Publication information |
Source: Statist Source type: newspaper Document type: editorial Document title: “President McKinley” Author(s): anonymous City of publication: London, England Date of publication: 14 September 1901 Volume number: 48 Issue number: 1229 Pagination: 477-78 |
Citation |
“President McKinley.” Statist 14 Sept. 1901 v48n1229: pp. 477-78. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
William McKinley (political character); United States (trade policy: reciprocity). |
Named persons |
Nelson Dingley, Jr.; Lyman J. Gage; Marcus Hanna; John Hay; William McKinley; Robert Peel. |
Document |
President McKinley
T
Of late there have been several indications that
Mr. McKinley was about to reveal himself in a character not only entirely new,
but a little while ago entirely undreamt of—to use a telling phrase that has
already been used by some of his countrymen, “that he was about to become the
Sir Robert Peel of the United States.” Mr. McKinley, as said above, made his
first mark in politics by his introduction of the so-called McKinley Tariff.
For very many years he was looked upon at home and abroad as the incarnation
of Protectionism, and for a long time he was supposed to have very strong leanings
towards the silver heresy. Only the day before the atrocious attempt upon his
life the President delivered what appears to have been one of the most important
speeches ever spoken by him. In it he declared for reciprocity in a manner never
ventured upon by him before. It is quite true that the law of the United States
already recognises reciprocity. Indeed, more than one reciprocity treaty has
been negotiated. But the manner in which President McKinley adopted reciprocity
as his peculiar policy on President’s Day at the Buffalo Exhibition makes the
speech specially notable. After referring to the great prosperity the country
enjoys at present, and to the extraordinary development of its productiveness
in every direction, the President went on as follows: “A system which provides
for the mutual exchange of commodities is manifestly essential. We must not
repose in the fancied security that we can for ever sell everything and buy
little or nothing. Reciprocity is the natural outgrowth of our wonderful industrial
development. If perchance some of our tariffs are no longer needed for revenue
or to protect our industries, why should they not be employed to extend our
markets abroad?” That Protection has been losing ground for years has been evident
to all careful observers of events in the United States. But a little while
ago few would have ventured to predict that the reputed author of the McKinley
Tariff would be among the very first of public men to recognise the fact, and
would have given his adherence to the new view of public duty. Yet that is what
the speech at Buffalo really means. He recognises that there has been a great
change in American public opinion, not only since the tariff which bears his
name was passed, but even since the later tariff that bears the name of Mr.
Dingley. And with a statesman’s judgment he acknowledges that the change is
justified by the new [477][478] condition of the
country, and he offers to help in carrying out the new policy the country desires.
That he may be spared to preside over the framing of a Bill for that purpose
is the wish and hope of ever friend of the United States—nay more, of every
right-minded man, to whatever country he may belong.
It need hardly be said here that, in the opinion
of this Journal, the new policy is a wise one. Yet it may be objected that reciprocity
will only help the United States to beat down barriers raised against its trade
by other countries which have imitated its own economic legislation. Reciprocity
can be pursued with regard to France, Germany, Russia, and so on. And even reciprocity
treaties will help materially in promoting the trade between all these countries.
But it may be argued that a reciprocity treaty is out of the question with ourselves,
because we have already admitted all the world freely to our ports, and therefore
have nothing to grant in return for concessions that we may desire from the
United States. To this we would reply that what is known, or, at all events,
believed, to be in the President’s mind is not merely the negotiation of reciprocity
treaties—which, indeed, have had his care while he has been at the White House—but
that he means to offer large concessions to all those who are willing to admit
American goods on what appear to him and to Congress to be liberal terms. If
that is the shape which the new legislation will take, it is obvious that our
own country will share in the advantages. And, indeed, the very argument used
by the President at Buffalo would be altogether out of place, and might easily
even be directed against himself, if he were to refuse to the United Kingdom
what he concedes to more Protectionist countries. For he advocates reciprocity
on the very ground that America cannot always go on selling a great deal and
buying little or nothing. She must buy a good deal if she is to sell immense
quantities. And when everything is said, we are not merely her best customers,
but practically we are better customers than all the rest of the world put together.
For fully half the exports of the United States come to us. To extend very greatly
her exports, then, it is essential that she should open her markets to our products
likewise. And unless we entirely misread the President’s last great speech,
that is exactly what he has in contemplation.