Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-05-02
TWO YEARS OF
AMERICAN DIPLOMACY
FortA American Review for Aprll.


sign relations during the last two years
Mas not reflected honor upon this coun-
Try" Reading the title and the de-
h rlaration together, there seems to be an
Implication that there is Il certain brand
of diplomacy known as Democratic di-
plomacy which is bad, and another brand
known as the Republican diplomacy,
which is good. l am unable to admit
che existence of such distinction. But,
rs an American citizen, equally inter
ested with the distinguished Senator in
the honor af the country, l comply with
the request Of the North. American
Ii ReUtew to examine his thesis and the
arguments by which he has endeavored
4 10 support 1t,
b 1t is argued that the administration
was derelict in admitting the complaint
of the German government against the
discriminating duty of one.tenth of
cent pound imposed on sugars from
countries (among which is Germany
j shat pay a bounty on their expectations;
4 and it is said that such an admission
can be sustained only by Especial plead
ing" Whether this charge is well
founded is u question not difficult to
determine. Our treaty with Prussia,
concluded in 1928, not only provides
3 (Article 1X) that neither nation shall
4 grant to any third nation any "favor'' in
navigation or commerce which shall not
Immediately become common to the
other, but it also provides ARTICLE W
that neither nation shall impose on
the importation of any article the
produce or manufacture of the other,
any "higher or other duties" than
shall be payable "on the like
article being the produce or manu-
facture OF any other foreign country"
These two clauses, which occur in diff.
ferent articles, though often referred to
as securing "most-favored- nation" treat,
ment, are yet distinct; and it is in conse.
9 quence of falling to observe this distinc-
ton between them. that Senator Davis
Is led to argue that the treaty does not
prevent the imposition of discriminating
duties, but only the concession Of
Especial and isolated favors." When
WRITERS, in constituting the most.favored-
nation clause, have spoken of it as COM
pretending only favors or privileges,
they have referred to the first clause
above quoted, and not the second. Not
even especial pleading" can make a
prohibition of especial and isolated
fayors" and a prohibition of discrim-
mating duties mean one and the same
thing.
For this reason the recent opinion Of
the encouragement as to the duty on
German salt, to which Senator Davis re-
fers as decisive Of the question of the
sugar bounty, has no bearing on that
question. The law imposes a duty on salt
from countries which levy a duty on
American salt, and grants free admission
to salt from countries which admit Amer.
lean salt free of duty. This statute offers
favor on a certain condition. The
treaty with Prussia contemplates lust
such case, when II provided (Article Ky
that any favor" granted by either party
n to another nation shall Immediately be.
come common to the other party, freely,
where it is freely granted or
on yielding the same compensation,
when the grant is conditional" Ger
many can secure the flavor" of the free
admission of her salt into the United
States, by paying ''the same compensa.
ton" as other nations are required to
l1pay for the privilege, namely, the free
admission of American salt. The attor-
general so held, and it was the only
gquestion before him.
What possible bearing can this de-
cision have on the case of law that
IMPOSES upon a certain article, besides
the regular duty, an additional and
discriminating duty, when such article
comes from a country that pays a
bounty on its exportations Bounties,
like protective duties, are intended to
stimulate domestic industry. They may
alike operate to the disturbance Of
production and manufacture in other
countries; but they are considered as
measures within the competence of in
dependent governments, and, so long as
they are uniform, are not treated as con-
shutting national determinations. A
government no more places itself in a
hostile attitude toward foreign countries
by adopting one of these measures than
II does by adopting the other. As be-
tween the two the bounty is the more
generous, since ii cheapens goods to the
people OF foreign countries, and enables
them to live more or less at the expense
OF the bounty.paying country.
Senator Davis says that if the view
taken by the administration be correct,
"the power of Congress to legislate in
matters of revenue and internal concern
can be suspended, impaired, or DESTROYED
by the exercise of the treaty-making
power" This is to certain extent true,
but it is not novel idea. Ali our com.
mercial treaties have more or less
diminished the freedom of action, legis-
lative as well as executive, of the CON
tracing parties. 1t was with that
design that they were NADIA fact of
which the provision against the laying of
discriminating duties is itself conclusive
evidence. Discrimination is game at
which two can play. If we would have
others abstain, we must engage TO
abstain also.
In reality, the effort made to save the
discriminating duty imposed on sugars
from bounty-paying countries is only
another OF the deperate attempts, OF
which we have seen so many on the
part of protected interests, to maintain
their grasp on the pockets of the Ameri-
can people without regard to the nature
of the obstacle, whether it will be the
will of the people or a treaty obligation.
Senator Davis, therefore, with great APP
proprlateness, closes the commercial
branch of his argument by lamenting
the repeal of the misnamed RECIPROCITY
clause of the Mckinley act-a clause
under which retaliation was to be deal;
out to countries whose tariffs, when
compared with our own, should be
found, as the clause most truthfully said
TO be "reciprocally unequal and unjust.
The best Senator Davis can say for it is
that its results, during the "short period
OF its existence, ''were most encOurag.
ing" The present competent chief 81
the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury
Departmentsays, that its "most apparent
n effect seems to have been "the restric