Los Angeles herald., 1891-10-17
Jingo's Attitude Toward the
Mckinley Bill.
He Is Not Opposed to the Law
AS Enacted.
Reciprocity the Measures Great and
Only Feature.
BeFsre That Was Incorporated the Nc
Kinley Bill Was a Farce-The Man
from Maine Steals the Ohio
Mans Thunder.
Associated Press Dispatches.

Associated Press Dispatches.
NEW York, Oct. 16.-An Ohio editor
having written Mr.. Blaine that the
Democratic papers were parading him as
an opponent of the KcKinley bill, he re-
piled as follows:
AUGUSTA, Me-, Oct. IA, 1891.
John Holey, Esq, Rditor Journal, Bucyrus,
Ohio.
SIR: You inform me that the Demo-
cratic papers in your town and more
Democratic papers throughout ohio
keep the following paragraph standing
in type: ''But there is not a
section or a line in the Mckinley
bill that will open a market for
another bushel of wheat or another
barrel of pork.-James G. Blaine to
Senator Frye, July IL, $780,"
This sentence is garbled and taken
from it's proper connection. 1t creates
q wrong impression. What did say is
the following:
81 do not doubt that in many respects
the tariff bill pending in the senate is a
just measure, and that most of it's pro-
visions are in accordance with the wise
policy of protection; but there is not a
section or 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
occurs was written to Senator FRYE,
July IL, 1890, and the Mckinley bill did
not become law until October, nearly
three months thereafter. In my letter
to Senator Frye l objected to the bill be-
cause it did not contain a reciprocity
clause which would provide a market
for wheat, pork and for other products
of the farm and for our various manu-
factures. Before the bill was finally
passed, a reciprocity clause was inserted,
and 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
a law.
Let me further say that the recip-
rocity clause has given an ample mar
ket for many barrels of -four and many
pounds of pork. Brazil some months
since entered into a treaty by which
many articles are admitted free. Flour
is admitted free, and pork admitted at a
nominal duty. Cuba and Porto Rico
have reduced the duty on -four from
$3.50 barrel to 81 (Which gives us the
market), besides putting nearly 100
articles of American production on the
free list. San Domingo has made a
reciprocity treaty with flour and pork
on the free list, besides large number
OF other articles. Other treaties fol
reciprocity are in progress. Germany
without negotiating a 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 entirely new
market, and $15,000,000 to 500, O00, 00(
worth 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 products
and more particularly in the case of the
two articles mentioned in the paragraph
quoted-flour and pork. am not
therefore, an opponent of the Mckinley
bill, as the Democratic papers in Ohio
are constantly alleging. On the con
trary have cordially supported it evel
since it was perfected by the insertion
OF the reciprocity clause.
Very respectfully yours,
I AMEg O. RTAINE