Box Hill. 1st Edition Adam Mars-Jones.

Visit to download the full and correct content document:

https://ebookmass.com/product/box-hill-1st-edition-adam-mars-jones/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Box Hill. 1st Edition Adam Mars-Jones.

https://ebookmass.com/product/box-hill-1st-edition-adam-mars-
jones/

The Insentient Adam Hill

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-insentient-adam-hill/

The Glass Box Karl Hill

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-glass-box-karl-hill/

The Glass Box Karl Hill

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-glass-box-karl-hill-2/
Escape to the Islands Box Set Melissa Hill

https://ebookmass.com/product/escape-to-the-islands-box-set-
melissa-hill/

Adam Smith’s Equality and the Pursuit of Happiness 1st

Edition John E. Hill (Auth.)

https://ebookmass.com/product/adam-smiths-equality-and-the-
pursuit-of-happiness-1st-edition-john-e-hill-auth/

Barrow Hill Roundhouse. Past, Present & Future Ben

Jones

https://ebookmass.com/product/barrow-hill-roundhouse-past-
present-future-ben-jones/

Boneyard Tides_Amo Jones Jones

https://ebookmass.com/product/boneyard-tides_amo-jones-jones/

The Volcanoes of Mars James R. Zimbelman

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-volcanoes-of-mars-james-r-
zimbelman/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 supply or medical departments is known to have been court
martialed or even censured. Yet I do not hesitate to say that
the summary dismissal from the service, in the beginning, of
two or three quartermasters and commissaries, including the
gentlemen who were the cause of sending thousands of cars to
Tampa without invoices or anything on the outside of them to
indicate their contents, would have saved the lives of
hundreds of our soldiers. Under these circumstances it is most
lamentable to find that the awful experiences which have made
so many homes desolate, and so many of our best young men
invalids, have borne no practical fruit. Both the army
officials and Congress are like the Bourbons, they 'have
learned nothing and forgotten nothing.'"

G. W. Wingate,
What the Beef Scandal Teaches
(Independent, April 6, 1899).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899.

Joint High Commission for settlement of
pending questions with Canada.

See (in this volume)

CANADA: A. D. 1898-1899.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899 (October-October).

Military government of Porto Rico.

See (in this volume)

PORTO RICO: A. D. 1898-1899 (OCTOBER-OCTOBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899 (December-January).

Instructions by the President to General Otis,
Military Governor of the Philippines.
Their proclamation by the latter in a modified form.
The effect.
 See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898-1899 (DECEMBER-JANUARY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (January).

The case of Commissary-General Eagan.

A court-martial, sitting in January, 1899, for the trial of

Commissary-General Eagan, on the charge that he had been
guilty of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and
conduct to the prejudice of good order and military
discipline," in the abusive language that he had applied to
the commanding general of the army, in the course of his
testimony before the Commission to investigate the conduct of
the War Department found the accused officer guilty, and
imposed the inevitable penalty of dismissal from the service,
but recommended executive clemency in his case.

See:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899.

The sentence was commuted by the President to suspension from

rank and duty for six years. This involved no loss of pay,
and, at the end of six years, General Eagan will go on the
retired list.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (January).

Appointment of the First Commission to the Philippines.
The President's instructions to the Commissioners.

See (in this volume)

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (January-February).

The Treaty of Peace in the Senate.
Its ratification.

The Treaty of Peace with Spain, signed at Paris December 10,

1898, was sent by the President to the Senate on the 4th of
January, 1899, and held under debate in that body until the
6th of February following. The opposition to it was very
strong, being especially directed against the acquisition of
the Philippine Islands, involving, as that acquisition did,
the embarkation of the Republic in a colonial or imperial
policy, of conquest and of government without the consent of
the governed, which seemed to a great number of thoughtful
people, not only incongruous with its constitution, but a
dangerous violation of the principles on which its republican
polity is founded. But even those most opposed to the
acquisition of the Philippine Islands were reluctant to reopen
the state of war by rejection of the treaty, and directed
their efforts mainly towards the securing of a definite
declaration from Congress of the intention of the government
of the United States to establish independence in the islands.

