Mr. Kasson to Mr. Cambon.
Washington, June 8, 1898.
I.
The subject to which the note of his excellency refers involves the interpretation of section 3 of the United States tariff act in its connection with the preceding clauses of the same act relating to the same subject, and belongs to the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department. The importer will present the question there. If dissatisfied with its decision he will appeal to the courts for its review and determination as in all other questions of the customs, whether regulated by law or by treaty.
II.
Mr. Kasson, however, does not concur in the construction now for the first time announced to him, for the following reasons:
- 1.
- The agreement of May 28 was intended to name and did name, expressly from the tariff act, all articles to be covered by the new arrangement, namely, the articles mentioned in No. 6 (a part only), Nos. 289, 295, 296, and 454, as there defined and limited. Those nowhere mention the cordials, etc., which are now claimed.
- 2.
- These cordials, etc., are expressly provided for in a separate paragraph of the tariff act, No. 292. This paragraph, or any article named in it, was never mentioned, so far as Mr. Kasson remembers, during the negotiations between M. Cambon and himself. If included in the agreement it must be so not by a common understanding of the negotiators, [Page 297] but by force of construction of the language of the third section as incorporated in the agreement.
- 3.
- In the earlier negotiations by his excellency’s predecessor, M. Patenotre, the paper submitted on the part of the French Government (of which a copy is before me) recited the concessions desired by France from the United States, giving the subjects accompanied by the tariff numbers. These numbers were 6, 295,296, 297, 289, and 454. No. 292 (arrack, absinth, etc.) was distinctly omitted. It has never since been added to the claim of France, so far as Mr. Kasson is aware, until an importer raised the question since the agreement was signed. He based his argument on a technicality, viz, the omission from the agreement of the words contained in No. 289 of the tariff act, viz, “and not specially provided for in this act,” which words were wholly mal a propos in the diplomatic arrangement.
III.
Although the recent negotiations under the conduct of His Excellency M. Cambon were conducted on a new basis, arising from the unexpected action of the French Chambers in increasing duties, yet no other tariff numbers were mentioned, and in the case of No. 296 (still wines) Mr. Kasson had even excluded vermuth, which was the only article of the nature of a cordial retained in section 3 of the tariff. It was, however, included by special request of M. Cambon, because it was associated in the tariff act (No. 296) with “still wines,” and was not mentioned in the excepted class, No. 292.
IV.
In respect to the figures given in the estimates of United States concessions:
It appears that the system of bookkeeping in the Treasury does not conform to each classification of the tariff act. Hence for the purpose of exhibiting revenue returns it is impossible to obtain exact figures for each item. Thus the statistical statement is made under the heading—
Spirits, distilled:
- Brandy, dutiable.
- All others, dutiable.
Of this last (“all other”) over 80 per cent of our imports are known to be made up of alcoholic spirits, not including cordials, etc.
The question at issue about cordials, etc., is therefore of little importance. The French memorandum represents cordials, etc. (sec. 292), as making up the whole difference of $45,181 in the estimated concession of the United States, while in fact it is only a small percentage according to the statements of the Treasury—so small that their tables made no separate statement of it.
The French and American statistics for concessions, as presented in our negotiations, did not agree. The tables used were understood to be approximate only. It could not be otherwise, as the amounts varied from year to year with the course of commerce. The New York correspondent of the embassy seems to assume that the United States guarantees the estimated amount of concession. If the estimate was too high in the case of spirits, it was too low in the case of still wines. These were computed at 5 cents per gallon, while on a large portion of them the reduction is 15 cents per gallon. The amount of this difference [Page 298] largely exceeds that involved in the question of cordials, and more than balances it.
V.
But the vital point in construing the agreement is this: What articles did the negotiators finally and expressly agree to include in the arrangement? It seems to Mr. Kasson that these are plainly and beyond doubt stated in the agreement, and, so far as the immediate question is concerned, included No. 289 and excluded No. 292 of the tariff act.
His opinion, however, is not conclusive, and has no control over the Treasury Department or the courts. The Treasury experts, in the absence of the exact figures, estimate the whole difference of revenue involved at $8,000 to $10,000, which is but a fraction of the concession on still wines and vermuth which was added on the part of the United States, at the request of his excellency, as evidence of our wish to adjust difficulties. This new demand has consequently been received with some surprise. It appears so impossible that a whole class of articles, having a separate number in the tariff act, should have been included in the international agreement, without either negotiator having ever mentioned to the other the tariff clause, its number, or any article named in it, that his excellency, I feel sure, will regard the views of his correspondent as outside the limits of probability.