not yet established a Central Authority, and at the same time suggest amendments to others desirous of rendering the work of the existing Central Authorities more efficient. I beg you to forward to me in due course any observations which your Government may wish to make with regard to this question. I have [etc.] ERIC DRUMMOND The reply of the Secretary of State to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, dated August 25, 1932, follows: The Secretary of State of the United States of America refers to the Secretary-General's note of June 21, 1932, with reference to the traffic in women who are over age, and has the honor to state, in reply, that the competent authorities of this Government regard the proposal to eliminate the words "under age" in Article I of the Convention of 1910 as in accordance with the general policy of the United States, which is already committed to the position that traffic in women for commercial profit shall be considered a criminal offense regardless of the age of women or their consent. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ECONOMIC COMMERCE PROVISIONAL COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND BULGARIA A provisional commercial agreement was signed in Sofia on August 18, 1932, between the United States and Bulgaria. The agreement, which provides for reciprocal unconditional most-favorednation treatment, became operative on the day of signature and will remain in force pending the negotiation of a definite treaty of commerce and navigation between the two countries. The agreement will shortly be printed in the Executive Agreement Series. TREATY OF COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND PRUSSIA, MAY 1, 1828 1 DECISION BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES, NO. H-573 Flensburger Dampfercompagnie v. The United States The United States Court of Claims decided on February 8, 1932, the case of Flensburger Dampfercompagnie v. The United States, a suit to recover $24,422, tonnage dues and taxes alleged to have been illegally collected from the plaintiff, a steamship corporation organized and existing under the laws of Prussia. Following the World War, trade relations between the United States and Germany were restored on July 14, 1919, by regulation of the War Trade Board (Bulletin 802). During the period from November 22, 1919, to November 9, 1921, several steamships, operated by the plaintiff, arrived in port in the United States and obtained entry as German vessels. A duty of $1 on the net tonnage of each of the steamships was imposed and collected by the collector of customs; such a duty was not collected from vessels of the United States under similar circumstances. The duties were collected under the provisions of sections 4219 and 4225 of the Revised Statutes on the theory that the treaty of 1 Treaty Series, No. 294. Certiorari denied. See 52 Sup. Ct. 465 (May 31, 1932). 1828 and the statute confirming it had been abrogated. Section 4219 establishes port duties upon vessels of other countries engaged in international trade, at specified tonnage rates, but expressly stipulates that nothing it contains shall impair rights acquired by treaty with another country. Section 4225 similarly provides for duties known as "light money." The plaintiff's cause of action was predicated upon the provisions of sections 4227 and 4229 of the Revised Statutes and the treaty of commerce and navigation of May 1, 1828, between the United States and Prussia. Sections 4227 and 4229 guard against the impairment of treaties in general and of the treaty with Prussia in particular. Section 4228 authorizes the President, on proof of nondiscrimination by any country in the matter of such duties imposed on American vessels, to proclaim a waiver of discriminatory duties imposed in American ports on the vessels of that country. Section 4230 of the Revised Statutes states that section 4229 is to remain in force so long as equality is accorded American vessels in Prussian ports, and if not so reciprocated, the President is to announce the fact by proclamation. Article II of the treaty of May 1, 1828, is as follows: Prussian vessels arriving, either laden or in ballast, in the ports of the United States of America, and, reciprocally, vessels of the United States arriving, either laden or in ballast, in the ports of the Kingdom of Prussia, shall be treated, on their entrance, during their stay, and at their departure, upon the same footing as national vessels, coming from the same place, with respect to the duties of tonnage, light-houses, pilotage, salvage, and port charges, as well as to the fees and perquisites of public officers, and all other duties or charges, of whatever kind or denomination, levied in the name, or to the profit, of the government, the local authorities, or of any private establishment whatsoever. The tonnage duties were paid during a period subsequent to the armistice and antedating November 11, 1921, the date fixed by the President by proclamation suspending them in view of the fact that Germany levied no discriminatory duties on American vessels. The plaintiff contended that the discriminatory duties should not have been levied because the treaty and statutory confirmation were in force during the period 1919-1921; that, inasmuch as Germany had not levied discriminatory duties at any time, there was no special occasion for the presidential