procity, and, on the other hand, if it made no changes in duties which would necessarily result in an alteration of the reciprocity treaties from our side, it made no change in the policy of reciprocity as then existing. It is important to observe, therefore, with great care, what it was that the Wilson bill actually did; first, with reference to reciprocity, and second, with reference to the commodities upon which duties had been remitted by the reciprocity clause of the McKinley Act. It had been the original intention of the Ways and Means Committee in reporting the Wilson bill to repeal the reciprocity provisions of the McKinley Act. The attitude adopted by the framers of the bill toward reciprocity as a policy cannot be better stated than in the words of the report of the Committee on Ways and Means, to whom that bill was referred. This report expressed the intent of the measure, as follows: "It is the purpose of the present bill to repeal in toto section three of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, commonly but most erroneously called its reciprocity provision. * * This section has brought no appreciable advantage to American exporters; it is not in intention or effect a provision for reciprocity, but for retaliation. It inflicts penalties upon the American people by making them pay higher prices for these articles if the fiscal necessities of other nations compel them to levy duties upon the products of the United States; which, in the opinion of the President, are reciprocally unequal and unreasonable. * * * "Moreover, we do not believe that Congress can rightly vest in the President of the United States any authority or power to impose or release taxes on our people by proclamation or otherwise, or to suspend or dispense with the operation of a law of Congress." It thus appears that the grounds on which the Wilson bill undertook to abrogate the provision for McKinley reciprocity were four in number: first, that it was not properly reciprocity, but a retaliatory provision; second, that it might easily result in raising the prices of the reciprocity commodities to the House Report, No. 234, pp. 11-12, 53d Congress, 2d session. American consumer in those cases where foreign countries had declined our offered reductions of duty in exchange for corresponding reduction of their taxes on our exports, because it increased the duties on commodities coming from those countries; third, the international complications necessarily resulting from ill feeling caused by the interpretation of the most favored nation clause; and, fourth, a constitutional scruple as to the power of the President to impose or release taxes by proclamation without the specific consent of Congress.5 In the form in which originally presented, it was, as just shown, supposed that the measure would accomplish the repeal of the reciprocity clause ipso facto. Mr. Wilson, the father of the bill, however, in order to gain complete assurance on this point, introduced in the House, on January 25, 1894, when the bill had already been under discussion for some time, the following amendment: "That section 56 be amended by inserting after the figures 56, "That section three of an Act approved October 1, 1890, entitled 'An The history of the Wilson Bill may be summarily reviewed as follows: Mr. Wilson from the Committee on Ways and Means, on December 19, 1893, reported a bill (H. R. 4864) entitled "A bill to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes." (Congressional Record, 53d Congress, 2d session. Vol. 26, Part I., p. 415.) On February 1, 1894, the bill was amended and passed the House, the vote being 204 Yeas and 140 Nays-not voting 8. (Ibid., p. 1796.) On February 2, the bill was laid before the Senate and referred to the Finance Committee. p. 1804. On March 20, it was referred back to the Senate by the Committee on Finance, with amendments. (p. 3126.) It was debated in the Senate from April 2 to July 3. (pp. 3389-7136.) On July 6, the bill with the Senate amendments was laid before the House, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. (p. 7161.) On July 7, the Ways and Means Committee reported back the bill with the recommendation that a motion be passed of non-concurrence in the Senate amendments and a conference appointed. This was done. (pp. 7188-95.) On July 7, Conferees on the part of the House were appointed as follows: Mr. Wilson, W. Va., Mr. McMillin, Tex., Mr. Turner, Ga., Mr. Montgomery, Kentucky, Mr. Reed, Maine, Mr. Burrows, Michigan, and Mr. Payne, New York. (p. 7196.) Conferees on the part of the Senate were appointed on July 3 as follows: Mr. Voorhees, Mr. Harris, Mr. Vest, Mr. Jones of Arkansas, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Allison, and Mr. Aldrich. (p. 7136.) The report of the Conference Committee was rejected by the House, and on July 19. invited the Senate to a second conference, appointing the same conferees as before (p. 7714): the Senate insisted on its conferees and on July 27 reappointed its conferees to meet those of the House. (p. 7930.) On August 13, the House on motion of Mr. Wilson receded from its disagreement to the Senate amendments and the bill was passed. (p. 8482.) Bill became a law without the approval of the President on August 28, 1894. (p. 8666.) Act to reduce the revenue, to equalize duties on imports and for other purposes' is hereby repealed.'" This amendment passed the House by a vote of 126 to 89.7 In speaking of the amendment, Mr. Wilson himself remarked: "The effect of that is to repeal the language of section three of the McKinley bill which authorizes retaliatory proclamations by the President. * * * It is the understanding of the Committee that the bill as originally presented effects that repeal; but in order that there may be no question about it, they put in this provision directly repealing that section." In the Senate, the amendment already referred to was still further amended. On June 29 Senator Vest called up an amendment previously proposed by him and it