Page images

McKinley and Hobart were inaugurated March 4, 1897. The President selected for his Cabinet the following persons: Secretary of State, John Sherman, of Ohio, who was succeeded on April 27, 1898, by William R. Day, of Ohio, who in his turn gave place to John Hay, also of Ohio, in 1898; Secretary of the Treasury, Lyman J. Gage, of Illinois; Secretary of the Navy, John D. Long, of Massachusetts; Secretary of War, Russell A. Alger, of Michigan, who was replaced by Elihu Root, of New York, in 1899; Secretary of the Interior, Cornelius N. Bliss, of New York, who in 1899 was followed by Ethan A. Hitchcock, of Missouri; Postmaster-General, James A. Gary, of Maryland, followed by Charles Emory Smith, of Pennsylvania, in 1898; Attorney-General, Joseph McKenna, of California, who was succeeded by J. W. Griggs, of New Jersey, in the same year; Secretary of Agriculture, James Wilson, of Iowa.

In his inaugural address President McKinley spoke in favor of protection for American industries, of the establishment of international bimetallism, the appointment of a currency and finance commission, of civil service reform, and of the restriction of immigration.*

Although the money question was the chief issue in the campaign in 1896 still one of the first of the new President's official acts was to call an extra session of Congress on March 15

• Porter and Boyle's McKinley, pp. 582-593.

to revise the tariff.* Both Senate and House were strongly Republican in the Fifty-fifth Congress. Thomas B. Reed was Speaker of the House, and Nelson Dingley, of Maine, was chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

A bill had already been unofficially prepared before the House was organized, and on March 19 the Dingley bill, formed along protection lines, was introduced (H. R. 397). The House did not give that consideration to the bill which a measure of this importance would seem to require, but accepted the schedules of the Committee and within two weeks passed the bill (March 31) by a strictly party vote (205 to 122), and turned it over to the consideration of the Senate.i The Senate committee discussed the bill for a month and reported it with many amendments. A prolonged discussion then took place,‡ particularly with regard to the reciprocity measures the bill contained, but after nearly 900 amendments had been made in the original schedules the bill passed the Senate (July 7, 1897, by a vote of 38 to 28) and was turned over to the consideration of a conference committee from both Houses. || An agreement was speedily reached by

*Porter and Boyle, pp. 594-597.

Stanwood, Tariff Controversies, vol. fi., PP. 379-384; Record, pp. 53, 72, 120-519, 557-559, 55th Congress, 1st session.

Record, pp. 907-2447; Stanwood, pp. 384-388. The House appointed Dingley, Payne, Dalzell, Grosvenor, McMillan, Bailey, Hopkins and Joseph Wheeler; the Senate appointed Aldrich, Allison, Burroughs, Platt, of Connecticut, Vest, Jones, of Nevada, White, and Jones, of Arkansas.


this committee and the bill was enacted into law, the conference report being accepted by the House July 19 by a vote of 187 to 116 and by the Senate July 24 by a vote of 40 to 30. On the same day the President signed the bill.


manufactured from grain or other materials, still wines and vermuth, and argols or crude tartar or wine lees. The President further had the power to compel if possible the imposition of equal and reasonable tariffs by foreign countries on our

Dewey makes the following remarks agricultural or manufactured products concerning the bill:

"The measure was thoroughly protective in its provisions, but when it is remembered that the Wilson tariff of 1894 was also of the same general character, an analysis of the new tariff will not disclose many points of interest. On some commodities the duties of 1890 were restored; on others compromises between the rates of 1890 and 1894 were accepted and in a few instances the lower rates of the Wilson tariff were allowed to stand. Duties were reimposed on wool, increased on flax, cotton-bagging, woolens, silks, and linens, and on certain manufactures of iron and steel. On coal there was a compromise; on iron and steel duties were left practically unchanged. On sugar, which plays a more important part from a fiscal point of view, there was a radical revision; in place of an ad valorem rate of 40 per cent. on raw sugar, the duty was increased and made specific. The policy of free raw sugar adopted by the Republican party in 1890 was definitely abandoned, for the need of revenue was urgent, and the slowly developing beet sugar industry demanded protection."

