The treaties with France, with Great Britain, on behalf of Barbados, British Guiana, Turks and Caicos Islands, Jamaica and Bermuda, and with the Argentine Republic were transmitted to the Senate during the first session of the 56th Congress. Their contents were made public, but no action was taken. The treaties with Denmark for St. Croix, and with Ecuador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic were submitted to the Senate at the second session of the 56th Congress, but no action was taken. As already mentioned the treaty with Great Britain on behalf of Trinidad, signed February 13. 1900, never went to the Senate at all, "the Colonial authorities declining, upon the expiration of the brief period prescribed for its ratification, to extend the same.” ↑

It will now be well to consider the character of the treaties thus negotiated and the interests they were likely to antagonize. Of all these treaties, the most important by way of the test of the reciprocity sentiment was that with France, because of the fact that it implied some infringement upon the protection granted to certain manufacturing interests which were, of course, politically the strongest that were likely to be arrayed in opposition to reciprocity. It is of great importance to understand the precise nature of the French treaty, and this can best be done by a review of the conditions under which it was negotiated, and of the history of these negotiations. We have already seen that a very strong hostility had been aroused against the United States because of its tariff system. It has also been noted that Mr. Kasson described this hostility as an obstacle of the utmost difficulty. We have seen, too,

signed at Washington, June 25, 1900, by Secretary Hay and Señor F. Vasquez, Minister of Improvements and Public Works and Special Envoy to the United States on the part of the Dominican government; that with Ecuador at Quito July 10, 1900, being signed by Hon. Archibald J. Sampson, United States Minister at Quito and Dr. José Peralta, Minister of Foreign Relations of Ecuador. Thus it appears that several of the treaties were negotiated after the expiration of the two years' limit set down in the tariff bill.

Atlantic Monthly Vol. 88, December, 1901. "Expansion Through Reciprocity," by John Ball Osborne, pp. 721-31, especially pp. 726-7.

a Ibid., footnote, p. 727.

Ibid., p. 727.

that according to well authenticated statements, the rates on sundry commodities were placed at an unexpectedly high figure under the Dingley Act, in order to provide an opportunity for lowering these tariffs in the course of negotiations. As the treaty finally stood, it provided that France should admit into French and Algerian territory all articles mentioned in her minimum schedule, with the exception of horses, butter, clover seed, fodder, cast iron, prepared hides and skins, boots, shoes and leather articles for machinery, certain electrical appliances, sugar, chicory, eggs, cheese, honey, porcelain and rough cardboard. On the other hand, we agreed to admit certain specified articles of French origin to the United States, granting them specified rates of reduction below our regular duties as described in the Dingley schedules. Among these articles were hosiery and knit goods, feathers and mineral waters, nuts and coal-tar dyes or colors, all of which were granted a reduction of twenty per cent. A like concession was granted on toys and playthings. A reduction of fifteen per cent. was given to articles of amber, bone, ivory, mother of pearl, shell, meerschaum, etc.; to olive oil, to bottles, to watchmakers' articles and clocks, to nails, needles, etc.; and to musical instruments. A much larger list was admitted subject to a reduction of ten per cent. This list included certain articles of flax and hemp, gloves, cheap jewelry, prepared and preserved vegetables and fruits, certain chemicals, perfumeries and soaps, glassware, cutlery, paper envelopes, straw hats, cement and liqueurs.

While it would require too much space to enumerate the rates of duty included in the French minimum schedules, it may be stated that these articles covered almost every kind of manufactures, as well as building materials and partly manufactured goods.

It was determined to hold hearings in order to test the feeling of the country concerning this treaty, and consequently divers manufacturers appeared during the first session of the

56th Congress before the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. In general, the persons who presented themselves in person, or by letter, were those who were engaged in the manufacture of agricultural machinery, iron and steel products, products of smelting and refining processes, and various others. To these should be added persons who made statements going to show that the dangers anticipated from the adoption of the French treaty were without foundation. On the opposing side, appeared principally those whose goods would be likely to compete with the French products upon which a reduction of twenty per cent. had been promised. Some others engaged in lines of manufacture where smaller reductions were offered also made their wishes known. Those who were most active in opposition were the manufacturers of knit goods, cheap jewelry, braids, brushes, spectacles and optical instruments, etc.

