Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-01-09
RESOLUTION IN congress TOOPEN
RECIPROCITY WIIHCUBA QUESTION
By C.. S. ALBERT.
Especial Star-BuI!stin Correspondence

!" NVIAESpohoNIfGGI
any tariff law of the United States
subsequently enacted.
1T viii be observed that this article
of the treaty gives all Cuban products
a preferential of 20 per cent below
existing or future tariff taxes fixed by
the United States.
This provision would take care OF
the subject II there was nothing else
in the treaty; but further on in the
treaty tobacco is exempted from this
provision, and with reference to sugar
it is declared that:
While this convention is in force
no sugar imported from the republic
of Cuba, and If the product of the soil
and industry OF the republic of Cuba,
shall be admitted into the United
States at a reduction of duty greater
than 20 per cent OF the rates of duty
thereon as provided by the tariff act
of the United States approved July
"a, 1897.
Thus 1t will be seen that this para
graph in the treaty expressly declares
that the 20 per cent reduction given
to sugar shall go no lower than 90 per
cent below the tariff schedule of 1897.
The pending bill makes no pro-
vision for a 20 per cent preferential
for Cuban sugar below our general 25
per cent reduction on sugar, and the
treaty and act of 1903 expressly de-
clares that sugar shall not have, CON-
ing from Cuba, a reduction of great
er than 30 per. cent from the act Of
1897.
Constituting, therefore, the two to-
gether. as we have the bill, while we
reduce sugar generally 25 per cent,
We are only reducing Cuban sugar S
per cent below the rate under which
it now comes in under existing law
between March l. 1914, and May l.,
1916, when sugar goes on the free
list. ..-.
Now. / know that this is not what
the house meant 20 do, and know
that II is not what the senate meant
to do. am making this Statement
after careful examination of the legal
questions involved, together with an
equally careful examination Of the
treaty and of the act of Congress Of
1903, and after careful consideration
of both of them In connection with the
Underwood bill. in the earnest hope
that the confefeese may correct this
ggsgsl k!s.a Il -, ii
Mr.. Hardwick was prompted to make
these remarks by reason of the con-
tention of Alonzo HOPKINS Stewart of
washington. counsel for certain tobae-
co trade publications, that the Under
wood bin unless amended would penal.
lie Cuban sugar and so result in the.
abrogation Of thes reciprocity treaty
with an attendant loss TO the Cuban
tobacco trade, M
In the closing Hours Of the consid-
GRAFTON of the bill by the house and
senate conferees an attempt was
made to correct the defect thus shown
oy attempting to abrogate the proviso
Of Article OF the treaty. Since the
passage OF the Underwood bill the SUI
gar and tobacco interests have been
subjecting that measure to the clos
EST scrutiny. They claim that in their
haste the conferees entirely forgot to
repeal the act of Congress giving eff
lect to the reciprocity treaty and. that
n the light Of the decision of the su-
oreme court in the case of the United
States VS.. the American Sugar Refin-
ng Company, decided May %, 1906,
202 U. s. reports, page 563, Congress
,ailed in its purpose to secure for Gu
"a reduction of 20 per cent of the
Underwood rates, q.
If this be true, it is claimed that
he Underwood bill only serves to give
he Cubans the years notice provided
or in the reciprocity treaty. 1t will
now be up to Cuba to signify whether
the is willing to continue to extend
from the United States a
preferential rate of from 25 to 40 per
,ent on about $65, 600. 900 of imports
while the United, States places sugar
IN the free list =.
In discussing the matter this even
ng Mr.. Stewart said:
Il have most carefully examined
he same in connection with the de-
,ision of the United States supreme
court in the case of q. S. vs.. Ameri-
an Sugar Refining Company UNITED
States 202, p. $500 and the decision of
he court of customs appeals in the
Cliff Paper Company VS.. the United
States, and l find a condition which
nay result very injuriously to the
obacco, trade as well as affecting su-
gar.
The section of the new tariff law
-elating to Cuban reciprocity is as
,ollows:
Section Alb. THAT nothing in this
act contained shall be SO construed as
o abrogate or in any manner impair
,r affect the provisions of the treaty
If commercial reciprocity concluded
the United States and the re-
public of Cuba on the 18th day of De
,ember, 1902, or the provisions of the
lct of Congress heretofore passed for
he execution of the same except as
o the proviso of article s Of said
reaty, which proviso is hereby abro-
;ated and repealed"
A careful reading shows that while
Congress proposed to abrogate the
,rovisO in article of the treaty
which proYiso is in the following