In its first regular session the same Congress enacted the Wilson Tariff. As it passed the House the bill provided for free sugar, wool, coal, lumber, and iron ore, besides reducing duties on many other articles. It also taxed incomes exceeding $4,000 per annum. The Senate, except in the case of wool and lumber, abandoned the proposal of free raw materials, stiffened the rates named by the House, and preferred specific to ad valorem duties. Many believed, without proof, that improper influences had helped the Senate to shape its sugar schedule favorably to the great refiners. The President pronounced sugar a legitimate subject for taxation in spite of the "fear, quite likely exaggerated," that carrying out this principle might "indirectly and inordinately encourage a combination of sugar refining interests." In a letter read in the House, however, he upbraided as guilty of "party perfidy and dishonor" Democratic Senators who would abandon the principle of free raw materials. But nothing shook the senatorial will. What was in substance the Senate bill passed Congress, and the President permitted it to become a law without his signature. [Illustration: Portrait.] William L. Wilson. The Wilson law pleased no one. It violated the Democrats' plighted word apparently at the dictation of parties selfishly interested. The Supreme Court declared its income tax unconstitutional. The revenue from it was inadequate, and had to be eked out with new bond issues. These were alleged to be necessary to meet the greenback debt, but this need not have embarrassed the Government had it followed the French policy of occasionally paying in silver a small percentage of the demand notes presented. Borrowing gold abroad, moreover, tended to inflate prices here, stimulating imports, discouraging exports, increasing the exportation of gold to settle the unfavorable balance of trade, and so on in ceaseless round. The Democratic management of foreign affairs was severely criticised. Our extradition treaty with Russia, a country supposed to pay little or no regard to personal rights, and our delay in demanding reparation from Spain for firing upon the Allianca, a United States passenger steamer, were quite generally condemned. There were those who thought that Cuban insurgents against the sovereignty of Spain might have received some manifestation of sympathy from our Government, and that we should not have permitted Great Britain to endanger the Monroe Doctrine by occupying Corinto in Nicaragua to enforce the payment of an indemnity.