THE PRESENT SESSION OF CONGRESS.

THE message of the President of the United States to the Congress which will assemble on the first Monday of the current month will bear the signature of Theodore Roosevelt.

This one fact gives to the convening of the Fifty-seventh Congress an importance and interest which it would not otherwise possess. If we had still in the White House the President who bade Congress farewell on the fourth day of last March, and then, for the second time, assumed the solemn obligation of his high office, we should know that the current of legislation would follow a familiar groove, and that the annual message of the President would be little more than a repetition of last year's document. As it is, twenty years have elapsed since a Congress assembled under the peculiar circumstances which have been repeated in the accession of President Roosevelt. Conservative though he was, Chester A. Arthur's administration was marked by many historic episodes; and, notwithstanding the assurance which the present Chief Executive has given us of his intention to follow in the footsteps of his lamented predecessor, the fact remains that Mr. Roosevelt is a man of too much forcefulness and individuality to be a mere follower, no matter how plain the path which has been marked out for him.

Unquestionably, Mr. Roosevelt will have ideas of his own. How far these will go, and whether he will attempt to impress them upon Congress, are questions which the future alone can answer. President McKinley, to a very large degree, dominated Congress. With rare exceptions, those things which he desired were granted unto him. The secret of his success in this direction lay, first of all, in the fact that every senator and representative, without regard to party, was under obligation to him for the appointment of constituents to places in the army and navy-positions which, it will be remembered, were dispensed with impartial hand because of their non-political character. In addition to this, however, Congress was willing to oblige the President in all possible things, because he was held in high personal regard by the men who composed the National Legislature. He had served with

many of them in the Lower House; he knew how to deal with them as he would be dealt with; and he was so tactful and gracious that he won universal esteem.

One needs only to recall the constant bickering and friction between President Cleveland and the Congresses which were in session during his term of office, to realize the important bearing which the relations between the Executive and the Legislative branches of the Government have upon the destinies of the country. That memorable quarrel which finally reached a stage where the President was credited with expressing pleasure because Congress was "off his hands" was as unseemly as it was unwise. I do not believe we shall see unpleasant history repeat itself during Mr. Roosevelt's administration. President Roosevelt, it is true, has never actually served in Congress; but he has mingled with public men, and he has a mind sufficiently broad and catholic to prevent him from making the mistake which marred Mr. Cleveland's second term. For a short period last spring, during the special session of the Senate, Mr. Roosevelt presided over that body with dignity and tact, and was exceedingly careful to respect its traditions and adapt himself to its usages. The rumors which accredited him with the intention of revolutionizing the methods and rules of the Senate received his prompt denial. He would, I am sure, have continued to preside over the Senate with judicial impartiality and great conservatism, if tragic circumstances had not called him to higher office; and, being President, he will undoubtedly seek to cement still more firmly the pleasant associations which were then beginning to be enjoyed, both by the presiding officer in the chair and the senators upon the floor. He is known to possess a disposition more or less pugnacious; but, unless I am greatly mistaken, this pugnacity will not be displayed toward Congress.

Of the 357 members of the House no less than 198 are Republicans, a majority of 39; while in the Senate there are 55 Republicans as against 33 opposition, the State of Delaware being unrepresented. It will thus be seen that any legislation upon which the dominant party is united ought speedily to be enacted, especially if it is recommended by the President, the ex officio leader of his party. We may expect, however, to see Congress dawdle along until after the Christmas holidays before really beginning work, and this notwithstanding the fact that there will be no contest over the Speakership. Representative David B. Henderson, of Iowa, who officiated as Speaker of the House in the last Congress, will be again elected to that position; and his familiarity with men and measures should enable him to announce

promptly the personnel of the various Committees. In the Senate, the gavel laid down by Vice-President Roosevelt will be taken up by Senator William P. Frye, of Maine, who, during the special session of the Senate last spring, was elected President pro tempore, and who is admirably fitted for that office. There is no reason, therefore, why there should be any delay in either House in speedily setting the wheels of legislation in motion. If anything like reasonable progress is made, Congress ought to conclude its labors by the first of next June, and possibly at an earlier date.

The most important of the subjects which will be considered by Congress during the present session are, unquestionably, (1) reciprocity, and (2) the treaty with Great Britain relative to the Nicaragua canal. The ratification of the latter document, if achieved, is to be followed by the enactment of the bill authorizing the construction of the Isthmian waterway. Both of these topics reciprocity and the treaty were before Congress during the last session.

In the last public utterance of President McKinley -his speech at the Pan-American Exposition - he stood upon advanced ground regarding reciprocity. His arguments and assertions, prepared with great care and expressed with much clearness and force, were as follows:

"By sensible trade arrangements, which will not interrupt our home production, we shall extend the outlets for our increasing surplus. A system which provides a mutual exchange of commodities is manifestly essential to the continued and healthful growth of our export trade. We must not repose in fancied security that we can forever sell everything and buy little or nothing. If such a thing were possible, it would not be best for us or for those with whom we deal. We should take from our customers such of their products as we can use without harm to our industries and labor. Reciprocity is the natural outgrowth of our wonderful industrial development under the domestic policy now firmly established.

