Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-07-26
TRADE RECIPROCITY.
Mr.. BLAINE WRITES ANOTHER LET
TER TO Mr.. FRYE.
SPANS willingness to Enter Into Rccipro-
cal Arrangemen,s-Formc Urea
tIcs-Tbe Danger Ahead
Subsidized Ships.
ny telegraph TO tho Dispatch


to-day received the following letter from
Secretary Blaine in further elucidation of
the reciprocity question;
BAR HARBoB, ME., July 22, 1899.
Dear Mr.. Frye:
/ have your reply 20 my letter. and am
glad that the essential part of it has been
given TO tho press.
You a9k me what assurance J have rs TO
SPANS willingness TO enter into reciprocal
arrangements of trade with the United
States. Your question surprises me. for
YOU cannot have forgotten that only SIX
years ago tho Prime Minister of Spain, m
his anxiety 10 secure free admission 10 our
markets for the sugar OF Cuba and Porto
Rico, agreed 10 a very extensive treaty OF
reciprocity with John w Foster, then our
Minister al Madrid. A year before in 1850
n very admirable treaty Of reciprocity was
negotiated by General Grant aud William
ii. lresnott rs United States commissioners
with the Republic Of Nexico-a treaty well
considered in all its parts and al It's de-
tails. whose results would. / believe. have
proved highly advantageous to both cOun-
tries.
SINGULAR CIRCUMSTANCE.
In view Of tho pending discussion it is q
somewhat singular circumstance that both
those treaties Of reciprocity failed TO Sc
cure the approval OF Congress. and failed
tor the express reason that both provided
for the free admission OF sugar. Congress
would not then allow q single pound OF
sugar 10 come IN free of duty under any
circumstances whatcycr And now the
proposition is 10 omen our ports free TO
eycrybody's sugar. and 10 do 10 with such
Tapidity that we are not TO have mo-
ment's time to sec # We cannot make
better trade--a trade by which we may pay
for Ut least part Of the sugar in the pro-
ducts of American farms and shops.
Our change of opinion has cert AMY
been remarkable III so brief period. IN
deed. the only danger Of our not securing
advantageous treaties OF reciprocity now
is a possible lelicf on the part OF those
countries that We are so ANXIOUS for free
sugar that by patient waiting they can Sc
cure al thcv desire without money and
without price.
Fearing that result, I sought an inter-
Wow with eight Republican members OF
the Committee on Ways and Means more
than five months a@o-tO be exact, on the
10Th day Of last February. ! endeayOrcd
10 convince them that It would be eXpe-
dent and Wise TO leave 10 the President, "a
the treaty-making power, an opportunity
10 see what advantageous arrangements OF
reciprocal trade could be effected. j was
unable TO persuade the committee 10 take
my view. | mention this circumstance
now because IL has been charged IN many
quarters that the suggestion for reciprocity
came too late. In fact my effort was made
before the tariff bill was reported to the
House or even framed in committee.
GREAT MIsTAEE.
II is. ! think, very grave mistake to OPP
pose this reciprocal proposition touching
sugar from the fear that it may conflict IN
some way with the policy of protection.
The danger is. think. wholly IN the oppo-
site direction.
let Us see what is proposed. Our Gov
eminent has heretofore collected heavy
duty from sugar, amounting one year IN
the aggregate 10 S5S. 100000 and averaging
so, 600, 600 per annum for a considerable
period. We wish now 10 cheaper sugar ny
removing the duty. The value OF the sugar
we annually consume IL enormous. snail
we nav for il in cash or shall we seek re-
ciprocitv arrangement by which large
part of it may be paid for In pork and beer
and -four. in lumber and salt and IRON,
in shoes and calico and furniture, and q
thousand other things? In short. SNAIL
we pav Tor IT in cash or try friendly
barter in partY think the latter mode IS
the HIGHEST form of protection, and the
best way to promote trade.
THE REASON OF THE LETTTR.
I address this note To you. rs / did my
first, because you have taken an active and
most intelligent interest in the increase Of
our trade with South America. When shall
we enlarge our commercial intercourse
with that great continent if We do not now
make a beginning: If we now give away
the duty on sugar (as We already have
given away the duties on coffee and hides
and rubber and get nothing IN exchange
which shall be profitable 10 farm or fac
torv in the United States what shall be our
justification for the policy!
You have recently received congratula-
tions-in which | cordially jOin--on carry
ing the shipping bill through the Senate.
DO you not think that line Of ships gem
erously aided by the Government VIII have a
better prospect for profit and for perma-
nence If we can give 20 them outward car
GOES from the United States and not cOniine
them to inward cargOes from LATIN
America | am sincerely yours.
JAMES G.. BLAISF.
Hon. William p. Frye, etc., Cnaed States
Senate.