Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 40, p. 284; also Art. 3, Treaty_of_April 25, 1886, Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 47, p. 302; also Art. 7, Treaty of June 26, 1887, Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 48, p. 313.

17. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 70, p. 414, Art. 15, Treaty of Oct. 6, 1863.

18. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 82, pp. 460-461, Art. 12, Treaty of June 13, 1858.

19A. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 91, p. 520, Treaty of Oct. 10, 1864, Arts. 47 and 50. It will be noticed that the reciprocity in this case was limited only to the trade with the Philippine Islands, and that as the Philippine Islands are now in the possession of the United States, this reciprocal treatment is therefore nullified. 19B. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 33, pp. 222-223, Art. 43, Treaty of Sept. 2, 1869.

20. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 35, pp. 236-237, Arts. 5 and 8, Treaty of Oct. 3, 1881. It will be noticed that, in the case of Brazil, the most favored nation treatment is not only reciprocal but also conditional. Art. 5.

21. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 36, pp. 240-241, Arts. 1 and 2, Treaty of July 10, 1898.

22. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 69, p. 402, Treaty of Dec. 14, 1899, Art. 8.

23. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 71, p. 419, Art. 16, Treaty of June 26, 1874.

24. MacMurray, 1908/11, Arts. 3 and 4.

25. MacMurray, 1918/8, Declaration attached to Treaty of June 13, 1918. It is to be noticed that the grant of most favored nation treatment is limited to the time until a treaty of establishment and commerce is made.

25A. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 73, p. 426, Art. 10, Treaty of Dec. 1, 1887.

26. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 20, pp. 108-109, Arts. 9 and 18, Treaty of March 1, 1894, relative to Burma and China.

27. Arts. 6 and 7, Treaty of April 25, 1886, Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 47, p. 303 et seq.; Art. 7, Treaty of June 26, 1887, Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 48, p. 313; modified by Art. 4, Treaty of June 20, 1895, Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 53, p. 325.

28. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 85, p. 492 et seq., Russian land trade regulations annexed to Treaty of Feb. 24, 1881.

29. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 67, p. 396, Art. 11, Treaty of Dec. 22, 1905.

30. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 60, pp. 357, 360, Arts. 24 and 54.

31. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 6, p. 34.

32. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 11, p. 62.

33. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 20, p. 108, Art. 22.

34. State Papers, Vol. 32, p. 791; also see Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 94, pp. 545, 551-552.

35. Art. 6, Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 96, p. 556; also Art.. 3, Treaty of Nov. 17, 1880, Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 98, pp. 561-562; also Art. 5, Treaty of Oct. 8, 1903, Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 100, p. 571.

36. Vol. 1, No. 62, p. 365.

37. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 64, pp. 376, 381.

38. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 66, pp. 386-387, Art. 9.

39. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 56, p. 339, Art. 40, Treaty of Sept. 2, 1861; also Art. 15, p. 335.

40. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 57, p. 343, Art. 1.

41. J. B. Moore, International Law Digest, Vol. 5, pp. 270-271, Earl Granville, Sec. of State for For. Affairs, to Mr. West, British Minister, Feb. 12, 1885. Blue Book Commercial No. 4, 1885, pp. 21-22.

42. Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 273, Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hubbard, July 17, 1886. MS. Inst. Japan III, p. 425; cf. Whitney vs. Robertson, 1888, 124 U. S. 190.

43. Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 278, Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, Minister to Argentine Republic, Jan. 11, 1898.

44. 122 U. S. 116.

45. 8 American Journal of International Law, editorial comment, 1914, p. 578; Tyau, Treaty Obligations between China and Other States, p. 198.

46. Moore, op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 272, Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Miller, June 15, 1886, 160 MS. Dom. Let. 481.

47. U. S. For. Rel., 1896, p. 429 et seq., Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dun, Minister to Japan, Nov. 12, 1896; Moore, op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 316.

48. Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 290, the note of German Minister to the United States State Department, dated Feb. 16, 1886, quoted in Mr. Bayard's report, Sec. of State to the President, January 14, 1889, H. Ex. Doc. 74, 50th Congress, Second Session.

49. Moore, op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 289, the opinion of Attorney General, Sept. 19, 1885, quoted in report of Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to the President, Jan. 14, 1889, H. Ex. Doc. 74, 50th Congress, Second Session.

50. U. S. For. Rel., 1894, App. I, pp. 472, 473, Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hertado, Columbian Minister, May 31, 1892; Moore, op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 304.

