Spain; all other pianos, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and Cuba; music rolls, Canada, Australia, and Mexico; all other musical instruments, Canada. England, and Australia.

MUSK is a dried secretion from the preputial follicles of the male musk deer. The chief source of supply is Tibet, China. Musk enters commerce in two forms, either in the dried sacs or pods as taken from the deer, or as grain musk, obtained by opening up the pods. An American musk, the sacs of the common muskrat, has been used as a substitute. Because of its high price, musk is frequently adulterated. Synthetic musks are manufactured from coal-tar products. Natural and synthetic musks are among the most important raw materials used in the perfumery industry.

Production. The musk deer is a small animal native to the mountains and table-lands of Central Asia. The animal is taken for its hide and musk, chiefly the latter. China, which imports musk from Tibet, consumes about half of the world's total output. Shanghai is the principal export market. The value of the 1915 musk crop was $266,000, and in 1916 there were shipped 25,160 ounces, valued at $407,000.

Imports.---Although France has usually been the largest importer of Chinese musk, in 1915 the United States ranked first, taking about one-fourth of the year's product.

The import of crude musk in natural pods in 1913 was 12,994 ounces, valued at $124,855. The import of grain musk in 1913 was valued at $7,699. Imports since 1917 have been as follows:

The greatly increased imports in 1920 consisted largely of British surplus stocks from New Zealand. Exports. Before the war the proportion taken by the United Kingdom decreased from 43 per cent in 1909 to 10 per cent in 1913; and that by Canada increased from 16 to 80 per cent, but domestic exports have always been very small. New Zealand is the most important exporter, shipping 212,000,000 pounds in 1911. Argentina, Australia, and Uruguay export more than this country. Exports of mutton (except canned) for the years 1918-1923 have been as follows:

NAILS, TACKS, AND SPIKES. Cut Nails and Spikes. Production of cut nails during the past three decades has been decreasing with the extending use of wire nails, amounting in 1918 to 418,811 kegs of 100 pounds each; in 1920 to 844,583 kegs; in 1921 to 538,834 kegs; in 1922 to 810,206 kegs; and in 1923 to 829,604 kegs.

Year.

Musk, grained:

1918..

Pounds.. Value.

Imports are small, and since 1917 have been as follows (000 omitted):

MUSTARD. See SPICES, ETC.

MUTTON AND LAMB, FRESH. › Production in 1914 was 720,000,000 pounds, valued at $74,675,627; in 1909, 604,000,000 pounds; and in 1899, 400,000,000 pounds. In 1919, production was 602,000,000 pounds, with a value of $120,451,000. Production in 1922 amounted to 534,000,000 pounds. Of the sheep slaughtered in 1916 by interstate slaughterers, 86.4 per cent was handled by the five big packing companies, 63.4 per cent in Chicago, Kansas City Omaha, and New York City. These packing companies handled one-third of the slaughter in 1922. Imports.-After the removal of the duty in 1913, imports of mutton in 1914 increased from 212,843 pounds in the previous year to 9,705,923 pounds and of lamb from 12,722 pounds to 3,026,372 pounds. These imports were about 2.5 per cent of the domestic production. Later statistics follow (000 omitted);

The principal countries of destination were Chile, Cuba, China, and Mexico.

Horseshoe Nails. The manufacture of horseshoe nails is a distinct industry, as the horseshoe-nail manufacturers generally make no other nail product.

Production of horseshoe nails in 1904 was valued at $2,345,762. In 1919 there were five factories located in New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, and the total output was valued at

Wire Staples, Production. The census heretofore has not specified wire staples separately. In 1914 the production of wire tacks, brads, and staples, made in establishments drawing wire, was valued at $1,324,948. A portion of the product of wire staples is manufactured in the tack mills. In the 1921 census wire staples figures were separated from those of wire tacks and brads and the 1921 output was shown as 41,735,500 pounds, valued at $1,536,200.

Imports in the fiscal year 1918 were 97,559 pounds, valued at $14,590. For the calendar years 1918-1923 they were as follows:

Production in 1914 by rolling mills was 1,389,145 kegs (200 pounds) of forged spikes. They are sometimes handmade-in hand forges as required. In 1914 Pennsylvania was the chief producer. In the census report for 1921 the figures for wire nails and spikes are given together, and were 11,297,861 kegs (100 pounds), valued at $41,506,500. The greater part of this output, however, consisted of wire nails.

