
Cuba was SO near TO Mex
leo that it would be an
easy matter to ship their sugar to
that country and reship it from there,
thus eyading duties. OF course strin-
gent laws would be passed to make
such acts dangerous, but aside from
any law there are two answers to that
objection to the treaty, either Of
which in itself is conclusive as against
that objection. First. Mexico has a
higher tariff upon sugar than the
United States has, and they have no |
provision in the laws for rebate duties
where imported articles are exported;
the second conclusive answer is that |
it Is only crude sugar which Is
admitted free under the treaty, |
and the difference between Gu |
ban raw sugar and Mexican raw
sugar Is 80 great that it would not |
even required an expert to tell the |
difference between them by feel all |
alone, as If he were bllndfolded. l !
write this from sick room and by !
dictation, and therefore do not 60 into |
details as I would if able to sit up !
and write myself. 1 might add, how !
ever, that while I have spent thou |
sands of dollars of my own money |
and great deal of time to advance |
the developments of Mexico by |
United States capital and by Ameri- |
can influence, have not one dollar of !
interest in all that has been done and |
no pecuniary interest whatever in the
country, except that l am one of |
the subscribers to railway which |
lies wholly to the south of the City |
of Mexico, and the success OF which I
Is very doubtful in these times when |
1t Is so difficult to raise the capital for
any such enterprises. There is no /
steanib boat charter, OF other monopoly,
~ interests. My whole interest il In
oeyGloping th0se relations which l