"Even before the signing of the treaty at Paris, on the 6th of

December, when the demand of the American commissioners for
cession of the Philippines was known, the opposition expressed
itself in the following resolution, introduced by Senator
Vest, of Missouri:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled. That under the
Constitution of the United States no power is given to the
Federal Government to acquire territory to be held and
governed permanently as colonies. The colonial system of
European nations can not be established under our present
Constitution, but all territory acquired by the Government,
except such small amount as may be necessary for coaling
stations, correction of boundaries, and similar governmental
purposes, must be acquired and governed with the purpose of
ultimately organizing such territory into States suitable for
admission into the Union."

This resolution became the ground of much senatorial debate

 during the following weeks. The arguments opposed to it, and
supporting the policy of the administration, are represented
fairly by the following passage from a speech made by Senator
Platt, of Connecticut, on December 16:

{635}

"I propose to maintain that the United States is a nation;

that as a nation it possesses every sovereign power not
reserved in its Constitution to the States or the people; that
the right to acquire territory was not reserved, and is
therefore an inherent sovereign right; that is a right upon
which there is no limitation, and with regard to which there
is no qualification; that in certain instances the right may
be inferred from specific clauses in the Constitution, but
that it exists independent of these clauses; that in the right
to acquire territory is found the right to govern it; and as
the right to acquire is a sovereign and inherent right, the
right to govern is a sovereign right not limited in the
Constitution, and that these propositions are in accordance
with the views of the framers of the Constitution, the
decisions of the Supreme Court, and the legislation of
Congress.

"Mr. President, this is a nation. It has been called by

various names. It has been called a Confederated Republic, a
Federal Union, the Union of States, a league of States, a rope
of sand; but during all the time these names have been applied
to it it has been a nation. It was so understood by the
framers of the Constitution. It was so decided by the great
judges of the Supreme Court in the early days of the
Constitution. It is too late to deny it, and, Mr. President,
it is also too late to admit it, and not have faith in it.
Intellectual assent to the doctrines of Christianity does not
make a man a Christian. It is saving faith that makes the
Christian. And a mere intellectual assent to the doctrine that
we are a nation does not make the true patriot. It is high
time that we come to believe without qualification, to believe
in our hearts, in the exercise of patriotic faith, that the
United States is a nation. When we come to believe that, Mr.
President, many of the doubts and uncertainties which have
troubled men will disappear.

"It is time to be heroic in our faith and to assert all the

power that belongs to the nation as a nation. … The attempt to
shear the United States of a portion of its sovereign power is
an attempt which may well be thoroughly and fully discussed.
In the right to acquire territory is found the right to
govern, and as the right to acquire is sovereign and
unlimited, the right to govern is a sovereign right, and I
maintain is not limited in the Constitution. If I am right in
holding that the power to acquire is the sovereign power
without limitation, I think it must be admitted that the right
to govern is also sovereign and unlimited. But if it is sought
to rest the right to govern upon that clause of the
Constitution which gives Congress the power to dispose of or
make 'all needful rules and regulations' for the government of
the territory of the United States, I submit there is no
limitation there. There is no qualification there."

On the 4th of January the Senate received the treaty from the
President. On the 7th, Senator Mason, of Illinois, introduced
the following resolution, and, subsequently, spoke with
earnestness in its support:

"Whereas all just powers of government are derived from the

consent of the governed: Therefore, be it

"Resolved by the Senate of the United States, That the

Government of the United States of America will not attempt to
govern the people of any other country in the world without
the consent of the people themselves, or subject them by force
to our dominion against their will."
On the 9th an impressive speech was made by Senator Hoar, of
Massachusetts, mainly in reply to Senator Platt. He spoke
partly as follows:

