The morning call., 1890-06-24
BLAINE'S VIEWS.
An Explanation by Ills Friend
and COnfdant.
Why He Opposed The Removal Of The
Tariff on Raw Sugar.
A Chance to Open Up Valuable Markets
for American Products Thrown
Away.
Special Dispatches to THE MoRx1se CALL.

Special Dispatches to THE MORNING CALL
WASHINGTON, June 23.-Hon. William E.
Curtis, correspondent of the Chicago Daily
News and Blaine's confidant sends to his
paper the following statement concern
ing Blaine's views on McKinley's bill:
There is no reason why the en-
phatic expression of Blaine in the
Senate Committee on Appropriations the
other day concerning the Tariff Bill
should have caused any surprise to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for he
has been trying to impress that committee
with the same views all winter, while the
bill was being formulated. He had re-
peated conferences with Messrs. Nc
Kinley, Burrows, Gear Dingley and
the other Republican members, and
In the most earnest manner protested
against placing sugar on the free list with
out corresponding concessions from the
sugar-growing countries; against an in
crease of the duty on wool. which is our
chief article of import from Chile and Ar
gentine Republic, and against the proposed
duty on hides. He explained to the COM
mittee the proceedings of the International
American Conference, and the efforts he
was making to secure reciprocity treaties
with Central and South American countries,
so as TO extend the market for our manu-
features and agricultural products.
THAT could easily be DONE" he eX-
planned, "by offering in exchange the du-
ties we cha rye on sugar and carpet woods,
which are not produced in this country to
any extent and need no protection" and he
demonstrated to the committee that such an
exch ange would result in furnishing mar
ket for from S5O,00o,0 600 to S100,000000 worth
of breedstuffs and provisions. He recalled
the result of placing coffee on the free list
some years ago. 1t was done for the sa me
reason that is proposed to place sugar on
posed political exigency, but instead
OF affordtng free breakfast for
the workingman,' which was the shib-
boleth in those days, the Empire
of Brazil placed an export duty on coffee
and the price of the article remained the
same. Brazil would have removed her duty
from our flour and other broadstuffs at that
time had we asked it, but the elections were
approaching and Congress could not wait to
trade.
"Mr Blaine demonstrated to the commit
tee too that the removal of the duty on
sugar was not going to relieve the farmer
from the depression in prices. The farmer
does not use raw sugar but refined
sugar, and the duty on the lat
ter is increased by the Mckinley
bill. He would be even more at the mercy
of the sugar trust, or any other monopoly
that might be established, for the domestic
manufacturer Of sugar would be In posi-
ton to increase the price Of the refined
, article any time he chose, although he
would get his raw material great deal
cheaper.
''The public expectation of the benefit of
the legislation to sugar manufacturers is
shown by the increase in the value Of sugar
trust certificates, which were quoted at $50
on the 10th of January before the House
committee took up the question of free
sugar, and at sos Oh May Dist, when the bill
was reported to the Senate, but there has
been no increase in the value of corn or
wheat or potatoes or anything the farmers
holds.
"Mr. Blaine!endeavored to convince the
committee that if they wanted to do some
thing to benefit the farmer they could do it
best by providing him with a profitable
market for his surplus products. This was
much more important than to cheaper
the price of his sugar one cent a
pound. a farmers family uses a
hundred pounds of sugar year, perhaps,
on which the reduction would amount to
81. He could afford to sacrifice that if the
wheat, corn and other agricultural products
COulu Dc uuhduCtu tNtI Out CtHl
q bushel. But by the negotiating of
reciprocity treaties both objects would
be accomplished; the duty on sugar could
be removed and an enormous foreign de-
mand for farm products secured. But the
committee were obstinate; they had de-
cided to put sugar on the free list, and
would not reconsider that determination.
'Mr. Blaine submitted TO the committee.
informally, an amendment TO the Tariff
Bill similar to that introduced in the Sem
ate BY Mr. Hale the other day, authorizing
the President to declare the ports of the
United States free to the sugar of any naticn
that removed the duties on our food prod
uets, but Mr.. Mckinley was the only one
of the Republicans who would agree TO it,
The remainder objected to il because it
would c0mpllcate matters
There is no reason why the actual facts
about the scene in the Appropriation
Committees room the other day should not
be related l happened to be a witness,
and the circumstances were these
MT Blaine was explaining to the
making an appropriation to carry into
effect the recommendations of the Inter-
national Conference. Mr.. Hale inquired
what results were to be expected, where
upon MIR. Blaine, in an impetuOus manner
that is characteristic Of him, declared that
if sugar were placed upon the free-list
the greatest results sought for and ex-
pected from the International Conference
would be sacrificed. He declared that it
would be the most tinexcusable piece of folly
the Republican party was ever guilty of,
and that its leaders in Congress would real
iZe il before many months, and that if he
was in the Senate he would fight it to the best
of his ability. He spoke with the greatest
earnestness and said he would give two
years of his life for two hours on the floor
of the Senate when the sugar schedule was
under consideration. Forty millions of
people. he said, had expressed their will
ingness to admit our food products free if
we could take the duty off their sugar. and
in the face of that proposition our Congress
proposed to put sugar on the free list with
out asking any concession in return.
Mr.. Blaine has created /, tremendous
sensation by the boldness with which he
attacked the policy of the party of which
he has been the leader so long, and If he
were on the floor of the Senate or House,
where he could have the opportunity of
debate and parliamentary privileges, there
would be no doubt as to the result. If the
present policy is pursued it will be against
the advice of the President, the Secretary
nf Tot o,,A In hi;