Imports for 1915-1917 averaged 142 kegs (200 pounds). Later statistics follow:

Exports were not reported. Wire Nails. Production in 1920 was 16,449,506 kegs (100 pounds per keg) of wire nails, as against 13,559,727 in 1913. In 1921 production amounted to 11,889,412 kegs; in 1922, 15,053,330 kegs; and in 1923, 17,672,582 kegs. Wire nails are merely one product of the wire industry. In 1914 only 6.6 per cent of the total value produced was made by establishments which did not draw wire; 69 per cent was made in the wire departments of rolling mills and other concerns. In 1914 Pennsylvania led in the annual production of its wire-nail machines; Ohio, Illinois, Colorado, Alabama, and Indiana followed.

Imports for 1914-1917 averaged 4,314 kegs; since 1917 they have been as follows:

The bulk of the exports went to Cuba, Japan, and Brazil.

Cut Tacks, Brads, and Sprigs. Tacks and brads brads fall under this designation; those of wire (if are of two kinds, cut and wire. Cut tacks and of iron or steel) are included in the tariff under "all other wrought-iron and steel nails." was estimated at from 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 pounds, valued at approximately $6,600,000. In brads and tacks, valued at $415,821; in 1921, 1919 there were produced 5,461,597 pounds of wire 2,646,400 pounds, valued at $329,200. The establishments making cut tacks also manufacture small nails cut from sheets, and to some extent wire tacks. Massachusetts leads in production of cut tacks.

Production of cut tacks and small nails in 1918

i

Imports in the fiscal year 1918 amounted to 97,049 pounds, valued at $14,512. In the period 1918-1923, they were as follows (000 omitted):

triestaat," 1897) argued that the State should maintain its agricultural independence. This led in Germany to an extensive discussion and eventually to an increased agricultural protection.

NATIONAL TREATMENT IN COMMERCIAL TREATIES. The term "national treatment" is perhaps less familiar than the phrase "mostfavored-nation (see) treatment," although stipulations pledging national treatment are quite as common in commercial treaties as most-favored

Survey C-8.

NATIONAL ECONOMY is used by some economists to designate that stage of development in which the economic life of an entire nation or State forms a united whole. It is distinguished from the preceding stages of a territorial or provincial economy and from the stage, which may possibly follow in the future, of an international economy,

(See also LIST, FRIEDRICH.)

NATIONAL SCHOOL, a term applied by some writers to that group, of economists who opposed the alleged universalist views of the free traders (see FREE TRADE) and emphasized national differences of race, social psychology, organization, and economic development as forces which render nugatory the general application of principles of economics proclaimed by the former writers.

Friedrich List (see), H. C. Carey (see), and S. N. Patten (see) are the principal exponents of this school of thought, which has received support from the German Historical School (see). Karl Knies and Wilhelm Roscher "emphasized particularly the special character certain to be imparted to the economic life of any people by the distinctive natural resources of the country and the national history." "If the economic life of the race is differentiated along national lines, there can be no uniform recipe valid under all conditions for increasing the wealth of nations." The latter school gives extensive treatment to the historical development of commercial relations with its emphasis on nationalism, but does not devote much attention to the abstract theories of the classical school which favor free trade.2

In the face of the somewhat negative position taken by the historical economists in Germany, certain political writers were able strongly to influence public opinion in the direction of nationalism. Wilhelm von Kardorff-Wabnitz in his writing "Gegen den Strom," 1875, opposed the idea that the people of the earth are like a great family with common interests; he maintained that domestic rather than foreign commerce is the source of greatest wealth; that the transportation costs of foreign commerce are greater than usually estimated; that the invigorating influence of manysided national production is undervalued. Kardorff demanded a moderate protective tariff, alike for agriculture and industry, and was one of the principal leaders in the very successful movement to uphold the solidarity of (tariff) interests between industry and agriculture.

1 Grunzel, Josef, Economic Protectionism, Oxford, 1916, pp. 10-11.

Cohn, Gustav; Nationalökonomie des Handels und des Verkehrwesens, Stuttgart, 1898, Book I: Schmoller, Gustav, Principes d'Économie Politique, Paris, 1908, vol. 5, pp. 224-452; Philippovich, Eugen von, Grundriss der Politischen Ökonomie, Vol. 11, Book 3.

