Sympathy was expressed with the "heroic battle of the Cuban patriots against cruelty and oppression," and it was declared that" the government of Spain having lost control of Cuba, and being unable to protect the property or lives of resident American citizens, or to comply with its treaty obligations, we believe that the government of the United States should actively use its influence and good offices to restore peace and give independence to the island."

The money question was treated by the Democrats as follows:

"We demand the free and unlimited coinage of both silver and gold at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1 without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. We demand that the standard silver dollar shall be a full legal tender, equally with gold, for all debts, public and private, and we favor such legislation as will prevent for the future the demonetization of any kind of legal-tender money by private contract.

"We are opposed to the policy and practice of surrendering to the holders of the obligations of the United States the option reserved by law to the government of redeeming such obligations in either silver or gold coin.

"We are opposed to the issuing of interestbearing bonds of the United States in time of peace and condemn the trafficking with banking syndicates, which, in exchange for bonds and at enormous profits to themselves, supply the Federal treasury with gold to maintain the policy of gold monometallism.

Congress alone has the power to coin and issue money, and President Jackson declared that this power could not be delegated to corporations or individuals. We, therefore, denounce the issuance of notes intended to circulate as money by national banks as in derogation of the Constitution, and we demand that all paper which is made a legal tender for public and private debts, or which is receivable for dues to the United States, shall be issued by the government of the United States and shall be redeemable in coin."

The tariff plank was as follows:

"We hold that tariff duties shall be levied for purposes of revenue, such duties to be so adjusted

73

as to operate equally throughout the country, and not discriminate between class or section, and that taxation should be limited by the needs of the government, honestly and economically administered. We denounce as disturbing to business the Republican threat to restore the McKinley law, which has twice been condemned by the people in national elections, and which, enacted under the false plea of protection to home industry, proved a prolific breeder of trusts and monopolies, enriched the few at the expense of the many, restricted trade and deprived the producers of the great American staples of access to their natural markets.

"Until the money question is settled we are opposed to any agitation for further changes in our tariff laws, except such as are necessary to meet the deficit in revenue caused by the adverse decision of the Supreme Court on the income tax. But for this decision by the Supreme Court, there would be no deficit in the revenue under the law passed by a Democratic Congress in strict pursuance of the uniform decisions of that court for nearly 100 years, that court having in that decision sustained constitutional objections to its enactment which had previously been overruled by the ablest judges who have ever sat on that bench. We declare that it is the duty of Congress to use all the constitutional power which remains after that decision, or which may come from its reversal by the court as it may hereafter be constituted, so that the burdens of taxation may be equally and impartially laid, to the end that wealth may bear its due proportion of the expense of the government."

After a most remarkable campaign the elections were held and resulted in the success of McKinley and Hobart, who received 271 electoral votes. Mr. Bryan received 176 electoral votes but the votes for VicePresident were divided, Mr. Sewell receiving 149 and Mr. Watson 27.*

* Stanwood, History of Presidential Elections, pp. 494-520, and History of the Presidency, pp. 519-569; McClure, Our Presidents and How We Make Them, pp. 361-394; Andrews, The United States in Our Own Time, pp. 773-787; W. J. Bryan, The First Battle; A Story of the Campaign of 1896; Whittle's Cleveland, pp. 233-240; Halstead's McKinley, p. 373 et seq.; Porter and Boyle's McKinley, pp. 513-578.

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.t 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.

75

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

"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 reenactment 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

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

same

machines, electrical machines, and scientific instruments, and upon cotton-seed oil and 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 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. But in 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 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

*Laughlin and Willis, Reciprocity, pp. 303

306.