sec venstre frm the mostin I dont hesitate to say that there

BOS DE SNE KÜNLe member of that elected majority that would have votedly xupe sve godi *

Ormanly the local governor and his advisers take the ini in changing the enstoms duties. The proposals normally form of the annda, budget, and therefore in so far as the colony hasr sentative assemblés or couteus the proposals come within the towar sphere of these bodies. In any case, even where the gir is the fifal authority, this does not imply that where tariff et other po y is concerned personal or official opinion and predi are all that count: probably more care is taken in such instances consult and be guided by people who have direct interests at s than in others where responsibility is less.” *

As the tariffs are revenue tariffs, usually without protective feat a change or threatened change of the rates does not affect ind and business to the same extent as do changes of equal magnitu protective duties. For this reason colonial governments feel fre revise the tariffs according to the fiscal needs of the year, and cha are therefore very frequent as compared to the relative stabil! the tariff rates in the French, Italian, American, and other colo

In the House of Lords, Lord Crewe said that as to the relation of the control of Parliament, he ths, 6 the case of the Dominions before they received complete self-control, Parliament wou ná test mencuba, interference with details of Indian Government ought to be relaxed, and would beroarod. (The Times (London), Nov. 20, 1919, p. 6.)

1/21 de ham said upreme government of India was made far weaker than before. Cont some very important aspects of policy was taken away, and while powers were vested in the vic might sot be ste to use them in the face of a hostile legislative assembly." (Ibid., Dec. 13. 191 Lord Dent.. believed that the bal would tie the hands of the secretary of state and prevent th honorable gentleman placing any check upon a fiscal measure which might impose fetters upon trade with India. (Ibid.)

Mr. B. S. Montagu stated in an earlier debate that he was quite in agreement with fiscal autob Tod's, but it was for the executive branch of the Government to put forward the proposals. Most office in India had been protectionists; he, himself, was a convinced free trader. It was certain we had key industries in this country, India would have the same. India should have the opportu revising her tariffs in what she considered to be her interests. (Ibid., Dec. 5, 1919, p. 20.) * The Times (London), Mar. 26, 1921.

* Root: Op. cit., p. 2×2.

** These frequent changes make very difficult any attempt to define in detail the rates in force at s time in the British Crown colonies or to describe the rates in force in a given colony through a give Changes in the tariff of India are comparatively infrequent.

The situation is even more complex than in 1885, when it was ated that "in their details the tariffs of the various British colonies xhibit a perfect chaos in which it is vain to seek a unifying principle. his is due to their unsystematic and accidental development and to xceptionally complex and varied economic circumstances." 29

III. TARIFF POLICY AND SYSTEM.

TARIFF POLICY OF GREAT BRITAIN.

In the years from 1842 to 1860 Great Britain completely abandoned he protective tariff policy which had included preferential tariffs nd bounties upon the trade between the Mother Country and the olonies. After 1860 the British derived considerable revenue from ustoms duties, although until after the outbreak of the World War hey consistently avoided any protective duties. Duties were levied or the most part on articles which were not native products of Great Britain-sugar, coffee, tea, cocoa, tobacco, wine, dried fruit, and notor spirit.30 These articles were selected not only because they were articles of wide and constant consumption but because their taxation could have no protective effect; any protective effect upon the other important dutiable articles was avoided in the case of beer and distilled liquors by an equivalent excise tax and in the case of tobacco by a prohibition of its cultivation in Great Britain.31 Between 1860 and 1903 the policy of maintaining the tariff strictly for revenue and without even incidental protection and the concomitant policy of maintaining the open door in the Crown colonies were not questioned in such a way as to make them political issues. Since 1903 preferential tariffs within the Empire with more or less incidental protection have been more and more strongly supported. The advocates of such a change obtained their first tangible success in transforming their ideas into legislation only after the World War had been in progress for some time. To what extent these preliminary successes foreshadow a permanent change from the policy pursued through two generations and to what extent a triumph of an imperial preferential tariff policy will involve the adoption of protection in Great Britain can not, of course, be foreseen. But it is evident that unless imperial preference is rejected by public opinion in Great Britain its success must lead to its application in the Crown colonies and to the closing of the open door. And its application is likely to be much more extensive in the Crown colonies than in the United Kingdom, since the comparatively long lists of dutiable articles in the schedules of most of the colonies afford an easy opportunity for an extensive application of the principle, while in Great Britain the principle can be widely applied only after duties shall have been levied on many foodstuffs and raw materials which now are admitted duty free.

29 Rawson: Tariffs and Trade of the British Empire, quoted by Carl Fuchs in The Trade Policy of Great Britain and Her Colonies Since 1860, p. 233.

