arbitration" disputes as to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any question of international law, as to the existence of any fact which if established would constitute a breach of any international obligation, or as to the extent and nature of the reparation to be made for any such breach."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Consult bibliography of Chapter XII.

B. Treaties are published officially by all civilized governments and are found also in many private collections. For foreign treaties, consult, MARTENS, Recueil de Traités; HERTSLET, Commercial Treaties and Conventions between Great Britain and Foreign Powers; British and Foreign State Papers; Treaty Series, published by the League of Nations since 1920; MACMURRAY, Treaties and Agreements with and concerning China; U. S. Tariff Commission, Handbook of Commercial Treaties, 1922; Commerce Reports; Foreign Tariff Notes. For American treaties: MALLOY, Treaties, Conventions, etc. 1776-1909, with supplement by G. CHARLES to 1913; later treaties in appendices to United States Statutes at Large; Congressional Record; United States Treaty Series; and American Journal of International Law. See, also, MOORE, Digest of International Law; SCOTT, Treaties of 1785, 1799, and 1828 between United States and Prussia, 1918.

C. Dictionaries and encyclopedias (especially "Treaties" in Am. and Eng. Encyclopedia of Law; " Commercial Treaties," in Encyclopædia Britannica and Cyclopedia of American Government); International Law Textbooks (HALL, LAWRENCE, OPPENHEIM, et al.); American Journal of International Law and Supplement, 1907-.

D. GREGORY, Tariffs, 441-482; BUTLER, Treaty-making Power; CRANDALL, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement; FOSTER, Practice of Diplomacy; U. S. Tariff Commission, Report on Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties; JOHNSON, Domestic and Foreign Commerce, Vol. II, pp. 135-153; ROSCHER, Political Economy, Vol. II, pp. 414-420; ALLEN, International Relations; SCHUYLER, American Diplomacy, Ch. 9; REINSCH, Public International Unions.

SUGGESTIVE TOPICS AND QUESTIONS

1. If Congress passes a law which a foreign power deems a violation of treaty rights, is there any recourse to the courts? Am. and Eng.

Encyc. of Law; also Whitney vs. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190; Richter vs. Reynolds, 59 Fed. Rep. 577.

2. What effect does a tariff law have upon a treaty that is inconsistent with it? Whitney vs. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 21 Fed. Rep. 565; Kelley vs. Hedden, 124 U. S. 196, 31 Fed. Rep. 607.

3. Are treaties or conventions absolutely essential to the maintenance of trade relations between nations? On what other basis may such relations rest? JOHNSON, Dom. and For. Commerce, Vol. II, pp. 135, 145; Handbook of Com. Treaties, 860-861.

4. When one or both parties to a general commercial treaty are colonial powers, do the provisions of the treaty apply to the trade of their colonies? Tariff Commission, Report on Colonial Tariff Policies, 29-31.

5. What preferential treatment does United States accord to Columbia in the treaty of 1921? Handbook of Commercial Treaties, 120-121; Cong. Record, 61:378–380.

6. To what multilateral treaties and conventions affecting trade is the United States a party? JOHNSON, Dom. and For. Commerce, Vol. II, pp. 152-153; ALLEN, International Relations. Mention some other problems with which it has been proposed to deal by means of such multilateral treaties. Commerce Reports, October 17, 1921, p. 413; February 13, 1922, p. 394; September 11, 1922, pp. 734-736.

7. Compare American restrictions upon the treaty-making power of the Executive with corresponding restrictions in France, Germany, and England. Tariff Commission, Handbook of Commercial Treaties, 851852; Constitution of German Republic, Art. 45; CRANDALL, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement (1st ed.), pp. 151-168, 178–187, 196–199. 8. Is Cuba a sovereign state? Is her right to negotiate commercial treaties in any way abridged? LATANE, America as World Power, 177-182, especially 179.

9. Did the commercial treaties of 1854 with Canada, of 1876 with Hawaii, and of 1903 with Cuba involve a change in the revenue laws? If they did, how was the constitutional requirement met― that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House? Should the question involved be brought before the Supreme Court, what, in your opinion, would be its decision? Why? Cong. Rec. for 1903, in connection with the discussion over Cuban Reciprocity; MOORE, Digest Inter. Law; BUTLER, Treaty-making Power.

