The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-10-17
Why the Secretary Opposed the
Mckinley Bill as Prepared
by the Major.
It Opened no Market for q Bushel
OF Wheat or a Barrel
Of Flour.
No Pretense That II WonId BENEFIT Amor
icsn Workmen or Was Needed to
Pr0tect Manufacturers.

New York, Oct. lG.-An Ohio editor hav-
ing written Mr.. Blaine that democratic pa
perS were parading him ~ an opponent of
the Mckinley bill. hs replies AZ follows:
AUGUSTA. Me-. Oct. IA, 1891. John Hop
ley, Esq, Editor Journal, Bucyrus, Ohio.
My Dear sir:-You inform me that demo-
cratic paper in your town and many demo-
cratic papers throughout Ohio Eesp the fol-
lowing paragraph standing in type: "But
there is not section or o line in the Nc
Kinley bill that will open market for an
other bnshel Of wheat or another barrel of
pork.-Jas. g. Blaine to Senator Frye. July
II, 1890" This sentence is garblsd and.
taken from it's proper connection, it creates
a wrong impression. What did say is the
following: II do not doubt that in many
respects the tariff bill pending in the senate
is u just measure, and that most Of its pro-
visions are in accordance with the wise
policy of protection, but there is not q
section or a line in the entire bill
that will open market for another bushel
letter In which this paragraph occurred was
written to Senator Frye. July II, $780, and
the Mckinley bill did not become a law
until Oct. /, nearly three months there
after. In my letter to Senator Frye OBJ
jected to the bill because it did not con-
tain reciprocity clause which would pro-
vide market for wheat, pork, for other
products of the farm, and for various fab
RIGS. Before the bill was finally passed a
reciprocity clause was inserted and large
addition was made to the free list. Ii will,
therefore. be seen from what said in my
letter that the objection which made to
the Mckinley bill was entirely removed be-
fore the bill became law.
Let me further say that the reciprocity
clause has given ample market for many
barrels OF flour and many pounds of pork.
Brazil some months since entered into q
treaty by which many American articles
are admitted free. Flour is made free and
pork is admitted at nominal duty. Cuba
and Porto Rico have reduced the duty on
-four from $751; a barrel to ST., which gives
us the market, besides putting nearly a
hundred articles of American production
on the free list. San Domingo has made a
free lis, besides 9 large number OF
articles. Other treaties for reciprocity are
in progress. Germany, without negotiating
formal treaty, has removed the prohibi-
tion on pork, and our government, in con-
sideration thereof, has left her sugar on the
free l1gt. Inl5 opens TO US an 6nGlTely new
market, and $15,0O00OO to $20,00000O oi
American pork will be consumed per an
mum, where not pound had been taken
for ten years.
The reciprocity provision is proving very
successful, especially in farm products
and more particularly in the case of thu
two articles mentioned in the paragraph
quoted-flour and pork. am not, there
fore. an opponent Of the Mckinley bill. at
the dsmocratio papers in Ohio are con
stantly alleging. On tho contrary. have
cordially supported it ever since it was per
footed by the insertion of tho reciprocity
clause. Very respectfully yours,
JAMES g. BLAINE.