[70]The political history of the initiative and referendum has never been written. Some valuable materials are to be found inDirect Legislation, Senate Document No. 340, 55th Cong., 2d Sess. (1898); and in "The Direct Legislation Record," founded in May, 1894; and in the "Equity Series," now published at Philadelphia. See also Oberholtzer,The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in America, ed. 1911.
[70]The political history of the initiative and referendum has never been written. Some valuable materials are to be found inDirect Legislation, Senate Document No. 340, 55th Cong., 2d Sess. (1898); and in "The Direct Legislation Record," founded in May, 1894; and in the "Equity Series," now published at Philadelphia. See also Oberholtzer,The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in America, ed. 1911.
[71]The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, September, 1912, pp. 84 ff.
[71]The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, September, 1912, pp. 84 ff.
[72]Arizona was admitted without the judicial recall provision, but immediately set to work and reinserted it in the constitution, and devised a plan for the recall of Federal district judges as well.
[72]Arizona was admitted without the judicial recall provision, but immediately set to work and reinserted it in the constitution, and devised a plan for the recall of Federal district judges as well.
[73]See below, p. 325.
[73]See below, p. 325.
[74]See list in theNational Municipal Reviewfor July, 1912.
[74]See list in theNational Municipal Reviewfor July, 1912.
[75]The Socialist party does not at present contemplate public ownership of petty properties or of farm lands tilled by their possessors. This is one part of its program not yet definitely worked out.
[75]The Socialist party does not at present contemplate public ownership of petty properties or of farm lands tilled by their possessors. This is one part of its program not yet definitely worked out.
[76]Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1908, Vol. V, p. 42.
[76]Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1908, Vol. V, p. 42.
[77]See above, p. 54.
[77]See above, p. 54.
[78]Taken from Professor Leacock's paper in theProceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1908, pp. 37 ff.
[78]Taken from Professor Leacock's paper in theProceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1908, pp. 37 ff.
In spite of the stirring of new economic and political forces which marked Mr. Roosevelt's administration and his somewhat radical utterances upon occasion, there was no prominent leader in the Republican party in 1908, except Mr. La Follette of Wisconsin, who was identified with policies which later came to be known as "progressive." Although Mr. Hughes, as governor of New York, had enlisted national interest in his "fight with the bosses," he was, by temperament, conservative rather than radical, and his doctrines were not primarily economic in character. Other Republican aspirants were also of a conservative cast of mind, Mr. Fairbanks, of Indiana, Mr. Knox, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Cannon, of Illinois, all of whom were indorsed for the presidency by their respective states. The radical element among the Republicans hoped that Mr. Roosevelt would consent to accept a "second elective term"; but his flat refusal put an end to their plans for renomination.
Very early in his second administration, Mr. Roosevelt made it clear that he wanted to see Mr. W. H. Taft, then Secretary of War, designated as his successor; and by the judicious employment of publicity and the proper management of the Federal patronage and thesouthern Republican delegates, he materially aided in the nomination of Mr. Taft at Chicago, in June, 1908. The Republican platform of that year advocated a revision of the tariff, not necessarily downward, but with a due regard to difference between the cost of production at home and abroad; it favored an amendment of the Sherman anti-trust law in such a manner as to give more publicity and the Federal government more supervision and control; it advocated the regulation of the issuance of injunctions by the Federal courts; it indorsed conservation and pledged the party to "unfailing adherence" to Mr. Roosevelt's policies. This somewhat noncommittal platform was elaborated by Mr. Taft in his speech, after a conference with Mr. Roosevelt; the popular election of Senators was favored, an income tax of some kind indorsed, and a faintly radical tinge given to the party document.
The nomination of Mr. Bryan by the Democrats was a foregone conclusion. The débâcle of 1904 had demonstrated that the breach of 1896 could not be healed by what the western contingent called "the Wall Street crowd"; and Mr. Bryan had secured complete control of the party organization. The convention at Denver was a personal triumph from beginning to end. Mr. Bryan mastered the proceedings and wrote the platform, and received the most telling ovation ever given to a party leader by a national convention.
