By proclamation issued by President Cleveland, December 3, 1896, the proclamation of January 26, 1888, suspending the collection of tonnage taxes on German vessels in the United States, was revoked on and after January 2, 1897. The ground of the revocation was that the reciprocal exemption of American vessels in German ports, which was the basis of the proclamation of 1888, had been ascertained not to exist. The German government did not deny that tonnage dues were charged in German ports, but contended that the dues which were charged were not tonnage dues "in the sense of the American Constitution." namely, duties collected for the purpose of paying the debts of the government, and meeting the costs of a general defense and meeting the expense of general welfare," under chapter 1, section 8, article 1, of the Constitution. The dues, for example, collected at Hamburg were not used for general public purposes, but for the maintenance " of the harbor works and the channel of the Elbe. This explanation was not considered satisfactory.

For. Rel. 1896, 142–163.

See report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Dec. 7, 1896, For.
Rel. 1896, Ixix.

"Following is a list of the ports from which vessels may enter the United States without paying tonnage taxes under the so-called reciprocal agreement, with the dates of the President's proclamations bearing on the subject:

Aspinwall and Panama, United States of Colombia; Island Montserrat, West Indies; Ontario (Province of); San Juan and Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, January 31, 1885; Greytown, Nicaragua, February 26, 1885; Island of Trinidad, West Indies, April 7, 1885; Boca del Toro, September 9, 1885.

"All ports in Europe of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and free ports in Dutch East Indies, April 22, 1887.

66

Guadeloupe, April 16, 1888; Island of Tobago, December 2, 1891; Grenada, May 2, 1894."

Mr. Chamberlain, Comr. of Nav., to Mr. Moore, Act. Sec. of State,
1898, MS.

July 19, 1898, a proclamation was issued exempting from tonnage taxes
vessels from Copenhagen. (Report of Comr. of Nav. 1898, 55; Mr.
Sherman, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treas., March 21, 1898, 226 MS.
Dom. Let. 574.)

On an examination of the dues charged on American vessels in Belgian
ports it was decided that an exemption from tonnage taxes of vessels
entering the United States from Belgium should not be granted
under section 11 of the act of June 19, 1886. (For. Rel. 1897, 37-41.)
In 1895 the consul-general of the United States at Ottawa reported that
the Canadian authorities levied a tax of a dollar on American vessels
entering and clearing from a Canadian port. This charge was
brought to the attention of the British embassy at Washington, to

the end that the charges on American and British vessels in Cana-
dian ports might be equalized, so that British vessels might continue
to possess the exemption which they were enjoying in the United
States. (Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Lord Gough, British
chargé, July 11, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, I. 707.) The Canadian gov-
ernment in its reply stated that a similar complaint was made by
the United States in 1887, and that it was then shown that the fees
exacted from American vessels entering Canadian ports were but
small as compared with those exacted from Canadian vessels in
American ports. Since then certain fees in American ports had been
abolished; but the fees were still fully equal to and in some cases
exceeded those required of American vessels in Canadian ports.
(For. Rel. 1895, I. 710-712.) The United States considered this
response irrelevant, since the question at issue was not whether
higher duties were charged in the ports of the one country than in
those of the other, but whether the charges that were actually made
were uniform as to all vessels, both domestic and foreign. (Mr.
Olney, Sec. of State, to Sir Julian Pauncefote, British ambassador,
Feb. 18, 1896, For. Rel. 1895, I. 712.)

With regard to the proclamations as to Trinidad and Tobago, supra, it afterwards appeared that from and after July 1, 1898, tonnage or equivalent taxes were imposed on vessels entering those islands. As this apparently destroyed the basis on which the proclamations were issued, the matter was brought to the attention of the British government, which replied that the dues in question were not tonnage dues on vessels but were in reality landing charges on merchandise imposed to defray the cost of harbor works, although they were calculated on the cargo actually landed or shipped, that mode of collection having been found to be the most convenient. The Secretary of the Treasury, being clearly of opinion that the dues in question came within the provisions of the act of Congress, proclamations were issued, March 13, 1899, revoking the proclamations of April 7, 1885, and December 2, 1891.

For Rel. 1899, 332-338.

By the act of July 24, 1897, the President is authorized to suspend the operation of §§ 4219, 2502, Rev. Stats., so that foreign vessels from a country imposing partial discriminating tonnage duties on American vessels, or partial discriminating import duties on American merchandise, "may enjoy in our ports the identical privileges which the same class of American vessels and merchandise enjoy in said foreign country."

!

(3) RETALIATORY OR COMPULSIVE DISCRIMINATIONS.

$ 767.

By section 3 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, commonly called the McKinley Act, it was provided that whenever the President of the United States should be satisfied that the government of any country producing and exporting sugars, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides, or any of such articles, imposed duties on the agricultural or other products of the United States, which, in view of the free introduction of the specified articles into the United States, he might deem to be "reciprocally unequal and unreasonable," it should be his duty by proclamation to suspend the free admission of the articles mentioned from such country, which were thereupon to become subject to certain duties.

Under this section agreements were concluded and proclaimed with Austria-Hungary, Brazil, Dominican Republic, German Empire, Great Britain (for the British West Indies), Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador, Cuba, and Porto Rico. Agreements were also concluded with Costa Rica and France.

Message of President Harrison, June 27, 1892, S. Ex. Doc. 119, 52 Cong. See, also, President Harrison's annual messages, Dec. 9, 1891, and Dec. 6, 1892.

1 sess.

