No. 238.
Mr. Comly to Mr. Evarts.
Legation of the United States,
Honolulu, June 9, 1879.
(Received June 26.)
No. 74.]
Sir: I have the honor to transmit
correspondence with the Hawaiian foreign office upon the question
whether the Hawaiian tariff upon American cotton goods made up into
clothing is not in contravention of Article II of the reciprocity
treaty.
The Hawaiian Government having asked an opinion from the Treasury experts
at Washington, I refer the whole correspondence, and respectfully ask
instructions.
I beg to direct especial attention, however, to the fact that this is not
exactly a parallel case to one resting wholly upon an expert
interpretation of the meaning of the phrase, as submitted by the
Hawaiian Government.
In deciding upon the meaning of the phrase relating to cotton goods in
this treaty, it seems to me the phrases relating to textile manufactures
made of a combination of cotton, wool, &c., must be considered, and
whether the use of the phrase “other than when ready-made clothing,” as
applied to these textile combinations, and the omission of this phrase
in the paragraph relating to all-cotton goods, does not imply that
cotton goods, when ready-made clothing, ought not
to pay duty.
The collector-general seeks to enlarge the meaning by injecting the
phrase “other than when ready-made clothing” into the paragraph as to
cotton goods where it does not occur. This he does, not because of
anything in the treaty authorizing such interpretation, but because of
the opinion of one of the commissioners that the words were meant to
have been in the clause as to cotton goods also.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in dispatch No.
74.]
Mr. Comly to
Mr. Kapena.
Legation of the United
States,
May 2,
1879.
No. 153.]
Sir: I am asked by importers of American
goods, and by the United States consul, to submit to your
excellency’s consideration the question whether the tariff collected
by the Hawaiian custom-house upon all cotton manufactured into
clothing, “the same being the growth, manufacture, or produce of the
United States,” is not in contravention of Article II of the
reciprocity treaty. For myself, I confess the question seems too
plain for argument.” “Cotton and manufacturers of cotton, bleached
and unbleached, and whether or not stained, painted, or printed,”
must come in free. It is only when mixed with “wool, silk, or linen,
or any two or more of them,” and not then unless when manufactured
into “ready-made clothing,” that cotton can properly pay duty under
the treaty. The mere statement of the point in the language of the
treaty itself seems to me absolutely conclusive.
Renewing the assurances of my highest consideration and respect,
I am, &c.,
His Excellency John M. Kapena,
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
[Page 528]
[Inclosure 2 in dispatch No.
74.]
Mr. Kapena to
Mr. Comly.
Department of Foreign Affairs,
Honolulu, May 2, 1879.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your communication of this date submitting to my
consideration “the question whether the tariff collected by the
Hawaiian custom-house upon all cotton manufactured into clothing,
‘the same being the growth, manufacture, or produce of the United
States,’ is not in contravention of Article II of the reciprocity
treaty.”
I have forwarded a copy of your dispatch to His Excellency S. K.
Kaai, minister of finance, and await his answer, in order that I may
fully reply to the question embraced in your letter now
acknowledged.
With the highest respect, &c.,
His Excellency James M. Comly,
United States Minister Resident.
[Inclosure 3 in dispatch No.
74.]
Mr. Wilder to
Mr. Comly.
Department of Foreign Affairs,
Honolulu, June 9, 1879.
[With inclosure from collector-general.]
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge your
dispatch under date of May 2, in which you ask whether the tariff
collected by the Hawaiian custom-house upon all cotton manufactured
into clothing, the same being the growth, manufacture or produce of
the United States, is not in contravention of Article II of the
reciprocity treaty.
The custom-house officials of this port have always considered the
term “manufacture of cotton” could only be held to cover such goods
as are imported in the same form as when they come from a cotton
manufacturer’s hands, say, as piece goods, not after having passed
through another process; a shirt, for instance, even if made wholly
of cotton cloth, is not a manufacture of cotton, i. e. raw cotton; it is, made of cotton cloth, and as
such, has not been admitted under the clause “manufacture of
cotton.”
His Majesty’s Government have and desire to continue to give the
reciprocity treaty the most liberal interpretation, and are open to
argument on this point, and would be pleased to receive the
interpretation placed upon this clause “cotton and manufactures of
cotton, bleached and unbleached, and whether or not stained, painted
or printed,” by the experts of the Treasury Department, at
Washington.
I beg to hand you copy of a dispatch from the collector-general of
customs, which clearly gives his reasoning upon this point.
Renewing the assurances of the highest respect and most distinguished
consideration,
I have, &c.,
JAMES G. WILDER,
Acting Minister
for Foreign Affairs.
[Inclosure in Mr. Wilder’s note of June
9.]
Sir: I am in receipt of your excellency’s
communication, and would reply, that soon after the treaty went into
effect some few of the importers took the ground that all articles
of cotton, whether made up or in piece “if of the growth,
manufacture, or produce of the United States” should be admitted
free under the second article of the treaty. I then decided that
nothing but piece goods could be admitted free. Any article made up
must pay duty.
A few protests were filed and then the matter rested until November
15, 1877, when the minister of foreign affairs addressed me a
letter, asking if any protests had been made, or if any ruling had
been made on this point. I replied that the late minister of
finance, Mr. Walker, had given me verbal instructions to the effect
that the cabinet
[Page 529]
had
decided that all cotton clothing, or cotton goods, made up, must pay
duty. This seemed to be so well understood by the importers that
none of them, to my knowledge, did anything more than file their
protest.
The commissioners who negotiated the treaty said, that although the
“words other than ready-made clothing” were not expressed here as in
regard to wool and manufactures of wool, or textile manufactures,
still such was the understanding and intention, that in neither case
could anything other than piece goods he admitted free, or blankets,
bed-spreads, and shawls, articles that are made at once, the same as
apiece of calico or wool-pants stuff.
I can see no reason why cotton clothing should be admitted free and
all other made dutiable. It seems as if the treaty showed plainly
that made-up goods, in either cotton, wool, or textile fabrics,
should not be free by its stipulations.
I have, &c.,
W. F. ALLEN,
Collector-General.
His Excellency Simon W. Kaai,
H. H. M. Minister of Finance, &c.
[Inclosure 4 in dispatch No.
74.]
Mr. Comly to
Mr. Wilder.
Legation of the United States,
Honolulu, June 9, 1879.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of yours of this date on the subject of the tariff on cotton
goods.
As his majesty’s government express the wish to receive the
interpretation of treasury experts at Washington, upon the disputed
phrase, I have referred the question, and asked instructions.
Meantime I take the occasion to renew, &c.
His Excellency James G. Wilder,
Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs.