"Mr. President, I am quite sure that no man who will hear or

who will read what I say today will doubt that nothing could
induce me to say it but a commanding sense of public duty. I
think I dislike more than most men to differ from men with
whom I have so long and so constantly agreed. I dislike to
differ from the President, whose election I hailed with such
personal satisfaction and such exulting anticipations for the
Republic. I dislike to differ from so many of my party
associates in this Chamber, with whom I have for so many years
trod the same path and sought the same goal. I am one of those
men who believe that little that is great or good or permanent
for a free people can be accomplished without the
instrumentality of party. And I have believed religiously, and
from my soul, for half a century, in the great doctrines and
principles of the Republican party. I stood in a humble
capacity by its cradle. I do not mean, if I can help it, to
follow its hearse. I am sure I render it a service; I am sure
I help to protect and to prolong the life of that great
organization, if I can say or can do anything to keep it from
forsaking the great principles and doctrines in which alone it
must live or bear no life. I must, in this great crisis,
discharge the trust my beloved Commonwealth has committed to
me according to my sense of duty as I see it. However
unpleasant may be that duty, as Martin Luther said, 'God help
me. I can do no otherwise.'

"I am to speak for my country, for its whole past and for its
whole future. I am to speak to a people whose fate is bound up
in the preservation of our great doctrine of constitutional
liberty. I am to speak for the dead soldier who gave his life
for liberty that his death might set a seal upon his country's
historic glory. I am to speak for the Republican party, all of
whose great traditions are at stake, and all of whose great
 achievements are in peril. …

"The question with which we now have to deal is whether

Congress may conquer and may govern, without their consent and
against their will, a foreign nation, a separate, distinct,
and numerous people, a territory not hereafter to be populated
by Americans, to be formed into American States and to take its
part in fulfilling and executing the purposes for which the
Constitution was framed, whether it may conquer, control, and
govern this people, not for the general welfare, common
defense, more perfect union, more blessed liberty of the
people of the United States, but for some real or fancied
benefit to be conferred against their desire upon the people
so governed or in discharge of some fancied obligation to
them, and not to the people of the United States.

"Now, Mr. President, the question is whether the men who

framed the Constitution, or the people who adopted it, meant
to confer that power among the limited and restrained powers
of the sovereign nation that they were creating. Upon that
question I take issue with my honorable friend from
Connecticut.
{636}
I declare not only that this is not among the express powers
conferred upon the sovereignty they created, that it is not
among the powers necessarily or reasonably or conveniently
implied for the sake of carrying into effect the purposes of
that instrument, but that it is a power which it can be
demonstrated by the whole contemporaneous history and by our
whole history since until within six months they did not mean
should exist—a power that our fathers and their descendants
have ever loathed and abhorred—and that they believed that no
sovereign on earth could rightfully exercise it, and that no
people on earth could rightfully confer it. They not only did
not mean to confer it, but they would have cut off their right
hands, everyone of them, sooner than set them to an instrument
which should confer it. …
"The great contemporaneous exposition of the Constitution is
to be found in the Declaration of Independence. Over every
clause, syllable, and letter of the Constitution the
Declaration of Independence pours its blazing torch-light. The
same men framed it. The same States confirmed it. The same
people pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred
honor to support it. The great characters in the
Constitutional Convention were the great characters of the
Continental Congress. There are undoubtedly, among its burning
and shining truths, one or two which the convention that
adopted it were not prepared themselves at once to put into
practice. But they placed them before their countrymen as an
ideal moral law to which the liberty of the people was to
aspire and to ascend as soon as the nature of existing
conditions would admit. Doubtless slavery was inconsistent
with it, as Jefferson, its great author, has in more than one
place left on record. But at last in the strife of a great
civil war the truth of the Declaration prevailed and the
falsehood of slavery went down, and at last the Constitution
of the United States conformed to the Declaration and it has
become the law of the land, and its great doctrines of liberty
are written upon the American flag wherever the American flag
floats. Who shall haul them down?"

