Page images

relations through representatives of the protecting power; they are rather units of local government, having no foreign relations of any kind; they have not granted to their protectors a limited right of supervision; their protectors, on the contrary, have permitted them to continue, in varying degrees, the native forms of administration. The self-government which the United States permits to Indian tribes is comparable to this. Parts of Java and of the Philippines are so governed. Until 1915, indeed, the Sultanate of Sulu might even have been classed as a protectorate. Further, the term "protectorate" may be simply an official misnomer; for instance, all of the German colonies were officially designated protectorates (Schutzgebiete), and throughout a large part of the "Nyasaland Protectorate" no native government had been recognized.

The numerous regions ordinarily listed as protectorates are included in this study, as a rule without inquiry as to the exact degree of control which the protecting power exercises and without investigation as to whether the protecting power fixes the tariff rates by treaty right or by exercise of political pressure. Many of the Native States of India maintain their own tariffs; and it may be that elsewhere, in Sarawak and Brunei, for instance, the British Government has not exercised the determining influence in tariff matters. It can scarcely be doubted, however, that, if these dependent governments had wished to grant special favors to third countries, means would have been found to prevent their doing so. In Indo-China, the Federated Malay States, and Tunis, existing tariff provisions indicate plainly the exercise of more or less complete control by the protecting country.

With protectorates may be included territories administered by chartered companies; in the latter as in the former, international responsibility and, in the last analysis, all final authority lies with the mother country.


Certain "protectorates" constitute the first of the doubtful cases in connection with the use of the term "colony." As a state which was previously independent 16 falls more and more under the control of another state, there is frequently a difference of opinion as to the time at which it may be properly designated as a protectorate or colony. Thus, Egypt was popularly regarded as a British "colony" before 1914, when it was not officially even a protectorate and when many works (e. g., the Statesman's Year-Book) classified it as part of the Turkish rather than of the British Empire. Before 1920 the Ameer of Afghanistan was subsidized by the British Government and was bound by treaty to carry on foreign relations only through British agencies, and Russia had recognized this arrangement; but the British were pledged not to interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and it was frequently classed as an independent country. Many writers, especially European publicists, have designated Cuba, and sometimes the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Liberia, Panama, and Nicaragua as protectorates of the United States. But, inasmuch as

16 Or owed a nominal allegiance to some state which was too weak to exercise real control. Such was Turkey's suzerainty over Egypt, Tunis, and Morocco, and China's over Korea.

the United States has no control over the foreign affairs of Cuba except in relation to certain subjects and on the basis of a veto power, and as the right to interfere in Cuba's internal affairs is contingently limited and likely to be exercised rarely, if ever, and as the tariff favors given and received reciprocally between the two countries were solicited by Cuba and were negotiated, not dictated, such classification seems unwarranted. A discussion of the classification of doubtful cases does not lie within the scope of this report; only Egypt, of the countries mentioned, has been included in the account of tariff policies.

Assimilation to the mother country.-At the other extreme, difficulty is encountered in determining at what moment a territory in process of assimilation to the mother country should be said no longer to be a colony. Various criteria may be suggested for this determination: The constitutional or legislative affirmation that the territory is incorporated with the mother country; uniformity of civil and political rights and of governmental organization and fiscal system; and lastly, public opinion and the usage of writers upon the subject. These criteria are all defective; the first is formal and may be contradicted by the others; and the second, if entire uniformity be insisted upon, is too rigid, since it includes territories which are not colonies. Ireland, after a century of incorporation in the United Kingdom, has laws and a fiscal system not altogether uniform with those of Great Britain; the Isle of Man and the two Channel Islands, Jersey and Guernsey, have tariffs, revenues, and debts separate from those of the United Kingdom, and to them the laws of Parliament. do not apply except by specific provision; yet these islands are not classed as colonies. Algeria, likewise, has been formally declared a part of France; 18 French laws extend to it, unless a special exception is made; and it is administered in many respects as a part of France; yet the mass of its population is dealt with as foreign,19 its finances are separate and even its tariff is not absolutely uniform with that of France, and French writers give it a prominent place in discussing the French colonies. If uniformity of political rights and fiscal arrangements be not insisted upon further than representation in the national legislature, and approximate uniformity of tariffs, then some of the more distant French possessions (e. g. Guadeloupe and Reunion) are parts of France rather than colonies.

The possessions of the United States which have a "territorial " status, now only Alaska and Hawaii, are not usually regarded in the United States as "colonies." though they have only "Delegates" in Congress and are ultimately subject to Congress in the exercise of the rights of local government which have been granted to them, and they have no guaranty that they will ever attain statehood. The population of Hawaii is alien to the extent of 88 per cent: geographically, racially, and legally Algeria seems more entitled than Hawaii to be considered an integral part of the country which governs it. Porto Rico is politically less closely related to the United

17 The treaty and commercial relations between Cuba and the United States have already been described and accounted for in the United States Tariff Commission's report on "Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties (Government Printing Office, 50 cents), and that subject will not be discussed here.

[ocr errors]

18 Compare the Portuguese colonies, which are officially styled "Overseas Provinces " 19 Or was until February, 1919, when about half a million natives were given franchise.


States than is Hawaii, never having been designated a "territory." 20 If comparison be made between Porto Rico and the French similated" colonies, the latter, with their representation in the French legislature, would seem to have become more really than the former a part of the mother country.

