483; Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U. S. 332; Crandall, op. cit., 153–160) or federal statutes (Crandall, op. cit. 161), create exemptions from jurisdiction, invest aliens with the privilege of entering the United States (Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U. S. 536), or provide for the surrender of fugitives from justice. (See United States v. Robins, 27 Fed. Cas. 825; In re Sheazle, 21 Fed. Cas. 1214; In re Metzger, 17 Fed. Cas. 232; In the Matter of Metzger, 5 How. 176, Cf. In the matter of Metzger, 1 Bar. 248. The cases cited arose before the Act of 1848, in 9 Stat. L. 302. See also United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 419; Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 464.) See 20 American Journal of International Law, 449.

In the American Express Co. case, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 146, T. D. 33434, this question was presented to that court by opinions of Somerville and Hay, general appraisers. The majority opinion by General Appraisers Somerville and Waite, held that the treatymaking power can not be exercised so as to invade the constitutional prerogatives of the House of Representatives, while the concurring opinion by General Appraiser Hay held that the question was not involved. "It is not," says the concurring opinion, "as treated in the majority opinion, a case of changing a tariff law by a treaty, but of the changing of the tariff law by section 2, which, by virtue of the self-operating provision in these treaties writes into the law with reference to the countries with which these treaties exist the same provision which was made with reference to Canada." T. D. 32423, G. A. 7354.

Inasmuch as the Court of Customs Appeals reversed the decision of the Board of General Appraisers and held that "it must be recognized that the most-favored-nation clause has for its field of operation precisely that of cases where and when the lawful authority has granted a new privilege to some other nation," this point, at least so far as our court is concerned, is settled adversely to the Government's claim.

For the reasons heretofore enumerated and based upon the last named case, we hold the point is not well taken.

The terms of the British treaty are generally in accord with those of the Austria-Hungarian treaty cited at page 159 of the American Express Co. case, supra, except that the British treaty does not contain the paragraph to the effect that any particular favor granted to any other nation in navigation or commerce shall immediately become common to the other party. In that case the Government conceded that the position of each of the nations whose products were involved therein was equal to that of the one having the most advantageous treaty. (P. 159.)

We think that situation obtains here, that is, inasmuch as we have held the products of Germany should be favored it must follow, as a matter of course, that the products of Great Britain should have similar treatment when imported into this country.

In conclusion we are of the opinion that each of the protests involved herein should be and the same is hereby sustained. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE ABOLITION OF IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

United States

The American Minister to Switzerland, Mr. Hugh R. Wilson, presented the following note to the Secretary General of the League of Nations on June 29, 1933:

"In accordance with Paragraph 6 of the Protocol of December 20, 1929, to the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, the Acting Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby gives notice of the American Government's withdrawal from this convention effective June 30, 1933. It is with great reluctance that the American Government has been forced to take this action. It had been hoped that the principle embodied in this convention would be widely accepted by the nations of the world. The reverse of this has, however, been true, and the withdrawal from the convention of other nations which had adhered leads to the conclusion that the existing convention may not be fully adapted to present economic and commercial conditions. In taking this present course it is the American Government's hope that there may result from the labors of the Monetary and Economic Conference now sitting at London a convention of this nature which will be widely adopted and adhered to by the nations of the world." Great Britain

The following note concerning the withdrawal of Great Britain from the convention for the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions was addressed to the Acting Secretary of State by the British Ambassador at Washington on June 14, 1933:

"I have the honour, under instructions from His Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to inform you that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have had under consideration the question of their continued adherence to the Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions which was signed at Geneva on the 8th November, 1927, with special regard to the impending consideration of the whole question of import restrictions quotas and similar measures by the Monetary and Economic Conference.

"2. His Majesty's Government have deemed it advisable to avail themselves of their right under Article 6 of the Protocol signed at Paris on the 21st December, 1929, to be relieved of the obligations accepted by them in accordance with the Convention as from the 30th June, in order that they may be free to enter into any agreements bearing upon the question of prohibitions, quotas and similar restric

On Jan. 1, 1930, the effective date, the parties to the convention were the United States of America, Denmark, Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands Norway, and Portugal. Portugal withdrew on June 30, 1931.

tions which may ensue from the Monetary and Economic Conference. A formal declaration of withdrawal, as provided for in Article 6 of the above-mentioned Protocol, has accordingly been forwarded to the Secretary General of the League of Nations."

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AND ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

TARIFF TRUCE 7

The Secretary General of the League of Nations communicated to the Governments participating in the Monetary and Economic Conference, by C.L.95.1933.II., dated May 24, 1933, the text of the resolution concerning the institution of a tariff truce as unanimously approved by the Organizing Committee of the Conference, with the expressed hope of the President of the Conference that each Government would signify its adherence thereto.

On May 24, 1933, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution (C.L.99.1933.II):

"The Council,

"Having taken note of the report submitted to it by the President of the Council Committee for the Organisation of the Monetary and Economic Conference on the meetings held on April 29th, and May 12th, 1933,

"Expresses its satisfaction that the eight Governments represented on the Committee have agreed between themselves before the opening of the Conference and during its proceedings to abstain from all initiatives which might increase the difficulties now arresting international commerce,

"Considers this agreement to be a good augury for the work of the Conference,

"Considers further that the adherence of as many Governments as possible to this truce is necessary in order to create a period of calm and tranquillity during which the work of the Conference can proceed, "Urgently appeals to all the Governments invited to the Conference to join in this agreement and to act in accordance with its spirit."

