State, acting partly on the representations of New England fishermen, and partly at the suggestion of the British minister, agreed, on June 22, 1885, to extend the agreement of the treaty through the season of 1885, with the exception of the exemption from customs duties. This agreement contemplated further negotiations, and in his message of December, 1885, the President recommended the appointment of a commission for such negotiations. This recommendation has met with disfavor in Congress, on the ground that any reciprocity in fishing privileges would do us more harm than good. Indeed, the situation seems to have totally changed in the last few years. I cannot do better than quote on this subject from a recent article in Science of February 5, 1886, which seems to reflect the opinion of the United States Fish Commission:

"The fisheries-treaty question, which is now the subject of so much discussion, is a very complicated one; and it is not at all surprising that the Secretary of State, following traditionary policy of more than a hundred years' standing, and acting upon the long-established theory that participation in the fishery privileges of Canadian waters is of great value, should have failed to satisfy the expectations of the New England fishermen, who know so well that these privileges have long been valueless. A general impression seems to exist that our fishing-fleet no longer visits the Gulf of St. Lawrence, only bccause there has been a temporary desertion of those waters by the species of fish which they seek. Such, also, is the idea of the Canadians. In his recent article in the North American Re

view, Lord Lorne patronizingly suggests to his 'good friends' across the line that they should not be too hasty in throwing aside the right to fish in English waters, because the fish may before long return in their former abundance.

"As a matter of fact, the abundance of fish in the Gulf has very little to do with the question as it now presents itself. Since 1871, when the Washington treaty was negotiated, a complete revolution has taken place both in the fisheries and the fish trade of the United States; and, strangely enough, this revolution was effected chiefly in the six years which intervened between the completion of this treaty and the meeting in 1877 of the Halifax convention, by which $5,500,000 were awarded to Great Britain as a compensation for a concession to our fishermen, which had ceased to be of value to them, in addition to the remission of duties on Canadian fish, which during the period of fourteen years have amounted to several millions of dollars. Our Government has thus, unintentionally of course, been paying each year a large subsidy to the fisheries of British North America, and developing the Canadian fisheries at the expense of our own; and Canadian competition has become so great that our fishermen feel that they have a strong claim upon the Government for some kind of protection. The fishermen therefore demand that the duty upon Canadian fish be restored, and that their own privileges shall be based upon the provisions of the treaty of 1818, which will again go into effect, if no new treaty arrangements are made. Our dealers in cured fish, on the other hand, mindful of the profits of handling the product of the Canadian fisheries, are clamorous for a continuance of the present free-trade policy.

"The revolution in the American fisheries is so extensive that it can scarcely be discussed in a notice so brief as this. One of the principal changes is the adoption of the purse-seine in the mackerel fishery, by which the fish are caught far out

at sea, and in immense quantities, by enclosing them in an immense bag of netting. Formerly they were taken solely with hooks by the 'chumming' process. This was in the best days of the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery, when hundreds of American vessels would frequently lie side by side, throwing overboard vast quantities of oily, mushy bait, by which the schools of fish were enticed within reach. There is no reason to doubt that mackerel were as abundant then as now off our own coast, but the old method of fishing was not so well adapted to our waters. The purse-seine, on the other hand, cannot be used advantageously in the Gulf, nor is there any necessity for our fishermen to go so far from home for their fish. There does not appear to be any probability that our, fishermen will ever return to the old methods. 'Chumming mackerel' is essentially a lost art.

"Another feature in the revolution is the introduction of improved methods of marketing fresh fish. With the extensive refrigerating establishments now in operation, and the facilities for rapid transmission of sea-fish inland, the demand for salted fish is relatively very much less than it was fifteen years ago. Then, too, the immense competition produced by the free entry of Canadian fish has lowered the price of cured fish until a very decided depreciation in its quality has resulted, with a consequent decrease in demand."

IX.

COMMERCIAL TREATIES.

General Commercial Treaties.-The Most Favored Nation.Special Commercial Treaties.-Changes in Commerce.Our Earliest Treaties.-Commercial Relations and Negotiations with Great Britain.-Treaties of 1794, 1806, and 1815.-Reciprocity Treaty of 1854.-Mr. Wheaton's Negotiations with the German Zollverein.—Advantageous Treaty Rejected by the Senate.-The Mexican Treaty of 1859. That of 1883.-The Hawaiian Treaty.—The recent Treaty with Spain.

COMMERCIAL treaties are in their nature either general or special. The ordinary general treaties of commerce and navigation which secures to the contracting parties rights which otherwise would be granted only to subjects, are, in general, reciprocal in their nature, both parties granting like favors and immunities to the other. In such treaties it has been usual to insert what is called the "most-favored-nation clause," the effect of which is to give to each party the same treatment and the same privileges which have been or may be granted to the most favored nation without further specification or agreement. The form in which this clause has been inserted in

most of our treaties is as follows, from our treaty with Italy:

"The United States of America and the Kingdom of Italy mutually engage not to grant any particular favor to other nations, in respect to commerce and navigation, which shall not immediately become common to the other party, who shall enjoy the same freely, if the concession was freely made, or on allowing the same compensation, if the concession was conditional."

The most-favored-nation clause is not expressed in our late treaties in as absolute terms as it generally is in foreign treaties; and, in speaking of "compensation," if the concession should be conditional, we have endeavored to keep to ourselves the right of making special commercial treaties, the stipulations of which should not be extended to other powers.

Special commercial treaties are of two varieties. One, where either by force or predominance certain favors are granted by one party which are not reciprocally granted by the other, and which are therefore not common to all the world, even under the most-favored-nation clause; and the other, where reciprocal advantages are stipulated for, but of a special nature. The general policy of the United States has been to avoid special commercial treaties, and to place the conditions of their commerce on an equality for the whole world. On several occasions we have derogated from this policy, especially with regard to