Page images
PDF
EPUB

graph 292, tariff of 1897, at $2.25 per gallon. The importers claimed that the merchandise was entitled to the benefits of the reciprocity treaty with France, and therefore dutiable at $1.75 per gallon under the provision of section 3. The protest states the rum was made in France from manufactured sugar cane from Martinique, a French possession. In a previous decision the board had held that brandy or other spirits imported from Martinique, a colony of France, are not entitled to the reduced rates of duty accorded to such merchandise produced in and exported from France by the terms of the reciprocity treaty. In line with that decision the board overruled the protest.

[Subinclosure 3—Translation.]

Mr. Chaple to Jr. Hawley.

HABANA, July 27, 1904. DEAR SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your courteous letter of May 28 last, and beg to say in reply that although the rice may not be a product of the l'nited States, if it undergoes a process of manufacture or elaboration before being exported to Cuba it will enjoy the benefits of the treaty

of reciprocieetfully

,

Respectfully, yours,

[blocks in formation]

The Acting Secretary of State to Minister Morgan.

No. 7.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, March 3, 1906. Sir: The department has received Mr. Sleeper's dispatch No. 1474, with inclosure, of the 20th ultimo, reporting the refusal of the Cuban Government to apply the benefit of the existing reciprocity treaty to a certain shipment and a contemplated further shipment of foreign-grown rice, milled in and exported, or to be exported, from the United States to Cuba, by the Seaboard Rice Milling Company, of Galveston, Tex.

This refusal by the Cuban Government to comply with the representations and request made by your legation in behalf of the exporting company, in pursuance of the department's instruction No. 589, of the 10th ultimo, is regarded as illfounded and is unsatisfactory, and you will on convenient occasion recur to the subject at the foreign office, with a view to ultimately securing for the rice in question the benefit of the reduced rate of the reciprocity treaty. I am, etc.,

ROBERT BACON.

Minister Morgan to the Secretary of State.

No. 32.]

AMERICAN LEGATION,

Habana, April 10, 1906. Sir: Referring to the department's No. 7, of March 3, in relation to the refusal of the Cuban Government to apply the benefit of the existing reciprocity treaty to a certain shipment of foreign-grown rice milled in the United States and exported to Cuba by the Seaboard Rice Milling Company, of Galveston, Tex., in which I am instructed on a convenient occasion to recur to the subject at the

foreign office with a view to ultimately securing for the rice in question the benefit of the reduced rate of the reciprocity treaty, I have the honor to report that the assumption by Mr. Fonts Sterling of the duties of the secretary of the Cuban treasury offers a suitable moment on which to reopen the subject. I propose, therefore, to address him in this matter through the secretary of state and to communicate his views to you in the immediate future. I have, etc.,

EDWIN V. MORGAN.

Minister Morgan to the Secretary of State.

[Extract.)

AMERICAN LEGATION, No. 116.]

Habana, July 6, 1906. Sir: Referring to my No. 32, of April 10, in which I inform you that in accordance with instruction No. 7, of March 3 last, and in view of the fact that Mr. Fonts Sterling had succeeded Gen. Ruis Rivera as the head of the Cuban treasury department, I proposed to renew the representations previously made to that department regarding the desirability of admitting to the benefits of the treaty of reciprocity rice of foreign origin milled in the United States and exported to Cuba, I have the honor to acquaint you that after careful consideration the new secretary of the Cuban treasury maintains the same opinion on this subject as that which his predecessor held, and declines to admit the justice of our contention.

In a memorandum handed me on the 3d instant, Mr. Fonts Sterling states that the rice in question can not be considered a product of the industry of the United States, and in support of his views cites a decision of the court of administrative appeal, confirmed by one which the supreme court rendered on May 19, in a case concerning foreign-grown coffee imported into Cuba ‘after having been roasted in the United States, brought by Galban & Co., of Matanzas, a Cuban firm, by which the provisions of treasury circular No. 325, of January 19, 1906, were sustained. In this circular the treasury department declares that it can not consider merchandise manufactured in the United States from raw material imported from abroad the product of American industry unless the same has undergone in the United States such a process as to transform it into an entirely different product, such, for instance, as wood made into furniture, or silk or wool manufactured into tissues, and that under no circumstances could the provisions of the reciprocity treaty be invoked when a product is subjected only to those operations which do not radically change its nature or the uses for which it is intended.

In view of this pronouncement, which is in accord not only with the results of correspondence, but of conversations, between the legation, the treasury and state department, and the President, it would appear that the Cuban Government at present is unwilling to admit American hulled rice of foreign origin to the advantages which the reciprocity treaty gives, and that this subject must be relegated for further consideration to the time when tariff concessions are mutually

granted in connection with recasting the existing commercial treaty between Cuba and the Unted States. Although as yet comparatively little rice is raised on this island, there is a desire to encourage its production, and the belief exists that if foreign rice cleaned in America be granted preferential rates the protection now enjoyed by this infant industry will be minimized.

I inclose in translation the memorandum of the secretary of the treasury referred to above, accompanied by a translation of circular No. 325, of January 19, 1906. I have, etc.,

EDWIN V. MORGAN.

[Inclosure.-Translation.)

REPUPLIC OF CUBA, TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

MEMORANDUM.

On February 14 last reply was officially made to the department of state and justice as to the extension of the benefits of the reciprocity treaty to rice of foreign origin milled in the United States and imported into this island, to the effect that, as sustained by that department, the said rice is not entitled to the treaty differential, inasmuch as it could not be considered a product of the soil or industry of the United States.

