B 53922 4 DuP : ARtCS P.'-nl;: ~ IiBRCijkY Vrl(nAS i i:: r JeLCSibPJLPB:~:::.:::.r:;::;::: '1.. gCL. :I~:~;~zf ::j\;:i:';~I;: '-.'I:';:;=::':I: :;';'':;'':::::~':! s ii TEIE GIFT OF U.S.GBJT f I — * UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION WASHINGTON b THE EFFECTS OF THE CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY OF 1902 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1929 o, 1 H F A/9c UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION Office: Eighth and E Streets NW., Washington, D. C. COMMISSIONERS THOMAS 0. MARVIN', Chairman. AiLmED P. DENNIS, Vice Chairman. EDGAR B. BRo. BOSARD. SHERMAN J. LOWELL. LINCOLN DIXON. FRANK CLARK. JOHN F. BErtIUNE, Secretary 3Z ERRATA Page 2, line 8 from bottom, the word weight should be height. Footnote 2, the word offsets should be offset. Page 17, line 3, has shown should be had shown. Page 28, line 6 from bottom should read "on the ground that that concession," etc. Page 38, line 9, Table 2 should be Table 102. Page 43, footnote 13, the last sentence "A misdeclaration of origin," etc., belongs at the end of footnote 15, page 44. Page 57, line 4 should read " revenue from imports." Page 66, line 4 should read "averaged 48 per cent." Table 12, calender should be calendar. Page 7S, line 9 should read "Compared with the,3-year prereciprocity average, the period 1921-22 to 1923-24, which are the last three fairly good years, shows a decline in output of 25 per cent; for the bad years," etc. Page 82, line 5 should read "less advantage over Cuban tobaccos," etc. Line 13 reference should be to Tables 16 and 17. Line 17 reference should be to Tables 131 and 132. Footnote 31, reference should be to Tables 126 to 130. Page 83, footnote 36, line 7, reference should be to Table 127. Page 99, line 3 above table should read "exports of manufactures," etc. Page 111, line 4 from bottom, has should be had. Page 113, line 12, the word import should be important. Page 121, line 11 from bottom, the word grow should be grew. Line 3 from bottom, semicolon should be comma. Page 126, footnote 30, line 5, reference should be to Table 133. Page 134, line 16, the word times should be items. Page 139, line 1 of text, Chapter VIII should be Chapter IX. Page 143, line 3 from bottom, Chapter VIII should be Chapter IX. Page 145, second paragraph, line 3, Chapter VIII should be Chapter IX. Page 146, line 14, equivalent should be equivalents. Page 150, line 9, olemargarine should be oleomargarine. Page 175, signature should read "Tasker H. Bliss." Page 220, footnote 1 should read simply General imports. Page 230, there should be a subhead to table reading " Table 131. —Leaf tobacco." 10038-29 I z= z <w:AH ~t.J id 3. tS;!,aF + ei l.:S tL nh ya.0 0 AjAj.., jiFNb efv PREFACE In 1919 the Tariff Commission published a report on reciprocity and commercial treaties. It reviewed the experiences of the United States in this field and contained a section upon the treaty of commercial reciprocity between the United States and Cuba, signed in 1902 and effective on December 27, 1903. The reciprocity treaty with Cuba is the only one to which the United States is now a party, and an understanding of its operation is particularly valuable. Also, suggestions have not been wanting that the treaty should be revised. Such suggestions made the study of interest to the Secretary of State, and, in fact, at his request the preliminary results were transmitted to him in 1926 and early in 1928 the manuscript was made available to him substantially in its present form. The importance of the subject led the commission to undertake not merely bringing up to date the older study of the effects of the treaty but a reexamination of the whole matter in much greater detail and with special attention to the effects upon the export trade of the United States. Questionnaires were sent out at the end of 1922, and the compilation and analysis of the immense amount of statistical data here presented were begun late in 1924. The report is necessarily statistical and of considerable length, but the summary and the subheads preceding and within the chapters make the contents readily available. While it is too much to hope that a work of this magnitude is entirely free from errors, the commission presents it as a contribution to the understanding of the economic relations between the United States and Cuba, as a contribution to methods of studying the effects of preferential tariffs, and as a proof of the necessity of detailed investigation to establish the facts in the complex field presented by the tariff. As an introduction to the analysis of the effects of the reciprocity treaty, this report begins with a brief account of the negotiation of the treaty and a statement of its terms. The origin and progress of the movement for reciprocity with Cuba up to the negotiation of the treaty are detailed in Appendix V. In the preparation of this report the Tariff Commission had the services of Anthony B. Kenkel, Benjamin B. Wallace, and others. aII f 1: i CONTENTS Pag Chapter I. Summary and conclusions --------------- 1 II. The commercial convention with Cuba ---------- 27 III. Trade falling within the scope of the treaty ----- 37 IV. Comparison of the breadth of the concessions made by Cuba and by the United States - -- ------ -- 45 V. Comparative amounts of revenue nominally sacrificed by the two countries --- —-------------- 51 VI. The effects of reciprocity upon Cuba's exports ----- - 59 VII. Effects of reciprocity on trade: Total United States exports to Cuba 93 VIII. Effects of reciprocity on trade: Cuban imports by commodity groups --- —--------------------- 107 IX. Effects of reciprocity on trade: Cuban imports from the United States, by preferential groups and by competitive classes 117 cass — -- -— 'I ---; --- —------- X. Effects of reciprocity on trade: Ad valorem equivalents of Cuba's concessions, by groups and by articles 139 XI. Investments in Cuba 166 Appendix I. Text of the reciprocity treaty — 172 Cuban regulations of December 19, 1903. -176 'II. The Cuban surtaxes of February 1, 1904 — 178 III. Translation of the sugar defense law of Cuba — 184 IV. Statistical tables ------- ---- 189 V. The movement for reciprocity with Cuba, up to the negotiation of the treaty 373 VI. Documents and notes relating to the history of the reciprocity movement -- 421 v I I; CHAPTER I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONST Introduction —the reciprocity treaty --- — --- --------- 1 Exclusive nature of the treaty --- —-- 2 Political relations with Cuba -..-. ---. --- —--- ---- ---------- 3 American investments in Cuba- -- ------ ---- —. --- 3 Methods of analysis and general effects of the treaty. ----- 4 Comparative amounts of export trade falling within the scope f the -— treaty --- ------------------ --------- 4.-Comparative breadth of the concessions made by the two dounties.-: Compaative amounts of revenue sacrificed by the two countries,.&,,6 The final test: Additional profits and increased exports,-_ - 8 Additional profits to Cuban producers but not to American manufacturers 9 Effects of rciprocityupn Cuban's exports to the United States: DIrect eects - ^_ i. --- ----- _ ------ 11 Indirect effects of reciprocity in stimulating Cuba's exports.-..... 13 Effects of reciprocity upon United States exports to Cuba --- ----, 14 The development of United States export trade to countries other than Cuba - - 15 Imports into Cuba by commodity groups -— 16 Imports into Cuba divided into preferential groups -_. ----. 16 Cuban imports further divided into competitive classes _ _ —_ 17 Changesin the composition of Cuba's imports --- ---- 18 Ad valorem equivalents of Cuba's concessions, by groups- --- 18 Ad valorem equivalents of Cuba's concessions, by articles-19 Present value of the reciprocity treaty to Cuba --- ------ 21 Present value of the reciprocity treaty to the United States 24 INTRODUCTION-THE RECIPROCITY TREATY The United States and Cuba negotited their treaty of commercial reciprocity in 1902 and it became effective on December 27, 1903. The treaty specified no fixed or " bound " rates. It left both parties free to change their tariff rates at will, with the single exception that neither might later impose duties upon products of the other then entering free of duty. loth sides granted concessions as percentages of reduction from existing or future tariff rates upon products of other countries. The treaty thus affected, nominally at least, all trade in both directions except only articles on the free list and, by special exeption, imports of tobacco into Cuba.1 The United States conceded 20 per cent of its tariff rates. This affected chiefly sugar and tobacco, but also molasses, fresh fruits and vegetables, iron ore (to 1913), and sponges. On the free list, and hence nonpreferertial, were or are:. Copper ore, iron ore (from 1918 o), bananas, cattle hides, and lesser items. On the other hand, manganese ore, crushed stone, coconuts, alligator pears and certain other fruits, certain vegetables, and logs of mahogany, of Spanish cedar 1See A1j:penX I,p. 172,for tet of the treaty. ' l: fl.:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY and of lignum-vitse were and are now free, if the product of Cuba, though they are now dutiable if imported from any country other than Cuba. Cuba's chief concession was likewise 20 per cent of her tariff rates, a concession which affected nearly one-half of the total imports from the United States as shown by the figures for 1905, and greater fractions later. Cuba also made larger concessions, namely, 25, 30, and 40 per cent upon articles enumerated in the treaty. These greater concessions were made for two reasons. Upon some articles the United States enjoyed so large a share of the trade that the concession could not be expected materially to increase that share, but it was hoped that a reduction of duty would stimulate consumption.2 With respect to other articles, European manufacturers had such obvious advantages in the Cuban market that a concession of 20 per cent was expected to be totally ineffective in enabling American manufacturers to share the market. Since the concession made by the United States was considered likely to prove advantageous to practically the whole of Cuba's exports to the United States, it was recognized as only fair that Cuba should increase her concessions beyond 20 per cent to points at which American manufacturers of the two classes of articles just mentioned might be expected to obtain some benefit from them.3 The chief articles upon which Cuba conceded a reduction of duty of 20 per cent were: Machinery and apparatus, lard, vehicles, meats and meat products, fruits and vegetables, wood and manufactures of wood, petroleum and petroleum products, condensed milk, eggs, hides, skins, and leather, cereals and manufactures of flour, vegetable and animal oils, copper and copper products, sugar bags, chemical fertilizers and cement. The reduction of 25 per cent covered iron and steel products (except machinery and cutlery), glassware (except window glass), salted, pickled, and preserved fish, and earthen and stone ware. The chief reductions of 30 per cent were on cotton and cotton goods (except knit), boots and shoes, wheat flour, chemicals, corn and corn meal, paper, cardboard, pharmaceutical products, colors and dyes, linen goods, soap, butter, and canned vegetables. Reductions of 40 per cent were granted to cotton knit goods, wool and wool manufactures, rice, perfumes and essences, fine soaps, preserved fruits, silk and silk manufactures, and cheese. Cuba's free or nonpreferential list included pine lumber, coal and coke, agricultural implements, barbed wire, livestock above standard weight for breeding purposes, and cheesecloth. Exclusive nature of the treaty.-The reciprocity treaty provides that the rates of duty reciprocally granted thereunder are to be preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries." This provision has given the treaty an exclusive character not usually found in agreements between independent nations. In the case of Faber v. United States the United States Government did not contest the claim that the treaty entitled imports of alcohol from Cuba alBut see p. 7, for Cuba's tariff revision of 1904, which largely offsets the reductions accordedc by the treaty. a See also p. 5. on the relative size of the concessions by the two countries when measured in ad valorem terms. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 3 to treatment preferential in respect of imports from those European countries to which tariff concessions had been made in the argol agreements. Because of the Government's attitude the court rendered no decision upon this question, but gave judgment in favor of the importer. Political relations with Cuba.-Concurrently with the reciprocity treaty a political agreement with Cuba was under consideration. American interest in the maintenance of Cuban independence had been affirmed by the United States in the Platt amendment and was recognized by the Cuban Constitutional Convention as early as February, 1901. This policy was incorporated in the Cuban constitution as promulgated May 20, 1902, and was confirmed by the political treaty with the United States, proclaimed July 2, 1904. By the constitution and the treaty Cuba consented that " the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, [and] the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, * * *." At the end of the revolution of 1895-1898 Cuba's tangible wealth had been largely destroyed, and following the Spanish reverses much capital was withdrawn by retiring Spanish nationals. Confidence in Cuba's future was revived by the assumption of control, on the part of the United States, as trustee for an independent Cuba, and by the establishment of a provisional American military government. This military government, it was understood, was only temporary; potential investors in the reconstruction of Cuba and the further development of its resources therefore welcomed the assurance of stability that was carried by the political treaty between Cuba and the United States. American investments in Cuba.-American investments in Cuba before the termination of Spanish sovereignty were substantial as compared with other non-Spanish capital. It is estimated that as early as 1895, $50,000,000 of American capital had been invested in Cuba, mostly in sugar properties and iron and manganese mines. British investments at that time are estimated to have been equally large and were principally in railways. During the first American provisional government of Cuba, American investments there were probably increased by not more than $30,000,000. Closely following the establishment of the Cuban national government, between 1902 and 1906, American investments increased from about $80,000,000 to nearly $120,000,000, of which about threefourths was in sugar, tobacco, railways, and street railways. Meanwhile, British investments also expanded to about $100,000,000, mainly in railways, and other countries were likewise increasing their investments. By 1912 American investments in Cuba, including $30,000,000 of Cuban Government obligations, had grown to $220,000,000, of which about $75,000,000 was in sugar, tobacco, and other agriculture, and $45,000,000 in railways, street railways, and public utilities. British investments were estimated at about $160,000,000. A current estimate 4 places American investments in Cuba at about one and one-half billions of dollars, of which $800,000,000 is in sugar 4 Finance and Investment Division, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, U. S. Dept. of Commerce. 4 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TRLEATY properties, $120,000,000 in railways, $110,000,000 in public utilities, $109,000,000 in Government loans, $50,000,000 in tobacco, $50,000,000 in manufacturing, $40,000,000 in merchandising, and the remainder in agricultural, mining, banking, and other enterprises. METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND GENERAL EFFECTS OF THE TREATY The present study has been made with the object of ascertaining what benefits have accrued to the contracting parties from the reciprocity treaty. An inquiry of this sort leads almost inevitably to a comparison of the benefits derived by the respective parties to the treaty. Several different measures of benefit have been employed in analyzing this problem. No one of them if applied alone will furnish an adequate answer to the questions raised. But by using each in turn and comparing the results obtained a reasonably satisfactory solution of the problem may be reached. The most obvious criteria of benefit from a reciprocity treaty, and hence the ones to which attention is first given, are (1) the value of the trade upon which each side makes concessions (Ch. III), (2) the amount of the concessions upon different items (Ch. IV), and (3) the total customs revenue remitted (Ch. V). It will appear, however, that data upon these points are quite inadequate for our purposes; the chief effects of the treaty and the chief measure of its value must be sought in the stimulus which it gave to trade and in the increased profits which it brought to producers for exportation. These are examined at length in Chapters VI to X, inclusive. The reciprocity treaty between the United States and Cuba has been in effect 25 years, long enough for a study of its effects upon trade to yield significant results. But the abnormal conditions prevailing during the war and for several years thereafter are disturbing factors, hence only incidental attention has been given to this period. The tables have indeed been carried through the abnormal years, but, particularly in regard to the stimulation of trade, attention is centered on the immediate effects of the treaty, though not to the exclusion of observations upon the changes between 1902-3 and 1922-1925. Comparative amounts of export trade falling within the scope of the treaty.