Mr. Uhl to Mr. Taylor.
Washington , March 30, 1894 .
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Nos. 130 and 132, of February 22 and 26, respectively, transmitting correspondence with the Spanish Government regarding the repertory of the present reciprocity arrangement. In his note of February 20 Señor Moret suggests that a new translation be made of the English repertory by two delegates from the ministry of state and one from the legation, for publication in Cuba, instead of the certified copy of the original Spanish repertory, which was forwarded to Madrid by the Spanish legation in November last. He gives as his reason for the suggestion that this “will avoid protest in doubtful cases and establish a sure and incontestable rule for the custom-house officers.”
On the 17th October, 1892, a list of articles to be admitted into Cuba and Puerto Rico under the reciprocity arrangement with Spain was sighed in Spanish and English text at Washington by the Secretary Of State, Mr. Foster, and the Spanish minister, Señor Dupuy de Lôme. The English text was printed, and it appears that by some inadvertence a copy of this English instead of the Spanish text was forwarded to Madrid through the legation here, and was there translated into Spanish in the evident belief of the home Government that the repertory had been signed in English alone. This translation was published in the Official Gazette, of Havana, on the 25th, 26th, and 28th February, 1893, and was distributed in pamphlet form to the Cuban custom-house officials for their use.
By this error of the Spanish Government the custom-house officials of Cuba were instructed to base their decision regarding the entry of articles into that island under the reciprocity arrangement upon a publication which proved to be a fruitful source of confusion. This Department received complaints from American exporters that articles clearly mentioned both in the English version of the repertory and the Spanish original were excluded from the benefits of the reciprocity arrangement. It was only after inquiry and comparison of the text of the repertory used in Cuba with the Spanish original here that the cause of [Page 606] the difficulty became clear. Not until then was it discovered that the Spanish text of the repertory in use in Cuba was entirely unlike the original Spanish—was a translation of our English text, the names of many articles being mistranslated by literal paraphrases instead of commercial terms. Some articles were entirely omitted.
The following are examples of several of the errors in the repertory published by the Spanish Government, which have resulted in claims pending in Cuba and Madrid for the return of the duties wrongfully collected by the custom-house officials in Cuba from the American exporters:
Duty has been levied on butter, because butter (manteca de vaca) is translated into Spanish manteca de cerdo (lard); on spirits of turpentine, because spirits of turpentine is literally translated espiritu de trementina, instead of by the Spanish commercial term Aguarras; on knives for cutting cane, because they are called cuchillos para cor tar cana, instead of the technical term machetes; on preserved meats (carnes conservadas en latas), because they are confused and limited to certain kinds of meats, while entered without restriction in the original Spanish repertory; on wooden felloes, because the Spanish term camones is entirely omitted from the repertory used in Cuba.
The Cuban collector of customs looks in his repertory for the merchandise mentioned in the vessel’s manifest, and not finding it, proceeds to levy the duty imposed by the ordinary tariff. In reply to a request that some explanation be given for exacting the regular duty on articles which both in the English text of the repertory and the original Spanish signed here are placed under schedules entitling them to free entry or a reduced rate, he bases his action upon the omission of the article from the repertory which the Spanish Government has placed in his hands for his guidance.
The Department is gratified to learn from the statement in your No. 130, of February 22, that Señor Moret has corrected the opinion expressed in his note of the 20th of February that the English version of the repertory is the only text binding upon both Governments, as this opinion could only have been formed under a misapprehension. The preparation of a document embodying alterations in a foreign tariff must be based upon the study and examination of that tariff, and the result must be reached through the language of the foreign country. I inclose you a statement of Mr. John C. Redman,* of the Bureau of the American Republics, who was charged with the work, showing that this system was pursued in the preparation of the Spanish repertory. This repertory was largely based upon the list of articles prepared for a reciprocity treaty negotiated by Mr. Foster in 1884, and withdrawn from the Senate the following year. Spanish terms were employed and translated into English. The English translation for the repertory of the treaty of 1884 was made with the greatest care, and the Spanish and English texts of the repertory of the present arrangement were conscientiously compared. This Department has been unable to discover any material inaccuracy in the English translation, and can not therefore agree with the minister of state that there is any failure to correspond in the Spanish and English texts. In all the errors which have been brought to the attention of the Department, and which, as in the cases above explained, have been the cause of illegal collection of duties, the English was an accurate translation of the Spanish, and in both repertories the articles were [Page 607] placed under the proper schedules and subjected to the correct rate. If it were clear, however, that the English translation does not correspond with the Spanish original, the correction should be made in the English and not in the Spanish. The English translation of the repertory was published for the information of our exporters, and could not be regarded as binding upon the customs officials of Cuba or as affording grounds for argument in questions arising with the Spanish Government. The Spanish minister of state is too accomplished a linguist himself not to appreciate the great difference between an original document in a foreign language and a retranslation of a translation of such a document. To disregard the Spanish original—which, as will be seen in Mr. Redman’s statement, was carefully examined by Señor Dupuy de Lôme before signature—and substitute a second retranslation into Spanish of the English translation, would simply produce the same perplexing result as before.
You will make the above detailed explanation to Señor Moret, and state that the point insisted upon by this Government is that the Spanish repertory which has been used in Cuba is not the Spanish repertory prepared and signed here by the representatives of both Governments; that it is an erroneous translation of the English version, which was itself a translation of the Spanish, published for the information of our exporters. While it is possible that the proposed tariff legislation in Congress may provide for duties inconsistent with the present reciprocity arrangements, and therefore render the publication of the correct repertory a question of less importance for the future, you will urge the view of this Government that the Spanish Government should recognize and substitute the correct repertory for the purpose of disposing of the claims for repayment of duties wrongfully levied in Cuba in consequence of the errors in the repertory published in that island for the use of the custom-house officials.
I am, etc.,
Acting Secretary.
- Not printed.↩