Элиша Бенджамин Эндрюс

«История Соединенных Штатов, Том 6»

Страница 5 из 7 · 54 931 зн. · 63 мин. чтения

of law but even controlled the government in the interests of a few, led

to a belief that the government was passing out of the hands of the

people, and that the function of our republican government was being

arrested. The radical and the agitator were getting the ear of the

nation, for the faith of the nation was shaken. Then came President

Roosevelt to take up a task of greatest difficulty, and for nearly eight

years, amidst the applause of the plain people, he administered the

affairs of the nation firmly, honestly, and with efficiency. The

Republican convention in Chicago by its nomination of Mr. Taft had put

the stamp of its approval upon the Roosevelt administration, and turned

to appeal to the voters.

Mr. Taft formally accepting the Republican nomination for the

Presidency, on the veranda of the residence of his brother, Mr. Charles

P. Taft, of Cincinnati, Ohio.

In round numbers Taft received 7,680,000 votes and Bryan 6,410,000. The

electoral vote stood 321 for the Republican candidate and 162 for the

Democratic candidate. Thirty States elected Republican presidential

electors; eighteen elected Democratic electors. With the exception of

Nebraska, Nevada, and Colorado, which together contributed sixteen

electoral votes, all the States carried by the Democratic nominee were

Southern States. The nation had approved the Roosevelt policy, but the

great popular vote for Mr. Bryan showed clearly the loyalty of millions

of voters. These men believed that their leader stood for the plain

people--for the unprivileged. There were many who had feared Mr. Bryan's

policies in 1896, who voted for him in 1908 because they believed that

twelve years of public life and the study of national problems had

changed and bettered his ideals.

Some Republican writers professed to believe that the popular vote

indicated that a majority of people adhered to the policy of protection.

To others it appeared that the voters were willing to accept the

protective policy with a promise for honest tariff revision in order to

obtain a continuation of the Roosevelt policies.

The popular vote is interesting mainly for what it showed concerning the

changed strength of the small parties, During the period 1904 to 1908

the drift had evidently been away from them. The Socialist vote was

nearly as large in 1908 as in 1904, which was a consolation to

Socialists, for they had held the ground gained by the heavy vote in

1904. The Prohibition vote fell off about ten per cent from that polled

in 1904 and the Independence party polled only 82,000 votes.

In the House of Representatives the Sixty-first Congress had 219

Republicans and 172 Democrats; the Senate 60 Republicans and 32

Democrats.

CHAPTER XV

THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRESIDENT TAFT

[1909]

On March 4, 1909, the date of the inaugural ceremonies, Washington was

visited by a heavy snow-storm, and Mr. Taft, departing from the custom

of delivering his inaugural address at the east end of the Capitol,

spoke in the Senate chamber. Many trains bearing visitors to Washington,

from various parts of' the country, were blockaded, This condition

served to emphasize the call, many times made, for the transfer of the

date of these services to April 30, the day on which President

Washington took the oath of office.

President Taft's inaugural address was wise and temperate and

satisfactory to the country at large. He asserted that the most

important feature of his administration would be the maintenance and

enforcement of the reforms inaugurated by President Roosevelt. He

justified appropriations, as his predecessor had done, for maintaining a

suitable army and navy; advocated the conservation of our natural

resources, the establishment of postal savings banks, and direct lines

of steamers between North and South America.

President William H. Taft and Governor Hughes

on the reviewing stand at the inauguration, March 4,1909.

The cabinet was made up of men largely gathered from private life, a

majority of them being comparatively unknown to the public. Philander C.

Knox was United States senator from Pennsylvania when he was appointed

Secretary of State. He had served as Attorney-General in President

McKinley's cabinet. Franklin MacVeagh, of Illinois, who was made

Secretary of the Treasury, had been prominent as a merchant in Chicago

and active in public affairs. Mr. MacVeagh and Jacob M. Dickinson, who

became Secretary of War, were both members of the Democratic party. By

inviting Democrats to become members of his political family, President

Taft desired to give recognition to the fact that he had been elected by

Democratic votes and had received substantial support in parts of the

South. Mr. Dickinson was also from Chicago. The Secretary of the Navy,

George von L. Meyer, of Massachusetts, had served as ambassador to

Russia, and later as Postmaster-General during Mr. Roosevelt's

administration. Frank H. Hitchcock, of Ohio, who was made

Postmaster-General, had served as First Assistant Postmaster-General.

George W. Wickersham, an attorney of good standing in New York City, was

appointed Attorney-General. Richard A. Ballinger, of Seattle, who had

been Commissioner of the General Land Office, 1907-1909, was appointed

Secretary of the Interior. James Wilson, of Iowa, who had served as

Secretary of Agriculture since 1897, was continued in that office.

Charles Nagel, a noted lawyer of St. Louis, was made Secretary of

Commerce and Labor.

President Taft, Franklin MacVeagh, Sec'y of the Treasury. George W.

Wickersham, Attorney-General. George von L. Meyer, Sec'y of the Navy,

Philander C. Knox, Sec'y of State, James Wilson, Sec'y of Agriculture.

Charles Nagel, Sec'y of Commerce and Labor( above). Jacob M. Dickinson,

Sec'y of War (below). Frank H. Hitchcock, postmaster-General. Richard A.

Ballinger, Sec'y of the Interior. President Taft and Cabinet, 1909.

With the beginning of the new administration the President's salary was

increased to $75,000 a year; that of the Vice-President to $12,000; and

members of the cabinet to $12,000.

From June 1 to October 15 there was held at Seattle the

Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. The rapid growth of Seattle has been

due in no small degree to the fostering of trade with Alaska. The

exhibits served to demonstrate the wisdom of the purchase of the

territory, which at that time was characterized as Seward's "folly."

