}

(1.) Ships which, entered in ballast from any place whatsoever, shall depart for the same place in ballast.

(2.) Ships which, passing from a port of one of the two states into one or more ports of the same state, whether for the purpose of there discharging the whole or a portion of their cargo or for the purpose of making up or completing their cargo, shall prove to have paid these dues.

(3.) Steamships engaged in the service of the post-office, of travelers and their luggage, and performing no commercial transaction.

(4.) Ships which, having entered a port with cargo, whether voluntarily or compelled by circumstances, shall depart from it without having performed any commercial transaction.

There shall not be considered, in the case of putting into port of necessity, as commercial transactions, the discharging and reloading of merchandise for the repair of the ship or its cleansing, when it is put into quarantine; the transshipment on to another ship in case of the unseaworthiness of the first; the expenses necessary in revictualing for the ship's company, and the sale of damaged goods when the customhouse administration shall have given authority for it.

22. In all that which concerns the rights of navigation, the two high contracting parties reciprocally promise not to grant any privilege which may not, at the same moment, extend to the citizens of their respective nations.

23. Coast navigation or the coasting trade are not comprised in the stipulations of the present treaty.

24. Merchandise of every kind coming from one of the two states, or going thither, shall be reciprocally exempt, in the other state from every duty of transit.

Nevertheless, the special legislation of each of the two states is maintined for articles the transit of which is or may be forbidden, and the two high contracting powers reserve to themselves the right of subjecting to special authorizations the transit of arms and munitions of war. 25. Products of the soil or industry of the country of one of the high contracting powers shall reciprocally enjoy, on their importation into the colonies of the other country, all the advantages and favors which actually are or subsequently shall be accorded to similar products of the most favored nation.

26. The arrangements of the present treaty shall be applicable, without any exception, on the one side, to Algeria; on the other to the Portuguese islands known as adjacent, viz, to the islands of Madeira and Porto Santo and to the archipelago of the Azores.

27. The present treaty shall go into force the 9th of February, 1882, and shall remain in force until the 1st of February, 1892. In case that neither of the two high contracting powers shall have notified, twelve months before the end of said period, its intention of causing the purposes of said treaty to cease, it shall continue binding till the expiration of a year from the day on which one or other of the high contracting powers shall have given such notice.

28. The present treaty shall be submitted to the approbation of the Chambers of each of the two states, and the ratifications of it shall be exchanged at Paris, at the latest, by the 4th of February, 1882.

THE NEW FRENCH TARIFF ON SUGARS.

REPORT AND TRANSLATION BY CONSUL-GENERAL WALKER.

I inclose herewith the new French tariff on sugars, with a translation of the same into English.

GEORGE WALKER,

Consul-General.

UNITED STATES CONSULATE GENERAL,

Paris, France, February 18, 1881.

[Translation.]

THE NEW TARIFF ON SUGARS.

(Chocolates, fruits, preserves, etc.)

The two following tables show the modifications in the official tariff on duties resulting from the law of August 19, 1880, on the reduction of duties on sugars.

FRENCH TARIFF ON AMERICAN FLOUR AND WHEAT.

REPORT AND TRANSLATION BY VICE-DEPUTY CONSUL-GENERAL HOOPER.

I have the honor to transmit herewith the text of a petition, with translation, which has been addressed to the French Senate by a delegation of French millers, praying for an increase of duty on American flour imported into France, or, that it be not allowed entrance save on the same equality as wheat, the delegation claiming that the projected tariff, as set forth in the petition, is prejudical to the milling industry of France, and that it is not in accordance with French interest to admit foreign manufactured products on better terms than the raw material. ROBT. M. HOOPER, Vice Deputy C. G.

UNITED STATES CONSULATE GENERAL,

Paris, France, March 1, 1881.

[Translation.]

CUSTOMS DUTIES UPON FLOUR AND WHEAT.

We communicate the text of a petition which has been addressed to the Senate by a delegation of French millers, and which we think it our duty to publish as matter of information. We see that these petitioners accept in principle a liberal introduction of foreign wheat, with a duty of 60 centimes per 100 kilograms (12 cents for 220 pounds). But they find the proposed duty of 1 franc 40 centimes per 100 kilograms (28 cents for 220 pounds) of flour insufficient, which leaves, they say, to the American miller a profit of 6 to 7 per cent for these importations, to the detriment of the French miller who receives the American wheat. On account of the cost for transportation, which is much more considerable for the wheat than for the flour, the French miller paying too dearly for the first when it comes from America, be it understood, naturally can not deliver the flour for less than 13 francs 80 centimes for 100 kilograms ($2.66 for 220 pounds), while the American flour can be sold for 11 francs 20 centimes ($2.16). Also, while declaring themselves free-traders, they find that the importation of American flour is not a fair exchange. As to the interest of the consumer, he is sufficiently insured by the increased duty on foreign wheat.

We wish to draw attention to the fact that if the claims of the millers are listened to it will be the farmers who will complain in their turn, because the 'small advancement of the duty on American flour is equivalent for them to a protective tariff on the wheat of the same country, because really that which the consumer buys is not the wheat but the flour. If the French millers can not change at small cost the American wheat into flour, they will cease to buy, preferring their national wheat. Nevertheless, the logical conclusion of the complaint of the French millers will not be the increasing of the duty on flour, but the suppression of the duty on wheat. The millers would have the American wheat at low rates; the farmers desire that they may be high. It is, in truth, very difficult to satisfy both parties. This is the most embarrassing point to which a protective tariff system leads us, even a system the most mitigated. The petition of the delegation of French millers is as follows:

MESSIEURS LES SÉNATEURS: At the moment when the Senate commences to discuss the duty upon flour, allow us to draw your attention to the present situation of the French millers through the growth of the importation of flour from the United States. The increase of importation is as follows:

1879

1878

1877

Barrels. 4, 230, 242 2,792, 236

1, 504, 979

This increase, which really only dates back a year, has remained unnoticed because of its recent date, and for the reason that the public attention was absorbed by the situation of England, where the two last harvests were so calamitous that they were