736 Rough rods and tubes of natural colored glass---- Hollow glass 737 Neither molded nor ground, polished, smoothed, Of natural color.. 740 Oolored от white nontransparent, or even Colored or white nontransparent, or even Other Tare: Same as No. 737. Molded, ground, polished, smoothed, cut, en- glass Other 24.00 15.00 20.00 12.00 or even Tare: Cases-Ink wells made of ground white Painted, gilt, or silvered, also figured by colors So-called "Silberglass" (ordinary, white, transpar- Tare: Cases, 40; casks, 40; casks, 40;hampers, 18. Tariff Relations Between the Mother Country and its Dependencies, Possessions, or Colonies. (Preferential Tarifs.) The tariff relations between the mother country and its colonies may be classed under the following heads: 1. Those in which Colonial imports into the mother country are subject to the same rates of duty as the products of foreign countries enjoying the most favored nation treatment. This mode of treatment of colonial imports prevails at present in the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands; in the case of the United Kingdom and Netherlands, which are practically on a free trade basis, the reasons of such policy are obvious. the case of Germany the imports from her colonies consist almost exclusively of such products, mainly raw materials, as do not enter into competition with German home products or manufactures and are not subject to any duty whatever their orgin. In 2. Those in which colonial products when imported into the mother country are subject to preferential, that is, lower customs duties; thus, for example, the United States accords a 25 per cent reduction from the general rates to all dutiable imports from the Philippine Islands. The French Government accords preferential treatment without limitation as to quantity to certain articles, such as lumber, palm oil, etc., imported from the French West coast of Africa. In other cases reduced rates are charged on limited quantities of certain colonial products. 3. Those in which the tariff of the mother country is made to apply to the colonies and trade between the mother country and its colonies is free and subject to no duty. An example of such treatment is presented by the tariff arrangement existing between the United States and Perto Rico. In the case of tariff relations between France and the larger part of her colonies, while free trade exists in most articles exchanged between them, important exceptions to the general rule are found in the case of "colonial" products imported into France, such as cocoa, chocolate, coffee, tea, pepper, etc., which are subject to revenue duties, though in most cases these duties are 50 per cent below the minimum rates charged on imports of the same character from foreign countries: Treatment by the Colonies of Goods Coming from the Mother Country or other Colonies Under the Same Sovereignty. The fiscal treatment of imports from the mother country by the colonies is likewise three-fold: 1. Those in which no fiscal favor or preference is shown to imports from the mother country. This is the arrangement prevailing at present in the Dutch German colonies and British Crown colonies, as well as in the Philippine Islands with regard to imports from the United States. 2. Those in which the products of the mother country are subject to preferential treatment, that is, admitted into the colony on payment of lower rates of duty than charged on imports from foreign countries. The manifest purpose of such legislation is to bring about a closer economic and commercial relationship between the colonies and the mother country and to open a more favorable market for the products of the mother country in exchange for better opportunities offered to the products of the colony in the markets of the mother country. Unless existing treaties with foreign countries contain provisions to the contrary, it would seem that a foreign country cannot claim the extension to her products of the preferential rates on the basis of its most favored nation clause in its commercial treaty with the mother country. In practice, however, the application of preferential rates by the British self-governing colonies to the products of the mother country has given rise to controversies and tariff difficulties with foreign countries. Thus, for example, Canada involved herself into difficulties with Germany by according preference to British products; the result of this difficulty has been that Canadian products imported into Germany are subject to the general tariff and not to the conventional rates. This preferential policy in British colonial tariffs is the growth of recent years. Canada entered upon this policy in 1897 and accords now reductions of duty on a large number of articles, the product and manufactures of the United Kingdom. The new Canadian tariff which went into force November 30, 1906, provides for the application of preferential rates to direct importations not only from the United Kingdom but also to products coming from British West Indies, British Guiana, Australia, Straits Settlements, New Zealand and the South African Customs Union. New Zealand in its tariff of 1907 accords preferential treatment to certain articles which are the produce and manufacture of some part of the British dominions, either by imposing duties of 20 to 50 per cent higher on the same articles when coming from foreign countries or by admitting free of duty certain other articles that are dutiable at 10 to 20 per cent ad valorem when not of British production. The Australian Commonwealth has also adopted the same principle of preferential treatment of certain goods imported into the Commonwealth when the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom. Furthermore these semi-sovereign colonies have entered into or are negotiating reciprocity tariff arrangements between each other, by which preferential treatment of the respective