Alaska has for some years been recognized as a country of wealth and

opportunity. The gold output each year is more than three times the sum

paid Russia for the territory. About one-fifth of the gold produced in

the United States comes from Alaskan mines. Products amounting to

$33,500,000 were shipped to the States from Alaska during the year 1907,

and the return trade for that year amounted to $19,500,000. The value of

the fishery products is five-sevenths as great as the output of the gold

mines. Alaskan coal-fields are estimated to be even richer than her gold

deposits. Other productions of the territory are silver, tin, lead,

quicksilver, graphite, marble, lumber, grains, vegetables, and fruits.

The purpose of the exposition was declared to be "to exploit the

resources and potentialities of the Alaskan and Yukon territories; to

make known and foster the vast importance of the trade of the Pacific

Ocean and of the countries bordering thereon, and to demonstrate the

marvellous progress of Western America." The energy and determination of

the men of the new Northwest was well shown in the preparation made for

the exposition. No financial assistance was asked from the federal

government. The necessary $10,000,000 were contributed almost entirely

in Seattle and the State of Washington. One million dollars were

expended by Seattle, as a preparatory step, on her municipal

improvements.

The Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition, Seattle.

The Palace of Fine Arts.

The site of the exposition was the campus of the State University,

between Lakes Washington and Union. From the grounds, notable for their

natural beauty, were visible in the distance Mount Rainier, the loftiest

peak in the United States, the snow-covered Olympics to the west, and

the Cascade range to the east.

Three permanent buildings were erected by the State of Washington with

the understanding that they were afterward to be used by the university.

Most of the structures followed the French Renaissance design. In the

forestry building, which was 320 feet long and 140 feet broad, and built

of logs in the rough, there were displayed the timber resources of

Alaska and the Northwest. An out-door farm illustrated the agricultural

resources of the region. The Japanese exhibit was second only in

interest to that of Alaska. The exposition served to demonstrate, as it

was intended to do, the possibilities for the investment of capital in

the Northwest and the opportunities for those seeking new homes.

The Hudson-Fulton Celebration.

The Clermont proceeding up the Hudson River under her own steam.

Beginning with September 25 and continuing throughout the first week of

October, there was a notable celebration in New York City, and in other

cities on the Hudson, commemorative of the discovery of that river by

Henry Hudson three centuries before and the trip up the river by Robert

Fulton's steamboat in 1807. The leading feature of the pageant was the

assembling in the harbor of the largest fleet of international character

ever brought together at one time, and the cruise up the Hudson as far

as Newburg of eighty war vessels selected from the navies of the United

States, Great Britain, Germany, France, and other powers. These huge

vessels were in striking contrast to the two small ones which were given

the place of honor in the pageant, the replicas of the Half Moon and

the Clermont. The land parades were likewise spectacular in their

effects.

In October, 1909, Commander Robert E. Peary and Dr. Frederick A. Cook,

two American travellers, returned to the United States, both making

claims to having discovered the north pole. The accomplishment of this

task, which had baffled so many arctic explorers, was hailed as a

triumph throughout the civilized world. Ardent supporters of each of

these men began to champion the right of their favorite to the great

honor. It was shown that Commander Peary had for twenty-three years been

engaged in arctic exploration. His first voyage was made to Greenland in

1886, and in his numerous expeditions to the frozen north since that

time he had secured much scientific data relating to the glaciology,

geology, and ethnology of those regions.

Commander Peary's ship, The Roosevelt.

When Commander Peary left the Roosevelt, the ship which bore him as far

north as navigation permitted, on February 22, 1909, his expedition

consisted of 8 white men, 59 Eskimos, 140 dogs, and 23 sledges, with the

necessary equipment for arctic travel. Upon returning to the United

States after overcoming the many dangers incident to such exploration,

he submitted his records to the National Geographical Society. A

committee of that body, after passing upon these documents, declared

unanimously that it was their opinion that Peary had reached the north

pole, April 6, 1909. This report further commended him for his

organization and management of this expedition and for his contributions

to scientific knowledge.

Before his return to America, Dr. Cook had been hailed as the discoverer

of the north pole by European scientists, especially those of Denmark,

who accepted his story of the accomplishment of this task in April,

1908, one year earlier than the date of Peary's discovery. Many honors

were conferred upon him when he reached Copenhagen, September 4, 1909.

He was met by the Crown Prince of Denmark and the American minister, and

by explorers, professors, and scientists from various European

countries. He was greatly honored also upon his return to New York City.

Commander Robert E. Peary, and three

of his Eskimo dogs, on The Roosevelt.

Commander Peary declared that the claims made by Dr. Cook were without

foundation. His decision was based on the evidence given by two Eskimos

who had accompanied Dr. Cook, and who asserted that the party went only

a two days' journey north from Cape Hubbard and were never beyond the

land ice. Further evidence of deception by Dr. Cook was set forth by

Edward M. Barrill, who had accompanied him on his ascent of Mount

McKinley in 1906. This guide declared that Dr. Cook had not reached the

summit of that mountain as claimed, but that the records had been

falsified. Later, a commission was appointed by the University of

Copenhagen to examine the notes and memoranda submitted to them by Dr.

Cook. After a careful examination of these documents, the commission

reported that they found no evidence sufficient to warrant the belief

that Dr. Cook actually reached the north pole.

Photograph by Brown Bros., N.Y.

Dr. F. A. Cook on his arrival in

New York, September 21, 1909.

