approximated 60,000 annually; the United States Commissioner of Immigration in Canada estimates that about 15,000 return to this country annually.

expectations. A total of eight million, or an increase of one half over 1901 had been confidently predicted. Probably the main reason is that the Canadian estimates fail to allow Oriental immigration is the topic enough for the steady and large but of an interesting section. This, as unrecorded drift of Canadians by in our country, is practically a Pa- birth and immigrants to Canada cific Coast phenomenon, British Co- southward into the United States. lumbia being the Canadian province Regarding the former current th affected. Exclusion of the Chinese American birthplace statistics affor through imposition of a head tax some information. The great mawas not effective until the amount jority of Canadians by birth are livwas raised to $500 (Jan. 1, 1904), ing either in Canada or in the United whereupon Chinese immigration fell States. Disregarding those who to almost nothing. Oddly enough, have emigrated to some other counhowever, in three years this created try, the figures since 1871 are as folsuch a monopoly of Chinese labor lows:

as to make immigration profitable despite the head tax.

The influx of Japanese through Hawaii in 1907 doubled their number in British Columbia (7,500 at the beginning of that year) and, taken in connection with the increasing numbers of Chinese and Hindus, so aroused the inhabitants that, by agreement with Japan, passports are now limited to 400 annually.

Hindu immigration increased from insignificant numbers prior to 1907 to over 2,500 in that and the following year. Their exclusion, since they are British subjects, was a most delicate matter, the accomplishment of which was an extremely interesting bit of diplomacy.

IMMIGRATION FROM CANADA

census

5,943

One-fifth of all Canadians by birth are living in the United States and four-fifths in Canada.

NATURALIZATION

Under the terms of the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, a division of naturalization was established in the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization to supervise and make uniform the process of naturalization before the state or the federal courts. In the fiscal year 1909-1910 there were 2,472 courts issuing certificates of naturalization, of which 227, or 9 per cent., were federal courts and 2,247, or 91 per cent., were state courts. The number of certificates of naturalization issued annually since the law went into effect is: 1906-07 (nine months). 1907-08

1909-10

7.953 25,963

38.372

39,206

The preliminary announcement of 1908-09 the results of the Canadian of June, 1911, show a total populaBut of the certificates issued more tion of 7,151,869 and an increase of than one-fourth come from the fedone-third, 33.2 per cent. in ten years. eral courts. It has been estimated For the first time in several decades that probably just before the new Canada has increased in population law took effect in the vicinity of more rapidly than this country. The 100,000 persons were naturalized anincrease, however, did not equal the nually.

IV. AMERICAN HISTORY

G. H. BLAKESLEE

INTRODUCTION

Political Parties.-The year 1911 | crats; 62nd Congress, Senate, 51 Rehas been marked by notable political publicans, 40 Democrats (1 vacancy); changes. The Republican party, so House, 160 Republicans, 228 Demolong in power in the national govern- crats (1 Socialist and 2 vacancies). ment, lost its control of the House The result has been to compel the of Representatives and had its own President to depend upon a politically ranks divided into the two fairly divided Congress for the enactment distinct groups of "Progressives" and of legislation, a situation, however, "Regulars." Political issues have not at all unusual in the past. In aroused as keen an interest as be- the last half century there have been fore, but they have not been fought 16 years during which the President's on strictly party lines. The great party has been in a minority in at public questions-those of reciprocity, least one branch of Congress; this tariff revision, the control of trusts happened in the administrations of and corporations, the conservation of Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, and national resources, and the ratifica- in both of those of Cleveland. Durtion of the new arbitration treaties ing eight of these years the whole with Great Britain and France-have of Hayes's administration and half none of them been presented as clear- of each of Cleveland's-the President cut issues between the two great par-was politically opposed to both ties. On each the Republican leaders Houses. have been divided. President Taft signed the Reciprocity act, which was opposed by the majority of his party in Congress, and vetoed the tariff bills, which received the support of progressive Republicans.

Political Changes. For 14 years before 1911 the Republican party controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives; but the elections in the fall of 1910 deprived it of its majority in the House and cut down its membership in the Senate. The 61st Congress, which came to an end March 4, 1911, had a Republican majority of 28 in the Senate and 45 in the House; the 62nd, which convened a month later, April 4, had a Republican majority of but 11 in the Senate, and a Democratic majority of 67 in the House. The exact figures are: 61st Congress, inate, 60 Republicans, 32 Democrats; 217 Republicans, 172 Demo

The Republican defeat in 1910 has also many precedents. From 1874 to 1894 every administration in turn lost its mid-term Congressional elections.

