Los Angeles herald., 1890-07-26
BLAINE WAS SNUBBED.
THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMIT
TEE REJECTED HIS VIEWS.
He Wanted Them to Ask Something in
Exchange for Free Sugar, but They
Spurned His Suggestions.

WASHINGTON, July Ex-senator Frye
today received letter from Secretary
Blaine in reply to his of recent date.
Mr.. Blaine says, in part: "You ask me
what assurance 1 have as to Spain 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 admission
to our markets for the sugar of Cuba
and Porto Rico, agreed to a very
extensive treaty of reciprocity with Mr..
Foster, then our minister at Madrid. In
the year before-in 1854 very admir-
able treaty ofreciprocity was negotiated
by General Grant and Mr.. Trescott,
United States commissioner, with the
republic of Mexico. This treaty was
well considered in all it's parts and all
its details, and its results, believe, would
have proved highly advantageous to
both countries.
"In view of the pending discussion, it
is somewhat singular circumstance
that both these treaties failed to secure
the approval of congress, and failed for
the express reason that both pro-
vided for the free admission of
sugar. Congress would not then allow
single pound of sugar to come in free
OF duty under any circumstances what
ever, and now the proposition is to open
our ports free to everybody's sugar, and
to do it with such a rapidity that we are
not to have 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 products of American farms and
shops.
"Our change of opinion certainly has
been remarkable in so brief period.
Indeed the only danger of our not secur-
ing advantageous treaties of reciprocity
now is the 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 result,
l sought an interview with eight Re-
publican members of the committee
on ways and means more than five
months ago. l endeavored to convince
them that it would be expedient and
wise to leave to the president an oppor-
tunity to see what advantageous ar
rangements of reciprocal trade could be
effected. was unable to persuade the
committee to take my view.
cit is, think, a very grave mistake
to oppose this reciprocal proposition
touching sugar. Far from fear that it
may conflict in some way with the
policy of protection, the danger is, I
think, wholly in the opposite direction.
The value OF the sugar we annually con-
sumo 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
flour, in lumber and in salt and iron, in
shoes and calico and furniture, and
thousands of other things? think the
latter mode is the highest form of pro-
lection, and the best way to promote
trade.
"When shall we enlarge our CONNER
cial intercourse with that great con-
tinent, South America, if we do not
now make 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 to the farm or factory in the
United States, what shall be our justifi-
cation for the policy?
"You have recently received con-
gratulations-in which | cordially join
on carrying the shipping bill through the
senate. Do you not think line OF
ships generously aided by the govern
ment will have a better prospect for
profit and permanence, if we can give to
them outward cargoes from the United
States, and not confine them to inward
cargOes from Latin America ?'