By vote of Congress, June 20, 1910, the territories of Arizona and New

Mexico were granted permission to form State constitutions. The

constitutions which were framed in their conventions and passed by

majorities of the people contained some unusual provisions. The Arizona

constitution included the initiative, referendum, and recall of all

elective officers, including judges. The New Mexico constitution

contains a referendum clause, but the clause providing for initiative

was rejected.

President Taft signing the proclamation making

Arizona the forty-eighth State of the Union,

at the White House, February 14, 1912.

The constitution of Arizona was attacked in Congress and opposed by

President Taft on account of the provision for the recall of judges. The

chief objection to the constitution of New Mexico was the unsatisfactory

method provided for its amendment. This constitution, however, was

approved by President Taft and by the House of Representatives, but the

Senate failed to take any action. In August, 1911, the President vetoed

a joint resolution to admit the territories of New Mexico and Arizona as

States into the Union. He stated his attitude as follows: "The

resolution admits both territories to statehood with their constitutions

on condition that at the time of the election of State officers New

Mexico shall submit to its electors an amendment to its new constitution

altering and modifying its provisions for future amendments, and on the

further condition that Arizona shall submit to its electors at the time

of the election of its State officers a proposed amendment to its

constitution by which judicial officers shall be excepted from the

section permitting a recall of all elective officers. If I sign this

joint resolution, I do not see how I can escape responsibility for the

judicial recall of the Arizona constitution. The joint resolution admits

Arizona with the judicial recall, but requires the submission of the

question of its wisdom to the voters. In other words, the resolution

approves the admission of Arizona with the judicial recall, unless the

voters themselves repudiate it. . . . This provision of the Arizona

constitution in its application to county and State judges seems to me

pernicious in its effect, so destructive of independence in the

judiciary, so likely to subject the rights of the individual to the

possible tyranny of a popular majority, and therefore to be so injurious

to the cause of free government that I must disapprove a constitution

containing it."

Photograph, Copyright, by Clinedinst. Washington.

President Taft signing the proclamation making New Mexico a State,

January 6, 1912.

January 6, 1912, New Mexico, having complied with all conditions, was

formally admitted into the Union as the forty-seventh State.

Arizona, having an area of 113,000 square miles, was organized as a

territory in 1863 and appeared in the federal census reports for the

first time in 1870 with a population of 9,658. From 1870 to 1890 its

growth in population was rapid, increasing a little more than four times

during the decade 1870-1880 and doubling during the succeeding ten

years. The population in 1900 was 122,931 and in 1910 it was 204,354.

During the last decade, therefore, the increase in population has been

66.2 per cent, while the percentage of increase in the United States as

a whole has been only 21 per cent. According to the thirteenth census,

Arizona contained eight cities with an aggregate population of 58,414.

The largest cities were Tucson, with a population of 13,193, and Phoenix

with 11,134.

Arizona produces more copper than any other State in the Union. Of the

total copper ore mined in the United States (1909) 27.7 per cent was

from Arizona. There are also good mines of gold and silver. Coal-mining,

marble-quarrying, lumbering, raising cattle, sheep, and ostriches are

also important industries in Arizona. Through the efforts of the

Reclamation service in completing the Roosevelt Dam and a dam at Parker,

and by the use of pumps, it is estimated that 1,000,000 acres of fertile

land will become available for cultivation. Other large areas are also

susceptible of irrigation.

In 1850 the territory of New Mexico was organized and in 1863 it was

reduced to its present limits with an area of 122,000 square miles. The

population of New Mexico in 1900 was 195,310 and in 1910 was 327,301 an

increase of 67.6 per cent. Albuquerque, with a population of 11,020, and

Rosewell with 6,172 were the two largest cities. Like Arizona, New

Mexico possesses great wealth in mines and forests, but the foundation

for her future industrial progress lies in her farms. In 1910 New Mexico

possessed 500,000 acres of irrigated land. It was estimated that

3,000,000 acres more were amenable to artificial watering and the

government is expending millions of dollars on projects which will

fertilize vast areas of this land.

During the year 1911 the world was astounded at the unparalleled

exhibitions of the possibilities of the aeroplane. The dream of

centuries had been realized, and American genius was responsible for the

achievement. In 1896, a model machine which had been constructed under

the direction of Professor Langley, secretary of the Smithsonian

Institution, driven by a one horse-power steam-engine, made three

flights of a mile each near Washington. Congress appropriated $50,000

for the construction of a complete machine, but after two unsuccessful

attempts to fly, with an operator, the project was abandoned.

Wilbur Wright and his brother Orville, bicycle manufacturers of Dayton,

Ohio, did not share in the general ridicule which followed this failure,

and after three years of experimentation demonstrated that the

principles upon which Professor Langley had constructed his machine

were, in the main, sound. The first successful flight of a few seconds

by one of their machines weighing 750 pounds was made in 1903. Two years

afterward a flight of 24 miles was made at the rate of 38 miles an hour.

Other successful experiments followed, and the claim of the Wrights to

be considered the inventors of the first successful man-carrying flying

machine was established. French inventors at about the same time were

carrying on successful experiments with machines similarly constructed.

September 16, 1908, Wilbur Wright, at Le Mans, France, demonstrated that

his machine could remain in the air for over an hour and at the same

time fly across country at a high speed. In that year, also, Orville

Wright, in a government test at Fort Myer, Virginia, not only made

flights lasting over an hour, but carried a companion with him. During

July, 1909, a French aviator, Bleriot, flew across the English Channel,

a distance of 32 miles. That year, also, Orville Wright ascended to the

height of 1,600 feet; with a passenger, made a record flight of 1 hour,

12 minutes and 36 seconds; and flew across country with a companion for

10 miles at the rate of 42 miles an hour. Thus it was shown that a

machine had at last been constructed which would not only fly, but would

remain in the air at the will of its pilot and subject to his guidance.