Having complete control, Mr. Bryan attempted what the politicians who talked most aggressively about the trusts had consistently refused to do—he attempted to define and precisely state the remedies forobjectionable combinations. Other leaders had discussed "good" and "bad" trusts, but they had not attempted the mathematics of the problem. In the platform of his party, Mr. Bryan wrote: "A private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable. We therefore favor the vigorous enforcement of the criminal law against guilty trust magnates and officials and demand the enactment of such additional legislation as may be necessary to make it impossible for private monopoly to exist in the United States." In this paragraph, there is of course nothing new; but it continues: "Among the additional remedies we specify three: first, a law preventing the duplication of directors among competing corporations; second, a license system which will, without abridging the rights of each state to create corporations or its right to regulate as it will foreign corporations doing business within its limits, make it necessary for a manufacturing or trading corporation engaged in interstate commerce to take out a federal license before it shall be permitted to control as much as 25 per cent of the product in which it deals, a license to protect the public from watered stock and to prohibit the control by such corporation of more than 50 per cent of the total amount of any product consumed in the United States; and third, a law compelling such licensed corporations to sell to all purchasers in all parts of the country on the same terms after making due allowance for cost of transportation."
In dealing with railway corporations, the Democratic platform proposed concretely the valuation of railways, taking into consideration the physical as well as other elements; an increase in the power of the InterstateCommerce Commission, giving it the initiative with reference to rates and transportation charges and the power to declare any rate illegal on its own motion, and to inspect railway tariffs before permitting them to go into effect; and finally an efficient supervision and regulation of railroads engaged in interstate commerce.
Mr. Bryan's proposals, particularly with regard to trusts, were greeted with no little derision on the part of many practical men of affairs, but they had, at least, the merit of being more definite in character than any statement of anti-trust policy which had been made hitherto, except by the Socialists in advocating public ownership. The Republicans, for example, contented themselves with simply proposing the amendment of the Sherman law in such a manner as to "give to the federal government greater supervision and control over and secure greater publicity in the management of that class of corporations engaged in interstate commerce having power and opportunity to effect monopolies."
The campaign of 1908 was without any specially dramatic incidents. The long stumping tours by all candidates did not seem to elicit the old-time enthusiasm. The corporation interests that had long financed the Republican party once more poured out treasure like water (as the Clapp investigation afterward revealed in 1912); and Mr. Bryan attempted a counter-movement by asking for small contributions from each member of his party, but he was sadly disappointed by the results. The Democratic national committee announced that it would receive no contributions from corporations, that it would accept no more than $10,000 from anyindividual, and that it would make public, before the election, all contributions above $100. Mr. Bryan also challenged Mr. Taft to make public the names of the contributors to his fund and the amount received from each. The Republican managers replied that they would make known their contributors in due time as required by the law of the state of New York where the headquarters were located, and Mr. Taft added that he would urge upon Congress the enactment of a law compelling full publicity of campaign contributions.[79]
In the election which followed, Mr. Bryan was defeated for the third time. His vote was somewhat larger than it was in 1900, and nearly a million and a half above that cast for Mr. Parker in 1904. But Mr. Taft more than held the strength of his predecessor as measured by the popular vote, and he received 321 electoral votes against 162 cast for his opponent. Once more, the conservative press announced, the country had repudiated Populism and demonstrated its sound, conservative instincts.
When Mr. Taft took the oath of office on March 4, 1909, he fell heir, on his own admission, to more troublesome problems than had been the lot of any President since Lincoln's day. His predecessor had kept the country interested and entertained by the variety of his speeches and recommendations and by his versatility in dealing with all the social questions which werepressing to the front during his administration. Mr. Roosevelt was brilliant in his political operations, although he had been careful about attempting to bring too many things to concrete issue. Mr. Taft was matter-of-fact in his outlook and his expectations. The country had been undergoing a process of education, as he put it, and now the time had come for taking stock. The time had come for putting the house in order and settling down to a period of rest. If there were signs on the horizon which warned Mr. Taft against this comfortable view, his spoken utterances gave no sign of recognition.
