St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-07-26
Blaine Believes in Friendly
Barter Between Ameri-
can Republics.
Reciprocity Is His Hobby, and
He Says So in Plain
English.
The President of the Worlds
Fair Commission Confers
With Harrison.
Settlement of the Most Noted
Private Claim Ever Before
Congress.

WASHINGTON, July Ex-senator Frye
to-day received the following letter
from Secretary Blaine, in reply to MS
recent inquiries respecting the effect OF
reciprocity OIL the sugar trade with
Cuba and Porto Rico.
Bar Harbor, Me.-Dear Mr.. Frye: L
have your reply to my letter, and am
glad that the essential part Of 1t mas
been given to the press. You ask me
what assurance l have as to SPANS S
willingness to enter into reciprocal ar.
rangements 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 ad.
mission 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. A year before, 1888, a very adj
mirable treaty of reciprocity was nego-
tiated by Gen. Grant and William II.
Trescott. as United States commission
ers, with the Republic of Mexico, a
treaty we'll considered i'll all its parts
and all details, whose results would, L
believe, have proven highly advanta..
geous to both countries. In view OF
the pending discussion it is somewhat
singular circumstance that both these
Treaties of OfReciprOcfty
failed to secure the approval of con-
gress, and failed for the express reason
that both provided for the free admis-
sion of sugar. Congress would not then
allow a single pound of sugar to come
in free of duty under any circumstances
whatever. 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
cannot make better trade-a trade by
which we may pay for at least part OF
the sugar in the products OF American
farms and shops. Our change of opln-
ion has certainly been remarkable In so
brief period. Indeed, the only danger
of our not securing advantageous; treat
ties of reciprocity now is the pesslDle
belief on the part of those countries
that we are so anxious fpr free sugar
that by patient waiting thes can secure
all they desire without money and with
out price. Fearing tile. result, sought
an interview with the eight Republican
members of the committee on ways and
be exact, on the tenth day of.laSt Feb
ruary. | endeavored to convince them
that it would be eXpedient and wise to
leave to the president, as the treaty
making power, an opportunity to
see what advantageous arrangements of
reciprocal trade could be effected. l
was unable to persuade the committee
to take my view. mention this Cir
cumstance now because it has been
charged in many quarters that the sug-
gestion 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. 1t is,
think, very grave mistake to oppose
this reciprocal proposition to 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 us see what is
proposed. Our government has hereto
fore collected a heavy duty from sugar
amounting one year in the aggregate
to $4,000, 900. and averaging $4,000, ,00C
per annum for a considerable period.
We wish now to cheaper sugar by re-
moving the duty. The value. OF the
sugar we annually consume is en0r-
nous. Shall we pay for it all III cash,
or shall we seek a reciprocal arrange
ment by which a large part of it may be
paid for in pork, beef and flour. in lum-
ber. salt and iron, in shoes, calico, fur
niture. and a thousand other things? In
short, shall we pay for it all in cash. OF
try friendly barter in part? think the
latter mode is the
Highest Form of Protection
and the best way to promote trade. l
address this note to you, as l did my
first, because you have taken an active
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
make beginning? If we now give
away the duty on sugar (aS we already
have given the duties on coffee and
hides and rubber) and get nothing in
exchange which shall be profitable to
the farmer in the United States. what
shall be our justification for the policy?
You have recently received congratuia-
tions-in which | cordially join-on
carrying this shipping bill through the
senate. Do you not think a line of
ships, generously aided by the govern
ment, will have better prospect for
profit and for permanence it we can give
to them outward cargoes from the
United States, and not confine them to
inward cargoes from Latin America?
am sincerely yours,
JAMES G. BLAINE.