-The treaty reductions have been applicable to the whole dutiable trade in both directions, except only imports of tobacco into Cuba.5 When the treaty was negotiated, imports of Cuban merchandise into the United States averaged $43,300,000, while imports into Cuba of goods fromu the United States 6 were only $28,400,000, or less by $14,900,000. That is, Cuba offered a market for 65.6 per cent of the value of Cuban products bought by the United States. After the treaty went into effect. the disproportion between the two figures increased. Averages for the years 1904-1909,7 and 1910-1914 show s See Ch. III for a qualification concerning nonpreferential imports into Cuba (that is, articles not the product of the soil or industry of the United States), and Ch. VI, p. 73, and Table 124, for imports into the United States exported with benefit of drawback. r Unless otherwise specified. Porto Rico is included in the trade figures because of the relative significance of its coffee trade with Cuba. References to years, in connection with trade figures or duties collected, refer to fiscal years nded June 30, through the fiscal year 1918; thereafter they refer to calendar years. Figures for the latter half of the calendar year 1918 are usually Indicated as 1918 (6 mnonhb. '. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5 that the balance of trade as measured by the ratio of Cuban imports from the United States to United States imports from Cuba was "favorable " to Cuba by $46,700,000 and $56,900,000, the ratios being 49 and 53 per cent, respectively. In 1919-1921 Cuban imports from the United States amounted to $317,900,000, a figure equal to 70 per cent of the $456,900,000 of the United States imports from Cuba. But in 1922-1925 the relative disparity between the two was as large as in the last pre-war period, the ratio being 54 per cent with an average annual balance of $144,000,000 in favor of Cuba. The free lists of the United States tariff acts of 1897 and 1909 included only a few important products exported from Cuba and only about 3.9 per cent of the United States imports from Cuba in 1905 and 3.6 per cent in 1911 were outside the scope of the preference. The tariff act of 1913 put iron ore and iron and steel scrap on the free list, but in 1914 free, and therefore nonpreferential, imports from Cuba still constituted only 6 per cent of the total. The tariff act of 1922 increased the list of articles entitled to preference, making dutiable several articles previously on the free list. In 1922 only 3 per cent of all imports from Cuba failed to receive a preference. On the other hand, Cuba's free list has been and is relatively extensive. Tobacco is also nonpreferential. Accordingly, in 1905, 16.4 per cent; in 1914, 10.5 per cent; and in 1923, 6.4 per cent of Cuba's total imports from the United States failed to receive preference under the treaty. At the initiation of the treaty, therefore, and during its entire operation, Cuba exported to the United States a greater value of products than she imported from the United States, and imports into the United States from Cuba received the benefit of preferential rates in larger proportion than imports into Cuba from the United States. Comparative breadth of the concessions made by the two countries.A tariff concession may apply to a great amount of trade and yet may be relatively unimportant because the concession upon each component part of the trade is too slight to be significant. The amounts, therefore, by which the reciprocity treaty reduced the respective tariff rates have been examined. If the total value of the trade affected may be considered the extent or length of the concession, the amount of the reductions in the tariff rates may be considered the breadth of the concession. The treaty fixes the breadth of the concessions at 20 per cent of the full rates of the United States tariff and at from 20 to 40 per cent of the full rates of Cuba's tariff. But as the two tariffs are neither equal nor equivalent, the simple comparison in this form is inadequate. Forty per cent of a low rate of duty may constitute a differential which is too small to have any observable effect upon trade, and a 20 per cent reduction from a rate more than twice as high may have the greater effect. Again, any reduction of the rate upon a standard commodity, such as sugar or flour, is likely to prove of much greater importance than an equal reduction in equivalent rates upon articles not so standardized. Here, as in other tariff problems, the final test is an examination of the trade item by item considering many factors other than the tariff. Since the figures show that the ad valorem equivalent of the Cuban duties collected upon United States products in 1905 was 22.48 6 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY per cent and the reduction conceded was 7.16 per cent ad valorem, the full duty (including surtaxes) would have averaged 29.64 per cent ad valorem. Detailed tabulations show that Cuba's total tariff reduction (revenue nominally sacrificed) amounted in 1905 to 7.16 per cent of the value of the dutiable imports from the United States. That is, the reductions of 20, 25, 30, and 40 per cent of the full duty were equivalent to a weighted average reduction of 7.16 per cent ad valorem. Two factors, however, combined to reduce this ad valorem equivalent in later years. First, specific duties-and most of Cuba's are specific-tend during a period of rising prices to show lower and lower ad valorem equivalents and second, there has been relatively more rapid development of exports from the United States to Cuba upon which the ad valorem equivalent of the reduction is comparatively low. Accordingly, in 1914 the average reduction in Cuba upon dutiable imports from the United States was 5.77 per cent and in 1923 only 4.62 per cent ad valorem. On the other hand, the 20 per cent reduction accorded by the United States to Cuban products was equivalent in the same three years to 11.84 per cent, 14.07 per cent, and 9 per cent ad valorem, respectively. These percentages were dominated by changes in the American specific tariff rates upon sugar and by notable changes in the price of sugar, and were, therefore, subject to much greater variation than the ad valorem equivalent of the average reduction upon imports into Cuba, where no one product played a dominant role. The Cuban reductions in duties on American goods were 20, 25, 30, and 40 per cent. The last three, however, especially the 40 per cent group, were of comparatively small weight in raising the average, since a weighted average of the Cuban reductions, based on the trade of the year 1905, shows that the uniform reduction of 20 per cent of the United States tariff rates was met by reductions which averaged 24.2 per cent of Cuba's tariff rates. This percentage has remained substantially unchanged. Comparative amounts of revenue sacrificed by the two countries.-A comparison between the amounts of revenue sacrificed by two Gov. ernments in consenting to a reciprocity treaty has frequently been used as a test of the relative advantage to the one side or the other. Negotiators of treaties have estimated how much less revenue their governments would have received had the rates proposed been in effect during the last year for which trade figures were available. Students of reciprocity treaties and of preferential colonial tariffs have estimated how much greater would have been the revenue collected by the two governments had the general or maximum rates been applied, during a given period. to imports upon which the conventional or lower rates of duty were collected. It is true that any great disproportion in the revenue sacrificed on the two sides may be regarded as a prima facie reason for doubting that the advantages and disadvantages of the arrangement are equitably divided. But only a close analysis of each situation can determine the reality behind the apparent sacrifice of revenue, and the extent to which it is a disadvantage to have conceded the tariff reductions in question. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 7 Two valid reasons why the " amount of revenue sacrificed " is not a particularly useful basis of comparison are: 1. Sacrifice of revenue by a government is quite unlike sacrifice by an individual. Governments seldom, if ever, concede, in making reciprocity treaties, any significant portion of their total income, and relatively slight readjustments of other taxes restore the situation. The government's " sacrifice of revenue " may be that much gain for the people; a reduction of one tax is a disadvantage for the people only if it is necessary to balance the reduction by an increase of some more disadvantageous or less desirable form of taxation. Without considering the less obvious situation arising from later tariff acts, it may be confiderftly affirmed that the concessions made by the United States under the tariff act of 1897 were not merely nominal. Their total amount was nearly $9,000.000 in 1905, about $62,700,000 to June 30, 1909, and approximately $64,000,000 from December 27, 1903, to August 5, 1909.8 Particular attention may be given to the $48,000,000 sacrificed by the remission of the duty upon sugar; as shown in Chapter VI, this remission through the years 1904 to 1909 enured largely to the benefit of Cuban producers. Similarly, and without any reduction for certain concessions which might be regarded as nominal, the total concessions or revenue sacrificed by Cuba were about $2,400,000 in 1905 and approximately $15,000,000 to June 30, 1909. Assuming that the imports of the United States from Cuba would have been essentially the same had there been no treaty, the United States sacrificed one-fifth of the duty which would otherwise have been collected under the tariff act of 1897 upon imports from Cuba from December 27, 1903, to August 5, 1909. The difference averaged approximately $11,000,000 per year; but this "sacrifice" did not seriously embarrass the Government of the United States, which had a surplus of revenue during these years. At present the United States adjusts its rate of duty upon sugar upon the basis that the full rate is more or less nominal and the effective rate is the one applicable to Cuban sugars; so that it can scarcely be said that the "reduced " rate on Cuban sugars now represents any real " sacrifice "in revenue. Cuba, within a month after the treaty became effective, increased her tariff rates by surtaxes of 15 to 30 per cent and thus fully or partly offset the revenue reductions in respect to American products. For instance, those products of the United States upon which the treaty reduction was 20 per cent of the duty, and upon which a surtax of 30 per cent of the duty was subsequently levied, became dutiable at rates 4 per cent higher than before. The higher rates thus resulting were intended to yield, and actually did yield, more revenue than before. It may be concluded that neither the Government of Cuba nor the Government of the United States was in any way embarrassed by any sacrifice of revenue involved in the reciprocity treaty, and that from the point of view of public finance there is no significance in comparing the total amounts of revenue " sacrificed " on the two sides. The reciprocity treaty, however, did involve a direct Joss of 8 See Table 124 (p. 223) for possible deductions from this figure on account of Cuban sugar used in manufacture in the United States for export with benefit of " drawback " and for duties so refunded. 8 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY revenue to the United States Government which accrued to Cullba sugar producers. 2. Part of the gross amount "sacrificed" may be nominal or illusory. The establishment of nominal rates of duty can scarcely be made the basis of a claim of revenue sacrificed. For instance, since the United States tariff rate upon sugar has clearly been readjusted on the basis that the reciprocity rate is the effective rate, as long as conditions remain as they have been and importations from countries other than Cuba are almost negligible, there must now be an absence of reality in any calculation of the revenue " sacrificed " by the United States Government upon imports of sugar from Cuba. It is obvious that if the rate upon Cuban sugar remained unchanged at 1.76 cents per pound and the rate on full-duty sugars were increased from 2.20 cents to 4.20 cents per pound, the nominal sacrifice of revenue upon an importation of five billion pounds of Cuban sugar would be increased from $22,000,000 to $122,000,000, though the change of rates would have little effect upon the sugar trade. Again, when Cuba entered into the reciprocity treaty she was obtaining all her flour from the United States. After granting to the United States a reduction of 30 per cent in the flour duty, she raised the full rate by a 30 per cent surtax so that the real sacrifice of revenue was very small. The old rate was $1 per 100 kilograms; the 30 per cent surtax brought it to $1.30, and the 30 per cent reduction made the rate on United States flour $0.91.9 Accordingly, any sacrifice of revenue based on the difference between $1 and $1.30 per 100 kilograms may be regarded as purely nominal, at least until Canadian flour subject to the full duty began to compete. In the case of Cuba and the United States, the general rule has application-wHich holds for reciprocity treaties and preferential colonial tariffs-that rates of duty on imports from countries from which there are in fact no imports do not result in a definitely calculable sacrifice of revenue in favor of countries whose products benefit by the lower rates, however advantageous such reductions may be. Additional profits and increased exports.-The points already covered show that the United States made larger concessions than did Cuba and upon a greater amount of trade, so that its total concessions as measured by the revenue nominally sacrificed were and have been about four times as great as those made by Cuba. Tariff concessions, however, may be as nominal as have been the sacrifices of revenue or may be of great significance and effect. The economic purpose of entering into a reciprocity treaty is to promote export trade. If no undue price has been paid for the concessions the final test of the advantage of a reciprocity treaty is to be found in the extent to which it improves the export market-that is, the extent to which it increases the profits on foreign sales and the extent to which it increases the volume of such transactions. The trade between Cuba and the United States must be analyzed to determine whether the tariff concessions on one side or on both sides have had significant effects upon the profits or the volume of trade of the exporters. ' About $0.81 a barrel. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ADDITIONAL PROFITS TO CUBAN PRODUCERS BUT NOT TO AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS The important tangible advantage of the reciprocity treaty to Cuba took the form of a price premium upon sugar and presumably upon some of the minor products. In respect of sugar this advantage was probably limited to the years 1904 to 1909, inclusive,'0 and the total for these years did not exceed approximately $48,000,000 as a maximum. As is shown in the detailed analysis of Chapter VI, even in the years when imports of full-duty sugar were relatively largest the whole of the remitted duty may not have accrued to the Cuban producers. The percentage of the total which accrued to their benefit tended to decrease; but there is reason to believe that in the first years of reciprocity the percentage was high. The amount of this remission of duty was, in round numbers, $6,000,000 in 1905 and $8,000,000 in 1906. Small as they appear in comparison with the magnitude of post-war figures, these sums exceed 10 per cent and 14 per cent, respectively, of Cuba's gross exports of sugar in those years.1l They represented therefore a material part of the gross income of the Cuban sugar producers. From 1906 to 1914 the price of Cuban raw sugar remained between two and three cents a pound and the duty remitted under the reciprocity treaty averaged about 14 per cent of the value of the gross turnover. While a decreasing percentage of the total probably represented the price premium obtained by the Cuban producers it may confidently be stated that for the period 1904-1909 as a whole the price premium received in the American market above the prices that could have been obtained elsewhere constituted an essential factor in making the Cuban industry as profitable as it was. Upon the development of the industry, as distinguished from the prosperity of those already engaged in it, the effect of this additional income in 1904 and the following years was perhaps even more important. This development depended mainly upon foreign capital, either directly invested or loaned upon the credit of the planters. As the industry recovered from the war and from the depression of 1902 and 1903, the additional income resulting from the reciprocity treaty may well have made all the difference between confidence and lack of confidence on the part of foreign capital. The precise effect of this additional income has not been determined,12 but, together with the psychological effects of the improved relations between Cuba and the United States, it may well have played a vital part in the further development of the Cuban sugar industry 10 The large imports of full-duty sugar in 1920 suggest that the advantage reappeared in that year, but the abnormal and fluctuating prices would complicate the statistical analysis, which has not been undertaken. 11 The importance of such sums in relation to the size of Cuba's sugar industry can not be accurately measured, but some light may be thrown on it by the consideration that revolution and war had destroyed four-fifths of the Cuban sugar industry, and a memorandum submitted by the Planters' Exchange in 1898 estimated that only $9,000,000 would be required to repair the 150 sugar estates which had been destroyed. Robert P. Porter Report on the Commercial and Industrial Condition of the Island of Cuba, 1898, appendix, p. 244. 