In order to be entitled to the benefits of the reciprocal commercial agreements negotiated with foreign countries, under Act June 24, 1897, c. 11, § 3, importers must furnish satisfactory evidence that their importations were both produced in and exported from the country with which the agreement was made. Migliavacca Wine Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1905) 148 Fed. 142.

The president has no power to issue the proclamation provided for in section 3, Act Oct. 1, 1890, to take effect in futuro, nor has he the power to reimpose duties on one or more of five articles enumerated in said section but not on the others. In the proclamation the particular country on whose products the duties are to be reimposed should be named. (1892) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 290.

In case of conflict between a treaty and a subsequent statute, the latter governs. (1894) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 80.

England. By a convention of December 22, 1815, the terms of which, through subsequent agreements, remain in full force and effect, it was stipulated by and between the United States and his Britannic Majesty that "no higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of any article the growth, produce, or manufacture of his Britannic Majesty's territories in Europe * than are or shall be payable on the like articles being the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country." In pursuance of a provision contained in the tariff act of 1897, looking to the arrangement of commercial agreements in which reciprocal and equivalent concessions might be secured in favor of the products and manufactures of the United States, a commercial agreement between the United States and the republic of France was negotiated and proclaimed June 1, 1898, in which it was reciprocally agreed that during the life of the agreement certain articles named therein should be admitted at designated rates on importation from one of the countries to the other. Among the articles so designated brandies or other spirits manufactured or distilled from grain or other materials were to be subject to a duty of $1.75 per gallon. The appellants subsequent to the date of this trade agreement with France imported into the United States from England certain whiskies and other spirituous liquors, and assert here that the favored nation clause in the existing convention between this country and Great Britian applies and that they are entitled to an allowance on their importation from England of the same rate of duty they would be entitled to if their importation had been brought in from France, namely, $1.75 per gallon. The goods were assessed at the port of New York at $2.25 per proof gallon, under paragraph 292, Act 1897. Held, a reciprocity

agreement is based on reciprocal considerations moving from each party thereto to the other, separate obligations being assumed in return for benefits granted; and other countries, not parties to the agreement, bearing in no sense the burden of the obligations, cannot properly be taken to share in the accruing benefits. It would be, in the case at bar, to concede to Great Britain without a consideration what was conceded to France only on a consideration if these goods were permitted entry at the rate fixed in the French agreement; and the consignment was dutiable as assessed under paragraph 292, Act 1897. Shaw v. U. S. (1911) 1.Ct. Cust. App. 426. See, also, Whitney v. Robertson (1888) 8 Sup. Ct. 456, 124 U. S. 190, 31 L. Ed. 386; Bartram v. Same (1887) 7 Sup. Ct. 1115, 122 U. S. 116, 30 L. Ed. 1118.

France. In regard to the reciprocal commercial agreement between the United States and France, proclaimed May 30, 1898 (30 Stat. 1774), which provided for reduced rates of duty on merchandise "the product of the soil or industry of France," it was arranged by the governments of the two countries to settle the question whether Algeria was a part of France within the meaning of the agreement by an abandonment of the contention on the part of France that it was so included, together with an acceptance in lieu thereof of an additional agreement extending the provisions of the original agreement to Algeria. Held, that this arrangement is binding on the courts, and that merchandise from Algeria, imported into the United States before such arrangement was made, is not subject to the reduced rates of duty provided on such merchandise when imported from France proper. U. S. v. Tartar Chemical Co. (1903) 127 Fed. 944, 62 C. C. A. 576, reversing judgment Tartar Chemical Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1902) 116 Fed. 726.

Article 1 of the agreement between the United States and France, proclaimed August 22, 1902, which was amendatory of and additional to the reciprocal commercial agreement proclaimed May 30, 1898 (30 Stat. 1774), and provided that the earlier agreement "shall apply also to Algeria," was intended to have a prospective operation only. Id.

Cordials are within the provision for "spirits manufactured or distilled from grain or other materials," in section 3, Act 1897, and, when imported from France, are subject to the reduced rate of duty provided for such spirits in the reciprocal commercial agreement with that country (30 Stat. 1774), negotiated under the authority of said section. U. S. v. Julius Wile Bro. & Co. (1904) 130 Fed. 331, 64 C. C. A. 577, affirming judgment (C. C. 1903) 124 Fed. 1023.

A bill of lading for certain merchandise was made out in Switzerland, but the invoice was certified by a United States consul in France, and the evi

dence showed France to have been the country of production, and from which the merchandise was exported. Held, that the importation was within the reciprocal commercial agreement with France and the United States, May 30, 1898, negotiated under the authority of section 3, Act 1897. U. S. v. Luyties (1904) 130 Fed. 333, 64 C. C. A. 579, affirming judgment (C. C. 1903) 124 Fed. 977.

