further, That the cane or beet sugar so used shall not be in excess of ten per centum of the weight of wines to be fortified under this act."

TOBACCO MANUFACTURE.

SEC. 69. Every person whose business it is to manufacture tobacco or snuff for himself, or who employs others to manufacture tobacco or snuff, whether such manufacture be by cutting, pressing, grinding, crushing, or rubbing of any raw or leaf tobacco, or manufactured or partially manufactured tobacco or snuff, or the putting up for use or consumption of scraps, waste, clippings, stems, or deposits of tobacco, or by the working or preparation of leaf tobacco, tobacco stems, scraps, clippings, or waste, by sifting, twisting, screening, or any other process, shall be regarded as a manufacturer of tobacco.

Every person shall also be regarded as a manufacturer of tobacco whose business it is to sell leaf tobacco in quantities less than a hogshead, case, or bale; or who sells directly to consumers or to persons other than duly recognized dealers in leaf tobacco or duly registered manufacturers of tobacco, snuff, or cigars, or to persons who purchase in packages for export; and all tobacco so sold by such persons shall be regarded as manufactured tobacco, and such manufactured tobacco shall be put up and prepared by such manufacturer in such packages only as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall prescribe: Provided, that farmers and growers of tobacco who sell leaf tobacco of their own growth and raising shall not be regarded as manufacturers of tobacco; and so much of section 3244 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and acts amendatory thereof, as are in conflict with this act are hereby repealed: Provided further, That section 27, chapter 1244, page 863, Volume I of supplement to the Revised Statutes of the United States be amended by striking out all after the word "repealed" in line 5 of said section, as follows: "Provided, however, That it shall be the duty of every farmer or planter producing and selling leaf tobacco, on demand of any internal-revenue officer or other authorized agent of the Treasury Department, to furnish said officer or agent a true and complete statement, verified by oath, of all of his sales of leaf tobacco, the number of hogsheads, cases, or pounds, with the name and residence, in each instance, of the person to whom sold and the place to which it is shipped; and every farmer or planter who willfully refuses to furnish such information, or who knowingly makes false statements as to any of the facts aforesaid, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars." That section 3361 of the Revised Statutes is hereby repealed.

SEC. 70. That the act of June 20, 1876 (Nineteenth United States Statutes, page 60), be amended by inserting after the words "imported into the United States by such firm or partnership" the following: Or for any other purpose connected with the general transaction of business at any customhouse.”

RECIPROCITY TREATIES.

SEC. 71. That section 3 of an act approved Oct. 1, 1890, entitled "An Act to reduce the revenue and equalize duties on imports, and for other purposes," is hereby repealed, but nothing herein contained shall be held to abrogate or in any way affect such reciprocal commercial arrangements as have been heretofore made and now exist between the United States and foreign countries, except where such arrangements are inconsistent with the provisions of this act.

SEC. 72. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed, but the repeal of existing laws or modifications thereof embraced in this act shall not affect any act done, or any right aceruing or accrued, or any suit or proceedings had or commenced in any civil cause before the said repeal or modifications, but all rights and

liabilities under said laws shall continue, and may be enforced in the same manner as if said repeal or modifications had not been made. Any offenses committed and all penalties for forfeitures or liabilities incurred prior to the passage of this act under any statute embraced in or changed, modified, or repealed by this act may be prosecuted or punished in the same manner and with the same effect as if this act had not been passed. All acts of limitation, whether applicable to civil causes and proceedings or to the prosecution of offenses, or for the recovery of penalties or forfeitures embraced in or modified, changed, or repealed by this act, shall not be affected thereby, and all suits, proceedings, or prosecutions, whether civil or criminal, for causes arising or acts done or committed prior to the passage of this act, may be commenced and prosecuted within the same time and with the same effect as if this act had not been passed: And provided further, That nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal the provisions of section 3058 of the Revised Statutes as amended by the act approved Feb. 23, 1887, in respect to the abandonment of merchandise to underwriters or the salvors of property and the ascertainment of duties thereon.

TRUSTS.