Two days later (January 11) the following resolutions were

introduced by Senator Bacon, of Georgia:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

First, That the Government and people of the United States

have not waged the recent war with Spain for conquest and for
the acquisition of foreign territory, but solely for the
purposes set forth in the resolution of Congress making the
declaration of said war, the acquisition of such small tracts
of land or harbors as may be necessary for governmental
purposes being not deemed inconsistent with the same.

"Second. That in demanding and in receiving the cession of the

Philippine Islands it is not the purpose of the Government of
the United States to secure and maintain dominion over the
same as a part of the territory of the United States, or to
incorporate the inhabitants thereof as citizens of the United
States, or to hold said inhabitants as vassals or subjects of
this Government.

"Third. That whereas at the time of the declaration of war by

the United States against Spain, and prior thereto, the
inhabitants of the Philippine Islands were actively engaged in
a war with Spain to achieve their independence, and whereas
said purpose and the military operations thereunder have not
been abandoned, but are still being actively prosecuted
thereunder, therefore, in recognition of and in obedience to
the vital principle announced in the great declaration that
governments derive 'their just powers from the consent of the
governed,' the Government of the United States recognizes that
the people of the Philippine Islands of a right ought to be
free and independent; that, with this view and to give effect
to the same, the Government of the United States has required
the Government of Spain to relinquish its authority and
government in the Philippine Islands and to withdraw its land
and naval forces from the Philippine Islands and from the
waters thereof.

"Fourth. That the United States hereby disclaim any

disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty,
jurisdiction, or control over said islands, and assert their
determination when an independent government shall have been
duly erected therein entitled to recognition as such, to
transfer to said government, upon terms which shall be
reasonable and just, all rights secured under the cession by
Spain, and to thereupon leave the government and control of
the islands to their people."
 On the 13th, Senator McLaurin, of South Carolina, returned to
the question of constitutional power in the government of the
United States to hold territory in a permanently subject
state, and spoke against the view maintained by Senator Platt,
of Connecticut: "To hold," he said, "that there is an inherent
power of sovereignty in the nation, outside of the
Constitution, to do something not authorized by that
instrument is to place this 'inherent sovereignty' above the
Constitution and thus destroy the very foundation upon which
constitutional government rests. Judge Gray in the
Chinese-exclusion case, said: 'The United States are a
sovereign and independent nation, and are invested by the
Constitution with the entire control of international
relations and with all the powers of government necessary to
maintain that control and make it effective.' While holding
that the United States are a sovereign and independent nation,
it will be seen that he also holds that the sovereignty of the
nation is vested by the Constitution; and if so, it can only
be exercised in the mode pointed out in the Constitution and
is controlled by the words of the grant of this sovereignty.
There was no nation of the United States until the adoption of
the Federal Constitution; hence before that time there could
be no sovereignty of the nation. What conferred this
sovereignty? Clearly the States, by and through the Federal
Constitution. If so, then there can be no inherent right of
sovereignty except that conferred by the Constitution.

"The Senator further contends that we are a sovereign nation,

and as such have the same inherent right to acquire territory
as England, France, Germany, and Mexico. I controvert that
proposition. The sovereignty of the nation of Great Britain
and the others is vested in the people, and has never been
delegated and limited as in our country. These Governments
enjoy sovereignty in its elementary form.
{637}
What the government wills it may do without considering the
act or its consequences in the light of an organic law of
binding obligation. Our Government is in a very different
position. The Federal Constitution is the embodiment of the
sovereignty of the United States as a nation, and this
sovereignty can only be exercised in accordance with the
powers contained in its provisions. Great Britain can do
anything as a nation in the way of the exercise of
governmental functions. There is nothing to prohibit or
restrict the fullest exercise of her sovereignty as a nation.
Hence there is no analogy, and the sovereignty of the United
States as a nation differs widely from that of Great Britain.

