New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-07-26
DIR BLAINE AND RECIPROCITY
THE SECRETARY WRITES AGAIN TO SENA-
TOR FRYE.

HE RECALLS TWO TREATIES FOR RECIPROCITY
WHICH FAILED TO GET THE APPROVAL
OF CONGRESS BECAUSE THEY
PROPOSED FREE SUGAR
Washington, July Ex-senator Frye to-day re-
ceved the following letter from Secretary Blaine
in further elucidation of the reciprocity question
Bar IIarbor, Ne, July 90, 1890.
Dear Mr.. Frye: have your reply to my letter
and am glad that the essential part of it has
been given to the press. You ask me what as
sufance | have TO Spain's 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 the Prime Minister of Spain, in his anxiety
to secure free admission to our markets for the
sugar of Cuba and Porto Rico, agreed to a very
extensive treaty of reciprocity with John w.
Foster, then our Minister at Madrid. year
bcfore-in lSs3-a very admirable treaty of recp
rocity was negotiated by General Grant and Mr..
William II. Trcscot, rs United States Commits
sioncrs, with the Republic of Mcxco-a treaty
well considered in all its parts and all its details
whose results would, ! believe, have proved
highly advantageous to both countries
I'm view of the pending discussion, it is n some
what singular circumstance that both these
treaties of reciprocity failed to the approval
Of Congress- and failed for the cXpres, that
both provided for free admission Of sugar. Con
grass would not then allow single pound Of
sugar to come in free Of duty under any circum-
stances whatever. And now the proposition is to
open our ports free to eyerybody's sugar, and 10
do it with such rapdty that we are not 10 have
a moments time to see if we cannot make better
tTadc-a trade by which we may pay for at least
a part of the sugar in the products of American
farms and shops.
our change Of opinion has certainly been re
markabc in 50 brief period Indeed, the only
danger Of our not securing advantageous treaties
Of reciprocity now is tie possible belief on the
part Of those countries that we are anxious for
free sugar that by patient waiting they can secure
all they desire without money and without price.
Fearing that rcsult, sought an interview with
tie eight Republican members OF the Committee
on Ways and Means more than five months ago
to be exact, on the 0th DAY OF last February.
| cnleayored to convince them that il would be
cxpcdent and wise to leave to tie President as
the trcaty-makng power. opportunity 10
what ADVANTAGEOUS arrangements of reciprocal
trade could be effected. | was unable 10 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 be-
fore the Tariff bill was reported to the House
or even frame: complete.
II is think, very grave mistake to oppose
This reciprocal proposition touching from the
fear that it may conflict in some way with the
policy Of protection The danger is, / think
wholly IN the opposite direction Let us see what
is proposed: our Government has heretofore
collected heavy duty from sugar. amounting one
year, in the aggregate to hftN eight millions of
dollars $5S 600 900. and averaging fifty millions
per auuum for q considerable period We wish
now 10 cheupcn sugar by removing the duty.
The value Of the sugar we annually consume is
enormous. Shall We pay for it all in cash. or
shall we seek reciprocal Arrangement by which
q large part of it may be paid for in pork and beef
and -four in lumber and salt and iron. in shoes and
calico and furniture, and thousand other things
In short. shall we pay for it all in cash, or try
friendly barter for it in part? think the latter
mode Is the Highest form of protection, and the
best way 10 promote trade.
| address this note to sou, Us | did my first,
because you have taken an active and most III
tcI.rnt interest in the increase Of our trade with
South America When shall We enlarge our com
mcrcial Intercourse with that great continent, if
We do not now make beginning? If We now
give away the duty on sugar las we have already
given away the duties on coffee and hide, and
rubber, and get nothing in exchange, which shall
be profitable to the farm or the factory of the
United States What shal! be our justification for
the policy?
Yon have recently received congratulations
in which cordially join-on carrying the Shipping
bill through the Senate. Do you not think that
q line of ships generously aided by the Govern
mcnt will have better prospect for profit and
for pcrmancncc if we can give them outward
curgoes from the United States, and not coniine
them 10 inward cargoes from Latin America?
am sincerely yonrs, JAMES Il. BLAINE.
Hon. William ?. Frye etc. United States Sen
ate.