Chargé Sleeper to
the Secretary of State.
American Legation,
Habana, February 20,
1906.
No. 1474.]Sir: In continuation of my dispatch No. 1457 of
the 2d instant, and referring to department’s instructions No. 589 of
the 10th instant, regarding granting the benefits of the reciprocity
treaty to a cargo of rice of foreign origin milled in the United States
and shipped to Cuba by the Seaboard Rice Milling Company, I have the
honor to transmit to the department, herewith inclosed, copy of Mr.
O’Farrill’s note No. 133 of the 16th instant, with inclosures from the
Cuban treasury department (replying to my note to the foreign office No.
814 of the 31st ultimo), in which the advantages of the reciprocity
treaty are refused to the rice in question.
I have, etc.,
[Page 517]
[Inclosure.—Translation.]
Secretary of Department of
State and Justice of Cuba to Chargé Sleeper.
Department of State and Justice,
Division of
State,
Habana, February 16,
1906.
Mr. Chargé d’affaires: Referring to your
honor’s polite note No. 814 of the 31st ultimo, soliciting the
granting of the benefits enjoyed by products of American industry
under the treaty of reciprocity to foreign rice husked in the United
States, I have the honor to inclose to you a copy of a communication
from the Secretary of the Treasury, No. 2319 of the 14th instant
(together with copies of the documents therein cited), relative to
this matter, and beg to inform your honor at the same time that I am
in complete accord with the contention upheld in the said
communication.
I understand, just as in the case of Brazilian coffee roasted in the
United States, that foreign rice, even though husked in a State of
the American Union and thereby changed in appearance, continues to
be a product of the foreign soil where it was harvested and never of
American industry; for which reason I am of the opinion that the
advantages of the reciprocity treaty can not be conceded to it.
I reiterate, etc.,
(Signed)
Juan F.
O’Farrill.
[Subinclosure
1.—Translation.]
Mr. Rivera to
Mr. O’Farrill.
Republic of Cuba,
Department of the Treasury,
Customs Division,
Habana, February 14,
1906.
Mr. Secretary of State and
Justice.
Mr. Secretary: In reply to your
communication No. 529 of the 2d instant, transmitting note No. 814
of the Chargé d’Affaires of the United States, requesting
information in regard to the matter of which his letter treats, I
beg to say that this department understands, in conformity with the
opinion held in that under your worthy charge, that foreign rice
milled in the United States and imported into this island has no
claim to the benefits of the reciprocity treaty celebrated with that
nation, inasmuch as it is not a product of either the soil or its
industry.
I call your attention to the fact that the communication of July 27,
1904, cited in the aforesaid note, of which I inclose copy, does not
refer to rice milled in the United States, but to that which shall
have undergone a process of manufacture or elaboration prior to its
exportation to Cuba, the cleaning of the grain being insufficient to
be considered a manufacture.
I also inclose to you a copy of the ruling of the board of general
appraisers in the case of an importation of rum manufactured in
France from unmanufactured sugar cane from Martinique (a French
possession), for which the importers claimed the benefits of the
treaty of reciprocity with France. As can be seen, the board ruled
that it had no right to the benefits of the treaty for the reason
that the raw material from which the rum was made was imported into
France and therefore had no right to the benefits of the treaty
celebrated with that nation.
Respectfully,
[Subinclosure 2.]
Ruling by the Board of General Appraisers
yesterday.
ruling, board of general
appraisers—customs decisions.
General Appraiser Hay yesterday rendered a decision on the French
reciprocity treaty. It was based on the assessment of duty by the
collector at San Francisco. The merchandise was rum and was assessed
for duty under paragraph
[Page 518]
292, tariff of 1897, at $2.25 per gallon. The importers claimed that
the merchandise was entitled to the benefits of the reciprocity
treaty with France, and therefore dutiable at $1.75 per gallon under
the provision of section 3. The protest states the rum was made in
France from manufactured sugar cane from Martinique, a French
possession. In a previous decision the board had held that brandy or
other spirits imported from Martinique, a colony of France, are not
entitled to the reduced rates of duty accorded to such merchandise
produced in and exported from France by the terms of the reciprocity
treaty. In line with that decision the board overruled the
protest.
[Subinclosure
3—Translation.]
Mr. Chaple to
Mr. Hawley.
Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your courteous letter of May 28 last, and beg to say
in reply that although the rice may not be a product of the United
States, if it undergoes a process of manufacture or elaboration
before being exported to Cuba it will enjoy the benefits of the
treaty of reciprocity.
Respectfully, yours,
(Signed)
Guillermo
Chaple.
