The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1901-06-07
OUR WASHINGTON LETTER..
WAsHINGToN, d. c., June 3rsi.


MR. EDIToR:-Mr Mckinley and Secre-
| tary Root had a clash of opinion as to the
| wording of the rejection of the action of
| the Cuban Constitutional Convention in
making wholesale additions to the Piatt
| amendment, before accepting it, that
| threatened to be serious for a time. Mr..
Root regarded the action of the Cubans
as violation of pledge made by the
Cuban delegates who visited Washington
! and wished to tell them so in plain words.
Mr.. Mckinley. while not doubling the
| accuracy of Mr.. Roots views, insisted
upon making the rejection conciliatory,
and, of course, had his way. Secretary
Root is very sore on the subject and says
| he has much smaller opinion of the
Cubans than he had, and privately calls
them tricksters and similar names.
Representative Livingston, of Ga, said
of the action of the Governor of South
Carolina, in declining to accept the rcsig-
nations of Senators Tillman and McLau-
rim: Gov. McSweeney did exactly right
Timan and McLaurin did wrong is re-
signing. A campaign void tear the state
all to pieces and no good come to any
body. Such a campaign would have been
full of bitterness. The people of the
state have been torn by politics for eleven
years and a hot campaign this year would
undoubtedly have been detrimental" The
same sentiment has been expressed in
Washing ton by many other democrats.
Representative Bankhead, of Ala, who
has just returned from visit to the
Constitutional Convention of that state
now sitting, said: II am confident that
wisdom will characterize their course and
that they will solve the suffrage problem
satisfactorily. 1t may be some little time
before form is definitely decided on,
but there is no doubt about proper re
strictions and qualifications for suffrage
being provided"
Has Mr.. Mckinley deserted high pro-
lection and become a disciple of Blaine
reciprocity and Babcock tariff reform
That interesting question has been more
time, and the number of those who take
the affirmative side is steadily increasing
1t will be remembered that Mr.. Mckinley
was unusually persistent in his efforts to
treaties negotiated by his direction. and
he made no effort to hide his chagrin at
the failure of those efforts. Interest in
this matter was increased by the tele-
graphed report of speech made at Mon
treal by NJ. Segfried, French statesman
who was recent caller at the White
House, in which he quoted Mr. Mckinley
as having said to him that he was no
longer an extreme protectionist; that the
time had come when it was necessary to
obtain new and wider foreign markets
and that tariff concessions would have to
be made to get them. That statement is
believed to be substantially correct,
although White House officials decline to
either deny or affirm it. Another witness
along the same line is Mr. Charles A.
Moore, President of the American Pro-
tectve Tariff League, who was with Mr..
Mckinley on his trip to the Pacific Coast,
and who has publicly stated that Mr.
Mckinley was no longer an extreme
protectionist and that he was intent upon
trying to extend our market through
commercial reciprocity. Mr.. Moore went
further and said that unless We could get
more foreign markets over productions
would soon make serious trouble for us.
Compare this sort of talk with the
speeches made when the Mckinley tariff
bill was before Congress, and you get an
idea of the radical change of mind these
high protectionists have undergone The
original Mckinley tariff bill did not pro
vide for reciprocity at all, and it was only
by reading the riot act that the late James
G. Blaine, then Secretary of State, sue
ceeded in having Il reciprocity amend
ment added thereto There is food for
the brains of thoughtful democrats in this
subject