The following replies are quoted from circular letters, as indicated, which have been received by the Department from the Secretary General of the League of Nations:

Argentina (C.L.101.1933)

"The Argentine Government, acting with knowledge of the proposal which has been submitted to the consideration of certain Governments in connection with a commercial truce, do not hesitate to declare themselves in favour of this step which would have the effect of not creating fresh duties and of not altering the customs regime at present in existence.

"The Argentine Government, in declaring themselves forthwith to be in favour of this measure, are only confirming their present position, seeing that in the convention recently concluded with the Government

7 See Bulletin No. 44, May 1933, p. 15.

of the United Kingdom a customs truce has already been stipulated for the duration of the study of the tariff problem."

Estonia (C.L.119.1933.II.)

". . . I have the honour to inform you that the Estonian Government is profoundly concerned for the success of the Monetary and Economic Conference, and is ready to promote it by every means in its power.

"The Estonian Government is therefore perfectly prepared to accept the proposal of the United States delegation for a tariff truce on terms to be fixed by general agreement, and at the same time associates itself with the resolution passed by the Committee of the Council in regard to the truce on May 12th, 1933."

Irish Free State (C.L.119.1933.II.)

I am directed by the Minister for External Affairs to inform you that the Government of the Irish Free State have decided to adhere to the Resolution, on the understanding that such adherence will not prevent my Government from taking any measures necessary as a defence against measures which may be taken to prohibit or restrict the importation of Irish Free State goods or products into other countries."

Latvia (C.L.111.1933.II.)

66

". . . Being anxious to contribute as far as possible to the liquidation of the economic crisis, and recognising that to achieve this object, it is most important to abolish progressively the prohibitions and restrictions that hamper international trade, the Latvian Government gives its full support to the above-mentioned resolution, under the conditions laid down in the resolution itself.

"Accordingly, the Latvian Government will refrain, both before June 12th and during the Conference, from adopting any new initiatives which might increase the many varieties of difficulties now arresting international commerce, subject to the proviso that it retains the right to withdraw from this agreement at any time after July 31st, 1933, on giving one month's previous notice to the Conference."

Lithuania (C.L.121.1933.II.)

". . . I have the honour to inform you that the Lithuanian Government, after taking cognizance of the resolution adopted by the Committee of the Council for the organisation of the Monetary and Economic Conference, declares itself in favour of the measures there advocated, all the more since Lithuania was one of the last countries to adopt legislation restricting imports of foreign goods. It would consequently be prepared to refrain from raising its Customs duties in any way which would be likely further to restrict the importation into Lithuania of foreign goods, but expects guarantees that the export facilities at present granted to Lithuanian commerce will not be withdrawn as the result of fresh restrictions imposed by other countries, or diminished by the effects of restrictions already introduced. On the other hand, and this is a reservation which has already been made by certain Governments, the Lithuanian Govern

ment considers that the entry into force of any customs or fiscal measures due to the application of laws already passed or bills submitted or in course of submission shall not be deemed to be contrary to the tariff truce in question."

Netherlands (C.L.121.1933.II.)

"The Netherlands Government is glad to support the suggestion for the conclusion, at the opening of the Monetary and Economic Conference, of a Tariff Truce, which, it believes, is one way to prevent the efforts made by the Conference to stabilise monetary relations and diminish the restrictions on international trade from being nullified by fresh obstacles.

"The Netherlands Government has noted with interest the invitation issued by the President of the Committee of the Council of the League of Nations for the organisation of the Monetary and Economic Conference to accept the resolution adopted by the eight countries represented on that Committee. It is, however, somewhat disappointed to find that some of these countries still further increased the number of barriers to international trade at a moment when the idea of a tariff truce had already been contemplated.

"Although the importance of the truce has thus been diminished Her Majesty's Government is prepared to act on the invitation addressed to it, provided of course that it is released from all the resultant undertakings should it appear, during the Conference, that the resolution is not generally approved by the other Powers. In view of the reservations made by certain countries, the Netherlands Government, however, will also have to make reservations. It considers itself all the more entitled to do so since the Netherlands is remaining unconditionally on the gold standard, and since, during the crisis, the Netherlands Government has so far remained faithful to the principle of freedom of trade. The Netherlands Customs tariff has, during the crisis, retained a purely revenue character, and the quotas, which are very few in number, bear the character solely of measures for the protection of the vital interests of the country, their only purpose being to prevent really abnormal imports. The Netherlands law authorising the Government to restrict the export of foreign exchange has not so far been applied.

"The Netherlands Government is prepared to adhere, for the period and under the condition mentioned in the resolution, to the commercial policy above described. This implies that the measures hitherto taken by the Netherlands Government are not, in its view, incompatible with the tariff truce.

"Seeing that the fresh barriers to international trade erected just before the Conference in the form of measures taken by other Governments might possibly seriously affect the economic situation of the Netherlands, and that the countries which have adopted the resolution subject to reservations might possibly apply those reservations so as to affect the Netherlands also, the Government considers it necessary to retain full liberty to take immediately any steps necessary to protect the vital interests of the country. Naturally, the Netherlands. Government considers that the difficulties referred to in the resolution also include those caused by currency instability."