Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1890-07-31
FOR RECIPROCITY.

The Secretary of State to Senator frye
Why He is i'm Favor of Reciprocity
The Benefits to Accrue to American
Commerce--Fres Sugar Should be Made
TO Secure an Equivalent Return.
WASHINGTON. July Ex-senator Frye
yesterday received the following letter
from Secretary Blaine, in answer to his
inquiries respecting reciprocity on the
sugar trade and its effect with Cuba and
Porto Rico:
BAR HARBoR, Me, July %, 1897
DEAR MR. FRrE-I have your reply to my
letter. and am glad that the essential part of
il has been given to the press.
You ask me what assurance 1 have as to
Spain's willingness to enter into reciprocal
arrangements of trade with the United
States. Your question surprises me, for you
can not have forgotten that only six years
ago the Prime Minister of Spain, in his anx-
iety to secure free admiss ion to our makets
for the sugar of Cuba and Porto Rico. agreed
to very extensive treaty of reciprocity
with Mr.. John w. Foster, then our
Minister at Madrid. A year before-ls5s
avery admirable treaty of reciprocity was
negotiated by General Grant aud Mr. VIM
III. Tres cot, as United States Commissioners
with the Republic of Mexico-a treaty well
considered in all its parts AMI details--who5e
results would, believe, have proved highly
advantageous to both countries. In view of
tac pchuAHS uiSCusSiOu, IL Is a somewhat
singular circumstance that both these
treaties of reciprocity failed to secure the
approval of Congress, and for the express
reason that both provided for the free ad
mission OF sugar Congress would not then
allow single pound of sugar to come in
free of duty under any circumstances what.
ever.
And now the proposition is to open our
ports free to every body's sugar,and to do it
with such rapidity that we are not to have
a moments time to see if We can not make
a better trade-a trade by which we may in
part at least pay for our sugar with the pro-
ducts OF American farms carried in Ameri
can ships. Our change of opinion has certain
ly been remarkable in so brief period. In
deed the only danger of our not securing
advantageous treaties of reciprocity now is
the possible belief on the part of those
countries that we are so anxious for free
sugar that by patient waiting they can Sc
cure all they desire without money and
without price.
Fearing that result, suggested an inter-
view with the eight Republican members
of the committee on ways and means more
than five months ago-to be exact,on the 10th
day of last February. Iendeavoreu to con-
vince them that it would be expeJient and
wise to leave to the President, as the treaty
making power, an opportunity to see what
advantageous arrangements of reciprocal
trade could be made. was unable to per-
suade the committee to take my view. !
mention this now because it has been
charged in many quarters that the sugges-
ton for reciprocity came too late. In fact,
my effort was made before the Tariff bill
was reported to the House, even formed
in committee. 1t is, think, a very grave
mistake to oppose this reciprocal PROPOSE
ton touching sugar from the fear that it
may conflict in some way with the policy of
protection. The danger, think, is wholly
in the opposite direction.
Let see what is proposed: Our Govern.
ment has heretofore collected a heavy duty
from cugar-amounting one year in the ag-
gregate to fifty-eight millions of dollars
ISIS OOO,00O), and averaging fifty millions per
annum for considerable period. We wish
now to cheaper sugar by removing the duty.
The value of the sugar we annually con-
sumo is enormous. Shall pay for it all
in cash shall seek a reciprocal ar
rangement by which Il large part of 1t may
be paid for in beef and flour, in lumber and
salt, and iron, in shoes and calico and fur
niture, and a thousand other things.
In short, shall we pay for it all in cash, or
try friendly barter in part? think the lat
ter mode is the highest form of protection
and the best way to promote trade. L adj
dress this note to you, as 1 did my first, be-
cause you have taken active inteseSt in
the Increase of our trade with South Amer |
lea. When shall we enlarge our CONNER
cial intercourse with that great country il
we do not make beginning. If we give
away the duty on sugar (aS we already have !
given the duties coffee and hides and |
rubber) and get nothing in exchange which |
shall be profitable to the farm the factory /
in the United States what shall be justi- |
fication for the policy? You have recently |
received congratuiations-in which L cor |
daily ioin-on carrying the Shipping bill !
through the Senate. Do you not think that !
a line OF ships generously aided by the Gov /
eminent will have better prospect for /
profit and for permanence if we can give to /
them outward cargoes from the United |
States. and not confine them to inward ear.
goes from Latin America.
am sincerely yours,
JAMES q. BLAINE.