12 The maximum effect would evidently follow a situation in which the additional income turned a loss into a profit. But for how many, if any, of the Cuban planters this increased income represented only a smaller loss, for how many it turned a loss into a profit, and for how many it represented additional profits upon an already profitable business could be determined, if at all, only by a detailed statistical study which has not been undertaken. 10 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY in the period beginning December 27, 1903. And a prosperous sugar industry is a prosperous Cuba. The price premium which it conferred upon Cuban producers is the most striking feature of the reciprocity treaty. It was foreseen by the negotiators of the treaty, but though they may have realized its importance to Cuba, even they could scarcely have anticipated that Cuba would so quickly outgrow the situation in which alone a price premium could be obtained. After 1910 the industry continued to expand and demonstrated that it was not then dependent upon a price premium derived from the remission of the United States duty. Once well beyond the point where exports of sugar equaled the import requirements of the United States, there was and is no act of the United States, no modification of the treaty,13 which could restore that situation. The price premium on sugar conferred a unique advantage upon Cuba. The United States obtained no similar advantage from the treaty. Very rarely have treaties between independent countries embodied provisions whose outcome was similar to this one. It is doubtful whether another instance can be cited except the treaty of 1875 between the United States and Hawaii. Negotiators of commercial treaties generally avoid such concessions, both because the policy of the major countries has been to grant no exclusive concessions but to generalize their concessions to all the "most favored " nations, and because commercial treaties relate more commonly to manufactured articles (which do not compete on the basis of price in the same way as raw materials) and are not apt to deal with standardized raw materials subject to duty and produced and exported in one country in quantities less than those required to supply the other. The United States did not secure and could not have secured similar price premiums in the Cuban market for the reasons just suggested. The United States was and is exporting to Cuba manufactured goods, sales of which depend not alone upon price but upon style, finish, and individuality, upon advertising and the reputation of the makers or of the retailers, upon the maintenance of ample stocks, the ability to provide spare parts or replacements and to give prompt delivery, and upon the extension of credits. These and other factors make moderate differences in price of little moment. The same factors, in lesser degree perhaps, influence sales of prepared foodstuffs. Again, American manufacturers and exporters of agricultural products must compete in Cuba among themselves. Even in 1903 over one-half of United States exports to Cuba consisted of articles of which 80 per cent or more of Cuba's imports were from the United States. Further, the relative size of the markets makes it highly improbable that the United States should have in any commodity, manufactured or natural, an exportable surplus-less than Cuba s consuming capacity. The conclusion that the exporters of the United States did not, through the operation of the treaty, obtain higher prices for their products sold in Cuba than for those sold elsewhere does not rest merely on this deductive reasoning, but _.During 1911, when Cuban sugar had probably definitely ceased to enjoy the virtual bonus due to reduction in duty, the Cuban Government requested negotiating a new con. ventton of commercial reciprocity for the purpose of adjusting the oriinal treat to the changed conditions of Cuban-American trade. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 11 upon a more detailed examination of the manner in which the trade was and is carried on, and upon the direct testimony of over 200 manufacturers and exporters. (See Ch. VII.) EFFECTS OF RECIPROCITY UPON CUBA'S EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES Direct effects.-Prior to reciprocity United States imports from Cuba were much greater in value than exports to Cuba and after the treaty became effective the imports from Cuba grew more rapidly in value than exports to Cuba. While the difference in the rate of growth over the whole period has been only slightly in favor of imports,14 the period immediately following the treaty (1904-1909) showed increases over the prereciprocity period, for imports from Cuba of 111 per cent, and for exports to Cuba of only 74 per cent. Was this more rapid growth of Cuba's exports to the United States due to a diversion thereto of products which, except for the treaty, would have gone elsewhere? Did Cuban sugar displace other sugar imports into the United States because the tariff reductions changed the competitive situation between Cuban and other sugars entering the United States? The answer is clearly that the effect of the treaty in diverting Cuba's exports from other destinations to the United States was negligible, and particularly in 1904-1909, when these exports developed most rapidly. Before reciprocity Cuba was exporting to the United States practically her whole output of sugar and the United States was obtaining the remainder of its import requirements chiefly from Europe. The treaty produced no immediate change in this situation. Since Cuba is closer to the United States than are the other chief foreign producing regions the United States is Cuba's natural market. An article as uniform as sugar, either raw or refined, could scarcely be going from Cuba to Europe and at the same time coming from Europe to the United States.15 The freight situation would make such disposition of the product uneconomical, If the reciprocity treaty had made no concession upon sugar there is every reason to suppose that Cuba's output (whatever it would have been) would have continued to come to the United States as long as the total did not exceed the import requirements of the United States. But even though the treaty produced no effect in changing the currents of the Cuban-American sugar trade, its other effects, discussed below, were significant. The direct effect of the treaty upon Cuba's second crop was also slight but for different reasons. Sugar is uniform, imported tobaccos are various, and the chief varieties do not closely compete with each other. The 20 per cent reduction from the high duties upon tobacco was relatively greater (on an ad valorem basis) than the reduction on sugar, but analysis of the available statistics discloses no pronounced changes in the tobacco trade between Cuba and the 14 The percentage of increase for 1922-1925 over 1900-1908 is 632 for imports from Cuba and 613 for exports to Cuba. 15 The Philippine Islands shipped to the United States in 1926, 761,000,000 pounds of sugar, while Cuba shipped to far eastern markets 483,000,000 pounds; but this cross movement is presumably dependent upon the preferential entry of Philippine sugar into the United States. 10038-29 ---2 12 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY United States and none which can with any certainty be attributed to the treaty. Cubans minor products, owing to the great development of the sugar industry, have declined from 11.8 per cent of the total imports into the United States from Cuba in 1900-1903 to 7.2 per cent in 1922-1925; they are now in the aggregate approximately equal in importance to tobacco, which has also lagged far behind sugar. Of these products approximately one-half in value were and have been free of duty in the United States and therefore nonpreferential. The other half, in so far as they were and are competitive with fullduty products, have an advantage on the United States market. Examination of the trade in molasses and iron ore, however, tends to show that other factors such as freight, special qualities, and changes in industrial processes have determined the direction of the trade rather than the reductions in the relatively small American duties on these products. Presumably some other minor products of Cuba-pineapples, grapefruit, fresh vegetables, manganese ore, and sponges 6-could be selected in which competition is more direct and the imports of which have been stimulated by the remission of the duty from Cuba; but the statistics for the minor products have not been examined in detail. The favorable effects of the reciprocity treaty and of other factors have made the sugar crop more and more important among Cuba's industries and have tended to obscure whatever favorable effects-evidently relatively less favorable for the group as a whole-the treaty may have had upon the minor articles. It may be concluded that the tariff concessions granted by the United States in 1903 to products of Cuba had a negligible effect in diverting products of Cuba from other markets to the United States; indirectly such concessions have been extremely important in increasing the volume and value of Cuba's exports. Indirect effects of reciprocity in stimulating Cuba's exports.-The intangible effects of the reciprocity treaty can not be distinguished from those of the political treaty or of other factors in the new relationship between Cuba and the United States. The political treaty, as well as the commercial treaty, turned the attention of American business men and capitalists to Cuba, whether they were seeking lucrative investments, interest upon capital loaned, or sources of supplies. Some American capital, it may safely be said, would have stayed out of Cuba except for the confidence in the stability of the Cuban Government and in the security of private property which grew out of the exceptional political relationship; other capital would ave remained elsewhere except that the reciprocity treaty made Cuban sugar properties better investments and safe securities for loans. American capital, however, was by no means unacquainted with Cuba even before the revolt against Spain, and some capital would have accepted the risk of instability of government as it has in other foreign countries with which the United States does not have the same close relationship. The exact influence of either or both treaties upon the investment of American capital in Cuba must remain a matter of opinion, but the major American investments of ' See tables in latter part of Ch. VI, pp. 87-90. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 13 American capital followed the period in which the reciprocity treaty had brought prosperity to the Cuban sugar industry. It was stated previously that the tariff advantage conferred by the reciprocity treaty did not directly increase Cuba's exports of sugar to the United States but that it operated for some years to confer a price premium upon the Cuban sugar planters. Since this price premium greatly stimulated production and since the whole exportable surplus came to the United States as its natural market, it is obvious that the treaty stimulated Cuba's exports to the United States. The amount of this stimulus can not be statistically determined. No one can be certain how much of the rapid development which took place in 1904-1910, which had begun prior to 1904 and which continued beyond the time when the price premium no longer accrued in large part to the Cuban growers, would have taken place even had there been no reciprocity treaty. Another advantage to Cuba, likewise not susceptible of measurement, lav in the decreased tariff upon sugar and tobacco in the United States and its possessions. Whatever may be the kernel of truth in the allegation that the tariff upon 96~ sugar had been set at 1.685 cents per pound in 1897 for the purpose of allowing a margin for bargaining, if the reciprocity treaty had not intervened the statutory rate would have remained in effect until at least 1909, and while the American price remained to a large extent upon the full-duty basis through 1909, in so far as the price fell below that basis the effectiveness of the tariff was somewhat reduced. In the tariff revision of 1909 the statutory rate remained unchanged,'7 and while this act was in force the preferential rate of duty undoubtedly became the effective tariff rate. Under both acts, in spite of the reciprocity treaty, production in the United States continued to increase and even to supply a larger percentage of domestic consumption.18 Nevertheless, it is to be presumed that without the reciprocity treaty the effectiveness of the tariff upon domestic production would have been greater, resulting in a smaller market for.Cuban sugar. The situation in regard to the duties upon tobacco was not wholly dissimilar, though since the varieties are less directly competitive the reduction of the duties had much less effect. On the other hand, the duties on tobacco were relatively higher than upon sugar and therefore the concession was greater. It may be emphasized that the tariff rates of the United States have not been sufficiently high to deprive Cuba of a market for her sugar. Even if 1903-4 be included as a prereciprocity year, Cuba 17 This may be taken as evidence that the price was still predominantly upon a full-duty basis or that a rate had been placed sufficiently high in 1897 so' that with an effective reduction of 20 per cent it still gave to the domestic producers a rate of duty deemed adequate by the party then in power. 18 This is true of the United States with its noncontiguous territories, and true of continental United States alone, except that the percentage of the total which it supplied remained practically stationary from 1905 to 1913. As is shown by Table 14, the production of sugar in continental United States in the fiscal years 1901 to 1903 or 1904 averaged over 1,000,000,000 pounds and supplied about 18 per cent of the total available for consumption and export. In 1905-1909 the average production rose to over 1,500,000,000 pounds and in 1910-1914 to over 1,800,000,000 pounds; in both periods the quantity produced was nearly 23 per cent of the total available supply. In 1919-1922 and 1923-1925 the percentage produced in continental United States declined to about 20 per cent and about 17 per cent, respectively. If the receipts of sugar from Hawaii, Porto Rico, and the Philippines be added, prior to reciprocity the total American supply was about 35 per cent of the total available for consumption and export. It increased to approximately 43 per cent in 1905-1909 and to 48 per cent in 1910-1914. It declined to less than 40 per cent in 1919-1925, a percentage smaller than that of 1901-2 or 1904-5. 14 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY in 1901-1904 supplied only about 32 per cent of the total sugar available for consumption in the United States and for export. This figure grew to 39 per cent in 1904-1909 and to 48 per cent in 1910 -1914. This development was closely parallel to that of the American (including the territorial) production for which the corresponding percentages were about 35, 43, and 48, respectively. In recent years, however, the total American and territorial production-in spite of the free entry of sugar from the Philippine Islands-has declined relatively and has contributed less than 40 per cent of the available supplies, while Cuba supplied about 55 per cent in 1919 -1922 and 59 per cent in 1922-1925. Even if it be granted that the Cuban sugar industry was not fully reestablished prior to reciprocity and that no argument is to be based on the average for that period, the steady increase up to the present time in the percentage contributed by Cuba to the total sugar annually made available in the United States for consumption and export demonstrates that the United States has by no means pursued so drastic a tariff policy as to deprive Cuba of a market for her sugar. On the contrary, the average quantity of sugar imported from Cuba approximately doubled from 1901-1904 to 1910-1914 and again approximately doubled from 1910-1914 to 1922-1925. Total Cuban production increased from 1,124,000 short tons in 1902-3 to 5,471,000 short tons in 1925-26, developing in the ratio of 100 to 487. Total United States production increased from 591.000 short tons in 1902-3 to a maximum output of 1,348,000 tons in 1921-22, or to 944,000 tons in 1926-27. The ratio of development from 1902-3 to 1921-22 was 100 to 230, but the figure for 1926-27 shows a net development of only 100 to 160. EFFECTS OF RECIPROCITY UPON UNITED STATES EXPORTS TO CUBA It has been shown that the American manufacturer or exporter did not secure in the Cuban market the price premium that the Cuban sugar producer found in the American market, and that concessions from the rates of the United States tariff did not divert the exports of Cuba from other markets to the United States. On the other hand, the tariff concessions extended by Cuba to products of the United States undoubtedly were a contributory cause of the expansion of a part of American exports to that country, especially in the earlier years. That tariff concessions extending over almost the whole range of a country's imports must offer a competitive advantage is such a truism that caution is needed to avoid the exaggeration of ascribing the greater part of the trade development to this single factor. To determine what part the reciprocity treaty played in the expansion of United States exports to Cuba demands an answer to the problem; what would that development have been in the absence of the treaty? Assuming in this inquiry that Cuba's imports would have been the same as they actually have been, the attempt is made to estimate what would have been the division of these imports between the United States and other countries in the absence of the treaty. Of course no precise result can be obtained, but comparisons of two kinds throw some light on the problem. The development SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 15,of American export trade to other markets may be compared with the development in Cuba, and the relative effectiveness of the various concessions made by Cuba may be analyzed. The development of United States export trade to countries other than Cuba.