Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1891-10-22
MR.. BLAINE EXPLAINS
WHY HE WAS OPPOSED TO- THE ORIG
NAL MCKINLEY TARIFF ACT.
Tho Bill as First Proposed Contained no
Reciprocity Clause and the Free List
was Small.-Of tho Law as Passed He
has Always been y Cordial Supporter.

NEW YORK. Oct 16.-An Ohio editor
having written Mr.. Blaine that the demo-
cratic papers wers parading him as an OPP
ponent of the Mckinley bill he replies as
follows:
Augusta, Maine, October A. 1891.
John Hopey esq, Editor of the Journal,
Bucyrus, Ohio.
My dear sir-You inform mo that the
democratic papers throughout Ohio keep the
following paragraph standing in type;
"But there is not section In the entire
bill mckinley tariff that will open mar
ket for another bushel of wheat or another
barrel of pork james G. Blaine to Sen
ator Frye, July II, $780,
This sentence is CARRIED and taken from its
proper connection. 1t created wrong inn
preston. What did say is the following:
/ do not doubt that in many respects the
tariff Dill permitting in the Senate is u Just
measure and that most Of It's provisions
are in accordance Nth the Wise policy Of
protection, Jut there is not q section or u
line in the entire bill that opens a market
for another JuShel of phcut or another
pound Of pork.
The letter in which this paragraph was
written to Senator Frye on July II, 1880,
and the Mckinley bill did not become law
until October /, nearly eight months after
that.
In my letter TO Senator Frye objected
to the bill because it did not contain a reel
procity clause which would provide mar
ket for wheat and pork, for other products
of the farm and for various fabrics. Be
fore the bill was finally passed rhe reciproc-
ity clause was inserted and large add
tion was made to the free list. 1t will there
tor Ina .l,t I pnil in, Lot
that the objection which | made to the Nc
Kinlcy bill was entirely removed before the
bill becamea law.
Let me further say that the reciprocity
clause has given ample market for many
barrels of -four and many pounds of pork.
! Brazil some months since entered into a
treaty by which many American articles
are admitted free. Flour is made free and
pork is admitted at a nominal duty. Cuba
aud Porto Rico have reduced the duty OF
flour from s.. 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 0
reciprocity treaty with flour and pork upor
the free list, Decides a large number oil
| other articles
Other treaties for reciprocity are in prog
ress. Germany, without negotiating {
formal treaty, has removed the prohibition
on pork, and cur government, in considera
ton thereof, left her sugar on the free list
This opens to us an entirely new market
aud Sl5, 900, 900 to $50, 900, 900 of Ameri
can pork will be consumed per annum wher
not pound has been taken for 10 years.
The reciprocity provision is proving yer,
successful, especially in farm products ant
more particularly in the case of the two ar
ticles mentioned in the paragraphs quoted
flour and pork am not, therefore, an op
ponent OF the Mckinley bill, as the demo
cratic papers of Ohio are constantly al
legng. On the contrary, have cordial
supported it ever since it was perfected.
Very respectfully yours,
JAMES G. BLAINE.