New-York tribune., 1891-03-08

THE GRANT-kOMEhO iiNH'hi ""-'
ON THE BoRDER-cONDITIONs UNDER
WHICH NEW CONVENTION
MAY BE NEGOTIATED.
,,,os.srArF CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUNE.l
PrOgreso, January 81:
The negotiation Of treaty of reciprocity DE-
tween the United States and Mexico has been
rendered very difficult by tariff legislation on one
side and by extreme sensitiveness on the other'
IT, is not by any means hopeless underVahlhs'
bnt the State Department will labor under serious
embarrassments in making sucn advances as VIII
he favorably received by the Mexican Government
The initiative will have to be taken III Wasilihs
ton. and consummate tact will be required III oe"i
inc with proud nation, which stlll remeuioei'
with a strong feeling of resentment the lgholnll
our rejection of the Grant-Romero treaty. That
convention was made without Solicitation iion
Mex;co The United States Congress appointed
Commission and authorized 1t TO open heSoti"~on'
for securing closer commercial relations with Men
leo. A treaty was made. Mexico promptly i".l
aed il The United States, after holding it IN
srsnense for three years, rejected it. Mexico was
loft in the position of reluctant guest who, upon
beinu invited to a feast, accepts the hospi'"i'9
with little appetite and only out of feeling oi
x,;,aress and then finds the table bare ana tlie
door slammed IN his face. The guest VIII hoo ue ',
.orrd tnockinr at the door. Much coaAlhg VIII
h. n.odod N induce him to enter, and he mus' oo
oon,;rced that il is not Barmecide feast 10 "ho'
he is invited o;oo+ion
~ tho treaty in 1856 was aggravated Dy 'he uii-
comnromisinp and impolitc declaration oi '"o
House of Representatives that to speak VI pc.
manent and desirable commercial reh'lohs WIN
Mexico is without hope of success or PioH'i'o "
substantial and permanent results. Inc i.PV''
of the Committee of Ways and Means Vi 'a''
XLJXth Congress was as undpomatic a docuinen'
&C was ever submitted TO a legislative podS' II
added insult to injury 1t committed Congress To
the rejection of treaty negotiated AT ITO OWN
solicitation and justified such action OH eiounu'
calling TO Mexican pride. Mexico was cooiiS III
formed that it TOO poor country 10 'raue
with rich Nation like the United STATES thac 1t
did not offer adequate protection 10 uhe HNcs Jill"
nropertv of Americans: and that prosperous peo-
ME of 6O.OO0000, having the best market on
earth could not afford to enter into commercial
relations with a comparatively small, heterogeneous
nopulation of l0,000,000 50 estrangcd In scntl-
mont as 70 render permanent trading undesirable
Those declarations were regarded wanton af-
fronts and were resented the more keenly because
Mexico had not asked for the treaty in the first
instance but had cheerfuly accepted 1t as soon as
il was negotiated The English, German and
French commercial communities in Mexico. from
motives of sef-interest exaggerated the ahron's
in order to intensity the feeling OF Irritation
With the text of the majority report OF the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means reproduced in all the
leading journals of Mexico, it was not dlffcuit
matter 10 convince the influential mercantile
classes that the powerful Nation which had die
tated the humliating peace of Guadalupe-iidalgo
was bent upon maintaining selfish and untrlend-
ly policy The practical inference drawn by Mex
lean producers from the discOurteous rejection of
the treaty was that they could trade more profit
ably with Europe than with the United States.
This feeling of resentment was subsequently in
creased when Mexican fuXing were practi-
cally excluded by Secretary WINDOWS ruling and
the Mckinley Tariff Act. When the treaty was
concluded the expectation of these ores was in
significant. In the course of a few years the val
uaton of these exported ores ran up to $1,000
COO Secretary Sherman had decided that when
there was less lead than silver in the ore II could
be let in at the border as silver and not subjected
to import duty as lead. Under this ruling smet-
ing works in Kansas City, St Louis, FL Paso and
elsewhere imported large quantities of these low
grade fluxing ores. The trace speedily assumed
proportions which menaced the Interests OF lead
producers In the United States. Charges were
freely made that the Mexican ores were artlclally
sorted and frauduently exported as silver when
liable to duty as lead Secretary Window made
q ruling correcting these irregularities and estab-
fishing a standard by which lead was to be taxed
as lead at current New-York rates, with l per
cent added for transportation expenses As these
expenses required margin of l-2 per cent. the
expectation of these fiuxing practically ceased
under Secretary Windoms ruling. Under the
new Tariff Act these ores were placed at even
greater disadvantage in competition with Amer
lean lead ores. The exclusion of the ores involved
retaliation on the part of Mexico a duty OF
SO 25 head on American hogs and one averaging
go or cattle was imposed at the border. This was
met by largely increased duties on Mexican live
stock in the schedules of the Mckinley Act. The
general effects of this tariff war have been two
fold first, to bring large masses of American cap
ital into San Luis de Potosi. Monterey and the
City of Mexico, where smelling works are now
under construction; and, secondly to increase
LARGELY the cost of beef and pork in Mexico.
American live stock is not kept out of Mexico.
Both Mexican ores and cattle are excluded from
the United States by duties which are practically
prohibitory. From the Mexican point Of view
the action Of the United States has been unfrend-
ly. Without reciprocity an advantageous trade
had sprung up on the border. Low-grade ores
were going in direction and live stock in the
other. Under Secretary WINDOWS ruling and the
Tariff Act the have been stopped and free eX-
change of live stock has been interrupted.
One other matter remains to be mentioned in
order that the list of Mexican grievances against
the United States may be complete. This is the
revival of the discrimination of per cent against
Mexican bottoms This has been done under the
law Of 1868, which was superseded by treaty
expiring by limitation in 1881. Under the Arthur
and Cleveland Administrations this matter escaped
observation. but when the attention of the Treas
ury Department was officially directed 10 it, the
discriminating duties were necessarily revived
under the statutes. 1t was most unfortunate that
the question should have been raised The dis