The state elections in the fall of 1910 were equally unfortunate for the Republicans. In 1911 the number of Republican governors fell from 26 to 21, while the number of Democratic governors increased from 20 to 25. This overturn was caused by Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Idaho, Oregon and Wyoming electing Democratic in place of Republican executives; while Nebraska, Nevada and Tennessee changed from Democratic to Republican control. In 1910, 27 state legislatures were Republican and 19 Democratic; in 1911 22 were Republican and 24 Democratic. This change came from the Republicans losing the legislatures of Maine, New

York, New Jersey, West Virginia, gents, as they are often called, have

Ohio and Montana and gaining that of Nevada.

been more in sympathy with the Democrats than with the majority of Political Issues. In regard to the their own party; and an alliance of leading political issues there has Progressives and Democrats was in seemed to be a weakening of party control of Congress for a large part ties. Each side has had its progres- of the Special Session, which lasted sives and its conservatives, although from April to August. A short acthe division among the Republicans count of the leading issues in 1911 has been the most marked. On many will make clearer the somewhat comquestions the Progressives, or Insur-plicated political situation.

RECIPROCITY

The reciprocity issue is not a new one in American politics, although it has never before occupied such an important position as it has held during the past year. As early as 1844 President Tyler negotiated a reciprocity agreement with the German Zollverein, although it failed of ratification in the Senate.

Reciprocity, 1875-1911.-A treaty of reciprocity with Hawaii, signed in 1875, provided for the free admission into the United States of Hawaiian sugar, in return for the free admission into Hawaii of a long list of American manufactures. It remained in force until the annexation of the islands in 1898.

When the McKinley bill (1890) was under consideration in the Senate, Blaine, who was then Secretary of State, persuaded those in charge of the measure to add a reciprocity section. This authorized the President to levy specified duties upon sugar, coffee, tea and hides, otherwise admitted free, unless the countries which exported these products should grant adequate reductions to American goods. It was, in a way, a tariff of retaliation rather than of reciprocity. In accordance with the terms of the act, reciprocity agreements were made with several countries in Central and South America and with Germany and Austria in Europe.

Canadian Reciprocity, 1854-1866.— In 1854 a treaty was concluded with Great Britain which provided for reciprocity with Canada. Its provisions were in general similar to those of the proposed agreement of the past year. The purely economic questions involved, however, were complicated by political considerations; the Canadian authorities desired to moderate the strong annexation sentiment which existed in their country at that time, while much of the approval given to the treaty in the United States was due to the belief that it would be a step towards political union. After a few years some opposition was shown to the treaty by certain of the American transportation, mining, lumber and agricultural interests, but the real factor which caused its termination was not at all economic, but political; it was the When the Republican party again hostility engendered against Great came into power in 1896, it framed Britain and Canada by the Civil the Dingley Act, which once more War. By vote of Congress in 1865, contained a reciprocity section. This the reciprocal trade relations with empowered the President to grant to Canada came to an end in 1866. The foreign countries, in return for proper important fact in this agreement is trade concessions, the free admission that it granted reciprocity in raw into the United States of an extremematerials which both countries pro-ly limited list of non-competitive prodduced alike, and that it did not ap- ucts. It also authorized the President ply to manufactures. "Its results," to negotiate general treaties, by in the words of an eminent econo- which reductions of 20 per cent. on mist, "were of altogether far less the regular United States tariff rates importance than might have been should be granted. Although Presi expected." dent McKinley submitted several such

The Wilson Act, 1894, a Democratic measure, repealed all the existing reciprocity agreements except that with Hawaii.

reciprocity agreements, yet the Re-lowing November (1910), three Ameripublican Senate refused to ratify any of them, on the ground that concessions had been made on products which competed with American goods. McKinley, however, continued until his death to urge the necessity of reciprocity.

In 1903 Congress passed a Cuban reciprocity act, which provided that the exports of the two countries should receive mutual reductions of 20 per cent. from the regular tariff rates. The bill was bitterly opposed on the ground that it granted reciprocity in competitive products. It divided the Republican party in Congress and was passed only under a strong sense of the necessity of fulfilling a peculiar moral obligation to this new American protectorate.

can commissioners arranged with two members of the Dominion Cabinet the Canadian Reciprocity treaty. This was, however, merely a gentlemen's agreement between the two Governments by which they mutually promised to secure, if possible, the enactment by their respective legislatures of an identical reciprocity act.

The President's Views.-President Taft sent this agreement to the two Houses Jan. 26, 1911. It provided for free trade in all primary food products, such as grain, vegetables, animals and fish; a mutual lowering of duties on secondary food products, such as meat and flour; and reductions on manufactured goods. The President in his official messages and in his public speeches declared that reciprocity with Canada fulfilled the tariff pledge of the last Republican platform, which promised to abolish or lower existing rates except where they should be needed to equalize the difference in cost of production at home and abroad. The cost of living in Canada and in the United States, the President said, was substantially the same; the two peoples were "of the same race, intelligence, conditions and traditions" and would find mutual freedom of trade as advantageous as had the different sections of the United States. The treaty would enlarge the supply of natural resources upon which the United States could draw, especially in timber and woodpulp. It would probably not reduce the cost of food products to the consumer, but it would prevent any great increase of cost in the future. It would not injure the farmers, however, since the price of the few cereals, such as wheat, which can be raised more cheaply in Canada than in the United States, is determined not by the American but by the Liverpool market, which sets the world price for all such products. In regard to manufactures, the government obtained the best bargain possible; it wished for absolute free trade in everything, but the tariff concessions obtained were sufficient to give a valuable opening for American goods.