Kobatsch, Rudolf, Internationale Wirtschaftspolitik, Wien, 1907, pp. 336-338.

plies the same treatment which is accorded to the contracting nation's own citizens or nationals within its domain. When, therefore, national treatment is reciprocally pledged by treaty between two countries, this means that citizens of either country are entitled to claim in the other the same rights and privileges which that country accords to its own nationals in all matters to which the pledge of national treatment relates.

As a

National treatment, like most-favored-nation treatment, may or may not be reciprocal, and it may also be limited in a variety of ways. general rule, it is restricted in commercial treaties to specified objects, and it is sometimes made subject to exceptions named in the treaty. Consequently, the type, scope, or extent of national treatment pledged in a given treaty must be determined in each case from the language employed.

As a matter of fact, the term "national treatment" does not occur in the treaties at all, but is merely a convenient abbreviation to avoid clumsy circumlocutions. A typical example of the language actually used in national treatment clauses may be found in Article II of the treaty of July 3, 1815, between the United States and Great Britain 5

Needless to say, national treatment means different things in different treaties, depending on the rights, privileges, and obligations of citizens in the countries concerned. Manifestly, since national treatment means nothing more than equal treatment with a country's own nationals, and since the rights, privileges, and obligations of citizens are not the same in all countries, it follows that national treatment in general may mean much more in a well-ordered State, where persons and property are secure, and where citizens enjoy a large measure of industrial and commercial freedom, than it means in a backward country, where the opposite conditions prevail And even where the countries compared are in general on the same plane of civilization, the treatment accorded to their respective citizens may differ greatly with reference to certain objects. Thus taxes on persons, property, or incomes may be high in one country and low in another. Certain trades, professions, or industries may be treated liberally in some countries, and in others may be burdened with vexatious governmental restrictions, obligations, and charges.

From what has been said it will be readily understood that reciprocal national treatment is by no means the same as reciprocally equal treatment. That is to say, countries A and B may by treaty accord to each other's citizens the same privileges which they allow their own nationals with reference to certain matters. But this does not mean that citizens of A may claim in country B as favorable treatment with regard to those matters as citizens of B receive in country A.

Schmoller, op. cit., pp. 434-438.

U. S. Treaties, Vol. I, p. 625; also in 8 U. S. Stat. L. 228.

A good practical illustration of the difference between reciprocal national treatment and reciprocally equal treatment is supplied by the International Convention of 1883 for Protection of Industrial Property, to which most industrial countries are parties. This convention provides in Article II that each contracting country must give to the citizens of all the other member countries the same treatment which it gives to its own nationals in the matter of patents, and trade-marks; in a word, there is reciprocal national treatment. As a matter of fact, however, some countries treat their own citizens much more liberally in these matters than do other countries, and consequently the "reciprocal national treatment" guaranteed by the treaties may in practice be far from reciprocally equal treatment.

(See also TREATIES.)

The following discussion will deal with the navigation acts of England and France to the middle of the nineteenth century. Later legislation for the protection of shipping and such legislation of other countries is discussed in the article SHIPPING DISCRIMINATIONS AND VARIOUS FORMS OF GovERNMENT AID TO SHIPPING.

England. The first navigation act (5 Richard II, ch. 3; 1382) provided that English subjects should import and export goods only upon English ships. The next year the following amendment was adopted: Provided English ships are available in sufficient quantities; and in 1391 another amendment was added-When the shipowners charge reasonable rates. Under Edward IV (1463) these provisions were renewed. A further step in the direction of protection was taken in a law of Henry VII (1485) according to which no one in England, Wales, Ireland, etc., was permitted to buy wine from Gascogne or Guienne which was not imported by English ships manned with a majority of English subjects. In 1489 this law was renewed and extended to other French Provinces. Under Henry VII the foundation of a permanent royal navy was laid which was expected to relieve merchant ships from the burden of functioning in that capacity. Under Henry VIII a measure was enacted which granted foreign merchants tariff equality with domestic dealers only when their imports were in English vessels. Under Edward VI there was a reaction in the shipping policy and the law of Henry VII was repealed (1553). Elizabeth abandoned (1559) the law of Richard II, but achieved the same results in that English merchants who imported goods in foreign vessels had to pay tariff rates equal to those of foreigners. Furthermore, Elizabeth in 1563 reserved the coasting traffic to English ships. This reservation remained until the nineteenth century.