Mr. Deering, a prominent manufacturer of farming machinery, appeared before a sub-committee in behalf of the Agricultural Implements Association of the United States and there testified that France would offer a large market for farming machinery, were the treaty to be accepted. Said Mr. Deering:

"We have striven to know, both before coming to Washington and since our arrival here, what are the objections to the treaty. We have been informed that the knit goods manufacturers have been opposed to the ratification of the treaty. We are now informed that of the $100,000,000 worth of knit goods consumed in the country last year, only $240,000 came from France. We have been informed that the manufacturers of pottery and silks were opposed to the ratification of the treaty. We are now told that both industries have admitted that no injury would be suffered by them. We have learned that the manufacturers of spectacles have believed that they would suffer injury, but they were shown that there would still remain to them eighty-eight per cent. of the present tariff; they have been satisfied to believe that no injury would come to them. We have been informed that the manu

Senate Document, No. 225, 56th Congress, 1st session, p. 99.

facturers of imitation jewelry object to the ratification of the treaty. We understand that the treaty proposed to reduce the duty from sixty to fifty-seven per cent. We are further informed that the probabilities are that the result of the treaty will increase far more largely the exports of this class of manufactures from the United States to France than they import from France to the United States.

"We have heard that opposition to the ratification of the treaty has been based upon the proposed reduction in our tariff on prunes. We find hat our exports of prunes to France amount to $260,000, while the imports of prunes from France to the United States amount to $14,000. We have understood that manufacturers of chemicals, gloves, and braids have stated that they will be injured by the ratification of the treaty. After an honest effort to learn the facts in the case, we are reduced to the conclusion that in actual working of this treaty the injuries suffered by them would be problematical in every case and imaginary in most cases."

Mr. French, appearing in behalf of certain iron and steel manufacturers, pointed out that we were now in a position to compete with almost any country in those articles, provided we could gain free access to their markets. He also placed the obligation for the ratification of the treaty upon the ground that a distinct pledge had been given:

"The manufacturers of iron in this country believe that the market of the world is theirs and are therefore in favor of any treaty which will enable them to put their wares into all nations at the minimum rate of tariff. * * * They ask that the Republican party redeem the pledge made at St. Louis."

In a similar strain Mr. Alexander, speaking for the smelting and refining interests, remarked:

"However great the benefits and wise the policy of protection for infant industries, it is none the less clear that, having reaped that benefit, and lifted our great industries to such a position among the producers of the world as to require admission to the world's markets with our overproductions, we are justified in seeking that wise and equally beneficent legislation which will open the way for American products wherever a demand for such products exists.""

He then stated that France will afford a large market for refined lead, sulphate of lead, and other smelting products.

Along with these specific statements coming from interests which expected to reap benefit from the treaty went various bits of testimony based on more general grounds. From statements before the Committee it appeared that whereas our tariff contained some 705 numbers, of which we made concessions by the treaty on about 126, leaving 579 numbers untouched, there were contained in the French tariff 654 numbers of which only nineteen were reserved or excluded from the operation of the treaty. Furthermore, our average reduction, owing to the fact that we had granted but five per cent. on so many articles and but ten on many others, amounted to only six and eight-tenths per cent., while the average reduction made by France, leaving out the single item of oils (both mineral and vegetable) on which concessions had, however, been temporarily granted, was twenty-six and one-tenth per cent. Including these it rose to forty-eight per cent. It was plainly argued before the Committee that the ratification of the pending treaty would almost inevitably result in a large increase of American exports to France. We had furnished to that country in 1898 thirty-six per cent. of her free imports (expect silk and wool), while the dutiable imports in those articles in which we enjoyed equal competition under the same rate of duty as other countries, thirty-five and three-tenths per cent. had been furnished by us. On the other hand, in those commodities in which we were subjected to the maximum rate of duty, while other countries competing with us had been admitted to the minimum, we furnished only one and four-tenths per cent. From these facts it was held to be a fair argument that could we once attain a footing of equality with other countries, enjoying the French minimum rates wherever they did, we should increase our exports to France in proportion as had been the case with our non-dutiable exports to that country. Of course this argument proceeded on the assumption that we