Evening star., 1894-12-22
The Attorney General Differs From
Secretary Of State Gresham.
THE MOST FAVORED NATION CLAUSE
It is Discussed at Length in Regard
to Salt.
ARGUMENT TAPPLIES TO SUGAR

1t Is generally understood that the action
Of Mr.. Wilson yesterday in introducing III
the House a specific bill providing for the
repeal of that section of the sugar schedule
in the new tariff act which imposes an ad-
ditional duty of one-tenth of one cent on
sugar imported from countries granting an
export bounty is in conformity with the
wishes of the President. Mr.. Wilson's bill
embodies the views expressed by Secretary
Gresham in q recent letter to the Presi-
dent on the subject, and inferentially ad-
mits that he paragraph complained or by
the representatives of Germany is a vio-
lation Of the most favored nation" clause
Of our treaty with that country. There Is
much surprise expressed, however, at the
admissions which the bill carries with 1T,
In view of the fact that Attorney General
Olney in q recent opinion to the Secretary
Of the Treasury took a directly opposite
view OF the case The question propounded
to the Attorney General by Secretary Car
Isle was whether salt imported from Ger
many is dutiable under tfD paragraph of
the new tariff act which imposes the old
and higher duty on salt imported from
countries imposing a duty on salt export
ed from the United States
Substantially the same arguments apply
to both the sugar and the salt schedules,
inasmuch as 1t is contended on behalf OF
Germany that both provisions are equally
III NlOidtlOn Oh tne IIlOSt IdNOicu
clause in our treaty with that country.
The Attorney General makes a very
strong argument in support of his position,
and shows that Germany herself has de-
clared that the export sugar bounty Of
one country might be counteracted by an
import duty OF another without any VIOLA
ton of the terms of the most favored
nation" clause. In the course Of his argu-
ment the Attorney General says:
Most Favored Nation Clauses.
TN the first place, the most favored
nation clauses OF our treaties with foreign
powers have, from the foundation of our
government, been invariably construed
both as not forbidding any internal regu-
lations necessary for the protection of our
home industries, and as permitting COM
mercial concessions to a country which
for equivalent concessions, and to which
no other country Is entitled, except upon
rendering the same equivalents. Thus, Mr.
Jenerson, when Secretary of State in 1792,
said OF treaties exchanging the rights Of
the most favored nation that they leave
each party free to make what internal
regulations they please and to give what
preference they find expedient to native
merchants, vessels and productions'
In 1917 Mr.. John Quincy Adams, acting in
the same official capacity, took the ground
that the most favored nation clause"
only covered gratuitous favors and did
not touch concessions for equivalents ex-
pressed or implied" Mr.. Clay, Mr. Living
ston, Mr.. Evarts and Mr.. Bayard, when at
the head of the, Department Of State, have
each given official expression to the same
view. 1t has also received the sanction of
the Supreme Court in more than one well
considered decision.
Germany's Interpretation.
This Interpretation Of the most favored
nation clause" so clearly established as
doctrine nf lou fC hali
accord with the Interpretation put upon the
clause by foreign powers-certainly by Ger
many and Great Britain. Thus, as the
clause permits any internal regulations
that country may find necessary to give
a preference to native merchants, vessels
and productions" the representatives of
both Great Britain and Germany expressly
declared. at the international sugar confer
ence in 1855, that the export sugar bounty
of one country might be counteracted by
the import sugar duty of another without
causing any discrimination which could be
deemed a violation of the terms of the
most favored nation clause" So both
Germany and Great Britain acquiesced in
the position of the United States, that our
treaty with Hawaii did not entitle those
nations to equal privileges. in regard to
imports, with those thus obtained by the
United States-the privileges granted to tho
United States being In consideration of
concessions by the United States which
Germany and Great Britain not only did
not offer to make, but, in the nature Of
things, could not make.
Reciprocal Concessions.
If these established principles be applied
to the case in hand but one result seems
to be possible. The form which the pro-
visions Of Our recent tariff act relating
to salt may have assumed is quite imma-
terial. 1t enacts, in substance and effect,
that any country admitting American salt
free shall have its own salt admitted free
here. while any country putting a duty
upon American salt shall have its salt
dutiable here under the pre-existing stat
ute. In other words, the United States
free SALT to any nation which
comedies "free salt to the United States
Germany, of course, Is entitled to that con-
cesson upon returning the same equiva-
lent. But otherwise she Is not so enti-
tied, and there il nothing in the most
favored nation clause" which compels the
United States to discriminate against
other nations and in favor of Germany by
granting gratuitously to the latter privi-
leges which 1t grants to the former only
upon the payment of a stipulated price.
In the next place, even If the provisions
of our recent tariff act under considera-
ton could be deemed to contravene the
most favored nation clause of the treaty
with Germany-as they cannot be for the
reasons stated-the result would be the
same. The tariff act is a statute later than
the treaty and, so far as inconsistent with
1t, Is controlling. The principle is too well
settled to admit of discussion, and II any
to 1Aci iroh1 Ia