The reciprocal commercial agreement with France, negotiated under Act 1897, which allows a reduction of duty on "brandies or other spirits," held to supersede the provision of a different rate by Schedule G, § 1, par. 263, of said act, on the alcohol in excess of 10 per cent. found in fruit preserved in spirits. La Manna, Azema & Farnan v. U. S. (1906) 144 Fed. 683, 75 C. C. A. 485, judgment reversed U. S. v. La Manna, Azema & Farnan (1908) 166 Fed. 751, 92 C. C. A. 431.

The question whether Algeria is a part of France and within the scope of the president's proclamation of May 30, 1898. putting in force a reciprocal commercial agreement between France and the United States, as authorized by Act 1897, or is merely a colony, and not affected by such agreement, is one which must be determined solely by the laws of France, and when the French minister of foreign affairs and the diplomatic and consular representatives of that country in the United States unite in stating that since the decree of October, 1870, abolishing the colonial government of Algeria, dividing it into departments, and adding them to the departments of European France, it has been an integral part of the republic of France, their statement should be accepted as conclusive by a court of this country in the administration of its custems laws, and in giving effect to the agreement between the two nations, entered into in a spirit of amity, with desire to improve their commercial relations. Tartar Chemical Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1902) 116 Fed. 726, judgment reversed U. S. v. Tartar Chemical Co. (1903) 127 Fed. 944, 62 C. C. A. 576.

The reciprocal commercial agreement entered into between the United States and France under section 3, Act 1897, and providing for a reduction in the duty on "brandies, or other spirits," was the result of negotiations, and representations had with reference, among other things to liqueurs and cordials, and the French copy of said agreement contains the word "liqueurs." Held, that merchandise known as "liqueurs" is included in the agreement. Nicholas v. U. S. (C. C. 1903) 122 Fed. 892.

The cordial known as "Chartreuse," imported from France, is a liqueur, and is included in the provision for a reduced rate of duty on "brandies, or other spirits," in the reciprocal commercial agreement between the United States

and France (Proc. May 30, 1898, 30 Stat. 1774). Id.

Where it was proved that absinthe imported was manufactured in Pontarlier, France, the fact that the bill of lading was dated at Basle, Switzerland, the point of shipment, did not justify a finding that the consignment was not exported from France, and therefore not entitled to admission at reduced rates of duty, under the reciprocity treaty between France and the United States. U. S. v. Luyties (C. C. 1903) 124 Fed. 977, judgment affirmed (1904) 130 Fed. 333, 64 C. C. A. 579.

Absinthe is a liqueur within the French reciprocity agreement, providing for reduced duties on brandies and other spirits. Id.

With respect to merchandise alleged to be within the reciprocal commercial agreement with France as having been both produced in and exported from that country, held, that evidence of those facts should be furnished by a witness who knows them, or from his position may be presumed to know them, and that a deposition by an importer to the effect that he had ordered the goods through a New York agency and that they were consigned to him direct by the exporting establishment in France, but which did not show that he had any further personal knowledge, was incompetent. Migliavacca Wine Co. v.

U. S. (C. C. 1905) 148 Fed. 142.

Neither the argols of Tunisian or Algerian origin imported from Marseilles are entitled, as products of France, to the benefit of the reciprocal commercial arrangement negotiated between France and the United States under section 3. Act 1897. (1899) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 477.

Germany. The reciprocal commercial agreement with Germany, negotiated under Act 1897, which allows a reduction of duty on "spirits," supersedes the provision of a different rate by Schedule G, § 1, par. 263, of said act, on the alcohol in excess of 10 per cent. found in fruit preserved in spirits. Mihalovitch, Fletcher & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1908) 160 Fed. 988.

Hawaii. The treaty with the king of the Hawaiian Islands, and the act of congress giving it effect, by which molasses from those islands was admitted into the United States free of duty, did not operate upon the previous treaty with the Dominican republic, so as to establish a like exemption as to molasses imported from the latter country. Bartram v. Robertson (C. C. 1883) 15 Fed. 212, affirmed (1887) 7 Sup. Ct. 1115, 122 U. S. 116, 30 L. Ed. 1118; Whitney v. Same (C. C. 1884) 21 Fed. 566; Netherclift v. Same (C. C. 1886) 27 Fed. 737; Kelly v. Hedden (C. C. 1887) 31 Fed. 607.

