ries received through suspension of sealing operations, the question of liability to be the subject of further negotiations.

IX. This article recites the agreement to appoint a Joint Commission (the work of which is already completed), and shows that the reports of the Commissioners are not to be made public until after they have been

submitted to the arbitrators.

X. and XII. These provide for the respective payment, by the two Governments, of all their expenses.

XI. The decision of the tribunal shall, if possible, be made within three months (changed to four months by subsequent amendment) from the close of argument on both sides.

XIII. A record of proceedings shall be kept, and necessary officers appointed. XIV. The decision of the tribunal shall be considered a full and final settlement of all the questions referred.

XV. This article (the last) provides for the ratification of the treaty by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and by the Queen, and for the exchange of ratifications at Washington or London within six months from its date, or earlier if possible.

The proceedings before the tribunal are to be conducted in English, in accordance with an amendment subsequently added at the suggestion of Sir Julian Pauncefote.

The treaty, it will be observed, does not provide for a settlement of the question of liability for damages already incurred through possible illegal poaching on the one hand, or through illegal seizures on the other. To the questions originally proposed by Mr. Blaine, December 17, 1890, Lord Salisbury, in his reply of February 21, 1891, had added that of liability for damages resulting from the seizure of British vessels, in case the arbitrators should award against the United States (see Vol. I., p. 89). Mr. Blaine accepted this, adding what seemed to be the complementary proviso, that, in case the American contention prevailed, "all the seals taken by Canadian vessels should be paid for at the ordinary price for which skins are sold. Lord Salisbury, however, persisted in his refusal to recognize the liability of the British Government, alleging that nations were not to be held responsible for private acts of their subjects.

It was partly owing to the position taken by Lord Salisbury in relation to the question of damages, but mainly owing to his continued opposition to

a renewal of the modus vivendi, that we must attribute the delay on the part of the Senate in taking action with regard to the treaty. No answer having been received to Mr. Wharton's note of March 8, insisting on a renewal of the modus vivendi, the Assistant Secretary, on March 16, acting under instructions decided upon at a Cabinet meeting the day before, requested the British Minister to call Lord Salisbury's attention to the note of March 8, and

to inform him that the President would like to know as soon as possible the intention of the British Government in the matter, as an effective police supervision of the sealing grounds, if it should have to be undertaken by the United States alone, would require a speedy completion of arrangements. On March 19, Lord Salisbury's reply was received, disclaiming again any obligation to suppress Canadian poaching, pending arbitration of the question of property rights in the seals. He said he had reason to think that the suspension was not needed in order to protect the herds. Moreover, there was no security that another renewal would not be needed in 1893, and serious damage would result to British sealers if the industry were long suspended. He suggested, in lieu of the close season, that sealing might continue on condition that the owner of every sailing vessel should give security for satisfying any damages the arbitrators might adjudge.

President Harrison's rejoinder to this reply was dated March 22. He vigorously asserted the intention of the United States to insist upon the right to prevent pelagic sealing, as a matter of national "honor and selfrespect." "If," said he, "Her Majesty's Government proceeds during the sealing season, upon the basis of its contention as to the rights of the Canadian sealers, no choice is left to this Government but to proceed upon the basis of its confident contention, that pelagic sealing in the Behring Sea is an infraction of its jurisdiction and property rights." The President further stated frankly that he was not "willing to be found in any degree responsible for the results that might follow the insistence by either Gov

ernment, during this season, upon the extreme rights claimed by it."

There was one section of the Senate, including Senator Sherman and some others, who all along favored a ratification of the treaty, irrespective of the renewal or non-renewal of the modus vivendi. Another section, including men of both parties, favored making ratification dependent on condition of Great Britain's first agreeing to a renewal of the modus vivendi. It was even proposed—a bill being introduced for the purpose by Senator Morgan-to retaliate on Canada, by refusing to her railroads the special bonding privileges they enjoy in the United States. These roads pay nothing to the United States Government or to the separate States; they carry freight at rates prohibited for American railroads by the Interstate Commerce Act, and thus make the enforcement of that law burdensome to the latter roads. Senator Morgan's bill proposed to make goods in transit through the United States to Canada, subject to the same import duties as goods intended for sale and use in the United States.

