After the Spanish War the question whether the United States should, the inhabitants agreeing, keep any of the territory obtained from Spain, divided the Democratic as well as the Republican ranks. So long as expansion meant merely addition to United States territory and population after the time-honored fashion, and this was at first all that anyone meant by expansion, no end of prominent Democrats were expansionists. But for their devotion to the policy of protection and their determination to continue high protection at all costs, the Republicans might have kept in existence this Democratic schism over expansion.
According to the Constitution as almost unanimously interpreted (the “insular cases” referred to in the last chapter had not yet been decided), customs duties must be uniform at all United States ports. If Luzon was part of the United States in the usual sense of the words, rates of duty on given articles must be the same at Manila as at New York. If the Philippine Islands and Porto Rico were parts of the United States in the full sense, tariff rates at their ports could not be low unless low in New York, New Orleans, San Francisco, and elsewhere.
The Republican National Convention, held in Philadelphia, June 1, 1900.
No considerable or general tariff reduction for the United States proper was to be thought of by the Republicans. But it would not do to maintain in the ports of the new possessions the high duties established by law in the United States proper. Were this done, the United States would in effect be forcing its colonies to buy and sell in the suzerain country alone, as was done by George III. through those Navigation Acts which occasioned the Revolutionary War. Such a system was certain to be condemned. If the expansion policy was to succeed in pleasing our people a plan had to be devised by which duties at the new ports could be reduced to approximate a revenue level while remaining rigidly protective in the old ports.
Out of this dilemma was gradually excogitated the theory, which had been rejected by nearly all interpreters of the Constitution, that the United States can possess “appurtenant” territory, subject to, but not part of itself, to which the Constitution does not apply save so far as Congress votes that it shall apply. So construed, the Constitution does not ex proprio vigore follow the flag. Under that construction, inhabitants of the acquired islands could not plead a single one of its guaranties unless Congress voted them such a right. If Congress failed to do this, then, so far as concerned the newly acquired populations, the Constitution might as well never have been penned. They were subjects of the United States, not citizens.
The Republican party’s first avowal of this “imperialist” theory and policy was the Porto Rico tariff bill, approved April 12, 1900, establishing for Porto Rico a line of customs duties differing from that of the United States. This bill was at first disapproved by President McKinley. “It is our plain duty,” he said, “to abolish all customs tariffs between the United States and Porto Rico, and give her products free access to our markets.” Until after its passage the bill was earnestly opposed both by a number of eminent Republican statesmen besides the President and by nearly all the leading Republican party organs. Every possible plea—constitutional, humanitarian, prudential— was urged against it. The bill passed, nevertheless.
The result was a momentous improvement in Democratic prospects. The schism on expansion which had divided the Democratic party was closed at once, while many Republicans who had deemed the taking over of the Philippines simply a step in the nation’s growth similar in nature to all the preceding ones, and had laughed at imperialism as a Democratic “bogy,” changed their minds and sidled toward the Democratic lines.
In their long and able arguments against the Porto Rico tariff, Republican editors and members of Congress provided the opposite party with a great amount of campaign material. Often as a Republican on the hustings or in the press declared imperialism not an issue, or at any rate not an important one, he was drowned in a flood of recent quotations from the most authoritative Republican sources proving that it was not only an issue, but one of the most important ones which ever agitated the Republic. As Democrats put it, Balaam prophesied in favor of Israel.
Several minor matters were much dwelt upon by campaigners, with a net result favorable to the Democrats. A great many in his own party believed, no doubt wrongly, that the President’s policy had in main features been influenced by consideration for powerful financial interests, or that at points these had in effect coerced him to courses contrary to what he considered best. The commissariat scandal in the Spanish War incensed many, as did the growth of army, navy, and “militarism” incident to the new colonial policy.