51. Moore, op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 307.

52. Ibid., Vol. 5, pp. 308-309.

53. Hertslet, Vol. 1, No. 36, p. 240.

54. Tyau, op. cit., p. 198.

55. Millard's Review, Supplement, July 17, 1920, pp. 4-5, Millard, China's Case at the Peace Conference.

56. S. K. Hornbeck, the most favored nation clause, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 3, 1909, p. 405; also see his three articles, pp. 396, 619, 798.

XXIII

TARIFF AUTONOMY

We now come to another form of the impairment of China's sovereignty, and that is, servitude with respect to tariff autonomy. It is a principle in international law that every state with full sovereignty has the right to regulate its own tariff by legislation or otherwise, but in China, this prerogative of sovereignty is denied by the foreign Powers. In fact, tariff autonomy has become so much impaired that, either by virtue of express state treaty provisions or through the operation of the most favored nation clause, China can not regulate or change her tariff, made in convention with the foreign Powers, without first securing the unanimous consent of the Powers concerned. And experience has demonstrated that the securing of such a unanimous vote is extremely difficult, if not well-nigh impossible.

The origin of Chinese servitude in tariff autonomy dates back to the Treaty of Nanking, August 29, 1842. Article X of the treaty stipulated:

"His Majesty the Emperor of China agrees to establish at all the ports which are, by Article II of this treaty, to be thrown open for the resort of British merchants, a fair and regular tariff of export and import customs and other dues, which tariff shall be publicly notified and promulgated for general information. And the Emperor further engages, that when British merchandise shall have once paid at any of the said ports the regulated customs and dues, agreeable to the tariff to be hereafter fixed, such merchandise may be conveyed by Chinese merchants to any province or city in the interior of the Empire of China, on paying a further amount

as transit duties, which shall not exceed on the tariff value of such goods." 1

per cent

In accord with this, in the supplementary Treaty of October 8, 1843, the tariff of import and export duties was agreed upon, averaging five per cent ad valorem except in some instances when the rate went up as high as ten per cent.2

In the subsequent American Treaty of July 3, 1844," and the French Treaty of October 24, 1844, there was attached in each case a tariff of duties. In the American Treaty, it was specifically stated that the consent of the United States was required for any modification in the tariff list:

"Citizens of the United States resorting to China for the purposes of commerce will pay the duties of import and export prescribed in the tariff, which is fixed by and made a part of this treaty. . . . If the Chinese Government desires to modify in any respect the said tariff, such modifications shall be made only in consultation with consuls or other functionaries thereto duly authorized in behalf of the United States, and with the consent thereof..." (Art. 2)."

In 1858, when Great Britain and France had defeated China in the so-called Arrow War (the Second War with Great Britain), the British Treaty of Tientsin, June 26, 1858, provided for a revision of the tariff which was to endure for a period of ten years, subject to a demand for revision by either party at the end of the term,' and for the fixation of the transit duties at the rate of two and a half per cent ad valorem. In pursuance of the above provision for tariff revision, a subsequent agreement was made on November 8, 1858, containing rules of trade and a tariff list.10 In general, a five per cent ad valorem duty both on imports as well as on exports was provided. "Articles not enumerated in either list (export and import), nor in the list of duty-free goods,

will pay an ad valorem duty of five per cent, calculated on the market value" (Rule 1). The transit duties were again fixed at one-half of the tariff duties (Rule 7). A uniform system of taxation was provided: "It is agreed that one uniform system shall be enforced at every port" (Rule 10). A duty-free list was stipulated consisting of gold and silver bullion, foreign coins, flour, and the daily necessities of foreign residents in China (Rule 2). Contraband goods comprised gunpowder, ammunition and other implements of war and salt (Rule 3).11 Similarly with the French Treaty of June 27, 1858,12 a new tariff list and commercial regulations were attached.13 The United States drew up a separate convention at Shanghai, November 8, 1858,14 with a new tariff and regulations of trade and transit. Russia simply stipulated that her merchants should pay the same duties as were levied on other foreign merchants.15

Since 1858, despite the provision for periodic revision of tariff at the end of ten years, for one reason or another the privilege has not been availed of but on two occasions, in 1902 and 1918. In the final protocol for the settlement of the Boxer Trouble, September 7, 1901,18 the Maritime Customs, the Native Customs, and the Salt Gabelle, were made the securities of the Boxer indemnity amounting to 450,000,000 Haikuan taels to be paid off in annual installments until 1940 (Art. 6), and the import tariff was to be raised to an effective five per cent ad valorem, and the ad valorem duties, as far as feasible, were to be converted into specific duties, calculated on the average value of merchandise at the time of landing during the three years, 1897-1899 (Art. 6). In pursuance of these provisions, the Agreement of Shanghai, August 29, 1902, was made, signed by the special commissioners of Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, and later by those of the United States, France, and Sweden and Norway, and providing for a new tariff list. The

17