POWER UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. 133 



of the Panama Canal tolls act of 1911.^^ In the latter case Secre- 

 tary of State Knox maintained that such protest was not proper 

 until action under the statute had actually impaired British rights 

 or as least until executive proclamation to give effect to the statute 

 had issued but his view does not seem to have been accepted. The 

 British ambassador replied : ^® 



" His Majesty's government feel bound to express their dissent. They 

 conceive that international law or usage does not support the doctrine that 

 the passing of a statute in contravention of a treaty right affords no ground 

 of complaint for the infraction of that right, and that the nation v^rhich holds 

 that its treaty rights have been so infringed or brought into question by a 

 denial that they exist, must, before protesting and seeking a means of de- 

 termining the point at issue, wait until some further action violating those 

 rights in a concrete instance has been taken." 



So also foreign nations enjoying most favored nation com- 

 mercial privileges by treaty with the United States, have always 

 applied for the advantages assured by such treaties upon the taking 

 efifect of any act or treaty which gives a favor to other nations. 

 Thus Germany and other countries applied under most favored 

 nation clauses for a reduction of the tonnage dues on their vessels 

 upon passage of the act of 1884 which reduced tonnage dues upon 

 vessels from specified ports in the western hemisphere,^^ and 

 Switzerland gained recognition of her claim for an application of 

 the most favored nation clause in her treaty of 1855 upon the 

 conclusion of a treaty in 1898 by which the United States had 

 given commercial favors to France. ^° 



16. Legislative Expressions of Opinion not of International Cog- 

 nisance. 



Though all acts, prima facie law, are subject to international 

 cognizance without transmission through the President, whether 

 they originate in state constitutional or legislative provisions or in 

 national constitutional, legislative or treaty provisions, this is not 



17 Mr. Innes, Charge d'Affaires of Great Britain, to Secretary of State 

 Knox, July 8 and Aug. 27, 1912, Diplomatic History of the Panama Canal, 

 63d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Doc, No. 474, pp. 82-83. 



1* Ibid., p. loi. 



19 Report of Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to the President, Jan. 14, 1889, 

 50 Cong., 2d Sess., H. Ex. Doc, No. 74, Moore, Digest, 5: 289. 



20 Moore, Digest, 5 : 283-285. 