The regulations for the promotion of fisheries were important. By the law of Elizabeth, fish taken by Englishmen from English vessels were free from import and export duties; and by later laws (1571 and 1581) the drying in England 1 U. S. Treaties, Vol. II, p. 1935. Similar stipulations are included in numerous bilateral treaties relating to patents between different countries.

"

of fish caught by foreigners was prohibited and English merchants were forbidden the purchase of salted fish abroad. This prohibition was some years later repealed. Under James I the right of Hollanders to fish in English waters was denied. The controversy was renewed on a number of occasions until in 1636 an English fleet forcibly expelled the fishing boats of the Netherlands. These disputes, as well as the ambition of the English and their envy of the colonial and trading success of the Hollanders, who enjoyed a great part of the commerce between England and her colonies, not to speak of special political conditions, were the principal reasons for the promulgation of the navigation act of Cromwell (1651). The main provisions of this act were as follows:

"1. No goods of the growth or manufacture of Asia, Africa, or America shall be imported into England or the dominions thereof except in ships in which the proprietor, master, and the major part of the mariners are English.

"2. No goods of the growth or manufacture of Europe shall be imported into England or the dominions thereof except in English ships and in such foreign ships as belong to that country where the goods are produced and manufactured.

"3. No goods of foreign growth or manufacture that are to be brought into England shall be brought from any other place than the place of growth or production, or from those parts where alone the goods can be shipped, or whence they are usually shipped.

4. Imports into England or her colonies of salted fish not caught and prepared by English fisheries are prohibited.

A

"5. Coasting traffic is forbidden to foreign vessels."

资

I There were also some minor provisions and some exceptions.

The principal purposes of this legislation are said to have been political, i. e., the formation of the basis of a strong navy, though economic purposes were not without weight.

The economic advantages of the navigation act were for a long time doubtful, since English ships were not at hand in sufficient number to fulfill the functions prescribed and so far as American colonies were concerned there was no effort to enforce it except against Holland. Thus English commerce was more injured than shipping was ad vanced. The act was soon followed by a war with Holland. The provisions of the act for a num er of years were mostly ineffective, as England was involved in a war with Spain and English commerce was forced by Spanish destroyers to employ neutral Dutch ships. Nevertheless, after the restoration of the Stuarts the law of Cromwell was in 1660 renewed and extended (12 Charles II, ch. 18). The most important addition related to the commerce with the colonies, a partial monopoly of which was now systematically reserved. Even previously it had been a rule that the motherland should constitute the only "staple" (entrepôt, or place of reshipment) for the products of its colonies, and thus even under James I and Charles I it was demanded that certain products should be shipped exclusively to England to pay duties. The receipt of duties was the main object; little consideration was devoted to the nationality of ships. The law of 1651 provided for the exclusion of foreign ships from import of products of British colonies to England, and the navigation act of 1660 added the general requirement that these products should be shipped

directly only to English harbors, and, further, that all European wares should be sent to the colonies only in English vessels. There was added thereto by the law of 1664 (15 Charles II, ch. 7) the further limitation that all European wares must be first brought to England or Wales and thence transshipped to the colonies. The colonies never strictly observed these laws, New England secured the special favor of shipping cer tain bulky products direct to all lands, and this practice was also illicitly extended to wares like tobacco, sugar, etc., brought from other colonies to New England. There was considerable evasion otherwise.

In regard to the import of Asiatic, African, and American products, excepting those of the colonies, the navigation act of 1660 prescribed that they should be shipped only upon British vessels, and directly from the source to England, although certain exceptions were made. The reservation of the coasting trade was also renewed by this law. Products of foreign fisheries were subject to double duty.

For the traffic with the colonies and with Turkey English ships were required to be built in England or English colonies. A further sharpening of these laws took place through the so-called Act of Frauds (13 and 14 Charles II, ch. 11, 1662), prohibiting the importation from the Netherlands or Germany of a number of the more important articles of commerce. There were certain "enumerated articles"-most of which were West Indian products which must be exported to England; all others except rice might be shipped in English or colonial ships to any part of the world.

