was also a reduction accorded of from twenty-five per cent to forty per cent on machinery, butter, wheat, corn, non-alcoholic beverages, colors, dyes, etc.24 NEGOTIATIONS WITH ARGENTINE REPUBLIC Under Section 4 of the Dingley Act, a treaty with the Argentine Republic was negotiated, in accordance with which the United States lowered some of its duties.25 BRAZIL GRANTS TARIFF PREFERENCES TO THE UNITED STATES Brazil has extended a preference to the United States on a number of commodities since the passage of its budget in 1899, although this ruling did not become effective until April 16, 1904. When this decree was issued, wheat, flour, condensed milk, watches, clocks, paints, varnishes, and some kinds of ink imported from the United States, were admitted at a twenty per cent reduction from the regular tariff rates. These reductions were re-enacted on June 30, 1906, when in addition refrigerators, pianos, scales, windmills and typewriters from the United States received reduced tariff treatment. MUTUAL CONCESSIONS GRANTED BY SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES The governments of the United States and Spain negotiated a commercial treaty by virtue of the authority conferred on the President under Section 3 of the Tariff Act approved July 24, 1897, by which mutual concessions were granted by each country. The treaty provided that “products of the soil or industry of Spain" exported from Spain to the United States, such as argol or crude tartar or wine lees, should be dutiable at five per cent ad valorem. Brandies or other spirits, one dollar and seventy-five cents per proof gallon, paintings in oil or water color, pastels, pen 24 See State Papers 92: 1246 (English), Malloy 1: 563. Provided by tariff act of July 24, 1897. Commercial Convention concluded December 11, 1903. Ratification advised by Senate, March 19, 1902; ratified by President, March 30, 1903; ratifications exchanged, March 31, 1903; proclaimed, December 17, 1903. 25 See Alvin H. Sanders, Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, May, 1907, Vol. LXXIX, p. 13. and ink drawings, and statuary were dutiable at fifteen per cent ad valorem. Duty was to be paid on the products and manufactures of the United States on entrance into Spain at rates now fixed in the second or minimum column of the Spanish tariff. There was an exchange of interpretative notes, on December 20, 1906, between the chargè d'affaires ad interim of the United States and the Minister of State of Spain regarding some obscurities of the second paragraph of the convention. The intention of both countries was to concede reciprocally a "most favored nation" treatment, so a satisfactory outcome was effected.26 An exchange of notes took place on February 20, 1909, in which the governments of Spain and of the United States agreed to supplement by a new agreement the Commercial Agreement concluded at San Sebastian on August 1, 1906. By this new convention, signed at Washington on February 20, 1909, owing to the authorization conveyed by Section 3 of the Dingley Tariff, it was agreed that sparkling wines produced in, and exported from, Spain should be admitted to the United States with reduced duties. In return for this concession, Spain granted reciprocal and equivalent favors on products of the soil or industry of the United States.27 MINIMUM RATES APPLIED TO GREAT BRITAIN The commercial agreement between the United States and Great • Britain of November 19, 1907, provided under the third section of the Dingley Tariff Act, for the application of the minimum rate to works of art, when these were products of the industry of the United Kingdom, in return for the free admission of samples of dutiable goods brought into Britain by commercial travelers of the United States.28 26 See United States Foreign Relations, 1906, Vol. II, pp. 1341-2: Agreement signed at San Sebastian August 1, 1906, and explanatory notes exchanged at Madrid, December 20, 1906. (Agreement to terminate on August 7, 1910, on notice of the United States.) Malloy 2:1718. 27 See Supplementary Commercial Agreement, signed at Washington, February 20, 1909, between United States and Spain, 1909. 28 See Malloy's Treaties 1: 812; State Papers 100: 590 (English): Agreement: (1) Commercial travelers' samples entering Britain; (2) Import duties on British works of art entering the United States. Signed at London, November 19, 1907; denunciation May 1, 1909. (See Parliament Papers - cd. 4645. 105: 1109 English.) Terminated February 7, 1910. Hertslet, Commercial Treaties 25: 1202 N. -- CANADIAN INTERFERENCE IN UNITED STATES NEWFOUNDLAND FISHINg NegotiatiONS The fisheries' question between the United States and Newfoundland has always been interwoven with all enacted and proposed commercial treaties between the two countries. Newfoundland has maintained that it should be granted free admission to the United States of the products of its fisheries, in return for the privileges granted by it to the United States fisheries. Canada had protested against the proposed Bond-Blaine Convention of 1890, between Newfoundland and the United States, by which a commercial advantage might be arrived at by both countries, as the Dominion contended that it would have to pay the high protective duties of the United States, while Newfoundland fishermen would be allowed practically duty-free admission. for their products. The pact was therefore never ratified. Nevertheless, in 1902, Canada withdrew her objections to a commercial agreement between the two countries, and