long-standing distrust of and enmity to Spain should have come to a head during McKinley's administration. For he was essentially a peace minister. Coming before the public, the high-priest of protection, he had, through the exercise of executive authority, modified his views. He was diligent in the enforcement of the reciprocity provision of the Dingley Act and named John A. Kasson to negotiate in accordance therewith reciprocity agreements. It was not necessary that these agreements should be ratified by the Senate but some Senators, who were more strongly high tariff than McKinley himself, thought that France had gotten the better of Kasson in the bargain.1 Nor was McKinley's recommendation of free trade with Puerto Rico immediately adopted. In his message of December, 1899, he said, "Our plain duty is to abolish all customs tariffs between the United States and Puerto Rico and give her products free access to our markets." It took him a little over a year and a half to accomplish this but he had the satisfaction before his death of seeing complete free trade with the island. In the speech that he made in Buffalo the day before his assassination, he showed how far behind him he had left the doctrines of ultra-protection. "A system," he said, "which provides a mutual exchange of commodities, is manifestly essential to the continued and healthful growth of our export trade.

1 Kasson made the agreement with France on May 28, 1898; it was proclaimed on May 30. He made an agreement with Italy on Feb. 8, 1900; it was proclaimed on July 18, 1900; another with Portugal on May 22, 1899; it was proclaimed on July 12, 1900.

There were later made the following agreements, but not by Kasson: Germany, proclaimed July 13, 1900. Switzerland, proclaimed Jan. 1, 1906. Spain, signed Aug. 1, 1906. Bulgaria, proclaimed Sept. 15, 1906. Great Britain, proclaimed Dec. 5, 1907. Netherlands, proclaimed Aug. 12, 1908. 'Willoughby, Territories and Dependencies, 113.

We must not repose in fancied security that we can forever sell everything and buy little or nothing. If such a thing were possible, it would not be best for us or for those with whom we deal. We should take from our customers such of their products as we can use without harm to our industries and labor. . . . The period of exclusiveness is past. The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Commercial wars are unprofitable. A policy of good will and friendly trade relations will prevent reprisals. Reciprocity treaties are in harmony with the spirit of the times, measures of retaliation are not." "We find our long-time principles echoed," declared The Nation, " to our unfeigned satisfaction.”1

McKinley, however, did not live up to the expectations of the Civil Service reformers, inferred from his expressions and attitude when a member of the House. The testimony of William D. Foulke of Indiana is of high value. Singularly in favor of Civil Service reform, on excellent terms with Eaton, Curtis, Schurz, Dana and others who labored in the vineyard, he supported by speech and action McKinley in 1896 and 1900 and was a level-headed man who could look on both sides of any question. By his order of July 27, 1897, asserted Foulke, McKinley "greatly strengthened the competitive service"; it provided that no removal should be made "except for just cause." In his Annual Message of December, 1897, he said that the merit system "has the approval of the people and it will be my endeavor to uphold and extend it," and in the ensuing session of Congress "he opposed all efforts to repeal or change the law. But in

1 Sept. 12, 1901, 197.

the administration of it," continued Foulke, "the executive department showed great weakness." An anticipated and forecasted order was promulgated on May 29, 1899, which marked "the first considerable reduction in the area of the merit system since the Civil Service law was enacted in 1883." As a quasi-atonement he extended the merit system to the Philippine Islands "by his instructions to the Philippine Commission in April, 1900." "As the campaign of 1900 drew near," Foulke went on to say, "the opinions of Civil Service reformers were divided." The anti-imperialists, among whom was Carl Schurz, "felt a deep resentment at the backslidings of McKinley and could see nothing of his extension of the competitive system to the Philippines which could atone for breaking his promises regarding that system in the United States." 1

McKinley's action in regard to Civil Service reform was tortuous. He seemed swayed by opposing forces. Undoubtedly the one opposed to Civil Service reform was represented by Mark Hanna who sincerely believed that, for the good of the country and the party, he himself, the heads of the departments, the senators and representatives could make better appointments than could be secured by any system of competitive examination.2

1W. D. Foulke, Fighting the Spoilsman, 119, 122, 123, 125. See Richard H. Dana's review, Amer. Polit. Science Rev., Feb. 1920.

Authorities not specifically mentioned. Proceedings of National Civil Service Reform League, 1900, 1901; Carl Schurz, Speeches, Correspondence, etc., vi.; Foraker, Notes of a Busy Life, ii.; The Nation, passim.

CHAPTER VII

WITH Our new colonies it has been impossible to preserve a chronological unity of narrative. It is now necessary to enter upon an account of Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines, going back to a point beyond which the narrative has already taken us and terminating ahead of the time to which the history of our domestic transactions will be carried.

Puerto Rico may be easily disposed of. In the words of Archibald C. Coolidge, its annexation, "being a natural consequence of the Spanish War, met with little opposition from any quarter." Writing in 1908 he sums up with, "All told, the record of American rule has been satisfactory and creditable." This is supported by the words of a competent and intelligent English authority, Eustace Percy, who wrote about 1919, "In Porto Rico the United States has pursued a most liberal and progressive policy."2 To Joseph B. Foraker, chairman of the Senate Committee on Puerto Rico, fell the duty of drafting the organic act which determined our relations with Puerto Rico. This became a law in 1900, is known as the Foraker Act, was upheld somewhat over a year later as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court, and is thus referred to with commendable pride by the author, "The mere fact that this law has continued in force, practically without change, ever since it was

1 The United States as a World Power, 143, 145.
"The Responsibilities of the League, 87.

enacted, now full fifteen years ago, is enough to indicate that it proved satisfactory when put into practical operation." "This Act," wrote William F. Willoughby, "is in every respect an important document. It may be said to stand to our new insular possessions in much the same relation as the Northwest Ordinance did to our dependent territory on the mainland." Willoughby was Treasurer of Puerto Rico from 1901 to 1907 and, while in that office, wrote a book in which he gave an excellent account and analysis of the Foraker Act summing up with, "The problem that Congress had to meet when it framed the organic act that of providing a system of government that should at once grant a maximum of local autonomy and at the same time make provision for sufficient central control-was an exceedingly difficult one. If it has erred, it has been in immediately granting too much rather than too little." 2

"Whatever may be the fate of Cuba in the future," wrote Archibald C. Coolidge, "the treatment she has received at the hands of the United States in the decade since she was made free will remain something to be proud of." The pledge contained in the Teller Amendment was faithfully kept. After the Treaty of Paris the government of Cuba was for a while under the direction of the American Army. Elihu Root had become Secretary of War and he was insistent that Cubans be prepared for a civil government to be administered by themselves.

1 Notes of a Busy Life, Foraker, ii. 82. This was published in February, 1916. The statute is printed in U. S. Statutes at large, 56th Cong., vol. 31, p. 77.

* Territories and Dependencies of the United States, 83, 117. The United States as a World Power, 130.