Omitting further discussion, Algeria, Madeira, and Azores are included in this study, while Corsica, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, Alaska, and Hawaii receive no attention.

Self-governing Dominions.-In a class by themselves must be placed those Dominions which, without having declared their independence, have asserted the right to rank as independent for certain purposes, such as representation and participation in the League of Nations. The British self-governing Dominions, and they alone, constitute this class.21 Fiscal autonomy enabled these Dominions for many years to maintain protective tariffs which were in conflict both with what is generally regarded as the economic interest and with the general tariff policy of the mother country. Even the preferential tariff of Canada was, at the time when it was established, contrary to the policy of Great Britain as shown in the dependent colonies. However, these Dominions are still technically classed as colonies, and their tariff policies are dealt with in Part II of this report. It is unwise to attempt an arbitrary or a hard and fast classification of dependencies. Official classifications are frequently out of date or euphemistic in arrangement. Treaties declarative of the protectorate relationship frequently emphasize the sovereignty of the weaker state at the moment when that sovereignty is being infringed by the stronger. Radical writers, inveighing against the acquisitive greed of the powers, frequently employ the term " colony' or "protectorate" on flimsy grounds and in an attitude of gloomy prophecy. For the purposes of this study, subtle distinctions are unnecessary and special attention need not be given to justification of individual inclusions and exclusions.


The territories held under the mandate of the League of Nations are clearly not "colonies" of the mandatory powers within any strict use of the term "colony." No single nation holds title to any of these territories, and the Mandatory Power administers, or assists the inhabitants to administer, a mandated territory in accordance with the principles embodied in the Covenant of the League of Nations and under the supervision of that league. The central idea is not possession but the administration of a trust. In view, however, of the inclusive sense in which the word colony is popularly used and the intimate connection between mandated territories of class C and the mandatories, it has been considered warrantable to include in this study some reference to mandated territories and their tariffs. By article 119 of the treaty of peace "Germany renounces in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles

20 The Porto Ricans were made American citizens in 1917. But so long as the Porto Rican does not acquire a residence in some State or travel abroad this new status has little practical effect.

[ocr errors]

21 India can not yet be put in this class in spite of representation in the League of Nations and of increasing powers of self-government. The promised independence" of Egypt may bring her into this class rather than that of sovereign states.


over her overseas possessions." 22 The title to these territories, there fore, is vested in these powers and not in the League of Nations, and these powers represented by their Supreme Council (Council of Four) allocated the mandates and ratified the division of Togo and Kamerun previously agreed upon by France and Great Britain, and of German East Africa agreed upon by Great Britain and Belgium. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which forms an integral part of the peace treaty, provides for the administration of the former German colonies and of the Asiatic territories which were taken from Turkey. This article reads as follows:

ART. 22. To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as mandatories on behalf of the league.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions, and other similar circumstances.


[Class A.] Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the mandatory.

[Class B.] Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defense of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the league.

[Class C.] There are territories, such as Southwest Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centers of civilization, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of mandate, the mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.

Attention may be specially directed to three points: First, the principle is clearly recognized in article 22 that the mandated ter

The treaty with Turkey contains a similar provision relating to Turkish territories in Asia but omitting reference to Associated Powers. 23 See the appendix to Chapter IV, p. 266.


ritories are to be administered primarily in the interests of the resi deft populations, and that the mandatories are trustees rather than possessors of the territory. Second, the mandated territories are di vided into three classes, subject to separate, and in some respects ry different, provisions. While the treaty does not define the territories belonging to each class, they may be tabulated as follows:

[blocks in formation]

1 Formerly German East Africa, which included also Ruanda and Urundi.

2 As originally announced the mandate was to be held by the British Empire. The mandate as issued is to His Britannic Majesty, but the Governments of Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand have reached a tentative agreement for the division of the phosphates taken from Nauru.

3 For the division of Central African territories, see the appendix to Chapter IV, p. 267. 4 The mandates are conferred upon His Britannic Majesty to be exercised in his behalf" by the governments of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa.

The former German colony of New Guinea, excluding Nauru and the islands north of the Equator. The territory includes Kaiser Wilhelmsland, the Bismarck Archipelago, and lesser islands.

The status of Yap, which is part of the Caroline group, remains unsettled.

Only in territories of class B does article 22 explicitly require the maintenance of the open door, and even in this case the benefit is guaranteed only to other members of the league. In mandated territories of class C the open door is not required by article 22, and the mandates already approved for this class makes no provision for it. In fact differential duties have been introduced in SouthWest Africa and Samoa, and by discriminations of other kinds Australia has effectively monopolized the trade of the territory entrusted to her control." On the other hand the drafts of the mandates for class A embody provisions for the maintenance of the open door for the benefit of members of the League of Nations. The exclusion of other states from the terms of the mandates has not so far resulted in any policies of discrimination against such states. Third, the last two paragraphs of article 22 contemplate that the members of the league, presumably acting through the assembly of the league, will define the terms of the mandates and will organize the permanent supervisory commission; but the assembly has so far taken no action upon the terms of the mandates, and those which have been approved have been approved by the council of the league. The council has also determined that the permanent commission shall be composed of nine members, including a majority from states which are not mandatory powers.

24 For further discussion of these points, see the appendix to Chapter IV, pp. 275–278.

« PreviousContinue »