-The reciprocity period has seen great advances in American exports to other markets. If the year 1900 be taken as a base represented by the index number 100 then United States exports to Cuba in 1905-1907 (average) are represented by 173. But on the same basis exports to Canada had increased from 100 to 170, exports to Mexico to 166, and exports to eight Caribbean countries-Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador, Dominican Republic, and Venezuela-to 151. On the same basis, average exports to Cuba in 1912-1914 were 262, but exports to the eight Caribbean countries were 267, and those to Canada were 395. Still, on the same basis, the figures for 1922-1925 show ratios of 691 for Cuba, 673 for Canada, and 769 for the eight Caribbean countries. A change of basis to the year 1902 or 1903 when Cuba's trade had temporarily declined would show greater ratios of increase for Cuba, but it is impossible to state how much of this increase was due to reciprocity and how much to the rapid development of a rich country when conditions had become favorable to investment, production, and trade. Upon any reasonable basis of comparing United States exports to Cuba and to other markets the greater part of the expansion in Cuba must be ascribed to the same general factors which produced the expansion in other markets; the most that can be claimed for the reciprocity treaty as the cause of the expansion is that the trade with Cuba showed a relatively more rapid development immediately after reciprocity than did exports to other countries. Exports to some other countries than Cuba increased more rapidly in later years than have exports to Cuba. It is more pertinent to compare the percentages of total imports supplied by the United States to various countries. In 1922-1925 the United States supplied 65.6 per cent of Cuba's imports, a large increase over the 44.2 per cent of 1900, but in the same period the United States had advanced its share of the combined imports of Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador, and the Dominican Republic from 41.1 to 67.3 per cent. Again, in the same period, starting with 50.6 and 59.2 per cent, respectively, it has advanced its share of Canada's imports to 66.9 and of Mexico's to 69.1 per cent. These broad comparisons need not be pressed too closely, but they seem to indicate that while Cuba has presented an excellent market for American products she has not been in a class by herself but has merely stood at or near the head of the list of good customers in the area in which the United States has geographical advantages. When a tariff affects the greater part of the import trade and concessions are made throughout this tariff to a country capable of exporting a tremendous range of products it may be presumed that the concessions will show their effects most markedly immediately after they become operative. The figures show that, whether measured in total value or in the percentage of Cuba's imports supplied by the United States, United States exports to Cuba grew more rapidly immediately after reciprocity than in later years. But as far as 16 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY the figures are open to the interpretation that the reciprocity treaty acted as a special stimulus upon American exports to Cuba, they must be held to show also that the stimulus soon exhausted itself. It enabled American trade with Cuba more quickly to reach a point which it would in any case have reached more slowly; at the end of the first decade of reciprocity the trade would probably have been much the same with or without the treaty. The World War then followed, and it and its immediate effects controlled the trade of the world for the greater part of the second decade of reciprocity. The comparisons with other markets suggest that in the absence of the reciprocity treaty the postwar export trade of the United States to Cuba would have differed but little from what it has actually been. Imports into Cuba by commodity groups.-A division of Cuba's imports from the United States into commodity groups shows great variations in the development of this trade as measured by the rapidity by which and the extent to which imports from the United States displaced imports from other countries. In metals, chemicals, textiles, animals and animal products, wood, and paper the United States has made great progress, especially during the World War and the postwar boom. In all these groups except animals and animal products the share of the Cuban import trade supplied by the United States in 1922-1924 fell below the peak attained in 1919-1921. (See Chart V facing page 108.) In all these groups good progress was made in the early years of the reciprocity treaty. In textiles, however, between 1902-3 and 1910-1914, imports into Cuba from all other countries increased twice as fast in total value as did imports from the United States, and the percentage supplied by the United States increased only because it had been so small to start with. On the other hand, four groups-the very important foodstuffs group, machinery, nonmetallic minerals, and the miscellaneous group-showed very little progress prior to the war and, with the exception of machinery, very little net progress over the whole period. The ineffectiveness of the Cuban preferential tariff in stimulating imports from the United States in these large groups raises the question whether the progress of American trade in other groups may not be attributable to influences other than the reciprocity treaty. Imports into Cuba divided into preferential groups.-The reciprocity treaty suggests the division of imports into Cuba into five groups: 1. Articles admitted free of duty regardless of origin (Art. I) and tobacco and its manufactures subject to the full rates of duty regardless of origin (Art. VI). These constitute the nonpreferential group, numbering about 30 items. 2. Approximately 150 articles unenumnerated in the treaty, accorded reductions of 20 per cent of the full rates of duty. (Art. 3. Twenty-seven articles accorded reductions of 25 per cent. (Art. IV, Schedule A.) 4. Sixty-one articles entitled to 30 per cent reduction. (Art. IV, Sch eduleion. (Art. I 5. Twenty-two commodities with 40 per cent reduction (Art. IV, Schedule C.) ~ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 17 An examination of the trade figures for these groups shows in the first place that the higher percentages of reduction were granted in the main upon articles in which the United States has shown inability to compete; on the whole, the smaller the percentage of imports from the United States the greater the percentage of reduction accorded to any given article. The figures also afford some evidence-for example, the relatively more rapid rate of displacement of competitors in the 30, 25, and 40 per cent groups than in the 20 per cent group-which tends to show that the higher treaty reductions were a somewhat greater competitive advantage than were the smaller percentage concessions. This inference, however, can not be relied upon. Three points suggest its unreliability. First, when reduced to ad valorem terms, which is the more significant basis of comparison, there is very little difference in the size of the average concessions in the 20, 25, and 30 per cent groups.19 Second, the figures for 1912-1914 show that American products had displaced others more rapidly in the group where no preference was given than where the preference was 40 per cent of the duty. And third, measured in comparison with the room for expansion in each group, the progress made by American exporters was relatively more satisfactory in the nonpreferential group than in any preferential group, and the highest preferential group showed relatively the least expansion. Cuban imports further divided into competitive classes.-Total preferential imports into Cuba may be further divided into three classes according to the percentage contributed by the United States during the calendar years 1902 and 1903. Class I is composed of imports of which the United States supplied more than 80 per cent of the total in the prereciprocity period; Class II includes those imports of which the United States supplied less than 20 per cent of the total; and Class III comprises those imports of which the United States supplied between 20 and 80 per cent of the total. Presumably these represent the articles more directly competitive in the Cuban market just prior to the treaty's enforcement. Retaining as subdivisions of each class the four preferential groups, we have a total of 12 subdivisions. Comparisons of the growth of the trade as so divided show no general correlation, and no correlation in any class, between the percentage of reduction from the full duty and the rate of displacement of other by United States products.20 The most striking feature of the three classes is that in every group of Class I imports from the United States, when compared with imports from other countries, show a relative decline in the years immediately following the treaty. Of the 54 items in this class, 45 show some decrease in the share of the United States for one or another of the three periods analyzed. Of these 45 commodities only 13 register declines of less than 5 points; for the 19 See p. 18. 20The results of this statistical investigation are indicated in Table 120 (p. 218) and summarized in Ch. IX, Tables 36 and 37 (pp. 128 and 129), which show the average values and percentages contributed by the United States of the total value of imports in each competitive class and preferential group. Table 37 differs from Table 36 only by the exclusion of certain articles in which the United States did not or could not well competerice, jerked beef, alcoholic beverages, olive oil, saffron, tea, hemp sandals, fans, matches, almonds, opium, and paper pulp. 18 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY other 32 items, or almost 60 per cent of the entire Class I, the surprising statement holds true that during one or more of the periods selected after 1902-3 the United States supplied a percentage of total Cuban imports smaller by from 5 to 78 points than before reciprocity. Reciprocity was not a sufficient advantage to enable the United States to maintain its previous hold upon the Cuban market in the articles in which it had been strongest. Changes in the composition of Cuba's imports.-The analysis of the three classes shows the effects of changes in the composition of Cuba's imports. In 1902-3 the United States already supplied the greater share, or at least a large part, of the machinery and materials for the development of Cuba's agriculture, mining, and industry. There. fore, according to the division previously made, these imports from the United States fall in Classes I and III. While Cuba's population almost doubled during the two decades and the value of her total imports grew in the ratio of 3.8 to 1, the aggregate values, based on annual averages for 1902-3 and 1922-1924, of these imports which may be termed industrial commodities or producers' goods, increased in the ratio of 7 to 1, whereas the increase was only 4 to 1 for foodstuffs and certain other articles which may be designated consumers' goods. Thus, as Cuba's import trade expanded in response to the prosperous condition of her export trade she imported proportionately more of the producers' goods and of staple commodities of consumption, and relatively less of variety or luxury goods. But since the former came so largely from the United States, their increased importation magnified the share of the United States in Cuba's total imports. This increased importation of articles supplied, even prior to reciprocity, by the United States is a result of that treaty only in so far as Cuba's growing prosperity has been a result of that treaty. Ad valorem equivalents of Cuba's concessions, by groups.-The concession of 40 per cent from a small duty may be a smaller advantage than a concession of 20 per cent from a high duty. Only by converting the preferences expressed as percentages of the full duties to preferences expressed as percentages of the value of the goods can comparisons be made. Accordingly Cuban duties have been converted to ad valorem equivalents for the years 1905, 1914, and 1923. These ad valorem equivalents have been analyzed by groups, classes, and articles. An analysis by preferential groups shows that the concessions in the 20 per cent group were not in fact materially smaller on an ad valorem basis than those of the 25 and 30 per cent groups. This analysis shows further that the larger ad valorem concessions have not in any conspicuous degree shifted trade to the United States. Again, it shows that the ad valorem equivalents of Cuba's concessions have decreased with the rise of prices since 1905.21 The average concession in the 20 per cent group decreased from 6.70 in 1905 to 4.05 in 1923; in the 25 per cent group, from 6.85 to 3.81; in the 30 per cent group, from 8.21 to 5.25; and in the 40 per cent group, from Part of the decrease is due to relatively smaller imports of products with the higher rates of duty. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 19 Since in 1905-1907 the reductions stood at a maximum in relation to trade values and since the effect of a factor in a competitive trade situation is most obvious when it first appears, the immediate effects of this reciprocity treaty may reasonably be said to have been the greatest and the most easily identifiable as results of the treaty. The detailed analysis therefore concentrates upon changes in the trade situation from 1902-3 to 1905-1907. Dividing the trade into the three competitive classes described and subdividing into preferential groups make prominent the inverse correlation between the ad valorem amount of the concession and the improvement or decline in the relative trade position of the United States between 1902-3 and 1905-1907. Ad valorem equivalents of Cuba's concessions by articles.-No less than 130 leading articles of Cuban imports (122 dutiable and 8 free) have been analyzed and the ad valorem equivalents of the concessions have been examined in connection with the values of the imports supplied by the United States in 1902-3 and in 1905-1907 and the change in the relative position of the United States. The 130 articles include almost 92 per cent of dutiable or preferential and more than 91 per cent of free imports into Cuba from the United States for 1905-1907. The indicated equivalent ad valorem rates of the duties remitted in 1905 may fairly be regarded as typical of the preferential treatment that all United States imports into Cuba received under the first three fiscal years of reciprocity. The analysis deals chiefly with changes in the percentage of Cuba's total imports supplied by the United States. The striking results of this statistical analysis are as follows: Preferential products showing immediate and substantial gains for the United States in the Cuban market constituted one-third of the total; two-thirds of the trade showed no appreciable improvement or even a decline. Fifty-two dutiable items of imports from the United States amounting to $12,252,000, or 34 per cent, of the total average value of $36,180,000 for dutiable or preferential imports from the United States, show increases in percentages supplied by the United States ranging from 66 down to 5 points, leaving 71 articles of which Cuba's imports from the United States in 1905 -1907 averaged $23,928,000, or 66 per cent, that registered either practically no increase in the percentages of the totals supplied by the United States or decreases varying all the way up to 51 points. The analysis may be continued by dividing each of the above groups. From the first group in which the percentage of imports from the United States increased by more than 5 per cent of the total may be subtracted the articles with reductions of duty so small-less than 5 per cent ad valorem-that these concessions present no prima facie probability that they were the dominant cause of the favorable results. From the group comprised of articles which showed declines or at least no material improvement may be subtracted those of which the United States supplied approximately 90 per cent even before reciprocity, that is, articles which in the nature of the case could hardly be expected to show substantial gains in the percentage. This analysis leads to a tabulation of preferential imports into Cuba in 1905-1907 according to the prima facie 20 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY degree of correlation between height of concessions and change in competitive position as follows: Number Average Per cent ~Characteristic,or prefer- annual of total Characteristic entialvalue ential value value articles 1905-1907 vaue Significant competitive improvement coupled with substantial ad valorem reductions — ----- ---- --- - 35 $9,814,000 27.1 Substantial competitive improvement but concessions less than 5 per cent ad valorem -- -------- 17 2,438,000 6.8 Predominantly supplied by United States even before reciprocity, concessions merely nominal. --- —-- --------------------------- 21 14,233,000 39.3 Decreases or very slight increases in percentage supplied by the United States, concessions without positive effect. --- —-------------- 50 9,695,000 26. 8 Total.