way the benefit of the reduction of the tonnage duty provided for in section 14 of the aforesaid act, was based solely upon its interpretation of the most-favored-nation clause, to which clause my Government did not appeal.

I consequently have the honor again to submit the claim of my Gov. ernment to the consideration of the United States Government, beg. ging it to be pleased to consider the clearness with which Article VIII of the treaty of 1827-which article constitutes the basis of the claimprovides that neither of the contracting parties shall impose any tonnage duty higher or other than that imposed on every other navigation. I trust that the United States Government will think that Article VIII of the treaty of 1827 is susceptible of no interpretation differing from that of my Government, according to which navigation between the territories of the contracting parties, in vessels belonging to either nation, is entitled to the benefit of the reduction of tonnage duties established by section 14 in behalf of navigation between the United States and certain territories therein enumerated.

Accept, etc.,

REUTERSKIÖLD.

No. 29.

[Translation.]

Mr. Reuterskiöld to Mr. Bayard.

LEGATION OF SWEDEN AND Norway,

Washington, March, 8, 1886. (Received March 9.)

Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE: I have the honor again to ask your excellency's kind attention to the note preceded by a memorandum dated June 17, 1885, which, by order of my Government, I addressed to you on the 4th of October last, asking (on the basis of Article VIII of the treaty between the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway and the United States of America, concluded July 4, 1827) for a reduction of tonnage dues, according to section 14 of the shipping act approved June 26, 1884.

The Government of the King, which I informed, without delay, of the transmission of the memorandum of June 17, 1885, entertained the hope that this matter would be easily and speedily settled in a manner consonant with both the spirit and with the clear and distinct wording of Article VIII of the existing treaty.

I should be grateful to your excellency if you would have the kindness to communicate to me, with as little delay as possible, the reply of the United States Government to the application of my Government, and I avail myself, etc.

No. 30.

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Reuterskiöld.

REUTERSKIÖLD.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, March 29, 1886.

SIR: Referring to your notes of the 17th June, 4th October, and 11th November last, as also to that of the 8th instant, I have the honor to inform you that the whole question of the claims of Sweden and Nor

way against the terms of the shipping act of the 26th June, 1884, by virtue of her special treaty provisions, has again received the careful attention which its importance merits.

The claim appears to be that by the eighth article of the treaty of 1827 the shipping of Sweden and Norway is entitled to the benefits of the above-mentioned act in common with other nations, but without submission to its geographical conditions and limitations as exacted from them.

It is not found that this claim of Sweden and Norway can be assented to by this Government any more under the fourth article of the treaty of 1827 than under the "most-favored-nation clause" of that treaty, simply on account of the phrase "every other navigation" in that article, or that it would be consistent to admit Sweden and Norway under that treaty to the benefits of the reduced tonnage duty of the act of 26th June, 1884, without likewise exacting its qualifications and conditions.

The object of the treaty was doubtless to secure the shipping of each of the contracting parties from discriminations imposed by the other and not practiced against other powers. The act of 1884 admits all nations to its benefits, but these can only be enjoyed upon the terms on which they are offered, and it is expected that Sweden and Norway will accede to those terms in common with other nations. It is not found that the act of 1884 is in any way in conflict with the treaty of 1827, or that there is any occasion, even if there were the means, for not carrying out its terms as the deliberate expression of the law-making power of the United States.

Accept, etc.,

No. 31.

T. F. BAYARD.

Mr. Reuterskiöld to Mr. Bayard.

[Translation.]

LEGATION OF SWEDEN AND NORWAY,

Washington, March 31, 1886. (Received April 1.)

Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE: I have this day had the honor to receive your excellency's note of the 29th instant, whereby you inform me that the United States Government declines to entertain the claim of the King's Government, which was presented in my note of October 4, 1885, in behalf of the vessels of our countries, which, in the opinion of my Government, were, according to Article VIII of the treaty concluded July 4, 1827, beyond a doubt entitled to the enjoyment of the advan tages granted to the vessels of other countries by section 14 of the shipping act approved June 26, 1884.

While reserving the transmission to your excellency of such further communication as his excellency, the minister of foreign affairs, may instruct me to address to you on this subject, I must protest, without further delay, in the name of the Royal Government, against the refusal of the United States Government to entertain the claim which the Royal Government thought it had a right to present on the ground of an article of a treaty now in force, which, in the opinion of my Government, is in no way ambiguous, either in letter or spirit.

Be pleased to accept, etc.,

REUTERSKIöld,

No. 32.

Mr. Reuterskiöld to Mr. Bayard.

[Translation.]

LEGATION OF SWEDEN AND NORWAY,

Washington, D. C., June 30, 1886. (Received July 1.)

Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE: Referring to my note of the 31st of March last, I have the honor to address to your excellency a fresh com munication upon the same subject, that is to say, touching the tonnage dues which at the present time weigh upon navigation between the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway and the United States.

His excellency the minister of foreign affairs at Stockholm has recently sent me instructions on the subject by a dispatch dated the 12th of this month, directing me at the same time to deliver a copy thereof to your excellency. I have, consequently, the honor to annex hereto a copy of that dispatch.

Your excellency will see by the line of argument developed in that document, and by the tenor of my instructions, that the Royal Government firmly maintains its position in demanding, in favor of the navigation between Sweden and Norway and the United States, the same advantages as are conceded by the shipping act of June 26, 1884, to that between the United States and other territories.

In conformity with the orders given to me, I now renew the demand upon the Government of the United States already set forth in my notes of the 4th October and 11th November of last year-that, in virtue of article 8 of the treaty of 1827, the navigation between the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway and the United States (whether by Swedish and Norwegian vessels or American vessels) be admitted to enjoy the benefits of the reduction which fixes the tonnage dues at 3 to 15 cents.

Convinced that the well-grounded demand of the Royal Government can be no longer gainsaid, and that it will please your excellency to set me in the way of informing my Government of the reply it confidently awaits, I hasten to embrace this opportunity to renew, etc.,

REUTERSЯIÖLD.

[Inclosure.-Translation.]

Copy of note addressed by his excellency the minister of foreign affairs at Stockholm to the minister of Sweden and Norway in Washington, under date of June 12, 1886.

I have had the honor to receive with your dispatch of March 31 last a copy of the note which Mr. Bayard addressed to you under date of the 29th of the sanie month tonching our claim to obtain for the navigation between the United Kingdoms and the United States the same advantages as those which have been granted by the shipping act of June 26, 1884, to the navigation between the United States and certain areas of territory. You have, at the same time, sent me a copy of the correspondence on the subject which was printed for the use of Congress.

The answer of Mr. Bayard is negative, but the terms in which it is couched lead me to believe that, notwithstanding the clearness with which you, in the notes you addressed to him under date of October 4 and November 11, 1885, set forth the views and the demands of the King's Government, our position has not been well comprehended.

In those notes you asked that the reduction of tonnage dues accorded by the act of June 26, 1884, to the vessels of any nation arriving in the United States from certain geographical points shall be also granted to vessels arriving from Sweden and NorYou did not speak of the nationality of such vessels, but only of their point

way.

of departure, your object being thereby to make it evident that it was not for the merchant shipping of Sweden and Norway, as such, that we claimed the privilege in question, but for the vessels arriving in the United States from our ports, without distinction of nationality.

Nevertheless, Mr. Bayard, in the note above referred to, thus defined our claim: "The claim appears to be that, by the eighth article of the treaty of 1827, the shipping of Sweden and Norway is entitled to the benefit of the above-mentioned act in common with other nations, but without submission to its geographical conditions and limitations as exacted from them."

It is therefore evident that the scope of our claim has not been well understood, for if, instead of the words "the shipping of Sweden and Norway," there had been employed the words "the shipping arriving from Sweden and Norway"-which would have indicated the precise point in question-all the latter part of the paragraph which I have just cited would become absolutely incomprehensible.

Mr. Bayard's note can not, therefore, be considered as a reply to our demand, and it becomes necessary to invite anew the attention of the Government of the United States to the rights which accrue to us under the express stipulations of our treaties, and the more so as Mr. Bayard appears to assert, at the end of his note, the opinion that there is no conflict between the act of 1884 and our treaty of 1827. As this is precisely the point in dispute, I deem it useful to sum up our arguments afresh.

By the treaties of 1783 (article 2) and 1827 (article 17) the treatment of the mostfavored nation is reciprocally established between the United Kingdoms and the United States. It is stipulated, in addition, by the eighth article of the treaty of 1827 as follows:

"The two high contracting parties engage not to impose upon the navigation between their respective territories, in the vessels of either, any tonnage or other duties, of any kind or denomination, which shall be higher or other than those which shall be imposed on every other navigation except that which they have reserved to themselves, respectively, by the sixth article of the present treaty."