SEC. 73. That every combination, conspiracy, trust, agreement, or contract is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy, illegal and void, when the same is made by or between two or more persons or corporations, either of whom is engaged in importing any article from any foreign country into the United States, and when such combination, conspiracy, trust, agreement or contract is intended to operate in restraint of lawful trade or free competition in lawful trade or commerce, or to increase the market price in any part of the United States of any article or articles imported or intended to be imported into the United States, or of any manufacture into which such imported article enters or is intended to enter. Every person who is or shall hereafter be engaged in the importation of goods or any commodity from any foreign country, in violation of this section of this act, or who shall combine or conspire with another to violate the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, in any court of the United States, such person shall be fined in a sum not less than one hundred dollars and not exceeding five thousand dollars, and shall be further punished by imprisonment in the discretion of the court for a term not less than three months nor exceeding twelve months.

SEC. 74. That the several circuit courts of the United States are hereby vested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 73 of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney-General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petitions setting forth the case and praying that such violations shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed as soon as may be to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.

SEC. 75. That whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under the seventyfourth section of this act may be pending that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.

SEC. 76. That any property owned under any contract or by any combination or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in

McLaurin, Martin, Mills, Mitchell of Oregon, Morgan, Pasco, Peffer. Perkins, Pettigrew, Power, Pugh, Quay, Ransom, Roach, Shoup, Stewart, Teller, Turpie, Vest, Voorhees, White, Wolcott-44.

NAYS-Aldrich, Allison, Brice, Caffery, Carey, Chandler, Cullom, Davis, Dolph, Frye, Gallinger, Gibson, Gorman, Hale, Hawley, Higgins, Lodge, McMillan, McPherson, Manderson, Mitchell of Wisconsin, Morrill. Murphy, Palmer, Platt, Proctor, Smith, Stockbridge, Vilas, Washburn, Wilson-31.

NOT VOTING-Camden, Cameron, Dixon, Gray, Hill, Hoar, Jones of Nevada, Sherman, Squire, Vance -10.

On March 30 a veto message was received from the President, the significant portions of which are contained in the following passages:

The financial disturbance which swept over the country during the last year was unparalleled in its severity and disastrous consequences. There seemed to be almost an entire displacement of faith in our financial ability and a loss of confidence in our fiscal policy. Among those who attempted to assign causes for our distress it was very generally conceded that the operation of a provision of law then in force which required the Government to purchase monthly a large amount of silver bullion and issue its notes in payment therefor, was either entirely or to a large extent responsible for our condition. This led to the repeal, on the 1st day of November, 1893, of this statutory provision.

We had, however, fallen so low in the depths of depression, and timidity and apprehension had so completely gained control in financial circles, that our rapid recuperation could not be reasonably expected. Our recovery has nevertheless steadily progressed, and though less than five months have elapsed since the repeal of the mischievous silverpurchase requirement, a wholesome improvement is unmistakably apparent. Confidence in our absolute solvency is to such an extent reinstated and faith in our disposition to adhere to sound financial methods is so far restored as to produce the most encouraging results both at home and abroad. The wheels of domestic industry have been slowly set in motion, and the tide of foreign investment has again started in our direction.

Our recovery being so well under way, nothing should be done to check our convalescence; nor should we forget that a relapse at this time would almost surely reduce us to a lower stage of financial distress than that from which we are just emerging. I believe that if the bill under consideration should become a law, it would be regarded as a retrogression from the financial intentions indicated by our recent repeal of the provision forcing silver-bullion purchases; that it would weaken, if it did not destroy, returning faith and confidence in our sound financial tendencies, and that as a consequence our progress to renewed business health would be unfortunately checked and a return to our recent distressing plight

seriously threatened.

Considering the present intrinsic relation between gold and silver, the maintenance of the parity between the two metals, as mentioned in this law, can mean nothing less than the maintenance of such a parity in the estimation and confidence of the people who use our money in their daily transactions. Manifestly the maintenance of this parity can only be accomplished, so far as it is affected by these Treasury notes, and in the estimation of the holders of the same, by giving to such holders, on their redemption, the coin, whether it is gold or silver, which they prefer. It follows that while in terms the law leaves the choice of coin to be paid on such redemption to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, the exercise of this discretion, if opposed to the demands of the holder, is entirely inconsistent with the effective and beneficial maintenance of the parity between the

two metals.