-......... ----. --- —-----------------.123 36,180,000 100 This analysis clearly indicates the relatively limited extent of the presumably effective concessions as measured by the value of the 35 preferential items of trade that register great or substantial increases in the American share of the Cuban market. In other words, excluding coffee imports from Porto Rico, but $8,500,000, or somewhat less than 24 per cent of the total, is the aggregate average value of the- trade in 1905-1907 on which it may be inferred from the size of the equivalent ad valorem rates that the duty reductions had exerted an immediate and significantly favorable influence. The concessions on this limited American export trade amounted to $647,000 in 1905, equivalent to 9.58 per cent ad valorem. Certain comparisons, however, demonstrate the need of caution in reaching the conclusion that the relative improvement of the United States in even this one-fourth of the trade with Cuba was caused primarily by the tariff concessions.22 The export trade of the United States to markets other than Cuba has been analyzed for 13 leading articles corresponding to 15 items among the 35 in respect of which there has been shown a plausible casual relationship between the size of the concession and the amount of the trade improvement. These 15 import items cover 72 per cent of the total trade of the 35 items, exclusive of coffee. For the 13 export classifications figures have been tabulated showing the growth of total domestic " This conclusion would ascribe as a cause in the case of these 35 items a factor which is plainly not an immediate cause of trade changes in 41 other items. The 35 include 14 items upon which the reduction of duty exceeded 10 per cent ad valorem, but examination discloses 20 commodities which upon their importation into Cuba enjoyed reductions ranging from equivalents of 8 to approximately 30 per cent ad valorem (16 exceeding 10 per cent), not one of which shows any substantial improvement in the relative position of the United States; on the contrary, 13 of the 20 items register decreases between 1 and 13 points, and for coffee from the United States the decline is 51 points. On the other hand, in the trade in 21 articles, 17 of which entered Cuba with duty reductions less than 5 per cent ad valorem, the other 4 being free of duty, the percentage share of the United States shows increases ranging from 5 to 73 points, with the greatest improvement in natural fertilizers, one of the free items. These contrasts bring out the lack of correlation between the size of Cuba's concessions and the improvement of the competitive commercial position of the United States. They do not, of course, prove that th o tariff (concessions were not the cause of the development of trade in the 35 selecte d i tems. Even a large concession may have little or no influence upon the trade in one item though an equal or smaller concession may markedly affect the trade in another item with respect to which the competitive conditions are quite different. The other observation, namely, that American exports which were free of duty in Cuba or which recived Only slight concessions increased as rapidly as those which received sub stantial concesbions suggests more pointedly that the larger tariff concessions were not the cause of the development of the trade. (Note that the "larger tariff concessions "here meant are those concessions which yield larger ad valorem equivalents; on p. 17 the "larger concessions" were the higher treaty concessions of 25, 30. and 40 Per cent of the duty, regardless of the size of the duty.) SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 21 exports from 1902-3 to 1905-1907, and of exports to five markets more or less comparable with Cuba. These figures show that every substantial development, both absolute and relative, in our trade with Cuba in the 13 articles is paralleled by a perhaps equally significant improvement in Central America, South America, Mexico, or Canada; only exports to Cuba's immediate neighbors, the West Indies, show much smaller gains and a few declines. Boots and shoes are an important item. The figures show not only that United States exports to Central America increased relatively more rapidly than exports to Cuba, but also that the exports to Cuba were displacing Cuban imports from other sources relatively more rapidly before than after reciprocity. The detailed statistics, therefore, support the indications of the previous analysis that in a large measure the growth of American exports to Cuba even in the years immediately following the establishment of reciprocity was not dependent upon tariff concessions but would have taken place in the absence of the reciprocity treaty as it was doing at the same time in other markets. PRESENT VALUE OF THE RECIPROCITY TREATY TO CUBA An action or policy is advantageous when its advantages outweigh its disadvantages. Does the reciprocity treaty entail upon Cuba any disadvantages? Cuba sacrificed no revenue on account of the reciprocity treaty. The treaty leaves her free to raise or lower her rates as she chooses. Calculations of revenue remitted because of the difference between the full duty and the reduced rate on American products are formal and without significance in respect of any actual sacrifice. If in spite of the readjustment of the rates after the reciprocity treaty went into operation, some of Cuba's rates are lower than they would have been otherwise, the direct benefit accrues to Cuban importers, retailers, and consumers, not to American manufacturers and producers. The reciprocity treaty does not in the slightest interfere with any tariff rates which Cuba may desire in the interest of domestic producers. Against products either of the United States or of Europe, Cuba may adjust her rates upon any level desired. The treaty does not interfere with the tariff autonomy of Cuba or of the United States. The existence of two rates of duty upon similar products of different countries slightly complicates the administration of the customs but, especially since so many articles are imported predominantly from either the United States or Europe, this complication does not deserve serious consideration. Similarly the difference in rates does not materially increase the difficulties of tariff revisions. The treaty grants an exclusive concession and therefore would hamper Cuba if she desired to undertake a policy of tariff bargaining after the European manner of setting up artificially high tariff rate.s and making "concessions" from them. Any concession of hers would still leave products of the other country at a disadvantage compared with products of the United States. Consequently, Cuba's concessions would be of great value to the other country only in so far as they related to articles in which the United States can not compete in her market. Outside of alcoholic beverages, tropical 22 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY fruits and nuts, and a few raw materials, the list is confined to patented articles, specialties, certain ceramic products, fine textiles, and a few other highly finished manufactures. But except for the treaty of July 15, 1927, with Spain,23 Cuba is not known to have made any move in the direction of a concessional bargaining policy. Her tariff of October 26, 1927, includes a maximum or penalty schedule to be applied to products of countries which discriminate against her products. This policy is in line with that of the United States, Brazil, and other American States which reject the European bargaining system but insist upon obtaining equal treatment for their products. Even if Cuba desired to adopt the European bargaining system, it is hard to see how she could obtain concessions of any great value. Some of the major European States are exporters of sugar, and all of them strongly protect the domestic beet-sugar industry. The trend is toward most-favorednation treatment, and exclusive concessions are not likely to be obtained. The most probable result of a change of policy on Cuba's part would be that various countries of continental Europe would increase their rates on sugar in order to be in a position to reduce them as " concessions " to Cuba. Broadly speaking the reciprocity treaty entails no disadvantage or sacrifice of revenue to Cuba, and any profit which accrues therefrom may be set down as net gain. The reciprocity treaty gives Cuba a preferential, that is, an absolutely secure market for her products. That the United States is her nearest and most natural market in any event makes it hard properly to evaluate this advantage, but an exclusive preference in a market of enormous wealth must be of great value. Under normal conditions of production if any full-duty sugar is consumed in the United States 24 during the continuance of the reciprocity treaty it can only be because of a limitation of Cuba's sales to the United States. In minor articles of which Cuba can not supply the whole United States demand the exclusive concession is especially advantageous. It not only gives the Cuban producer a preferred market, but it puts him in a position, in so far as there is close competition with fullduty imports, to profit by the amount of the United States concession. The reciprociy treaty thus helps to encourage the production of the minor products of Cuba and aids in the program of diversification. For certain minor products the treaty gives the great advantage of assuring them exemption from duty in the United States even though similar articles from other countries may be made dutiable. In this way, under the tariff act of 1922, Spanish cedar and mahogany logs are exempted from payment of 10 per cent ad valorem, cconuts from a duty equivalent to 20 per cent ad valorem, crushed stone from payment of 30 per cent ad valorem, alligator pears (avocados) from 35 per cent ad valorem, and manganese ore from a duty equivalent in 1926 to 70 per cent ad valorem upon the dutiable ore imported. By th treaty between Cuba and Canada, effective Nov. 25, 1927. Cuban products, if imported direct to a Canadian sea or river port, enter at the intermediate tariff rates, and Canadian products enter Cuba at the general (or "minimum ") rates. 2dA relativeIv small quantity of sugar is imported for exportation with benefit o! drawback. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 23 The treaty prevents the United States from entering into any other engagement of like nature with any other country which might operate seriously to the disadvantage of Cuba. The Tarafa law of October 4, 1927, for the " defense of sugar " is intended to increase and maintain the price of Cuban' sugar. It provides several means of attaining that purpose. Among others it empowers the President of Cuba to proclaim a limitation on Cuba's total sugar crop for any or all of the six years 1927-28 to 1932-33 This proclamation is optional and not compulsoryit being understood that if as a result of this far-sighted policy of Cuba, the producing countries of sugar throughout the world should make progressive increases in their plantings and industrial establishments and thus neutralize the effect sought by this law, then the Commission shall in its annual recommendation to the President of the Republic, advise him not to make use of the power to restrict production granted him by this law, and upon the acceptance of this recommendation by the President it shall remain in force and be irrevocable during the succeeding twelve months. (End of Art. IV of the Law.) The object of the limitation of the total crop is to reduce the "excess production " of Cuba's sugar so as to raise the world price of sugar.25 An independent provision of the Tarafa law to be put into effect even though in any given year the total crop remains unlimited, is that the President shall fix the "proper proportionate allotment * * * for consumption in this country [Cuba] and in the United States on the one hand, and on the other hand, other countries * * *." It is common knowledge that the purpose of this provision6 is, in the words of President Machado, that Cuba shall "' benefit in part or in whole from thebenefits of the reciprocal treaty existing with the United States." That is, the purpose is to restore as nearly as may be the conditions existing in the early years of the treaty's operation, when Cuba did not supply the whole import requirements of the United States, and Cuban sugar entered this market in competition with full-duty sugar and consequently received a price premium. By selling to the United States a little less than its import requirements so that it must more or less constantly import supplementary supplies of full-duty sugar, the Cubans intend to obtain for themselves the reduction of $0.4412 per hundred pounds, plus the difference 25As is shown in the citation from Art. IV, the limitation of Cuba's crop is not to be enforced if the action of other countries threatens to make it ineffective. A reported agreement between the Cuban producers and those of Germany Poland, and Czechoslovakia will, in proportion to its effectiveness, contribute to make the restriction plan profitable to the Cubans. Art. VIII (D) of the law defines the term " excess production " "to mean all the sugar exceeding domestic consumption requirements and the quantity to be exported to the United States of America; that is, the sugar not protected by the reciprocity treaty in force between Cuba and that Republic." It appears elsewhere that this "quantity to be exported to the United States" is the allotment for consumption in the United States and does not include sugar to be refined in the United States and exported. (A translation of the Tarafa law is given in Appendix III, p. 184.) While this work is in press announcement has been made that there will be no limitation of Cuba's sugar crop in 1929. 26 The language of the statute in connection with the " proper proportionate allotment" is quite colorless and in itself indicates no purpose to limit the quantity exported to the United States for consumption therein. That the purpose is to allot to the United States an amount less than that which the United States would otherwise import may be detected in the language quoted in the preceding footnote and in the requirement that the sugar export corporation which is to handle the excess production shall give proof that all the sugar allotted to other countries has been landed there or has been sold to American refiners only to replace refined sugar exported from the United States. Uniles the allotment to the United States is insufficient, there is no point in the careful provisions against exceeding it. 24 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY between the freight charges to the United States from Cuba and from the chief European sugar producers. The quantity of sugar involved may be estimated at approximately 7,500,000,000 pounds annually, from which the Cubans 27 will obtain, if their plans are successful,.a price premium of over $33,000,000 without including the amount corresponding to the freight differentials. PRESENT VALUE OF THE RECIPROCITY TREATY TO THE UNITED STATES First, does the reciprocity treaty entail upon the United States any disadavantages? It is generally true for the United States as for Cuba that the reciprocity treaty does not hamper the adjustment of its tariff rates or the pursuance of its commercial policy. Whatever may have been its initial sacrifice of revenue, reciprocity now entails little or no sacrifice of revenue by the United States. Its tariff rates have been adjusted with the treaty in mind. In general, it may be said that in recent years only the revenue remitted upon certain minor products of Cuba has enured to the benefit of the Cuban producers rather than to the benefit of the domestic consumers. Cuba, however, now aims 28 to put the price of all sugar in the United States upon a full-duty basis, though continuing to supply at the preferential tariff rates all but a small fraction of United States imports of raw sugar. By restricting sales to the United States and forcing the latter to import some full-duty sugar, the Cubans plan to obtain for themselves the tariff differential of 44.12 cents per 100 pounds of 96~ sugar, and an additional amount representing the difference in freight rates if imports of full-duty sugar from more distant sources involve higher freight charges than are paid by imports from Cuba. The intent of this plan is to make use of the preferential reduction accorded to Cuba by the reciprocity treaty to increase the price 29 of refined sugar in the United States at least temporarily80 by approximately one-half cent a pound.31 Accordingly, if the Cubans make their plan fully effective in any one of the five years during which the present law is to remain in force, they will benefit at the expense of the American consumers to the extent of approximately $35,000,000 in a single year, more or less, according to the amounts of domestic production, total consumption, and total imports into the United States. Thus, if this Cuban plan should prove fully effective, the Cuban reciprocity treaty rates would result in a sacrifice of revenue by the United States of approxi2', Including, of course, Americans or other foreigners who own sugar properties in Cuba or shares therein. s By the Tarafa sugar defense law of October 4, 1927, effective January, 1928, to be in force until May 30, 1933.,o Not necessarily an increase above the present price, which may be going down or up according to conditions of world demand and supply, but an increase above what the price would otherwise be. SOThe temporary effect is spoken of because the long-run effect depends upon factors not determinable, such as the amounts by which the relatively higher price will stimulate domestic production and diminish domust~ consumption. " That is, the existing tariff differential of $0.4412 per pound plus the freight diercatal, plus the loss of about 7 per cent in refining, plus the higher charges (interest, Insurance, etc.) incident to the handling of the more expensive commodity by the refiners and the retailers. