Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1890-08-02
RECIPROCITY.
Er. Blaine Writes AnDther-1s Surprises
ht willingness to OI'en Our Ports 20
Everybody Sugar without Asking
Return Compliments.
He Had Urged Reciprocity on the COM
mIttee on Ways and Means Before
the Tariff Bill Was Framed;
But Failed.

WASHINGTON, D. c.. July Ex-senator
Frye received the following letter from Sec
rotary Blaine:
BAR HARBoR, July 2
DEAR Nh. 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 willing
ness to enter into reciprocal arrangements
of trade with the United States. Your ques-
ton surprises me, for you cannot have for
COTTON 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.. John
w. Foster, then our minister at Madrid. A
year before, in 1888, very admirable treaty
of reciprocity was negotiated by General
Grant and Mr.. William H. Trescot, as United
States commissioners, with the republic of
Mexico-a treaty well conducted in all its
parts, and all its details, whose results would,
l believe, have proved highly advantageous
to both countries.
In view of the pending discussion. it is Q
somewhat singular circumstance that both
these treaties of reciprocity failed to secure
the approval of congress, and failed for the
express reason that both provided for the
free admission of sugar to come in free of
duty under any circumstances whatever.
And now the proposition is to open our
ports free to everybody's sugar, and to do il
with such rapidIty that we are not to have q
moments time to see if we can make better
trade-a trade by which we may pay for at
least part of the sugar with products of
American farms and shops. Our change of
opinion has certainly been remarkable in so
brief time. Indeed, the only danger of
our not securing advantageous treaties of
reciprocity now is the possible belief On the
part of those countries that we are so anx-
ious for free sugar that by patient waiting
they can secure all they desire without money
and without price. Fearing that result, !
sought an interview with the eight republican
members of the committee on ways and
means more than five months Rgo-to be ex-
act, on the 10th of last February. endeav-
ored to convince them that it would be expe-
dent and wise to give the president. as the
treaty making power, an opportunity to see
what advantageous arrangements of recip-
rocity could be effected. / was unable to
persuade the committee to take my
view. I mention this circumstance now
because it has been charged in many
qbariers that the suggestion for reciprocity
came to late. In fact my effort was made
before the tariff bill was reported to the
house, or was even framed in the committee.
1t is, think, a very grave mistake to op-
pose this reciprocal proposition touching su-
gar from the fear that it may conflict in
some way with the policy of protection, The
danger is, think, wholly in the opposite di-
rection. Our government has heretofore
collected heavy duty from sugar. amount
ing one year in the aggregate to fifty-eight
millions of dollars (58, O00, 000) and averag-
ing fifty millions of dollars per annum for
considerable period. The value of sugar we
annually consume is enormous. Shall We
pay for it all in cash or shall we seek recip-
rocal 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
cash or try friendly barter in part. think
the latter mode is the highest form of pro-
lection. and the best way to promote trade.
/ address this note 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 commercial intercourse with that great
continent? If we do not now make begin
ing, if we now give away the duty on sugar
(as we already have given away the duties
of coffee and hides and rubber, and get moth
ing in exchange which shall be profitable, to
tbs farm or factory in the United States,
what shall be our justification for the policy?
Do you not think that line of ships, gen.
erously aided by the governmet, will have q
better prospect for profit and for perma-
hence if we can give to them outward car
goes from the United States, and not confne
them to inward cargoes from Latin Ameri-
ca? I am sincerely yours,
JAMES G. BLAINE.