CHAPTER XII

RECIPROCITY AND THE MOST-FAVORED-NATION CLAUSE

Meaning of Reciprocity. — The essence of reciprocity, whether applied to individual or state dealings, is mutuality in the matter of giving and receiving. As used in connection with commerce, it denotes a treaty, convention, or other arrangement between two nations whereby one of the contracting parties grants certain advantages to the other in return for the same or equivalent concessions received from the latter. Reciprocity, in the narrower sense, suggests special favors not generalized by a most-favored-nation clause. A reciprocity treaty may be of a very general character, mutual advantages being granted in all matters of trade, or it may be restricted in its scope to special advantages such as those relating to import or export duties, tonnage dues, consular matters, or the like.

Reciprocity was largely absent from early interstate treaties. These were generally one-sided arrangements, often being concessions wrung from a less fortunate rival in war. Even under Mercantilism, where the dominant idea was that a gain to one nation involved a loss to another, retaliation rather than reciprocity was the prominent feature in commercial politics. The latter came into prominence in more recent times with the growth of international law and of foreign commercial relations. In no country may the various phases of reciprocity be studied to a better advantage than in the United States.

First Phase of American Reciprocity. -The first phase of American reciprocity was very general in character, the early treaties of "amity and commerce" between the United States and foreign countries being based upon the broad ground of reciprocity in all matters of commerce. The treaty of 1785 between Prussia and the United States is typical of this, the introductory words of the treaty stating that "His Majesty the King of Prussia and the United States of America, desiring to fix, in a permanent and equitable manner, the rules to be observed in the intercourse and commerce they desire to establish between their respective countries . . . have judged that the same end cannot be better obtained than by taking the most perfect equality and reciprocity for the basis of their agreement.'

Second Phase of American Reciprocity. - - This phase was more specific in character than the first phase and related to tonnage dues and to duties on imports in foreign ships. As has been previously stated one of the first acts of the Congress of the United States under the Constitution was to levy a discriminating tax on tonnage, whereby American vessels entering domestic ports, as well as merchandise imported in them, paid lower duties than were required of foreign vessels and their cargoes. The first modification of this discriminating law occurred in 1815. Article II of the convention of that year between the United States and Great Britain enacted that "no higher or other duties or charges shall be imposed in any of the ports of the United States on British vessels (or their cargoes) than those payable in the same ports by vessels (including their cargoes) of the United States, nor in the ports of any of His Britannic Majesty's territories in Europe on the vessels (or cargoes) of the United States than shall be payable in the same ports on British vessels (or their cargoes)." It is to be noted especially that this reciprocity applied only to the direct trade between the United States and

Great Britain, while discriminating duties still governed the trade relations of the United States with British possessions in the West Indies and in North America. This principle of restricted reciprocity was extended, with some modifications, during the next few years to several other countries.

Reciprocity in tonnage duties, which characterized the period between 1815 and 1828 so far as direct trade was concerned, was extended by the law of May 24, 1828, to include indirect trade. The United States had repeatedly attempted to obtain from Great Britain a removal of the discriminations which were placed upon American vessels engaged in West Indian trade. Unsuccessful in this under the convention of July 3, 1815, above cited, Congress, during the following decade, passed various laws of a retaliatory character, the final result being that Great Britain agreed in 1830 to open her West Indian ports to American vessels upon the payment of the same duties required of English vessels. This principle of reciprocity in indirect as well as direct trade was extended by proclamation or by conventions to other countries, so that it became the general policy governing the trade relations of the United States with foreign countries until the outbreak of the Civil War. In 1830 Congress repealed all tonnage duties on American ships and on the ships of all nations which had done away with discriminatory duties with respect to this country.

Third Phase of American Reciprocity. — Early reciprocity of a special character both in Europe and in the United States related largely to the subject of tonnage duties and came as a reaction against the navigation policy of various countries, especially of England and of the United States. About 1825 in the former country and somewhat later in the United States the principle of reciprocity began to be prominent in connection with the modification of customs duties. Reciprocity treaties of this kind generally consist in each of the contract