Williams, At.-Gen. 1874, 14 Op. 468. The Attorney-General afterwards held that steam vessels of Bremen, plying regularly between that port and the United States, were entitled to a similar exemption under Art. IX. of the treaty between the United States and the Hanseatic Republics of Dec. 20, 1827, in connection with Arts. VIII. and XVII. of the treaty with Belgium. (Williams, At. Gen., 1875, 14 Op. 530.) Congress, by a joint resolution of June 17, 1874, requested notice to be given to Belgium of the termination of the treaty of 1858, pursuant to its 17th article. Such notice was given July 1, 1874, with an explanation of the reasons therefor. "In complying with the official instruction in my No. 176, you may ver- See, also, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Delfosse, Belg. min., Nov. 9, 1874, A new treaty was concluded March 8, 1875, excluding the objectionable See Notes to Treaties, Treaty Vol. (1776–1887), 1248–1249. By Article I. of the reciprocity convention between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands of January 30, Treaty with Hawaii, 1875, the government of the United States, "in 1875. consideration of the rights and privileges granted by His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands," and "as an equivalent therefor," agreed to admit certain articles, including unrefined sugar and molasses, free of duty. By Article II. various things, the produce or manufacture of the United States, were on reciprocal grounds to be admitted free of duty into the Hawaiian Islands. By Article IV. it was agreed that the King of Hawaii should not, so long as the convention remained in force, "lease or otherwise dispose of or create any lien upon any port, harbor, or other territory in his dominions, or grant any special privileges or rights of use therein, to any other power, state or government, nor make any treaty by which any other nation shall obtain the same privileges, relative to the admission of any articles free of duty, hereby secured to the United States." By an act of Congress of August 15, 1876, 19 Stats. 200, provision was made for the carrying of the convention with Hawaii into effect. By this act the President of the United States was authorized, whenever he should receive satisfactory evidence that the legislature of the Hawaiian Islands had passed laws to give the convention effect, to issue his proclamation declaring that he had such evidence; and it was further enacted that from the date of such proclamation the various articles specified in the convention, being the growth, manufacture, or produce of the Hawaiian Islands, should be introduced into the United States free of duty, so long as the convention remained in force. The proclamation thus authorized was made by the President on September 9, 1876. When the convention went into effect a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem was levied in Hawaii upon various articles; but by an act of the Hawaiian legislature of September 27, 1876, it was provided that on and after the 9th of the ensuing October the duty should in certain cases be raised to 25 per cent. Among the articles on which the duty was thus increased were some which, when they were produced in the United States, were to be admitted under the convention free of duty. Against this discrimination both the British and German governments protested. By Article IV. of the treaty between Great Britain and Hawaii, concluded July 10, 1851, it was stipulated that no other or higher duties should be imposed in the one country on the importation of any article the growth, produce, or manufacture of the other country, than should be payable on like articles from any other foreign country. The German opposition was based on general grounds, there being then no commercial treaty between Germany and the Hawaiian Islands. The question thus raised led to the sending abroad by the Hawaiian government of Mr. H. A. P. Carter, as special envoy, to effect an arrangement with Great Britain and Germany. On October 25, 1877, Lord Derby presented to Mr. Carter a proposal by which it was to be agreed that the duties on British products should not exceed 10 per cent ad valorem, and that whenever this was done the provisions of Article IV. of the treaty of 1851 should" become and remain inoperative," as long as the law should continue in force. With reference. to this proposal Lord Derby, in an instruction to the British representative at Honolulu January 25, 1878, said: "In consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the commercial relations of the Hawaiian Islands, as explained by Mr. Carter, and the statements made by you after communication with British merchants interested in the trade with those islands, Her Majesty's government proposed this method of settlement of the points in discussion between the two governments. But it was only as a temporary arrangement, the reciprocity treaty of 1875 being limited in duration, and only under the peculiar circumstances of the case, that Her Majesty's government could agree to any sort of differential treatment of British goods, and a formal agreement to the reduction of the 25 per cent duties to 10 per cent as a maximum was a necessary condition of any such arrangement." By an act of the Hawaiian legislature approved August 1, 1878, the duties in question were restored to the former rate of 10 per cent ad valorem. During the discussion with the British government it transpired that Lord Clarendon caused the Hawaiian government to be informed in 1856, with reference to the unratified reciprocity treaty between the United States and Hawaii, signed at Washington in the preceding year, that " as the advantages conceded to the United States by the Sandwich Islands are expressly stated to be given in consideration of, and as an equivalent for, certain reciprocal concessions on the part of the United States, Great Britain can not as a matter of right claim the same advantages for her trade under the strict letter of the treaty of 1851.” From London