of Cuban products; Spain, those of Portugal; the Baltic states, those of each other. Is this a practice deserving the approbation of the world? If so, what are its precise limitations? Here, also, a single universal statement, such as a world treaty could contain, would seem to promise a maximum of uniformity and certainty.

While a widespread system of bi-lateral unconditional most favored - nation treaties should naturally precede a single general treaty, the appropriate ultimate result of the consistent application of such a policy as that expressed in Section 317 of the Tariff Act of 1922 would seem to be a universal world compact defining equality of treatment and pledging a full measure of it from every country to every country.

(b) A World Tribunal for Interpretation

A proposal to create a recognized agency for the consideration and determination of disputed points of language or policy may be either alternative or supplementary to the proposal of a universal most-favored-nation treaty. The general acceptance of a stated tribunal which would specialize in commercial cases and build up a common law based upon precedent would seem almost indispensable if the commercial world is to continue to rely chiefly upon bi-lateral agreements. Such a special court, or a general court, appropriately the Permanent Court of International Justice, could do much to eliminate the inadequacies of a system of separate treaties, each concluded by two countries only, and to establish that uniformity which is the primary virtue of a single treaty. Its services would still be useful, however, should general regional or world treaties come into operation; for there would still be necessary the application of the language and policy of the general instruments to continually changing circumstances.

(c) Is the Question Essentially Economic or is it Political?

There remains for final mention a question of high policy, suggested on a previous page,' that may become acute in the not far distant future. In the matter of most-favorednation treatment should political or economic considerations be regarded as controlling? For instance, should Canada, bound by political ties to other portions of the British Empire, but situated, except for Newfoundland, thousands of miles away from any of them and having with them little or no natural economic relationship, be considered justified in discriminating in favor of Great Britain or New Zealand against the United States? On the other hand, would Canada, which has thousands of miles of common geographical boundary with the United States, and is bound to it by almost every conceivable economic tie, be justified in discriminating in favor of the United States in tariff matters or, perhaps, in exclusively offering it entire free trade?

Section 317 answers both these questions in the negative, but they are obviously questions that concern all countries and not merely the United States. Perhaps world opinion, expressed through a universal treaty or by the decision of a world tribunal, might answer one or the other or both in the affirmative. At all events there would be advantage to all countries in an authoritative pronouncement which would suffice for a guide to uniformity, and complete understanding of the most-favored-nation clause. Pending such time as matters of this sort may be determined by universal treaty a series of decisions on such subjects would be of vast benefit to the commerce of the world and would contribute materially toward comity and good understanding of

nations.

1Supra, subdivision 52.

Already one may be justified in asserting that a country's tariff is no longer a "local issue" or even a question of merely national concern. It is rapidly becoming a matter of recognized world interest.1

1 The international aspect of the tariff problem was interestingly set forth in an address by Dr. W. S. Culbertson, of the United States Tariff Commission, before the American Economic Association, at Richmond, December 28, 1918. Dr. Culbertson suggested general treaties governing certain tariff matters and the creation of an international tariff commission. In the United States Tariff Commission's report on Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, prepared in large part before 1919, occurs (p. 42) the following passage:

"When the peace settlement is being decided, it should be found possible to frame a model pledge or pledges intended to secure equality of treatment; also to devise machinery for the construction and enforcement of such, along with other international pledges.”

Recent editorials, moreover, have recognized that an exclusively national interest in tariffs can no longer be defended; e. g., “Tariffs: A World Problem" (New York Journal of Commerce, Dec. 2, 1922); “Economic Internationalism" (Christian Science Monitor, May 17, 1923).

CONCLUSION

The object and effort of the foregoing pages has been to set forth a full exposition of Section 317 of the Tariff Act of 1922, to inquire into its antecedents and the precedents by which it is sanctioned, and to explain the international commercial policy which naturally grows out of it.

Section 317 was shown to represent the determination of the American Government to demand and maintain, through the potential imposition of defensive additional duties upon imports from other countries into the United States, reasonable equality for American exports, so far as customs duties and all other charges affecting commerce are concerned, in all of the markets of the world. Existing discriminations adversely affecting American goods were shown to be of appreciable extent and seriousness.

After observing the development of the idea underlying Section 317 through preceding legislation, the ways and means for making the operation of Section 317 of most practical benefit to American commerce were discussed. The conclusion was reached that the new policy could best be given effect through the negotiation of treaties with the other countries of the world containing assurances of unconditional most-favored-nation treatment. The actual imposition of defensive duties was in general favored only after failure to obtain by reasoned persuasion the other country's promise of equality of treatment.

In Part Two the obstacles confronting the policy just outlined were considered in some detail. Not the least serious of them were discovered in the numerous provisions incon

545]

335

sistent with the policy expressed in Section 317 which the Tariff Act of 1922 was found to contain. Discriminations against other countries resulting from the colonial policy of the United States, as well as the peculiar interpretation of most-favored-nation treatment heretofore espoused by this country, appeared also to constitute troublesome impediments. These, however, can be altered by the American Government; more serious obstacles were found in antagonistic and reactionary policies of other countries which bid fair to oppose stubbornly the liberalism of the new American policy.

Set over against these obstacles definitely encouraging facts were found to exist and were outlined in Part Three. In the first place, Section 317 has already borne fruit in the development of the policy that it expresses. The traditional American policies resulting in equality of treatment in tariff and commercial matters, the firm stand taken by this Government for the Open Door and for equality of treatment in areas mandated under the League of Nations; and, moreover, the unconditional character of the most-favored-nation clause as accepted, with some post-bellum irregularities, by most of the important countries of the world, were seen to constitute powerful arguments as well as influential precedents for the establishment of such a commercial policy as that called for by Section 317.

Finally, the steadily increasing acceptance of multi-lateral conventions as a method of stabilizing international relations, and the growing number of conferences in which the nations are willing to discuss and determine commercial and customs questions, were cited as fundamental facts hopefully pointing to the ultimate consummation of the new American commercial policy in a universal convention establishing perfect equality of treatment in all countries to the commerce of all the countries of the world.