Rensselaer Republican, Volume 23, Number 4, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 September 1890 — BLAINE ON RECIPROCITY. [ARTICLE]

BLAINE ON RECIPROCITY.

AnotheiLetter Irom the Secretary of Stats in Which HlaVlowe Are Toreely Given. The following letter, Written by Hon. James G. Blaine to Col W. W. CSapp, editor of the Boston Journal, was printed <ui the 17th. “Bap. Harbor, Me., Sept, 15. “My Dear Sir—l am in receipt of your favor asking me if I can attend the annual banquet o' the Boot and Shoe Club of Boston in October. You add that the members are ‘in hearty sympathy with my views regarding the best method of extending American trade, and would be glad to have me address them.’ I regret that my engagements will not pfermit me to accept the invitation, but 'you will please thank the club for the compliment they pay me. lam glad to hear that the members of the club aro interested in a system of reciprocal trade with Latin America. They can do great good by counteracting a certain phase of New [England opinion, entertained at home as well in Washington—an opinion which I must regard as it. the highest degree unwise and hurtful to New England interests. New England is to receive in the new tariff the amplest protection for every manufacturing industry within her borders, both great and small, and it will, in my judgment, be both inexpedient and injurious for Representatives to disregard a measure which will promote Western interests. “I have lately received a letter from Mr. J. F. Imbs, of St. Louis, a leading representative of the flour interests and president of the late convention of millers at Minneapolis. Speaking for the grain and flour interests of that great section Mr. Imbs says that ‘advices of recent date from Cuba state that the duties now collected on American flour are at a higher ratp than was first supposed to be the case,’ and he adds: ‘I respectfully submit that the American miller will be unable to retain any part of the Cuban flour tra le unless immediate relief is secured.’ “In view of these facts is it possible that a protectionist Congress can ever think of opening our markets to Cuba’s products free while allowing a great Western in* dustry to be absolutely excluded from her markets by a prohibitory tariff! With reciprocity the West can annually sell many hundred thousand barrels of flour in the markets of Cuba and Porto Rico, to gether with a large mass of other agricultural products. Without reciprocity she will be driven more and more from these markets. “Giving the fullest protection toallEagt--erh interests as the proposed tariff bi ll does surely no man of good judgement, certainly no protectionist of wise forecast, wishes to expose a Western interest to serious injury, especially when it is manifestly easy to protect it and promote it—manifestly easy because at this very time the boards of trade, the chambers of commerce and public opinion in Havana are demanding a reciprocal trade with the United States. I select Cuba and Porto Rico for examples because in certain quarters it has been said that while we might secure reciprocity with some little countries in South America, we could do nothing with the Spanish Islands. Let us at least give the Spanish islands an opportunity to speak for themselves. “Certain wise men ask: How can"we sell farm products in South America when the same things are produced there! Cereals are undoubtedly grown in the soothernmost portions of South America, but the wise men will remember that' cereals and sugar do not grow in the same soil, and that the sugar countries of South and Central America and the West India islands contain forty millions of people, who import the largest part of their breadstuffs. Indeed, the largest part of the sugar product of Latin America is at our doors, and we can greatly enlarge our exchanges there if Congress will give us the importunity for reciprocal trade. “Another class observe that they want time to study the system. To this, I might reply that the best method of study ing a system is to observe its practical workings. While studying in the abstract and ref using to take some object lessons, these gentlemen propose to open our mar- 1 kets to Latin American products free of' all charge, without asking Latin America 1 to give us, in turn, some freedom in their' markets. The object losson immediately; before us is the treatment of the sugar question. Shall we make Latin America 1 a gift of that trade? When we have studied that lesson we shall be prepared for the second. “The worst proposition of all is put forth; by those who say: ‘Let us put sugar on the. free list now, and next year we will take up the subject of reciprocity.’ If I understand their logic, it is to make sugar free this year; without condition, and nextyear, to ask Spain if she will not kindly consent to grant us reciprocal trade. Holding the f complete vantage ground themselves, the proposed policy transfers the vantage' ground to Spain. Instead of granting a favor to Spam to-day, we are to ask her for a favor to-morrow. Those who take this ground belong to that class of careful guardians of property who prepare a very; strong lock for the stabla after the horse, is gone. “I do not mean in any thing I have said to imply that reciprocity Is only a Western interest. As I remarked in a note, to Senator Frye, it will prove beneficial and profitable, both to the farmer and theshop. What, for instance, could be more natural or more just than that in giving a free market in the United; States to hides from the Argentine Republic, we would ask the Argeu tine Republic to give us a better market than we now have for the product of leather from the United States? The many forms in which our business interests will be promoted by reciprocity cannot be known until the active commercial men of the United States shall have daveloped those forms by investigation and experience. We shall not realize the full benefit of the policy in a day or a year, but shall we therefore throw away countless millions of trade, in addition to the sixty millions we have already thrown away, and then ignorantly declare without trial that the system ‘won’t work?’ “Finally, there is one fact that should have great weight, especially with protectionists. Every free trader in the Senate voted against the reciprocity proposition. The free trade papers throughout the country aro showing determined hostility to it. It is evident that tne free tradq Senators and the free trade papers have a specific reason for their course. They know and feel that with a system of reciprocity established and growing, their policy of free trade receives a most serious blow. The protectionist who opposes reciprocity > the form in which it is now presented, knocks away one of the strongest supports of his system. The enactment of reciprocity is the safeguard of protection. The defeat of reciprocity is the opportunity of free trade. Yours very respectfully, “James G. Blaine.”

There was a mass meeting of themiaen of the block coal district at Brazil Tuss day, and resolutions were passed oalliag for ten cents advance in wages. There was alse opposition shown to the continuance in office of State Mine Inspector Tisloe. The Farmers’ Alliance of Harrison county has placed a ticket in the field, headed by John P. N. Mcßae fob Representattve. It is expected that the Republicans will indorse the selections, and nominate no one in opposition.