Legislative Measures
The first task which confronted him was the thorny problem of the tariff. His predecessor had given the matter little attention during his administration, apparently for the reason that it was, in his opinion, of little consequence as compared with the questions of railways, trusts, great riches, and labor. But action could not be indefinitely postponed. Undoubtedly there was a demand in many parts of the country for a tariff revision. How widespread it was, how much it was the creation of the politicians, how intelligent and deep-seated it was, no one could tell. Nevertheless, more than ten years had elapsed since the enactment of the Dingley law of 1897, and many who did not entertain radical views on the subject at all joined in demanding a revision on the ground that conditions had materially changed. The Republican platform had promised revision on the basis that the true principle ofprotection was best maintained by the imposition of such duties "as will equal the difference between the cost of production at home and abroad, together with a reasonable profit to American industries." Mr. Taft in his speech of acceptance had promised revision, on the theory that some schedules were too high and others too low; and his language during the campaign had been interpreted to mean a more severe downward revision than he had doubtless contemplated.
In accordance with party pledges Mr. Taft called Congress in a special session on March 11, 1909, and after a hotly contested battle the Payne-Aldrich tariff act was passed. The President made no considerable effort to force the hand of Congress one way or the other, and he accepted the measure on the theory that it was the best tariff law that could be got at the time. Indeed, it was pointed out by members of his party that the bill contained "654 decreases in duty, 220 increases, and 1150 items of the dutiable list in which the rates were unchanged." It was also stated that the bill was framed in accordance with the spirit of the party platform which had made no promise of a general sweeping reduction. It was admitted, however, that precise information upon the difference between the cost of production at home and abroad could not have been obtained in time for this revision, but a tariff board was created by law for the purpose of obtaining the desired information, on the basis of which readjustments in schedules could be made from time to time.
On April 9, 1909, the Payne tariff act passed the House, one Republican voting against it and fourDemocrats from Louisiana voting in favor of it. This vote, however, was of no significance; the real test was the vote on the several amendments proposed from time to time to the original bill, and on these occasions the Democratic lines were badly broken. On April 12, Mr. Aldrich introduced in the Senate a tariff bill which had been carefully prepared by the finance committee of which he was chairman. This measure followed more closely the Dingley law, making no recommendations concerning some of the commodities which the House had placed on the free list, and passing over the subject of income and inheritance taxes without remark. The Aldrich measure was bitterly attacked by insurgent Republicans from the West,—Senators Dolliver and Cummins, of Iowa, La Follette, of Wisconsin, Beveridge, of Indiana, and Bristow, of Kansas,—who held out to the last and voted against the bill, even as amended, on its final passage, July 8. The conference committee of the two Houses settled their differences by July 30, and on August 5 the tariff bill became a law.
There were several features of the transaction which deserve special notice. Very early in the Senate proceedings on the bill, an income tax provision was introduced by Senators Cummins and Bailey, and it looked as if enough support could be secured from the two parties to enact it into law. Although President Taft, in his acceptance speech, had expressed an opinion to the effect that an income tax could be constitutionally enacted notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in the Income Tax cases, he blocked the proposal to couple an income tax measure with the tariff bill,by sending a special message on June 16, recommending the passage of a constitutional amendment empowering Congress to levy a general income tax, and advising a tax on the earnings of corporations. His suggestions were accepted by Congress. The proposed amendment to the Constitution was passed unanimously by the Senate, and by an overwhelming majority in the House,[80]and a tax on the net incomes of corporations was also adopted. A customs court to be composed of five judges to hear appeals in customs cases was set up, and a tariff commission to study all aspects of the question, particularly the differences between cost of production in the United States and abroad, was created.
Revision of the tariff had always been a thankless task for any party. The Democrats had found it such in 1894 when their bill had failed to please any one, including President Cleveland, and when for collateral or independent reasons a period of industrial depression had set in. The McKinley bill of 1890 had aroused a storm of protest which had swept the Republicans out of power, and it is probable that the Dingley tariff of 1897 would have created similar opposition if it could have been disentangled from the other overshadowing issues growing out of the Spanish War. The Payne-Aldrich tariff likewise failed to please; but its failure was all the more significant because its passage was opposed by such a large number of prominent party members. The Democrats, as was naturally to be expected, made all they could out of the situation, andcried "Treason." Even what appeared to be a concession to the radicals, the adoption of a resolution providing for an amendment to the Constitution authorizing the imposition of an income tax, was not accepted as a consolation, but was looked upon as a subterfuge to escape the probable dilemma of having an income tax law passed immediately and submitted to the Supreme Court again.
