Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-02-20

Honolulu, II. T., Feb. IS, 1902.
Honorable II. II. Stackable, Collector
of Customs, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Sir: have the honor to acknowl.
edge the receipt from you of the FOL.
lowing communication, numbered Ill
and dated February 10th, 1902:
81 have the honor to acknowledge
receipt of yours of the 18th instant, In
relation to the American ship Helen
Brewer, wherein you express the opin-
ion that an American vessel proceed
ing from Atlantic to Pacific ports in
the United States is not bound on a
foreign voyage, and also that a voyage
between New York. N. Y, and Homo.
lulu. Territory of Hawaii, does not
constitute a voyage between the AT.
lantic and Pacific ports OF the United
States
"In view of the opinion above refer
red to- will thank you for an opinion
relative to allowing drawback on coal
used for fuel on board steam vessels,
engaged in trade between this port
and my port on the Atlantic See
sections IL. 10 and 30, Act of July "a.
1897, paragraphs AIS of the Act above
cited. Articles 500 to SIS and 1906 to
1913. Customs Regulations of 1899,
Treasury Decision 22721, dated Jan.
f4th, 1901. And In this connection
your attention is particularly invited
to Treasury Decision 2771, wherein
the Circuit Court Of the United States
at Portland, Maine, has decided that,
for the purpose OF the statute, vessels
trading between an Atlantic and a
Pacific port are in the foreign trade
And also to Treasury Decision 1870,
where the Treasury Department has
decided That an American vessel pro.
ceeding from Atlantic to Pacific ports
| IN the United States Is bound on a
foreign voyage within the purricE
and for the purpose Of Section 1916
Revised Statutes"
Various Matters Involved.
In response thereto, | beg leave to
remark that while the real question
addressed to me relates to drawback,
yet your communication involves 9th
eT matters. Thus, your communiCa-
ton may be readily apprehended to
embrace three distinct subjects: first,
statement of what you assert to be
my opinion in the matter of the ship
|
relative to drawback; and, third, your
recurrence to the matter of foreign
voyages-a matter the closure of
which | had regarded as accomplish
ed so far as this Office is concerned.
1t may serve to disembarrass my re.
ply II clear the ground for the pres.
entation of my views concerning draw
back. by Offering one or two sugges.
tons concerning the first and third
Of the foregoing matters.
Opinion Misunderstood.
In your opening paragraph, you
state that in the matter of the shiT
Helen Brewer | expressed the opin
ion that an American vessel proceed
ing from Atlantic to Pacific ports In
the United States is not bound on Q
foreign voyage" The opinion express
ed by me in the matter referred tC
will be found in my communication ad
dressed to you upon that subject; but
your reproduction Of my opinion does
not commend itself to me as strictly
accurate. As phrased by you, this
statement of my opinion, | am bolt
enough to point out, is misleading
misleading in the sense in which {
ed from its appropriate context anC
peculiar setting. 1t was an observa
ton of Chief Justice Marshall tina
opinions should always be read anC
understood in the light of the specia
case made; and 1t is not, therefore
improper for me to point out that, II
the Helen Brewer opinion, | was no
dealing with IAN American vessel pro
ceeding from Atlantic to Pacific port
In the United States" as that phras,
has been currently understood; no
was | called upon to decide the ques
ton whether the voyages indicated b.
that phrase were foreign voyages.
My opinion in the Helen Brewer case
as you must have noticed, was couch
ed, not in the abstract, but in the con
crete; and its scope was, very oh
viously, intended to be limited to yes
sells voyaging from an Atlantic port
not to Pacific port, but to an insula
possession of the United States, whicI
insular possession, by the express an
pointed authority and command of tn
Treasury Department, was not onl
placed within the category of "coas
ing or coastwise trade" but was spC
officially, and In unamblguous terms
permitted and authorized to maintai
its trade with any part of the Unite
States in any one of three differen
classes OF vessels, namely, registere
vessels, or enrolled and licensed vel
sells (Treas. Girl. No. 62J. Is ther
any pretence that the Helen Brewc
Is not within one Of these tire
classes of vessels? Is there any PR
tence that the Helen Brewer is nc
an enrolled and licensed vessel! An
II she is, may she not claim the bel
efits and privileges wisely bestCwe
by Treasury Circular No. go? Tn
Collector of Customs at New York di
not regard her as about to depart a.
on foreign voyage" but cleared he
for this American port without re-
4 lister; is this practical interpret
y ton" to go for naught? The Suprem
Court of the United States, in III
case cited by me in my former OPT
ion, did not think so, and you wi
readily concede that ! should conti
ne to be guided by that Court, I'll
manifest truth Of the situation is thu
this is no mere question OF geograph
but one clearly of the correct Apr
hension and accurate application
/ the Acts OF Congress and Regulation
OF the Treasury Department.
Three Navigation Classes.
I'LL a