Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1891-10-22
BLAINE EXPLAINS.
The Mckinley Law Receives His Hearty
Endorsement.

New YORK, Oct. 16.-An Ohio editor
having written Mr.. Blaine that Demo-
cratic papers were parading him as an
opponent of the Mckinley bill, he
replies as follows:
AUGUSTA, Me-, Oct. II, 1S91.-John
Hopley, Esq. Editor Journal. Buoy
rus, Ohio. My Dear Sir:-You inform
me that a Democratic paper in your
town and many Democratic papers
throughout Ohio keep the following
paragraph standing in type: "But
there is not q section or a line in the
Mckinley bill that will open a market
for another bushel OF wheat or another
barrel OF pork.-Jas. G.. Blaine to SEN
ator Frye, July IL, 1890" This sem
tence is garbled and, taken from its
proper connection, it creates a wrong
impression. What | did say is the
following: "I do not doubt that in
many respects the tariff bill pending in
the senate is a just measure, and that
most of it's provisions are in accord
ance with the wise policy of protection,
but there is not a section or a line in
the entire bill that will open a market
for another bushel of wheat or another
pound of pork" The letter in which
this paragraph occurred was written
to Senator Frye, July IL, 1890, and
the Mckinley bill did not become a
law until Oct. 1, nearly three months
thereafter. In my letter to Senator
Frye | objected to the bill because il
did not contain a reciprocity clause
which would provide a market for
wheat, pork, or other products OF the
farm, and tor vaiouS fabrics. Before
the bill was finally passed a reci-
procity clause was inserted and a large
addition was made to the free list. 1t
will, therefore, be seen from what |
said in my letter that the objection
which l made to the Mckinley bill was
entirely removed before the bill became
law.
Let me further say that the reci-
procity clause has given ample market
for many barrels of flour 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
and Porto Rico have reduced the duty
on flour from $3.50 a barrel to 81,
which gives us the market, besides
putting nearly a hundred articles of
hiilefIcdn pTouucIiOn on Une Tree liSC.
San Domingo has made a reciprocity
treaty with flour and pork on the
free list, besides q large number OF
articles. Other treaties for reciprocity
are in progress. Germany, without
negotiating a formal treaty, has re-
moved the prohibition on pork, and
our government, in consideration
thereof, has left her sugar on the free
list. This opens to an entirely new
market, and S15,OOO,O 900 to S2O,OOO,-
600 of American pork will be con
sumed per annum, where not a pound
had been taken for ten years.
The reciprocity provision is proving
very successful, especially in farm pro-
ducts, and more particularly in the
case of the two articles mentioned in
the paragraph quoted-f1our and pork.
| am not, therefore, an opponent OF
the Mckinley bill, as the Democratic
papers in Ohio are constantly alleging.
On the contrary, l have cordially sup
ported it ever since it was perfected by
the insertion Of the reciprocity clause.
Very respectfully yours,
JAMES G. BLAINE.