If either party shall hereafter grant to any other nation any particular favor in navigation or commerce it shall immediately become common to the other party, freely where it is freely granted to such other nation, or on yielding the same compensation when the grant is conditional. Such a compensation, so far as the reduction of the tonnage tax to 3 cents is concerned, has not been stipulated for by the United States in the aforesaid shipping act. Germany is, therefore, ipso facto, entitled to the reduction of the tax in favor of vessels sailing from Germany to the United States, especially since, according to the constitution of the Empire, no tonnage tax is collected in Germany from foreign vessels; that is to say, no tonnage tax of the character of American tonnage taxes in the sense of section 8, paragraph 1, article 1, of the American Constitution, viz, those designed to pay the debts of the Government and to pay the expenses of the common defense and the general welfare. As you remark in your esteemed note, Mr. Secretary of State, you have based your decision on an opinion of the Attorney-General. In opposition to this view, it will be seen by the printed decisions of the Secretary of Treasury, that the latter, in an opinion on this subject addressed to the Department of State under date of May 11, 1885, expressed the opinion that vessels sailing from Portugal to the United States are, indeed, entitled to the privileges granted by section 14 of the shipping act, on the ground of the most favored-nation treaty existing between the two nations. This opinion harmonizes in the main with the view entertained by the Imperial Government. The Imperial Government entertains the hope, in view of the foregoing considerations, that the United States Government on reconsidering this matter will not maintain the position taken in the note of November 7, 1885, and that it will grant to German vessels sailing between the two countries the same privileges that have long been granted without compensation by the German Empire to American vessels. In having the honor, therefore, hereby to reiterate the application made in my note of August 3, 1885, for the reduction of the tonnage tax to 3 cents in favor of vessels engaged in trade between Germany and the United States. I hope that the decision of the United States Government in this matter will be kindly communicated to me. Accept, etc.. H. v. ALVENSLEBEN. No. 14 Mr. Bayard to Mr. von Alvensleben Department of State, Washington, March 4, 1886. Sir: With reference to previous correspondence on the subject, I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 15th ultimo, relative to the question as to the applicability of the most favored nation clauses of the treaties of Prussia and other German states and the United States to the provisions of section 14 of the act of Congress of June 26, 1884. In reply I beg to inform you that your note will have consideration, it being sufficient for the present to observe that Germany admits that neighborhood and propinquity justify a special treatment of intercourse which may not be extended to other countries under the favored nation clause in treaties with them, and only appears to question the distance within which the rule of neighborhood is to operate. Accept sir, etc., No. 15 T. F. BAYARD. Mr. von Alvensleben to Mr. Bayard [Translation] IMPERIAL GERMAN LEGATION, Washington, August 1, 1886 (Received August 2). MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: I had the honor duly to receive your note of the 4th of March last, whereby you informed me that my observations concerning the applicability of the most favored nation clause to section 14 of the act of Congress of June 26, 1884, would be taken into consideration, and in which, for the time being, you confined yourself, by way of reply, to one remark. In the mean time an act of Congress entitled "An act to abolish certain fees for official services to American vessels, and to amend the laws relating to shipping commissioners, seamen, and owners of vessels, and for other purposes," has been approved by the President of the United States under date of June 19, 1886 (Public-No. 85), and has thereby become a law. I have brought this act to the notice of the Imperial Government and have been instructed to state the view taken by that Government of this latest law and to ask your attention to its incompatibility with the stipulations of the treaty exising between Germany and the United States. This act extends, in a measure, the power conferred upon the Presi dent by section 14 of the act of June 26, 1884, to diminish tonnage dues in certain cases. According to the act of 1884 the President was authorized, only in the case of vessels coming from the ports of North and Central America, the West Indies, the Bahama, Bermuda, and Sandwich Islands, or Newfoundland, and entering ports of the United States, to reduce the duty of 3 cents per ton, which was imposed on such vessels, provided that the said duty exceeded the dues which American vessels were obliged to pay in the aforesaid ports. A reduction of the duty of 6 cents, to which all vessels coming from other ports were subjected, was not allowable, even on the supposition in question. Vessels from the aforesaid favored ports thus enjoyed a special preference in two ways: In the first place, they paid in all cases a duty of but 3 cents per ton, while vessels from other ports were obliged to pay 6 cents per ton; even these 3 cents could be remitted, either in whole or in part, provided that it could be shown that the duty paid by American vessels in the ports concerned amounted to less than 3 cents per ton, or that no such duty was levied in said ports. This latter privilege is, according to the new law, no longer to be exclusively enjoyed by vessels from the favored ports. Likewise, vessels from other than the most favored ports may obtain a reduction or return of the duty of 6 cents to be paid by them per ton, provided that in the ports from which they have come American vessels pay less