The Secretary of the Treasury has therefore, for the best of reasons, not only promptly complied with every demand for the redemption of these Treasury notes in gold, but the present situation, as well as the letter and spirit of the law, appear plainly to justify, if they do not enjoin upon him, a continuation of such redemption.

The entire bill is most unfortunately constructed. Nearly every sentence presents uncertainty and invites controversy as to its meaning and intent.

On April 4 the House of Representatives, by a vote of 144 yeas to 114 nays, failed to pass the bill over the President's veto, the necessary two thirds not voting to override the veto.

The Federal Election Laws.-At the special session of Congress the House of Representatives, after a full discussion, passed, Oct. 10, 1893, a bill repealing all provisions of the Revised Statutes creating a system of Federal supervision of Federal elections originally adopted with a view to protecting the negro voters in the reconstructed States, but applicable in all the States. Federal supervision of Federal elections had been for years an object of Democratic protest, and the repeal was one of the few settled points in the party policy. It was carried by a vote of 201 yeas to 102 nays, 50 members not voting. The text of the measure is as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the following sections and parts of sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same are hereby, repealed; that is to say, of title Elective Franchise," sections 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, relating to the appointment, qualification, power, duties, and compensation of supervisors of eleetions; and also sections 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031 of same title, re

lating to the appointment, qualification, power, duties, and compensation of special deputies; and also of title "Crimes," sections 5506, 5511, 5512, 5513, 5514, 5515, 5520, 5521, 5522, 5523; "but the repeal of the sections hereinbefore mentioned shall not operate so as to affect any prosecutions now pending, if any, for a violation of any of the provisions of said sections"; and also part of section 643, as follows:

"Or is commenced against any officer of the United States or other person on account of any act done under the provisions of Title XXVI, The elective franchise, or on account of any right, title, or authority claimed by any officer or other person under any of said provisions."

SEC. 2. That all other statutes and parts of statutes relating in any manner to supervisors of election and special deputy marshals be, and the same are hereby, repealed.

SEC. 3. That this act shall take effect from and

after its passage.

At the regular session, the measure was referred to the appropriate committee in the Senate, reported, debated, and finally passed, Feb. 7, 1894, by a vote of 39 yeas to 28 nays, 17 Senators not voting. Next to the Tariff act, this was regarded as the most important subject on which Congress took action. The President approved the measure, Feb. 12.

New States.-A bill for the admission of Utah as a State passed the House of Representatives, Dec. 13, 1893. The committee reporting it said that the Territory had more than 200,000 inhabitants; that a good common-school system is established; that various Christian denominations have seminaries of learning: that the population is thrifty, law-abiding, intelligent,

and industrious; that the ownership of land is evenly divided; that polygamy is virtually suppressed, and that there need be no fear of its revival. The act as reported, after providing for a constituent convention, contained this section:

SEC. 3. That the delegates to the convention thus elected shall meet at the seat of government of said Territory on the third Monday after their election, and, after organization, shall declare on behalf of the people of said proposed State that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said convention shall be, and is hereby, authorized to form a constitution and State government for said proposed State. The constitution shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not to be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said convention shall provide, by ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said State

1. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship.

2. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to the residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations, and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save or except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe. 3. That the debts and liabilities of said Territory shall be assumed and paid by such State.

4. That provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of said State and free from sectarian control.

An amendment to the first limitation was

added, to this effect: "Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited." There was some discussion of the point, as certain members asserted that this amendment would create an inequality in the States; but it was contended that something of the same sort had been done in the reconstruction of the Southern States. The Senate passed the measure, July 10, 1894, with unimportant amendments in which the House concurred. On July 16 the President approved of the measure.

A bill to enable the people of New Mexico to form a constitution and State government, and VOL. XXXIV.-15 A

to be admitted into the Union on an equality with the original States, passed the House of Representatives June 28, 1894. In the Senate it was referred to the Committee on Territories and was reported back with amendments, and was left awaiting action at the time of adjournment.

