ance generally throughout South America. Mr. John W. Foster, representing the Secretary of State, succeeded in negotiating treaties with Spain for Cuba and Porto Rico,* and with England for Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbadoes, Guiana, the Leeward and the Windward Islands. Treaties were also signed with Santo Domingo, Guatemala, Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras and Nicaragua.10 These treaties, carrying into

The reciprocity agreement with Spain, acting on behalf of Cuba and Porto Rico, was concluded June 16, proclaimed August 1, and went partially into effect September 1, 1891. "Owing to existing treaties with other nations, it became necessary to adopt a provisional or transitory schedule," and the arrangement did not acquire its full force until July 1, 1892. (Ibid., 11-12.) The treaty itself was negotiated by Mr. Blaine through the Spanish Legation at Washington, the initiative being taken by Mr. Blaine. (Ibid., p. 39.)

The treaty for the British colonies was concluded, proclaimed and went into effect on February 1, 1892. The negotiations were conducted in Washington by Secretary Blaine and the British Minister, Sir Julian Pauncefote. It did not include Guiana, and its dependencies. (Ibid., pp. 86-88.)

The treaty with Santo Domingo was concluded June 4, proclaimed August 1, and went into effect September 1, 1891. It was negotiated by John W. Foster, Special Commissioner on behalf of the United States, Santo Domingo being repre sented by its Minister at Washington, Señor Galvan. The initiative was taken by Santo Domingo after that country had received official notification of the pas sage of the McKinley Act. By a decree of July 4, 1887, a Dominican government had placed agricultural implements and supplies for sugar estates, etc., upon the free list; musical instruments of all kinds, building materials, panama hats, revol vers, carts, shovels, etc., were charged a duty of ten per cent. In order to put into effect the idea of special reciprocal relations with the United States, the President of Santo Domingo by a decree dated August 5, 1891, placed agricultural implements and panama hats on the tariff list, fixed duties of $2 on revolvers and $2 per hundred on revolver caps, and ten per cent. on musical instruments.

The treaty with Guatemala was concluded December 30, 1891, proclaimed May 18, 1892, and went into effect May 30, 1892. The reciprocity provisions of the McKinley Act were brought to the attention of the Guatemalan government at the instance of Mr. Blaine on January 22, 1891, by Samuel Kimberly, chargé d'affaires of the United States at Guatemala City. The government responded favorably through its Minister at Washington, submitting a schedule for the consideration of the United States which was agreed to and made legal by the act of the legislature of Guatemala, April 30, 1891. (Ibid., pp. 98-102.)

The treaty with Salvador was concluded December 30, 1891, was proclaimed December 31, 1891, and went into effect February 1, 1892. The negotiations were made by Secretary Blaine and Señor Morales, Minister of Salvador at Washington. The treaty was at first provisional, and it was understood that "should the Congress of Salvador take no action on the subject before its adjournment, the government of the United States may terminate the provisional arrangement by giving the government of Salvador thirty days' notice and if no definite arrangement shall have been made before January 1, 1893," the government of the United States could likewise terminate the treaty. (Ibid., pp. 89-93.)

The treaty with Honduras was concluded April 29, 1892, proclaimed April 30, and went into operation May 25, 1892. The reciprocity provisions of the McKinley Act were brought to the attention of the government of Honduras by Mr. Kimberly. The government responded favorably through its Consul General at New York, Jacob Baiz, proposing a provisional treaty to take effect May 25, subject to the further action of the Congress of Honduras, the United States having the right, should the Congress take no action, to terminate the treaty on thirty days' notice, or, if no permanent treaty should be negotiated before January 1, 1893. (Ibid., pp. 104-6.)

10 The treaty with Nicaragua was concluded March 11, 1892, proclaimed March 12, and went into effect April 15, 1892. It was negotiated by Secretary Blaine and the Minister of Nicaragua at Washington, Señor Guzman. (Ibid., pp. 94-97.)

effect the idea of "tropical reciprocity," were closely similar in their nature one with another. They, of course, were all alike in their being based upon the admission of the same class of products to the United States free of duty, that class being the general one provided for in the McKinley bill. The products to be admitted from the United States to the various countries in question did not differ materially among themselves, although they varied somewhat according to the needs of our trade with the several countries as demonstrated by experience. The treaties all included live animals, especially those intended for breeding; some grains, such as oats, barley, rye, and corn, the latter being in some cases subjected to a moderate duty; meat products of various kinds; bridge-building materials; cotton seed and its products; cars, wagons, etc.; railway material, and timber and iron for ship building and engines. Some of the treaties were more inclusive than others and enumerated a much longer list of articles. In some instances, there were exceptions to the schedules provided by other countries, these exceptions being due to some peculiarity of the industry of the particular country in question. In every case, the treaty countries naturally desired to protect their home producers.

Almost uniformly the reciprocity idea was based upon the notion of admitting all those manufactured goods which we produced in large quantities, but which they were obliged to import either from the United States or from Europe. The underlying principle was to gain the South American market, so far as possible, at the expense of European sellers, and, in return therefor, to admit to our own markets the reciprocity commodities enumerated by the McKinley bill, which were either not produced at all in the United States, or in insignificant quantities only, and which, therefore, could not be dreaded as possibly injuring American producers. From what has been said, therefore, it is seen how the tropical reciprocity of the McKinley bill actually worked out as a bargain, whereby we

secured openings for our manufactures, but in return gave no special advantage to any of the treaty countries as against each other. The openings for manufactures were, in short, obtained by the use of what amounted to a direct threat of retaliation, since we offered not a differential advantage to the countries concerned, but presumably-should our reciprocity policy be carried far-only a differential disadvantage. While we stood ready to admit the reciprocity commodities free from all the world, we refused to admit them free from those countries with whose tariffs we were not satisfied.