From a photograph by H. H. Morris.

Charles K. Hamilton racing an automobile on the beach at Galveston, Texas.

Photograph by Brown Bros., N.Y.

Wilbur and Orville Wright, and the late King Edward of England.

[1911]

In the aviation meet at Los Angeles, January 10, 1910, Louis Paulhan, a

Frenchman, established the record of 4,000 feet for height and Glenn H.

Curtiss with a passenger set a new world's record of 55 miles.

Shortly afterward Curtiss demonstrated for the first time that it was

possible for an aeroplane, especially constructed, to rise from the

surface of water, make a flight in the air, return to the

starting-point, and again alight on the water.

The great possibilities as well as the dangers connected with aviation

were brought out in the meet at Chicago during August, 1911, where two

aviators lost their lives. C. P. Rodgers, in a Wright machine, remained

in the air twenty-six and one-half hours out of the possible thirty-one

and one-half hours. Lincoln Beachey set a new world's record by

ascending 11,642 feet. This record was again surpassed within a month by

Ronald G. Garros, a French aviator, who ascended 13,943 feet.

Wilbur Wright in his aeroplane at Pau, France, with King Alfonso of Spain.

Harry K. Atwood flew from St. Louis to Chicago in one day, a distance of

315 miles. He continued his flight to New York, and in eleven days

reached that city. He had travelled 1,265 miles in the actual flying

time of 28 hours. C. P. Rodgers eclipsed all records for long-distance

aeroplane flying by crossing the continent from Sheepshead Bay, New

York, to Pasadena, Cal., a distance of 4,231 miles. He accomplished this

feat in the total time of 49 days, September 17 to November 5, 1911. His

actual flying time was 82 hours.

Harry K. Atwood with Lieut. Fickle flying over Governor's Island, N. Y.,

after completing his flight from St. Louis to New York.

These flights served to demonstrate that the permanent triumphs of

aeronautics are to be won by steadiness and efficiency and not by

recklessness.

Among the significant legislation of the Sixty-second Congress, the

passing of the "publicity law," August, 1911, is deserving of especial

commendation. The Democratic platform, 1908, demanded publicity of

campaign contributions, and Mr. Bryan announced that no funds would be

received from corporations. According to a New York statute, all

campaign receipts and expenditures must be filed. The Republican

campaign committee agreed to apply this law in the presidential contest.

According to the federal Publicity law no candidate for member of the

House of Representatives may spend more than $5,000 in his campaign for

nomination or election, and no candidate for United States senator may

spend, legally, more than $10,000 in his campaign. Candidates are

prohibited from making promises of office or other promises in order to

obtain votes, and no candidate for senator may aid in the election of

members of the legislature that is to fill a senatorial vacancy. At the

time, two United States senators were under indictment for the purchase

of their seats, and one of them acknowledged that he had expended nearly

$100,000 in his primary campaign.

In partial fulfilment of the declaration that his policy was to bring

about legislation for the benefit of the whole country, President Taft

in his message to Congress, December, 1911, asked that the appointment

of local federal officers throughout the country should be placed under

the classified service. "I wish," he wrote, "to renew again my

recommendation that all the local officers throughout the country,

including collectors of internal revenue, collectors of customs,

postmasters of all four classes, immigration commissioners, and marshals

should be by law carried into the classified service, the necessity for

confirmation by the Senate be removed, and the President and the others,

whose time is now taken up in distributing this patronage, under the

custom that has prevailed since the beginning of the Government in

accordance with the recommendation of the senators and congressmen of

the majority party, should be relieved from this burden. I am confident

that such a change would greatly reduce the cost of administering the

government and that it would add greatly to its efficiency. It would

take away the power to use the patronage of the government for political

purposes."

President Taft took an advance position also in his advocacy of the

substitution of the appeal to reason for the appeal to force in the

settlement of all international difficulties. The treaties of

arbitration which were agreed upon during the summer of 1911 between

Secretary Knox and the representatives of Great Britain and France

illustrate the general type of treaty which the President hoped would be

negotiated with other nations. Heretofore, the treaties to which the

United States has been a party have accepted as suitable for arbitration

all questions save those which concerned "vital interests and national

honor." It was a great step forward, therefore, when the agreement was

reached between the powers that all disputes that are justiciable and

cannot be settled by diplomacy are to be submitted to arbitration.

In case of a difference on whether the dispute were justiciable or not,

it was to be submitted to a commission of inquiry for decision. If the

commission found it was justiciable the question in dispute must be

submitted to arbitration. Should the commission find it was not

justiciable there would still exist the possibility of war. But either

nation has the power to delay the findings a year during which time

diplomatic action may be resumed. The arguments against the ratification

of these facts in the Senate were based on the plea that they provided

for compulsory arbitration and thus tended to deprive the Senate of its

constitutional prerogative. The wording was so greatly modified in the

Senate that the form of treaty which was finally ratified differed but

little from the arbitration treaties of 1908.

CHAPTER XVI

THE THIRTEENTH CENSUS, 1910

[1910-1911]

After many years of urging on the part of statisticians and public men,

Congress, in 1902, passed a bill which was signed by the President

providing for a permanent census bureau connected with the Department of

Commerce and Labor. This bureau, as shown in the taking of the

thirteenth census, serves to promote both efficiency and economy in the

collection of statistics associated with the census work. Heretofore the

Director of the Census had enormous patronage at his disposal which he

farmed out among congressmen and other political leaders.

