At the present time reciprocity in Europe has assumed a somewhat different form front that which has teen developed in the United States. That is primarily (hie to the interpretation put upon what is known as the 'most-favored nation clause' in international agreements and which dif fers from the meaning assigned to that clause in American diplomacy. According to European usage, treaties incorporating the 'most-favored nation clause' a-sure to the signatory countries treatment as favorable as that granted to any other nation. Tariff concessions made to others become at once common to all nations having 'most-favored' relations with the country making such concessions. On the other hand. American statesmen have adhered consistently to the view that trade concessions offered by it to some other country need not become common to a third coun try unless that third country grants concessions similar to those of the second cotmtry. It has been noted that under the European view of the most-favored nation clause the reciprocity treaties adopted subsequent to 1860 inaugurated an era of very free trade. This was terminated shortly after 1870. owing partly to the desire to increase national customs revenues. and partly to the hostilities engendered by war and political struggles. Elaborate tariffs were adopted by most European countries between 1870 and 1885. These gradually developed into two principal systems— that of 'general or conventional' tariffs and that of 'maximum and minimtun' tariffs. The former is the plan adopted by Germany, Austria. Swit zerland, and Italy, while the latter is pursued by France. Russia. SpaM, Norway, Greece. and Bra zil. Under the general or conventional tariff system. a higher schedule is applied to those countries which have entered into no special com mercial arrangement, while another or 'conven tional' tariff is grantee! to those which receive favored-nation treatment. Under the maximum and minimum system minimum rates are given to most-favored nations, and the home produce is thus assured fixed protection. Maximum rates,
or such other- on such article.; as the Executive may see fit. are enforced against not re ceiving favored-nation treatment. and the Execu tive is allowed to bargain with these other coun tries for mutual tariff concessions. The latter system is of course more flexible than the general or conventional tariff. As against these methods, which might be regarded as general reciprocity, our reciprocity system must be placed in the light of a series of special bargains based on no systenmtic plan. Reciprocity in Europe to-day is represented by the network of commercial treaties existing under these two systems. These have become exceedingly complex and interde pendent. Whereas the older notion of reciprocity seemed to be leased on mutual concession, the essential idea of the policy to-day seems to be that of retaliation. A movement for higher and higher retaliatory duties seems to he growing very general in Europe. while the introduction of such a system is vigorously urged in England, the classic country of free trade. This is shown by Mr. proposal in the early sum mer of 1903 for an Imperial customs tariff, or reciprocity. union the colonies and the mother country. which would simply mean lower colonial tariffs to English in exchange for retaliatory English tariffs against foreign products competing with those of the colonies The difficulty, of course, lies in the danger of making food dearer in Europe. It is to be ob served that so soon as reciprocity becomes gen eral in scope it is indistinguishable on the one hand front the idea of tariff revision and reduc tion. and on the other from that of tariff re taliation. When not general in scope it implies special arrangements carrying benefits usually to special classes in the community, at the ex pense of other classes.