New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-04-26
THE ANNEXATION OF MEXICO.
THE MEXICAN MINISTER'S VIEWS

NJ. Romero in North American Review for May.
Both parties, and in fact the whole country to
man, arc decidedly opposed to annexation. not only
also because they have the conviction that annexs-
ton for them means determination, and naturally
destruction. l do not share these views myself,
SO far as the exterminaton OF the race now hsing
In Mexico is concerned, because do not think niss
l2OO0000 of people can be easily eNiermnaied,
but that makes no difference when tho whole country
For the present and IN all probability for some
time TO come, reciprocity is all that Is needed for Tho
development of trade relations between The Two
countries. Their territorial contigllty and tho
steel bands which now connect them, reqnire
special rules to foster and develop their com
mcrciaI Intercourse, somewhat Anc-ant hon those
applied To other countries. RECIPROCITY mas
besides the OF aUw aas 5ne 90
to ITSELF aud with great benefit TO the other country
IT, for instance the United states should decide naw
with a view to reduce their revenue. or for any Other
reason satisfactory To themselves To abolish the duty
on sugar they did some time aso the duty on cot
enue in case the abolition was extended TO all ne:
lions but If IT is made only for MEXICO. they wous
ucts and manufactures. BESIDES. reciprocity. @
agreed upon with McXco In me pending tna,V, a,ss
Of the Congress of each country to alter az their WILL
their respective revenue laws.
Commercial union presents great many more dldl-
twn Countries Il is undcrsooI that both should have
the same tariff laws for the importation Of foreign
articles and mutually receive free of duties their own.
amend and repeal such laws II the Congress Of each
country simultaneously but Independently, Il would
be very difficult for them Ia come tO an agreement
rpresenting countries with different needs and In tor
est, Joint Congress. I'm which both countries should
be represented would be subject serious
besides requiring modification of the Fundamental
laws Of the They would have Ia be represented
equals. In proportion 10 their population or thor
territorial AREA II equals. the larger might siYep
In ia intess and II In proportion to their population
territory the smaller one would be the sufferer
lut oven restricting commercial union 10 the fr~S
importation In each country Of the products AMI man
uacturcs of the other-which measure could propcrv
be called UNRESTRICTED reciprocity keeping both their
respective tariffs issued In accordance with th.ir
Constitution for the products and nianufar tlrcs 81
other countries provision should be made about tbs
TO modify their revenue laws bsc ause n In tho
case OF American cotton goods, for instance they
should be declared by Mexico free for all other cou n
tries. the United States would then cease 10 derive
the advantages OF reciprocity: aud how such laws
should be amended and repealed is a NATTER verv
difficult TO decide. as In that case Il would be neces-
sary to give 10 either country voice in the enart
ment OF the laws OF the othar. which would hari.y
be acceptable TO either. and would again. require the
modification OF the fundamental laws Of both
The question OF commercial union between Mexico
and the United States presents such complex prob
lens that n IS more advisable 10 let the needs and
exigenccs of the future indicate the way OF solving
them for the present all the interests and needs o.
both countries would. In my opinion be subservcd
with restricted reciprocity, like that agreed upon IN
the pending treaty.