Though somewhat divided as to action in regard to ratification, the Senate was practically one in its determination to authorize the President, in case no agreement for a close season should be reached, to use whatever means might be necessary to enforce the claims of the United States during the coming season.

Matters were assuming a somewhat critical aspect, when, in answer to the rejoinder of President Harrison of March 22, there came a reply from Lord Salisbury, dated March 26, which cast a different coloring over the whole controversy. In it, the British Prime Minister pointed out, that, as the owners of British ships sailing for Behring Sea had been notified of their liability to possible interruption, the question of time was not urgent. He concurred with President Harrison in thinking that when the treaty had been ratified, there would arise a new state of things; and intimated that he would then agree to a modus vivendi similar to that of last year, on condition that the nation which lost in the arbitration

5

should pay to the other the damages assessed by the arbitrators as resulting from the prohibition. The alternative offer was also made, to prohibit sealing by British vessels, unless they could produce a certificate that they had given security for such damages as the arbitrators might assess in case of a decision adverse to Great Britain. As to the question of damages inflicted in the past, this point Lord Salisbury consented to refer to arbitration only on condition that the arbitrators should consider merely the action taken by the respective Governments since 1885, and not the action taken by individual subjects.

In transmitting this reply to the Senate, the President intimated that it was satisfactory to his Government. The Senate, accordingly, unanimously and unconditionally ratified the treaty, making only two minor amendments, both of which had received the sanction of Lord Salisbury in advance. It was felt, that, whatever might be the outcome of arbitration, the seventh article afforded a guarantee for the protection of the seal herds, sufficient to justify a ratification.

At the close of the quarter, the United States had practically decided to accept Lord Salisbury's tender of March 26, with certain unimportant restrictions; and it was expected that an agreement for a renewal of the modus vivendi, based upon the first offer in the dispatch, would shortly be reached. The arbitration as to damages, it is understood, will cover only the period from the ratification of the treaty to the time a final decision is reached by the arbitrators. The question of past damages will remain to be dealt with, if at all, in future negotiations.

It is thought that at least six months must elapse before the sessions of the arbitration tribunal can begin at Paris. General J. W. Foster and Judge E. J. Phelps, of Vermont, are announced as the agent and leading counsel respectively, in behalf of the United States.

On the same day on which the Arbitration Treaty was signed, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision in the Sayward case, in favor of the United States,

declining to issue a writ of prohibition to the District Court in Alaska to annul the forfeiture proceedings of the said Court. The Supreme Court decided that it was debarred from issuing the writ applied for, owing to the failure of the owner of the condemned vessel to adopt certain legal proceedings at the beginning. The Alaskan Court had found the sealing to have taken place within the limits of Alaska and the waters thereof, thus making jurisdiction appear on the face of the proceedings. The owner of the vessel might have appealed against the right of the Alaskan Court to exercise its jurisdiction in the case; but he did not do so. Hence the refusal of the Supreme Court to reverse the previous decision on the mere ground that it involved the private rights of the owner of the vessel. As to the political question concerning the jurisdiction of the United States in the waters of Behring Sea, the Supreme Court refrained from giving a decision. While recognizing the compliment paid it in the willingness to have it pass judgment upon the question, the Court, nevertheless, pointed out that the matter had long been in litigation between the two Governments; that it was in its nature a political question, and should be left to the political department of the Government; and that the Court must refrain from interfering with assertions of territorial sovereignty made by other departments of the Government, just as if it were charged with the conduct of the foreign affairs of the nation. This decision, it will be seen, adds absolutely nothing to international law, and leaves matters precisely where they stood when the W. P. Sayward was seized.

THE RECIPROCITY POLICY. The results of the reciprocity policy characteristic of the present Administration in the United States, have been materially increased during the first quarter of 1892. In accordance with the resolutions of the Pan-American Congress of 1890, recommending the negotiation of treaties of reciprocity based upon equivalent advantages, the United States

Congress, it will be remembered, freely opened the American markets to certain classes of products coming largely from the Southern countries, on the understanding that the privilege would be withdrawn in 1892, if the concessions were not reciprocated.

