Shipments covered by one invoice.-There is also a lack of uniformity in the number of shipments that may be embraced in one invoice. The United States requires a separate invoice for each shipment from one consignor to one consignee. The Governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Salvador, and Venezuela have a similar requirement. Other governments, however, require a separate invoice for each mark. A considerable burden would be lifted from the exporter if all the Governments could be induced to adopt the rule that each shipment from one consignor to one consignee should require a separate invoice.

FEASIBILITY OF ABOLISHMENT OF CONSULAR INVOICES.

Consideration of the foregoing differences in invoices and their effect upon commerce suggests the inquiry in regard to whether consular invoices are actually necessary in the commerce of to-day. There has grown up lately in the United States, and it is presumed also in the Latin-American countries, a sentiment in favor of abolishing the consular invoice as an unnecessary hindrance to commerce. There is much to be said in support of a proposal to do away with the consular invoice and to substitute in place of it either (a) consular certification of the bill of lading at the port of shipment or (b) a statement to be produced by the importer at the port of entry in the foreign country to which the merchandise is destined. Either of these courses would be far more convenient to the shipper, would dispense with the necessity of maintaining a large number of consuls to give attention to the certification of invoices, and thus be more economical to the Governments concerned as well as to the shippers. But this raises a question of policy of doubtful acceptability to the various American Governments.

The consular invoice is peculiarly American. The European and Eastern Governments as a rule do not require it. The principal reasons for its existence are

(1) To facilitate the compilation of accurate statistics.

(2) To classify and value goods for customs purposes and aid in the prevention of false entries where duty is assessed upon the value of the merchandise.

(3) To raise revenue through the collection of a fee for the certification of the invoice by the consul.

The United States was one of the first Governments to require consular invoices, and its laws and regulations on the subject, the earliest having been adopted soon after the organization of the Government, are probably more extensive than those of any other Government. As a rule each new tariff law enacted by Congress contains additional requirements, and thus strengthens the system. A large number of consulates are maintained almost solely for the convenience of shippers in obtaining consular certificates to invoices. and to safeguard the customs revenue by a closer surveillance of shipments, and the reason for this is that nearly one-half of the public revenue of the United States is derived from the collection of duties upon imports, and a large proportion of the rates of duty are based upon the foreign market value of the merchandise. Hence the value of the consular invoice and the certificate of the consul to the correctness of the values stated in the invoice as a means of preventing false

entries. The system has become so firmly established as an integral part of the tariff system that it is doubtful whether Congress could be persuaded to abolish it, even if the Executive branch of the Government should so recommend. Furthermore, and as another reason for retaining the system is the fact that the Government receives in, fees for the consular certification of invoices more than $1,700,000 yearly, being within $300,000 of the total annual cost of the entire Consular Service.

Presumably reasons similar to the foregoing would deter the LatinAmerican Governments from agreeing to abolish the consular invoice, and the most that can be hoped for at present is an agreement for uniformity and a simplification of invoice requirements and formalities.

Consular certificates to bills of lading. A number of the LatinAmerican Governments require that each bill of lading covering shipments to these countries shall be certified by the consuls at the port of shipment. With one exception all of these countries require consular invoices or their equivalent, and six of them also require the ship's manifests to be certified by the consul. It has already been pointed out that the consular certificate to the mainfest serves no useful purpose, and no real utility can be seen in the consular certificate to the bill of lading where the shipment is accompanied by a duly certified consular invoice. This was also the opinion of the Fourth International Conference of American States at Buenos Aires, which adopted the following resolution:

To recommend that those countries which adopt the annexed form of consular invoice shall not require a consular certification of the bills of lading. (S. Doc. No. 744, 61st Cong. 3d sess., pp. 15 and 192).

PORT CHARGES.

An examination has been made into the feasibility of undertaking to bring about uniformity of such port charges as pilotage, towing, docking, lighterage, and warehousing, and also of port facilities. It requires little consideration to determine that the subject presents vastly more difficult problems than any of those subjects heretofore discussed. First of all, every port is different from every other port. The service which a pilot renders in one port may necessarily be much greater than that rendered in another port. The value of his services in one country or port may be greater or less than in another country or port, depending upon distance, local price of labor, and other considerations. Likewise the cost of towing, docking, and lighterage differs according to the character of the port, the local cost of labor, and the local regulation, administration, and financing of port facilities. Moreover, port charges and facilities are not always regulated by the national government but more often by municipal or State governments or by the division of authority between the national and the State or municipal government, or both. In view of these considerations and the difficulty that has so far been encountered in bringing about uniformity of regulation and practice in matters controlled solely by the national governments, it would seem that any effort in the direction of uniformity of port charges would be likely to prove futile. Consequently, it is recommended that the subject of uniformity of port charges be given no further consideration at the present time.

4. That the Governments be urged to discontinue th certificate of origin.

5. That the invoice form be printed in both the langu country of exportation and the language of the country of in 6. That the Governments be urged to require only fou each invoice, but that provision be made by which a sh obtain additional copies of the invoice upon the payment o fee for each additional copy.

7. That invoice blanks be supplied by consular offic charge, but that shippers be permitted to print their of provided they adhere strictly to the form prescribed by t ment concerned.

