an amicable solution of the differences which have unfortunately arisen between the two governments on the construction of the provisions of the treaties which regulate the rights of the United States fishermen on the coast of Newfoundland. In the first place, I desire that there should be no possibility of misconception as to the views entertained by Her Majesty's Government respecting the conduct of the Newfoundland fishermen in violently interfering with the United States fishermen, and destroying or damaging some of their nets. Her Majesty's Government have no hesitation in admitting that this proceeding was quite indefensible, and is much to. be regre:ted. No sense of injury to their rights, however well founded, could, under the circumstances, justify the British fishermen in taking the law into their own hands and committing acts of violence, but I will revert by and by to this feature in the case, and will now proceed to the important question raised in this controversy, whether, under the treaty of Washington, the United States fishermen are bound to observe the fishery regulations of Newfoundland in common with British subjects. Without entering into any lengthy discussion on this point, I feel bound to state that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the clause in the treaty of Washington which provides that the citizens of the United States shall be entitled, "in common with British subjects," to fish in Newfoundland waters within the limits of British sovereignty, means that the American and British fishermen shall fish in these waters upon terms of equality, and not that there shall be an exemption of American fishermen from any reasonable regulations to which British fishermen are subject. Her Majesty's Government entirely concur in Mr. Marcy's circular of the 28th of March, 1856. The principle therein laid down appears to them perfectly sound, and as applicable to the fishery provisions of the treaty of Washington as those of the treaty which Mr. Marcy had in view. They cannot, therefore, admit the accuracy of the opinion expressed in Mr. Evarts's letter to Mr. Welsh, of the 28th of September, 1878, "that the fishery rights of the United States conceded by the treaty of Wash ington are to be exercised wholly free from the restraints and regulations of the statutes of Newfoundland," if by that opinion anything inconsistent with Mr. Marcy's principle is really intended. Her Majesty's Government, however, fully admit that if any such local statutes could be shown to be inconsistent with the express stipulations, or even with the spirit of the treaty, they would not be within the category of those reasonable regulations by which American (in common with British) fishermen ought to be bound, and they observe, on the other hand, with much satisfaction, that Mr. Evarts, at the close of his letter to Mr. Welsh, of the 1st of August, 1879, after expressing regret at "the conflict of interests which the exercise of the treaty privileges enjoyed by the United States appears to have developed," expressed himself as follows: "There is no intention on the part of this [the United States] government that these privileges should be abused, and no desire that their full and free enjoyment should harm the colonial fishermen. "While the differing interests and methods of the shore fishery and the vessel fishery make it impossible that the regulation of the one should be entirely given to the other, yet if the mutual obligations of the treaty of 1871 are to be maintained, the United States Government would gladly co-operate with the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in any effort to make those regulations a matter of reciprocal convenience and right, a means of preserving the fisheries at their highest point of production, and of conciliating a community of interest by a just proportion of advantages and profits." Her Majesty's Government do not interpret these expressions in any sense derogatory to the sovereign authority of Great Britain in the territorial waters of Newfoundland, by which only regulations having the force of law within those waters can be made. So regarding the proposal, they are pleased not only to recognize in it an indication that the desire of Her Majesty's Government to arrive at a friendly and speedy settlement of this question is fully reciprocated by the Government of the United States, but also to discern in it the basis of a practical settlement of the difficulty, and I have the honor to request that you will inform Mr. Evarts that Her Majesty's Government, with a view to avoiding further discussion and future misunderstandings, are quité willing to confer with the Government of the United States respecting the establishment of regulations under which the subjects of both parties to the treaty of Washington shall have the full and equal enjoyment of any fishery which, under that treaty, is to be used in common. The duty of enacting and enforcing such regulations, when agreed upon, would of course