This is a mandate written in the Constitution, and can not be abrogated except by a constituent assembly which should absolve the national legislator from responsibility. The greater part of the constitutions of America derive this power from their very legislative bodies, and we would find ourselves, then, confronted by general political disturbances incident to the formation of eighteen constituents called to the end of reforming all and each of the fundamental charters which govern our countries. Such a disturbance would not be justified by Utopian dreams. In the international sphere the complications would be no less grave. The effect of restrictive leagues on the general movement of commerce is but mediocre; we note, however, that defferential duties have brought about pernicious antagonisms between nation and nation. This is proven nowadays by the tariff war between Austria and Roumania, and that of Italy with France, happily terminated, not without the former making advances to the sovereign of Alsace and Lorraine; but we constitute a most important factor in the relations of transatlantic commerce which represents $2,700,000,000, and it is easy to forsee the squirmings of Europe when she should feel the effects of a continental blockade, maintained, it is true, not by war ships but by belligerent tariffs. It would not be countries bound together by political bonds that would enter into compacts inspired by a national sentiment. It would be the war of one continent against another, eighteen sovereignties allied to exclude from the life of commerce that same Europe which extends to us her hand, sends us her strong arms, and complements our economic existence, after having apportioned us her civilization and her culture, her sciences and her arts, industries and customs that have completed our sociologic evolutions. We shall have interposed an incommunicable diaphragm which time would render indestructible, when we shall have fenced up our fragmentary civilizations which needs must seek their complement in free contact with mankind.

I shall now take up intercontinental free trade. I have not understood that this system is included in the inviting act, and I have sustained that idea in the committee.

Free trade is an economic principle, but, without doing violence to language, it can not be confounded with a Customs Union. Which custom houses would be? Those of the Continent? They would disappear with free trade. Those taxing the rest of the commerce? They would not form a league since they preserve their autonomies and their receipts will not be distributed. There is no such Customs Union under continental free trade; customs-houses and free trade are irreconcilable antagonisms. The legal aspect of the case shows a no less marked difference. Free trade may be introduced by the mere declaration of a government on its own motion. The Customs Union would be always the result of a convention, and would be in every case a synallagmatic act; but the majority of the committee have thought it advisable to discuss it and even refute it, and I find myself forced to differ from the argument upon which its rejection is based.

It has been said that our States can not exist without the duties which rest on intercontinental commerce; I must correct this assertion, in so far as it refers to the Argentine Republic, and, I think, many more of the American nations are similarly situated. Our trade with the countries of America is most limited; the most considerable duty of which we would be deprived would be that we levy on imports from the United States, the heaviest of which are pine lumber and agricultural implements; but the former pays a duty of 10 per cent. and the latter only five. It can be seen that, with this schedule of duties, the revenue produced by an importation of $10,000,000, would be nominal, and would not cause any disturbance in our economic life, or be an insuperable embarrassment. The need of these receipts is not, then, an obstructing cause in the way of the free trade sought, nor would it be for the United States whose surplus is notorious. I confine myself to this explanation without expressing myself upon the substance of this idea because, I repeat once more, it does not constitute the Union whose study has been recommended to us and the topic which was transmitted to our Governments with the inviting act. It is an error to suppose that the field of action of this honorable Confer

ence has no limits, or that it embraces all the ideas which may spring up in the course of its debates. The invited Governments have responded to the notes of the Washington foreign office by sending delegates with instructions more or less ample, but limited ever to the terms of the invitation and the subjects enumerated in the law; we can not go on substituting ideas and multiplying plans as new difficulties present themselves over those first had in view, and the Argentine Delegates shall restrict themselves to the terms of the invitation.

I might say the same thing with regard to reciprocity treaties did not the consideration of this subject compel me to enter into ampler details.

The committee has thought proper to recommend such treaties as, out of courtesy, there was a necessity of advising something. A courtesy which goes beyond its authority is something I can not comprehend, and I should not consider myself as acting within the scope of my authority by substituting for the "Zollverein" reciprocity treaties.