Reciprocity Treaty, 1911. The next reciprocity struggle was over the ratification of the recent agreement between the governments of Canada and the United States, which was signed Jan. 21, 1911. (See also V, International Relations.) For many years after 1866 Canada made every effort to induce the United States to grant mutual reductions in tariff; but the American government was too well satisfied with its high protective system to make any changes. There was, however, from 1872 to 1884 a so-called reciprocity treaty which related to the fisheries; and as late as 1898 an American commission, appointed to consider the possibility of reciprocity, proposed that complete free trade be established between the two countries upon the condition that Canada should adopt the United States tariff. This offer was refused. In 1909 the Payne-Aldrich Tariff omitted all reciprocity provisionswith the exception of particular concessions granted to the Philippines and adopted the maximum-minimum principle. In order to obtain satisfactory trade privileges from Canada in exchange for the minimum rate, President Taft in March, 1910, held a conference at Albany with the Canadian Minister of Finance. Before the meeting was concluded, it was arranged that a future conference should be held to consider the question of freer trade relations be- The President pointed to the adtween the two countries. In the fol- vantages resulting from the recent

When it reached the Senate and a determined opposition developed, the President announced that if no action were taken on the bill before Congress came to an end March 4, he would call the new Congress, the 62nd, in special session to pass upon it.

reciprocity agreements with Cuba, Feb. 14 by 221 to 93, although the 1903, which gave mutual reductions majority of the Republicans voted of 20 per cent. from the regular tariff against it. rates; with Porto Rico, 1901, which established complete free trade; and with the Philippines, 1909, which permitted free trade with some limitation upon the amount of sugar, tobacco and rice which might be exported to the United States. Before these agreements were made, he said, they were opposed by the American sugar and tobacco growers, who insisted that they would be injured by reciprocity; since they went into effect not a single complaint had been made, not an American interest had been harmed, and, on the other hand, the United States had been benefited by an enormous increase in its trade with these lands. President Taft urged the passage of the Canadian bill without amendments, and pointed out that if this opportunity should be neglected, no similar one would probably come again, since Canada would then turn to a system of rigid British preference.

In Congress.-When a bill to carry out this agreement was introduced into the House by Congressman McCall, it caused a violent split in the Republican ranks. Historically, the party as a whole has never agreed to any reciprocity other than that in non-competitive products, such as coffee and tea; but a number of the leaders, Blaine, Sherman, McKinley and Roosevelt, together with a large proportion of the party, have stood for reciprocity, when desirable, in products which competed with those of the United States. The majority of the Republicans in Congress, including nearly all of the Progressives, opposed the measure, claiming that it was a betrayal of the principle of protection, in that it took away from the farmers the benefits of a duty upon imported agricultural products just at a time when they needed it most, and yet retained it upon manufactured goods. These Congressmen well represented the intense opposition of the farmers of the West and of the lumber and print-paper interests. The Democrats, who as a party had held no clear-cut policy on the question, now decided in caucus to support the bill. It passed the House

The Special Session.-Since a number of Republicans, Progressives and Regulars, prevented the measure coming to a vote before adjournment, President Taft summoned the new Congress to meet April 4. When it convened, the former reciprocity bill was again introduced into the House, this time by the leader of the Democratic majority, Congressman Underwood. April 21 it was passed, 267 to 89, by the same combination as before, a minority of the Republicans and the almost solid vote of the Democrats.

In the Senate the bill was referred to the Finance Committee, which, after adopting an amendment proposed by Senator Root, reported the measure back to the Senate without recommendation. The Root amendment provided that wood pulp (for the making of paper) should not be admitted free into the United States until all restrictions on its export from Canada, levied by any of the individual provinces, should be removed. This was in exact accord with the original agreement, but the bill passed by the House provided that wood pulp from Canadian lands on which there were no export restrictions should be admitted free at once.

After the bill had been reported from the Committee it was bitterly opposed, especially by the Progressive Republicans, most of whom came from the farming states of the West. Senator La Follette led the attack and characterized the measure as a good bargain for the trusts, since they would obtain free of duty many raw materials, especially different kinds of grain; for the newspapers, since they would have cheaper print paper; and for Canada, since it would obtain more for its agricultural produce; but bad for the American farmers, since they would be compelled to meet the