The treaty with the king of the Hawaiian Islands, and the act giving it effect (19 Stat. 200), by which sugar from

those islands was admitted into the United States free of duty, did not operate upon the previous treaty with the Dominican republic, so as to establish a like exemption as to sugar imported from the latter country. Netherclift v. Robertson (C. C. 1886) 27 Fed. 737, writ of error dismissed (1891) 12 Sup. Ct. 986, 145 U. S. 649, 36 L. Ed. 847.

The treaty with the king of the Hawaiian Islands, and the act of congress giving it effect, by which molasses from those islands was admitted into the United States free of duty, did not operate upon the previous treaty with the Dominican republic, so as to establish a like exemption as to molasses imported from the latter country. Kelly v. Hedden (C. C. 1887) 31 Fed. 607.

Italy. The provision for "statuary" in Act 1897, and in the reciprocal commercial agreement with Italy, negotiated under said section, has the same meaning as in section 1, Schedule N, par. 454, of said tariff act, where it is prescribed that the "term 'statuary' as used in this act shall be understood to include only such statuary as is cut, carved, or otherwise wrought by hand from a solid block or mass of marble, stone or alabaster, or from metal." Bronze statuary, not being covered by this definition, is therefore not covered by said reciprocal agreement. Richard & Co. v. U. S. (1907) 158 Fed. 1019, 86 C. C. A. 671, affirming judgment (C. C. 1907) 151 Fed. 954.

C. B.

The tariff on statuary and other works of art (R. S. pp. 478, 479) considered in connection with the treaty of 1871 between the United States and Italy. (1881) 17 Op. Atty. Gen. 223.

That treaty makes no provision, in letter or spirit, as regards the importation, exportation, or prohibition of articles, the produce or manufacture of Italy, where dealt in by Italian citizens residing in Italy, excepting that such importations, etc., shall be upon as favorable a footing as like commerce by English, French, German, or other foreign citizens whatsoever. Id.

Portugal. The second article of the treaty between the United States and Portugal, of August 26, 1840, provides that vessels of either country, arriving in the ports of the other, either laden or in ballast, shall be treated on their entrance, during their stay, and at their departure, upon the same footing as national vessels coming from the same place, with respect to the duties of tonnage, lighthouse duties, pilotage, port charges, fees of public officers, and all other duties and charges, of whatever kind or denomination, levied upon vessels of commerce. Held, that coffee imported in Portuguese vessels, directly from the place of its growth, was not exempt from duty, under the tariff act of July 30, 1846, as imported directly from the place of its growth in foreign vessels, entitled by reciprocal treaties to

be exempted from discriminating duties, tonnage, and other charges. Oldfield v. Marriott (1850) 51 U. S. (10 How.) 146, 13 L. Ed. 364.

Prussia. The "most favored nation clause" in the treaty of May 1, 1828, between the United States and the kingdom of Prussia is not violated by paragraph 608, Tariff Act Aug. 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 544), laying a discriminating duty on salt imported from a country which imposes a duty on salt exported from the United States. (1894) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 80.

Paragraph 608, Tariff Act Aug. 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 544), imposing a discriminating duty on salt imported from a country which imposes a duty on salt exported from the United States, does not violate the "most favored nation clause" in the treaty of May 1, 1828, with Prussia. Id.

That treaty is to be taken as operative as respects so much of the German empire as constitutes the kingdom of Prussia. Id.

San Domingo.-Plaintiff imported centrifugal and molasses sugars, the produce and manufacture of San Domingo, similar to sugars produced in Hawaii, which are by treaty admitted free of duty, and contended that they should be admitted free, under article 9 of the treaty with the Dominican republic (15 Stat. 475), which provides that no higher or other duty shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of any article, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the Dominican republic, than on like articles, the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country. Held, that the treaty is a pledge that there shall be no discriminating legislation, against the importation of the articles mentioned, in favor of articles of like character imported from any other country, and, as it was never designed to prevent special concessions on sufficient considerations touching the importation of specific articles, plaintiff must pay duty. Whitney v. Robertson (1888) 8 Sup. Ct. 456, 457, 124 U. S. 190, 31 L. Ed. 386 (affirming judgment [C. C. 1884] 21 Fed. 566); Kelly v. Hedden (1888) 8 Sup. Ct. 459, 124 U. S. 196, 31 L. Ed. 389 (affirming judgment [C. C. 1887] 31 Fed. 607).

The act of congress under which duties on centrifugal and molasses sugars from San Domingo are collected, authorized their exaction, and was passed after the treaty with the Dominican republic, and, if there be any conflict between the stipulations of the treaty and the requirements of the law, the latter must control. Id.

The eleventh section of the tariff act of 1883, referring to the sanctity of treaty obligations, notwithstanding that act, was not intended to revive and set in motion the inert features of the treaty with the Dominican republic of February 8, 1867, by which sugar therefrom