The reasons taken into account in not considering the rice in question a product of the industry of the United States are the same as those upon which circular No. 325, of January 19, 1905, is based; that is to say, that the grain in question has undergone no transformation such as to change its nature, but merely a manipulation that in no wise changes its essential condition nor the use for which intended.

The opinion has been confirmed by the court of administrative appeal of the Republic in hearing the appeal established by Messrs. Galban & Co. against the decision of this department in the case of coffee roasted in the United States and afterwards imported into Cuba, in which the court rendered its verdict on December 15, 1905.

The communication of February 14 above referred to, and which was transmitted to the State Department under No. 2319, has not yet been answered.

The Acting Secretary of State to Minister Morgan.

No. 47.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, July 14, 1906. Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 116, of the 6th instant, forwarding a copy of a memorandum of the Cuban treasury department declining to give to foreign rice cleaned in the United States the benefit of the reciprocity treaty.

In view of this categorical and apparently final refusal, the matter may be allowed to rest, subject to be taken up again in any future negotiations for the recasting of the reciprocal commercial arrangement of the United States and Cuba. I am, etc.,

ROBERT BACON.

TRADE-MARK CONVENTION BETWEEN CUBA AND FRANCE,

Minister Morgan to the Secretary of State.

No. 59.]

AMERICAN LEGATION,

Habana, May 5, 1906. SIR: I have the honor to transmit in original and translation the text of a convention between the Republics of France and Cuba regarding the protection of trade-marks and industrial property, which was ratified at Habana upon the 11th of April last by the duly accredited representatives of both nations. I have, etc.,

EDWIN V. MORGAN.

(Inclosure.--Translation.)

THOMAS ESTRADA PALMA, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA.

To the inhabitants thereof, be it knoun:

That on the 4th day of June, 1904, there was concluded and signed in the city of Habana, by duly authorized plenipotentiaries, a convention referring to the protection of industrial property between the Republic of Cuba and the French Republic, to wit:

The President of the Republic of Cuba and the President of the French Republic, desiring to facilitate the commercial relations between the two countries, have resolved to conclude a convention referring to industrial property, and have appointed for that purpose the following plenipotentiaries:

The President of the Republic of Cuba, Mr. Carlos de Zaldo, and Beurmann, secretary of state and justice; and

The President of the French Republic, Mr. Francois Edmond Bruwaert, minister resident of France at Habana, officer of the Legion of Honor; who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles:

ARTICLE I.

The citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall have in the territory of the other the same rights as the natives in respect to patents, designs, or industrial models, trade-marks, labels, samples, and trade names, as well as to names of places and statements of origin.

ARTICLE II.

To enjoy the protection guaranteed by the preceding article the persons subject to the jurisüiction of one and the other State shall not be obliged to establish their domicile, their residence, or a commercial house in the country wherein protection is claimed; but they shall fulfill the other conditions and formalities prescribed by the laws and regulations of that country.

ARTICLE III.

The present convention shall be applied in Cuba to trade-marks legally acquired in France by manufacturers and merchants using them; and reciprocally it shall be applied in France to trade-marks legally acquired in Cuba by manufacturers and merchants using them.

It is understood, however, that each of the two States reserves the right to refuse to register and to prohibit the use of any trade mark which is, by its nature, immoral or detrimental to public order or good manners.

ARTICLE IV.

Commercial names, firm names, and samples shall be protected in the two States even though unregistered.

ARTICLE V.

The act of placing or causing to be placed on an article a false statement of origin, indicating, directly or indirectly, as country or place of origin one of the contracting States or a place situated therein, shall be punished in accordance with the laws of each country.

If the case is not provided for by any law, it shall be subject to the regulations existing against the falsification of trade-marks.

ARTICLE VI.

The provisions contained in Articles III and V shall be enforced at the re quest of the Government or of the interested party, individual or firm, in accordance with the legislation of each State.

Every manufacturer, merchant, or producer, occupied in the manufacture, sale, or production of the article and established in the city, locality, region, or country falsely given as the place of origin, shall be considered an interested party.

The authorities shall not be obliged to effect the seizure during transit.

ARTICLE VII.

The present regulations shall not bebar the vender from placing his name and address on products originating in a different country from the one in which they are sold, but, in such case, the address or the name must be accompanied by an exact statement-in large letters of the country or of the place of manufacture or production.

ARTICLE VIII.

The courts of each country shall decide what kind of names are, on account of their generic character, as for instance, brandy, vermouth, and cologne water, to be excluded from the terms of the present convention. Statements as to districts of origin of wine products are not included, however, in the exception prescribed herein.

ARTICLE IX.

The present convention shall be ratified and the ratifications shall be exchanged in Habana immediately after the fulfillment of the formalities prescribed by the constitutional laws of the contracting States.

It shall be declared in force from the date of the aforesaid exchange and it shall remain in force until one of the two contracting parties shall have advised the other-six months in advance of its intention to terminate same.

In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed and sealed the present convention. Done at Habana, in two originals, June 4, 1904.

(Signed) CARLOS DE ZALDO. [L. S.) (Signed) EDMOND BRUWAERT. (L. 8.]

The preceding convention was approved by the Senate of the Republic of Cuba the 15th day of September, 1904.

And the ratifications were exchanged at this capital to-day.
Therefore I order its publication and that it be duly carried out.
Habana, April 11, 1906.

T. ESTRADA PALMA. JUAN F. O'FARRILL,

Secretary of State and Justice.

« PreviousContinue »