The committee limits its recommendation to the countries for which the system is advisable, an unnecessary limitation, because it is understood that no country would conclude such treaties to its prejudice; but the fact is that this recommendation of the committee exceeds, in my judgment, the very scope of the Conference. The law which brought it into existence had in view problems and questions which interested all the nations. The "Zollverein" was one of these, because of its being continental, but treaties concluded by bordering States to exchange their products, do they, perchance, interest all the countries and the Conference itself? By what right would nations not parties to such treaties express themselves upon their advantages or disadvantges? Should not such conventions. be left to the decision of the several Departments of State since they, and not America, are the ones interested in their celebration? I understand the generous wishes of the Continent when it is purposed to prevent a contention between sister States; I appreciate the sentiments born of philanthropy and humanitarian duties, but these officious declarations, counseling commercial regimes which exclude the

action of the Governments, lower the lofty purposes of this honorable Conference.

I do not mean to say by this that the Argentine Republic rejects the treaties, but it is well, in this connection, to recall precedents which should be of record in the archives of this Department of State. Twenty years since the Argentine republic addressed itself to the Government of Washington proposing the negotiation of such treaties as the committee now recommends to America, and I shall take the liberty to read the reply of Mr. Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State, in 1870:

These treaties are not in conformity with the usual policy of the United States. To fix the duties to be paid on foreign merchandise may be advisable at the time of entering into the agreement; but exactly the contrary may happen at the expiration of the time stipulated in the compact. The United States have treaties with many other Governments, and these Governments would have the right to claim for their importations the same tariff as suggested in the draft of the treaty proposed by the Argentine Republic. The constitutionality of the act is furthermore very questionable, because the determination of these duties belongs not to the treaty-making power but to the Federal Congress.*

*NOTE.-The following is the copy of the original note of Mr. Fish on file at the Department of State; the quotation used by Mr. Saenz Peña is evidently a translation of a translation of the original:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 14, 1869. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 10th instant, proposing a treaty of commerce between the United States and the Argentine Confederation, providing for fixed rates of duty upon the articles usually imported from the one country into the other.

In reply I have to state that treaties on that basis are not in conformity with the usual policy of this Government. The fixing by treaty of the rates of duty on merchandise from abroad, while it might be convenient at the time when the treaty was concluded, might prove seriously the reverse before the expiration of the term allotted for the duration of the treaty.

Another serious objection to the conclusion by this Government of treaties on that basis is that the United States have treaties with many other governments which would give the latter the right to claim for their productions imported into the United States the same rate of duties as those provided for in the treaty such as you propose. In most

I have no reason to believe that the Government of the United States has changed its economic policy. If it be true that Mexico has a treaty ad referendum concluded, it has not, up to this time, been approved by the Federal Congress, and that which was negotiated with Santo Domingo was rejected by the same power. It is seen, then, that with precedence such as I cite but little hope may be had in the measures recommended by the committee; but, I repeat once more, the Argentine Republic will express itself on this point when she shall be requested by friendly nations or decides to initiate the invitation. It is a matter for her State Department.

The truth is that our trade with the United States gives rise to observations which can be made in an equitable and friendly spirit. Our wools, which consititute the most considerable article of Argentine production, find themselves in a disadvantagous situation in relation to the rest of he producing markets. The United States have fixed the duty upon the weight and ad valorem, and at the rate of 10 cents per pound and 11 per cent. on the total value, which does not exceed, at the port of embarkation, 32 cents per pound; but our wools are heavy; 100 pounds of uncleaned wool from the Argentine Republic yield 30 per cent. to the manufacturer, while the Australian wools yield 50 per cent., although both have to pay equal duties. The tariff is, therefore, defferential and becomes prohibitory as against the Argentine Republic, because it results in 30 pounds of our cleaned wool being burdened by duties on 100 pounds. If, therefore, the Australian wools pay a duty of 45 per cent, ours pay 60 per cent.

It is clear that with this tax imposed on the manufact

instances, therefore, the conclusion of such a treaty with one power would be tantamount to a treaty with all others, and this to a repeal by the treaty-making power of the acts of Congress establishing the duties on articles imported from foreign countries. The constitutionality at least of such a proceeding would be questionable.

Under these circumstances I have to express my regret that it would not be advisable to conclude the treaty to which you refer. I avail myself, etc.,

TO SEÑOR DON MANUEL R. GARCIA, etc.

HAMILTON FISH.