We have not heretofore known as much of each other as we ought to have, and our mutual knowledge and understanding is certainly the first step to take before we can reach more satisfactory results.

WASHINGTON, April 20, 1889.

M. ROMERO.

M. ROMERO'S SPEECH IN NEW YORK.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Spanish-American Commercial Union: I thank you very much for your toast in honor of the country I represent as its Delegate to the International American Conference. It fell to the lot of Mexico to be the contiguous and nearest neighbor of the United States, and I sincerely hope that we will always be good friends.

As the city of New York is the commercial center of this great nation, the increase of the commercial relations of the country with its southern neighbors is of course a matter of interest for you, and as such increase has, in my opinion, to begin with Mexico, which is your nearest neighbor, I hope I will be allowed to allude to the conditions which I think are necessary to the increase of that trade.

Of the several efforts which have been made to increase the commercial relations between Mexico and the United States, only have been successful those in which the Mexican Government acted alone, while those requiring the co-operation of the United States Government have not met with the same fate.

The establishment of steam-ship lines between Mexican and the United States ports, and the construction in Mexico of railways, which are really extensions of trunk lines of the United States, have proved the most efficient means of developing the commercial relations between the two countries, and they have been carried out in consequence of the liberal subsidies granted by the Mexican Government to steam-ship lines and to railroad companies, and which amount to many millions of dollars.

Several treaties have been negotiated at different times for the purpose of promoting and increasing trade between the two countries. The first one that I am aware

of was signed in the City of Mexico in 1857, by Mr. Forsyth, with the administration of General Comonfort; but I do not know whether it was ever submitted to the United States Senate for ratification. The second treaty, known by the name of the McLane-Ocampo treaty, granted to the United States extraordinary commercial advantages, and was concluded at Vera Cruz in 1859, and was rejected by the United States Senate.

The Congress of the United States foreseeing that communication by rail between the two Republics would be the basis of a great increase of commerce between them, passed, August 7, 1882, a bill appropriating a certain sum for the payment of the salaries and expenses of a commission to negotiate a commercial treaty with Mexico. The President of the United States appointed as commissioner one of the most distinguished citizens and greatest statesmen this country ever had, General Ulysses S. Grant, who, being well acquainted with the resources, conditions, and future of Mexico, and at the same time being a just and upright man, never entertained the idea of making a onesided agreement; but, intending to negotiate an arrangement of a permanent character, concluded a treaty for the promotion of the reciprocal interests of both countries. I have no doubt that if that treaty had been carried into effect that it would have greatly developed the trade between them, as seventy-eight articles, the produce or manufacture of the United States, would have been admitted in Mexico free of all duties, whether federal, state, or municipal.

Mexico had to overcome many difficulties to accept that treaty. The Government there depends for its support mainly and almost exclusively on the import duties, and can not reduce them without serious loss of its public revenues, with all its evil consequences. Although Mexico is not yet a manufacturing country, several industries have sprung up there, under the shadow of high import duties which afford incidental protection, and many of such industries were threatened with utter ruin by the franchises granted to similar manufactures of the United States. The long credits given to Mexican merchants for the payment of goods bought in Europe, and, in fact, the whole

mercantile system at present established in Mexico, were also endangered by the stipulations of a reciprocity treaty with the United States. Notwithstanding all these obstacles, the Mexican Government, wishing to increase her trade with the United States, overcame them all, and the treaty of reciprocity was signed January 20, 1883.

It was then thought by American statesmen that the production of manufactured articles in this country, stimulated by the protective laws enacted since 1861, at the commencement of the civil war, had then begun to exceed the home consumption, notwithstanding the fact that its home market, on an average of about 50,000,000 of inhabitants, consuming proportionately more than any other people, was a very large one. It was thought that, in order not to check that production, it had become necessary to open new markets, and none was certainly more convenient than that of Mexico, a country which adjoins the United States for over 2,000 miles, which is inhabited by 12,000,000 people, which produces relatively very few manufactured articles, and possesses all the advantages of climate, and the labor necessary for the production of the raw material which this country needs as a supply for her manufactories.