Notwithstanding the dissensions within his party, Mr. Taft continued steadily to press a legislative policy which he had marked out. In a special message on January 7, 1910, he recommended the creation of a court of commerce to have jurisdiction, among other things, over appeals from the Interstate Commerce Commission. This proposal was enacted into law on June 18, 1910; and the appointments were duly made by the President. The career of the tribunal was not, however, particularly happy. Some of its decisions against the rulings of the Commission were popularly regarded as too favorable to railway interests; one of the judges, Mr. Archbald, of Pennsylvania, was impeached and removed on the ground that his private relations with certain railway corporations were highly questionable; and at length Congress in 1913 terminated its short life.
Acting upon a recommendation of the President, Congress, in June, 1910, passed a law providing for the establishment of a postal savings system, in connection with the post offices. The law authorized the payment of two per cent interest on money deposited at the designated post offices and the distribution of all suchdeposits among state and national banks under the protection of bonds placed with the Treasurer of the United States. The scheme was applied experimentally at a few offices and then rapidly extended, until within two years it was in operation at more than 12,000 offices and over $20,000,000 was on deposit. The plan which had been branded as "socialistic" a few years before when advocated by the Populists was now hailed as an enlightened reform, even by the banks as well as business men, for they discovered that it brought out secret hoardings and gave the banks the benefit at a low rate of interest—lower than that paid by ordinary savings concerns.
The postal savings system was shortly supplemented by a system of parcels post. Mr. Taft strongly advocated the establishment of such a system, and it had been urged in Congress for many years, but had been blocked by the opposition of the express companies, for obvious reasons, and by country merchants who feared that they would be injured by the increased competition of the mail order departments of city stores. Finally, by a law approved on August 24, 1912, Congress made provision for the establishment of this long-delayed service, and it was put into effect on January 1, 1913, thus enabling the United States to catch up with the postal systems of other enlightened nations. Although the measure was sharply criticized for its rates and classifications, it was generally approved and regarded as the promising beginning of an institution long desired.
While helping to add these new burdens to the post-office administration, Mr. Taft directed his attention tothe urgent necessity for more businesslike methods on the part of the national administration in general, and, on his recommendation, Congress appropriated in 1910 $100,000 "to enable the President to inquire into the methods of transacting the public business of the Executive Department and other government establishments, and to recommend to Congress such legislation as may be necessary." A board of experts, known as the Economy and Efficiency Commission, was thereupon appointed, and it set to work examining the several branches of administration with a view to discovering wasteful and obsolete methods in use and recommending changes and practices which would result in saving money and producing better results. Among other things, the Commission undertook an examination of the problem of a national budget along lines followed by the best European governments, and it suggested the abandonment of the time-honored "log-rolling" process of making appropriations, in favor of a consistent, consolidated, and businesslike budget based upon national needs and not the demands of localities for Federal "improvements," regardless of their utility.
Although he was sharply attacked by the advocates of conservation for appointing and supporting as Secretary of the Interior, Mr. R. A. Ballinger, who was charged with favoring certain large corporations seeking public land grants, Mr. Taft devoted no little attention to the problem of conserving the natural resources. In 1910, Congress enacted two important laws bearing on the subject. By a measure approved June 22, it provided for agricultural entries on coal lands and theseparation of the surface from the mineral rights in such lands. By another law, approved three days later, Congress made provision for the withdrawal of certain lands for water-power sites, irrigation, classification of lands, and other public purposes. These laws settled some questions of legality which had been raised with reference to earlier executive action in withdrawing lands from entry and gave the President definite authority to control important aspects of conservation.
From the opening of his administration Mr. Taft used his influence in every legitimate way to assist in the development of the movement for international peace. In his acceptance speech, at the opening of his campaign for election, he had remarked upon the significance and importance of the arbitration treaties which had been signed between nations and upon the contribution of Mr. Roosevelt's administration to the cause of world peace. Following out his principles, Mr. Taft signed with France and England in August, 1911, general arbitration treaties expanding the range of the older agreements so as to include all controversies which were "justiciable" in character, even though they might involve questions of "vital interest and national honor." The treaties, which were hailed by the peace advocates with great acclaim, met a cold reception in the Senate which ratified them on March 7, 1912, only after making important amendments that led to their abandonment.