A similar measure for the admission of Arizona into the Union passed the House of Representatives Dec. 15, 1893, was reported back from the Senate Committee on Territories, and awaited action at the time of adjournment.

A measure for the admission of Oklahoma Territory was introduced, but no action was taken on it.

The Hawaiian Question.-The revolution in Hawaii, the project for annexation to the United States, and the policy of this country toward the Provisional Government, received early attention in Congress, and both Houses asked for information from the Executive. The President, on Dec. 18, 1893, sent in a message giving details in regard to occurrences in Hawaii, his project for counter-revolution, and the steps that he had taken toward restoring the monarchy. It was as follows:

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

In my recent annual message to the Congress I briefly referred to our relations with Hawaii, and expressed the intention of transmitting further information on the subject when additional advices permitted.

Though I am not able now to report a definite change in the actual situation, I am convinced that the difficulties lately created both here and in Hawaii, and now standing in the way of a solution through executive action of the problem presented, render it ferred to the broader authority and discretion of Conproper and expedient that the matter should be regress, with a full explanation of the endeavor thus far made to deal with the emergency, and a statement of the considerations which have governed my action. I suppose that right and justice should determine the path to be followed in treating this subject. If national honesty is to be disregarded, and a desire for territorial extension, or dissatisfaction with a form of government not our own, ought to regulate our conduct, I have entirely misapprehended the mission and character of our Government and the behavior which the conscience of our people demands of their public servants.

When the present Administration entered upon its duties the Senate had under consideration a treaty providing for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the territory of the United States. Surely under our Constitution and laws the enlargement of our limits is a manifestation of the highest attribute of sovereignty, and if entered upon as an executive act all things relating to the transaction should be clear and free from suspicion. Additional importance attached to this particular treaty of annexation, because it contemplated a departure from unbroken American tradition in providing for the addition to our territory from our nearest coast. of islands of the sea more than 2,000 miles removed

These considerations might not of themselves call for interference with the completion of a treaty entered upon by a previous administration. But it appeared from documents accompanying the treaty when submitted to the Senate that the ownership of Hawaii was tendered to us by a provisional governislands, who had been dethroned, and it did not apment set up to succeed the constitutional ruler of the pear that such provisional government had the sanction of either popular revolution or suffrage. Two other remarkable features of the transaction naturally

attracted attention. One was the extraordinary haste, not to say precipitaney, characterizing all the transactions connected with the treaty.

It appeared that a so-called committee of safety, ostensibly the source of the revolt against the constitutional government of Hawaii, was organized on Saturday, the 14th day of January; that on Monday, the 16th, the United States forces were landed at Honolulu from a naval vessel lying in its harbor; that on the 17th the scheme of a provisional government was perfected, and a proclamation naming its officers was on the same day prepared and read at the Government building; that immediately thereupon the United States minister recognized the Provisional Government thus created; that two days afterward, on the 19th day of January, commissioners representing such government sailed for this country in a steamer especially chartered for the occasion, arriving in San Francisco on the 28th day of January, and in Washington on the 3d day of February; that on the next day they had their first interview with the Secretary of State, and another on the 11th, when the treaty of annexation was practically agreed upon, and that on the 14th it was formally concluded, and on the 15th transmitted to the Senate. Thus, between the initiation of the scheme for a provisional government in Hawaii on the 14th day of January and the submission to the Senate of the treaty of annexation concluded with such government, the entire interval was thirty-two days, fifteen of which were spent by the Hawaiian commissioners in their journey to Washington.

In the next place, upon the face of the papers submitted with the treaty it clearly appeared that there was open and undetermined an issue of fact of the most vital importance. The message of the President accompanying the treaty declared that "the overthrow of the monarchy was not in any way promoted by this Government," and in a letter to the President from the Secretary of State, also submitted to the Senate with the treaty, the following passage occurs: "At the time the Provisional Government took possession of the Government buildings no troops or officers of the United States were present or took any part whatever in the proceedings. No public recognition was accorded to the Provisional Government by the United States minister until after the Queen's abdication, and when they were in effective possession of the Government buildings, the archives, the treasury, the barracks, the police station, and all the potential machinery of the Government.”

