FOREIGN RELATIONS


convention of August 26, 1=52, or whether it asks the abolition of all
discriminating duties in general which are now levied upon East Indian
productions, "as a question of international policy and comnity outside
of treaty obligations."
  I have deemed it my duty to refer to my government, in order to be
able to give your excellency a satisfactory reply to these questions.
   As.regards the first question, I hasten to iuformn you that, on the 1st
of January last, all discriminating, duties were really and actually
abolished in the East Indies, and that the advantages accruing there-
from are granted provisionally to the American commercial flag, in
the legitimate expectation that the United States will, on their part,
desire to abolish the discriminating duty of 10 per centum now levied
upon East Indian productions when brought to America via Dutch ports
in Europe.
   It is to be understood by the term in principle, that the abolition by
 the Netherlands of discriminating duties inthe East Indies, although
 it has already been provisionallygranted, in accordance with the liberal
 policy of the government of the Netherlands, has only been so on con-
 dition of reciprocity. Should this reciprocity not be granted, the gov-
 ernment of the Netherlands reserves the right to re-establish the dis-
 criminating duties.
   As regards the second question, the government of the Netherlands
 does not base its request exclusively upon the fifth article of the con-
 vention of August 26, 1852, and it is, moreover, unnecessary to appeal
 to ideas of "international policy and comity."/
   The government of the Netherlands, in making this request, does,
 indeed, take the fifth article of the convention of August 26, 1852, as
 its point of departure, but it regards the question as purely one of
 reciprocity, based as much upon the principles which were observed at
 the time when our treaties of commerce with America were concluded,
 as upon the principles which govern the commercial relations of the
 United States with other nations.
   It is, therefore, essential not to lose sight of the fact that the point
 in question is by no means'a faxor rtobe granted to the Netherlands, but
 an equivalent for the advantages granted to America, which advantages,
 resulting from the provisions of the new East Indian tariff, are multi-
 form.
   In view of these considerations, your excellency will, I hope, be con-
 vinced that no other government could be permitted to ask for the
 abolition of the discriminating duty of 10 per cent. aforesaid gratu-
 itously, basing its request simply upoi the condition of the usage of the
 most favored nation, granted to it by treaty. I may also add that, in
 general, the levying of discriminating duties seems to have always been
 regarded by the Government-of the United St ates as a retaliatory meas-
 ure, as appears from the negotiations for the convention of August 26,
 1852, between the, Netherlands and the United States, at which time
 duties of this nature were not levied in America.
   The stipulation proposed-at that time in the Dutch draught, viz, "the
 privilege granted to the Netherlands by the present tariff-act of the
 United States, as to coffee, the growth or production of the possessions
 of the Netherlands, imported from the Netherlands, is continued," was
 rejected by the Government of the United States, on account of the dis-
 criminating duties then levied in the East Indies.
   Although no discriminating duties were then levied in America, the
 Government of the United States desired to reserve the right to intro-
 duce them, in order thus to exercise acertain pressure upon the govern-


788