The provisions of the McKinley act with regard to reciprocity were practically retained. Under the provisions of this clause the President was given the right to negotiate reciprocity treaties with any country that would make satisfactory concessions to our goods, permitting free importation of the following articles: paintings and statuary, champagnes and other sparkling wines, crude brandies or any other spirits that were distilled or

Dewey, Financial History, pp. 464-465. For text see Proctor, Tariff Acts, pp. 501-564.

by suspending the free importation of tea, coffee, tonquin, tonqua, or tonka beans, and vanilla beans. The act also gave the President, in order that reciprocal trade might be secured with foreign countries, power to enter into treaties" by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and with the approval of Congress " for a period not to exceed five years. This stipulation covered all products and allowed a reduction of not more than 20 per cent. on the duties imposed by the Dingley Act.*

Upon the passage of this act, therefore, President McKinley made plans for the reënactment of the treaties which had been abrogated by the Wilson bill of 1894 and which had not been reëstablished from that time. He appointed John A. Kasson, of Iowa, to conduct the negotiations with foreign countries, with the result that in 1899 and 1900 treaties had been concluded with Argentine, Ecuador, Nicaragua, France, with Denmark for the Danish West Indies, with the Dominican Republic and with Great Britain for British Guiana, Bermuda, Barbadoes, Jamaica, Turks and Caicos Islands. President McKinley

[blocks in formation]

then submitted these treaties to the Senate with the recommendation that they be ratified, but owing to the opposition of that body no action was then nor has since been taken on them SO the President's efforts availed nothing.*

The Dingley Act provided also that the President could negotiate and directly proclaim treaties with European countries "founded upon concessions to them in argols or crude tartar or wine lees, brandies, still wines, paintings, statuary and one or two other articles." President McKinley then negotiated treaties with France, proclaimed May 30, 1898; Germany, July 13, 1900; Portugal, June 12, 1900;|| and with Italy, July 18, 1900.§ In return France gave us concessions on canned meats, fresh and dried fruits, common lumber, lard and a few other commodities. Germany granted us "certain advantages under the conventional tariff of the country." Portugal lowered the duties on all flour (except wheat flour), mineral oils, pitch, agricultural implements and general machinery. Italy granted free admission to turpentine, natural fertilizers, hides and skins and reduced the duties on agricultural machinery, sewing

[blocks in formation]

machines, electrical machines, and scientific instruments, and upon cotton-seed oil and preserved fish. Switzerland also claimed recognition under the reciprocity clause of the Dingley Act. A commercial treaty had been signed November 25, 1850, which entitled her products to the same rates as those enjoyed by France, and Switzerland now demanded the rates given to France by the treaty of May 30, 1898. The Secretary of State acknowledged the claim and issued a ruling in accordance to the customs officers. March, 1900, these clauses of the treaty of 1850 were renounced by the United States and the duties on Swiss products were made the same as those of other countries.*

But in

But the Dingley tariff met with much criticism from the anti-trust agitators in that it served to promote industrial combinations. In this connection Coman says:

"It is asserted that the representatives of various trusts brought the influence of vast wealth to bear upon the Congressional deliberations. The tin plate combination, for example, secured a renewal of the rates of the McKinley Act. The sugar trust extorted a differential of three-fourths of a cent a pound *. Even the protection intended to advantage the farmers and other raw material producers has accrued to the centralized industries. The enhanced value of American hides enriches the beef packers; the duty on lumber insures monopoly of the domestic market to great timber companies The conflict of interest between manufacturer and producer of raw material has induced further criticism. The woolen manufacturers protest the high duties on wool; the shoe manufacturers oppose the tax on hides; the paper manufacturers

[blocks in formation]


demand free bleaching powder *. On the whole, however, the Dingley tariff has proved highly beneficial to the protected industries *. But the prosperity of the manufacturer has been promoted at the expense of the consumer. The prices of all the essentials that enter into the cost of living-food, clothing, fuel, building materials, house furnishings, etc., have risen steadily since 1897."*

Meanwhile affairs in Samoa had again assumed an ominous aspect. In 1889, after the hurricane had spent its fury, the war clouds had gradually dispersed and peace reigned. Malietoa had been restored, but upon his return to power he found that his prestige had been transferred to his old ally and kinsman, Mataafa, who was now the native hero. The latter was deeply chagrined at the restoration of Malietoa to his former station and soon rebelled against the reigning king. He was subdued, however, and in 1893 was exiled to the Marshall Islands, where he was maintained at the expense of the three powers concerned - Germany, England and the United States. In 1898, however, he was pardoned and returned to Samoa. Shortly after his arrival, King Malietoa died, and a contest for the kingship ensued between Mataafa, Malietoa Tanu, son of the dead king, and Tamasese, the former vice-king. Though at the native elections on November 14, 1898, Mataafa received a majority of the votes, still under the sixth section of the third article of the

Coman, Industrial History, pp. 304-305 (edition of 1905).

