New-York tribune., 1891-10-17
CAMPAIGN LIARS SILENCED.
MIR. BLAINE WRITES TO AN EDITOR IN OHIO.

DEMOCRATIC ATTEMPTS TO CONVINCE THE
PEOPLE THAT he OPPOSES THE MKINLEY
TARIFF LAW EFFECTIVELY KILLED-THE
SECRETARY UPHoLDs THE BILL.
In response to letter from an Ohio editor
stating that the Democrats were seeking to con-
vince the people of that State that Mr.. Blaine was
opposed to the Mckinley Tariff law. the Secretary
of State, from his home in Augusta, Me-, has
written the following letter:
Augusta. Me-, Oct. IA, 1901.
John Hopley, esq, Editor of "The journal,
Bucyrus, Ohio.
My Dear Sir: You inform me that the Demo
cratic paper in your town, and many Demo-
cratic papers throughout Ohio, keep the follow
ing paragraph standing in type:
But there is not section or line in the entire
bill mckinley Tariff that will open a market
for another bushel of wheat another barrel of
pork.-James G. Blaine to Senator Frye, July IL,
1890"
This sentence is garbled and taken from it's
proper connection. 1t creates wrong impressions
What did say is the following:
Il do not doubt that in many respects the
Tariff bill pending in the Senate is a just meas
ure, and that most of its provisions are in ac-
cordance with the wise policy of Protection, but
there is not section line in the entire bill
that will open market for another bushel OF
wheat another pound of pork"
The letter in which this paragraph occurs was
written to Senator Fry on July IL, 800, and the
Mckinley bill did not become law until October
1-nearly three months thereafter In my letter
to Senator Frye objected to the bill because it
did not contain a reciprocity clause which would
provide market for wheat and pork, for other
products of the farm, and for various fabrics.
Before the bill was finally passed the reciprocity
clause was inserted, and a large addition was
made to the free llst 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 reciprocity clause
has given ample market for many barrels OF
-four 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 S5 80 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 reciprocity treaty,
with nour ana pork upon 'nc iicc I'''' 'N "
large number of other articles. Other treaties Tor
reciprocity are in progress.
Germany, without negotiating formal treaty,
has removed the prohibition on pork. and our
Government, in consideration thereof, has left
her sugar on the free list. This opens to us an en-
tirely new market and $4,000, 900 to $2o,OoO.Ooo
Of American pork will be consumed per annum
where not a 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 quoted -four and pork.
am not. therefore. an opponent to the Mckinney
bill, as the Democratic papers Of Ohio are con-
stantly alleging. On the contrary, Fave cor
daily supported it ever since it was perfected by
the insertion of the reciprocity clause. Very
respectfully yours, JAMES G. BLAINE