Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-02-20
Opinion on Drawback
AND OTHER MATTERS BY
Federal Attorney Dunno

sessions, therefore never entered the |
contemplation of Congress; and Con
gress clearly understood and applied
this phrase in its natural and obvious
meaning. Congressional legislation
affecting the outlying insular posses.
siOns of our Government is, indeed, OF
as extremely recent origin as the in.
sular possessions themselves, and Is
Of such tentative character, that Il
cannot reasonably be said that my
questioning attitude was wholly un.
justified.
That Maine Decision.
In the closing sentences of your
second paragraph. you do me the hon
or to remark: and in this Connec.
tion your attention is particularly in,
vited to Treasury Decision 277l,
wherein the Circuit Court OF the Unit.
ed States at Portland, Maine, has de.
cided that, for the purpose of the stat
ute, vessels trading between an Allan
tic and a Pacific port are in the for
eign trade
This remark might be dismissed
with the observation that the decision
to which you particularly invite my at
tention has already been considered
by Inc in my former communication
CU. S. VS.. Patten, % Fed. Cas-, case
No. 1907, pagei60). will add, how.
ever that II may he said concerning
United States VS.. Patten that in the
statute there considered there was no
enactment that trade between Allan.
tic and Pacific ports is generically
foreign trade, but there was an enact.
ment that vessels engaged in the for.
eign trade. including, for the purposes
OF that statute only, trade between At.
lantic and Pacific ports. shall have
certain benefits as to duties. So far
from this case holding that this stat.
ute supplies a general definition OF
foreign trade and coastwige trade. the
decision Is to the effect that the words
as used in the statute are not used in
their general Specification. On page
42i of the decision the use OF the
words Is discussed as follows:
. "Tho foreign trade in :Eo first clause
includes the trade between the Allan.
tic and Pacific ports of the United
States. The coastwise trade in the
' first proviso as clearly excludes those
= ports. The term foreign trade in the
first clause Is used in a sense broad.
er. and the term 'Coastwise trade in
' the proviso in a sense narrower than
, the literal meaning of these terms. "
= l. S. VS.. Patten, ! Holmes I24.
y The case, therefore, carefully con.
sidered is really an authority that
foreign trade" in its literal sense,
! does not include trade from the At.
lantic to the Pacific. and that coast
wise trade" in its literal sense, does
. include trade from the Atlantic to
i the Pacific. In other statutes, how
u ever. coasting trade and coastwise
r trade are used in their ordinary sig
Z MITIGATION, and some statutes specifi
a cally include trade between Atlantic
u and Pacific ports 60 nomine as coast
J. ing trade. Thus, the Act of June 3
U 1874 Us Stats. ca, provides that an
i act relating to shipping commission
5 ers shall not apply ito sail or steam
u vessels engaged In the cOastwisC
, trade, except the coastwise trade be
l. tween the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
And section 2999 U. S. h. s., provides
for the appointment of inspectors o
- the Customs with power to superin
y tend the landing or shipping of al
u merchandise passing COastwise be
y tween the ports of the United States
o. on the Pacific and Atlantic. And II
y the Netherlands Treaty, above cited
70 cOasting trade in the United States Il
- defined as "the trade between thei
~ ports on the Atlantic and their port
q on the Pacific" Trade between tn
" Atlantic and Pacific ports of the Unit
o. .. ed States may be a trade sui generis
;. 1t may be conditioned by eXceptiona
1 Ta I,,t . 10, a.
u less trade from one port of tn
United States to another port of tn
United States 1t is nevertheless
Is coasting or coastwise trade. II Seems
III therefore. that the commissioner q
n. navigation properly decided that tn
Of case of U. S. vs. Patten Il Holmes 4:
Id and 4. d. 2771 and others) had notl
Is ing to do with the pending questio
a. IT. ID. 222S2). There is indeed, n
nc prohibition Of which | am awaT
Is against a registered American vesst
ed engaging in the COastwise trade, but
So licensed vessel Is prohibited unde
" penalty of forfeiture from going on
ey foreign voyage; and II may be tha
nc this thought was in the mind of tn
ce Secretary of the Treasury when h
ed promulgated the rule of May Sd, 1900
y "Trade between the United States an
he Hawai- will be carried on in registe
re- ed or enrolled and licensed or liCen
st ed vessels of the United States only
Is T. ID. 222Ol, r. d. CLOG.
Iy' Treasury Decision 1881 was deciI
ay ed on August 4th, 1898, immediatel
be after the annexation of these Island
at and long before the rulings of the Il
fic sular Cases. While 1t speaks Of III
he waiian ports as foreign ports" "
~ the ratio deCidendi of the opinion {
OF the Attorney General was based upo
ce the theory that the former relation
or between Hawaii and the United State
cy should be treated as subsisting f
he commercial purposes until Congress
&C. should determine what their exact o
ar ganic relations were to be. Under I
ng circumstances could this Treasury d
IN cislOn be regarded as authoritative
IN transactions occurring after Congress
10 In fact acted; II could only be rogar
es' ed as controlling in commercial tran
m actions originating antecedently to Il
sts adoption of the Organic Act. 81
'es when Congress did act, long anterlt
gin to the departure of the Helen Brew
no from New York, 1t not only dissipat'
'se the idea that Hawaiian ports a
ny foreign ports" but also distinct
4