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 25 mately $35,000,000 a year, all of which would go to the sugar producers of Cuba. Second, what advantage does the reciprocity treaty offer to the United States? Exclusive concessions in a market as large as Cuba must be of some value. But it is difficult to determine the nature and amount of the advantage which they afford. The tariff preference in Cuba does not enable manufacturers and exporters of the United States to obtain in Cuba higher prices than they obtain elsewhere. This conclusion follows from conditions which are not likely to change. The advantage to American exporters must therefore be measured by the extent to which the tariff preference gives American producers an assured outlet and enables them to make larger sales than they otherwise would in the Cuban market. An appraisal leads to the conclusion that the concessions granted by Cuba have exerted an influence upon trade which, even in the years immediately following the treaty, accounted for but a minor part of the expansion of United States exports to that island, and which at present is not the determining factor in any considerable percentage of the total trade. General and detailed comparisons between the expansion of exports to Cuba and the expansion of exports to other markets afford evidence that many factors, such as the nearness of Cuba to the United States, the efficiency of production and marketing, and the investment of American capital, rather than tariff favors account for the advance of American export trade. The tariff concessions which Cuba extends to the United States averaged in 1923 only 4.4 per cent of the total value of Cuba's imports from the United States or 4.6 per cent of the value of the dutiable imports. The conclusion seems warranted that with respect to most varieties of manufactured goods, Cuba's tariff concessions seldom exceeding 10 per cent ad valorem, have exerted and now exert a much smaller influence upon the course of trade than was anticipated by the negotiators of the treaty. The present study has taken no notice of the revision of the Cuban tariff in October, 1927. The revisers of this tariff have stated that the changes have been dictated in the main by the principle of affording to Cuba's industries or potential industries the aid of tariff rates not exceeding 25 per cent ad valorem or its equivalent. They have lowered the rates on various raw or partly finished products, and this action entails a decrease in the preferential concessions to the United States. In so far as they have successfully applied the principle of fostering only such Cuban industries as are likely to develop on a scale commensurate with the Cuban market, the increases in the tariff rates (even though they entail augmented preferences) are more likely to reduce than to stimulate American exports to Cuba. If tariff rates of approximately 25 per cent ad valorem are intended to build up Cuban industries in competition with imports from countries other than the United States, a concession of 20 per cent of such duty is not likely to prove of material advantage to American producers. If the 25 per cent rates are intended to protect Cuban producers against compe 26 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY tition from the United States, presumably the full duties have been made equivalent to from 30 to 40 per cent ad valorem and the preferences in favor of American products are from 5 to 15 per cent ad valorem. But these preferences are not likely to be as advantageous to the United States as the increased duties are to be disadvantageous.32 On the whole it appears that the guiding principles of the recent revision of Cuba's tariff have been such as to reduce rather than to increase the value of the preference to the United States. 32 So far as American producers do not already have the whole market, the increased tariff concessions involved in the higher duties may enable American manufacturers to expand their trade in Cuba at the expense of their European competitors, but only for the limited period during which the protected Cuban industries are developing to supply the market. CHAPTER II THE COMMERCIAL CONVENTION WITH CUBA Negotiation of the treaty: Page Proposed concession by the United States ----------—. --- —----- 27 Concessions sought from Cuba.. --- —-------—. --- —-------------- 28 Further concessions made to Cuba ---------------- 29 The treaty before the Senate --- —-------------------------------- 29 Discussion of the treaty in Congress --- —-------------------------- 29 Approval and proclamation of the treaty ----- _ 30 Obligations imposed by the treaty: Important articles of trade and the reductions accorded by the treatyImports into Cuba ---------------------------------------- 30 Imports into the United States --- —----------------- 31 Political treaty with Cuba --------------------------- 33 Exclusive concessions and other commercial treaties -------------------- 34 NEGOTIATION OF THE TREATY In the summer of 1902 President Roosevelt undertook the negotiation of a reciprocity treaty with Cuba. Gen. (then Col.) Tasker H. Bliss, who had been chief of the Cuban customs service and collector of the port of Habana under the provisional government, prepared a draft convention to be proposed to the Cuban Government; and on July 4, 1902, Secretary Hay submitted it to the Cuban minister, Senor Quesada. For several months, however, the negotiations appear to have made little or no progress. The delay was due in part to the belief of President Palma and others that Cuba should revise her tariff before negotiating with the United States. But as the date of the meeting of the American Congress approached, the negotiations received increasing attention from the two Governments. On October 28 the Cuban Government made a counter proposal and on November 13 the Secretary of State commissioned General Bliss to proceed to Habana to negotiate a draft convention to be submitted to the President. General Bliss reached Habana on November 18. Proposed concession by the United States.-General Bliss presented to the Cuban negotiators, Sefores Carlos de Zaldo y Beurmann, Secretary of State, and Jose Maria Garcia y Montes, Secretary of the Treasury, as a basis for discussion the American draft convention proposed on July 4. In this draft the concession to be made by the United States was a uniform reduction of 20 per cent of its tariff rates. This was the maximum percentage authorized in section 4 This account of the negotiation of the treaty is based upon material put at the disposal of the Tariff Commission by the Secretary of State and by Gen. Tasker H. Bliss. 10038-29 —3 27 28 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY of the tariff act of July 24, 1897 2 and it was the percentage specified in the reciprocity bill which had already passed the House of Representatives. It was the conviction of the President and other leaders that it would be useless to attempt to obtain the consent of the Senate and the approval of the Congress for any treaty which embodied a reduction exceeding 20 per cent of the United States tariff rates. Furthermore, it was believed that, while this reduction would not divert Cuban exports from other markets to the United States, under its operation Cuban sugar would receive a higher price in the United States,3 enabling the planters to obtain what credit they needed, and that practically all of Cuba's exports to the United States would benefit in some degree by this amount of reduction. Concessions sought from Cuba.-On the other hand, it was believed that in two classes of goods a 20 per cent reduction in the Cuban tariff rates would constitute a merely nominal concession, and would, in fact, lead to no expansion of American exports. In some lines American products already supplied the market, and the introduction of differential tariff rates could not be expected to increase United States exports, except in so far as the new rates might involve a sufficient reduction:of duty to stimulate consumption. This was the ground for asking a reduction of 30 per cent upon flour, for example.4 In other lines, constituting the second class, European manufacturers possessed such advantage in cost of production, as well as in their established position in the Cuban market, that reductions of 20 per cent of the Cuban tariff rates would be insufficient to allow the American manufacturers to compete. Woolens and silks were products of this class. It was, therefore, proposed that Cuba should grant higher percentages of reduction upon these classes in order that, as the United States had made a concession which would presumably affect all dutiable imports of the United States frQm Cuba, so also Cuba should make concessions which might be expected to affect approximately the whole of her dutiable imports from the United States. In other words, it was believed that the trade and the tariffs of the two countries were such that a 20 per cent reduction of Cuba's tariff rates would not constitute a reciprocal equivalent for a 20 per cent reduction in the United States tariff rates, and that the increased money value of the American market to the Cubans should be conceded only in return for an enlarged market for American products in Cuba. At the first formal conference between General Bliss and the Cuban ministers the Cubans asked for a larger concession than 20 per cent on the ground that concession would not give the relief which the difficulty of Cuba's economic situation justified her in asking, and they proposed that Cuba should give a uniform concession in order to simplify the task of the customs officers; but apparently they did not deny that the principle of the equivalence of concessions required a higher percentage or percentages of reduction in the 2 Sec. 4 of the tariff act of 1897 limited to five years the duration of the commercial treaties therein authorized, and required that any such treaties should be "duly ratified by the Senate and approved by the Congress." Cf. Art. Xi of the reciprocity treaty with Cuba. c Compare the statement of Military Governor Wood to Chairman Payne in his letter Of Jan. 27, 1902: " There can be no question but that the reduction of the tariff will go altogether, or very near altogether, to the planters. 57th Cong., 535, p. 648. 1st sess., H. Doe. I S.e, however, Ch. v, p. 54 if., for the imposition of surtaxes by Cuba, so that there was uo net reduction of the rate levied upon many products. 29 COMMERCIAL CONVENTION WITH CUBA Cuban than in the American tariff. These Cuban proposals could not be accepted. Likewise General Bliss rejected the proposal to exclude Porto Rico and the Philippines from the convention. Further concessions made to Cuba.-At this first meeting General Bliss agreed to several other proposals of the Cuban negotiators, accepting their wording of Articles II, III, and V, and the insertion of Article VI (the exception of tobacco from the Cuban concession) and the principle at least of Article VII. At the second conference the Cubans withdrew their objections to the 20 per cent reduction in the United States tariff rates and to the principle that Cuba should concede various percentages of reduction. Later General Bliss accepted Article X, and, with this exception, after the second conference there remained only to determine the rates and articles to be specified in Article IV. As this required much detailed labor the convention was not finally signed until December 11. The treaty before the Senate.-The treaty was submitted to the United States Senate on December 17, but no decision was reached thereon until the extraordinary session of the Senate which began on March 5, 1903, for the purpose of considering, among other matters, the Cuban and Isthmian treaties. During its consideration of the reciprocity treaty the Senate inserted the proviso of Article VIII (abrogated in 1913) by which the reduction accorded to Cuban sugar should not be increased beyond 20 per cent of the tariff rate then in force, and on March 19 the Senate advised the ratification of the treaty as amended. Meanwhile, on March 11, the Cuban Government had ratified the treaty, but, of course, without the amendments proposed by the United States Senate. After a thorough reconsideration and the rejection of various proposals for amendment, the Cuban Senate on March 28 approved the treaty as amended by the United States Senate. Discussion of the treaty in Congress.-The final article contained a provision that the convention was not to take effect until it should have received the approval of Congress. Anxious to have final action taken upon the measure, the President convened the first session of the Fifty-eighth Congress on November 9, 1903. On the second day of the session he submitted the commercial treaty with Cuba to Congress for its approval. The President declared in his message that the legislation was " demanded not only by our interest but by our honor "; he pointed out further that the conditions under which the withdrawal of American authorities from Cuba had been arranged had brought Cuba into close political relations with the United States, and that it necessarily followed that Cuba must also to a certain degree become included within the lines of American economic policy. The discussion in the House gave rise to the same arguments which the previous Congress had heard in the debates upon a reciprocity bill. The opposition again turned chiefly upon the damage which the measure would bring to American interests; the supporters urged the moral duty of the United States towards Cuba, the political importance to the United States of a government able to maintain order in the island, and, in less positive terms, the commercial ad.vantages which would follow. 30 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY Approval and proclamation of the treaty.-When the bill to give effect to the treaty came up for decision in the House on November 19 it was passed by a vote of 335 yeas to 21 nays. In the Senate the discussion began on December 7. The arguments offered resembled those in the previous debates. The Senate approved the bill on December 16 by a vote of 75 to 18. On December 17, 1903, the President signed the law and formally proclaimed the treaty. In accordance with a provision of Article XI, the treaty went into effect in both countries on the tenth day after the exchange of ratifications-that is, on December 27, 1903.5 OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE TREATY 6 This treaty is the only arrangement of its kind found in the agreements of either of the two countries. It provides for mutual reductions of customs charges from whatever rates may be in force in the two countries, but does not fix a definite schedule of duties. Products of the one country included in the free list of the other received no immediate preference under the treaty, but it was provided that the two countries should continue to admit free of duty all products of the other which were then on the respective free lists. (Art. I.) The United States pledged a uniform reduction of 20 per cent of the ordinary tariff rates (Art. II) and Cuba pledged reductions of various percentages upon all dutiable products, with the exception of tobacco (Arts. III, IV, and VI). The more important articles of the trade between the two countries thus fall into the following classes: IMPORTS INTO CUBA No reduction: DutiableTobacco in any form. On the free listPine lumber. Coal and coke. Agricultural implements. Barbed wire. Livestock, above standard height, for breeding purposes. Cheesecloth. Paving stones. Mineral waters. Reduction of 20 per cent: Machinery and apparatus (in which copper is not the chief article of value). Lard. Vehicles. Meats and meat products. Fruits and vegetables. Wood and manufactures of wood. Petroleum and products of. Condensed milk. Eggs. Hides, skins, and leather. Cereals and manufactures of flour. Vegetable and animal oils and products of. Copper and copper products (other than apparatus and machines). Sugar bags. I See U.S. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 202 U. S. 563. Also the Supplementary Convention with Cuba signed Jan. 26, 1903, in Malloy: Treaties, Conventions, etc., Vol. I, ee full tt of treat. 