30 In 1914 the schedule had come to be much longer than this list and numerous imitations and related products were dutiable-e. g., chicory, glucose and saccharine, molasses, caramel, confectionery, marmalade, condensed milk, and fruits candied or preserved in syrup. The dutiable fruits were currants, figs, plums, prunes, and raisins. Articles dutiable in connection with spirits were chloroform, ether, ethyl compounds, collodion, and soap containing spirit. It is evident that duties on sugar and on spirits would give an advantage to foreign manufacturers unless these products containing sugar and spirit were also dutiable in Great Britain.

The prohibition was repealed a few years ago. It was originally imposed to give a monopoly to tobacco growers in the American colonies.

TREATIES AND BRITISH COLONIAL TARIFFS.

mo

dif

C

The treaties to which Great Britain is a party and which b upon the tariffs of the Crown colonies and India may be conside under four heads-multilateral treaties; bilateral agreements the maintenance of the open door in specified areas; general mercial treaties with more or less incidental references to the Th onies; and commercial treaties which deal primarily with the twi of particular colonies.

MULTILATERAL TREATIES.

Great Britain is a party to the treaties of 1885 and 1919 by the powers pledged themselves to the maintenance of the open in central Africa and to the Brussels treaty of 1890 and its res in 1899, 1906, and 1919, prescribing minimum duties to be im upon liquors imported into most of Africa. These treaties been discussed in connection with the Congo (see pp. 85 and and it need only be said here that the former pledge the open in Kenya (British East Africa), Uganda, Zanzibar, and N land, while the latter establish a minimum rate of duty to be lev upon alcoholic liquors in the territories already named, and also the four British West African colonies, the Anglo-Egyptian Su and the South African territories which are not part of the Union South Africa.

OPEN-DOOR TREATIES.

The maintenance of the open door in Nigeria and the Gold Co was pledged for a period of 30 years in the Anglo-French treats 1898 (see p. 144); and in several arrangements concluded with many in 1885, 1886, and 1899 Great Britain pledged the open in her islands in the western Pacific (see pp. 240, 241). The port Weihaiwei is by treaty with China an open port and in addition British dependency comes within the terms of the note of 1899 which Great Britain agreed to the proposal put forward by Secret Hay of the United States, that the powers should pledge themsel to the maintenance of the open door in their spheres of interesti China. Egypt is found as usual to occupy a peculiar posit The series of treaties limiting the rate of the duties leviable in E began before the British obtained recognition of the authoritat character of their "advice" in regard to the government of Egy and Great Britain is herself a party to one of this series and must! regarded in construing Egyptian treaties as a foreign country. so far as the treaties of Egypt make provisions for special favors exceptions from most-favored-nation treatment, these exceptio relate to the Turkish Empire, the Sudan, and Persia. Neither t protectorate declared by Great Britain in 1914 nor the recogniti of this form of annexation in the treaty of Versailles operates nullification of the rights guaranteed by Egyptian treaties, the network of treaties with the chief commercial countries lectively guarantees the maintenance of the open door in Egypt.

32 See also the treaty of 1904 with France, p. 205.

as 3

the

Er

ת

I

GENERAL COMMERCIAL TREATIES.

Great Britain has, or had until recently, commercial treaties with ost of the countries of the world. Those treaties were made at ferent periods and reflect the change in policies of the British npire in regard to navigation, commerce, and colonial autonomy. e treaties vary much in their scope, but usually provide (with or thout exceptions and limitations) for most-favored-nation treatent in regard to tariffs and numerous other matters affecting trade. reference to the inclusion or exclusion of the colonies, the treaties ay be grouped chronologically.

The oldest treaties and those made up to about 1880 generally cluded the whole British Empire. The colonies were bound by the eaties of the Mother Country and this was usually explicitly menoned in the treaty. Many of the oldest treaties which are nomially in force belong to the exclusive mercantilist period and provide ›r the reservation of all colonial trade to the Mother Country. Thus he treaty of 1670 with Denmark provides that "the subjects of the ing of Denmark shall not come to the British colonies, unless by pecial license of the King of Great Britain first desired and btained." The mercantilist period extended into the nineteenth entury, and in the treaty of 1815 with the United States the British ledged most-favored-nation treatment only in their European posessions and in the ports of Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, and Prince of Wales Island, from which ports, moreover, exports were permitted n American ships only for transportation direct to the United States.35 But while these old treaties are still nominally in force, some of these clauses have been superseded by later treaties. In other cases2. g., the treaty of 1815 with the United States-the much more liberal treatment actually accorded to foreign commerce makes it evident that the severely restrictive provisions of these treaties have had no influence on British colonial trade policies in recent decades.

The latter part of the period which extends to 1880 covers the triumph of the free-trade movement in Great Britain and treaties then made reflect the "liberalism" of that period. In treaties made between 1819 and 1880, most-favored-nation treatment and even national treatment in regard to many matters was pledged by Great Britain and the other contracting powers "throughout the whole extent of their possessions and territories." 30 With the exception, however, of two which were later denounced,37 even these treaties of the free-trade period did not guarantee the open door in the colonies but only the treatment accorded to the most favored foreign country.

