an amendment proposed by Mr. Morgan, stating that the resolutions were submitted for the consideration of the Cuban Constitutional Convention and not as an ultimatum to Cuba, was lost. Nowhere was it stated by the author of the amendment or by its supporters, and nowhere was it complained by opponents, that the obligation to look after the economic welfare of Cuba had been assumed by us.

The claim which was later made concerning our duty to Cuba was not, however, always based upon what had been said in Congress. In general, it has been rested upon an alleged promise made by President McKinley to the effect that if the constitutional convention would adopt the Platt amendment he would use his utmost efforts to secure for Cuba suitable trade concessions from the United States. In any view of this promise it must be conceded that in whatever form it was made by President McKinley it could have been no more than a personal obligation undertaken by him and without warrant from Congress. This obligation, his untimely death, of course, prevented him from fulfilling. President Roosevelt, when he came into office, accepted the pledge thus said to have been made by President McKinley and therewith inherited the obligation of his predecessor. It will not be worth while to consider what were the forces likely to interfere with the fulfillment of this supposed pledge.

We have seen that the great obstacle in the way of reciprocity has always been that of finding commodities whose free introduction would be offensive to no one because they were not manufactured or produced in the United States. In chapter V it was seen that the action of European countries in developing a sugar-bounty system had resulted in such an enormous over-production of sugar as to necessitate the sale of that commodity in neutral markets at very much less than the cost of production. It was there pointed out, moreover, that

8 Ibid., p. 3150.

this sugar situation existing in Europe made the action taken in the McKinley bill for the admission of sugar without duty a step of great importance, since it held out the most tempting of all possible baits to other countries. We also saw that this action aroused no particular antipathy in the United States because of the fact that sugar was not produced here except in a very limited degree (almost solely from cane), and that a bounty was, under the McKinley Act, offered to producers of raw sugar so that they were thereby placed in as good a position as they would have been under the protective system. In considering the Kasson treaties, it was seen that nearly all of them provided for a reduction of duty on sugar and that this was one of the causes which led to their failure. The issue put in a mild form by these Kasson treaties was, of course, much more squarely presented when Cuban reciprocity became a burning question.

The situation, as regards domestic sugar, had radically changed between 1890 and 1892. We had followed in the footsteps of Europe in building up a beet sugar industry which, under the Dingley Act, was year by year extending its borders. It would perhaps be hard to say precisely when the manufacture of beet sugar in the United States began. A few hundred pounds of sugar had been manufactured from beets at Northampton, Mass., in 1838-1839, and a few scattered and unimportant efforts were made in California, Illinois, and Wisconsin between 1863 and 1879. A factory at Soquel, California, was reported in the census of 1880. It had then been running for several years at a loss, and about 1880 it was abandoned. The status of the beet sugar industry in 1879, according to the tenth census, is given on the following page.

All of these factories, with possibly one exception, turned out to be failures. Little was done during the decade 18801890. One of the principal results of the bounty, paid under the McKinley Act, was to stimulate very powerfully the raising of the sugar beet and the production of sugar there

from. The subject began to be investigated with considerable care shortly after 1890. During the decade 1880-1890 several considerable appropriations were made by Congress to enable the Department of Agriculture to make inquiries relating to beet-culture and both seeds and printed information were sent out to farmers. Moreover, several States granted direct bounties to beet growers, but, in certain instances, subsequent legislatures repealed the bounty acts and, in some cases, later refused the payment of bounty, although earned. By a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court, the bounty act of that State was adjudged unconstitutional.

Statistics of beet-sugar factories in 1879, by States, census of 1880.

Even without the aid extended through bounty legislation, it was almost certain that the beet sugar industry, protected as it was under the act of 1894, and again to an increased extent under that of 1897, and safeguarded against the effects of foreign bounties by our system of countervailing duties, would grow rapidly. This has actually been the case. In 1897, there were 9 beet sugar factories in operation, turning out 45,246 short tons of sugar, or about 12 per cent. of the total cane and beet sugar produced at home. By 1899, this number had grown to 30, with an output of 79,998 short tons. of sugar, or about 35 per cent. of the total sugar produced from cane and beets in the United States. At the present time, it is supposed that 240,000 short tons of sugar per annum is a low estimate of the capacity of our beet sugar

factories. They now have a nominal daily capacity of 22,310 short tons of beets and one of their principal difficulties has been that of getting enough raw material upon which to work. The period of great activity in the development of our beet sugar industry may be said to include the years of 18961902. Within this time, at least 35 factories were built, of which two failed, one at Menomonee Falls, Wis., the other at Rome, N. Y. A strong effort has been made to unite a large proportion of the factories under one control, and the Oxnard Brothers and their business associates have been instrumental in establishing several large plants and in affiliating others with them. The condition of the industry in 1899 may be in general gathered from the following table furnished by the census of 1900:

A very interesting light is thrown upon the politics of the beet sugar situation in Congress by the following digest, showing the location of beet sugar factories in operation Sep

tember, 1901, just prior to the opening of the Cuban debate, as prepared by the Beet Sugar Gazette of Chicago (September, 1901):

Beet-sugar factories of the United States.

A most important point to be considered in connection with the beet sugar industry, as affected by the tariff, is the question how far that industry is dependent for its existence on the protective system. In this connection we cannot do better than quote at the outset a statement from a high authority on the subject of beet sugar production.

In 1899 a letter was issued by W. Bayard Cutting and Henry T. Oxnard, directors of the American Beet Sugar Company, addressed to prospective investors. That letter ran in part as follows:

"Regarding the future development and permanency of the beet