1885-8] The Tariff struggle 659 commission, to which should be referred not only the question of the fisheries, but also the more general question of trade relations. To this recommendation the Senate in February, 1886, declined to accede; and soon afterwards an American fishing vessel was seized at Annapolis Basin, in Nova Scotia, for purchasing bait. Other seizures for various causes followed in quick succession, till the list of complaints was swollen to formidable proportions. By an Act of Congress of March 3, 1887, the President was invested with power to enforce in his discretion measures of retaliation. But, after the failure of his recommendation for a joint commission, although the idea of a trade agreement was abandoned, negotiations were entered upon for an amicable arrangement. To that end plenipotentiaries bearing commissions from the executive authority of each country met in Washington in November, 1887. Their conferences resulted in what was known as the Bayard-Chamberlain Treaty, February 15, 1888. The object of the treaty was to provide for the proper interpretation and enforcement of the Convention of 1818. It looked to the removal of the duty on the products of Canadian fisheries only in a certain contingency. The treaty was rejected by the Senate in the following August. President Cleveland, interpreting this as a disapproval of his policy of negotiation, then proposed to Congress a plan of retaliation, involving the interruption of the bonded transit system. This recommendation Congress did not adopt; and, as the Act of February, 1887, remained unexecuted, no measure of retaliation was put into force. The Canadian government, however, had undertaken, pending the consideration of the treaty, to sell to American fishing vessels licences for the enjoyment of port privileges; and this system continued in operation after the treaty was rejected. The question of the fisheries had in reality been swept, together with various other questions, into the vortex of a great struggle over the protective tariff. This contest was precipitated by President Cleveland's annual message of December 6, 1887. The brief reference to the tariff in his first annual message has already been noticed; but his subsequent reflections, enforced by a steadily increasing excess of revenue, had aroused his apprehensions, and he proceeded to discuss the subject with characteristic zeal and directness. The exaction from the people of an amount of taxes greater than was necessary for the "careful and economical maintenance" of government he pronounced an "indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice," which crippled the national energies, suspended the country's development, hindered investment in productive enterprise, threatened financial disturbance, and invited schemes of public plunder; and, after discussing various suggested modes of relief, he attacked the existing laws as "the vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary taxation." So stubbornly, he affirmed, had all efforts to reform the tariff been resisted by its beneficiaries, that they could hardly complain of the suspicion 660 Tariff reform. that there existed "an organised combination all along the line to maintain their advantages." With regard to the question of wages, he argued that any advantage gained by the labourer on that score was destroyed by the artificial enhancement of the cost of living. He disclaimed, however, any desire to dwell upon the theories of Protection and Free Trade. It was, he declared, "a condition which confronts us - not a theory." To the subject of tariff reform President Cleveland devoted his whole message, the usual review of foreign affairs and of the general domestic situation being altogether omitted. The Republican leaders were not slow to take up the gauntlet. As representatives of the party identified with the policy of Protection, they knew when the system was assailed, and they accepted the challenge. Blaine, who was then in Europe, answered the President's argument in a public statement, which was afterwards known as the "Paris message. A measure to give effect to the President's views was prepared in the House of Representatives, and bore the name of Mills, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. It passed the House July 21, 1888. The national campaign was then in progress. President Cleveland had been renominated by the Democrats, while the Republicans, when Blaine declined to be a candidate, had nominated Benjamin Harrison. The great issue was the tariff. The Democratic platform expressly endorsed the views enunciated in President Cleveland's message, while a separate resolution, unanimously adopted by the convention, approved the Mills Bill. The answer of the Republican National Convention was unmistakeable. It declared that the Republican party was "uncompromisingly in favour of the American system of Protection," and denounced the Mills Bill as destructive to general business, and to the labour and farming interests of the country. The President's proposal to place wool on the free list was condemned. It was declared to be the policy of the Republican party to effect all needed reduction of revenue by repealing internal taxes, and by such revision of the tariff as would "tend to check imports" of articles produced in the United States. Should a surplus of revenue still remain, a preference was declared for the "entire repeal of internal taxes, rather than the surrender of any part of our protective system." The campaign, though conducted with great energy, was not attended with any unusual incident till near the close, when a sensation was created by the publication of a letter written by Lord Sackville, the British minister, to a stranger in California, who, falsely representing himself as a naturalised American citizen of English origin, had sought his advice as to how he should vote at the approaching election. While expressing gratification that President Cleveland had, by his advocacy of "free trade," preferred the interests of the "mother-country" to those of the United States, the writer anxiously solicited Lord Sackville's opinion 1888–9] Harrison elected President 661 as to whether the President was sincere in his retaliatory message on the fisheries question. In his reply Lord Sackville said: "You are probably aware that any political party which openly favoured the mother-country at the present moment would lose popularity, and that the party in power is fully aware of this fact. The party, however, is, I believe, still desirous of maintaining friendly relations with Great Britain. . . . All allowances must, therefore, be made for the political situation as regards the presidential election thus created." The reply was marked" private," but this circumstance did not lessen the commotion produced by its publication. It was regarded by the government of the United States as an unwarrantable interference in political affairs; and the situation was aggravated by reports in the press of alleged statements made by Lord Sackville, the authenticity of at least some of which the ambassador afterwards denied. His recall was asked for on the ground that he had become persona non grata; and, when Lord Salisbury refused to grant it, without opportunity for further investigation, the government of the United States declined to hold further intercourse with Lord Sackville and sent him his passports. The post of minister was permitted by Lord Salisbury to remain vacant till the incoming of the new Administration. It is obviously impossible to say what effect, if any, the Sackville incident had upon the results of the campaign. Whatever effect it may have had was probably adverse to President Cleveland. He was unlikely