E. Dana Durand, a trained statistician of wide experience, was appointed

Director of the Census. He announced that so far as possible the 65,000

enumerators would be selected under civil service rules and for

supervisors of the census he selected men on the basis of their special

fitness for the work. President Taft was in complete agreement with this

programme and insisted that local enumerators were to be appointed for

the purpose of getting the work properly done and not to assist any

would-be dispensers of local patronage.

On April 15 the enumerators began their work of gathering statistics.

The usual inquiries were made on population, mortality, agriculture,

manufactures, etc. Prior to April 15, an advance schedule was sent to

practically every farmer in the country, and he was asked to fill it out

before the coming of the enumerator. Similarly, in the cities, the

enumerators distributed advance population schedules which the head of

the family was requested to fill out before the official visit of the

enumerator. In taking the thirteenth census, greater attention was given

than ever before to perfecting the schedules and weighing each question

with regard to its precise significance and scientific value. To that

end a group of trained investigators, familiar with the various topics

which the census would cover, spent several months on a preliminary

study of the character of these questions. In addition to the

nationality of each person as determined by the mother tongue of the

foreign-born inhabitants, additional inquiries were made relative to the

industry in which each person was employed and whether the person was

out of work on April 15.

E. Dana Durand, Director of the Census.

Population schedules in the cities and large towns were required to be

completed within two weeks and in the rural districts within thirty

days. The enormous labor of tabulating and classifying these answers was

then begun by the 3,500 clerks in the Census Office at Washington. Much

of this labor was performed by machines each capable of making 25,000

tabulations a day. Results of the first tabulation of the population in

the cities were made known about June 1 and the count of the principal

cities was completed by April 15. During September the population of the

entire country was made known. Within two years the leading facts in the

census were compiled and published as special bulletins. The entire cost

of the census was about $13,000,000.

The total population of the United States, including our territorial

possessions and dependencies, was found to be about 101,000,000, thus

for the first time passing the hundred million mark. The population of

the United States proper was 91,972,266; of Alaska, 64,356; Porto Rico,

1,118,012; Hawaii, 191,909; Guam and Samoa, 15,100; the Philippine

Islands about 7,700,000. These numbers indicate an increase in the

population of continental United States of 21 per cent in the decade, or

a slightly larger growth than the 20.7 per cent made during the

preceding ten years.

One of the striking facts brought out in the census is the absolute

decline in the percentage of population compared with the previous

decade in a number of the States of the East, South, and Middle West,

and an increase of this percentage in the other States, especially among

those of the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Coast. The percentage of

total increase of population in Alabama was 16.9 and the increase,

according to the twelfth census, was 20.8; in Illinois, 16.9 as against

26 for the preceding census; Indiana, 7.3 against 14.8; Kentucky, 6.6

against 15.5; Massachusetts, 20 against 25.3; Minnesota, 18.5 against

33.7; Texas, 27.8 against 36.4; Montana, 54.5 against 70. Iowa showed an

actual loss of three-tenths per cent of her inhabitants, while according

to the preceding census there was a gain of 16.7 per cent in that State.

In the following States the gains in percentages were as follows: North

Dakota, 80.8 against 67.1 for 1900; South Dakota, 45.4 and 15.2; Kansas,

15 and 3; Nebraska, 11.8 and 0.3; Colorado, 48 and 30.6; Oklahoma,

109.7; Utah, 34.9 and 31.3; Nevada, 93.4 and 10.6; Idaho, 101.3 and

82.7; Washington, 120.4 and 45; Oregon, 62.7 and 30.2, and California,

60.1 and 22.4.

In numerical advance, New York, Pennsylvania, California, Texas, and

Illinois led. The increase in New York was nearly 2,000,000, in

Pennsylvania over 1,000,000, and in the other three States nearly

900,000 each.

Another notable fact brought out by the thirteenth census was that the

growth of the cities was greater than during the preceding ten years.

The rate of growth of the medium-sized cities was more rapid than that

of the large cities. This was not the case during the preceding decade.

Of the total population of continental United States, 46.3 per cent were

urban. That is, 42,623,383 of the inhabitants resided in cities and

towns having a population of 2,500 or more. The same territory in 1900

and 1890, similarly classified as urban, contained 40.5 and 36.1 per

cent, respectively, of the total population of the country. In all but

two States, Montana and Wyoming, the urban population has increased

faster than the rural population. The increase, since 1900, in the

population living in urban territory was 11,035,841 or 34.9 per cent,

while the increase in population living in rural territory during the

same period was 4,941,850 or 11.1 per cent. For the United States as a

whole, therefore, the rate of increase for the population of urban areas

was three times that for the population living in rural territory. In

the States of the east north-central division, including Ohio, Indiana,

Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, the urban gain was 31.2 per cent, but

there was a decrease in rural population of 0.2 per cent. The urban

increase of Illinois was 31.2 per cent, but the rural territory of the

State showed a loss of 7.5 per cent. The rural loss in Indiana was 5.5

per cent, and in Ohio 1.3 per cent. Michigan's rural gain was 2 per cent

and Wisconsin's 5.7. per cent. There were fourteen States in which more

than one-half of the population in 1910 were living in urban territory.

Among these States were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut

with nine-tenths of their population urban; Illinois with 62 per cent,

and Ohio with 56 per cent.

CENTER OF POPULATION AT EACH CENSUS 1790 TO 1910.

MEDIAN POINT 1880 TO 1910.

