Cristino Martos, a note formulating his understanding of the agreement. Señor Martos, February 12, 1871, acknowledged the receipt of General Sickles's statement and said: "I take pleasure in informing you that I entirely concur in the contents of the said memorandum." No treaty or formal protocol was signed, no exchange of ratifications took place, nor was any proclamation issued. "The settlement was reported to Congress for its information, appropriations were voted to carry on the arbitration, an international commission was organized, and after nearly twelve years of labor, during which 140 cases were examined, awards against Spain were made to the amount of $1,293,450.50 and duly paid to the United States, all this being accomplished by a mere exchange of notes." Report of Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to the President, Dec. 7, 1892, H. Doc. 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. 17. This report was originally printed in S. Ex. Doc. 9, 56 Cong. 1 sess. For the proceedings of the mixed commission, see Moore, International Arbitrations, II. 1019 et seq. "By direction of the President, the undersigned, Secretary of State, hereby makes known to all whom it may concern that a temporary diplomatic agreement has been entered into between the government of the United States and the government of Her Brittannic Majesty in relation to the fishing privileges which were granted by the fishery clauses of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of May 8, 1871, whereby the privilege of fishing, which would otherwise have terminated with the treaty clauses on the 1st of July proximo, may continue to be enjoyed by the citizens and subjects of the two countries engaged in fishing operations throughout the season of 1885. "This agreement proceeds from the mutual good will of the two governments, and has been reached solely to avoid all misunderstanding and difficulties which might otherwise arise from the abrupt termination of the fishing of 1885 in the midst of the season. The immunity which is accorded by this agreement to the vessels belonging to citizens of the United States engaged in fishing in the BritishAmerican waters will likewise be extended to British vessels and subjects engaged in fishing in the waters of the United States. "The joint resolution of Congress of March 3, 1883, providing for the termination of the fishing articles of the treaty of May 8, 1871, having repealed in terms the act of March 1, 1873, for the execution of the fishing articles, and that repeal being express and absolute from the date of the termination of the said fishing articles, under due notification given and proclaimed by the President of the United States, to wit, July 1, 1885, the present temporary agreement in no way affects the question of statutory enactment or exemption from customs duties, as to which the abrogation of the fishing articles remains complete. "As part of this agreement, the President will bring the whole question of the fisheries before Congress at its next session in December, and recommend the appointment of a joint commission by the governments of the United States and Great Britain to consider the matter, in the interest of maintaining good neighborhood and friendly intercourse between the two countries, thus affording a prospect of negotiation for the development and extension of trade between the United States and British North America. "Copies of the memoranda and exchanged notes on which this temporary agreement rests are appended. "Reference is also made to the President's proclamation of January 31, 1885, terminating the fishing articles of the treaty of Washington. "By direction of the President: For. Rel. 1885, 460. "T. F. BAYARD, "Secretary of State." The memoranda and exchanged notes consisted, first, of a memorandum of Mr. West, British minister at Washington, of March 12, 1885, in which it was suggested that as the articles in question were to terminate in the midst of the fishing season, an agreement should be come to under which they might be in effect extended till January 1, 1886. Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, replied, April 22, 1885, communicating to Mr. West a memorandum embodying the results of an informal exchange of views with Sir Ambrose Shea, who represented Canada and Newfoundland. This memorandum contained the substance of what was afterwards embodied in Mr. Bayard's notice which is given above. Mr. Bayard also stated that he was prepared to confirm the arrangement by an exchange of notes. In a memorandum received at the Department of State June 13, 1885, Mr. West stated that Newfoundland did not make the refunding of duties a condition of her acceptance of the proposed agreement, but relied on the subject's having due consideration before the international commission which might be appointed. In an informal note to Mr. West of June 19, 1885, Mr. Bayard stated that, the maintenance of good neighborhood and intercourse between the two countries being the object in view, the recommendation of any measures which the commission might deem necessary to that end would seem to fall within its province and could not fail to receive attentive consideration. Mr. West, in a note of June 20, 1885, remarked that while the colonial governments were asked to guarantee immunity from interference to American vessels resorting to Canadian waters, no such immunity was offered in Mr. Bayard's memorandum, but that the Dominion government presumed that the agreement in this respect would be mutual. Mr. Bayard, by a note of the same day, confirmed this understanding. Formal notes confirmatory of the agreement previously reached were exchanged June 22, 1885. For the correspondence, see For. Rel. 1885, 460–466. The "fishing articles" of the treaty of May 8, 1871, were Articles XVIII. As to the notice of termination, see For. Rel. 1883, 413, 435, 441, 451, 464; "A modus vivendi was effected October 20, 1899, by exchange of notes between Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, and Mr. Tower, British chargé d'affaires at Washington, fixing a provisional boundary line between Alaska and the Dominion of Canada in the vicinity of Lynn Canal." Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 88, citing For. Rel. 1899, 328-330. See supra, § 158. 