Mr. Carter proceeded to Berlin where, on September 19, 1879, he concluded a commercial treaty. By Article III. of this treaty it was provided that each party should extend to the other in matters of commerce and navigation most-favored-nation treatment, freely if it was freely granted, or for the same compensation if it was conditional; and by Article IV. it was provided that no other or higher duties should be imposed in the one country on the products of the other than were payable on like articles produced in any other foreign country. A separate article was added to the treaty, reading as follows: “Certain relations of proximity and other considerations having rendered it important to the Hawaiian government to enter into mutual arrangements with the government of the United States of America by a convention concluded at Washington, the 30th day of January, 1875; "The two High Contracting Parties have agreed that the special advantages granted by said convention to the United States of America, in consideration of equivalent advantages, shall not in any case be invoked in favor of the relations sanctioned between the two High Contracting Parties by the present treaty." July 1, 1878, before the questions with Great Britain and Germany were definitely settled, Mr. Comly, American minister at Honolulu, addressed a note to the Hawaiian minister of foreign affairs, maintaining the views of the United States concerning the reciprocity treaty and the most-favored-nation clause. Referring to this note, Mr. Evarts, in an instruction to Mr. Comly, August 6, 1878, said: "The note which you addressed to the minister for foreign affairs, claiming that by the parity clause of the ordinary form of treaty,' other nations were not entitled to the same privileges as were conceded to the United States by the reciprocity treaty with Hawaii, is in accordance with the views of this Department." Report of the Com. on For. Aff. of the Legislative Assembly of Hawaii, June 17, 1878, For. Rel. 1878, 384; Report of special committee of the Hawaiian Assembly, July 26, 1878, For. Rel. 1879, 513, 518; Report of Mr. Carter, special envoy, June 25, 1878, For Rel. 1878, 402; act of Hawaiian Assembly, Aug. 1, 1878, For. Rel. 1879, 512; Gen. Miller, British min., to the Hawaiian min. of for. rel., March 28, 1856, communicating the views of Lord Clarendon, For. Rel. 1879, 516; Mr. Comly, Am. min., to Hawaiian min. of for. aff., July 1, 1878, For. Rel. 1878, 404; Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Comly, No. 28, Aug. 6, 1878, id. 405. A suit was brought to recover back from the United States certain duties alleged to have been unlawfully exacted on various importations of unrefined sugar and molasses, the produce and manufacture of the island of St. Croix, a part of the dominions of the King of Denmark. The claim was decided against the plaintiff (21 Blatchford, 211), and from this decision an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. The claim for free entry was based on the convention between the United States and Denmark of April 26, 1826, and the convention between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands concluded January 30, 1875. By Article I. of the former convention the contracting parties "engage, mutually, not to grant any particular favor to other nations, in respect of commerce and navigation, which shall not immediately become common to the other party, who shall enjoy the same freely, if the concession were freely made, or upon allowing the same compensation, if the concession were conditional." By Article IV. of the same convention it was agreed that no higher or other duties should be imposed in the one country on articles the produce or manufacture of the other country than should be payable on like articles being the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country. It was held (1) that the duties were properly collected, if the act under which they were levied was not controlled by the treaty with Denmark after the ratification of the treaty with the Hawaiian Islands; (2) that the act was not so controlled, since the stipulations of the treaty with Denmark, even if conceded to be self-executing as a proviso or exception to the general tariff law, did not cover “concessions like those made to the Hawaiian Islands for a valuable consideration; (3) that the stipulations in question, while they obliged both countries to avoid hostile or discriminative legislation, were "not intended to interfere with special arrangements with other countries founded upon a concession of special privileges;" (4) that, if the mutual exemption of certain articles from duty in the treaty between the United States and Hawaii was to be deemed a “particular favor" in respect of commerce and navigation within Article I. of the Danish treaty, it could be claimed by Denmark only upon like compensation to the United States; (5) that it did not appear that Denmark had ever objected to the imposition of duties on goods from her dominions because of the exemption from duty of similar goods imported from the Hawaiian Islands into the United States under the reciprocity convention. The judgment of the court below rejecting the claim of the plaintiff was affirmed. Bartram v. Robertson (1887), 122 U. S. 116. The most-favored-nation clause in the treaty with Denmark does not 1884. "While this government can not agree with that of Mexico, that under the provisions of the most-favored-nation Views expressed, clause, another nation becomes entitled to privileges granted by a reciprocity treaty, still as there are various considerations affecting the question as now presented, I content myself with a courteous denial that the most-favored-nation clause applies to reciprocity treaties, without now entering into any argument on the subject." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Romero, Mex. min., May 2, 1884, "The English contention has hitherto been, under the most-favored- "The British contention and our own are in manifest conflict. How far |