Finally, it is necessary to consider a large number of minor provisions of law and incidental practices that result in unequal burdens to American commerce. From time to time many little ways of favoritism crop out, often not even intimated by the text of the law. A thing so intangible as an unofficial act of a customs officer which would result in the delay of goods from a particular country, while hastening the passage through the customs house of the goods of a rival country, might conceivably be of genuine importance where competition is close or the market insufficient for two cargoes.1 Under such circumstances every little advantage counts in making sales. Some instances of concealed and other miscellaneous inequalities may appropriately be examined:

(a) Referring to the discriminations against American commerce which Section 317 was designed to combat, Mr. Smoot, in his above-quoted address to the Senate, mentioned the practice of certain countries,

giving a separate classification to and levying a higher rate upon cottonseed oil than upon olive, palm, or other competing oils, or . . . . so adjusting their automobile duties that those types of cars which we export are subject to the highest rates.2 This practice is one of long standing. It was the cause of

In one of the territories administered under mandate of the League of Nations local merchants are said to have complained that whenever an invoice covering goods from the mandatory country was presented the declared valuation was almost always accepted, but that when invoices covering foreign, especially American, goods were presented the valuation was almost invariably questioned. Even when the valuation was not increased, the delay caused the importer was often sufficient to permit his competitor importing goods from the mandatory country to have outsold him; moreover, that while the customs officials granted every facility to the importers of goods from the mandatory country, they placed every possible hindrance in the way of the importer of American goods.

'Congressional Record, vol. 62, pt. vi, 67th Congress, 2d Session, p. 5879.

much diplomatic correspondence when, following the enactment of the maximum-minimum provision of the Tariff Act of 1909, serious effort was made to obtain for cottonseed oil, a distinctively American product, a parity of treatment with edible oils ordinarily originating in other countries. Italy at the present time, notwithstanding its treaty assurance of most-favored-nation treatment to American products,1 imposes a higher duty upon cottonseed oil than upon other oils which are used for identical purposes, but which are not important exports of the United States. It is probable that the resulting unequal burden upon the American product is a discrimination within the meaning of Section 317. In other words, the competitive use to which a product is put, rather than its name and extractive source, would seem, within narrow limits and in perfectly clear cases, to be the decisive factor in respect to the operation of the defensive duties. Otherwise, ingenious refinements in tariff nomenclature might entirely defeat the purpose of the Section.

(b) A more debatable case is found in the practice of levying especially high duties upon products that are more important exports from the United States than from other countries but which do not compete with other products of a similar variety commonly originating elsewhere than in the United States. A case in point was furnished when Italy, in 1921, increased its import duty upon typewriters from seventy-five to four hundred lire gold per quintal. Reverting to the preceding paragraph, an intermediate example would result if, instead of differentiating between cottonseed and similar oils, all such oils were highly taxed and oil-bearing seeds and nuts were admitted freely or at low rates of duty. The invocation of Section 317 with respect to these practices seems improbable, though the one is and the other would be, in a sense, discriminatory against the commerce of the United States.

'Treaty of Feb. 26, 1871, arts. vi and xxiv.

(c) Still another variation of what seems to be the common principle of the preceding examples is found where a product of the United States is dutiable at higher rates than the same product of another country differing slightly in process of manufacture or in constituent elements. The butter content of condensed milk manufactured in the United States and sold abroad is normally seven and eight-tenths per centum. The British Guiana Customs Duties Ordinance, 1922, inaugurated a drastic increase in the duty on condensed milk containing less than ten per centum of butter fat. Italy levies a tax of sixteen lire gold per quintal upon natural vaseline and thirty lire gold upon vaseline containing paraffine-a distinction which appears to affect adversely the importation of vaseline from the United States. Recent reports from another country have given account of a change in classification, as a result of which a certain brand of American-made hats appears to be subject to higher duties than similar hats of different makes, from whatever place originating. Whether or not these unequal burdens are discriminations within the meaning of Section 317 probably depends on whether they are bona fide regulations for the promotion of health, the avoidance of adulteration and the correction of erroneous classifications on the one hand or, on the other hand, instances of disguised favoritism. The determination of this question will obviously be difficult in many cases.

(d) It is a common practice among commercial nations to include, for the purpose of making assessments for advalorem duties, the cost of transportation. This practice results in unequal impositions upon the commerce of more remote as compared with nearby countries. Similarly, the packing in which goods are contained is commonly dutiable and long-distance shipments, which require heavier packing, are consequently subjected to added burdens. The compara

[250 tively isolated location of the United States renders its commerce peculiarly vulnerable to these inequalities. This country itself levies duties upon packing, however, and the inclusion in valuation of such items as freight is a long-accepted practice which is recognized in at least one international convention - the final act of the Conference of Berlin as amended at Brussels in 1890. Moreover, the official valuations for the Chinese tariff have been fixed by the international commission, upon which the United States was represented, on the basis of the values of goods delivered at Shanghai. These two examples of unequal burdens could hardly be considered unreasonable discriminations by the American Government. It is interesting to note, however, that Switzerland, which is able to import automobiles brought in by their own power from France and Italy, was recently induced to lower its duties upon the heavy crating necessary for automobiles shipped overseas from the United States.1

(e) Specific duties are collected by La Luz and Las Palmas, Canary Islands, on all merchandise entering their ports, at rates varying according to zones of origin. The first zone consists of Spain and its possessions; the second of the remaining ports of Europe, the Mediterranean Sea and part of the Atlantic coast of Africa; the third of the remainder of the world. The products of the United States thus pay the highest rates: whether they are discriminated against within the meaning of Section 317 forms a nice question with the chances of decision apparently favoring the negative.

(f) The parcel-post regulations of Venezuela require the collection of a fee of five cents for handling each package brought in from foreign countries except the United States,

'This was before the enactment of Section 317.

with respect to which the corresponding duty is thirty cents. This appears to be a palpable discrimination against the latter country.

(g) In certain countries-particularly in Central Europe —the emergencies of the war and reconstruction periods have developed regulations forbidding the importation or exportation, except under license, of the commodities named in extensive lists. Agreements to license the exchange of fixed quotas or contingents" of specified commodities have been concluded between countries. Where goods cannot cross the frontier except under license, the grant of which may be left to the discretion of administrative officials, opportunities for favoritism are obviously many. Other such opportunities may arise in the determination of limited quotas of goods for competing states. There is evidence that American commerce has suffered some detriment in this way, but such cases are difficult to prove. They seem undoubtedly discriminatory.

(h) The Comisión Exportadora de Yucatán is an official branch of the socialist government of that state, which has a complete monopoly of the production and marketing of Mexican sisal (henequen). A recent report to the Comisión, presented by its attorney, contained this statement:

Since it is our aim to develop the consumption of our sisal hemp, our institution has undertaken to facilitate all the operations carried through in Europe, one of the many facilities afforded being that of assigning a lower price than the one quoted in the United States, taking into consideration the greater cost of transportation of the merchandise, there being no doubt that if, to the price obtainable in the United States, we should add the excess rate of freight for transportation to Europe, we would be placed in an unfavorable position in competing with the other fibers sent there.1

'Translated from pamphlet: Informe presentado ante el H. Consejo