The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-08-16
It Points One Prominent Result
Likely to Follow the Nc
Kinley Bill.
American Live Stock Products
Excluded From France as
q Retaliation.
Tho Pretext of Diseased Meat No Longer
Made-Suppose Other Countries
Follow France?

to the senate to-day, in compliance with a
senate resolution, all correspondence not
already submitted to congress touching the
efforts of this government to secure the
modification or repeal by the French gov
ernment of its decree Of 1881, prohibiting
the importation into France of American
pork and kindred American products. In
his letter of tarnsmittal to the president,
Acting Secretary Wharton. of the state de-
partment, says: "This correspondence dis
closed the important fact that the French
government now practically places its ex-
clusions of our pork products upon economic
instead of sanitary grounds" As this pol
icy of exclusion is a measure for the pro-
lection of domestic products of France, and
is applied only to the United States, the de-
partment has not failed to protest against
the discrimination as unjust. In letter
from Minister Reid to Secretary Blaine,
dated June q, 1889, in answer to letter
from the latter already published Mr.. Reid
says that any steps taken towards recalling
the attention of the French government to
the subject would seem inopportune. He
also says the French government rather
favors the removal of the prohibition. On
July 1s, the acting secretary wrote to
Reid approving his suggestion. A
letter from w. B. franklin, commissioner
general of the United States at the Paris
exposition, to Blaine gives the substance of
an interview between Reid, Franklin and
Spuller, French minister of foreign affairs,
at which Spuller admitted that the citizens
of France did not believe the consumption
of American pork by them would injure
the health of the consumers. Sp uller add
ed, however, that there would be difficulty
in having the prohibition rem owed, on &C
count of the protectionist feeling.
In response to an invitation given by
Reid to inspect American pork products at
the exhibition Spuller, November 26, 1889,
sent note stating that in the opinion of
his colleagues, who had charge of the health
department., an inspection of meat shown in
the exhibition would not have the import
ance Reid's letter seemed to give it, as the
superior quality of the meat already estab-
lished by rewards would not prove That
much Of the American hog product is equally
good. Included in the correspondence is a
letter from Blaine to Reid inclosing letter
the history of the "harsh and unreasonable
restrictions" to quote Blaine, Imposed by
the governments of France and GERMANY
and Great Britain against the importation
OF American live animal and hog products" !"
In his letter dated March 4th, 1880, Blaine
instructs Reid to present the hope to the
French authorities that the French gov
ernment "may now be prepared to extend
equitable relief from the unjust measures -
Blaine adds that the United States minis
ters to England and Germany had been
similarly instructed.
Early in July last Reid called on Ribot
French minister of foreign affairs, and in a
letter to Secretary Blaine, dated July ii. he
says that during the interview kibot con-
tinued, as he had done on every similar oc-
casion previously, to state that the agita-
tion over the Mckinley bill made any ao-
tion on this point extremely difficult.
Reid protested that France was the aggres-
voluminous letter, dated July 8, was sent
Ribot by Reed. In this communication he
endeavored to show Ribot the mistake
France is making in excluding American
pork, and quotes statistics to carry out his
argument. He hints at the possible prohi-
States owing to the growth of the wine in
dustry of this country, and refers to the
effect such action would have on France.
On July 11th, 1880. Ribot sent note to
Reid in which he said the difficulties in the
way of removing the prohibition had been
accentuated by measures which were finally
passed or Voted on by the house of repre-
sentatives, land which do not fail to raise
just complaints on the part of French
government" Ribot referred to the tariff
bill and the customs administrative bill.
Reid. in letter to Ribot, dated July 28,
1880. asks pardon for endeavoring to show
that this is view of the situation which
facts do not warrant. The exciting rule as
to the exclusion of American pork has not
been modified" says Mr.. Reid in the
end, so far as known, has been
taken. What evidence of good will, then,
in this regard, has France given, which the
United States could be already expected to
reciprocate? Besides, there would appear
to be no similarity or just relation of any
kind between the two subjects which your
excellency couples the-French exclusion of
American pork and the two American bills,
currently called the Mckinley bills,-nor
tinuance of one should be justified by your
apprehensions as to the others.'' There is
every reason, from the history of such leg
islation in the past, to believe that if ex-
perience shows defects or injustice in the
working of the American bills,
they will be modified. The French decree,
in spite of agreement and remonstrance, IN
spite of proof that it does nobody any good,
has been tenaciously maintained for nine
years.
The American bills touch all countries
with absolute impartiality. The French de-
cree singles out the United States from all
other countries, and prohibits it's
products alone, while similar products
from the rest of the world are admitted.
The American bills make no charges
against the quality of the pro-
ducts whose importation they regulate.
or tax. The French decree is based upon
the indefensive charge that the American
product excluded is unwholesome, though
this charge has been repudiated by the
French Academy of Medicine itself. and
though this prohibited and unwholesome
product has been recently crowned by the
highest prize at your own universal exposi-
tion. France is and has oeen for nine Years
past the persistent aggressor. It has abso-
lutely prohibited the importation of
American products on idefensible
charges. It still maintains this
prohibition in spite of the demonstrated
facts that nothing is thereby gained, either
Tor Its own consumers or its own producera.
and tbs only appreciable effect is 10 do Al
injustice to century-old friend by openly
discriminating against that friend in favor
OF Germany. Italy and England. After
such record, and in advance of the
elightest kpovn movement to amend il,
how can France have reason to expect
as your e1cellency indicates, that its
evidence OF good will should now be recip-
rocated by tbs United 6tatea. He Who