Mr. Sherman to Mr. Evarts.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a letter from the Acting Secretary of State, dated the 30th of June last, requesting the views of this Department upon the question presented in dispatch No. 74, dated the 9th of that month, from Mr. Comly, minister of the United States at Honolulu, and the correspondence which accompanied it. Mr. Comly inquires whether the tariff levied by the Hawaiian customhouse on all cotton manufactured into clothing, being the growth, manufacture or produce of the United States, is not in contravention of Article II of the reciprocity treaty between the United States and the Hawaiian Government.
Article 2 of the treaty cited provides for the admission into the Hawaiian Islands free of duty of “cotton and manufactures of cotton, bleached and unbleached, and whether or not colored, stained, painted or printed, &c.”
The minister holds that this provision includes in its terms ready-made clothing, &c., as well as textile fabrics of cotton in the piece, while, as stated by the minister, the collector-general of Hawaii seeks to enlarge the meaning of the provision by injecting the phrase “other than when ready-made clothing” into the paragraph, where it does not occur.
The argument supporting this view is, that if the term “manufactures of cotton” had been intended to cover ready-made clothing, the words “bleached and unbleached, and whether or not colored, stained, painted or printed,” would have been omitted, inasmuch as those terms are applied to textile fabrics in the piece.
This reasoning does not appear to be well founded, inasmuch, as will be seen from the inclosed copy of a report upon the subject, dated the 11th instant, from the United States appraiser at Boston, the terms referred to are applicable to the various kinds of clothing made of manufactured cotton, as well as to goods in the piece. The appraiser states that the terms are not merely commercial, but are necessarily descriptive of the goods according to the facts. He mentions skirts, which may be made of bleached and unbleached, or of colored cottons, and which must be designated, as a natural description of the articles, by the terms mentioned, and states that the same fact is true of an infinite number of articles of clothing made of cotton. There can be no question that if the terms mentioned had been omitted all manufactures of cotton, whether in the piece or made up into clothing, would have been treated as embraced in the provisions of the article, and the fact that a description is afterward given which is equally applicable to goods in the piece and to clothing, should not be held to affect the matter.
After the paragraph quoted, and also of an enumeration of sundry other goods, the article cited provides for the free entry of “wool and manufacturers of wool other than ready-made clothing, and in a separate clause for textile manufactures made of a combination of wool, cotton, silk, or linen, or of any two or more of them other than when ready-made clothing.”
The portion of the article relating to manufactures of cotton is widely separated and wholly disconnected in the treaty from that relating to manufactures of wool, or of a combination of wool, cotton, &c.; and the fact that the provision for manufactures of cotton does not except ready-made clothing while the other two provisions mentioned do make such an exception, seems to render it conclusive that it was intended to include all manufactures of cotton, whether consisting of ready-made clothing or otherwise, in the terms of the first provision.
[Page 546]It is not to be supposed that in two clauses of the same article, ready-made articles of wool, or of wool and cotton, &c., would have been specially excepted, without the special exception, also, of ready-made clothing of cotton, had it been the intention to except the latter.
In the opinion of this Department, therefore, ready-made clothing of cotton is entitled to admission free of duty into the Hawaiian Islands under the treaty mentioned, and it may be stated that this view is concurred in by the collector of customs, the United States appraiser, and United States naval officer at New York, and by the United States appraiser at Boston, all of whom have considered the question.
Very respectfully,