Sacramento daily record-union., 1890-07-26
DUTY ON SUGAR.
Secretary Blaine's Answer to Senator
Frye's Letter.

Frye's Letter.
WASHINGTON, July 25th.-Senator FRYE
to-day received a letter from Secretary
Blaine, in reply to his of recent date. M.
Blaine says, in part:
You ask me what assurance / have as
to Spain's willingness to enter into recipro-
cal arrangements of trade with the United
States. Your question surprises me, for
you cannot have forgotten that only six
years ago the Prime Minister of Spain, in
his anxiety 10 secure free admission to our
markets for the sugar of Cuba and Porto
Rico. agreed to very extensive
treaty OF reciprocity with Mr.. Fos-
ter, then our Minister at Madrid.
In the year before, in 1888. very ad-
mirable treaty of reciprocity was negotiated
by General Grant and Mr.. Trescott United
States Commissioners. with the Republic of
Mexico. A treaty well considered in all its
parts and all its details, whose results
would, believe, have proved highly ad-
vantageous to both countries. In view of
the pending discussion it is somewhat
singular circumstance that both these
treaties failed to secure the approval of
Congress, and failed for the express reason
that both provided for the free admission
OF sugar. Congress would not then allow
single pound of sugar to come in free of
J.,
and now the proposition is to open our
ports free 10 every body's sugar, and to do
1t with such rapidity that we are not to
have moments time to see if we can't
make better trade-a trade by which we
may pay for at least part of our sugar in
the products of American farms and shops
Our change OF opinion has certainly been
remarkable in so brief period Indeed,
the only danger of our not securing the
advantages of our treaties of reciprocity
now is the possible belief on the part of
those countries that we are anxious for free
sugar; that BY patient waiting they can Sc
cure all they desire without money and
without price. Fearing that result, |
sought al interview with the eight Repub.
lican members of the Ways and Means
Committee more than five months ago. l
endeavored to convince them that ii would
be expedient and wise to leave to the Presi-
dent an opportunity to see what advan-
tageous arrangements of reciprocal trade
could he effected. | was unable to per-
suade the committee to take myjview.
1T is, / think, a very grave mistake to
oppose this reciprocal proposition for fear
that it may conflict In some way with the
policy of protection. The danger is, l
think, wholly in en- opposite direction.
The value of sugar we annually consume
Is cuOInOus. SEdll We pay lOr II all IN
cash, or shall we seek reciprocal arrange
ments by which large part of 1t may be
paid for in pork and beef and flour, in
lumber and in salt and iron, in shoes and
calico and furniture, and thousands of
other things? l think the latter mode is
the highest form of protection and the best
way topromote trade. When shall we en-
large our commercial intercourse with that
great ointment South America?
IF We don't now make beginning, if
We nov give away the duty on sugar las
| we already have given away the duties on
coffee. hides and rubber), and get nothing
in exchange which shall be profitable to
the farm or factory in the United States,
what shall be our justification for the pol.
icy you have recently received congratula-
tions form which / cordially join-in
carrying the shipping bill through the
Senate? Do you not think line of ships
generously aided by the Government will
| have better prospect for profit and per-
manence. if we can give to them outward
| cargoes from the United States, and not
confine them to inward cargoes from Latin
Amerioae'is