Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1891-10-23
A Campaign Lie Killed.
Secretary BIaine's Letter 60 am Ohio Ed
ftOr

Secretary BlRine's Letter 10 an Ohio Ed
itOr.
In response to a letter from an Ohio ed
itor stating that the Democrats were seek
ing to convince the people of that state
that Mr.. Blaine was opposed to the Nc
Kinley tariff law, the secretary of state,
from his home in Augusta, Me-, has writ
ten the following letter:
AUGUSTA, Me-, OCT. IA, 1891.
John HOpIey, Esq, Editor Of "The Jour
ndt," BucyruS, Ohio
Ny Dear Sir: You inform me that the
Democratic paper in your town, and many
Democratic papers throughout Ohio, keep
the following paragraph standing in type:
But there is not a section or line in the entire
bill mckinley tariff that viii open a market for
another busle of wheat or anotha barrel Of pork.
Jnnes q. Blaine to Senator Frye, Jttiy II, $780,"
This sentence is garbled and taken from
| its proper connection. 1t creates a wrong
impression. What / did say is the follow
ing:
II do not doubt that in many respscts the tariff
! bill pending in the Senate is just measure, and
that most of its provisions are in accordance with
! the wise policy of prOtectiOL OdJ tsere is not
section or a line in the entire bill that will open a
market for another bliShAl Of wheat or another
! pound of pork
The letter in which this paragraph oc-
ours was written to Senator Frye on July
II, 1890, and the Mckinley bill did not be-
come law until Oct. NEARLY three
months thereafter. In my letter to Sena-
tor Frye | objected TO the bill because il did
not contain a reciprocity clause, which
would provide market for wheat and pork,
for other products of the farm. and for va
riOus fabrics.
Before the bill was finally passed the rec
iprOcity clause was inserted, and a large
addition made to the free list. 1t 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
treaty by which many American articles
are admitted free. Flour is made free and
pork is admitted at a nominal duty. Cuba
and Porto Rico have reduced the duty on
flour from $3.50 barrel to 81 (which gives
us the market), besides putting nearly one
hundred articles of American production
on the free list San Domingo has made a
reciprocity treaty with -four and pork
upon the free list, besides a large number
of other articles. Other treaties for reci-
procity are in progress. Germany, with
out negotiating formal treaty, ha, remov-
ed the prohibition on pork, and our gov
ernment, in consideration thereof, has left
her sugar on the free list. This opens to
us an entirely new market, and Sl5, ,000, 900
to S20,000,000 of American pork will be
consumed per annum where not pound
has been taken for ten years.
The reciprocity provision is proving very
useful, especially in farm products, and
more particularly in the case of the two
articles mentioned in the paragraph quot
ed flour and pork. l am not, therefore,
an opponent to the Mckinley BILL as the
Democratic papers of Ohio are constantly
alleging. On the contrary, have cordial
ly supported it ever since it was perfected
by the insertion of the reciprocity clause.
Very respectfully yours,
JAMES G.. BLAINE.