adds numerous petty knife-thrusts that almost certainly arouse ill-will far out of proportion to any possible gain, even to immediate interests. The Canadians have not returned good for evil. Their tariff law, like that of the United States, is not without its instances of discriminations based upon non-discriminatory foreign customs duties.1 The United States is obviously the country for the products

The following table from Schedule "A" of the Canadian tariff inIcludes these instances and shows them to be few and innocent compared with the similar offenses of the American tariff law:

'From The Customs Tariff, 1907, and Amendments, to July 1, 1922, corrected to Jan. 1, 1924, by the Foreign Tariffs Division of the Department of Commerce. See also Appendix 10.

of which higher duties are provided.' The presence in the Canadian law of a provision analogous to Section 317 places Canada in a position of inconsistency similar to that of the United States. This provision declares that

Goods imported into Canada, the product or manufacture of any foreign country which treats imports from Canada less favourably than those from other countries, may be made subject by order of the Governor in Council in the case of goods already dutiable, to a surtax over and above the duties specified in Schedule A to this Act, and in the case of goods not dutiable, to a rate of duty not exceeding, in either case, twenty per centum ad valorem."

The obvious path of amity and good sense is for Canada and the United States to agree that the inconsistent and unjust provisos shall be cancelled on each side and that unconditional most-favored-nation treatment shall be reciprocally guaranteed.

33. ANOTHER INSTANCE OF APATHY TOWARD TREATY

OBLIGATIONS

"This conflict with our treaties," said Mr. Smoot in addressing the Senate concerning certain previously-discussed portions of the Fordney Bill,

should be conclusive against the enactment of these provisions. But I regret to say that even in this body there are men upon whom the treaty obligations of the United States seem to rest but lightly. Their attitude seems to say, "Let us legislate as we please and let the State Department worry about the com

'The recent provision by the Canadian Parliament for a possible embargo upon pulp-producing wood grown on private as well as public lands appears to be in part, at least, a provision with which to bargain with the United States.

'The Customs Tariff Act of June 12, 1914, sec. 2. See Appendix 5.

plications; let all the world accuse us of being treaty breakers so long as our constituents vote for us ".1

Another case of legislative disregard of agreements with other nations is found in Section 526 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which discriminates in favor of American owners of trade-marks by offering them certain protection not accorded to the residents of other countries, contrary to the provisions of an international convention to which the United States is a party. The State Department, replying to an inquiry from one of the Senators, had given sufficient warning:

It will be obesrved that under the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention' the nationals of countries whose governments

1Congressional Record, vol. 62, part 6, 67th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 5880, April 24, 1922.

'Subdivision (a) of Section 526 is as follows:

66

That it shall be unlawful to import into the United States any merchandise of foreign manufacture if such merchandise, or the label, sign, print, package, wrapper, or receptacle, bears a trade-mark owned by a citizen of, or by a corporation or association created or organized within, the United States, and registered in the Patent Office by a person domiciled in the United States, under the provisions of the Act entitled 'An Act to authorize the registration of trade-marks used in commerce with foreign nations or among the several States or with Indian tribes, and to protect the same,' approved February 20, 1905, as amended, if a copy of the certificate of registration of such trademark is filed with the Secretary of the Treasury, in the manner provided in section 27 of such Act, and unless written consent of the owner of such trade-mark is produced at the time of making entry”.—Statutes of the United States of America passed at the Second Session of the Sixty-Seventh Congress, 1921-1922, part 1, Ch. 356. p. 975.

The Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed at Washington, June 2, 1911, to which most of the countries of Europe, as well as the United States, Japan, Brazil and others are parties. Article 2 is as follows:

"The subjects or citizens of each of the contracting countries shall enjoy, in all other countries of the Union, with regard to patents of invention, models of utility, industrial designs or models, trade-marks, trade names, the statements of place of origin, suppression of unfair competition, the advantages which the respective laws now grant or

are parties to the Convention are entitled in the United States to the same advantages which the laws of the United States. grant to American citizens, and that Article 2 in terms prohibits the establishment of an obligation of domicile on the part of persons entitled to the benefits of the Convention.

It is the view of the Department that, for reasons indicated by the foregoing, Section 526 of the Tariff Bill, if enacted into law, would discriminate in favor of persons domiciled in the United States in contravention of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and would deprive persons who registered trade-marks in the United States Patent Office and who reside abroad of the protection to which they would be entitled under the terms of the Convention.1

To the development of a commercial policy based on equal rights for all and special privileges for none, Section 526 of the Tariff Act of 1922 adds another to the obstacles described in this chapter.

34. PAST AND FUTURE OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES

The inconsistencies of the Tariff Act of 1922 are wellrooted in history. Ultra-protective customs duties have become traditional with the political party which was in control of the Congress in 1922. Discriminations are as old as tariff legislation. The first American tariff law provided for the preferential treatment of goods imported in vessels may hereafter grant to the citizens of that country. Consequently, they shall have the same protection as the latter and the same legal remedies against any infringements of their rights, provided they comply with the formalities and requirements imposed by the National laws of each State upon its own citizens. Any obligation of domicile or of establishment in the country where the protection is claimed shall not be imposed on the members of the Union.”—Treaty Series (published by the Department of State), no. 579; Malloy, Treaties, p. 2956.

'Letter to Senator Moses, Sept. 9, 1922. Published in the Congressional Record, Sept. 14, 1922, vol. 62, part 12, p. 12570. 67th Congress, 2d Session.

belonging to American citizens.1 As late as 1921 the President, in his address at the opening of the regular session of the Congress, felt compelled to announce, in regard to the discriminatory procedure directed by the Merchant Marine Act of the preceding year,2

1Act of July 4, 1789:

"That a discount of ten per cent. on all the duties imposed by this act shall be allowed on such goods, wares and merchandises as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and which shall be wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof, or in vessels built in foreign countries, and on the sixteenth day of May last, wholly the property of a citizen or citizens of the United States, and so continuing until the time of importation".-Tariff Acts. p. 15. This appears to have been primarily a defensive measure adopted because of the discriminations practiced against American ships by other countries.

'That in the judgment of Congress, articles or provisions in treaties or conventions to which the United States is a party, which restrict the right of the United States to impose discriminating customs duties on imports entering the United States in foreign vessels and in vessels of the United States, and which also restrict the right of the United States to impose discriminatory tonnage dues on foreign vessels and on vessels of the United States entering the United States should be terminated, and the President is hereby authorized and directed within ninety days after this Act becomes law to give notice to the several Governments, respectively, parties to such treaties or conventions, that so much thereof as imposes any such restriction on the United States will terminate on the expiration of such periods as may be required for the giving of such notice by the provisions of such treaties or conventions. Sec. 34, Act of June 5, 1920, commonly called the Jones Act. See supra, subdivision 11, first footnote.

Section 28 of the same act lays the foundation for lower freight rates on interstate traffic entering into foreign trade if transported in American ships than if transported in the ships of other countries. The Interstate Commerce Commission, by an order of March 11, 1924, provided for such discriminatory rates effective May 20, 1924, applicable to goods other than grain exported from the United States to specified parts of the world or imported into the United States therefrom. In its press release of March 12, the Commission stated that it had provided for publication of revised tariffs of railway rates on less than the usual notice, "in order that all parties interested may be fully advised and that as little confusion and disturbance of commercial conditions as possible will result". Dispatches appearing in the newspapers have indicated that Great Britain and Japan will protest under