As to the claims made by various European powers for equal privileges in Santo Domingo, see Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Coleman, chargé at Berlin, confid., No. 375, March 11, 1892, MS. Inst. Germany, XVIII. 551; Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Durham, No. 8, Dominican series, March 11, 1892, MS. Inst. Hayti, III. 238; Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Durham, No. 19, Dominican series, April 30, 1892, MS. Inst. Hayti, III. 248; Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Durham, No. 36, Dominican series, Aug. 4, 1892, id. 274; Mr. Foster to Mr. Terres, No. 59, Dominican series, Nov. 18, 1892, id. 298. Spain admitted the claim of Great Britain to equal treatment with the United States in Cuba and Porto Rico under the most-favored-nation clause, but gave notice of the termination of the treaty containing the clause and afterwards declined to insert a similar clause in a new treaty. (Mr. Grubb, min. to Spain, to Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, No. 246, May 7, 1892, MS. Desp. Spain; Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. MacNutt, chargé, No. 219, May 23, 1892, MS, Inst. Spain, XXI. 137.)

As to the imposition in Spanish ports of duties on paraffine and lubricating oils exported from the United States at a higher rate than on similar articles from England and Germany, see Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Flagg, Dec. 22, 1892, 189 MS. Dom. Let. 525.

March 15, 1892, a proclamation was issued in conformity with the foregoing section, imposing duties on sugars, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides produced in or exported from Colombia. The Colombian minister, March 23, 1892, protested against the proclamation as a

violation of the treaty between the United States and New Granada of December 12, 1846. By Article II. of that treaty each country engaged to grant to the other most-favored-nation treatment; and by Article V. it was agreed that no higher or other duties should be imposed in the one country on the importation of the produce of the other than should be payable on like produce" of any other foreign country." The Colombian minister affirmed that the imposition of import duties by the United States on certain articles of Colombian produce, while the like articles were admitted free from other countries, established a discrimination against Colombian produce which his government held “to be contrary to the spirit and express stipulations of the treaty of 1846." Mr. Blaine replied that the President did not regard the law in question nor his action under it as a violation of the treaty. "The law cited," said Mr. Blaine, "applies the same treatment to all countries whose tariffs are found by the President to be unequal and unreasonable."

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hurtado, Colombian min., May 31, 1892, For. Rel. 1894, Appendix I. 472, 473; S. Ex. Doc. 56, 53 Cong. 2 sess. In a subsequent note Mr. Hurtado amplified his protest, pointing out that President Polk, in his message to the Senate of February 15, 1847, submitting the treaty of 1846 for approval, said: “This treaty removes the heavy discriminating duties in the ports of New Granada which have nearly destroyed our commerce and navigation with that Republic and which we have been in vain endeavoring to abolish for the last twenty years." The nations that enjoyed the privilege of free importation of hides and coffee into the United States might, said Mr. Hurtado, be divided into two classes (1) those which, like Mexico and the Argentine Republic, freely received the favor, and (2) those which, like Brazil and certain others, had acquired the privilege by making certain concessions in favor of United States produce. He claimed that, in virtue of the stipulations of Article I., the concessions made by the United States in either case became common to Colombia. In this relation he cited a similar clause in Article XV. of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 1794 and the construction put upon it by Mr. Madison and others in the debates in Congress; the similar clause in article II. of the commercial convention with Great Britain of 1815, negotiated while Mr. Madison was President; the concession by Great Britain in 1846 of the demands of the United States in the rough rice case; and the note addressed by Mr. Fish, as Secretary of State, to Mr. Garcia, Argentine minister at Washington, March 14, 1869, supra, § 765, declining to enter into reciprocity negotiations with that Republic. He also contended that the discrimination, growing out of the proc lamation, constituted a violation of that clause of Article V. of the treaty of 1846 which reads: Nor shall any prohibition be imposed importation of any articles the produce or manufac

on the

ture

States,

.

of the Republic of New Granada, to . . . the United which shall not equally extend to all other nations." (Mr. Hurtado, Colombian min., to Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, July 28, 1892, For. Rel. 1894, Appendix I. 477–482.)

For further correspondence between Mr. Hurtado and the Department of
State, see For Rel. 1894, Appendix I. 482–496.

For a discussion in the report of the Colombian minister for foreign
affairs for 1894, see For Rel. 1894, 198-199.

(4) BOUNTIES.

$ 768.

By the tariff act of August 28, 1894, an additional duty of onetenth of a cent a pound was imposed on sugars which were imported from or were the product of a country that paid a bounty on the exportation of such sugars. Against this additional duty the German ambassador, as well as the diplomatic representatives of certain other governments, protested. The protest of the German ambassador was based on the treaty between the United States and Prussia of May 1, 1828. By Article V. of that treaty it is stipulated that no higher or other duties shall be imposed in one country on the produce or manufactures of the other than shall be payable on like articles from any other foreign country; and by Article IX. provision is made for most-favored-nation treatment.

October 12, 1894, Mr. Gresham, Secretary of State, in a report upon the protest of the German ambassador, stated that the stipulations in question gave either party "the right, special engagements of reciprocity being excepted, to take the duties levied by the other on articles the produce or manufacture of any other country, and to demand the same treatment for its own products and manufactures. It is obviously no answer to this to say that certain discriminating duties levied by one party on the products or manufactures of the other are not confined to the latter, or to any country by name, but apply equally to all countries that may happen to fall in a certain category. If there is any other country, or if there are other countries, which, either by name or by a general classification, are exempt from the duty (special engagements of reciprocity being excepted), the requirements of the treaty are not fulfilled. To say that the discrimination is not specifically and explicitly national, or that it applies to more than one country, is a mere argumentative subterfuge, inconsistent with the clear intention of the treaty."

In this relation Mr. Gresham referred to the discussion between Great Britain and the United States of the question of duties on rough rice as affected by Article II. of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of July 3, 1815, which was in terms similar to Article V. of the treaty between the United States and Prussia of 1828, and to the action of the British Government in equalizing the duties in response to the protest of the United States.

H. Doc. 551-vol 5-20