Among the most significant of Mr. Taft's acts were his appointments of the Supreme Court judges. On the death of Chief Justice Fuller, in 1910, he selected for thathigh post Associate Justice White. In the course of his administration, Mr. Taft also had occasion to select five associate justices, and he appointed Mr. Horace H. Lurton, of Tennessee, Charles E. Hughes, governor of New York, Mr. Willis Van Devanter, of Wyoming, Mr. Joseph R. Lamar, of Georgia, and Mr. Mahlon Pitney, of New Jersey. Thus within four years the President was able to designate a majority of the judges of the most powerful court in the world, and to select the Chief Justice who presided over it.
It was hardly to be expected that the exercise of such a significant power would escape criticism, particularly in view of the nature of the cases which are passed upon by that Court. Mr. Bryan was particularly severe in his attacks, charging the President with deliberately packing the Court. "You appointed to the Chief Justiceship of the Supreme Court," he said, "Justice White who thirteen years ago took the trusts' side of the trust question.[81]... You appointed Governor Hughes to the Supreme Court bench after he had interpreted your platform to suit the trusts." Mr. Bryan also demanded that Mr. Taft let the people know "the influences" that dictated his appointments. Mr. Bryan attacked particularly the selection of Mr. Van Devanter, declaring that the latter, by his decisions in the lower court, was a notorious favorite of corporation interests. Mr. Taft looked upon these attacks as insults to himself and the judges, and treated them with the scant courtesy which, in his opinion, they deserved. The episode, however, was of no little significance in stirring uppublic interest in the constitution of a tribunal that was traditionally supposed to be "non-political" in its character.
The Anti-Trust Cases
Mr. Taft approached the trust problem with the pre-conceptions of the lawyer who believes that the indefinite dissolution of combinations is possible under the law. His predecessor had, it is true, instituted many proceedings against trusts, but there was a certain lack of sharpness in his tone, which was doubtless due to the fact that he believed and openly declared that indiscriminate prosecutions under the Sherman law (which was, in his opinion, unsound in many features) were highly undesirable. Mr. Taft, on the other hand, apparently looked at the law and not the economics of the problem. During Harrison's administration there had been four bills in equity and three indictments under the Sherman law; during Cleveland's administration, four bills in equity, two indictments, two informations for contempt; during McKinley's administration, three bills in equity. Mr. Roosevelt had to his record, eighteen bills in equity, twenty-five indictments, and one forfeiture proceeding. Within three years, Mr. Taft had twenty-two bills in equity and forty-five indictments to his credit.
The very vigor with which Mr. Taft pressed the cases against the trusts did more, perhaps, to force a consideration of the whole question by the public than did Mr. Roosevelt's extended messages. As has been pointed out, the members of Congress who enacted the Shermanlaw were very much confused in their notions as to what trusts really were and what combinations and practices were in fact to be considered in restraint of trade.[82]And it must be confessed that the decisions and opinions of the courts, up to the beginning of Mr. Taft's administration, had not done much to clarify the law. In the Trans-Missouri case, decided in 1897, the Supreme Court had declared in effect that all combinations in restraint of trade, whether reasonable or unreasonable, were in fact forbidden by the law, Justice White dissenting.[83]
This was not done by the Court inadvertently. Mr. Justice Peckham, speaking for the majority of the Court, distinctly marked the fact that arguments had been directed to that tribunal, "against the inclusion of all contracts in restraint of trade, as provided for by the language of the act ... upon the alleged presumption that Congress, notwithstanding the language of the act, could not have intended to embrace all contracts, but only such as were in unreasonable restraint of trade. Under these circumstances we are, therefore, asked to hold that the act of Congress excepts contracts which are not in unreasonable restraint of trade, and which only keep rates up to a reasonable price, notwithstanding the language of the act makes no such exception. In other words, we are asked to read into the act by way of judicial legislation an exception that is not placed there by the lawmaking branch of the government.... It may be that the policy evidenced by the passage of the act itself will, if carried out, result in disaster to theroads.... Whether that will be the result or not we do not know and cannot predict. These considerations are, however, not for us. If the act ought to read as contended for by the defendants, Congress is the body to amend it, and not this Court by a process of judicial legislation wholly unjustifiable."
