imported in the vessels of the most-favored nation. This would seem, said the Department, to give to Danish vessels the right to import United States products into Mexico on the same terms as American vessels, and if this were so, American vessels would have the right to carry Danish productions, or those of any other country, to Mexico on the same terms. The Department, however, added: "The phrase 'most favored nation' is, however, very vague, and, as the records of this Department most amply show, is liable to a strict or liberal construction according to the views or supposed interests of foreign governments with which we have had treaties containing it. Under these circumstances, it would be advisable for our merchants engaged in the trade to Mexico, if they wish to avoid the exaction of the discriminating duty referred to, to be cautious how they send foreign goods thither in their own vessels, until the construction which that government may put in its decree, especially in connection with its treaty with Denmark, shall be known." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hargous, May 1, 1854, 42 MS. Dom. Let. 412. A treaty between France and the Hawaiian Islands having conceded to consuls exclusive cognizance of all crimes, misdemeanors, and differences affecting the internal order of merchant ships where the disputants, besides being officers or members of the crew, were "exclusively French or Hawaiian subjects," it was advised that the consul of the United States at Honolulu had, in consequence of this stipulation, exclusive cognizance of disputes on American vessels between citizens of the United States, the treaty between the United States and Hawaii stipulating that the consular officers of the contracting parties should "enjoy the same privileges and powers with those of the most-favored nation." Speed, At. Gen., June 26, 1866, 11 Op. 508. "The articles [of the treaty between France and Madagascar of December 7, 1885] dealing with and defining the French protectorate are of course not open to extension under favored-nation clauses to other powers. The United States could not, for example, rest on their existing treaty to claim a share in the protectorate or the indemnity. These are not favors, but relations growing out of a state of war and involving rights analogous to those founded on conquest." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Robinson, consul at Tamatave, No. 129, By Art. VII. of the treaty with Hayti of 1864 the coasting trade of the contracting parties "is respectively reserved by each exclu sively, to be regulated by its own laws." This reservation "is in the usual phraseology of modern treaties, and is only applicable to the respective coasting trades when confined to the flag of the contracting party. Any regulation of the trade by municipal law, which admits the flag of a foreign country to a domestic privilege, may be claimed for the flag of the United States under the favored-nation clause of Art. II. of the treaty." In such case, however, it must be ascertained whether the privilege extended to the foreign flag in question rests on a conventional arrangement, and if so, whether it is gratutious or for an equivalent consideration. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Hayti, No. 52, May 27, 1886, MS. Inst. Hayti, II. 553. As to Art. VI. of the treaty with Costa Rica of 1851 and the discrimina- See, as to treaty with China, Mr. Hay, Act. Sec. of State, to Chinese min. By Article XI. of the treaty between Spain and Nicaragua of July 25, 1850, Spanish subjects in Nicaragua are exempt from every extraordinary charge, or contribution, or forced loan." On the strength of this stipulation, in connection with the most-favorednation clause in Article IX. of the treaty between the United States and Nicaragua of 1867, the Department of State approved the action of the minister of the United States in Nicaragua in notifying American citizens in that country that they were exempt from an extraordinary loan called for by the Nicaraguan government of $500,000 for war purposes, apportioned among citizens and aliens alike on a property basis. Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, No. 458, June 1, 1896, MS. Inst. "I have received your No. 410, of September 14, 1896, in regard to the treaty of trade and commerce concluded April 4, 1896, between the governments of Japan and Germany, relative to trade-marks and patents. In view of the provisions of that convention you add: **It appears to me that under the most-favored-nation clause of our treaty with Japan, American citizens are, subject to the same terms and conditions, entitled to the same privileges and protection in regard to trade-marks, patents, etc., that the new German treaty secures in Japan to German subjects. . “Article IX. of our treaty with Japan of March 31, 1854, contains, it is presumed, the most-favored-nation clause to which you refer. It reads as follows: "It is agreed that if at any future day the government of Japan shall grant to any other nation or nations privileges and advantages which are not herein granted to the United States and to the citizens thereof, that these same privileges and advantages shall be granted likewise to the United States and to citizens thereof, without any consultation or delay.' "By the treaty of July 29, 1858, such of the provisions of the treaty of 1854 as conflict with those of the former are revoked by Article XII. thereof. (See Treaty Vol. (1776-1887), p. 1256, Art. VI.) The quoted provision would not seem to be of that class, however. But without discussing that feature of the case, I may remark that, in the Department's judgment, the provision of the treaty of 1854, to which you refer, does not mean if Japan shall grant privileges to Germany in consideration of similar privileges granted by the latter to the former, the same privileges shall be granted gratuitously to the United States. The clause that these same privileges and advantages shall be granted likewise to the United States and to the citizens. thereof, without any consultation or delay,' only refers, in my opinion, to privileges granted gratuitously to a third power and not to privileges granted in consideration of concessions made by another gov ernment. "A covenant to give privileges granted to the "most-favored nation" only refers to gratuitous privileges, and does not cover privileges granted on the condition of a reciprocal advantage.' (Mr. Livingston, Secretary of State, to President Jackson, January 6, 1832. Wharton's International Law Digest, sec. 134, p. 39, Vol. II.) "You will find this subject of the most-favored-nation' treatment discussed in Mr. Frelinghuysen's instruction to Mr. Bingham, No. 827, of June 11, 1884, touching treaty revision in Japan. (See Wharton's Digest, sec. 68, p. 507, Vol. I.) It states, among other things, that the English contention has hitherto been under the most-favorednation clause of the treaties that it is absolute, and that even when Japan may bargain with any power to give it a favor for an equivalent the like favor must be granted to England. 