1

feebled man." 1 But some of the old fire was left. "Dear Mr. McKinley," he wrote on April 10, 1890, "it is a great mistake to take hides from the free list where they have been for so many years. It is a slap in the face to the South Americans with whom we are trying to enlarge our trade. . . . Pray stop it before it sees light. Such movements as this for protection will protect the Republican party into a speedy retirement." 2

The bill passed the House on May 21, 1890. In the Senate the tariff Republicans had the effective leadership of Nelson W. Aldrich, senator from Rhode Island. Blaine continued his efforts for reciprocity. "I do not doubt," he wrote to his friend, Senator Frye of Maine, "that in many respects the tariff bill pending in the Senate is a just measure and that most of its provisions are in accordance with the wise policy of protection. But there is not a section or a line in the entire bill that will open the market for another bushel of wheat or another barrel of pork." Later he wrote: "The value of the sugar we annually consume is enormous. Shall we pay for it in cash or shall we make a reciprocal arrangement by which a large part of it may be paid for in pork, beef, flour, lumber, salt, iron, shoes, calico, furniture and a thousand other things? In short, shall we pay for it all in cash or try friendly barter in part? I think the latter mode the highest form of protection and the best way to promote trade."3

The bill was amended in the Senate by the addition of a reciprocity section which was concurred in by the House and the bill became a law on October 1. The reciprocity provision gave the President power to sus1 Speeches, etc., of C. Schurz, v. 18. 2 Hamilton, 683. July 11, 26. Stanwood, Amer. Tariff Controversies, ii. 278.

pend the free introduction of sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides provided he should be satisfied that the country exporting these products imposed on products of the United States unequal and unreasonable duties or other exactions. Blaine, properly called the "Father of Reciprocity," at once commissioned John W. Foster to initiate reciprocity negotiations with the countries affected by the bill. He, the President and Foster wrought together in harmony and made treaties with several countries so that Foster was enabled to write, "The reciprocity measure proved a success . . . and Secretary Blaine was greatly elated." "The results," added Foster, "proved highly satisfactory, during the period they were in force." But the election of Cleveland and a Democratic Congress in 1892 "brought about the repeal of the reciprocity provision and with it all the treaties or agreements with other nations." 2

The Republicans in their platform condemned the policy of the Democratic administration in its efforts to demonetize silver. They were willing to believe with McKinley that Cleveland "during all his years at the head of the Government was dishonoring one of our precious metals, one of our own great products. He endeavored even before his inauguration to office to stop the coinage of silver dollars and afterward and to the close of his administration persistently used his power to that end. He was determined to contract the circulating

1 Burrows and the Rep. Party, Orcutt, i. 279.

2 John W. Foster, Diplomatic Memories, ii. chap. xxv. The citations are on 16, 17. On the tariff of 1890 see also Burrows and the Rep. Party, Orcutt, i., chap. ix., x.; Life of Nelson Dingley, Dingley; Fifty Years of Public Service, Cullom.

medium and demonetize one of the coins of commerce, limit the volume of money among the people, make money scarce and therefore dear. He would have increased the value of money and diminished the value of everything else - money the master, everything else its servant." Silver, however, was in no way an issue during the campaign of 1888, although after the election it demanded recognition.

Financial and business men generally regarded the question as settled by the Bland-Allison act of 1878. As no Secretary of the Treasury had gone beyond the minimum coinage of two millions per month, they had accepted this as a necessary evil not to be increased and for the moment impossible to be diminished. The contention of the monometallists was wisely to the effect that there could be but a single standard of value and that, as the European nations, whose finances were managed by experts, had accepted gold as the standard, it was the true interest of the United States to fall into line. The monometallists thoroughly believed that as the bulk of all business is done with paper money, checks, bills of exchange and the like, the amount in circulation. of the standard of value is not so important as that this standard be a stable one and generally recognized by law. Against this truism, the silver men fought with determination. The fight was natural on the part of the silver mine owners, as their product was declining in value and they thought that if free coinage of silver was secured like free coinage of gold, it would mean a higher price for

1 Speeches and Addresses, 492. This speech was made in Toledo Feb. 12, 1891, but it expressed McKinley's view in 1890. See The Nation, June 15, 1893, 433; also May 21, 1896, 390.

their product and greater prosperity for their communities, who were interested in a high price for silver just as Pennsylvania and Ohio were interested in a high price for pig iron.1 It is surprising however that they won so great a popular support, but they accomplished this by playing upon the string of cheap money, the inauguration of which would help the debtor class and cater to those who had always favored inflation. As a Kansas Republican newspaper stated it, "The business of the country needs more money and the people want as much of it as possible made of silver." There was a third class called by their brilliant leader, General Francis A. Walker, the "convinced bimetallists" and in their ranks might be found able business men, statesmen and theorists. These objected to the free coinage of silver without an international agreement yet, when the question of a single standard was put precisely, they opposed the gold monometallists and, in the contest from now on to the early part of 1896, gave aid and comfort to the silver party.

2

While the majority of business and financial men reposed in the illusion that the worst had happened, men in politics knew the strength of the silver movement and were not surprised when Windom, the Secretary of the Treasury, came out in his report of December 1889 with a plan of doing something for silver although he seriously alarmed all believers in the single gold standard. After describing the result of the act of 1878 with accuracy and good judgment he proceeded to declare that he did not

4

1 F. A. Walker, Bimetallism, 218. 2 Topeka Capital.

3 Bimetallism, 219.

Windom said in his report: "Since the passage of the act of Feb. 28, 1878 to Nov. 1, 1889, there have been purchased 299,889,416 standard ounces of silver, at a cost of $286,930,633 from which there have been

believe in the obvious remedy for the evil, which was to stop the further coinage of silver, because "an overwhelming preponderance of public sentiment demands that both silver and gold be utilized" as money. His remedy was to issue Treasury notes against deposits of silver bullion at its market value. The President, who had not mentioned silver in his inaugural address, said in his December message that he had had time only to give the plan a hasty examination - an indefensible abdication of an important executive power.

The question came before Congress where the silver interest had been increased in the Senate by the admission of the new States, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Washington. The Senate was for the free coinage of silver and on June 17, 1890 registered its vote of 42 to 25 in favor of it 2 but the House stood out against

coined 343,638,001 standard silver dollars. There were in circulation on Nov. 1, 60,098,480 silver dollars, less than one dollar per capita, the remainder, 283,539,521, being stored away in Government vaults, of which 277,319,244 were covered by outstanding certificates. No proper effort has been spared by the Treasury Department to put in circulation the dollars coined under this law. . . . The silver dollar has been maintained at par with gold, the monetary unit, mainly by the provisions of the law which make it a full legal tender. . . . In foreign trade the silver dollar possesses only a bullion value.... Starting in 1878 with no stock of silver dollars, this country standing alone of all important nations in its efforts to restore the former equilibrium between gold and silver has in eleven years added to its stock of full legal tender money 343,638,001 dollars of a depreciated and steadily depreciating metal. On March 1 the bullion value of the silver dollar was 93 cents while to-day its bullion value is 72 cents in gold." Report of Sec. of Treas. Dec. 2, 1889. House Ex. Docs. 51st Cong. 1st Sess., xix., lx., et seq.

1 Ibid.,

lxvii.

2 Record, 6183. Five of the eight new senators voted in favor of the bill, two against, and one was absent. Allen of Washington and Casey of North Dakota voted against the bill. Neither spoke. Allen voted for the free silver bills at the next session and next Congress and said that he supported the legislation of the previous session. Casey was opposed to free silver. He voted against the free silver hills of the second session and