proclamation; and that the treaty was not terminated until May 11, 1922, six months after November 11, 1921, up to which time the United States, it was claimed, had the privilege, under section 289 of the treaty of Versailles (incorporated by reference in the treaty of Berlin re storing friendly relations between the United States and Germany 3) to give Germany notice that it desired to continue in effect the treaty of 1828. The defendant insisted that only by presidential proclamation under section 4228 could exemption from duties be claimed, as section 4229 was obsolete and had been since the formation of the German Empire in 1871, and that both sections 4229 and 4230 were omitted from the code of 1925. The court held that, by reason of the consistent interpretation and practice adopted by both Germany and the United States, the treaty with Prussia was applicable to Germany as a whole subsequent to the formation of the North German Union in 1866 and the German Empire in 1871; also that the established principle of trade reciprocity between the two nations "obtained and was conducted under and in virtue of both the treaty and the statute." The omission of sections 4229 and 4230 from the code did not serve to repeal them or justify an inference that they were obsolete. The signing of the treaty of Versailles, June 28, 1919, was followed by the issuance of the general trade license, July 14, 1919. Under the terms of the treaty of Berlin the provision was made for the manner of the termination of the treaty of 1828, and its termination was not effected until six months after the date of the exchange of ratifications thereof, namely, May 11, 1922.* The trade permitted after July 14, 1919, the court continued, of necessity included, among other things, the entry of German vessels into American ports. The whole purpose of the general trade license, which the President had full authority to issue, was to make it possible to resume the former commercial dealings between the nationals of the two countries upon and in accord with existing treaties and laws. While a subsequent change of political status might have operated to render ineffective a statutory provision in reference to the status quo existing on the date of its enactment, it was obviously a delicate matter for a judicial tribunal to hold such a law invalid in the face of long-continued recognition of its validity as applicable to the changed conditions, and the failure of Congress to repeal the law involving important relations with another government, and where the reciprocal trade relations established by law continued and both nations recognized the legality of the procedure. Accordingly the court was of the opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum sued for, but without interest. 3 See Treaty Series, No. 658. 4 The Supreme Court of Kansas, in State ex rel. Miner v. Reardon, 1-0 Kansas, 614, 616, 245 Pacific Reporter, 158 (1926), held that the treaty of 1828, so far as it related to the subject of inheritance," remained in force until it was replaced by a like provision of the treaty with Germany, signed December 8, 1923, and proclaimed October 14, 1925." In so holding, the court necessarily affirmed these propositions: 1. That the treaty of 1828 became applicable to the whole of the German Reich; 2. That the exemption from discriminatory tonnage duties attached to German vessels; and 3. That the treaty was not abrogated by the outbreak of war between the United States and Germany. Peru. COPYRIGHT CONVENTION ON LITERARY AND ARTISTIC COPYRIGHT The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Argentina addressed the following letter to the Secretary of State under date of July 15, 1932, concerning the ratification by Peru of the convention on literary and artistic copyright signed at Buenos Aires August 11, 1910: MR. MINISTER: I have the honor to address Your Excellency in order to communicate to you that the Embassy of Peru accredited to the Argentine Government has informed this Chancellery, in a note of the 4th instant, that Peru, having failed to communicate in due time to this Ministry of Foreign Affairs the ratification of the Convention on Literary and Artistic Copyrights signed August 11, 1910, at the IV International Conference of American States held at Buenos Aires, corrects by the said note, this involuntary omission which was recently noticed and places on record that Peru has ratified the above mentioned Convention and must be held and considered as having adhered to it from April 30, 1920, the date of the approval of the same by the National Congress of Peru, by legislative resolution No. 4086, the ratification of which was published in El Peruano, the official organ for the publication of supreme resolutions, decrees, orders, ratifications, etc., on June 12, 1920. I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. To His Excellency C. SAAVEDRA LAMAS The Secretary of State of the United States of America. FINANCE CLEARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN RUMANIA AND AUSTRIA CONCERNING CURRENCY RESTRICTIONS The American Chargé d'Affaires ad interim at Bucharest forwarded to the Department of State with a despatch dated August 1, 1932, a copy of the Monitorul Oficial, No. 164, of July 15, 1932, in which is published the text of a clearing agreement between Rumania and Austria which entered into force on July 15, 1932: |