The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-07-26
BLAINE FOR FREE TRADE.
He WRITES ANOTHER LETTER TO
FRYE ON RECIPROCITY.

The Advantage of Making Cuba's
Sugar a Lever to Open Her Mark cts
to This Country Pointed Outflow
Reciprocity Would Help the subsi-
dized Ships.
WASHINGTON, July 25.-Secretary Blaine's
private secretary delivered to Senator Frye
today Secretary Blaine's reply to Senator
Frye's questions. which, like Secretary
Blaine's replies generally, does not reply, so
it seems, and then delivered copy to the
Associated Press. This illustrates Secretary
Blaiue's purpose. If Senator Frye had the
only copy of this letter and read it in the
republican cloak-room, or even in executive
session, Secretary Blaine's purpose in it
would fail. He does not write for the sem
ator, but for the republicans throughout the
country who are discontented with Presi-
dent Harrison, Speaker Reed, Chairman
Mckinley and high protection. He talks
to them to influence the Senate and the
House.
A FEATHER IN HIS CAP.
His friends are making great deal of the
Endorsement Of his reciprocity scheme by
the Minnesota republicans, and almost as
much of the significant silence of the Ne
braska republicans on the tariff. They say
that these are the beginnings Of the Blaine
wave which will sweep across the cou utry
and bring down President Harrison, Speaker
Reed and Chairman Mckinley. They are
pleased to see Secretary Blaine sticking now
to sugar and saying nothing more about
free WOOL
TEXT OF THE LETTER.
The full text of the letter is as follows:
II I,-I.r a
DEAR Mr.. FRYE-I 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 assurance have as to Spain's will
ingness to enter into reciprocal arrangement
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 very extensive treaty Of reci-
procity with John W. Foster, then our
minister at Madrid, A year before-i6S3-
very admirable treaty of reciprocity
was negotiated by Gen. Grant
and William H. Trescott as United States com
missioners with the republic of Mexico, a treaty
we'll considered in all its parts and all its details,
whose results would. 1 believe have proved
highly advantageous to both countries. In view
of the pending discussion it is a somewhat sin
gular circumstance that both thos'
treaties of reciprocity failed to secure the
approval Of congress and failed for the
express reason that both provided for free ad
mission OF sugar. congress WOulQ not Lnen
allow 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 everybo1y's sugar, and 20 do 1t with
moments time to see if we can't
make a better trade-a trade by which we may
pay for at least part of the sugar in products of
American farms and shops Our change of
opinion has certainly been remarkable in so
brief a period. Indeed, the only danger of our
not tsecuring advantageous treaties of reciprocity
of those countries that we are so
anxious for free sugar that by patient waiting,
they eau secure all they desire without money
and without price. Fearing that result, 1
sought an interview with 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 l endeavored to
convince them that it would be expedient and
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. l mention this circumstance
now, because it has been charged in many
| quarters that the suggestion for reciprocity
| came too late. In fact my effort made
before the tariff bill was reported TO the House
| or even framed in committee. 1t is, think, a
| very grave mistake to oppose the reciprocal
| proposition to exempt sugar for fear that it
| might 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 hereto
| fore collected heavy duty on sugar-emount-
| ing one year in the aggregate to S5S ,000, 900,
| and averaging $50, 900 per annum for CON
siderable period. We wish now to cheaper
| 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
a reciprocal arrangement, by which a 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 in cash or try friendly barter in
part? think the latter mode is the highest
form of protection and the best way to pro-
mote trade. l address this not to you
| as l 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 CONNER
cial intercourse with that great continent If we
do not now make beginning? If we now give
away the duty on sugar Gas we already have
| given away the duties on coffee and hides, and
rubber we will get nothing in exchange which
shall be profitable to the farmer or fac
| tor in the United States, what shall
| be our justification for the policy? You have
recently received congratulations which l
cordially join-on carrying the shipping bill
| through the Senate. Do you not think that a
| line of ships generally aided by the govern
| ernment, win have better prospect for profit
| and for permanence if we can give to them out
| ward cargoes from the United States, and not
| confne them to inward cargoes from Latin
American l am sincerely yours,
JAMES G. BLAINE.
Hon. VIM. P. Frye, ETC., U. s. Senate