WRIGHT— LIMITATIONS UPON NATIONAL POWERS. 201 



Under the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890 authority was given 

 the President to suspend by proclamation the free entry of speci- 

 fied articles from countries which did not give reciprocity. Ten 

 reciprocity agreements were negotiated by the President through 

 exchange of notes which were made effective by proclamation and 

 remained so until repeal of the McKinley Act in 1894.°^ In Field 

 V. Clark^* the Supreme Court held this provision of the McKinley 

 Act valid since by it Congress had not delegated legislative power 

 but merely power to carry out the policy outlined by Congress in 

 the Act. The Dingley Tariff of 1897 and the Payne- Aldrich Tariff 

 of 1909 contained similar provisions for reciprocity which have 

 been carried out by a number of agreements. ^^ Similar provision 

 for reciprocity with Canada made in an act of 191 1 has never been 

 carried out because of the unwillingness of Canada to act.^'' We 

 may conclude that power to make agreements in pursuance of 

 enacted legislative policy is not " legislative power " and may be 

 delegated. 



Cases (100 U. S. 82, 99) the Supreme Court held Congress incompetent to 

 pass and enforce general trademarks laws but implied that such laws if 

 confined to interstate and foreign commerce or to the protection of treaty 

 rights would be valid. In most cases trademark agreements have been 

 by treaty (See Secretary of State Hay to the Secretary of the Interior, 

 Nov. 4, 1898, Moore, Digest, 2: 37), but the statute provided for the regis- 

 tration of trademarks used in interstate or foreign commerce by persons 

 residing in foreign countries which, " by treaty, convention or law, appHes 

 such privileges to citizens of the United States " (sec. 3, Comp. Stat., sec. 

 9489). Apparently the President might independently recognize the extension 

 of laws to American citizens by foreign nations, entitling their citizens to 

 the privileges of the act, but in fact, such recognition seems always to have 

 been by treaty, except with reference to reciprocal protection in consular 

 courts in China and Morocco. See Crandall, op. cit., p. 130; Willoughby, 

 op. cit., p. 477. 



53 U. S. Tariff Commission, Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, 1919, 

 pp. 27, 153; Crandall, op. cit., p. 122; Willoughby, op. cit., pp. 478. See 

 also Gresham, Secretary of State, to Mr. Mendonga, Brazilian Minister, 

 Oct. 26, 1894, Moore, Digest, 5 : 359-362. 



5* Field V. Clark, 143 U. S. 649 (1892). 



55 U. S. Tariff Commission, op. cit., pp. 29, 32, 205, 271 ; Crandall, op. cit., 

 p. 123; Fish, Am. Diplomacy, p. 471. 



56 Act July 26, 191 1, 27 Stat. 4, Comp. Stat., sec. 5326; Crandall, op. cit., 

 p. 125; U. S. Tariff Commission, op. cit., pp. 36-38, 371. 