For events leading up to the rebellion see Robert Louis Stevenson, Footnote to History, pp. 268-322.

VOL. X-6


Berlin Act, the choosing of a king rested with the supreme court of the islands. William L. Chambers, an American, was chief justice, and the responsibility of the appointment rested with him.

Chambers declared (December 31, 1898) that Tanu was the duly elected king and Tamasese by the same decision was created vice-king. War between the factions ensued and Mataafa gained control, with some pomp crowning himself king. The German consul then entered into a dispute with the English and American consuls; Mataafa with a force of several thousand warriors held Mulinuu, the royal seat, and bade defiance to all who would dislodge him; in Apia a reign of terror was inaugurated; and "throughout the island a season of riot and pillage began." Secretary Hay thereupon despatched the U. S. S. Philadelphia, Admiral Kautz in command, to Apia, where she arrived March 9, 1899. Kautz, after an investigation, upheld Judge Chambers' decree, ordered the native warriors to cease fighting, and threatened to use force to compel obedience.

The German consul-general, Rose, issued a counter proclamation and called Kautz's proclamation false. Instead of dispersing, the Mataafa party thereupon became more bold and defiant, but true to his word, Kautz, together with two English vessels, the Porpoise and Royalist, on March 15 began a systematic though undoubtedly unpardonable bombardment of the native villages along the

coast. Mataafa was soon obliged to retire from Mulinuu and on March 23 Tanu was crowned king.

The German government then proposed to England and the United States that a joint high commission should be appointed which should proceed to Samoa, settle the dispute, and make recommendations to their home governments for future legislation. Upon the acceptance of this proposal, the three commissioners were appointed - Judge Bartlett Tripp, of South Dakota, for the United States (elected chairman); Sir Charles Eliot, second secretary of the British embassy at Washington, for Great Britain; and Baron Speck von Sternberg, first secretary of the German embassy at Washington, for Germany. They sailed from San Francisco, April 25, 1899, arriving at Apia May 15. The commission vindicated Admiral Kautz and Judge Chambers by declaring the decision of the latter appointing Tanu king to be the "law of Samoa, and all who refused obedience to it violated not the decision alone but the treaty upon which it was based."

But Tanu abdicated and the kingship was thereupon abolished. In October, 1899, negotiations were instituted to definitely settle the whole dispute, and in November an understanding was reached, by which it was decided to partition the group among the three powers. But the interests of Germany and Great Britain were found to be so complex as to necessitate the complete withdrawal of one or the other. As the German interests

were considered paramount England withdrew. Therefore by the AngloGerman treaty, signed November 14, 1899, "Germany retained full possession of all the islands of the Samoan group west of longitude 171°W. This included the entire group with the exception of Tutuila and some nearby smaller islands of little or no importance. As compensation for her abandonment of all Samoan claims, Great Britain accepted from Germany the latter's right in the Tongan Islands, a group lying several hundred miles south of Samoa; England also received the German islands of Choiseul and San Isobel, of the Solomon group. Germany also made certain other concessions to England in Africa."* The United States retained possession of Tutuila and all other islands of the Samoan group east of longitude 171°W.

Accordingly a treaty was signed December 2, 1899, which, after reciting the desire to amicably adjust the questions in dispute, reads as follows:

"Article 1.- The general act concluded and signed by the aforesaid powers at Berlin on the 14th day of June, A. D. 1889, and all previous treaties, conventions and agreements relating to Samoa are annulled.

"Article 2.- Germany renounces in favor of the United States of America all her rights and claims over and in respect to the Island of Tutuila, and all other islands of the Samoan group east of longitude 171° west of Greenwich. Great Britain in like manner renounces in favor of the United States of America all her rights and claims over and in respect to the island of Tutuila, and all other islands of the Samoan group east of longitude 171° west of Greenwich.

* Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, p. 282; Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, pp. 396-397.

« PreviousContinue »