[Transcriber's Note: Location is within a few miles of latitude 39

degrees. The longitude is approximately: 1790, 76.2; 1800, 77.0; 1810,

77.6; 1820, 78.6; 1830, 79.3; 1840, 80.4; 1850, 81.3; 1860, 82.8; 1870

83.7; 1880, 84.7; 1890, 85.5; 1900, 85.8; 1910, 86.5 ]

The rapid growth of our industrial and manufacturing interests during

the past quarter of a century is shown by the fact that 22 per cent of

the people of the country are massed in cities of 100,000 inhabitants

and over. In the three largest cities alone--New York, Chicago, and

Philadelphia--there are almost one-tenth the population of the whole

country. There were five cities with populations between 500,000 and

1,000,000; eleven between 250,000 and 500,000; 31 between 100,000 and

250,000; 59 between 50,000 and 100,000; 120 between 25,000 and 50,000;

374 between 10,000 and 20,000; 629 between 5,000 and 10,000, and 1,173

between 2,500 and 5,000.

The thirteenth census revealed but slight change in the location of the

centre of population. In computing its position, no account of the

population of Alaska and of our insular possessions was taken into

consideration. It had moved west about 39 miles and northward

seven-tenths of a mile and was located at Bloomington in southern

Indiana. The westward movement from 1900 to 1910 was nearly three times

as great as from 1890 to 1900, but was less than that for any decade

between 1840 and 1890. This advance of the centre of population toward

the West was due to the increase in the population of the Pacific Coast

States. The large increase in the population of New York, Pennsylvania,

Illinois, and other States north of the thirty-ninth parallel served as

a balance to the increase in Texas, Oklahoma, and southern California.

During the past fifteen years there has been a steady migration from the

rural portions of the United States to the western provinces of Canada,

not less than 650,000 immigrants having crossed the border within that

period. Most of them have become naturalized Canadians. It has been

estimated that these immigrants took with them, on an average, $1,000.

According to the congressional reapportionment act following the twelfth

census, there were to be 386 members in the House of Representatives or

one representative to 194,182 of the population. The House of

Representatives actually contained 391 members after the admission of

Oklahoma. By the census of 1910, several States were entitled to

additional members, but in order that no State should be reduced in the

number of its representatives, the House of Representatives passed a

bill providing for an increase of 42 members. The new ratio of

representation would then be one representative to 211,877

inhabitants. Effort was made to prevent this increase, for it was argued

that the House had already become unwieldy, requiring great effort on

the part of members to make themselves heard. The bill failed to pass

the Senate at the regular session, but subsequently, at the special

session, it became a law. Party lines were closely drawn in the Senate,

for, on account of this increase, the Republicans would probably gain 32

new congressmen and the Democrats only 10. By this reapportionment the

northeastern part of the country and the extreme western and

southwestern portions gained in their representation. New York gained

six representatives; Pennsylvania, four; California and Oklahoma, three

each; Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, and Texas each gained two,

and sixteen other States each gained one.

The number of farms, according to the thirteenth census, were 6,340,357

or an increase of about 10 per cent over the number reported in 1900.

There was an increase of 63,000,000 acres devoted to farming during the

decade. About 60 per cent of the farms of the country were operated by

their owners and two-thirds of these farms were free from mortgages. Two

million three hundred and forty-nine thousand two hundred and fifty-four

farms were worked by tenants and 57,398 were in charge of managers. The

tenant system was shown to be far more common in the South than at the

North or West. In the south central group of States, which includes a

large part of the cotton area, the tenants numbered 1,024,265 and the

owners 949,036. In the south Atlantic States there were 591,478 owners

and 118,678 tenants; in north Central States, 1,563,386 owners and

644,493 tenants, and in the Western States, 309,057 owners and 52,164

tenants.

Our foreign commerce for the year 1910 amounted in the aggregate to

about $3,500,000,000, or over $1,250,000,000 more than in 1900. Our

exports were valued at $2,000,000,000.

CHAPTER XVII

THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT

[1911]

From time to time it has been charged that "government by the people"

has become fiction in our country. Little had been done to remedy this

condition until the opening of the last decade. Trouble then came for

the supporters of the regular political order, manifesting itself in

conventions and legislatures. Laws abolishing nominations by the

convention method were passed in some States; and publicity of campaign

expenses was insisted upon in others. The movement was widespread and

arose from various causes, but generally tended toward a single end--a

government according to popular will. The Western States have been the

centre of the more radical movement.

The Senate has always been considered as the stronghold of the most

conservative element in our country and has often been accused of being

the stronghold of privilege. It is interesting to note the success of

the progressive or insurgent movement in this body.

Washington.

Robert M. La Follette.

The first progressive, Robert M. La Follette, of Wisconsin, appeared in

the United States Senate in 1905. He had done much, as governor, to gain

the confidence of the people of his own State, and he was sent to

Washington to carry his fight for reform into the national legislature.

Here his reception was not cordial. He was looked upon as a radical,

possibly a visionary reformer, but not exceedingly dangerous, for he was

alone. He stood alone until the election of 1908, when nine more

progressives took their seats; in 1910 the number jumped to sixteen.

Here a change came which probably caused the conservatives in the Senate

some worry. The tariff of 1909 had been passed by a Republican Congress.

The results of the elections of 1910 made it appear that the people were

not convinced that this act was an honest redemption of the Republican

campaign promises, for in the Senate which assembled in April, 1911,

there were twenty-nine thorough-going progressives and five other

members who were more progressive than conservative in their views. They

represented twenty-five States. Six of the thirty-four came from the

South; three came from the East, and the remaining twenty-five from the

West. Of the conservatives only eighteen came from the West.

The same changes may be found in the House of Representatives. These

changes are not so important as the change which must come in the

sentiment of the federal judiciary. From 1901 to 1909 the Executive was

in the control of the progressives and the President was able to get

some important laws passed by a reactionary Congress, but in some

instances the courts annulled these laws.