57.2 ' See full text of treaty in Appendix I, p. 172. COMMERCIAL CONVENTION WITH CUBA 31 Reduction of 20 per cent-Continued. Chemical fertilizers. Cement. Hogs. Coffee. Hay and fodder. Rubber manufactures, etc. Articles of fire clay. Refined sugar. Hats. Oilcloths. Threads, twine, cordage, and tackle. Tin, aluminum, lead, and products of. Chocolate and sweetmeats. Reed, willow, etc., and manufactures of. Celluloid, bone, amber, tortoise-shell, etc., and manufactures of. Cottonseed oil. Reduction of 25 per cent: Iron and steel products (except machinery and cutlery). Glassware (except window glass). Sa.lted, pickled, and preserved fish. Earthen and stone ware. Reduction of 30 per cent: Cotton and cotton goods (except knit). Boots and shoes. Wheat flour. Chemicals. Corn and corn meal. Paper, cardboard, and manufactures of. Pharmaceutical products. Colors, dyes, etc. Linen goods, etc. Canned vegetables, etc. Soap (except fine). Musical instruments. Butter. Simple drugs. Cutlery and surgical instruments. Plated ware. Window glass. Reduction of 40 per cent: Cotton knit goods. Wool and wool manufactures. Rice. Perfumes, essences, and fine soaps. Canned fruit, etc. Silk and silk manufactures. Cheese. Cattle (except for breeding). IMPORTS INTO THE UNITED STATES No reduction: On the free listCopper ores and concentrates. Iron ore (after 1913). Bananas. Cattle hides (after 1909). Henequen and other unmanufactured fibers. Chrome ore or chromite. Cacao beans. Beeswax. Bones, horns, and hoofs. Binder twine. Copper scrap. Asphalt (after 1913). Fertilizers. Works of art 100 years old. 32 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY Reduction of 20 per cent: Sugar. Tobacco and manufactures. Molasses. Pineapples. Tomatoes and other fresh vegetables. Citrus fruits. Sponges. Honey. Iron and steel scrap. Crude glycerin. Cordage. Cabinet woods, sawed. Cigar bands, labels and flaps, etc. Canned or preserved fruits. Tiles. Reduction of 100 per cent (articles transferred to the dutiable list by the tariff act of 1922): Manganese ore. Alligator pears (avocados) and certain other fruits. Mahogany in the log. Spanish cedar in the log. Lignlum-vitte in the log. Crushed stone. Coconuts. Certain fresh vegetables. The preferential reductions in the import duties are not to be hnpaired by special charges not equally imposed upon imports from other countries, i. e., either by local or national consumption taxes (Art. IX), or by fees or charges upon or in connection with the proofs that the imports are the product of the other country (Art. V). Article VIII of the treaty stipulates that the reductions are not to be extended to any other countries. The same article further provided that during the continuance of the treaty no Cuban sugar should be admitted to the United States at a reduction of duty greater than 20 per centum of the rates of duty imposed by the tariff act of 1897, and no sugar from foreign countries other than Cuba should be admitted by treaty or convention into the United States at a lower rate of duty than that provided by the act of 1897. The proviso in Article VIII containing these stipulations in respect to the duties on sugar was abrogated and repealed by Section IV-B of the IUnited States tariff act of 1913. With this exception the agreement ha.s been in force continuously since 1903. The treaty provides for its modification on the initiative of Cuba and for termination by either party. If Cuba should raise her tariff rates (as she did in 1904) and if thereafter " the protection herein granted to the products and manufactures of the United States * * * should appear to the Government of the said Republic to be excessive * * * Cuba may reopen negotiations with a view to securing such modifications as may appear proper to both contracting parties." (Art. X.) Either country may terminate the agreement on six months' notice if the other changes its tariff rates so as to deprive the former of the "advantage which is represented by the percentages herein agreed upon, on the actual rates of the tariffs now in force." (Art. X.) Unless denounced as just stated, the treaty was to continue for five years and then from year to year subject to termination by either party on a years' notice. (Art. XI.) COMMERCIAL CONVENTION WITH CUBA 33 Section 320 of the tariff act of 1922 provides:" That nothing in this Act shall be construed to abrogate or in any manner impair or affect the provisions of the treaty of commercial reciprocity concluded between the United States and the Republic of Cuba on December 11, 1902, or the provisions of the Act of December 17, 1903 chapter 1." POLITICAL TREATY WITH CUBA An American policy in regard to certain aspects of the political relations between Cuba and the United States had been formulated in the Platt amendment to the Army appropriation bill of March 2, 1901. This statute prescribed certain conditions for the termination of military occupancy of the island of Cuba. On June 12, 1901, the principles of the Platt amendment were embodied in the appendix to the Cuban constitution. In April, 1902, this constitution was promulgated and under it on May 20, 1902, the independent Republic of Cuba began its career. A year later the same principles were embodied in a treaty between Cuba and the United States. This treaty was signed on May 22, 1903, while the ratification of the commercial treaty was pending, and, after exchange of ratifications, was proclaimed on July 2, 1904. After safeguarding Cuba against various complications with foreign powers, the treaty provided in Article III: The Government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty * * *. The formal ratification by the two Governments on July 1, 1904, of this political treaty was only the last in a series of steps. It had been foreshadowed for some time. Many persons had felt since 1898 that the United States would not withdraw its control over Cuba except under conditions that would assure stable government there. After March 2, 1901, there remained little ground for doubt upon the subject, and still less after June 12, 1901. The confidence of investors in the stability of political conditions in Cuba therefore preceded rather than followed the reciprocity treaty. The importance and the effects of the political treaty between Cuba and the United States are matters of judgment and not of statistical proof. On the one hand it may be said that the Cubans were not utterly without capital and that some foreign capital is always available at high rates of interest. Some development, and an increasing development, would have taken place in Cuba even without this assurance of the stability of capital. On the other hand, the influence of this treaty (and presumably of the legislative and constitutional provisions which it reproduced) has been appraised as vital to Cuba's prosperity and as no less important than that exercised by reciprocity. "" * * Without this guarantee of public order assuring labor and capital the enjoyment of the fruits of industry the great commercial development which has subsequently occurred in the island would have been impossible." This assurance of a stable government "has resulted in the investment of large amounts of foreign capital in Cuba, has made possible the development of the natural resources of the island, and has aided in the creation of a large and profitable foreign trade and a body 34 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY of taxable wealth which, through the public income thereby provided, enables the authorities more easily to fulfill their obligation to maintain an efficient government." 7 EXCLUSIVE CONCESSIONS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL TREATIES The treaty of 1902 pledges the United States and Cuba to make, each to the other, exclusive concessions, not to be enjoyed by any other power. The language of Article VIII is that the rates of duty or the concessions "are and shall continue during the term of this convention preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries." The only other commercial treaty entered into by Cuba within the period herein studied in detail is that concluded on December 29, 1903, with Italy.8 This treaty guaranteed reciprocal most-favored-nation treatment, but Article XXVIII contains the following special stipulation: It is understood that the provisions laid down in the foregoing articles do not cover the cases in which Cuba may grant special reductions on its customs duties to the produce of other American States. Consequently, such concessions can not be claimed by Italy on the grounds of its being the most favored nation, except when they be granted to another State which is not American. A similar clause appears in several Latin-American treaties reserving the right to make special agreements with neighboring States, or with any States of Latin America. The Cuban-Italian treaty in no way compromised the exclusiveness of the concessions made to the United States. Since 1902 the United States has concluded a number of commercial conventions or agreements, but these likewise, either by a conditional most-favored-nation pledge or by stipulating that the treatment accorded to Cuba shall form an exception, in no case allowed the other contracting party to claim the reductions previously granted to Cuba. On the other hand, when the treaty with Cuba was signed the United States was already a party to certain agreements by which certain rates of the tariff act of 1897 had been reduced in favor of the products of certain European countries. These agreements, based upon section 3 of that tariff act and commonly known as the argol agreements, granted concessions slightly exceeding 20 per cent of the rates of duty specified in said act upon argols, brandies, or other spirits manufactured or distilled from grain or other materials, champagne, still wines, vermuth, paintings, pastels, pen-and-ink drawings, and statuary, or some of them, to France, Portugal. Germany, and Italy. After the treaty with Cuba went into effect similar agreements were made with Switzerland, Spain, Bulgaria, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The reduced tariff rates thus conceded to European powers raised a question concerning the proper interpretation of Article VIII of the treaty and of Article II, which pledged in favor of Cuban products "a reduction of 20 per centum of the rates of duty thereon as provided by the tariff act of "U. S. Tariff Commission, Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, 1919, p. 322. * Convenios y Tratados Celebrados por la Replblica de Cuba desde 1903 a 1908, Habana, 1908, p. 135. * Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, 1919, p. 892. COMMERCIAL CONVENTION WITH CUBA 35 the United States approved June 24, 1897, or as will be provided by any tariff law of the United States subsequently enacted." The claim was advanced that under the treatv with Cuba the rates of duty levied upon argols, brandies, etc., ol Cuban production must be 20 per cent less than the rates specified, not in the tariff act, but in the argol agreements made in pursuance of the tariff act. When the test case finally came before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Government did not contest the point and the judgment of the court was in favor of the importers.10 This case involved also the claim that the rate of duty upon Cuban cigars should be 20 per cent less than the special rate accorded under the act of March 8, 1902, to Philippine cigars. This claim was denied by the court on the ground that the Philippine Islands did not constitute, within the meaning of the treaty, a "country" distinct from the United States. The court said, in part: This treaty was signed and proclaimed several years after it had been decided, in the Insular cases, that Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands were not foreign countries, but territory of the United States, subject to such laws as Congress might enact for their political and fiscal management. * * notwithstanding their geographical remoteness, the Philippines are not a foreign country, and, if so, not "another country" within the meaning of the Cuban treaty. There have been statutes in which the language indicated an intent to make a distinction between a country and its colonies. But in the absence of some qualifying phrase " the word country in the revenue laws of the United States has always been construed to embrace all the possessions of a foreign State. however widely separated, which are subject to the same supreme executive and legislative control." * * * If, therefore, in our revenue laws, a colony is treated as a part of the country to which it belongs, the Philippine Islands must be treated as a part of this Nation and not as another country. It must be presumed that the words "other country" in the Cuban treaty were used according to their known and established interpretation, * * * and did not refer to charges on shipments from territory belonging to the United States. That they were not so regarded appears from the language of the act of March 8, 1902 (32 Stat. c. 140), which studiously avoids using the words "imports" and enacts that upon articles "coming into the United States from the Philippine Archipelago," there shall be levied only 75 per cent of the rates of duty imposed on like articles imported from foreign countries. These duties, when collected, are not covered into the Treasury of the United States, but are to be used and expended solely for the use and government of the Philippine Islands. * * * * * * * But the eighth article (of the treaty) refers to "imports," the correlative of "exports." This necessarily related to shipments from a country which was foreign to the United States. * * * The provision that the rates granted to Cuba shall continue " preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries," does not relate to charges on shipments between places under the same flag, but to duties laid on shipments-on imports-from countries which are foreign to the United States. Both in the light of our own legislation and in view of the generally accepted interpretation of the word " imports," the eighth article of the treaty can not be construed to have been intended to give to Cuba an advantage over shipments of merchandise coming into the United States from a part of its own territory, where the collections were in part made as a means for raising revenue for the support of the government of the Philippine Islands. Cuba was given a preferential of 20 per cent over tariff rates on imports from countries which are foreign to the United States. 10 Faber v. United States, 221 U. S. 649, 1911. The question at issue was of little commercial importance, since Cuba exports very small amounts of the articles covered by the Argol agreements. The Argol agreements were terminated between Oct. 31, 1909, and Aug. 7, 1910. i ri: " r 1 ~nJ r CHAPTER III TRADE FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE TREATY Pag Relative importance to Cuba and to the United States of the trade between them ---- 37 The balance of trade between the United States and Cuba_ — 8 Net value of trade falling within the scope of the reciprocity treaty. — 41 Imports free of duty in Cuba and in the United States -___ --- —--- 41 Cuban imports into the United S ates free by reason of preference-_ 43 American tobacco products imported into Cuba — __ --- —---— __ 43 Deductions for nonpreferential foreign merchandise- ----—. --- —-- 43 Net values of preferential imports. ---. ---. _ ------------ _ 44 This chapter deals with some general aspects of the trade between Cuba and the United States under the reciprocity treaty, without attempting to define or evaluate the influence of the treaty on that trade. Statistics showing the relative importance to the two countries of the trade between them are given, and comparisons of gross values and values affected, nominally at least, by the treaty are made without implications as to cause and effect; discussion of the significance and influence of the preferential tariff rates is left for later chapters. Considered from this point of view, the reciprocity treaty appears to have been and to continue to be much more valuable to Cuba than to the United States because (1) a much greater percentage of Cuba's total exports and of its exports to the United States falls within the terms of the treaty and receives reduced rates thereunder, and (2) because imports into the United States from Cuba have been greater in value than imports into Cuba from the United States, considering either total values or values nominally affected by the treaty. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO CUBA AND TO THE UNITED STATES OF THE TRADE BETWEEN THEM The trade between Cuba and the United States, as is to be expected in view of the relative size and consuming power of these two markets and of their neighbors, has been, and is, more important to Cuba than to the United States. This was true even before Cuba lost its preferential market in Spain. It is in no sense a result of the reciprocity treaty; a similar statement may be made for Canada, Mexico, and Caribbean and Central American countries generallv. Even prior to the reciprocity treaty the United States, including Porto Rico,1 supplied a market for 75 per cent of Cuba's exports.2 Throughout this chapter the United States includes Porto Rico unles otherwise stated. Tables 101 and 102, pp. 193, 194, give figures in detail for 1900 and later years. Al tables with numbers over 100 are in Appendix IV. 37 38 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY This percentage increased to 86.2 in the first reciprocity period, 1904 -1909, but decreased slightly when the United States no longer took all of Cuba's exportable surplus of sugar. The average in pre-war years (1910-1914) was 83.1 per cent; during the war there was a decrease but in 1922-1925, a recovery to 81.8 per cent. Notwithstanding this slow decline in the percentage of Cuba's exports which find a market in the United States, the United States is likely long to remain twice as important as all other customers of Cuba combined. Table 2 shows that despite the slowly decreasing percentage, Cuba'. exports to the United States have increased greatly in total value. Cuba, too, has grown steadily as a market for American goods but still remains relatively unimportant in the total export trade. For while Cuba has risen from tenth place in 1900 to sixth place in 1922-1925 among customers of the United States, she still takes only a little more than 4 per cent of the total exports of the United States. But this percentage is more than twice as great as the 1.8 per cent of the prereciprocity years 1900-1903, and shows a greater proportionate increase than exports to all other Latin American countries. The greater importance to Cuba of the United States as a market and the increasing importance to the United States of Cuba's consuming power are illustrated by the average percentages of exports sold by the one country in the other, as follows: Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage of total of total of total of total Period Cuban ex- United P Cuban ex- United ports sold States ex- Period ports sold States exto United ports sold to United ports sold States to Cuba States to Cuba 1900-1903-7 0 --- —-- 75. 1.8 1915-1918.... 75.1 3. 2 1904-1909............. 86. 2 2.6 1919-1921..-........ 78. 4 4. 8 1910-1914................ 83.1 2.9 1922-1925...-... 