The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-24

General Grant Expresses His Views Con-
cerning the Pending Measure.
NEW YORK, Jan. 23.-General Grant has sent
the following letter to the Washington Evening
Star relative to the pending Mexican treaty:
NEW YORK CITY, Jan. %.
To the Editor of the Washington Evening Star:
In your issue of Saturday, headed 'The Mexican
Treaty-The Senate Declines to Ratify at Present."
find the following paragraph; "Why some senators
voted against it: member of Congress said to a
Star reporter to-day: There votes several
of them at least cast against the Mexican treaty in
the Senate for this reason: You see Grant and
Romero were partners in Mexico and they obtained
some large concessions from that government in re-
laton to railroad and steamboat lines. Now Grant is
United States commissioner ard Romero is Mexican
commissioner and both of them are exceedingly anx-
pected, and really l can't say it was more
than a suspicion, that these two men, partners
in business had big private interests in that
lies they want and real good could be discovered
in the treaty nothing patent enough to outweigh this
suspicion, why several senators whom l know of
concluded the safest plan would be to vote against
it,
The statement that "Grant and Romero are part
ners in Mexico, and that they obtained some large
concessions from that government in relation to rail
road and steamboat lines, is wholly without founda-
ton. Mr.. Romero and myself never had in our lives
any pecuniary transaction of any kind Since the
close of our rebellion and the expulsion of Maxim-
lian from Mexico there has been warm sympathy
between Romero and myself. Our views have been
tween Mexico and the United States. We have both
devoted much time to bringing about intimate
relations between the republics, and entirely gratu
itously own part. 1, myself, have no pc
cuniary interests in those improvements which are
taking place in Mexico with American capital but feel
great interest in their success.
In the paragraph quoted above you say; ut was
suspected and, really, can't say it was more than
suspicion that these two men, partners in business
had big private interests in that treaty, that it would
aid them in developing monopolies they want" etc.
As stated above, Mr. Romero and myself are not part
in anything. We have neither of us-I certainly
have notany interest in the ratification of that
treaty than any other private citizen of my country
believe its ratification would be great step toward
establishing those relations between the two contiguous
republics which ought to exist and which would be to
their mutual advantage.
1 might say here that in some arguments which
have read in the periodicals of the time have seen
urged against the treaty the fact that Cuba
Mexico that it would be easy matter to ship their
sugar to that country and reshp it from there thus
evading the duty OF course stringent laws would be
passed to make such acts dangerous but aside from
that there are two answers to that objection to the
treaty, either of which, in ITSELF is conclusive as
against that objection. First, Mexico has
higher tariff upon sngar than the United
States has, and they have no provision
in their laws for rebate Of duties where