On January 1 of the present year, the period came to an end, during which the free market for sugar, molasses, coffee, and hides could be enjoyed as a gratuitous privilege. On that day, under the provisions of the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, the President of the United States became empowered to close the market against those countries which had refrained from adjusting their tariff schedules so as to make them, in his judgment, reasonable and equitable to the United States. Brazil, the British and the Spanish West Indies, British Guiana, San Domingo, Germany, Hawaii, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Salvador, as we have already noted, had made the required concessions, and thus secured the permanent enjoyment of a free market. Other countries, however, had not done so; and President Harrison was confronted with the problem of enforcing the "retaliatory" clauses of the Tariff act. Such action was demanded in justice to those countries which had complied with the requirements of reciprocity; and yet, for obvious reasons, an immediate closing of the American market, without due notice, would have been unfair to many traders. Those, for instance, who, in the expectation that they would be permitted to enter without payment of duty, had purchased cargoes abroad, in countries from which (e.g., the Philippine Islands) the transportation voyage requires a long period of time, would be exposed to an undue discrimination. It was, accordingly, decided not to close the free market until due warning had been given; and, on January 7, Secretary Blaine sent notes to the diplomatic representatives of Austria-Hungary, Colombia, Hayti, Nicaragua, Honduras, Spain (for the Philippine Islands), and Venezuela, informing them that on March 15, unless their tariff on the agricultural and other products of the United States should, in the mean

concerning the Spanish West Indies, which would otherwise have involved an average discrimination of 2 cents a pound against the British West Indian and the German producer. The treaty with Germany secures reductions of duties, ranging between 10 and 14 per cent, on nearly all American farm products. It places the United States on equal terms with AustriaHungary, and at a marked advantage compared with Russia, in supplying food to the German market. By the arrangements with the British West Indies, the tariffs of those islands are so adjusted as to transfer the burden of taxation from imported American food products to British manufactures, lowering thus the cost of living, and pointing toward an expansion of exports. There is one important difference, however, which distinguishes the conventions with the British West Indies. They establish no preferential schedules; and other countries, as well as the United States, will share the advantages of the reduced duties. The benefit to the American exporter will lie wholly in the probable increased demand.

On March 15, President Carnot signed the reciprocity treaty which subjects the French Republic to the provisions of the United States Tariff law. It is largely due to the personal efforts of United States Minister Whitelaw Reid, that we are able to record this successful termination of the negotiations which were begun some time before the close of 1891. The United States is to enjoy the minimum schedule of duties under the recently adopted general tariff of France, which will be applied to canned meats; fresh and dried table fruits, except raisins; timber, rough-hewnorsawn; wood paving blocks; stave wood for casks; hops; pears; and compressed apples. In return, a free market is secured for sugar, molasses, and hides imported into the United States from France and her colonies. In regard to pork products, the right is acceded to France, to seize meat proved to be infected. with trichinæ.

In spite of the strenuous opposition of the mercantile and agricultural classes in Spain, to the ratification of

the Cuban reciprocity treaty, the Spanish Senate, on March 10, approved the convention by a vote of 90 to 50.

By treaties already made, or under negotiation, the reciprocity amendment of the McKinley Tariff Act is now applied to the regulation of 95 per cent of the sugar imports of the United States, in such a way as to open up foreign markets for American products. The following table shows the value of the sugar imports from the several countries in 1890, with the percentages those imports form of the total supply:

IMPORTED SUGAR SUPPLY—1890.

Over two-thirds of the coffee supply of the United States is also now subject to the conditions of reciprocity. The total importation into the United States during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1890, was $78,253,446. Of this amount, $54,857,869 came from Brazil, the West Indies (except Hayti), Guatemala, Costa Rica, Salvador and Mexico. Of the remainder, $9,662,207 came from Venezuela, about the same amount from Asia and Africa, and somewhat less than $4,000,000 from Colombia and Hayti, with none of which latter countries have reciprocity arrangements yet been made.

Careful estimates place the total increased volume of export trade resulting from the conventions already concluded, at $50,000,000. In the case of Brazil, it exceeded $2,000,000 within eight months after the treaty went into effect.

THE DISPUTE WITH CHILI. By mutual forbearance and a conscientious regard for mutual rights, the diplomatic troubles between the United States and Chili have been set at rest; and the two countries, whose