rest with the power having the sovereignty of the shore and waters in each case. As regards the claim of the United States fishermen to compensation for the injuries and losses which they are alleged to have sustained in consequence of the violent obstruction which they encountered from British fishermen at Fortune Bay on the occasion referred to, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government are quite willing that they should be indemnified for any injuries and losses which, upon a joint inquiry, may be found to have been sustained by them, and in respect of which they are reasonably entitled to compensation; but on this point I have to observe that a claim is put for ward by them for the loss of fish which had been caught, or which, but for the interference of the British fishermen, might have been caught by means of strand fishing, a mode of fishing to which, under the treaty of Washington, they were not entitled to resort. The prosecution by them of the strand fishery being clearly in excess of their treaty privileges, Her Majesty's Government cannot doubt that, on further consideration, the United States Government will not be disposed to support a claim in respect of the loss of the fish which they had caught or might have caught by that process. I have, &c., GRANVILLE. No. 85.] HAWAII. No. 377. Mr. Comly to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Honolulu, November 24, 1879. (Received December 10.) SIR: I have the honor of transmitting the concluding correspondence with the Hawaiian foreign office upon the subject of tariff on cotton clothing, showing that the Hawaiian Government has accepted the interpretation of Treasury experts and the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, and has ordered that duties shall not hereafter be levied upon cotton clothing, the same being the growth, manufacture, and produce of the United States. SIR: In a note dated May 2, 1879, I had the honor to call your excellency's attention to the question whether the customs officers of His Majesty had properly construed a certain article in the reciprocity treaty, in collecting a tariff upon all cotton goods when manufactured into clothing, the same being the growth, manufacture, and produce of the United States. In a reply dated June 9, your excellency having stated the grounds of the decision, with an inclosure from the collector-general elaborating his views and reciting his instructions, you thereupon express a desire to have the opinion and interpretation of the Treasury experts at Washington, "His Majesty's Government wishing to give the reciprocity treaty the most liberal interpretation." In compliance with the desire so expressed, I forwarded copies of all notes, dispatches, and inclosures of the correspondence to the honorable William M. Evarts, Secretary of State, under date of June 9, 1879. I have the honor now to transmit to your excellency a letter from the Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, with inclosure, giving it as the opinion of the Treasury Department, upon unanimous advice of its experts at the most important ports, that "ready-made clothing of cotton is entitled to admission free of duty into the Hawaiian Islands, under the treaty mentioned." I need not recite the facts and arguments which have led to this interpretation, further than to say that they are based mainly upon an expert interpretation of the terms used in the treaty. I simply desire to call your excellency's attention to the fact that a judicial interpretation of the treaty, according to the rules and maxims of the courts, would be no less conclusive as to the meaning of the phrase "cotton and manufactures of cotton." The collector-general in his communication, a copy of which was inclosed in your reply of June 9 before mentioned, argues that "although the words other than when ready-made clothing' were not expressed here, as in regard to wool and manufactures of wool or textile manufactures, still such was the understanding and intention," &c., and his reasoning seems to be that because "other than when ready-made clothing" is expressed in the two clauses, it must be taken to be implied as to the other clause, he "can see no reason why cotton clothing should be admitted free and all others made dutiable.' Now, it seems to me that the reason (or one reason) why cotton clothing should be admitted free and the other made dutiable is that "the other" is expressly excepted from the free list, while cotton clothing is not. The rule of interpretation has been for ages, expressum facit cessare tacitum, exactly the reverse of that relied upon by the collector-general. Cordially reciprocating your excellency's aspirations for liberality and frankness in the mutual relations between the two nations we have the honor to represent, and renewing the assurances of my high consideration and respect, i am, &c., Inclosure 2 in No. 85.] Mr. Kapena to Mr. Comly. JAMES M. COMLY. