The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1884-01-24


were partners in Mexico, and that they
obtained aoms large concessions from thai
government in relation to railroad ant
steamboat lines" is wholly without founda
ton. Mr.. Romero and myself never bat
in our lives any pecuuisry transactions o.
business transactions OF any kind. Since
the close Of our rebellion and the expulsion
OF Maximillian from Mexico there has
been warm sympathy between Romero
and myself, our views being coincident q!
TO the relations that ought to exist between
Mexico and the United States. We have
both devoted much time in bringing
about more Intimate relations between
the two Republics, aud entirely
gratulton, on our own part. ], my
cell, have no pecuniary interest in any
improvements, which have taken place in
Mexico with American capital, but feel &
great interest in their success. In the
paragraph quoted above you say ut wss
suspected, and really I can't say it was
more than suspicion, that these two men
partners in business had big private inter
ests in that treaty, that 1t would aid then
in developing monopolies they want, etc. )
As stated above, Mr.. Romero and myself
were not partners in anything. We have,
neither of us, 1 certainly have not, any
more interest in the ratification of thai
treaty than any other private citizen in my
country. I believe its ratification would
be great step towards establishing those
relations between two contiguous republics
which ought TO e1is. and which would be
oi mutual advantage.
1.-THE CUBAN SUGAR QUESTION.
I might say here that in some arguments
which I have read in the periodicals OF the
time have seen urged against the treaty
the fact that Cuba was 80 near Mexico
that it would be m easy matter to ship
their sugar to that country and reship il
from there, thus evading duties. OF course
stringent laws would be passed to make
such acts dangerous, but aside from any
law, there are two answers 10 that objection
to the treaty, either Of which, in itself, is
conclusive as sgainst that objection. First,
Mexico has higher tariff upon sugar than
the United States has, and they have nc
provision in their laws for rebate duties
when imported articles are re-exported.
Second, The conclusive answer is that it is
only crude sugar which Is admitted free
under the treaty, and the difference be.
tween Cuban raw sugar and Mexican raw
sugar is so great that it would not even re.
quire an expert to tell the difference be.
tween them by "ieel" alone, if he was
blindfolded. 1 write this from the sick
room and by dictation, aud therefore can.
not go into details, as would II able to sit
up and write myself. So. .yy-T
l might add, however, while have
spent thousands of dollars OF my own
money and a great deal Of time to advance
the development OF Mexico by United
States capital and by American Influence,
have not one dollars interest in all that
has been done, and no pecuniary interest
whatever in the country except that lam
one Of 1.-the subscribers to the railroad which
lies wholly to the south OF the City oil
Mexico, and the success OF which is very
doubtful! in these times when it is so diff.
cult to raise capital ior any such enterprise.
There Is no steamboat charter or other
monopoly in which l have the slightest
pecuniary interest. My whole interest is
in developing tilts, relations which be.
lieys ought 10 exist between contiguous
countries, and particularly those OF like
institutions, and in the case Of Mexico l
think it now important, because Of her
great uadeyeloped resources, which must
make her soon a commercial State OF very
great importance.
( Very truly yours, e
= . i. ~. f. . r A.