8. That the Governments be urged to adopt a fixed fee for cation of invoices, but in the event that it should prove im to reach an agreement upon a fixed fee applicable to all co Governments then be urged to adopt the principle of moderate fee designed to compensate the consul for his s not to constitute an indirect method of increasing custom 9. That the Governments be urged to adopt a rule per consular invoice to cover an entire shipment from one c one consignee regardless of the number of separate mark in the shipment.

10. That the Governments be urged to abolish the cons cation of bills of lading.

11. That consideration of the subject of uniformity of p be suspended for the present.

(k) Report of Dr. Frank R. Rutter on Classificati chandise.

The desirability of closer uniformity in the practice countries, both in customs classification and statistical cla can not be questioned.

Uniformity of classification among American countries cated by the Second International Conference of America the City of Mexico in January, 1902, and, pursuant to the there adopted, a Customs Congress of American Republi at New York in January, 1903, to consider this quest others affecting customs regulations. Since that time t for this reform has been steadily growing stronger.

Still earlier, as far back as 1869, the International Statistical Congress advocated uniform classification. The International Customs Conference, held in Paris in 1900, went carefully into the subject and recommended that the various countries unite on a common statistical classification to cover only the most important articles, which would serve as a basis for international statistics in addition to the ordinary statistics published by each country, according to its own classification. The International Statistical Conference of 1910, at Brussels, drew up a tentative classification for this purpose, which was referred to the various Governments represented for further consideration. With few amendments this classification was adopted by the International Statistical Conference of 1913 at Brussels and incorporated in a convention instituting the International Bureau of Commercial Statistics and providing for the annual publication by that bureau of the imports and exports of each of the contracting countries.

The first step had accordingly been taken toward statistical uniformity when the European war broke out. Thirteen American countries were parties to this agreement-namely, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, the Dominion Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. Seven others stated, in reply to the invitation to send representatives to the conference, that they approved the movement in principle and would carefully consider adhering to the convention. These countries were Argentina, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Salvador, the United States, and Venezuela.

Assuming the desirability of greater uniformity both in statistical classification and in customs classification, the practical question arises, Which reform should be more strongly urged at the present time? It is believed that greater practical results will come from concentrated effort toward obtaining uniformity in statistical classification. For several reasons the difficulties encountered will be materially less than would be met in attempting at the start a standardization in customs classification: (1) Statistical methods can be altered by administrative action without change of law; (2) a uniform classification may be adopted as a supplemental system without affecting the regular statistics published by each country; (3) the schedule adopted by the International Statistical Conference at Brussels may serve as a basis for agreement.

1. Statistical methods can be altered by administrative action without change of law. In all countries administrative officers realize more fully than does the lawmaking body the importance of concerted international action. It is accordingly much easier to bring about a change in statistical methods than in tariff classification, which is fixed by law.

2. A uniform classification may be adopted as a supplemental system without affecting the regular statistics published by each country. So far Bolivia is the only country which has adopted the international classification for its national statistics. Most countries would find this course out of the question because of the need for fuller details and the necessity of following more closely their own tariff classification. While it is entirely practicable to introduce in commercial statistics a separate record according to the international classification, by the further subdivision when necessary of the ordinary schedule, it would be impossible to apply a double system of

customs classification. Uniformity in tariff classification can be obtained only when such country is prepared to discard its previous system.

3. The schedule adopted by the International Statistical Conference at Brussels may serve as a basis for agreement.-Thirteen American countries were parties to that conference and have thus given their approval to the classification then adopted. One advantage of using the Brussels schedule as a basis is that it would be a complete answer to any criticism that the United States is forcing its desires upon other American countries. Both in the matter of statistical uniformity and tariff uniformity the United States probably has more to gain than any other single country on this continent. Its interest in inter-American trade is chiefly in the exportation of manufactured goods, and it is in these articles that competition is keenest. Foodstuffs and raw materials are always in demand, and consequently agricultural countries are less in need of full statistical records than are industrial countries. On raw materials, moreover, import duties are generally lower than on manufactured goods, and the classification of the former for customs purposes is simpler and more readily ascertained. Disputes in regard to customs classification apply almost exclusively to manufactured goods, especially new articles when first entering foreign trade. Since the United States was not represented at the statistical conference of 1913, its adherence to the classification there adopted may be viewed as an acceptance of the conclusions reached by 13 other American States.

While utilizing the Brussels classification the American countries may agree with each other to subdivide such classes as they may desire so as to show separately in all American returns the products in which each is particularly interested.

The 1913 convention provided expressly that each adhering Government might report details not called for in the classification proper which would be presented in the publications of the bureau in the form of footnotes.

The returns to the international bureau call only for the total amount of each of the 186 classes of articles imported or exported by each of the adhering countries. In the original draft the reporting country was required to show, in addition, the countries to which the various articles were exported and the countries from which the same articles were imported. Information as to the amount of import or export duty collected on each of the 186 classes was also called for. These requirements were given up in the final measure to meet objections urged by some of the European countries represented, on the ground that the system was too complicated and called for an excessive amount of labor in the preparation of the returns. If desired, the American countries might agree to furnish for their own use such supplemental data. It would probably be well, however, to make this provision optional, so as to insure from each country at least prompt returns of each article imported or exported.

There is always danger that an international movement will accomplish little because it attempts too much. To guard against that danger the adoption of the Brussels statistical classification is urged as the most practical scheme now before the Pan American Governments.