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SIR: I now beg to reply to your dispatch of the 11th instant, acknowledged on the 13th, regarding the tariff levied at our custom-house upon cotton goods when manufactured into clothing, the same being the growth, manufacture or produce of the United States. Your excellency alludes to a dispatch from this department which was accompanied by an inclosure from the collector-general of this country, giving his reasons for levying the duty. In that dispatch it was stated that His Majesty's Government would be glad to have the opinion and interpretation of the Treasury experts at Washington on the question, and you are likewise assured that His Majesty's Government desire to give the reciprocity treaty a most liberal interpretation. Your dispatch of the 11th instant was accompanied by a copy of a dispatch from the honorable Secretary of the Treasury of the United States to the honorable Secretary of State, dated the 17th of September; and likewise a copy of a letter from the appraiser of the custom-house at Boston dated the 11th of September. By these dispatches His Majesty's Government is glad to learn that the views and reasons expressed by our collector-general have received a kindly and candid consideration, and inasmuch as, after deliberately weighing the subject in a spirit of fairness and candor, the honorable Secretary of the Treasury of the United States has reached the conclusion that "cotton goods when manufactured into clothing" should not be subjected to duty in this country under the provision of Article II of the reciprocity treaty, I hasten to assure your excellency that His Majesty's Government accepts the interpretation thus placed on Article II, and that duties will hereafter not be levied upon "cotton goods when manufactured into clothing, the same being the growth, manufacture or produce of the United States." Renewing the assurances of my highest respect and consideration, [Inclosure 3 in No. 85.] Official notice from the collector-general. [From the official publications.] JNO. M. KAPENA. COLLECTOR-GENERAL'S OFFICE, By order of his excellency the minister of finance, from and after this date all cotton goods, when manufactured into clothing, the same being the growth, manufacture, or produce of the United States, will be admitted free under the provisions of the reciprocity treaty. W. F. ALLEN, No. 86.] -No. 378. Mr. Comly to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Honolulu, December 22, 1879. (Received January 23, 1880.) SIR: I have the honor to inform you that after correspondence between the Hawaiian foreign office and this legation, and no legal impediment being found to exist, the following American schooners have been registered under the Hawaiian flag: C. M. Ward, General Harney, Joseph Woolley. I have, &c., No. 379. JAMES M. COMLY. No. 87.] Mr. Comly to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Honolulu, December 22, 1879. (Received January 23.) SIR: I have the honor to inform you that the bark Kalakaua, late Mary Belle Roberts, has been again seized and libeled for smuggling opium, and the chief justice in chambers ordered her confiscation and sale. The Kalakaua is now under the Hawaiian flag, but is owned by J. C. Merrill, San Francisco. No conviction for smuggling-no charge even-has been made in court against any officer or person connected with the bark. The bark itself is convicted of smuggling and condemned, with no confederates of human kind. The case is one in which I have declined to interfere, as the bark is not under the American flag, though owned by an American citizen. The case has been appealed from chambers to supreme court, in banco, and after that there is no appeal, I believe, unless to the executive. I inclose documents which have been circulated among merchants here-a copy of which was furnished me by the master of the Kalakaua. The notes and marks upon these were not made by me. I have, &c., JAMES M. COMLY. [Inclosure in No. 87.] [From the Pacific Commercial Advertiser, Saturday, December 13.] Supreme court. In admiralty. Opinion of the court. In the matter of the bark Kalakaua. The libel in this case, which is filed by the collector-general of customs, asks that the bark Kalakaua, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with 36 tins of opium, containing about 34 pounds of opium each, be condemned as forfeited to the use of the Hawaiian Government, because that, on or about the 2d day of this present month of November, the said 36 tins of opium were smuggled into this country on board the said bark. At the hearing, objection was raised that opium could not be smuggled into the country because that its importation was prohibited by law, except by the board of health. But this objection being overruled, as having been decided in previous cases, and especially in the case of The King vs. H. Bradly, the case proceeded. J. S. Walker, of the firm of W. G. Irwin & Co., appeared as claimant for the bark, alleging that he was owner on her register, but that the real owner was J. C. Merrill, of the