It was no doubt fortunate for the business interests of the country that no earlier administration undertook a searching and drastic prosecution of combinations under the Sherman law; for in the view of the language of the Court it is difficult to imagine any kind of important interconcern agreement which would not be illegal. This very delay in the vigorous enforcement of the law enabled the country at large to take a new view of the trusts and to throw aside much of the prejudice which had characterized politics in the eighties and early nineties. The lawless practices of the great combinations and their corrupting influence were extensively discovered and understood; but it became increasingly difficult for demagogues to convince the public that any good could accrue to anybody from the ruthless attempts to disintegrate all large combinations in business. The more radical sections, which had formerly applauded the platform orator in his tirades against trusts, were turning away from indiscriminate abuse and listening more attentively than ever to the Socialists who held, and had held for half a century, to the doctrine that the trusts were a natural product of economic evolution and were merely paving the way to national ownership on a large scale.
Consequently, between the two forces, therepresentatives of corporate interests on the one hand and the spokesmen for socialistic doctrines on the other, the old demand for the immediate and unconditional destruction of the trusts was sharply modified. Corporations came to see that undesirable as "government regulation" might be, it was still more desirable than destruction. They, therefore, drew to themselves a large support from sections of the population which did not share socialistic ideas, and still could see nothing but folly in attempting to resist what seemed to have the force of nature. Many working-class representatives ceased to wage war on the trusts as such, for they did not expect to get into the oil, copper, or steel business for themselves; and the farmers, on account of rising prices and a large appreciation in land values, listened with less gladness to the "war-to-the-hilt" orator. Nevertheless, a large section of the population, composed particularly of business men and manufacturers of the lesser industries, hoped to "reëstablish" what they called "fair conditions of competition" by dissolving into smaller units the huge corporations that dominated industry.
In response to this demand, Mr. Taft pushed through the cases against the Standard Oil Company and the American Tobacco Company; and in May, 1911, the Supreme Court handed down decisions dissolving these combinations. In the course of his opinions, Chief Justice White, who had dissented in the Trans-Missouri case mentioned above, gave an interpretation of the Sherman Act which was regarded quite generally as an abandonment of the principles enunciated by the Court in that case. He said: "The statute, under thisview, evidenced the intent not to restrain the right to make and enforce contracts, whether resulting from combinations or otherwise, which did notunduly restraininterstate and foreign commerce, but to protect the commerce from being restrained by methods, whether new or old, which would constitute an interference that is anunduerestraint." Thus the Chief Justice restated the doctrine of "reasonableness" which he had formulated in his dissenting opinion in the earlier case, but this time as the spokesman of the Court. It is true, he attempted with great dialectic skill to reconcile the old and the new opinions, and make it appear that there had been no change in the theories of the Court; but his attempt was not convincing to every one, for many shared the view expressed by Justice Harlan, to the effect that the attempt at reconciliation partook of the nature of a statement that black is white and white is black.
The effect of these decisions was the dissolution of the two concerns into certain constituent parts which were supposed to reëstablish competition; but no marvelously beneficial economic results seem to have accrued. The inner circles of the two combinations made huge sums from the appreciation of stocks; the prices of gasoline and some other oil products mounted with astonishing speed to a higher rate than ever before; and smaller would-be competitors declared that the constituent companies were so large that competition with them was next to impossible. No one showed any great enthusiasm about the results of the prosecution and decisions, except perhaps some eminent leaders in the business world, who shared the opinion of Mr. J. P.Morgan that the doctrines of the Court were "entirely satisfactory," and to be taken as meaning that indiscriminate assaults on large concerns, merely because of their size, would not be tolerated by the Court. Radical "trust-breakers" cried aloud that they had been betrayed by the eminent tribunal, and a very large section of the population which had come to regard trusts as a "natural evolution" looked upon the whole affair as an anticlimax. Mr. Taft, in a speech shortly after the decisions of the Court, expressed his pleasure at the outcome of the action and invited the confidence of the country in the policy announced. He had carried a great legal battle to its conclusion, only to find those who cheered the loudest in the beginning, indifferent at the finish.