was agreed to. This amendment consisted of the following words, which were to be added to those already inserted by Mr. Wilson himself, while the bill was in the House: but nothing herein contained shall be held to abrogate or in any way affect such reciprocal commercial arrangements as have been heretofore made and now exist between the United States and foreign countries, except where such arrangements are inconsistent with the provisions of this act."" This addition was inserted by the Senate, acting as a Committee of the whole, and then went over for further consideration, being finally brought up in the Senate on July 3d, and concurred in by that body.10 As it finally made its appearance before the world, the reciprocity provisions of the Wilson Act were contained in a section numbered 71, and which, as will be seen from what has already been said, read as follows: "That section three of an act approved October first, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled 'An Act to reduce the revenue and equalize duties on imports, and for other purposes,' is hereby repealed; but nothing herein contained shall be held to abrogate, or in any way affect, such reciprocal commercial arrangements as have been heretofore made and now exist between the United States and foreign • Congressional Record, 53d Congress, 2d session, p. 1417. Ibid., p. 1425. 8 Ibid., p. 1417. Ibid., pp. 6985-7000. 10 Ibid., p. 7110. countries, except where such arrangements are inconsistent with the provisions of this act." " It thus appears that the Wilson bill specifically repudiated the idea of making any changes in our existing reciprocity treaties as such. It did not, of course, say anything of the effect upon such treaties which would be produced by changes in the duties. Yet, it must have been evident that the treaties. would continue in force unless they were altered by action on our part; and that even when so altered by the changes in our tariff, which naturally superseded the arrangements made in the treaties, they could be tacitly continued upon the new basis, if the contracting parties desired such continuance. The leading ideas of the Wilson bill were: (1) Free raw materials, and (2) Reduction of duties on commodities of common use, so far as was possible. Pursuant thereto, the Wilson bill naturally retained hides upon the free list, in addition to numerous other commodities not provided for by the McKinley bill. With an equally good grace, it also provided for free coffee and tea. What it did. not provide for was free raw sugar. The bill restored the tariff on raw sugar, and by so doing it took away the most importani of the commodities which had been used as a basis for the negotiation of reciprocity treaties. It should be stated, therefore, in speaking of the effect of the Wilson bill as finally passed upon reciprocity, not that it destroyed reciprocity, as established by the McKinley Act, but that the influence of the Senate made a change in duties which was of such importance as to throw out of joint the previous treaty agreements. It was not the Wilson bill, but the Senate amendments to the bill, which prevented free sugar. The fact that the effect of the Wilson bill upon reciprocity was really due to its alteration of the sugar schedule, makes it of primary importance, before discussing the debates, to note 11 "United States Statutes at Large," Vol. 28, 53d Congress, 1893-95, p. 569. precisely what was done with the sugar schedule by the measure as first introduced and how radically it was later altered. The act subjected sugar to a duty, although it made special exception concerning the importations of that product coming from the Hawaiian Islands. The new provisions were contained in paragraph 182 under schedule E in section 1, and were as follows: "182. That so much of the act entitled 'An Act to reduce revenue equalize duties, and for other purposes," approved October first, eighteen hundred and ninety, as provides for and authorizes the issue of licenses to produce sugar, and for the payment of a bounty to the producers of sugar from beets, sorghum, or sugar-cane, grown in the United States, or from maple-sap produced within the United States, be, and the same is hereby repealed, and hereafter it shall be unlawful to issue any license to produce sugar or to pay any bounty for the production of sugar of any kind under the said Act. "1822. There shall be levied, collected and paid on all sugars and on all tank bottoms, sirups of cane juice or of beet juice, melada, concentrated melada, concrete and concentrated molasses, a duty of forty per centum ad valorem, and upon all sugars above number sixteen Dutch standard in color and upon all sugars which have been discolored there shall be levied, collected and paid a duty of one-eighth of one cent per pound in addition to the said duty of forty per centum ad valorem; and all sugars, tank bottoms, sirups of cane juice or of beet juice, melada, concentrated melada, concrete or concentrated molasses, which are imported from or are the product of any country which at the time the same was exported therefrom pays, directly or indirectly, a bounty on the export thereof, shall pay a duty of one-tenth of one cent per pound in addition to the foregoing rates: Provided, That the importer of sugar produced in a foreign country, the government of which grants such direct or indirect bounties, may be relieved from this additional duty under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, in case said importer produces a certificate of said government that no indirect bounty has been received upon said sugar in excess of the tax collected upon the beet or cane from which it was produced, and that no direct bounty has been or shall be paid: Provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to abrogate or in any manner impair or affect the provisions of the treaty of commercial reciprocity concluded between the United States and the King of the Hawaiian Islands on the thirtieth day of January, |