city of San Francisco, State of California; and thereupon Mr. Walker puts in an answer to the libel, admitting that the 36 tins of opium were brought to this port by the said bark on her last trip, but averring that the same was shipped on board the bark by one or more Chinamen at San Francisco, who had artfully concealed the same in pieces of firewood, and shipped it as firewood only, without the knowledge of the owners, officers, or agents of said bark, that such firewood contained opium. George W. Jenks, master of the bark, likewise filed an answer, by which he admits that opium was brought into the kingdom, but says that it was concealed in firewood which was brought as freight, and that the firewood, to the amount of about 20 cords, was shipped on the bark at San Francisco, by one or more Chinamen, one of whom came as a passenger to Honolulu on the same trip, but the name of the Chinaman he has forgotten; and that the Chinaman paid freight on the firewood after its arrival in Honolulu, and further avers that until the discovery of the opium by the officers of the custom-house at Honolulu, he (the captain) had no suspicion that opium was concealed in the firewood. The mode of concealing the opium in the firewood, as was shown by sample in court, was by splitting the stick, and morticing a place in the stick large enough to contain the tin and then placing the tin in the mortice and fastening the pieces together by nails and glue. Mr. W. A. Markham, port-surveyor and custom-house guard, testified that the bark arrived on Sunday, the 2d day of this present month; that he went on board, asked the captain if he had any Chinese passengers; he said "Yes." Asked him if the Chinese had any freight; he said "No" which, it is argued, does not correspond with his averment in his answer, that a Chinese passenger aboard the ship brought it as freight. But the freight list is produced by which it appears that one Tongkee shipped 20 cords of firewood at $5.50 per cord, and Mr. Eldrich, a clerk at W. G. Irwin & Co.'s, testifies that a Chinaman, whom he had never seen before, called at their office, paid $125 for freight and wharfage; said his name was Tongkee, and demanded an order for the firewood, which he gave him. He asked him for a bill of lading; he answered he had none and showed no receipt; that the firewood was marked on the freight list, "No mark-no bill of lading," and that he took the Chinaman's word that he owned the wood and gave him the order. And it is a significant fact, as testified to by the collector-general, that in the list of passengers handed him by the captain there is but one Chinese passenger, as the captain, in his testimony, likewise says, and his name was Afong, and not Tongkee; and further, that a person came to enter the wood at the custom-house, who, being questioned, said that he did not own it, and that it was not consigned to him, but he knew who did, and thereupon was told to go and bring the consignee or owner, and no person ever after came to enter the wood at the custom-house. The firewood in question was stowed partly on deck, partly in the main-hatch, and the 36 sticks which contained the opium, which will be the subject of comment by and by, were used as dunnage for the cargo. The 20 cords of firewood were not included in the manifest. The captain, who was on the stand, was asked "why the firewood was not put on the manifest?" answered, "that he had no record of it, because there was no bill of lading of it," and being shown that it was on the freight list, answered, that he did not know whether the freight ist was opened on the voyage down or not," but upon reflection he added, "I looked at it on the voyage down to see the amount of my freight"; and being reminded that the firewood was on deck and within sight of all persons, replied that that was so; that he could not tell why he did not observe it, but simply that he had forgotten it. He further testified that the Chinaman to whom he understood the wood belonged was not entered as a passenger at the office at all, and for that reason his name was not on the passenger list from the office of the owners of the vessel, but he found him out coming down the bay of San Francisco, about twenty minutes after he left the wharf; that he told him that if he did not pay, he would have to go back on the tug-boat, and thereupon the Chinaman paid $20 and came along, and that he, the captain, had no knowledge that this Chinaman was the man that owned the wood until after his arrival at Honolulu, when he came from Messrs. Irwin & Co.'s office and brought his receipted bill. A. L. Ritchie testified that he is master of the bark D. C. Murray, but was mate of the Kalakaua, and in that capacity superintended her loading at San Francisco for her last trip down here; that the wood in question was brought by two Chinamen for 20 cords, more or less. [N. B.-It measures but 16 cords here in Honolulu.] That he did not measure it, but took the fellows' word for it; that it was not all hauled down |