to recognise or to feel itself bound to recognise on terms of entire equality foreign vessels of commerce with those of its own engaged in domestic or coastwise trade, or to so restrict its sovereign authority over its own commerce that it could not consistently with the treaty abolish tolls on its own shipping that might be entirely foreign to the conceptions of the American people and inconsistent with their commercial interests.

The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty not only referred to vessels of foreign nations engaged in foreign trade, but it excluded those engaged in the coastwise trade. The contracting parties did not have these in mind in framing the treaty. The disputed provision refers to perfect equality, and therefore must necessarily include only those vessels capable of falling within this term; and the only vessels of commerce that were then, are now, or ever have been treated on the same terms of equality under the usage of nations, are vessels of commerce engaged in foreign trade. Vessels of commerce following the coastwise trade have never been placed on an equality with those engaged in commerce with foreign nations, nor could they be without violating national laws or the inherent right of a nation to control its domestic shipping. There is a well-defined distinction between vessels engaged in foreign commerce and the local coastwise vessel sailing under its own nation's flag between home ports. Coastwise vessels ply their trade under different conditions from those engaged in foreign commerce. They form a separate and distinct class; they are governed by different laws; they are subjected in their own ports to lesser duties and charges or to none at all; and they are jealously protected by their own government which, invariably by one means or another, discriminates in their favor.

Congress has always adhered to the policy of restricting domestic commerce-that is, vessels trading from one port in the United States to another port in the United States

to American vessels owned and navigated by American citizens. There is nothing special and peculiar in this legislation. It is in harmony with the policy not only of the United States, but of every sea-bound nation, to encourage and protect under special privileges its domestic maritime trade. The same system has been observed by the treatymaking power of the Government which has frequently given emphasis to the doctrine by express reservations in treaties.

In 1851 the United States concluded a treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation with the Republic of Costa Rica which contained the following Article :

"No higher nor other duties or payments on account of tonnage, of light or harbor dues, of pilotage, of salvage, in case either of damage or shipwreck, or on account of any other local charges, shall be imposed in any of the ports of the Republic of Costa Rica, on vessels of the United States, than those payable in the same ports by Costa Rican vessels; nor in any of the ports of the United States, on Costa Rican vessels, than shall be payable in the same ports on vessels of the United States."

Nothing could be more comprehensive than this article, and standing alone, it would be inferred as including vessels of every sort, both those following the over-seas commerce and those domestic vessels sailing only between home ports; and yet this treaty contained a clause declaring that the reciprocal freedom of commerce intended should not apply to the coasting trade.

The treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation between the United States and Denmark of 1826, said :

"Nor shall higher or other charges of any kind be imposed in the ports of one party, on vessels of the other, than are or shall be payable in the same ports by native vessels."

But this treaty also excepted the coasting trade.

In 1887 the United States made a treaty with the Republic of Peru for the reciprocal liberty of commerce

and navigation between their respective territories, which provides as follows:

"No higher or other duties or charges on account of tonnage, lighthouses or harbor dues, pilotage, quarantine, salvage in case of damage or shipwreck, or any other local charges, shall be imposed in any ports of Peru, on vessels of the United States, than those payable in the same ports by Peruvian vessels, nor in any of the ports of the United States on Peruvian vessels, than shall be payable in the same ports by vessels of the United States. . . . It is hereby declared that the stipulations of the present treaty are not understood as applying to the navigation and coasting trade between one port and another, situated in the territories of either contracting party, the regulation of such navigation and trade being reserved respectively by the parties according to their own separate laws."

Like provisions are contained in many other treaties which illustrate the universally prevailing custom among nations to distinguish between the vessels of a nation and the vessels of a nation engaged in the coasting trade. The terms "vessels of a nation" or even vessels" as used in treaties have received among commercial countries their own interpretation by long-continued custom and acquiescence, and are universally accepted as not embracing vessels other than those plying between one foreign country and another, so that in the negotiation of treaties. the high contracting parties have never had in contemplation coastwise vessels in laying down rules for equality of treatment of the vessels of their respective countries.

In addition to the three treaties above mentioned, twenty-eight other treaties of commerce and navigation were concluded between the United States and foreign countries between the years 1825 and 1887, which expressly excepted their respective coastwise trade.

England has always carried out the same policy as that of the United States with reference to her coastwise vessels, either by safeguarding her home trade diplomatically in

express exemptions in treaties, or by subjecting her coastwise vessels to other and different dues and charges from vessels engaged in the over-seas trade, thus practically discriminating in favour of her own domestic marine. In principle the two things are the same, the result being that the stranger coming from over the seas, in spite of all the pretense of uniformity, mutuality, and equality of treatment has to pay larger and heavier port dues than the British coastwise vessel; and this is the practice at British ports to-day, as it has always been, even in spite of the most formal treaty stipulations to the contrary. While to-day England's coastwise trade is open to ships of other nations, yet this was not always so, for at one time it was provided by law that no goods or passengers should be carried coastwards from one port of the United Kingdom to another except in British ships, the same Act defining what the coast wise trade was; and as late as in 1870 it was provided by Act of Parliament that no goods or passengers should be carried by water from one port of Canada to another except in British ships. The whole history of English diplomacy has been uniform with that of the United States and other commercial countries, either in specifically exempting coastwise trade from its conventions and treaties, or by doing so in establishing different and other duties and charges for her coastwise marine than those imposed at the same port on vessels engaged in the over-seas trade.

It is not everyone who, looking at the map of the United States and seeing the broad extent of territory the State of Texas covers, realises that it was only after one of the most bloody wars on record that the Texans were able in 1836 to secure their independence and declare themselves a Republic. While the political life of the Republic of Texas only continued for nine years before it became one of the States of the Federal Union, yet the principal act in its diplomatic history consisted in negotiating a treaty with.

England in which both countries specifically reserved their coasting trade to their national vessels. On November 13th, 1840, Great Britain and the Republic of Texas, being equally desirous of affording every facility and encouragement to their respective subjects and citizens, engaged in commercial intercourse with each other, concluded a treaty of commerce and navigation signed by Viscount Palmerston and General James Hamilton which contained the following provision:

"IV. The stipulations of the present treaty shall not be considered as applying to the navigation and carrying trade between one port and another situated in the dominions of one contracting party, by the vessels of the other, as far as regards passengers, commodities and articles of commerce; such navigation and transport being reserved by each contracting party to national vessels."

No country was more jealous of the foreigner indulging in her coastwise trade than was England when she opened her ports in the East Indies to American vessels. By the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation between Great Britain and the United States of 1794, England consented that American vessels be admitted and hospitably received at all the seaports and harbours of the British territories in the East Indies, and that American citizens be allowed to carry on a trade between them and the United States, such American vessels paying no other or higher tonnage duty than should be payable on British vessels when admitted into the ports of the United States. The treaty provides, however, "that the permission granted by this Article is not to extend to allow the vessels of the United States to carry on any part of the coasting trade of said British territories."

This treaty was followed by the convention of 1815, to regulate commerce and navigation, which specifically mentioned the ports of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, in the British East Indies, as being open to American vessels,