"It is further contended that a sovereign right can not be

limited and that all our Constitution can do is to prescribe
the manner in which it can be exercised. If, as already shown,
the sovereignty of the United States was conferred by the
States through the Federal Constitution, it is clear that, in
conferring the power and prescribing the manner of its
exercise, they did set a limit in the very terms of the
instrument itself. I deny, therefore, that the United States
as a nation has a sovereign, inherent right and control
outside of the grant of such power in the Constitution. This
is not an essential element of nationality so far as our
nation is concerned, although it may be in England or Russia,
where the nationality and sovereignty incident to it are not
created and limited by a written constitution."

On the 14th of January, Mr. Hoar submitted the following:

"Resolved, That the people of the Philippine islands of right

ought to be free and independent; that they are absolved from
all allegiance to the Spanish Crown, and that all political
connection between them and Spain is and ought to be totally
dissolved, and that they have, therefore, full power to do all
acts and things which independent states may of right do; that
it is their right to institute a new government for
themselves, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their safety and happiness; and that with
these rights the people of the United States do not propose to
interfere."

On the 18th, Mr. Bacon amended his resolutions, given above,

by changing the phrase "an independent government" to "a
stable and independent government," and then spoke upon them
with force, saying, among other things: "The simple fact that
we went to war with Spain did not devolve upon us any
obligation with reference to the Philippine Islands. We went
to war with Spain not for the purpose of correcting all the
evils with which her people were afflicted; we went to war
with Spain not to break the chains of tyranny with which she
might be binding her different colonies: we did not undertake
to be the great universal benefactor and to right all the
wrongs of all the world, or even all the wrongs that Spain
might be inflicting upon any of her people. "We went to war
because a particular colony which she was afflicting lay at
our doors; we went to war because the disorders of that
Government affected the peace of our community and were
injurious to our material interest. We said there was a
condition of affairs which was unbearable and that we would
put an end to it.

"To that extent and to that alone we claimed and avowed the
reason for the declaration of war. So it follows that the mere
declaration of war did not affect in any manner our relations
with the Philippine Islands except to put us in a state of war
with them as a part of the Spanish domain, and in no manner
laid any obligations upon us as to those islands. We were not
charged with the duty of preserving order in Asia. We were not
charged with the obligations of seeing that they had a stable
and orderly government in any part of that hemisphere. No such
duty rested upon us. None such was assumed by us. Therefore
the simple declaration of war did not lay any obligation upon
us as to the Philippine Islands, and I desire that any Senator
will put his finger upon the act which laid us under any
obligations to the Philippine Islands outside of the fact that
in the war which ensued we took those who were the insurgents
in those islands to be our allies and made a common cause with
them.

"Now, Mr. President, all that grows out of that—all that grows
out of the fact of that cooperation and that alliance—is to
impose upon us a single obligation which we must not ignore.
How far does that obligation go? Does it require that we shall
for all time undertake to be the guardians of the Philippine
Islands? Does that particular obligation lay upon us the duty
hereafter, not only now but for years to come, to maintain an
expensive military establishment, to burden our people with
debt, to run the risk of becoming involved in wars in order
that we may keep our hands upon the Philippine Islands and
keep them in proper condition hereafter? I am unable to see
how the obligation growing out of the fact that they were our
allies can possibly be extended to that degree. No Senator has
yet shown any reason why such an obligation rests upon us, and
I venture to say that none which is logical will or can be
shown."

The practical considerations, of circumstance and expediency,

which probably had more influence than those of law or
principle, were strongly urged by Senator Lodge, of
Massachusetts, who said, on the 24th:

"Suppose we ratify the treaty. The islands pass from the

possession of Spain into our possession without committing us
to any policy. I believe we can be trusted as a people to deal
honestly and justly with the islands and their inhabitants
thus given to our care. What our precise policy shall be I do
not know, because I for one am not sufficiently informed as to
the conditions there to be able to say what it will be best to
do, nor, I may add, do I think anyone is. But I believe that
we shall have the wisdom not to attempt to incorporate those
 islands with our body politic, or make their inhabitants part
of our citizenship, or set their labor alongside of ours and
within our tariff to compete in any industry with American
workmen. I believe that we shall have the courage not to
depart from those islands fearfully, timidly, and unworthily
and leave them to anarchy among themselves, to the brief and
bloody domination of some self-constituted dictator, and to
the quick conquest of other powers, who will have no such
hesitation as we should feel in crushing them into subjection
by harsh and repressive methods. It is for us to decide the
destiny of the Philippines, not for Europe, and we can do it
alone and without assistance. …