2. AGREEMENTS UNDER ACTS OF CONGRESS. (1) COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. § 753. "The act of March 3, 1815, declared a repeal of discriminating duties against vessels, and products imported therein, of nations in which discriminating duties against the United States did not exist, the President to determine in each case by proclamation the application of the repeal. The acts of January 7, 1824, and May 24, 1828, likewise authorized the President to suspend by proclamation discriminating duties so far as they affected the vessels of a foreign nation, when possessed of satisfactory evidence that no such discriminating duties were imposed by that nation against the vessels of the United States. Section 11 of the act of June 19, 1886, as amended by the act of April 4, 1888, vests similar power in the President. A partial suspension is allowed by the act of July 24, 1897. On the authority of these statutes numerous arrangements have been reached with foreign states and made operative by proclamation. The evidence accepted by the President as sufficient may be a note or despatch, or a memorandum of an agreement. The proclamations relative to abolishing discriminating duties on trade with Cuba and Porto Rico of February 14, 1884, October 27, 1886, and September 21, 1887, were based on memoranda of agreements signed with Spain, February 13, 1884, October 27, 1886, and September 21, 1887. "Section 3 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, authorized and directed the President, whenever the government of any country, producing and exporting certain enumerated articles, imposed duties or other exactions on the products of the United States, which, in view of the free introduction of the enumerated articles into the United States, were in his opinion unreasonable or unequal, to suspend as to that country the privilege of free importation, and subject the articles . in question to certain discriminating duties. Ten commercial arrangements were concluded and made effective by means of this section January 31, 1891, with Brazil; June 4, the Dominican Republic; June 16, Spain; December 30, Guatemala; January 30, 1892, Germany; February 1, Great Britain; March 11, Nicaragua ; April 29, Honduras; May 25, Austria-Hungary; and November 29, Salvador. These were all terminated by section 71 of the tariff act of August 27, 1894. Section 3 of the act of 1890 having been assailed as involving an unlawful delegation of legislative power, its constitutionality was sustained by the Supreme Court in the case of Field. Clark (143 U. S. 649). Section 3 of the act of July 24, 1897, not only provides, as did section 3 of the act of 1890, for the imposition by proclamation of certain differential rates, but also for the conclusion by the President of commercial agreements, with countries producing certain enumerated articles, in which concessions may be secured in favor of the products of the United States; and it further authorizes the President, when such concessions are, in his judgment, reciprocal and equivalent, to suspend by proclamation the collection on those articles of the regular duties imposed by the act, and subject them to special rates as provided in the section. On the authority of this section the President has concluded and made effective the commercial agreements of May 28, 1898, with France; May 22, 1899, with Portugal (protocol making corrections signed January 11, 1900); July 10, 1900, with Germany; and February 8, 1900, with Italy." Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 88-90. (2) INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT. § 754. "The international copyright convention signed at Berne, September 9, 1886, originally by ten states, has been acceded to by all the principal nations except Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the United States. International copyright in the United States is regulated by the law of March 3, 1891, section 13 of which empowers the President to extend by proclamation the benefits of the law to citizens and subjects of a foreign state when assured that citizens of the United States are allowed the benefit of copyright in that state on substantially the same basis as its own citizens, or when the state is a party to an international agreement which provides for reciprocity in the granting of copyright, by the terms of which the United States may at its pleasure become a party. Under the first alternative, the President has extended the benefits of the law by proclamation to subjects of Belgium, France, Great Britain and possesions, and Switzerland, July 1, 1891; Germany, April 15, 1892; Italy, October 31, 1892; Denmark, May 8, 1893; Portugal, July 20, 1893; Spain, July 10, 1895; Mexico, February 27, 1896; Chili, May 25, 1896; Costa Rica, October 19, 1899; the Netherlands and possessions, Nov. 20, 1899; Cuba, March 17, 1903; [and Norway, July 1, 1905]." Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 91. (3) POSTAL CONVENTIONS. § 755. "Following the postal convention with New Granada of March 6, 1844, numerous other conventions of the same nature were concluded by the President and ratified with the consent of the Senate. By the act of June 8, 1872, the Postmaster-General is given the power to enter into money-order agreements with the post departments of foreign governments, and by and with the advice and consent of the President, to negotiate and conclude postal conventions. In virtue of this act, conventions of this class have been concluded by the Executive without submission to the Senate. Among these are the Universal Postal Conventions, signed at Vienna, July 4, 1891, and at Washington, June 15, 1897." Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 92. (4) AGREEMENTS WITH INDIAN TRIBES. § 756. By the Indian appropriations act of March 3, 1871, it was declared that thereafter "no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power, with whom the United States may contract by treaty," but it was also declared that the obligation of any treaty previously made should not be impaired by anything in the act. The effect of the act was to require the Indian tribes to be dealt with in the future through the legislative, and not through the treatymaking power. Elk . Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94; 16 Stat. 566; Rev. Stat. § 2079. |