United States. The provisional government understood these conditions perfectly well, and with the passage of the Wilson tariff ensued an era analogous to that which had occurred prior to the adoption of the McKinley act. But the annexation movement had gone too far to be checked by the restoration of satisfactory economic conditions. Moreover, Hawaiian producers did not feel like taking the chance of another era of free trade in sugar, during which they would be unable to get the advantage of any bounty that might be handed out to domestic producers in compensation for duties taken from them. They continued actively to stimulate annexation sentiment in the United States and in this they were cordially seconded by the sugar refining interests of this country. Whether annexation could have overcome the older objections to it, if unaided by any outside circumstances, may be doubted. At all events, that such circumstances did forcibly forward the annexation movement is now notorious. From the time that we entered upon the Spanish war with its almost inevitable consequences in the way of territorial expansion, the acquisition of Hawaii was a foregone conclusion. In 1900 we formally annexed the archipelago, and the conditions as to trade, which had practically obtained prior to that time, now formally prevailed by virtue of the fact that the Islands had become a part of our domestic territory. Thus the prediction that reciprocity with Hawaii would ultimately lead to annexation was nominally, at least, realized.

It is hardly necessary to suggest that the annexation of Hawaii was not accomplished without much political scheming, both on the part of those who opposed, as well as those who favored, annexation: New interests had arisen in the United States during the decade 1890-1900. The sugar situation had assumed an aspect very different from anything it had presented in previous years. An entirely new set of forces was brought to bear upon Congress when annexation finally became a question of immediate moment.

CHART II.-TRADE WITH THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

In the accompanying chart, the history of our trade relations with the Hawaiian Islands has been traced. From this representation it appears that, subsequent to the negotiation of the reciprocity treaty, our relations with Hawaii may be divided into three general periods. The first of these extends from 1875 to the passage of the McKinley act in 1890. The second period covers the life of the McKinley act 18901894. The third continues from 1894 to the present time. The course of the events in the history of the treaty was broken by the abolition of duties on sugar under the McKinley act which, in a measure, deprived Hawaii of her differential advantage. Looking at the first period in the history of the reciprocity treaty, which covered the years 1876-1890, it appears that there was a steadily growing volume of imports and a volume of exports which, although not so steady in its growth, and although not so large as the imports, nevertheless displayed a constant and definite upward tendency. After 1891, when the McKinley act with its reduction of duties began to have its full effect, exports to the Islands fell off contemporaneously with the decline in imports. They recovered again after the reimposition of duties in 1894, and continued to increase, parallel with the growth in imports, up to the time of annexation. From this chart, the direct and immediate effect of the reciprocity treaty on our trade with the Hawaiian Islands is at once apparent. It conclusively demonstrates the stimulus which was given to imports from the Islands by the differential advantage accorded them in the reciprocity treaty. They grew at once and out of all proportion to our exports, for whereas there had been prior to 1876 very little difference between the amount of exports and that of imports the lines at once began to diverge immediately upon the conclusion of the treaty. It would, in fact, almost seem as if there would have been no limit to the disproportionate growth of imports except the absorption of all the arable lands in the Islands, had not a stop suddenly been put

to the movement by the abrupt repeal of the sugar duties in order to reduce revenue. One thing which is of special interest in this chart is the fact that the repeal of the sugar duties by the McKinley tariff did not give the same check to exports as to imports. While exports declined for a year or two they shortly after took an upward trend and were apparently but slightly affected by the falling off in imports, What this means is, of course, abundantly clear. The Islands were drawing upon us for their supplies of certain kinds of goods and were likely to continue doing so almost irrespective of our commercial policy with reference to them. Certainly our failure to take a large surplus of imports from them meant nothing except that a certain amount of profit was no longer poured into the pockets of owners of Hawaiian sugar lands at the expense of our consumers and of our government.

The influence of our commercial arrangements with Hawaii becomes much more striking when our attention is confined to sugar. Whereas the imports of this article from Hawaii to the United States had reached enormous proportions prior to the McKinley tariff, they had fell off in a marked way during the life of that act. The total amount of sugar imported to the United States in 1890 was 224,457,011 pounds, while in 1891 it grew to 307,255,016 pounds. This large figure declined to 262,612,405 in 1892 and, although it recovered somewhat in 1893 and 1894, it did not continue to take a strong upward course until 1896, when it rose to 352,175,260 pounds, and again in 1898 to nearly 500,000,000 pounds.