Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:21:56.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The American Construction of the Most-Favored-Nation Clause

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Samuel B. Crandall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a communication to the Congress of the Confederation, February 20, 1787, the Netherlands minister protested against an Act of the legislature of the State of Virginia, which exempted French brandies imported in French and American vessels from certain duties to which like commodities imported in vessels of the Netherlands were left liable, as in contravention of the most-favored-nation clause in Article II of the treaty of 1782. This article provided that the subjects of the Netherlands should pay in the ports of the United States no other or greater duties or imposts of whatever nature or denomination than those which the nations the most favored were or should be obliged to pay; and that they should enjoy all the rights, liberties, privileges, immunities and exemptions in trade, navigation and commerce which the most favored nations did or should enjoy. The article contained no express qualification that the favor or privilege should be extended freely if freely given or for an equivalent if conditional.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1913 , pp. 708 - 723
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1913

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 An address before the Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, April 29, 1911 (Proceedings, 240), has been incorporated in this article.—S. B. C.

2 The same view was taken by Jefferson as to a most favored nation clause, when conditionally expressed, in a letter to Monroe, Dec. 10, 1784. Writings (Ford ed.), IV, 19. See also Writings of Monroe, I, 36.

3 See Moore, Int. Law Digest, V, 257-319. See also Memorandum by John Ball Osborne, Sen. Doc. 29, 62d Cong. 1st Sess. The position taken by the government in 1898, in reference to the most-favored-nation clause in the treaty of 1850 with Switzerland, is not an exception to the rule. There appeared to be an agreement between the parties in respect of the interpretation to be placed upon the clause. For Rel., 1899, 746-748. As to the rule of construction in foreign countries, see M. L. E. Visser, Revue de Droit International et de Legislation Compares, 1902 (2nd series), IV, 66, 159, 270; S. K. Hornbeck, American Journal of International Law, III, 395, 619, 797; C. C. Hyde, id., III,. 57; J. R. Herod, Favored Nation. Treatment; and N. D. Harris, Proceedings of American Society of International Law, Fifth Annual Meeting (1911), 228.

4 Inst. to Mr. Buchanan, , Jan. 11, 1898 Google Scholar. Moore, , Int. Law Digest, V, 278.Google Scholar

5 124 U. S. 190. See also Shaw & Co. v. United States, 20 Treasury Decisions, No. 16, p. 35; 1 Ct. Cust. Apple. 426; Taylor v. Morton, 2 Curtis, 454; Ropes v. Clinch, 8 Blatchf. 304.

6 Importations from Norway, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany were involved in the decision, American Express Co. et al. v. United States, and Bertuch & Co. et al. v. United States, dated May 12, 1913, and printed in Judicial Decisions in this number of the JOURNAL.

7 14 Op. 468, 530. See also 16 Op. 276, 626.

8 Notes to Treaties and Conventions, between the United States and other powers,. 1776-1887, p. 1248.

9 North German Lloyd S. S. Co. v. Hedden, 43 Fed. 17. See, to like effect, 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 260.

10 Olsen v. Smith, 195 U. S. 332, 344. See also Compagnie Francaise &c. v. Louisiana State Board of Health, 186 U. S. 380, 394, dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brown, 397, 400; Powers v. Comly, 101 U. S. 789; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580; Thingvalla Line et al. v. United States, 24 C. Cls. 255.

11 21 Op. 80.

12 Shaw & Co. v. United States, 20 Treasury Decisions (31500), No. 16, p. 35; 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 426.

13 Succession of Robo-sse, 47 La. Ann. 1452; 49 Id. 1405. See also Succession of Amat, 18 Id. 405; In re Peterson’s Will, 101 N. Y. S. 285.

14 In re Fattosini’s Estate, 67 N. Y. S. 1119, and In re Lobrasciano’s Estate, 77 N. Y. S. 1040.

15 In re Silvetti’s Estate, 122 N. Y. S. 400.

16 In re Scutella’s Estate, 129 N. Y. S. 20.

17 Carpigiani v. Hall, 55 So. 248.

18 See, also, In re Davenport, 89 N. Y. S. 537; In re Bristow, 118 N. Y. S. 686.

19 McEvoy v. Wyman, 191 Mass. 276.

20 In re Logiorato’s Estate, 69 N. Y. S. 507.

21 In re Ohio’s Estate, Am. Journal of Int. Law, IV, 726.

22 157 Cal. 552.

23 Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U. S. 317.

24 In re Estate of Lis, 139 N. W. 300.

25 In re Baglieri’s Estate, 137 N. Y. S. 175.

26 In re Jarema’s Estate, 137 N. Y. S. 176.

27 In re Lombardi, 138 N. Y. S. 1007.

28 In re Ricardo, 140 N. Y. S. 606.

27 In re Madathni’s Estate, 141 N. Y. S. 323.

30 As to the right of foreign consuls to exemption from attendance in court as witnesses in virtue of most-favored-nation privileges, see Bois v. Malo, 58 N. Y. S. 806; United States v. Trumbull, 48 Fed. 94; In re Dillon, 7 Sawy. 561.

31 Moore, , Int. Law Digest, V, 261.Google Scholar

32 11 Op. Atty. Gen. 508.

33 Mr. Seward to Mr. McCook, July 3, 1866. Dip. Cor. 1866, II, 488. See opinion of Attorney General Cushing, in 1853, holding that the stipulation for restitution of deserting seamen, in our treaty with Norway and Sweden of July 4, 1827, did not extend to Denmark in virtue of the most-favored-nation clause in respect of navigation and commerce, 6 Op. Atty. Gen. 148. See, however, Consular Regulations of the United States, sec. 78.

34 91 U. S. 13, 18.

35 Moore, , Int. Law Digest, V, 315.Google Scholar

36 Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Miller, June 15, 1886. Moore, Int. Law Digest, V, 272.

37 Succession of Rixner, 48 La. Ann. 552, 565. See Frederickson v. State of Louisiana, 23 How. 445; Prevost v. Greneaux, 19 How. 1; Lee v. Boise Development Co., 21 Idaho, 461.

38 Parrott’s Case, 6 Sawy. 349, 375.

38 Baker v. City of Portland, 5 Sawy. 566.

40 See also I. M. Ludington’s Sons, 131 N. Y. S. 550; People v. Warren, 34 N. Y. S. 942.

41 Chapman v. Toy Long, 4 Sawy. 28, 36.

42 In re Ak Chong, 6 Sawy. 451, 455. See, however, Leong Mow v. Board of Commissioners, 185 Fed. 223.

43 In re Lee Sing (1890), 43 Fed. 359.

44 Gandolfo v. Hartman (1892), 49 Fed. 181. See also Lee v. Boise Development Co. (1912), 21 Idaho, 461.

45 In re Quong Woo (1882), 13 Fed. 229, 233.

46 Moore, , Int. Law Digest, IV, 153, 157. See, to same effect, North German Lloyd S. S. Co. v. Hedden, 43 Fed. 17. Google Scholar

47 For. Rel. 1900, 737-757; Id. 1901, 375.

48 Wong Wai v. Williamson, 103 Fed. 1.

49 See, for discussion evoked in 1906 by the passage of a resolution by the Board of Education of San Francisco for the segregation of children of Orientals, Cong. Record, 59th Cong. 2d Sees. 297, 301, 303, 674, 1231, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1515, 1522, 1579, 3132; Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, April 1920, 1907, 44, 150, 173, 194, 201, 211, 213.

50 Matthews, J., Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369.Google Scholar