The reciprocity treaty, however, met with opposition from some comparatively small productive classes of this country, who considered their interests endangered, and it only passed the Senate of the United States by the number of votes absolutely required for its ratification.

The necessary bill to carry out the treaty having been introduced in the House of Representatives, in accordance with the constitutional provision which requires that all laws affecting the public revenue should originate in the House, it was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, composed, as it is well known, of the most eminent financiers and principal leaders of the two political parties into which the House was divided. The committee intrusted the study of the treaty and the preparation of the report thereon to a distinguished Representative of Michigan, who was thought to be especially acquainted with the matter and peculiarly fitted for such a work. After

due consideration of this subject, only one member, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, out of the thirteen of the committee, reported in favor of the treaty.

The report of the majority seemed to be a libel against Mexico rather than a report, and rested its adverse vote on the treaty on the ground that "the release of revenue was somewhat in favor of our Mexican neighbors;" but, immediately after this assertion, it averred that "while the advantage in respect to duties released would seem to be, for the present, somewhat in favor of our people" (the United States), it was remarked that "the treaty would be an unwarrantable interference with productive industries carried on in our country," meaning sugar and tobacco, although soon thereafter it was acknowledged that "the importation from Mexico of both those articles during the last fiscal year was comparatively small." The Mexican tobacco could never affect the production of the same article in this country, as the quality of each is quite different.

The other reasons offered in that report for the rejection of the treaty were not any sounder, as they consisted in saying that "there can not be any reciprocity, inasmuch as Mexico has only 10,000,000 inhabitants (upon the authority of the report), while the United States have 60,000,000;" that "the machinery and agricultural implements" (which were among the articles of the United States on the free list of the treaty) "were not imported into Mexico, where there was no need for them," when the statistical data published annually by the United States Government show the reverse to be the case; that "the Mexican Government is a confederated republic in name, and a military despotism in fact," which, even if true, would not affect at all the economical questions which the treaty intended to solve; that although we have lived together as neighbors, geographically, for a century, we are yet to-day in a manner strangers to each other," overlooking the fact that two neighboring nations connected by the sea and by rail can not be strangers to each other, and that if any estrangement existed it would cease with the increase of commerce which the treaty intended to ac

complish; that "to speak of permanent or desirable commercial relations with a Government and people thus estranged from us in sentiment is without hope of success or promise of substantial permanent results," and the report itself tends to make each country still more a stranger to the other; that "the first duty of the United States was to protect its citizens from the effects of constantly recurring revolutions in Mexico," when the fact is that no political disturbances of any kind have taken place there for several years past, and none since the treaty was signed; that the United States citizens have been long exposed on the Mexican border to depredations by lawless bands," when, in fact, the Mexicans have naturally been the main sufferers from past disturbances; that "the United States citizens have no adequate protection to person and property in Mexico," which statement is, I imagine, at variance with the reports thereon received by the State Department; that "the Mexican tariff" (whose asperities, as regards the United States, were removed by the reciprocity treaty) "was a system of rank injustice," a pardonable qualification in view of the little knowledge possessed of the Mexican fiscal laws; that "while such a system exists it was useless to conclude any treaty" when the object of this treaty was precisely the partial abrogation of said tariff; that "the establishment of free zone was itself a revolutionary act, in violation of the constitution of Mexico and hostile to the United States Government," a statement wholly without foundation and due to the lack of sufficient knowledge of Mexican history; that "although treaties of extradition between the two countries do and have existed, their provisions have never been fairly enforced," when the archives of the State Department must show that Mexico has delivered not only foreigners whose extradition has been requested in accordance with the treaty, but even her own citizens, while the United States Government have never reciprocated; that "France and England had demanded concessions upon several important points in favor of their citizens and subjects before assuming the attitude of commercial allies, when the treaty practically placed the citizens of the