than 6 cents or no tonnage duty at all. The amount of the duty to be remitted is computed according to the amount of the duties levied in the ports of departure. The new law is evidently based upon the idea of reciprocity. If this idea had been consistently carried out no objection could be made to it and the Imperial Government would have no further ground of complaint. This, however, is not the case, inasmuch as the new law grants special privileges, as did the old, to vessels from the abovementioned ports, declaring that they, without any compensation on their part, shall pay but 3 cents per ton, even though a duty in excess of that amount is paid by American vessels in the ports concerned. The number of favored ports is even extended to those of South America bordering on the Caribbean Sea. The Imperial Government has from the outset protested against this one sided privilege, which is in violation of the treaty stipulations of Germany with the United States. Since this privilege is not only not abolished by the new law, but is confirmed and even still further extended, the original attitude assumed by the Imperial Government towards the old law has been in no wise changed by the new act, and the Imperial Government must continue to protest against the violations of its treaty rights while maintaining the arguments contained in my note of February 15, 1886. As long as vessels from the ports of North and Central America pay but one-half the tonnage duty that is levied upon vessels from German ports, without being required to furnish proof that less than 6 cents is exacted from American vessels in their ports, the Imperial Government will be obliged to maintain its claim for similar usage, viz, the exemption from furnishing such proof. As is stated in my note of February 15, 1886, the Imperial Government is unable to regard as conclusive your principal argument, viz, that the privilege in question is of a purely geographical character, because the effect of this privilege is to benefit, in point of fact, the entire trade and navigation of those countries in which the ports in question are situated. No paramount importance can be attached (as is done by the United States Government) to the mere form in which this privilege is granted to particular countries. I am therefore instructed, on the ground of the treaty right pertaining to the Imperial Government, to reiterate its previous claim that German ports shall be placed on a footing precisely similar to that of North and Central American ports, etc., and most respectfully to request you, Mr. Secretary of State, to favor me with the further reply which, in your note of March 4, you gave me to understand that I might expect from you. Accept, etc., H. v. ALVENSLEBEN. DUTY-IMPORTED SALT-TREATY WITH PRUSSIA1 The treaty of May 1, 1828, between the United States and the Kingdom of Prussia, is to be taken as operative as respects so much of the German Empire as constitutes the Kingdom of Prussia. Semble, that it is not effective as regards the rest of that Empire. The "most favored nation clause" in that treaty is not violated by paragraph 608 of the tariff act of August 27, 1894, laying a discriminating duty on salt imported from a country which imposes a duty on salt exported from the United States. In case of conflict between a treaty and a subsequent statute, the latter governs. The laws of a foreign country are not known to the Attorney-General, but are facts to be proved by competent evidence. As to when the discriminating duty aforesaid applies to a country which imposes a duty on salt exported from the United States but lays a countervailing excise tax on domestic salt. Quaere. Department oF JUSTICE, Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge your communication of October 27, asking my official opinion upon the question whether salt 121 Op. Atty. Gen. 80. imported from the Empire of Germany is dutiable under paragraph 608 of the tariff act of August 27, 1894. That paragraph, which puts salt in general on the free list, contains the following proviso: Provided, That if salt is imported from any country whether independent or a dependency which imposes a duty upon salt exported from the United States, then there shall be levied, paid, and collected upon such salt the rate of duty existing prior to the passage of this act. As Germany imposes a duty upon salt exported from the United States, German salt is apparently subject to the proviso just quoted. The German ambassador, however, claims it is entitled to come into the United States free on two grounds. One is the "most favored nation clause." so called, which is embodied in the following provisions of the treaty of May 1, 1828, between the United States and Prussia: ARTICLE V No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of any article the produce or manufacture of Prussia, and no higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the Kingdom of Prussia of any article the produce or manufacture of the United States than are or shall be payable on the like article being the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country. ARTICLE IX Ti ether party shall hereafter grant to any other nation any particular favor in navigation or commerce it shall immediately become common to the other party freely, where it is freely granted to such other nation, or on yielding the same compensation, when the grant is conditiona.. It should be noted that while this treaty is to be taken as operative as respects so much of the German Empire as constitutes the Kingdom of Prou no facts or considerations with which I have been made requartet "est: the assumption that it is to be taken as effective as regards other portons of the Empire Neither am I informed whether the German sat for which free admission into this country is demanded. is a product er mancfacture of Prussia proper, or of some other part or parts of the German Empire. Iit de assumed, however, for present purposes, that the treaty of 183 bands the United States as regards all the constituent parts of |