{638}

"During the campaign of last autumn I said in many speeches to

the people of my State that I could never assent to hand those
islands back to Spain; that I wanted no subject races and no
vassal States; but that we had by the fortunes of war assumed
a great responsibility in the Philippines; that we ought to
meet it, and that we ought to give to those people an
opportunity for freedom, for peace, and for self-government;
that we ought to protect them from the rapacity of other
nations and seek to uplift those whom we had freed. From those
views I have never swerved, and I believed then, as I believe
now, that they met with the approbation of an overwhelming
majority of the people of Massachusetts. …

"Take now the other alternative. Suppose we reject the treaty

or strike out the clause relating to the Philippines. That
will hand the islands back to Spain; and I cannot conceive
that any American should be willing to do that. Suppose we
reject the treaty: what follows? Let us look at it
practically. We continue the state of war, and every sensible
man in the country, every business interest, desires the
re-establishment of peace in law as well as in fact. At the
same time we repudiate the President and his action before the
whole world, and the repudiation of the President in such a
matter as this is, to my mind, the humiliation of the United
States in the eyes of civilized mankind and brands us a people
incapable of great affairs or of taking rank where we belong,
as one of the greatest of the great world powers.

"The President cannot be sent back across the Atlantic in the

person of his commissioners, hat in hand, to say to Spain,
with bated breath, 'I am here in obedience to the mandate of a
minority of one-third of the Senate to tell you that we have
been too victorious, and that you have yielded us too much,
and that I am very sorry that I took the Philippines from
you.' I do not think that any American President would do
that, or that any American would wish him to."

Senator Harris, of Kansas, submitted the following on the 3d

of February:

"Resolved by the Senate of the United States of America, That

the United States hereby disclaim any disposition or intention
to exercise permanent sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control
over the Philippine Islands, and assert their determination,
when a stable and independent government shall have been
erected therein entitled to recognition as such, to transfer
to said government, upon terms which shall be reasonable and
just, all rights secured under the cession by Spain, and to
thereupon leave the government and control of the islands to
their people."

The following was offered on the 27th of January by Senator

Sullivan, of Mississippi:

"Resolved, That the ratification of the pending treaty of

peace with Spain shall in no wise determine the policy to be
pursued by the United States in regard to the Philippines, nor
shall it commit this Government to a colonial policy; nor is
it intended to embarrass the establishment of a stable,
independent government by the people of those islands whenever
conditions make such a proceeding hopeful of successful and
desirable results."

On the same day a joint resolution was proposed by Senator

Lindsay, of Kentucky:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
acquisition by the United States, through conquest, treaty, or
otherwise, of territory, carries with it no constitutional
obligation to admit said territory, or any portion thereof,
into the Federal Union as a State or States.

"Section 2.
That it is against the policy, traditions, and interests of
the American people to admit states erected out of other than
North American territory into our union of American States.

"Section 3.
That the United States accept from Spain the cession of the
Philippine Islands with the hope that the people of those
islands will demonstrate their capacity to establish and
maintain a stable government, capable of enforcing law and
order at home and of discharging the international obligations
resting on separate and independent States, and with no
expectation of permanently holding those islands as colonies
or provinces after they shall demonstrate their capacity for
self-government, the United States to be the judge of such
capacity."

None of the resolutions given above obtained favorable

consideration in the Senate. On the 6th of February the treaty
was ratified, by one vote in excess of the two-thirds which
the constitution requires. It received 57 votes against 27, or
61 against 29 if account be taken of senators absent and
paired. Of the supporters of the treaty, 42 were Republicans;
 of its opponents, 24 were Democrats. It was signed by
President McKinley on the 10th of February, and by the Queen
of Spain on the 17th of March.

