rates provided for in the subsequent treaties with France and Great Britain. 1 The Spanish-Norwegian treaty 1 of October 7, 1922, provisionally put into effect before signature, is largely devoted to arrangements under which Spanish wines may be admitted into Norway. In regard to general commerce Spain agrees to apply to Norwegian merchandise the duties of the second column. To a limited number of goods, notably to products of the fisheries, rates lower than those of the present second column are fixed. To these articles and to certain others, Spain guarantees most-favored-nation treatment. The Norwegian government is, in a general way, to apply to Spanish goods the duties of the minimum tariff in force at any time. To a specified list of articles, chiefly fruits, special reduced rates are accorded and most-favorednation treatment is guaranteed to all Spanish goods. To its most-favored-nation pledge Spain makes exception of such advantages as it may extend to Portugal, the Spanish Zone of Morocco or to the Spanish-American republics; correspondingly Norway makes exception in regard to neighboring islands, to Denmark and to Iceland. The foregoing review indicates the limitations that have been placed by Spain around the most-favored-nation provisions of its recent treaties. It indicates also that these treaties contain, in regard to matters of commerce, substantial guarantees of most-favored-nation treatment, approximating completeness in the latest and, probably, the most important of them, the treaty with Great Britain. These facts must not, however, lead to undue optimism in regard to the reconciliation of the commercial policy of Spain with the new commercial policy of the United States. The two 1 For outline see Board of Trade Journal, Oct. 12, 1922. See also Commerce Reports, Jan. 30, 1922. policies are, as was made evident in a preceding chapter,1 mutually antagonistic and are both supported by legislative enactments. Complete accord must come, if at all, through willingness on the part of one or both parties to depart from the full implications of the respective national programs. Certain pertinent facts and circumstances may appropriately be considered by the people of both countries: (1) While it is true that the policy proposed by the United States is believed to be one that will benefit American commerce, it is also believed to be one that will be equally beneficial to the commerce of the other countries adopting it. The policy of special bargaining, on the other hand, appears to be one that leads to commercial strife and tariff war—to the detriment of all participants. Discrimitions against the United States are likely to invoke the additional duties of Section 317 against the products of the discriminating country. (2) Spain is in a relatively unfavorable position to carry on a tariff war with the United States. American cotton is a necessity in Spain and could be paid for only with increasing difficulty if Spanish goods were at a disadvantage in the American market. The United States, on the other hand, could readily dispense with all imports from Spain. Moreover, the American market is relatively more important to Spain than is the Spanish market to the United States. Though the value of the exports from the United States to Spain is almost invariably much greater than that of American imports from Spain, yet these exports were, in 1922, less than two per centum of the total American exports, while of its total exports Spain sends to the United States nearly thirteen per centum. (3) There seems to be no reason for great alarm in 1Supra, ch. vii. regard to the reciprocity provisions of Spanish statute law. These provisions undoubtedly indicate a line of policy, but both policy and law may be altered by a treaty signed and ratified. The American tariff law of 1897 laid down certain rules in regard to the negotiation of reciprocity treaties. But the reciprocity treaty of December 11, 1902, with Cuba, was concluded independently of those rules and of the program of the Act of 1897 and embraced provisions in no sense contemplated by the statute.1 (4) Spain has already conceded what appears to amount to a general grant of most-favored-nation treatment to the British Empire. The protection of Spanish industries would not be seriously interfered with, it would seem, by a grant to the United States of the desired straight-out pledge of treatment not less favorable than that accorded to any other foreign country. (5) Both Spain and the United States will undoubtedly desire to make exception of their treatment of their respective dependencies. To counterbalance the special treatment which the United States accords to Cuba, Spain may appropriately except its treatment of Portugal in pledging mostfavored-nation privileges. In view of these considerations, notwithstanding the obstacles to be overcome, the eventual conclusion of a treaty with Spain containing an unconditional most-favored-nation clause would appear to be well within the realm of reasonable possibility. 'A precedent in American constitutional law is, of course, not necessarily a precedent with respect to Spain. In the present case, however, there appears to be no lack of power on the part of the Spanish Government to negotiate an unconditional most-favored-nation treaty; whether the Cortes will ratify it is another matter. Concerning the reciprocity provisions of the tariff act of 1897, which remained law until 1909, see supra, subdivision 18 (c). 66. FINLAND Finland declared its independence of Russia on December 6, 1917, and the latter country recognized the new republic by the Treaty of Dorpat, signed October 14, 1920. It is a country of vast forests, of farms and of some manufacturing industries. Imports from the United States amounting on the average to more than ten millions of dollars a year may be expected. It is in a position to furnish to the United States great quantities of the much-needed woodpulp for making newsprint and other paper. The population is well over three millions. 1 Finland at present discriminates against the United States, and in favor of countries with which it has concluded treaties, respecting certain import duties and certain dues falling upon ships entering its harbors. The treaty system which is developing in Finland includes agreements with France, Russia, Esthonia and Germany. France was the first country to enter into a purely commercial treaty with Finland. This compact became effective July 21, 1921, and contains the pledge of reciprocal most-favored-nation treatment in respect to export duties, to prohibitions of imports and to other economic matters, subject to specified exceptions. Finland guarantees mostfavored-nation treatment with respect to the importation of products originating in and coming from France or the French colonies and possessions; also with respect to the importation of coffee, tea, spices, tobacco, cotton, wool, silk and rubber of whatever origin when such importation is made by French commercial houses entered on the commercial register of France. France limits its reciprocal agreement to most-favored-nation treatment of a specified list of 'Foreign Tariff Files, Department of Commerce. 1 Signed July 13, 1921. Handbook, pp. 38, 508 et seq. Finnish products. Each country grants to the other reductions in duties upon articles included in specific lists. Finland stipulates, moreover, that it will grant reductions in duties upon exports of wood pulp, cellulose and hair of animals when destined for France or the French colonies and possessions. To the pledges of most-favored-nation treatment just set forth, certain exceptions are noted: (a) preferences to frontier traffic; (b) Finland's preferences to Esthonia; (c) preferences that France may accord as a result of economic unions with bordering countries. Russia, in the treaty of peace signed October 14, 1920,1 entered into certain commercial covenants with Finland. Most-favored-nation treatment is provided for in respect to numerous matters, among them port and harbor dues. Finnish raw materials and products of home industry are, when exported to Russia, to enter free from all import duties. Esthonia and Finland are parties to an elaborate commercial treaty signed October 29, 1921.2 The first of the provisions important from the point of view of the present discussion is a covering clause guaranteeing to the citizens of each country within the territory of the other the enjoyment of "the same rights and privileges of all kinds with respect of commerce and industry" that the citizens of the most favored nation shall enjoy. With respect to import and export duties, customs formalities and other taxes, charges and facilities affecting commerce, the two contracting parties pledge themselves to grant to each other, immediately and unconditionally, all advantages, prerogatives, and tariff reductions which have been or in future may be granted to any third power.3 1Op. cit., p. 511. 'The Treaty came into effect on October 13, 1922. See Commerce Reports, Jan. 23, 1922; Jan. 8, 1923. 'Article IV. |