Mr. Day to Mr. Gage.

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith a translation of a note from the French ambassador, of the 9th instant, in relation to a difference of interpretation which has arisen as to whether “cordials” were intended by the reciprocity agreement of May 25, 1898, to be included in the clause prescribing the rate of duty on “brandies, or other spirits manufactured or distilled from grain or other materials.” The French ambassador contends that cordials were and are comprehended in the clause in question.

I also inclose a copy of a memorandum prepared by Mr. Kasson, who conducted the negotiation on the part of the United States, in which it is maintained that the clause in question does not include cordials.

The respective views of the negotiators may be briefly summarized.

Considering, in the first place, the language of the reciprocity agreement, Mr. Kasson maintains that the words “brandies, or other spirits manufactured or distilled from grain or other materials,” as incorporated into the reciprocity agreement from section 3 of the tariff act, under which the agreement was concluded, include only the articles specified in paragraph 289 of section 1 of the act, and that this paragraph does not include cordials, which are embraced in paragraph 292 of the same section.

Paragraph 289 reads as follows:

Brandy and other spirits manufactured or distilled from grain or other materials, and not specially provided for in this act, $2.25 per proof gallon.

Paragraph 292 reads as follows:

Cordials, liqueurs, arrack, absinthe, kirschwasser, ratafia, and other spirituous beverages or bitters of all kinds containing spirits, and not specially provided for in this act, $2.25 per proof gallon.

[Page 301]

The French ambassador admits the distinction made in these two paragraphs between “brandy and other spirits” on the one hand, and “cordials” on the other, but maintains that this distinction “disappears in section 3 of the tariff act as the result of the omission from that section of the words “and not specially provided for,” as used in paragraph 292, the substance of his contention on this point appears to be that if paragraph 289 had been absolute in terms, without the words “and not specially provided for,” paragraph 292, so far at least as it relates to cordials and liqueurs, would have been purely tautological, those articles being included in “brandy and other spirits.”

In this relation, it is deemed proper to suggest whether, if this argument of the ambassador be valid, the same objection does not apply to paragraph 289 and 292 as they stand, since the same rate of duty per proof gallon is prescribed in each.

The next point discussed by the ambassador and Mr. Kasson is that of the estimates of duty considered in the negotiations. The ambassador refers to a memorandum of Mr. Kasson of the 4th of May, in which it was estimated that the concessions in duty by the United States to France on brandy and spirits would amount to $195,729. The ambassador maintains that this amount could be obtained only by including in the concessions the duty on cordials.

Mr. Kasson, on the other hand, maintains that the duty on cordial forms only a small percentage of the $45,181 conceded in duties on spirits or spirituous articles from France other than brandies.

Various arguments have been advanced upon the strength of what took place in the course of the negotiations, but it is not deemed necessary now to refer to these matters.

The Department would be glad to have your views on the points set forth in this letter, together with such information as you may be able to afford on the subject of difference, including a statement of the articles imported from France under the denomination of “spirits,” other than brandies. The Department understands it to have been intimated that, if cordials should be excluded from the benefits of the agreement, the words “other spirits” would be practically of no effect so far as France is concerned.

I desire to add that if the French ambassador should wish to make any oral representations on the matters under consideration, it is hoped that you may be able to afford him, or such person as he may designate for the purpose, an opportunity to be heard.

Respectfully, yours,

William R. Day.