imports from each other is granted to an extent even larger than that which is accorded to products of the mother country. The third type of tariff treatment of the products of the mother country by the colonies is that prevailing in Porto Rico and in a large number of the French colonies, i. e., imports froin the mother country are admitted free of duty. In a case of the French colonies which have adopted the same mode of treating the products of the mother country free trade exists between all of them, these colonies, together with the mother country, constituting. as it were, one greater customs union. List of tariff treaties concluded by Germany with other European countries. *With option of denouncing it 12 months before December 31, 1915. List of Recent Tariff Treaties Concluded by France with other European Countries, with the United States and Canada. Austria-Hungary, 1884; Belgium, 1906; Germany (treaty of peace at Frankfort), May 10, 1871; Great Britain, 1882; Roumania, 1907; Russia, 1905; Servia, 1907; Spain, 1893-4; Sweden and Norway, 1892; Switzerland, 1906; Canada, 1907; United States, 1908. RECIPROCITY. Reciprocity is another form of tariff revision which has been suggested at various times by various people and by people belonging to various political parties. It was suggested by President Arthur, James G. Blaine, and William McKinley; was put into operation in the McKinley tariff law; was destroyed by the Democratic Wilson-Gorman tariff law; and now the Democratic party is charging that the Republican party is not willing to give the country "genuine reciprocity." There are two distinct kinds of legislation which have been designated as reciprocity legislation. The first of these was enacted by the Democratic party in 1854, taking effect in 1855. It was reciprocity with Canada, and provided that certain articles, the growth or produce of Canada or the United States, should be admitted into each country, respectively, free of duty. These were articles of common production in the two countries, and included grain, flour, animals of all kinds, fresh, smoked, and salted meats, cotton, seeds, vegetables, fruits, fish, poultry, eggs, hides, furs, stone, slate, butter, cheese, tallow, lard, ores, coal, pitch, turpentine, ashes, timber, lumber, flax, hemp, tobacco, and rags. These were all, with the single exception of cotton, articles of mutual production, and Democratic reciprocity simply provided for free trade in these competing articles. Under that treaty, which went into effect March 16, 1855, and terminated March 17, 1866, exports from the United States to Canada fell from $27,741,808 in the fiscal year 1855 to $23.439,115 in the fiscal year 1866, a reduction in our exports to Canada of over 4 million dollars during this period of Democratic reciprocity, while imports into the United States from Canada increased from $15,118,289 in 1855 to $48,133,599 in 1866, an increase of 33 million dollars. In our trade with all other countries during that same period our imports increased 60 per cent while those from Canada were increasing 220 per cent, and our exports to all other countries increased 70 per cent while those to Canada under this reciprocity were decreasing 15 per cent. It was simply free trade in articles of common production and with no barric to protect the domestic producer-the result being a much greater increase in our imports from Canada than in those from other countries, and a decrease of exports to that country, while to other countries exports were increasing. A later form of reciprocity with which the country has had experience is illustrated by the plan formulated in the McKinley tariff law and expressed by William McKinley in his muchquoted speech at Buffalo, in which he said: "By sensible trade arrangements which will not interrupt our home production we shall extend the outlets for our increasing surplus. * * * # We should take from our customers such of their products as we can use without harm to our industries and labor. * If perchance some of our tariffs are no longer needed for revenue or to encourage and protect our industries at home, why should they not be employed to extend and promote our markets abroad?" To purchase from our neighbor "such of their products as we can use without harm to our industries and labor;" in other words such of their products as are not produced by our own labor and obtain in exchange markets for the class of merchandise which we desire to sell, and which the countries in question require for their own use, differs materially from the reciprocity of 1855-56, which was merely free trade in articles of mutual production, articles which when imported compete with the home producer. The chief classes of products which we do not produce in the United States are tropical and subtropical. We import about 400 million dollars' worth of tropical and subtropical products every year; more than a million dolars' worth for every day in the year, including Sundays and holidays. These articles we do not produce in the United States in sufficient quantities for home requirements. They include rubber, hemp, sisal, jute, raw silk, Egyptian cotton, and other articles used in manufacturing, and coffee, cocoa, tea, spices, olives, bananas, and sugar, used as food and drink. These classes of articles are of the class which "we can use without harm to our industries and labor." Sugar is the only article in this list produced in the United States, and at the present time the home production of sugar is only sufficient to supply about one-fifth of the total home consumption. The countries which produce these tropical and subtropical articles are not manufacturing countries, nor are they large producers of those great staples of food-flour, wheat, corn, and meats. As a consequence, they require the very classes of articles which the people of the United States have to sell. Reciprocity Treaties