But a protest also accompanied said treaty, signed by the Queen and her ministers at the time she nade way for the Provisional Government, which explicitly stated that she yielded to the supreme force of the United States, whose minister had caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu, and declared that he would support such Provisional Government.

The truth or falsity of this protest was surely of the first importance. If true, nothing but the concealment of its truth could induce our Government to negotiate with the semblance of a government thus created, nor could a treaty resulting from the acts stated in the protest have been knowingly deemed worthy of consideration by the Senate. Yet the truth or falsity of the protest had not been investigated.

I conceived it to be my duty, therefore, to withdraw the treaty from the Senate for examination, and meanwhile to cause an accurate, full, and impartial investigation to be made of the facts attending the subversion of the constitutional Government of Hawaii, and the installment in its place of the Provisional Government. I selected for the work of investigation the Hon. James H. Blount, of Georgia, whose service of eighteen years as a member of the House of Representatives, and whose experience as chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs in that body, and his consequent familiarity with international topies, joined with his high character and honorable reputa

tion, seemed to render him peculiarly fitted for the duties intrusted to him. His report detailing his action under the instructions given him, and the conclusions derived from his investigation, accompany

this message.

These conclusions do not rest for their acceptance entirely upon Mr. Blount's honesty and ability as a man, nor upon his acumen and impartiality as an investigator. They are accompanied by the evidence upon which they are based, which evidence is also herewith transmitted, and from which, it seems to me, no other deductions could possibly be reached than those arrived at by the commissioner. The report, with its accompanying proofs and such other evidence as is now before the Congress or is herewith submitted, justifies, in my opinion, the statement that when the President was led to submit the treaty to the Senate with the declaration that the monarchy was not in any way promoted by this Government, and when the Senate was induced to receive and discuss it on that basis, both President and Senate were misled.

The attempt will not be made, in this communication, to touch upon all the facts which throw light upon the progress and consummation of this scheme of annexation. A very brief and imperfect reference to the facts and evidence at hand will exhibit its character and the incidents in which it gets its birth. It is unnecessary to set forth the reasons which in January, 1893, led a considerable proportion of American and other foreign merchants and traders residing at Honolulu to favor the annexation of Hawaii to the United States. It is sufficient to note the fact, and to observe that the project was one which was zealously promoted by the minister representing the United States in that country. fle evidently had an ardent desire that it should become an act accomplished by his agency and during his ministry, and was not inconveniently scrupulous as to the means employed to that end. On the 19th day of November, 1892-nearly two months before the first overt act tending toward subversion of the Hawaiian Government and the attempted transfer of Hawaiian territory to the United States-he addressed a long letter to the Secretary of State, in which the case for annexation was elaborately argued on moral, political, and economical grounds. He refers to the loss to the Hawaiian sugar interests from the operation of the McKinley bill, and the tendency to a still further depreciation of sugar property unless some positive measure of relief is granted. He strongly inveighs against the existing lawaiian Government, and emphatically declares for annexation. He says:

"In truth, the monarchy here is an absurd anachronism. It has nothing on which it logically or legitimately stands. The feudal basis on which it once stood no longer exists; the monarchy now is only an impediment to good government and an obstruction to the prosperity and progress of the islands." He further says: "As a Crown colony of Great Britain or a territory of the United States, the Government modifications could be made readily and good administration of the law secured. Destiny and the vast future interests of the United States in the Pacific clearly indicate who, at no distant day, must be responsible for the government of these islands. Under a territorial government they could be as easily governed as any of the existing Territories of the United States. Hawaii has reached the parting of the ways. She must now take the road which leads to Asia, or the other which outlets her in America, gives her an American civilization, and binds her to the care of American destiny." He also declares: "One of two courses seem to me absolutely necessary to be followed: either bold and vigorous measures for annexation, or a customs union, an ocean cable from the California coast to Honolulu, Pearl Harbor perpetually ceded to the United States, with an implied but not expressly stipulated American protectorate over the islands. I believe the former to be the better, that which will prove much the more