of the efforts which were made in certain cases to assure the maintenance of an open door are proof of the importance at that time. attached by some countries to differential tariffs.

TABLE 1.-Areas and populations of the colonial empires.1

In making this and other comparative tables from which only broad comparisons are to be made, time has not been spent in an effort to obtain figures which are exactly comparable-e. g., population figure of the same year or figures of area uniform in their inclusion or exclusion of water surfaces. Of course, neither the area nor the population of these empires is any accurate measure of their value: the two largest probably contain the greatest proportion of deserts, with the exception of the unimportant Spanish and Italian Empires.

2 France includes Alsace-Lorraine: the other areas are the prewar areas.

The population figures for France, Germany, and Portugal are those of 1910-1911; otherwise recent figures or estimates have been used.

The area and population of the Canary Islands is here included with the Spanish colonies.

The total areas and populations of the colonial empires may be compared with those of the rest of the world: 22,600,000 square miles with perhaps 700,000,000 inhabitants. Latin-America has an area of 8,284,000 square miles with 88,000,000 inhabitants; Siberia, 6,294,000 square miles, with 29,000,000 inhabitants; and China, 3,914,000 square miles, with about 320,000,000 inhabitants.

II. CLASSIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF

MANDATED TERRITORIES.

"COLONIES" AND

Tht word "colony" is used broadly to include a great variety of dependencies, some of which would, if the word were employed in a strict sense, be excluded. This report is a study of the colonial tariff policies of the colony-holding powers; for present purposes.

it suffices to distinguish comparative degrees of political dependency. The first and most important distinction to be established is that between those dependencies which determine their own tariff policies and those whose tariff policies are dictated wholly or in the main by the "mother" countries. This adduces at once two groups, on the one hand the British self-governing Dominions, on the other hand all other colonies.

The subtle and constantly changing political relations of the world's territorial divisions defy simple or hard and fast definition and classification. There are three types of international relationship in reference to which the applicability of the designation "colony," or even of the designation "dependency" may be disputed. There are two types of dependency whose approximation to independence renders the application to them of the term colony doubtful. And there is a type whose close assimilation to the mother country makes questionable an attempt to classify them separately. Further there have emerged from the war "mandated "territories which must be classed, for the present at least, as dependencies, but which are clearly not in any strict sense "colonies" of the mandatory powers; if colonies at all they are colonies rather of the League of Nations.

Before taking up the doubtful cases of the use of the term "colonies," it will be well to define protectorates and spheres of influence. Spheres of Influence.-The least clearly marked of "dependent" relationships is that of the "sphere of interest" or "sphere of influence." These terms have somewhat different connotations when used in respect to regions in Asia on the one hand and to regions in Africa and Oceania on the other hand. In general, a sphere of influence is a region wherein a given power claims-frequently but not exclusively by reason of "peaceful penetration"-to have a predominant interest which entitles it to any special economic or political rights which may be accorded or obtained therein. This claim may be tacitly or more or less explicitly recognized by other powers. An explicit recognition is usually embodied in a bilateral agreement, by which two powers define certain territories and each agrees to seek no special rights in the region thereby resigned to the economic activity or the political aspirations of the other. In Asia, "spheres of interest" have been staked out within the territories of established independent states, such as China, Siam, and Persia; and their creation has usually had no other immediate effect than progress toward monopolization of railway, mining, and other concessions by nationals of a power whose "sphere" is recognized. In Africa south of the Sahara and in Oceania, where the native peoples have only primitive political organizations and where the existence of "governments" has scarcely or not at all been recognized by the European states, the recognition by the other colony-seeking powers of a sphere of interest in a given territory has been practically equivalent to the creation of a title deed. By agreements among the powers, in the years between 1880 and 1900, nearly all parts of Africa and Oceania not previously occupied were divided among the colony-holding states. As a rule, bases for occupation or conquest of the territory had been established antecedently, and frequently treaties had been made with the local chieftains; but the use of the term "sphere of interest" or "sphere of influence" indicates that actual possession

had not been established. The degree to which control has since been made effective is of minor concern. These territories in Africa and Oceania have long since come to be regarded as protectorates if not as colonies, and their ports of entry are controlled by Europeans. Accordingly they are dealt with in this report; but the "spheres of interest" in Asia are excluded.

Protectorates.-Under prevailing modern usage a "protectorate," in the stricter sense, is a state, otherwise theoretically independent, whose foreign affairs have been placed by treaty under the control of some other state, but whose administration and laws remain wholly or in considerable part free from outside interference; or, in looser usage, it is a colony in which the administration is carried on through native rulers and in accordance with native law but with more or less supervision by "advisers" or "residents" representing the protecting power. The "self-governing colonies" do not fall within this definition because they have never been independent states and their relations to the mother country are not defined by treaty ;13 otherwise their status is closely similar to that of the least dependent protectorates.14 The important difference between the two is that they have been moving in opposite directions, protectorates tending toward loss of control over domestic affairs and reduction to colonial status, and self-governing colonies proceeding toward practical if not legal independence. The essence of the relationship between a protectorate and the protecting power lies in the latter's control of foreign affairs; but, especially if the native government is not solvent or does not preserve order, responsibility for financial and foreign affairs compels interference with internal administration. The general tendency is for the protecting power to impose progressively more and more of its methods and institutions.

The protectorates found in North Africa and Asia, such as Tunis and Morocco and the states of the Malay Peninsula and Indo-China, have special treaty relations with their protectors; they have greater likelihood of retaining a measure of independence in their internal administration than have the so-called protectorates of Central Africa, where the native states were not recognized by other powers and have been recognized by the acquiring country chiefly because the establishing of a series of protectorates was a convenient method of gaining control or establishing order without violent opposition. But such territories or states do not constitute true protectorates; they are not dependent or quasi-dependent states carrying on foreign

15

13 The Transvaal and Orange Free State were independent, but their present self-government does not rest upon a treaty basis. 14 The difference between a colony and a protectorate is logically expressed in the control of the former by the colonial office and regulation of affairs of the latter by the foreign office, as in France and Great Britain. Relations with a protectorate in the stricter sense are diplomatic rather than constitutional. The tendency is for the protecting power to exercise increasing authority within a protectorate and to transfer its control from the foreign office to the colonial. Consequently there has been a great decrease in the number of British protectorates under the supervision of the foreign office. Since about 1905 Somaliland, Uganda, Nyasaland, and the East African protectorates have been transferred to the colonial office, and only Egypt, Sarawak, and the territory of British North Borneo remain under the foreign office. The French protectorates of Annam, Laos, Tonquin, and Cambodia, which, with the colony of Cochin-China, compose French Indo-China, are under the colonial office; while Tunis and Morocco are under the foreign office.

15 In some cases native chieftains have voluntarily placed their territories under F pean protection. Some writers have made much sport over the strange and g passion for giving away of kingdoms" exhibited by native rulers. (Woolf, I Empire and Commerce in Africa, 1920, p. 135.) In many cases these rulers si ments which they did not comprehend, but in other cases the advantages and tages of the act had been weighed. Consider the case of Hawaii, and compare the feudal system in Europe.