Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-10-13

communication, the secretary artfully
appeals to the sense of fairness which is
prevalent with us, and which would
severely condemn any injustice to so
good friend commercially as Great
Britain. The same view has been ex-
pressed elsewhere.
Discriminating Against England.
/ repeat a statement that nave
made more than once that this coun-
try ought not to enter into any reel
procity treaty that would discriminate
against England, for she is our stead
lest and largest consumer. But
take this opportunity of bringing to
the attention of these statesmen who
assume the duty of leading the people
along the true economic paths that
they are either ignorant or careless OF
the history of relations with Great
Britain. They must know, or at least
they ought to know. that we have
commercial treaty with that country
which explicitly provides that her pro-
ducers and exporters shall pay no
higher duty in our country than is
paid by the producers and exporters OIL
any other country. / quote article two
of the treaty, first adopted in 1915, ex-
tended for ten years in 1918, and eX-
tended indefinitely in 1927:
mo higher or other duties shall be
imposed on the importation into the
United States of any articles, the
growth, produce, or manufacture of
His Britannica Majesty's territories in
Europe and no higher or other duties
shall be imposed on the importation
into the Territories of His Britannica
! Majesty in Europe of any articles the
growth, produce or manufacture of the
United States than are or shall be
| payable on the like articles being the
growth. produce or manufacture of any
other foreign country nor shall any
higher or other duties or charges be
imposed in either of the two countries
on the expectation of amy articles to
the United States. or to HIS Britannica
Majesty's Territories in Europe re-
spectively, than such as are payable on
the expectation of the like articles to
any other foreign country
| 1 do not forget that our supreme
court has taken a view of what is Or
dinarily known as the most favored
nation clasue" not in harmony with
| the general construction of such trea-
I, ties by other countries. But 1T has
never decided, and it never can decide
| that an express agreement such as l
| have quoted can fail of its effect.
am not alone in this view, for l have
before me a letter written by the most
renowned diplomat and economist or
his time. the man who negotiated the
French treaty-a man who has con-
ferred as much honor upon the state
| Of Iowa as any citizen Of the common
| wealth He writes to me:
Saratoga Springs, N. Y, September
| 49, 19O5-Governor A B. Cun1r1ins,
Des Moines-My dear governor: Your
| letter of the Sd instant was forwarded
| to me here after some delay at WASH
ington, and received by me yesterday.
I reply to your question with pleasure.
| 1.-THE general question of the usual
most favored clause in trea.-es has
been before our United States supreme
| court, and decided in the case OF the
Danish treaty Il forget the title OF
the case) not to include cases of spe-
cial reciprocity treaties, where we pay
special consideration for favors re-
| ceiyed. Such favors were not extended
to a country having only the usual
i, most favored nation treaty with us.
| II therefore examined all our trea-
| ties. 1 found two of aN exceptional
| characterized with Switzerland and
| that with England. They differed radi-
/ cally in their terms from all our other
I most favored nation clauses, and IN
| my opinion compelled us to give to
each Of those countries Immediately,
ex vi termini, the lowest rates which
| we should in any way concede to any
other country. so reported to Scores
| tary Hay. The treaty with Switzel'-
land was therefore denounced, and is
no longer In force. Nothing was dore