tion of equivalent advantages received from that other country in return. As a general thing, reciprocity treaties have concerned exclusively the market privileges of the contracting governments; but there is nothing in the nature of the principle of reciprocity to confine its application thus to the commercial or tariff phase of human interests. The bonding privileges granted to Canadian railroads in the United States, the treatment of fishermen along the coast, the prohibition or regulation of pelagic seal hunting, the admission or exclusion of alien labor--. these, and other matters, afford just as truly a basis for reciprocity agreements as do the tariff rates imposed upon goods exported from or imported into the United States. It is therefore theoretically possible to conclude reciprocity treaties without considering the tariff at all.

But, wherever reciprocity does concern commerce-and that has been the universal rule-it is inseparable from the idea of protection. Any reciprocity which is distinguishable from absolute free trade-that unlimited reciprocity of commercial privileges-is essentially an outgrowth of protection, a moderated or qualified application of the protective principle. Just as a protective tariff itself is so contrived as to favor domestic industries, and to admit as freely as possible all things that do not compete therewith, so is a reciprocity treaty arranged. On articles which do not come into competition with domestic products, duties are either lowered or abolished altogether, and in return a remission of foreign duties is secured on articles which bear the same relation to those produced in the countries in question.

Treaties Under Consideration.-Under the Harrison administration, it will be remembered, reciprocity treaties were negotiated with a number of countries. These conventions were all abrogated by the enactment of the Wilson tariff law of 1894. However, the Dingley law of 1897, whose reciprocity provisions have already been outlined in "Current History" (p. 604), has opened the way for a renewal of similar agreements. Already it is announced that negotiations are pending with several countries. British Guiana and the British West Indies, which are suffering from the stagnation of the sugar industry, are seeking earnestly to renew their former relations with the United States based on the treaty of 1891 (Vol. 1, p. 478; Vol. 2, p. 7). Peru, France, and other countries are

also negotiating for reciprocity conventions with the United States.

A Reciprocity Commissioner.-In order to facilitate reciprocity negotiations with foreign countries, and at the same time to prevent the serious delay which would be sure to follow any addition to the business pressing the already overcrowded state department, President McKin

ley decided to appoint a special commissioner with plenary powers to carry into effect the reciprocity provisions of the new tariff law. On October 14 the selection of John A. Kasson, of Iowa, for the post, with Chapman Coleman of Kentucky as secretary, and J. B. Osborne of Pennsylvania as assistant secretary, was announced.

KASSON, JOHN A., of Iowa, special reciprocity commissioner representing the United States government, was United States minister to Austria, 1877-81; and minister to Germany, 1884-85. He was also one of the commissioners to represent the government of the United States at the conference held in Berlin concerning Samoan affairs, and was one of the signers of the Berlin General Act concluded on June 14, 1889. He was then commissioned as special envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, his commission bearing date of March 18, 1889. Preceding his diplomatic service, Mr. Kasson was for many years a member of the ways and means committee of the house of representatives.

The question of a Canadian-American reciprocity treaty has recently received much attention, owing to the visit to Washington of the Canadian premier, Sir Wilfred Laurier, and Sir L. H. Davies, Canadian minister of marine and fisheries. (See article in this number on "Can

ada.") The visit did not accomplish much that was definite. It will be remembered that earlier in the present year overtures looking to reciprocity were made by the Dominion, but met with little encouragement. Some of the obstacles standing in the way of a treaty were outlined at that time in "Current History" (p. 175). The opinion is widely entertained in the United States that it would be impracticable to frame a treaty providing for commercial reciprocity between the United States and Canada which would receive the approval of congress. By the wording of the Dingley tariff law, the treaty would require to be not only "with the advice and consent of the senate" and "duly ratified” by that body; but also “ap- • proved by congress."

Vigorous efforts are being made by the diplomatic representatives of the United States to secure a removal of the embargo placed by European countries, especially Germany, Belgium, France, and Italy (Vol. 5, p. 52), on the importation of American cattle and fresh meat. The prospects of success are good, and, in the case of Italy, as announced by Ambassador Draper, are practically assured. The United States government maintains at great expense a Bureau of Inspection, and all meat exported is officially certified to be in perfect sanitary condition.

Working of the Dingley Law.-Up to December 1, under the Dingley tariff law, the revenues of the government had been insufficient to meet expenses. During the four months since the law went into effect, the revenue amounted to about $35,000,000. During the five months (ended November 30) of the current fiscal year, the deficit was nearly $46,000,000, the customs income being the smallest for the period in many years. The friends of the measure, however, are confident that in a few months the present schedules will show themselves adequate revenue producers; by that time the normal conditions upset by the large anticipatory importations of sugar, wool, woolen goods, etc. (p. 610), will have been restored; and the unusual stocks of goods will have been to some extent unloaded.

It may be that four months from the time of enactment is not sufficient time for any tariff law to demonstrate its working powers. But there is one feature of our foreign commerce, as shown by the most recent figures,

Vol. 7-57.

which certainly tends to confute the prophecies of those who opposed the enactment of the Dingley law. In spite of the protests against the measure from thirteen countries, which protests were laid before congress while the bill was pending, by Representative M. N. Johnson (Rep.) of North Dakota, the operation of the law thus far has not been -as many predicted it would to close foreign markets against American goods. The following table gives the figures of our foreign

commerce with the thirteen protesting countries during August and September, 1897, as compared with the corresponding months of 1896:

It was decided by the United States Board of General Appraisers, October 8, that the new tariff law went into effect at 4.06 P. M., July 24, that being precisely the moment when the bill was signed; the measure was not at all retroactive. This decision lost to the government between $300,000 and $400,000 in duties which had been collected on goods entered July 24, but earlier in the day than 4.06 P. M. The Wilson tariff remained in force until the moment when President McKinley's signature was attached to the Dingley bill. A rendering of the supreme court on the point involved will probably be called for.

GENERAL EUROPEAN SITUATION.

The continental bearings of the developments in southeastern Europe which concern most especially Turkey and Greece, are made the subject of special treatment elsewhere in this number (see article on "Turkey, Greece, and the Powers," (p. 858).

The Franco-Russian Alliance.-French enthusiasın still continues over the recent confirmation of the understanding with Russia (p. 593), which, in the eyes of Frenchmen, restores to France once more a prestige not enjoyed since the disastrous days of 1870-71. On October 14 President Faure was tendered a banquet by the merchants and manufacturers of France, of whom about 750 were present, in commemoration of his recent visit to St. Petersburg (p. 593). In the eyes of the rest of Europe, however, there is ground for the deliberate conviction that at bottom the function of Russia as a member of the Dual Alliance is to exercise a moderating influence upon French activity, which counterbalances, if it does no more, the gain of power and prestige accruing to France. The alliance is certainly a strong safeguard for France against attack; but there is no reason for believing that Russia, the dominant member, will allow it to facilitate any enterprise against other nations. So that the peace of Europe, so far as it depends upon Russian action, is probably assured for as long a period as we are permitted to anticipate in politics. It is not unlikely that Russia's closer contact with the Western powers will bring her more and more into accord with the public opinion of the civilized world; but she has her own very well marked characteristics, and has certainly shown no disposition so far to per