forthwith the Department of State negotiated the Bond-Hay Convention drawn up on the same lines as the earlier convention. However, the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee delayed action until the instrument had become so changed in form that Newfoundland refused to ratify it.29 After the failure of an agreement on the Bond-Hay Treaty, Newfoundland proceeded to terminate all its commercial agreements with the United States. Owing to this situation, Elihu Root, Secretary of State, in 1905, with the British representatives discussed the rights of American fishermen under the United States' Treaty with Great Britain of October 20, 1818. FAILURE OF DIPLOMACY IN EFFECTING AN AGREEMENT The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his communication of August 14, 1906, foreshadowed the ineffectiveness of the diplomatic correspondence relating to this disagreement. He held that" the wide divergence of view between the two governments, which is disclosed by the correspondence, makes it hopeless 29 See Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, 1919, pp. 359-60. to expect an immediate settlement of the various questions at issue." 30 It was soon recognized that other methods besides diplomatic discussion should be employed to adjudicate the point of contention. Finally it was decided to invoke the courts of arbitration.31 SUCCESSFUL ARBITRATION THROUGH THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL To this end, James Bryce, acting for Great Britain, and Elihu Root, Secretary of State, on behalf of the United States, signed a special agreement at Washington on January 27, 1909, for the submission of the fisheries questions to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, in conformity with the General Arbitration Treaty between the United States and Great Britain ratified June 4, 1908. The court assembled on June 1, 1910, and seven questions were submitted for its decision. The position taken on all points by the Tribunal was unanimous, with the exception of one upon which Dr. Drago presented a dissenting opinion.32 The main contentions decided were: 1. British regulations limiting the time, method, and implements of fishing could not be enforced against American fishermen, unless such provisions were reasonable. 66 2. The British contention that the right of fishing applied only to inhabitants of the United States " was overruled, i. e.: Americans might employ non-inhabitants among their fishing crews. 30 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1905, pp. 489-502, covers the correspondence relating to this dispute. 31 Ibid., 1906, pp. 661-806. 32 See North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Tribunal of Arbitration, 1910, p. 12. Members of the Tribunal Dr. H. Lammasch, Doctor of Law, Professor of the University of Vienna; Aulic Councilor; Member of the Upper House of Austrian Parliament. His Excellency Jonkheer A. F. de Savornin, Doctor of Law, Minister of State; former Minister of the Interior; Member of the 2nd Chamber of the Netherlands. The Hon. George Bray, Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The Right Honorable Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, Doctor of Law, Chief Justice of Canada. Mr. Luis Maria Drago, Doctor of Law, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Argentine Republic. (House Document No. 806, 61st Congress, 3rd Session.) 3, 4. These were in respect to the Custom House regulations, and the contentions of the United States were upheld, in that, under Question 3, "the exercise of the fishing liberty by the inhabitants of the United States should not be subjected to the purely commercial formalities. . . or other dues not imposed upon Newfoundland fisherman "; and, in Question 4, " to impose restrictions making the exercise of such privileges conditional upon the payment of light harbor or other dues . . . would be inconsistent with the grounds upon which such privileges rest, and therefore is not permissible." 5. This question involved the historic claim of Great Britain regarding "bays of His Brittanic Majesty's Dominions." The award on this point does not define a bay, holding that a threemile limit must be measured from " a line drawn across the body of water at a place where it ceases to have the configuration and characteristics of a bay." 6. The sixth question dealt with Britain's claim that the 1818 Treaty did not grant American fishermen the right to fish in the bays on the southern and western coasts of Newfoundland and on the Magdalen Islands. The contention of the United States that the right to fish extended to the bays of such coasts was upheld by the court. 7. The seventh award involved the question of interchange fishing and trading vessels. The court upheld the United States in this regard in that "the inhabitants of the United States are so entitled in so far as concerns this treaty, there being nothing in its provisions to disentitle them, providing the treaty liberty of fishing and the commercial privileges are not exercised concurrently.33 B. PAYNE-ALDRICH TARIFF STANDARD OF LIVING TO BE MAINTAINED BY REPUBLICANS RETURNING TO POWER IN 1909 An extract from one of the clauses of the Republican Party platform for the year 1908 may well be cited to show that the Republican voters of the United States in that year accepted a principle which was a contributing factor in retaining the Republicans in power. In effect, the Republican Party pledged itself to 33 House Document No. 806, 1911 p. 12. |