There were some South American countries, indeed, which did not hesitate to show their lack of enthusiasm for reciprocity. After the tariff act of 1890 had gone into effect, the attention of foreign ambassadors at Washington was drawn to the provisions of the law, and they were invited to discuss treaties of reciprocity between their countries and the United States. This, of course, practically amounted to a threat that if the countries did not accept such suggestions they would find themselves the subjects of discrimination, in consequence of the power granted by the McKinley Act to reimpose duties on sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides imported to the United States.

Special overtures had been made to Colombia at the outset. Not only had the usual invitation been sent to the Colombian Minister at Washington, but John T. Abbott, our Minister at Bogota, had been directed to discuss the question of reciprocity with the Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs. Nothing came of this attempt at negotiation, and Mr. Blaine, therefore, notified the Colombian Minister (January 7, 1892) that "unless some satisfactory commercial arrangement [should be] entered upon between the Government of the United States and the Government of Colombia on or before the 15th of March, 1892," the President would enforce the retaliatory provisions of the McKinley Act. This threat finally aroused Colombia, and her Minister sought to take refuge behind a most favored

nation clause contained in an early treaty signed in 1846, but promised that the President of Colombia would endeavor at the next meeting of the Colombian Congress to obtain tariff concessions for the United States. Not statement of changes to be recommended in the Colombian tariff was, however, forthcoming, and no weight was assigned by Mr. Blaine to the "most favored nation" claim, already referred to. The threat made in January was, therefore, put into effect, and President Harrison issued a proclamation March 15th, reimposing the old duties upon the reciprocity commodities of the McKinley Act, so far as related to Colombia.

Similar experience was had with Hayti. It seemed to be impossible to secure any attention to our communications concerning reciprocity, and that country was consequently subjected to the same treatment as Colombia by the proclamation of March 15th. Our relations with Venezuela were somewhat different, but had the same result. A treaty was negotiated and agreed upon in Washington, and was forwarded to Caracas for the approval of the home government. Owing to a variety of circumstances, however, no action was taken on this treaty, although the President of Venezuela transmitted it to the Congress of that country, which thereupon authorized the Minister of Finance to continue the negotiations. No steps being taken by him or the executive authorities of Venezuela, the proclamation of the 15th of March was also made applicable to that country, and the original duties were imposed upon its sugar, molasses, coffee and hides.

There are certain important bearings of this kind of reciprocity which deserve to be specially noted. In the first place, as has already been made clear, the reciprocity provided for was negative and not positive. It might militate in favor of the consumer by assuring him lower prices for the articles in question, inasmuch as it might mean the admission of these commodities from practically all the world. This followed from the substantial assurance that all countries producing

the articles in question would come into the agreement, since they could not afford to find themselves left out by the enforcement of our retaliatory tariff against them. The situation produced was thus very different from that which had existed. under the Hawaiian reciprocity treaty, since the presumption now was, that, all countries sharing in the advantages of the lower duty, a general competition would take place in the American market. This may be contrasted with the Hawaiian treaty, which merely assured to the sugar producer of the Islands a market for his product with practical guaranty of continued high prices, since we were obliged to import the largest portion of our supply from countries against which we enforced a tariff. The new kind of reciprocity (under the McKinley Act) benefited, rather than injured, the American consumer and held out some hope of advantage to the American manufacturer. Whatever might be thought of the justice or dignity of clubbing our way into foreign markets by a tariff threat of such a nature, there seemed to be some reason to suppose that it would, at all events, prove effective.

There was, however, one phase of the McKinley reciprocity section which opened up an apparently much more important field than any which could be found in the countries south of us. Treaties were negotiated under it with Germany 11 and with Austria-Hungary.12 The former of these countries gave

11

11 The treaty with Germany was concluded January 30, 1892, proclaimed February 1, 1892, and went into effect on the same day. The McKinley reciprocity provisions were brought to the attention of the German chargé d'affaires at Washington by John W. Foster, August 22, 1891. The German government responded favorably. It offered to grant the same terms to the United States upon its agricultural exports to Germany as were granted to Austria-Hungary, with which a like treaty was then being negotiated. These terms were accepted by Mr. Foster. The treaty thus differed from those negotiated with the South American countries, since it was not a special agreement, but merely placed us upon the same footing with reference to Germany as some other countries enjoyed in entering her markets. (Ibid., p. 111.)

12 The treaty with Austria-Hungary was concluded May 25, 1892, proclaimed May 26, 1892, and went into effect on the same day. It was negotiated by Secretary Blame and Chevalier de Tavera, the Austro-Hungarian representative at Washington. Mr. Blaine had been stirred up by Democratic sneers and inquiries as to why he did not apply the retaliatory provisions of the McKinley Act to European countries. In a note of January 7, 1892, he stated that unless some concessions were granted by the Austro-Hungarian government before March 15. the President of the United States would issue a retaliatory proclamation against Austria-Hungary pursuant to the authority bestowed by the McKinley Act.

On