Beginning about 1880 the movement toward colonial autonomy is seen in the gradual adoption of the provision that the terms of the treaties do not apply to the self-governing Dominions or to the

The outbreak of the war terminated many treaties and many more were denounced in 1917-1920 to allow a clear field for the new tariffs and new commercial policies.

34 Gt. Brit., foreign office, Handbook of Commercial Treaties, 1912, p. 249; Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. 1, p. 381. Compare the treaty of 1656 with Sweden, which is also given in the handbook (p. 899) as being still in force in 1912.

Malloy: Treaties, Conventions, Vol. I, etc., p. 624. This treaty did not apply to the West Indies, Canada, and Newfoundland. American vessels were allowed to touch for refreshment but not for commerce at the Cape of Good Hope and other British possessions in the African and Indian Seas.

35 Treaty of 1866 with Colombia, Handbook of Commercial Treaties, p. 217. Compare the treaty of 1850 with Peru and those of 1848 with Liberia and 1849 with Costa Rica. Handbook of Commercial Treaties, pp. 517 and 233.

7 Treaties of 1862 with Belgium and of 1865 with the German Zollverein, see pp. 435, 445.

39

ali

T

Dominions and India, unless they give notice of their adhes within a limited time. In the nineties this option of becomitarif party to the treaty was extended to the Crown colonies gene prod A treaty of 1894 with Spain 3 provided that any colony might retu draw upon suitable notice, and the treaty of 1898 with Belg in t provided that its terms were not applicable to the colonies ex cop in so far as they individually and within a year signified their in upo of becoming parties thereto. Numerous other treaties contain rat same stipulation, many of them providing further that the tra the colonies is none the less to receive most-favored-nation treat in the country in question as long as the trade of the latter rece such treatment in the colonies. A little later amendments be to be introduced into the older treaties, by which any of the col or in some cases only the Dominions, might withdraw from upon giving the customary notice." These general comm general_comm treaties have little direct bearing on colonial tariffs. They d limit the rates which may be imposed in British colonies, nor do prohibit discriminatory tariffs in favor of Great Britain and parts of the British Empire. Accordingly it has not been conside necessary to check up the adhesions and withdrawals of the Brit Crown colonies to and from these treaties. The colonies are ve commonly parties to the treaties, but India has ratified fewer them than have most of the Crown colonies.

an

at

th

in

m

H

COLONIAL TARIFF TREATIES.

Great Britain has made a few treaties which deal directly tariff rates of single colonies as distinguished from the open-d agreements previously mentioned, which, for the most part, st lated nondiscriminatory tariffs without prescribing maximum other rates. The treaties in force up to the recent widespread me ment for the denunciation of commercial treaties, or still in fore are as follows:

42

In Egypt treaties with various powers indirectly guarantee L open door, and directly limit the import duty to 8 per cent ad valore and the export duty to 1 per cent, with certain exceptions. Zanzibar likewise the rates of duty are limited by treaties wh antedate the British protectorate. (See p. 305.)

A series of treaties was made in 1901-1907 between Great Brita and France, on behalf of India, Ceylon, the Seychelles, Zanziba British East Africa, Uganda, Nyasaland, Jamaica, and Barbados

See treaties of 1883 with Italy, 1884 with Paraguay, 1886 with Greece, 1888 with Mexico, and 1822 Ecuador. Handbook of Commercial Treaties, pp. 481, 651, 449, and 281, and Brit. and For. State Faper vol. 79, p. 25 (Mexico, 1888).

39 Handbook of Commercial Treaties, p. 894.

40 Handbook of Commercial Treaties, p. 25. Compare the treaty of 1899 with Uruguay, those of 19 with Bulgaria, Roumania, and Nicaragua, that of 1907 with Servia, those of 1910 with Honduras Montenegro, those of 1911 with Bolivia and Japan, and that of 1914 with Portugal.

4 Treaties of 1908 with Liberia and Paraguay; 1912 with Colombia and Denmark; 1913 with Costa Ri

Gold Coast lying east of the River Volta, the British West Indies, and British Guiana. See p. 401 for treaty of Great Britain, Italy, and Germany relative to East Africa; footnote 80 on p. 258 for the tre between Great Britain and Germany relative to Togo and the Gold Coast; and p. 153 of the United Sta Tariff Commission's report on Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, for the reciprocity agreements 1892-1894, between the United States and the British West Indies and British Guiana. The overland trade between Burma and China was subject to special tariff arrangements embodied in the treaty d March 1, 1894. By this treaty for six years Burma was to collect no import or export duties upon land trade with China except an import duty on salt, while China made reductions from the regular rates of the maritime customs to the extent of 20 per cent upon imports and 40 per cent upon experte "Handbook of Commercial Treaties, pp. 328, 329, 331, 332, 334, 336, 352.

42 By treaties previously in force rates were reduced or prescribed in British East Africa, the part of th