to gain any votes either by taking action in the matter, or by abstaining from it; while either course was sure to result in the alienation of a certain number. The Republicans, although their popular vote was somewhat less than that of the Democrats, won the presidency and gained a small majority in both houses of Congress. But, in the House of Representatives, their majority was soon increased by members from four new States- Washington, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota - all of which, in the first election after their admission, were carried by the Republicans. President Harrison was duly inaugurated March 4, 1889; and one of the first subjects upon which he was required to act was a question of foreign affairs which had seriously disturbed the usual good understanding between the United States and Germany, producing unfavourable impressions which were not easily effaced. Indeed, Prince Bismarck in his Memoirs couples the Samoan incident with those of Schnäbele, Boulanger, and the Caroline Islands, as examples of his adherence to the policy of being "easily reconciled in case of friction or untoward events," even in spite of "some personal reluctance." The United States. was the first Power to make a treaty with Samoa. The treaties of Germany and Great Britain with Samoa were concluded in the following year; but the Germans outstripped the other Powers in trade and in planting. The increase of their commercial interests led to friction with the natives; and on December 31, 1885, the German Consul 662 Affairs in Samoa [1886-8 at Apia, as an act of reprisal, attached the sovereign rights of the Samoan King in the municipality of Apia, while an armed force from a German man-of-war hauled down the Samoan flag from the Government House. Prior to this, the government of the United States had taken no decided stand with regard to the fate of the islands. In January, 1886, however, Bayard, as Secretary of State, instructed the American minister at Berlin to express the expectation that nothing would be done to impair the rights of the United States under the existing treaty. The German government made a friendly response; and it was afterwards agreed that the British and German ministers at Washington should confer with the Secretary of State with a view to the re-establishment of order, existing arrangements in the islands to be meanwhile preserved. The conference was opened in June, 1887; but in the following month, which happened to be excessively hot, it was adjourned till the autumn, in the hope that a basis would be found for reconciling certain differences of view which the discussions had disclosed. Immediately after the adjournment, the German government, without previous notice to the other Powers, instructed its representatives in Samoa to demand from the Samoan King, Malietoa, reparation for certain alleged wrongs, all of which were prior to the assembling of the conference; and, if he should be unwilling or unable to afford satisfaction, to declare war against him "personally." War was declared; Malietoa was dethroned and deported; and Tamasese, who had lately been in arms against the government, was installed as King, with a German named Brandeis, who had long been connected with German commercial interests in Samoa, as adviser. In September, 1888, many of the natives revolted against Tamasese, and chose Mataafa as King. Hostilities ensued; and a party of German marines, who had been sent ashore to protect German property, were ambushed by Mataafa's forces and many of them killed and wounded. A state of war with Samoa was then announced by Prince Bismarck; and the German minister at Washington complained that the force by which the German marines were attacked was commanded by an American named Klein. This allegation has often been repeated by writers, who have inferred from it that the attack was due to American inspiration. It was shown, however, by subsequent investigation that Klein, who was in no way connected with the public service, was a correspondent of the American press, who had visited Samoa merely in the pursuit of his profession. He swore that he advised the natives not to fire, and hailed the German boats to warn them of their danger; that the German marines fired first, and that he did not advise the Samoans to return the fire. Three of the natives gave evidence to the same effect; while two others, although they admitted that Klein hailed the German boats, stated that he took command of the Samoans in the ensuing fight. On neither supposition was the government or the people of the United States in any degree responsible for the unfortunate incident. 1889] Settlement of the Samoan question 663 But when the correspondence in relation to Samoan affairs was published, and the facts concerning the adjournment of the conference and the subsequent seizure and deportation of Malietoa became known, there was produced in the United States a widespread feeling of resentment, not untinged with suspicion. The naval forces of the United States in the islands were increased; and a considerable sum was appropriated by Congress for the protection of American interests. In this situation, which was such as to cause grave apprehension, Prince Bismarck proposed a resumption of the conference, with Berlin as the place of meeting. This proposal was accepted on certain conditions, which were duly arranged. The representatives of the three Powers met in Berlin on April 29, 1889. At the first session Prince Bismarck stated that, as Malietoa had expressed his earnest wish to be reconciled with the German government, he had been released and was at liberty to go wherever he pleased. This statement forestalled the raising of a preliminary question, the discussion of which could hardly have promoted good feeling; and on June 4, 1889, there was signed a general act, under which a condominium of the three Powers was established in Samoa. The results of this arrangement proved to be altogether unsatisfactory; and ten years later, by a treaty concluded on December 2, 1899, the group was divided, the United States receiving the island of Tutuila and its dependencies, while Germany took the rest. Great Britain, by a separate arrangement with Germany, obtained compensation in other directions. The predominance of German commercial and landed interests in Samoa was thus finally recognised. But the chief historical significance of the Samoan incident lies less in the disposition ultimately made of the islands, than in the assertion by the United States not merely of a willingness but even of a right to take part in determining the fate of a remote and semi-barbarous people whose possessions lay far outside the traditional sphere of American political interests. The tendency thus exhibited, though to a certain extent novel, was by no means inexplicable. The intense absorption of the people of the United States in domestic affairs, which resulted from the Civil War and the struggle over Reconstruction, had ceased. A last effort to extend political support to the negro, by means of a Federal law for the control of national elections, was about to end in failure. The effort nowhere excited enthusiasm. The old issues were no longer interesting: the national energy and sense of power sought employment in other fields. The desire for a vigorous foreign policy, though it jarred with traditions, had spread and become popular. The reconstruction of the navy had also begun. The first session of the fifty-first Congress, which met in December, 1889, was rendered notable by changes in the procedure of the House of Representatives, under the direction of Reed, the new Speaker. By counting for the purposes of a quorum members present but not voting, |