The appointment of justices of the district courts of the United States

is to a degree influenced by the senators in the district in which the

appointment is to be made. When these senators are conservative it is

natural that the candidates recommended by them should be conservative

and should entertain no legal theories interfering with the exalted

position of property rights. Should the various States be represented by

progressives, different recommendations will naturally follow and

probably an interpretation of the Constitution which will accord a new

standing to personal rights.

In the early part of 1911 the movement crystallized into a regular

political organization which called itself The National Progressive

Republican League, with the following platform:

(1) direct primaries; (2) popular election of delegates to the national

convention; (3) election of senators by direct vote of the people; (4)

initiative, referendum, and recall; (5) an effective corrupt practices

act.

These points were not new; most of them are incorporated into the body

of law of the State of Oregon. Most progressive Democrats as well as

Republicans seem willing to support these principles. In almost every

State the movement for the direct primaries has met studied opposition.

The "practical politician" or the professional politician seems to hate

to see the old convention system of nominations go. There are many who

object to the election of senators by direct vote, claiming that the

people are not capable of choosing wisely in such cases. The direct

election of delegates to the national conventions is no more than the

prerogative now exercised by the voter when he casts his vote for the

presidential electors. To his mind it means that he is voting for the

candidates themselves. In the vote for delegates to the conventions the

voter is accorded the right to express his preference for men to be

candidates. The corrupt practices plank deserves commendation. It cannot

be made too strong, for every attempt to do away with the irregular,

vicious methods used is a step toward good government.

The plank which arouses the greatest opposition is that which

incorporates the initiative, referendum, and recall. All three are

devices to make the machinery of popular government more directly

respondent to the popular will. The "initiative" is a process by which

laws are proposed on the petition of a certain specified number of

voters for action either by the legislature or by the direct vote of the

people through a referendum. The "referendum" allows a popular vote upon

acts passed by the legislature--that is, a bill passed by the

legislature may not become a law unless sanctioned by a popular vote, if

a vote is called for by a specified number of voters. The "recall" gives

the voters an opportunity to relieve a man of his office if by a regular

vote it is demonstrated that such an officer has not performed the

duties of his office to the satisfaction of his constituents. These

expedients are still in the experimental stage, and it is doubtful

whether they are so fraught with danger as their opponents seem to

believe or so efficacious as their adherents insist. Much of their

success depends upon the cases to which they are applied and upon the

popular interest displayed. The Oregon experiments apparently have been

very successful.

The question of the "recall" is a serious one. In some

municipalities--Los Angeles, for example--it has operated well. How it

will work in the national government, where it will affect the

judiciary, is a problem. The veto of the Statehood Bill (Arizona and New

Mexico) on account of the presence of the "recall" for judges in the

constitution of Arizona shows that President Taft is a stout opponent.

It seems well that any such step should be taken with extreme caution.

The progressive senators were active in their opposition to the

Payne-Aldrich Tariff Bill of 1909. For a period of twelve years there

had been no tariff legislation. The great industrial changes which went

on during that time made a revision of the Dingley Tariff imperative.

Although there has been a constant demand for revision, the tariff

played no part in the campaigns of 1900 and 1904. The demand has become

insistent, however, during recent years, and may be attributed in part

to the increased cost of living. This demand, made chiefly by the

wage-earners and salaried men, has been seconded from another quarter.

The attitude of foreign nations toward our goods has made it

increasingly difficult for American manufacturers to dispose of their

surplus. Wages have risen; the price of raw material is higher, and both

affect the manufacturer. Foreign nations have refused to accept our high

tariffs without retaliation, and this has made the manufacturer insist

that Congress revise the objectionable Dingley act.

The agitation took definite form during the session of 1907-8 when the

National Manufacturers' Association undertook to secure legislation

designed to create a tariff commission composed of experts whose

business it should be to ascertain the facts concerning the condition of

manufacturers and the necessity of a new tariff. Pursuant to this the

Beveridge Tariff Commission Bill was introduced into the Senate, but the

leaders of both houses--Cannon, Aldrich, Payne, and others--said bluntly

that it was bad politics to take the question up just before a

presidential campaign, and nothing was done. The demand grew more

insistent, and the wary leaders learned in time that it would be good

politics at least to declare for tariff revision, and this was done by

Chairman Payne of the Ways and Means committee of the House. Just when

the revision would come was not stated--some time after election,

provided the nation would return the Republicans to power.

Albert J. Beveridge. Senator from Indiana.

When the session closed Chairman Payne set on foot a series of

investigations ostensibly to gain information to be used in the coming

revision. It is possible that this was also an attempt to end the

criticism aimed at the leaders who had opposed the appointment of a

commission. Both the Democratic and Republican platforms of 1908

promised tariff revision, but of course in different ways. The

Republican leaders said the policy of the party would be to fix the

duties at a point which would not only offset the higher cost of

production in this country, but would also guarantee to the

manufacturers a fair profit. The election put the conservatives of the

Republican party in control of all branches of the government, and when

the principal committees of both houses of Congress fell under the

control of men fully committed to the dogma of protection, the chance

for a revision downward seemed slight. A special session was called soon

after President Taft's inauguration, and the Payne Bill, which it was

claimed aimed to decrease duties and increase the revenue, passed the

House by a vote of 217 to 161.

The Finance Committee of the Senate, to which the bill was referred when

it reached the Senate, instead of reporting it, reported a substitute

measure--the Aldrich Bill. This the House refused to accept and the

usual conference committee was organized, out of which committee came

the compromise Payne-Aldrich Bill, destined to become law through the

President's signature, August 5, 1909.