Until the eighties of the eighteenth century the British navigation acts experienced no important modifications. The recognition of American independence in the peace of 1783 brought some revisions. In that year the United States was placed on an equal plane with European powers. This principle was reaffirmed in the treaties of 1796, 1805, 1815, etc. There were also important changes in the law after the eighties, at first through provisional ordinances and regulations, and at length through the law of 1788. (28 George III, ch. 6). According to this statute a large number of enumerated wares (raw materials and foods) were allowed to be imported from America to the English possessions in the West Indies, or exported thence to America. In 1783 the United States was placed on an equality with other countries, and her products could be shipped to England in American or English vessels. In the treaty of 1815 with Great Britain the United States received the right to trade directly with British East India. The rigor of the acts was somewhat modified by the creation of a number of free ports (see) in the colonies. (45 George III; ch. 57, 1805.)

In its commerce with Europe in the wars after 1793 England was compelled to set aside temporarily the severe provisions of the navigation acts of 1660 and 1664 and to employ foreign ships, mostly American, in the interests of trade.

A few years after the peace of 1815 began the free trade (see) reform movement against such laws. The continental States also instituted numerous retaliatory measures. The navigation acts were gradually abolished by repealing acts passed in the following years: 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1829, 1833, 1839, 1845, 1848, 1850, 1854. The disintegration of the acts was in part induced by the provisions of commercial treaties concluded during those years. (See TARIFF HISTORY, ENGLAND.)

France. Certain protectionist measures in behalf of shipping appear as early as the fifteenth century. Of general significance was the ordinance of 1655, by which French subjects were constrained to load only French ships. Of especial importance was the "droit de fret" (1659), a differential tax of 50 sols (sous) per ton which was collected from foreign ships upon import or export of goods, and which continued until the revolution (except as abrogated by treaties or commuted to a single payment). In an ordinance of 1681 foreign ships were defined as those which were not built in France or whose purchase abroad was not legally certified and whose crews were not at least two-thirds French. Regulation of traffic with the French colonies was patterned in 1677 upon the English system and reserved colonial traffic strictly to French ships; and the products of the colonies could be shipped only to France. Conversely, all products destined for the colonies had to be shipped from France. This so-called "Pacte colonial," with some relaxations after 1784, especially those of 1826 and 1828, remained in force until 1861.

With the numerous prohibitions which were directed in 1701 against the importation of English goods there were joined additional regulations op posed to English shipping. The above-mentioned tonnago tax of 50 sols was made 70 sols for English vessels (the equivalent of the differential tax charges in England), and it was further provided that in English ships there might be imported only English wares made of English raw materials, so far as the importation of these was not entirely prohibited. (See EMBARGOES.) The act of 1791 forbade entirely importation of ships and boats. As a retaliation against the English navigation acts the decree of 1793 ordained in general that all wares imported by France and its colonies must pass direct from their sources of production, i. e., must not be transshipped or reexported through other countries, and that they must be shipped in French ships or in those of the land producing the goods carried or upon the ships of the land where they were first loaded. As a condition of the recognition of a ship's nationality it was demanded that all its officers and at least threefourths of the crew should belong to the nationality concerned. French ships were required, in addition, to have French owners and to be built in France or its colonies. Foreign ships were entirely forbidden the coastal trade in wares which originated in France or her colonies. During the wars which followed the revolution numerous restrictive measures were adopted which need not receive attention here because it was found to be impossible to enforce them. After the return of peace the laws were somewhat mollified in 1816. All nonprohibited wares could henceforth be shipped under any foreign flag, but only under a differential tariff of usually 10 per cent in favor of goods imported in French vessels. Furthermore, there were differential tonnage taxes levied against foreign ships. Reexport from foreign countries was allowed, but was burdened with surtaxes (surtaxe d'entrepôt), Shipping between the colonies and the motherland remained reserved to the French flag; the direct trade of the colonies with other countries was greatly restricted. Coast wise traffic was reserved entirely to national ships. Until Napoleon III the only appreciable modifications to this policy were those obtained by individual nations through treaties.

In the period (beginning with 1860) of the Napoleonic treaties the differential tariffs were more