I must here point out the importance of the words "the navigation between their respective territories." It is in nowise a question of the privileges of the mercantile marine of Sweden and Norway or the United States as such, but it concerns in the clearest possible manner the navigation from the ports of one of the parties to those of the other, which is expressly benefited on an equality with every other navigation. The significance of this stipulation is rendered still more clear by the fact that it was deemed necessary to declare, by a separate article, that article 8 should not be applicable to the navigation between the United Kingdoms and Finland, which is bound to the United Kingdoms by considerations of proximity and ancient relationship, and therefore enjoys an exceptional position. But no equivalent reservation was deemed necessary on the part of the United States, and it remains, consequently, established by the article in question, that vessels, whether Swedish or Norwegian or American, arriving from our ports in those of the United States, have a right to the benefits of any reduction of tonnage or other dues which may be granted to ves sels coming from any geographical point whatever.

I have begun by setting forth this argument, since it appears to me to define the question in a manner so clear and decisive, that it seems to me that after having taken it into consideration the solid foundation of our claim can no longer be the occasion of a doubt. I could, therefore, content myself with the support given to us by the stipulations of article 8; but, in order to better elucidate everything connected with this matter, I deem it due to assert that the "most favored-nation" clause seems to the Government of the King equally to justify a demand to participate in the reduc tion of the tonnage dues to 3 to 15 cents. It is true that this reduction applies to all vessels, without distinction or nationality, arriving from certain ports; but, since the Government of the United States maintains that no favor is accorded to the navigation of the countries where such ports are situated, since other vessels than those of the country itself share therein, it does not take into account that this advantage constitutes for the commerce of the ports in question, and consequently for the nations to which they belong, a veritable favor, since the traders there residing have obtained the privilege of employing for their intercourse of importation or exportation with the United States vessels which, on arriving in the American ports, are better treated and have lesser charges to pay than the vessels made use of by their competitors in other countries. It seems to me difficult not to admit that this is a favor, and, in so far as it has been granted gratuitously to any party in interest, our right to partici pate therein clearly flows from article 2 of the treaty of 1783. In placing ourselves upon this point of view, it is unnecessary to discuss whether the privilege created by the shipping act of 1884 in favor of certain ports is to be called national or geographical, as Mr. Bayard maintains in his note of November 7, 1885; for even if it be agreed to style the advantage created for the navigation of these ports a geographical privilege, it remains certain that the advantage granted to their commerce is a national favor.

I do not find that the considerations I have herein set forth have been sufficiently discussed in the correspondence which you have sent me, and I invite you in consequence to renew the demand heretofore made upon the Government of the United States that, in virtue of the eighth article of the treaty of 1827, the vessels, whether Swedish or Norwegian or American, arriving in the United States from Sweden or Norway be admitted to share in the reduction of tonnage dues to 3 to 15 cents.

It seems to me that a refusal can not rest on any other assumption than that the act of 1884 has made the stipulations of the treaty of 1827 without effect. There is no necessity for my insisting on the fact that such an assumption would be contrary to the principles of international law recognized by civilized nations, and I have too much confidence in the good faith of the Government of the United States to suppose that it proposes to maintain that the obligations of a contract as solemn as our treaty can be modified or aunulled at will by one of the contracting parties alone. Accept, sir, etc.,

ALB. EHRENSVÄRD.

No. 33.

Mr. Reuterskiöld to Mr. Bayard.

[Translation.]

LEGATION OF SWEDEN AND NORWAY,

Washington, November 15, 1886. (Received November 16.)

Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE: I had the honor to transmit to your excellency, as an inclosure to my note of the 30th of June last, a copy of a dispatch from his excellency the minister of foreign affairs at Stockholm, bearing date of the 12th of the month, and stating the reasons which cause the Royal Government to maintain the position which it took in claiming a reduction of the tonnage duty to from 3 to 15 cents per ton on vessels belonging to the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway and entering the ports of the United States.

In the mean time a bill (Public, No. 85) entitled, "An act to abolish certain fees for official services to American vessels and to amend the laws relating to shipping commissioners, seamen, and owners of vessels, and for other purposes," has been passed by Congress, and the Presi dent of the United States, by approving the said bill, has made it a law.

The provisions of this new law have been brought by me to the knowledge of my Government.

The Royal Government, having examined the provisions of this law, has found that it is in several respects manifestly at variance with the treaty now in force which was concluded between the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway and the United States July 4, 1827, inasmuch as, in certain cases, it favors American vessels above those of the United Kingdoms, this being in contravention of that clause of the above-mentioned treaty which places our vessels on "the same footing as national vessels."

I have consequently been instructed to protest, in the name of the King's Government, against these legal provisions, which are in viola tion of an existing treaty, and also to declare that the Royal Govern ment can not regard the act of June 19, 1886, as modifying in the slightest degree the situation of the United Kingdoms in respect to the United States, as that situation is established by the force of a treaty.

The Royal Government has likewise found, by examining this new law, that the United States Government maintains its position on the tonnage question, against which position we also protest.