The debate in the Senate was a noteworthy one. The progressive senators

of the Middle West, led by Dolliver, of Iowa, and La Follette, of

Wisconsin, fought the measure sturdily, but with little success.

"Jokers" slipped in here and there, and more than one critic has charged

that the Senate was less solicitous for the rights of the consumers than

for the rights of the "interests."

Several schedules have come in for the most severe kind of criticism. In

the cotton schedule the increased rates laid upon certain classes of

cotton goods seem to have been imposed for the benefit of New England

manufacturers. These rates affect articles used by every person in the

United States. Most of these articles are manufactured from raw material

produced in America, and the cost of manufacturing the staple articles

is but slightly higher than in any of the important competing countries.

The average rate imposed by the Dingley Tariff, according to the Bureau

of Statistics, was 38 per cent on cotton cloth and similar rates on

other cotton goods. Since 1897 the "infant industries" have grown, and

some have in recent years declared dividends of 66 per cent per annum.

The Payne-Aldrich Bill increased the average rate on cotton goods from

44.84 per cent in the Dingley Tariff to 50.62 per cent. The increases

are not so much on the high-priced goods as on the cheaper grades.

In the case of the wool schedule the object of criticism has been the

discrimination against the carded woollen industry, which produces the

poor man's cloth, in favor of the worsted industry. This is due to the

imposition of a uniform duty of eleven cents per pound on raw, unwashed

wool, by which the cheaper woollens are taxed as high as 500 per cent,

and frequently amounts to less than 25 per cent on the finer grades.

Based on this system of duties is a graded scale in which the rates rise

in an inverse ratio with the value of the goods. Some duties have been

lowered, but the change has been slight. The schedule remains nearly the

same, but the burden has been shifted.

Photograph by Clinedinst, Washington.

Senator Nelson W. Aldrich.

There are reductions--more, numerically, than increases--but the

reductions are effectively modified by shifted classifications.

One thinker of note has termed the "maximum and minimum" clause as "the

highest practical joke of the whole bill." Little has been said of this

clause except in connection with the "minimum." It must be remembered

that there is also a "maximum," and it does not augur well for the

consumer. Suppose a foreign nation discriminates against our goods; we,

acting on the "maximum" theory, discriminate against theirs, and the

result is that the consumer pays the value of the article plus the

amount of the tariff of discrimination, since it has ever been true that

the limit in price is the top of the tariff wall.

A noteworthy feature of the bill is the provision for the formation of a

Tariff Board, composed of experts, who shall conduct investigations with

the view of evolving a scientific tariff. The board has little power

save that of advising the President in the application of the "maximum

and minimum" clause.

That the tariff has not been deemed an honest redemption of Republican

campaign pledges is shown by the recent elections. In the Sixty-first

Congress there were 219 Republicans in the House of Representatives and

172 Democrats; to the Sixty-second Congress there were returned 162

Republicans and 228 Democrats.

The Democrats at once began a revision of the tariff. Allied with the

progressives in the Senate, revisions of the wool and cotton schedules

were brought about. The Farmers' Free List Bill, which admitted free of

duty agricultural implements, sewing-machines, boots, shoes, fence wire,

and other things useful to farmers, was passed as an offset to the

Reciprocity Bill which was deemed by some to be disadvantageous to them.

The President vetoed all of these measures upon the ground that, since

the Tariff Board was to make its report within a very short time, it

would be wiser to defer action on the tariff until the report could be

used.

The Reciprocity Bill, which met the approval of the President, provided

that our markets should be free to Canada's leading agricultural

products, live-stock, fish, lumber, etc. Print paper and wood pulp were

also to be admitted as soon as the Canadian provincial governments

should withdraw the restrictions upon the exportation of these products.

The duties on some other products--iron ore, for example--were to be

reduced. Canada was asked to admit free our agricultural products,

live-stock, etc., and to reduce the duties on coal, agricultural

implements, and some other manufactured goods. The September elections

in Canada, however, showed that the reciprocity treaty was not

acceptable, for the Conservative party, which was strongly opposed to

the plan, gained a decisive victory. The act as passed by Congress still

remains law in the United States, and stands as a constant invitation to

our Canadian neighbors to join us in developing commercial relations on

the western continent.

What effect will this Progressive movement have upon party organization?

As matters stand at present there are in reality four parties within the

bonds of the two old parties--(1) the Conservative Republicans of the

East; (2) the Conservative Democrats of the South; (3) the Progressive

Republicans of the West; (4) the Progressive Democrats of the West. Out

of this tangle it appears that either a new party will be formed by the

combination of the Progressives of both old parties, or this Progressive

movement must gain control of one or the other of these parties. Should

the former happen, we may see the peculiar alliance of New England and

the South.

President Taft, it is maintained by many of his supporters, is himself a

Progressive, and they point to his attitude toward the great questions

of the hour. He urged, they say, reciprocity with Canada; called for

revision of the tariff in the light of facts and scientific tests;

proclaimed unlimited arbitration; advocated the conservation of our

natural resources, income taxation, extension of civil service reform,

employers' liability, and economy in the administration of governmental

affairs.

In answer it is asserted that President Taft declared the Payne-Aldrich

tariff law to be the best ever passed upon the subject, and that his

advisers and supporters in all of the congressional contests over vital

measures were the senators and representatives known as reactionaries or

standpatters.

[1912]

President Taft himself, a few months before the convening of the

Republican convention called to meet in Chicago, June 16, 1912, stated

his honesty of intention in the following words: "I am very grateful for

the honors the people have given me. I do not affect to deny the

satisfaction I should feel if, after casting up the totals pro and con