66 The Japanese contention is the reverse of this, being that if a favor for a specific condition be stipulated with any one nation, no other may enjoy the favor except upon identical or equivalent conditions. "The theory on which this government views the question is akin to that of Japan,' observes Mr. Frelinghuysen, who then proceeds to cite a pertinent example and to fully discuss the whole subject. "This theory was further exemplified and given practical application under the commercial arrangements concluded with foreign powers pursuant to section 3 of the tariff act of 1890. "It may possibly be, as you conjectured, that American citizens are, 'subject to the same terms and conditions,' entitled to the same privileges and protection in regard to trade-marks and patents that the new Japanese-German treaty secures to German subjects in Japan, but the Department is compelled to think it at least doubtful. But even supposing your view to be correct, it is not perceived how it could be declared that the conditions exist except by a treaty, convention, or law pursuant to the act of Congress of March 3, 1881 (Stat. L., vol. 21, p. 502). That law protects trade-marks owned by persons' located in any foreign country . . . which by treaty, convention, or law affords similar privileges to citizens of the United States.' "In the absence of either one of the expressed conditions, Japanese subjects can not register their trade-marks in this country, and consequently we can not claim corresponding privileges in Japan. "Now Article XVI. of the treaty of commerce and navigation concluded with that Empire November 22, 1894, says: "The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall enjoy in the territories of the other the same protection as native citizens or subjects in regard to patents, trade-marks, and designs upon the fulfillment of the formalities prescribed by law.' "When this treaty goes into effect on July 17, 1899, the matter can be simply and effectively adjusted. One of the conditions imposed by our statute will then have been fulfilled and due cognizance can be taken thereof. "It is possible that a formal declaration reciting the provisions of the above treaty after submission to the Senate and proclamation by the President, by and with the advice and consent of that body, might meet the case. But as this declaration could not become operative in advance of the treaty's taking effect, it is perceived that such an arrangement would serve no practical purpose. Hence the only safe way is to conclude a formal convention to that end or wait until July 17, 1899, when the treaty of November 22, 1894, will come into existence." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dun, min. to Japan, Nov. 12, 1896, For. See, also, Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pioda, Swiss min., May 1, 1900, It being provided by article 9 of the consular treaty between Germany and Spain of Feb. 22, 1870, that consular officers should have the right to remonstrate with the local authorities against the infraction of treaties and conventions and against abuses complained of by their countrymen, the United States claimed the same privilege for American consuls in the Spanish dominions under the mostfavored-nation clause in article 19 of the treaty of 1795. For. Rel. 1895, II. 1209-1214; For. Rel. 1896, 777–778. By the consular convention between the United States and the German Empire of 1871 the citizens of each country are required to pay, in case of inheritance in the other, only such duties or taxes as are imposed on citizens of the country in which the property is situated or in which the judicial administration may be exercised. This stipulation was held by the attorney-general of Louisiana to inure to the benefit of the citizens of countries having with the United States the most-favored-nation clause. Mr. Uhl, Acting Sec. of State, to the governor of Louisiana, May 22, 1895, 202 MS. Dom. Let. 292. In 1896 and 1897 the United States complained to the German government of discriminating charges made on American woods on railways in Germany under government control. The discrimination was justified by the German government on the ground (1) that the American woods belonged to a particular genus not cultivated for commercial purposes in middle Europe, and (2) that the American woods were of greater value than those of middle Europe. The United States denied the assertion involved in the first point as well as that involved in the second. For. Rel. 1897, 237-246. Lord Salisbury, in an instruction to Sir F. Plunkett, British minister at Brussels, July 28, 1897, with reference to the treaty of commerce and navigation with Belgium of July 22, 1862, stated the reasons which had decided Her Majesty's government to give notice of its termination. He said that "the general stipulations of the treaty in question, being based on the principle of most-favorednation treatment, are in accordance with the present views of Her Majesty's government," but he excepted Art. XV., which reads as follows: "Articles, the produce or manufacture of Belgium, shall not be subject in the British colonies to other or higher duties than those which are or may be imposed upon similar articles of British origin." Lord Salisbury pronounced this stipulation to be, in its effect, "entirely unusual in commercial treaties," so that it was probable that its insertion was due to oversight or to want of adequate consideration. He adverted to the fact that the British self-governing colonies had for many years "enjoyed complete tariff autonomy,” and that by reason of the engagement in question they found themselves committed by treaty to a commercial policy which was "not in accordance with the views of the responsible colonial ministers, nor adequate to the requirements of the people." Besides, the article constituted "a barrier against the internal fiscal arrangements of the British Empire, which is inconsistent with the close ties of com |