those of the McKinley Tariff of 1890, and scaled down by Senator Aldrich to still lower rates, finally emerged with higher duties than any earlier Tariff. Yet under its operation the country prospered as never before. It did not ruin our foreign trade, as opponents of the Protective System constantly predicted; on the contrary, both exports and imports increased enormously. It laid at rest all fears that had been created by the Act of 1894, and working with the advantages of good crops, improved trade conditions, and restored confidence in the monetary system, aided powerfully in the restoration of prosperity and paved the way for the development of American industry and business to an extent-beyond the most sanguine dreams of its promoters. No one claims that the Dingley Tariff was solely responsible for this marvelous growth in the years that followed its enactment. Tariffs neither create nor destroy prosperity. Yet they have a vast power to accelerate or retard, according to the principles upon which they are constructed. The Tariff of 1897, based upon the principle of which President McKinley was the foremost exponent, amply justified his statement that the revival of business would "depend more largely upon the prompt, energetic, and intelligent action of Congress than upon any other single agency affecting the situation.” 1 1 Inaugural Address. CHAPTER XIX THE CURRENCY HILE Congress was considering the Dingley WHILE was cons rapidly paving the Tariff Bill, events were rapidly paving the way for the adoption of the single gold standard. The President felt that the last word had not been said on the subject of bimetallism. The Republican Platform had declared the party to be opposed to free coinage of silver "except by international agreement with the leading commercial nations of the world, which we pledge ourselves to promote." More than 7,000,000 voters had endorsed this declaration, while 6,500,000 others had declared for the free coinage of silver without reference to other nations. The whole electorate of the country, therefore, excepting only some 134,000 who voted for General Palmer and the single gold standard, had declared, inferentially at least, for bimetallism, with a difference of opinion regarding the necessity of securing foreign coöperation. Mr. McKinley had always believed in bimetallism, subject to the restriction necessary to insure sound and honest money, and in common with most of the leaders of his party, believed an international agreement not impossible. A few weeks before the inauguration he wrote the following letter to a committee of the Senate: - GENTLEMEN: I have received your letter of December 17 presented by Senator Wolcott and thank you for it. My interview with Senator Wolcott has been most satisfactory. He will tell you of it. I am sure the Bill you propose looking to an International Conference is both wise and timely. Your suggestion about Senator Wolcott and others having consultations seems to me a step in the right. direction. In these matters I shall greatly rely upon the wisdom of the Republican Senators and Representatives whose advice I shall always be glad to have. In a word, without having thought out the detail, I am anxious to bring about an international agreement and carry out if possible the pledge of our platform in that behalf. I will gladly coöperate with your committee and others to that end. A letter of May 29, 1897, to John Hay contains the sentiment, “Arbitration as well as bimetallism is a matter in which good progress ought to and perhaps will be made in the not distant future"; and in a letter to Hay, on July 27, McKinley referred to bimetallism as one "of the Administration's greatest efforts." In his Inaugural Address he promised that "the question of international bimetallism will have early and earnest attention." The Fifty-fourth Congress had anticipated his wishes by passing a bill, shortly before adjournment, authorizing the incoming President to call an international conference, or to participate, through a commission, in any such conference that might be called by other countries, for the purpose of securing "by international agreement a fixity of relative value between gold and silver as money by means of a common ratio between those metals, with free mintage at such rates." He was further authorized, “if in his judgment the purpose specified. ...can thus be better attained," to appoint one or more special commissioners to visit the leading nations of Europe and to seek an international agreement, for the purpose specified, by diplomatic negotiations. On the 12th of April, 1897, President McKinley, choosing the latter course, named Edward O. Wolcott, of Colorado, Adlai E. Stevenson, of Illinois, and Charles J. Paine, of Massachusetts, as commissioners to visit Europe in the interests of international bimetallism. All three commissioners were ardent bimetallists. Messrs. Wolcott and Paine had already spent several months in Europe, investigating the trend of opinion, and felt optimistic regarding the results of their proposed mission. Their first visit was to Paris, where the French Government gave assurances of cordial coöperation and support. They then proceeded to London, where much was expected from the support of Mr. Balfour, then First Lord of the Treasury, and a strong bimetallist. A friendly greeting was extended to them and formal conferences were arranged. At a meeting on July 15, the French Ambassador made a strong plea for an international agreement to establish the free coinage of silver at a ratio of 15 to 1, and intimated that France would open her mints to silver on this basis if Great Britain would open hers. To this Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, responded that the English Government would not open her mints to the free coinage of silver and that whatever might be the varied opinions of his colleagues on the subject of bimetallism, they were agreed on this. Mr. Wolcott had previously submitted various proposals, the first and most important of which was that India should reopen her mints |