The Overthrow of Speaker Cannon
From the beginning of his administration, it was apparent that Mr. Taft's party in Congress was not in that state of harmony which presaged an uneventful legislative career. The vote on the tariff bill, both in the Senate and the House, showed no little dissatisfaction with the way in which the affairs of the party were being managed. The acrimony in the tariff debate had been disturbing, and the attacks on Speaker Cannon from his own party colleagues increased in frequency and virulence inside and outside of Congress.
Under this astute politician and keen parliamentary manager, a system of legislative procedure had grown up in the House, which concentrated the management ofbusiness in the hands of a few members, while preserving the outward signs of democracy within the party. The Speaker enjoyed the power of appointing all of the committees of the House and of designating the chairmen thereof. Under his power to object to a request for "unanimous consent," he could refuse to recognize members asking for the ear of the chamber under that privilege. He, furthermore, exercised his general right of recognition in such a manner as to favor those members who were in the good graces of the inner circle, which had naturally risen to power through long service.
In addition, there had been created a powerful engine, known as the "rules committee" which could, substantially at any time, set aside the regular operations of the House, fix the limits of debate, and force the consideration of any particular bill. This committee was composed of the Speaker and two colleagues selected by himself, for, although there were two Democratic representatives on the committee, they did not enjoy any influence in its deliberations. The outward signs of propriety were given to this enginery by the election of the Speaker by the party caucus, but the older members and shrewd managers had turned the caucus into a mere ratifying machine.
Under this system, which was perfected through the long tenure of power enjoyed by the Republicans, a small group of managers, including Mr. Cannon, came to a substantial control over all the business of the House. A member could not secure recognition for a measure without "seeing" the Speaker in advance; the older members monopolized the important committees;and a measure introduced by a private member had no chance for consideration, to say nothing of passage, unless its sponsor made his peace with the party managers. This system was by no means without its advantages. It concentrated authority in a few eminent party spokesmen and the country came to understand that some one was at last responsible for what happened in the House. The obvious disadvantage was the use of power to perpetuate a machine and policies which did not in fact represent the country or the party. Furthermore, the new and younger members could not expect to achieve anything until they had submitted to the proper "party discipline."
If anything went wrong, it soon became popular to attribute the evil to "Cannon and his system." Attacks upon them became especially bitter in the campaign of 1908 and particularly venomous after the passage of the Aldrich-Payne tariff act. At length, in March, 1910, by a clever piece of parliamentary manipulation, some "insurgent" Republicans were able to present an amendment to the rules ousting the Speaker from membership in the rules committee, increasing the number, and providing for election by the House. Mr. Cannon was forced to rule on the regularity of this amendment, and he decided against it. On appeal from the decision of the chair, the Speaker was defeated by a combination of Democrats and insurgent Republicans, and the committee on rules was reconstructed. A motion to declare the Speakership vacant was defeated, however, because only eight insurgents supported it, and accordingly Mr. Cannon was permitted to serveout his term. Although this was heralded as "a great victory," it was of no consequence in altering the management of business in that session; but it was a solemn portent of the defeat for the Republican party which lay ahead in the autumn.
Dissensions
The second half of Mr. Taft's administration was marked by the failure to accomplish many results on which he had set his mind. The election of 1910 showed that the country was swinging back to the Democratic party once more. In that year, the Democrats elected governors in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Indiana, and some other states which had long been regarded as Republican. The Democrats also carried the House of Representatives, securing 227 members to 163 Republicans and 1 Socialist, Mr. Berger, of Wisconsin. Although many conservative Republican leaders, like Mr. Cannon, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Dalzell, were returned, their position in the minority was seriously impaired by the election of many "insurgent" Republicans from the West, who were out of harmony with the old methods of the party.