After the ratification of the treaty, the Senate, by 26 votes

against 22, adopted the following resolution, offered by Mr.
McEnery of Louisiana:

"Resolved, That by the ratification of the treaty of peace

with Spain it is not intended to incorporate the inhabitants
of the Philippine islands into citizenship of the United
States, nor is it intended to permanently annex said islands
as an integral part of the territory of the United States. But
it is the intention of the United States to establish on said
islands a government suitable to the wants and conditions of
the inhabitants of said islands, to prepare them for local
self-government, and in due time to make such disposition of
said islands as will best promote the interests of the
citizens of the United States and the inhabitants of said
islands."

Congressional Record,
December 6, 1898—February 6, 1899.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (January-November).

Attack on Americans at Manila by Aguinaldo's forces.
Continued hostilities.
Progress of American conquest.

See (in this volume)

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY-NOVEMBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (March).

Appointment of the Isthmian Canal Commission.

See (in this volume)

CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1889-1899.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (May).
Modification of Civil Service Rules by President McKinley.

See (in this volume)

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: A. D. 1899.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (May-July).

Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.

See (in this volume)

PEACE CONFERENCE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (June-October).

Arbitration and settlement of the Venezuela boundary question.

See (in this volume)

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.

{639}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (July).

Cabinet change.

General Russel A. Alger resigned his place in the President's

Cabinet as Secretary of War, in July, and was succeeded by the
Honorable Elihu Root, of New York.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (July).

Provisional government established in the island of Negros.

See (in this volume)

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (MARCH-JULY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (October).

Report of conditions in Cuba by the Military Governor.
 See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1898-1899 (DECEMBER-OCTOBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (October).

Modus Vivendi fixing provisional boundary line between Alaska
and Canada.

See (in this volume)

ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (November).

Death of Vice-President Hobart.

Honorable Garret A. Hobart, Vice-President of the United

States, died November 21. Under the Act provided for this
contingency, the Secretary of State then became the successor
to the President, in the event of the death of the latter
before the expiration of his term.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (November).

Re-arrangement of affairs in the Samoan Islands.
Acquisition of the eastern group, with Pago Pago harbor.

See (in this volume)

SAMOAN ISLANDS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899-1900 (September-February).

Arrangement with European Powers of the commercial policy
of the "open-door" in China.

See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1899-1900 (SEPTEMBER-FEBRUARY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899-1900 (November-

November).
Continued military operations in the Philippines.
 See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899-1900.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899-1901.

Reciprocity arrangements under the Dingley Tariff Act,
not ratified by the Senate.

The Dingley Tariff Act, which became law on the 24th of July,
1897, authorized the making of tariff concessions to other
countries on terms of reciprocity, if negotiated within two
years from the above date. At the expiration of two years,
such conventions of reciprocity had been arranged with France
and Portugal, and with Great Britain for her West Indian
colonies of Jamaica, Barbadoes, Trinidad, Bermuda, and British
Guiana. With France, a preliminary treaty signed in May, 1898,
was superseded in July, 1899, by one of broader scope, which
opens the French markets to an extensive list of American
commodities at the minimum rates of the French tariff, and
cuts the American tariff from 5 to 20 per cent. on many French
products, not inclusive of sparkling wines. In the treaty with
Portugal, the reduction of American duties on wines is more
general. The reciprocal reduction on American products extends
to many agricultural and mineral products. The reciprocal
agreement with the British West Indies covers sugar, fruits,
garden products, coffee and asphalt, on one side, and flour,
meat, cotton goods, agricultural machinery, oils, etc., on the
other.

None of these treaties was acted upon by the United States

Senate during the session of 1899-1900, and it became
necessary to extend the time for their ratification, which was
done. Some additional reciprocity agreements were then
negotiated, of which the following statement was made by the
President in his Message to Congress, December 3, 1900:

"Since my last communication to the Congress on this subject

special commercial agreements under the third section of the