Spain and Santo Domingo, then pending before the Senate. The result has
been to satisfy me of the inexpediency of entering into engagements of
this character not covering the entire traffic.

These treaties contemplated the surrender by the United States of large
revenues for inadequate considerations. Upon sugar alone duties were
surrendered to an amount far exceeding all the advantages offered in
exchange. Even were it intended to relieve our consumers, it was evident
that so long as the exemption but partially covered our importation such
relief would be illusory. To relinquish a revenue so essential seemed
highly improvident at a time when new and large drains upon the Treasury
were contemplated. Moreover, embarrassing questions would have arisen
under the favored-nation clauses of treaties with other nations.

As a further objection, it is evident that tariff regulation by treaty
diminishes that independent control over its own revenues which is
essential for the safety and welfare of any government. Emergency
calling for an increase of taxation may at any time arise, and no
engagement with a foreign power should exist to hamper the action of the
Government.

By the fourteenth section of the shipping act approved June 26, 1884,
certain reductions and contingent exemptions from tonnage dues were made
as to vessels entering ports of the United States from any foreign port
in North and Central America, the West India Islands, the Bahamas and
Bermudas, Mexico, and the Isthmus as far as Aspinwall and Panama. The
Governments of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Portugal, and Sweden and
Norway have asserted, under the favored-nation clause in their treaties
with the United States, a claim to like treatment in respect of vessels
coming to the United States from their home ports. This Government,