In view of this Democratic victory, it was inevitable that Mr. Taft should have trouble over the tariff. In accordance with the declarations of the Republican platform, he had recommended and secured the creation, in 1909, of a tariff board designed to obtain precise information on the relation of the tariff to production and labor at home and abroad. The work of this board fellinto three main divisions. It was, in the first place, instructed to take each article in the tariff schedule and "secure concise information regarding the nature of the article, the chief sources of supply at home and abroad, the methods of its production, its chief uses, statistics of production, imports and exports, with an estimate of the ad valorem equivalent for all specific duties." In the second place, it was ordered to compile statistics on the cost of production at home and abroad so that some real information might be available as to the difference, with a view to discovering the amount of protection necessary to accomplish the real purposes of a "scientific" tariff. Finally, the board was instructed to secure accurate information as to prices at home and abroad and as to the general conditions of competition in the several industries affected by the tariff.
If there was to be any protection at all, it was obvious that an immense amount of precise information was necessary to the adjustment of schedules in such a manner as not to give undue advantages to American manufacturers and thus encourage sloth and obsolete methods on their part. Such was the view taken by Mr. Taft and the friends of the tariff board; but the Democratic Congress elected in 1910 gave the outward signs of a determination to undertake a speedy and considerable "downward revision," regardless of any "scientific" information that might be collected by the administration. There was doubtless some demand in the country for such a revision, and furthermore it was "good politics" for the leaders of the new House to embarrass the Republican President as much aspossible. The opportunity was too inviting to be disregarded, particularly with a presidential election approaching.
Consequently, the House, in 1911, passed three important tariff measures: a farmers' free list bill placing agricultural implements, boots and shoes, wire fence, meat, flour, lumber, and other commodities on the free list; a measure revising the famous "Schedule K," embracing wool and woolen manufactures; and a law reducing the duties on cotton manufactures, chemicals, paints, metals, and other commodities. With the support of the "insurgent" Republicans in the Senate these measures were passed with more speed than was expected by their sponsors, and Mr. Taft promptly vetoed them on the ground that some of them were loosely drawn and all of them were based upon inadequate information. The following year, an iron and steel measure and a woolens bill were again presented to the President and as decisively vetoed. In his veto messages, Mr. Taft pointed out that the concise information collected by the tariff board was now at the disposal of Congress and that it was possible to undertake a revision of many schedules which would allow a considerable reduction without "destroying any established industry or throwing any wage earners out of employment." These last veto messages, sent in August, 1912, received scant consideration from members of Congress already engaged in a hot political campaign.
Mr. Taft was equally unfortunate in his attempt to secure reciprocity with Canada. In January, 1911, through the Secretary of State, he concluded a reciprocityagreement with that country by the exchange of notes, providing for a free list of more than one hundred articles and a reduction of the tariff on more than four hundred articles. The agreement was submitted to the legislatures of the two countries. A bill embodying it passed the House, in February, by a Democratic vote, the insurgent Republicans standing almost solidly against it, on the ground that it discriminated against the farmers by introducing Canadian competition, while benefiting the manufacturers who had no considerable competition from that source. The Senate failed to act on the bill until the next session of the new Congress when it was passed in July with twelve insurgent and twelve regular Republicans against it. After having wrought this serious breach in his own party in Congress, Mr. Taft was sorely disappointed by seeing the whole matter fall to the ground through the overthrow of the Liberals in Canada at the election in September, 1911, and the rejection by that country of the measure for which he had so laboriously contended.
During the closing days of his administration, Mr. Taft was seriously beset by troubles with Mexico. Under the long and severe rule of General Porfirio Diaz in that country, order had been set up there (at whatever cost to humanity) and American capital had streamed into Mexican mines, railways, plantations, and other enterprises. In 1911, Diaz was overthrown by Francisco Madero and the latter was hardly installed in power before he was assassinated and a dictatorship set up under General Huerta, in February, 1913. After the overthrow of Diaz in 1911, Mexico was filled withrevolutionary turmoil, and American lives and property were gravely menaced. In April, 1912, Mr. Taft solemnly warned the Mexican government that the United States would hold it responsible for the destruction of American property and the taking of American life, but this warning was treated with scant courtesy by President Madero. The disorders continued to increase, and demands for intervention on the part of the United States were heard from innumerable interested quarters, but Mr. Taft refused to be drawn into an armed conflict. The Mexican trouble he bequeathed to his successor.