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

American port and foreign port or
between two foreign ports, trade which
is open to the world, is foreign trade;
and that trade between any two points
of the United States, wherever those
points may be, trade which is reserv-
ed exclusively for our vessels, and in
which foreign vessels cannot compete
or engage-is coasting or coastwise
trade. Coasting trade is trade carried
on between two points within the
same collection district of the United
States, or between two points within
different districts of the United States,
and not only in U. S. II. s., section
43i7, but also in all our treaties, we
find coasting trade distinguished as
that domestic trade from which for
eign vessels are eXcluded-we tnd
the exclusion of foreign vessels from
the carrying trade from one port of
the United States to another port of
the United States" fully recognized.
Authorities Quoted.
Austria. August "a, 1879 Article I.
Belgium, March s, 1875, Article 4.
Bolivia, May 13, 1858, Article ..
Brazil, Dec. ~, 1916, Article 2.
Columbia, Dec. ~, 1916, Article 3.
Costa Rica, July 10, 1851, Article 2.
Denmark, Aug. 10, 1926, Article 2.
Great Britain, list treaty, Article 10.
Great Britain. Commercial Treaty,
of 1915, Article 3.
Greece. Dec. 90, 1887. Article ).
Haiti, Nov. 3, 1864, Article IL.
Honduras. July 4, 1864, Article 2,
paragraph 3.
Italy, Feb. 26. 1871, Article I.
Japan, Nov. 22, 1894.
Mecklenburg.S chwerin, Article ?.
Netherlands, Aug. 26, 1852, Article 4.
Nicaragua, June 81, 1867, Article 2.
Peru, Aug. 81, 1887, Article I.
Prussia, May /, 1928, Article Z.
Russia. Dec. 49, 1882. Article I.
Sweden and Norway, July 4, 1891.
Article s.
And see, also, Steamboat Co. VS.
Livingston, 3 Cow. 747; Alameda ",
Neal, 32 Fed. Rep. 1888; Ravesieg VI,
U. s.. 81 Id. 447; Gibbons VS.. OsdCn,
. Wheat. PA.
II is thus plain that the common ar
gument that voyage to Hawaii is not
a coasting or coastwise voyage be-
Idubt uOl dlOub lllt 'OdoN VI 'iA' = III
ed States is futile. since coastins IaGo
Is not limited to vessels proceeding
along the coast of the United States
81 Stats. l.. al; Chap. $3.50, Sec. IS
April 80, 1900; 81 Stats. l.. 2i9 Chap
600. May 81, 1900; Treas. Dec. 5GlS
CLOG, 1859. 1864. 222O1, and 22232;
Bigley VS.. s. S. Co., 105 Fed. Rep. n,
Huns VS.. s. S. Co., 1872 u. s., insulal
case.
Opinion Not Expressed.
| You further assert in your opening
paragraph that | expressed the opin
ion that a voyage between
New York, n. Y. and Honolulu. Ter
ritory of Hawaii, does not constitut,
a voyage between the Atlantic AM
Pacific ports of the United States"
is quite true that, in my former com
munication. | adverteds in passing /,
this subject matter. but II is not en-
urely accurate to say that ] express
ed the opinion" which you claim ! di,
or indeed, that | expressed" an
opinion" whatever upon this subject
The language | employed ran thus:
Here and there scattered at inter
walls throughout the statutes, on
finds the phrase from a port on tn
Atlantic to a port on the PaCitic'-bu
| do not regard this phrase as OF an
importance at this juncture. | Que'
ton very much whether a passag
from New York in the United State
to Honolulu in the United States ca
be regarded as passage from POI
on the Atlantic to a port on the Pac
fic' in the sense in which this phras
Is employed in the Revised Statues
But, however that may be, ! do nc
regard the references in your repol
as throwing any light upon the res
question involved in this case"
Pacific Ports Defined.
II Is perfectly patent that there
. nothing here Of settled opinion BIT
merely that questioning mental col
dition so familiar to all members {
the bar. The impression in your min
seems to be that because Honolulu
an American port situated In the Pj
cific Ocean, therefore II Is "Pacif
port of the United States But
Manila a Pacific port Of the Unite
, States" or Guam, or Tutuila? \
difference in principle can he percei
ed between them and Honolulu; the
. are all American ports in the Pacif
Ocean; but, without doing violen,
to language, they cannot be describe
as Pacific ports of the United States
/ If the phrase Pacific ports of Il
| United States" Is not to be interpr
ted to mean ports on the Pacific Goa
, OF the United States, II the phrase
= to be so extended as to include outl
/, ing insular possessions, who shall 81
b. where the line of demarcation shall
I drawn? 1t must be remembered tn
| the phrase from Atlantic to Pacii
J. ports in the United States" Tin Il
4 sense in which this phrase is emplo
9 ed in the Revised Statutes" is not
| recent coinage, but occupied a pla
J. upon our statute books long anteri
r to the time when our national poll,
began to accommodate itself to Il
l. new conditions arising from the q
o QUESTION and government OF insul
@ possessions. When determlnil
l. whether the scope of this phrase,
4 view of these altered and novel co
/. dtiOns, should be so extended as
O include an outlying insular posse
/ sion, 1t is a simple and natural pri
:, ciple OF Interpretation which direC
,. ones attention to the Circumstanc
4 surrounding and qualifying the orig
3 and continued or habitual use OF q
phrase. But nowhere among the
circumstances can be perceived a
hNF IN Ni