Under the McKinley Law. Under the McKinley tariff law reciprocity treaties were made by President Harrison with the governments of Brazil, British Guiana, Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Santo Domingo, and the countries governing the British West Indies and Porto Rico and Cuba. These treaties provided for a reduction of duties on foodstuffs and manufactures from the United States entering the countries and islands in question, in exchange for the free importation of sugar, coffee, tea, and hides into the United States, as provided under the general terms of the McKinley act. The result of those treaties with this group of tropical countries, producing the class of articles which the United States requires and does not produce in sufficient quantities at home, was that our exports to those countries and islands increased 26 per cent and our imports from them increased 28 per cent between 1890, the year of the enactment of the McKinley law, and 1894, the year in which it was repealed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, and reciprocity thus destroyed. During that same period our exports to all other countries than those above named increased 3 per cent and our imports from them decreased 27 per cent. The Hawatian Reciprocity Treaty. Another example of reciprocity, that with countries producing the class of articles which we require and importing the class which we produce and desire to export, was the reciprocity treaty with the Hawaiian Islands. That treaty went into effect September 9, 1876, and terminated April 30, 1900. During that period of the existence of that agreement, our exports to the Hawaiian Islands grew from $779,257 in the fiscal year 1876 to $13,509,148 in the fiscal year 1900, while imports from the Hawaiian Islands of noncompeting articles demanded by our markets-tropical products-increased from $1,227,191 in 1876 to $20,707,903 in 1900. Thus by taking from this tropical country-Hawaii-its production of articles which we must import from some part of the world, we built up in the Hawaiian Islands a market for our merchandise seventeen times as large as in 1876. Reciprocity. The statements and tables which follow show in concise terms the experience of the United States with reciprocity. The principal treaties and agreements of the United States with other countries were, first, that with the British North American pos sessions, from 1855 to 1866; second, that with the Hawaiian Islands, from 1876 to 1900, the date of annexation; third, the series of agreements made under the tariff Act of 1890 and continuing in force until terminated by the Wilson Act of 1894; fourth, reciprocal agreements with certain European countries made under the Act of 1897; and, fifth, the reciprocity treaty with Cuba, taking effect in December, 1903, and still in operation. The details of the agreements with these various countries and under these various Acts are stated below, and in the accompanying tables is shown the commerce with each of the countries in question covering the years immediately prior to that in which the treaty took effect and continuing to the end of its operation or to the present time in the cases of those still in force. It will be noted that in the trade with Canada, whose products are similar to our own, the exports from the United States to that country made but slight increase during the existence of the treaty, but have grown rapidly since its termination. In the case of the Hawaiian Islands the exports thereto grew rapidly under the treaty and have grown with equal rapidity since annexation, which made permanent the freedom of interchange between that section producing tropical products required by the United States and requiring products of the temperate zone and of manufacturing industries such as those which the United States has to sell. In the countries with which reciprocity agreements were made under the Act of 1890, in nearly all cases tropical or subtropical countries, the exports thereto showed marked gains during the existence of the reciprocity treaties. In the case of the European countries with which reciprocity agreements were made under the Act of 1897, the growth in the trade, while steady, seems to have been little affected by these agreements, which, as will be seen by the terms of the treaties, affected comparatively few articles. In the trade with Cuba under the reciprocity treaty of 1903 there has been a marked growth in both imports from and exports to that island, as will be seen in the table showing trade with Cuba from 1880 to 1908. The relations with that island, both commercial and otherwise, have been so varied during the last 20 years as to render interesting and important this statement of our trade therewith during that period and in the years immediately preceding. Under the reciprocity clause of the McKinley tariff act an agreement was made in June, 1891, with Spain, relative to Cùba and Porto Rico, by which sugar, molasses, coffee, and hides were admitted into the United States free of duty and in exchange for that privilege salted meats, fish, lard, woods for cooperage and manufactured into doors and frames, wagons, cars, sewing machines, manufactures of iron and steel, and numerous other articles from the United States were admitted free of duty into Cuba; also that corn, corn meal, wheat, flour and other articles should be admitted at reduced rates of duty. This agreement remained in force from September 1, 1891, to August 27, 1894. From the latter date until the United States assumed control of Cuba in 1898 no special agreements or relations affected trade between the United States and that island. American occupation of Cuba continued from January 1, 1899, at which date the Spanish evacuated the island and relinquished sovereignty, to May 20, 1902. On December 27, 1903, became effective the present reciprocity treaty with Cuba, under which a |