What we produce beyond our domestic consumption must have a vent abroad. The excess must be relieved through a foreign outlet, and we should sell everywhere we can and buy wherever the buying will enlarge our sales and production, and thereby make a greater demand for home labor.

The period of exclusiveness is past. The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Commercial wars are unprofitable. A policy of good will and friendly trade relations will prevent reprisals. Reciprocity treaties are in harmony with the spirit of the times; measures of retaliation are not.

If, perchance, some of our tariffs are no longer needed for revenue, or to encourage and protect our industries at home, why should they not be employed to extend and promote our markets abroad?"

In furtherance of these views, which are known to receive the partial endorsement, at least, of President Roosevelt, it is the intention of the Administration to submit again to the Senate the reciprocity treaties which failed to be acted upon at the last session. This course

will, undoubtedly, arouse strong opposition. Republican senators are, as a rule, in the position of the humorist who regarded war as an excellent thing provided it enabled him to rid himself of his wife's relations. Reciprocity, as viewed by the average Republican in Congress, is admirable provided that it does not permit the import, either at a reduced tariff or through absolute free trade, of foreign goods in competition with the output of his own constituents.

Thus, the silk manufacturers of Paterson regard with much indignation the possible increased sale of French silks in this country by the lowering of the tariff bars under the guise of reciprocity. The importation of West Indian fruits, as proposed by the treaties with England concerning the British West Indian colonies, alarms the California and Florida fruit growers; while a loud and emphatic protest comes from the American wool producers, who very promptly discovered, in a reciprocity treaty with the Argentine Republic, a provision which would bring Argentine wool into the United States in direct and injurious competition with the home product. Already the representatives of the wool growers are preparing for the impending struggle. Senator Warren, of Wyoming, the President of the Wool Growers' Association, has recently made public a letter from Senator Foraker, a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, in which he says that the Argentine treaty is "dead," and predicts that if it is again sent to the Senate it can never be ratified. Senator Clark, of Wyoming, a committee colleague of Senator Foraker, goes even further. He says that not only is the Argentine treaty dead beyond the hope of resurrection, but that, as all the reciprocity treaties admit products of foreign countries that are also products of the United States, they are all doomed to defeat. More than this, Senator Aldrich, of Rhode Island, who is the guardian of the manufacturing interests of New England, has given notice that if any of these treaties are reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations, he will move to have them referred to the Committee on Finance, of which he is the chairman, on the ground that they deal with tariff figures and are more commercial than diplomatic in their character. If ever the door of the Committee on Finance closes upon these reciprocity treaties, it will be for them like the sealing of the tomb.

The message of President Roosevelt will disclose how far he proposes to commit himself and his party to the reciprocity idea. The impression now current is that he will favor it in general terms while expressing opposition to any action that will injure an American industry, thus leaving it to the Senate to decide whether this injury is threat

ened. It has been suggested that reciprocity can be accomplished by general legislation; but it would seem rather a hazardous undertaking to frame a general law upon the subject. If a few specific treaties are shown to fall heavily upon a comparatively limited number of producers, a general law might well be expected to create almost universal dissatisfaction. The very suggestion of such an enactment will arouse hostility. It is difficult to predict, at the threshold of Congress, exactly how the Republican majority will steer clear of the Scylla of necessary foreign markets for plethoric production, on the one hand, and the Charybdis of incensed producers, on the other.

The situation certainly offers ample opportunity for wise statesmanship. Only a few months have elapsed since the manufacturers of agricultural implements in the West were startled by the antagonistic attitude of Russia; while lately we have heard rumblings of exclusion tariff laws to be passed by Germany and Austria in order to keep out American goods, even as the manufactures of those countries are barred from the United States. It would not be remarkable if the advocates of reciprocity and the adherents of an undisturbed tariff neutralized themselves into non-action. Certainly the friends of the tariff system as embodied in the present law may be relied upon to oppose to the utmost any encroachment upon that system under the guise of reciprocity.

The tariff question is also destined to come before Congress in connection with the bill of Representative Babcock, of Wisconsin, who created something of a flurry during the closing hours of the last session by the introduction of a proposal to abolish the duty on steel and manufactures of steel. Mr. Babcock's measure is, primarily, aimed at the trusts; for he has discovered that great corporations are enabled to institute monopolies and charge exorbitant prices to American citizens through the operation of prohibitive tariffs, while the same products are sold cheaply abroad. When Congress reassembles, Mr. Babcock will re-introduce his bill with additional sections relating to glass and tin plate. He promises, in fact, to wage war against all trust-made articles the manufacture of which is protected by a high tariff against foreign competition, with a consequent monopoly in this country.

Mr. Babcock has been both commended and criticised. The high protectionists condemn his premises and his conclusions, complaining with some bitterness that he is removing the corner-stone from the edifice which they have so carefully erected, and which is, in fact, the sacred temple of the Republican party. The commendation which Mr. Babcock has received has not been confined to any one section of the