81.8 4.1 The United States ranks first in the import trade of Cuba, and to an increasing extent as Table 102 shows. In the prereciprocity period the United States supplied 43.3 per cent of Cuba's imports. The percentage rose to 49.1 and 55.3 in the first two periods of reciprocity, and after rising abnormally in the vears 1916-1921, fell to 66.6 in the years 1922-1925. This percentage, it may be observed, is not greatly different from what it probably would have been had the development shown by the pre-war periods continued without the interruption of the war. The increasing percentage, of course, corresponds to a yet more rapid increase in the absolute value of Cuba's imports from the United States. How far this development was caused by the treaty is discussed on pages 61 to 63, Chapter VI, and pages 98 to 101, Chapter VII. Exports from Cuba likewise have increased in relative importance among the imports of the United States. The percentage of United States imports sup lied by Cuba has risen from 4.8 in 1900-1903 to 8.6 in 1922-192. This percentage, however, depends so greatly upon the price of sugar that it fluctuates markedly-in 1914 it was 6.9, and in 1919, 11.1; in 1920 it was 13.7; in 1923, 10; and in 1925, 6.2. SCOPE OF THE TREATY 39 THE BALANCE OF TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND,r.. — ~CUBA Throughout the whole period both before and after reciprocity, with the exception of a year and a half, the balance of trade has been "favorable" to Cuba. Tables 103, 104, and 105 give statistics relating to this balance. Table 103 gives the balance based on American statistics of imports from Cuba and on Cuban statistics of imports from the United States, the method of comparison which perhaps measures it with the greatest accuracy.3 Table 104, based necessarily on Cuban figures, makes a comparison between Cuba's favorable balance with the United States and her unfavorable balance with all other countries combined, except in the years 1916 -1922. Table 105 gives Cuba's imports from and exports to the United States, imports being further divided into dutiable and free. Every year of the two and one-half decades given in Table 103, with the exception of the second half of 1918 and the year 1921 shows an excess of imports of Cuban merchandise into the United States over imports into Cuba from the United States.4 In a significant degree the excess of imports from Cuba represents merely the transfer to the United States (in the form chiefly of sugar and tobacco which are Cuba's " money " crops) of the interest and profits upon American investments 5 in Cuba. This holds true with progressive force for the later years. It is beyond the scope of this study, however, to determine the net balance of payments between the United States and Cuba as distinguished from the merchandise trade balance, but the distinction should be kept in mind when the yearly recurrent " adverse " balance of United States trade with Cuba is considered. Moreover, such an excess of imports over exports is usual in the trade of the United States with South America, Asia, and Africa, though no other country maintains so large a " favorable " balance with the United States as does Cuba. During the four-year period immediately preceding the introduction of reciprocity, imports of Cuban merchandise into the United States averaged $43,300,000, while imports into Cuba of goods from 8 The difficulties involved and the reasons why caution is demanded in comparing the import statistics of one country with those of another need not here be set forth. Probably, however, the figures given in Table 103, especially the averages and the percentages based thereon, reflect the actual trade more closely than would, for example, a statement of the balance of trade based upon the import and export figures of the United States. And, conversely, the disparity between imports into and exports from Cuba in the trade with the United States would be accentuated, especially for the early years of reciprocity, by using Cuban figures exclusively. On Feb. 1, 1916, the Dept. of Commerce revised the method of collecting export statistics. Previously the values of exports had been understated. " It is known that under the old order whole trainloads crossed the border without being recorded in the statistics and that statistics collected at seaboard ports were grossly inaccurate." (Report, Dept. of Commerce, 1916, p. 317.) The actual values of imports on both sides must have been larger than stated in the table, both because official valuations for customs purposes, whether used to determine ad valorem duties or only for statistical records, are likely to be low and because there are always some unreported imports in both directions, chiefly goods sent by parcel post and smuggled liquors. 4 Such an excess of imports over exports, though termed a " passive " or " unfavorable" balance of trade, is in itself neither unfavorable to the United States nor favorable to Cuba, but indicates merely that the amount by which imports from Cuba (almost wholly sugar and tobacco) exceed the value of United States' exports to Cuba is balanced or paid by triangular trade and by various so-called " invisible items of exchange," such as foreign investments, payments of interest and dividends, charges for freight and other services, and expenditures of foreign travelers. 6 See Ch. XI for discussion of American investments in Cuba. * 40 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY the United States were only $28,400,000, or less by $14,900,000. Cuba offered a market for 65.6 per cent of the value of Cuban products bought by the United States. The growth of Cuban imports into the United States from $31,400,000 in 1900 to $62,900,000 in 1903 reflects the revival of Cuba's basic industries of sugar and tobacco culture. Meanwhile, however, imports into Cuba from the United States declined, largely because of the influence on purchasing power of the low price of sugar.6 In 1904-1909, the first five and a half years under reciprocity, imports into the United States from Cuba averaged $91,500,000 in contrast to the average of $44,800,000 for imports into Cuba from the United States, or only 49 per cent of the former figure. In proportion, therefore, Cuba's exports to the United States increased more rapidly than United States exports to Cuba. Cuba's balance of trade fluctuates considerably from year to year with changes in the price of sugar and in other economic factors, but the balance with the United States has progressively increased in value, assisted, of course, by the decrease in value of money. On the other hand, if the balance of trade is measured by the ratio of Cuban imports from the United States to United States imports from Cuba, it was most " favorable " to Cuba in the period immediately following reciprocity and has since tended slightly to decrease. During the war and postwar periods the balance was less in Cuba's favor than before or since. The situation is summarized in Table 1 giving the average annual balances for different periods with the average ratio of Cuban imports from the United States to. United States imports from China. TABLE 1 Ratio of Cu- Ratio of Cuban imports ban imports Period Merchandise from United Mhandi from United balance States to Period Merchandise from United Period aane Sttod S balance States to s trade not alone with the United States b alU s imports from imports from Cuba Cuba 1900-1903 ------ -$14, 900,000 65. 6 to 100 1915-1918 ------------ $73,900,000 67.8 to 100 1904-1909-unifom46, 700,000 49.0 to 100 1919-1921shw h r vl139,u000,000 69.6 to 100 1910-1914 -56, 900,000 53. 4 to 100 1922-1925-,.......... 144,400, 000 54. 4 to 100 Table 104, necessarily constructed from Cuban statistics, gives the balance of Cuba's trade not alone with the United States, but also with other countries and with all countries. Its figures agree fairly well with those of Table 103, but the Cuban export statistics almost uniformly show higher values for shipments to the United States than are given for imports from Cuba in the statistics of the United iStates.7 Consequently, they show a greater lack of balance in the trade between the two countries; that is, the ratio of imports from the United States to Cuban exports to the United States is smaller when calculated entirely on the basis of the Cuban statistics. But see p. 41 and footnote 8. Cuban export statistics from 1900 to 1917 include reexports of foreign merchandise, the bulk of which came to the United States. See Table 104, p. 190, footnote 2. SCOPE OF THE TREATY 41 Cuba's favorable balance of trade with the United States is offset in part by an "unfavorable " or passive balance in trade with all other countries combined. This balance also shows considerable variations from year to year, but the only period in which it was favorable to Cuba was the war period which, in this case, may be said to cover the years 1915 to 1922, inclusive. In the prereciprocity period, Cuba's exports to all countries other than the United States were only 40 per cent of the value of her imports from those countries. This percentage decreased to 31.9 in the years following reciprocity and increased to 48.4 in the pre-war years 1910 to 1914, inclusive. Since the war Cuba's balance with all other countries has been less unfavorable, the percentage of exports having risen to 74.4 per cent of the imports in the years 1923-1925. Cuba's "favorable" balance with the United States has exceeded her unfavorable balance with other countries throughout the whole reciprocity period with the exception of the year 1921. This is a change from the prereciprocity period, 1900-1903, when Cuba's total merchandise balance was slightly unfavorable, the total imports for the four and one-half years being 9 per cent greater than the exports.8 NET VALUE OF TRADE FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE RECIPROCITY TREATY So far this chapter has dealt only with the gross value of the trade between Cuba and the United States, but the preferential provisions of the reciprocity treaty do not cover the whole of the trade between the two countries. Even a preliminary consideration of its effects, therefore, suggests deducting from the gross trade the trade to which the treaty has no application. While the preferential provisions of the reciprocity treaty have covered much the greater part of the trade in both directions since December 27, 1903, and while the deductions to be made to show the net preferential trade are not great in proportion to the whole, the deductions to be made from imports into Cuba are relatively much greater than those from imports into the United States. The nonpreferential trade falls into three classes: Products free of duty on either side regardless of the country of origin; merchandise imported into Cuba from the United States but not the product of the United States; and American tobacco imported by Cuba. Imports free of duty in Cuba and in the United States.-Table 106 gives the values of the dutiable and free imports into the United States from Cuba and into Cuba from the United States together with the ratio of free to total imports. The values of free goods there listed are the most important deductions to be made from the trade statistics to arrive at the net preferential imports. 8 For the first two and one-half years of reconstruction, Jan. 1, 1899-June 30, 1901, the value of total Cuban imports exceeded exports by 20 per cent. This excess of Cuban purchases was explained by the Secretary of War as being in a great measure accounted for by the fact that the long period of war and devastation which preceded the Spanish evacuation had left the island practically destitute of movable property necessary either for the comfort of life or the reproduction of wealth. And he added the comment that the excessive purchases had necessarily been made largely upon credit in anticipation of the revenues to be derived from increased production following upon the revival of Cuban industry. (Annual Report, 1901, pp. 42 and 43.) 42 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY The following figures from Table 106 summarize by periods the average values of free imports into the two countries each from the other with the percentage of total imports from the same source: TABLE 2 Free imports into Feemportsmps into Cuba United States T>.~_Period.Per cent Period of total Per cent Value imports Value of total into imports United into Cuba States 1900-1903... ---- - -.- --------- $2,600,000 6.0 1$3, 00,000 113.7 1904-1909 — ------------------------—. 3,700,000 4.1 6,700,000 12.6 1910-1914 —. - --------------—.- ------ 4,800,000 3.9 7,300,000 11.2 1915-1918. --- —-. ----------—. --- — 14,100,000 6. 2 12, 300,000 7.9 919-1921. --- —---------- ---------- 11, 500,000 2. 5 18, 600,000 5.8 1922-1925.. --- —--------------— "'.- 10,100,000 3.2 9,900,000. 8 1 Porto Rico is included, but the average is based on imports for a year and one-half only, earlier statistics not being available. It may be observed that not only the percentage but the total value of free imports into Cuba has generally been greater than the value of free imports into the United States from Cuba. The exceptions are the fiscal years 1914-1917 and the calendar years 1922 and ]925.9 The relatively high proportion of free among total imports into Cuba from the United States in the first period after reciprocity and the decreasing average percentage is due to the fluctuating values chiefly of cattle imports, but also of commodities especially in demand for sugar growing and for tobacco raising, such as agricultural implements, natural fertilizer, barbed wire, cheesecloth, and hemp. The return of peace and order after the years of revolution and war witnessed, first of all, a replenishing of depleted stocks of cattle for breeding purposes and of the commodities mentioned above. This coincided with the establishment of reciprocity, which itself was contemporaneous with the assurance of public order implied in the proclamation of the Cuban-American political treaty. In the fiscal year 1904-5, for example, imports of cattle for breeding purposes were $2,107,000, of which the United States supplied $1,056,000. By 1911-12 these imports had dwindled to $9,200 and $2,600, respectively. No other year prior to 1923 shows as heavy imports of barbed wire as 1905, when the United States shipped into Cuba $521,000 of the total $530,000. No other year approached the $395,000 worth of natural fertilizer which Cuba, in 1905, imported entirely from the United States, whereas the latter supplied $55,000 of the total $84,000 of this import in 1914. Of the few major commercial items on the Cuban free list only importations of coal, pine wood, and wood pulp increased steadily; the others either decreased or remained almost stationary. The net result has been a declining proportion of free goods among total Cuban imports from the United States. The tendency for the free imports into the United States from Cuba to decrease has been due chiefly to the increasing volume and value of *Detailed figures in Table 106. SCOPE OF THE TREATY imports of dutiable sugar. The recovery of the figure in 1914-1918 was due, in part, to the fact that the tariff act of 1913 transferred to the free list iron ore and iron and steel scrap. Cuban imports into the United States free by reason of preference.Certain Cuban products received no preference under the tariff acts of 1897 and 1909 because they were already on the free list; that is, they were exempt from duty in the United States regardless of their origin.'0 The tariff act of 1922 made some of these products 11 dutiable; but by reason of the reciprocity treaty, they remain free when of Cuban origin. In Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States they are included in free imports from Cuba, whereas for present purposes they should be considered as dutiable but receiving a 100 per cent reduction in duty. The amounts of $402,000, $623,000, and $607,000 have, therefore, been deducted from the free imports from Cuba in the years 1923, 1924, and 1925 and added to the dutiable imports shown in Table 106. This adjustment constitutes only a minor correction in arriving at net preferential imports, affecting the total figure by only about one-tenth of 1 per cent in 1923 and 1924 and would not be made except that the figures were obtained for other uses. American tobacco products imported into Cuba.-The treaty expressly excepts tobacco products of the United States and its possessions from preferential entry into Cuba, but examination of the figures for selected years 2 has led to the conclusion that this item may be ignored. The deduction would average less than one-half of 1 per cent of the dutiable import trade from the United States, and the equivalent additions to the percentages of free imports would not change those figures materially. Tables 106 and 107, therefore, make no correction for this item, although the correction would tend to show a slightly smaller advantage to the United States-that is, a greater percentage of nonpreferential exports to Cuba. Deductions for nonpreferential foreign merchandise.-The dutiable imports shown in Table 106 are in the main preferential imports, that is, they receive one or another of the four percentages of reduction specified in the reciprocity treaty. There, however, remains to be subtracted the imports of foreign merchandise not entitled to benefit by the preferences. No deduction has been made from dutiable imports into the United States on account of the importation of articles from Cuba not entitled to preference because of their not being products of Cuba.13 It is believed that such transshipment trade is negligible 14 and that 10 Principally bananas, mahogany, other cabinet woods in the log, crude and manufactured copper, cacao beans, coconuts. " The most important are manganese ore, alligator pears, coconuts, cedar and mahogany logs, and crushed stone. 12 See Tables 116, 117, and 118. 13This difficulty is eliminated later, where the amounts of revenues remitted on preferential, that is, dutiable imports from Cuba, are computed by using statistics of imports for consumption, which identify only imports from Cuba entered at reduced rates. A misdeclaration of origin by which goods from another country are declared as goods from the United States is regarded as constituting a fraud upon the Cuban treasury. The penalty is confiscation of the goods. 14 No allowance need be made for shipments received from Cuba which are forwarded to other countries, because the statistics of imports into and exports from the United States do not include values of foreign merchandise, received from or destined for a foreign country, entered for immediate transit across the territory or for transshipment in the Ports of the United States. Presumably this holds true likewise for the Cuban statistics. 10038-29 — 4 44 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY the bulk of Cuban reexports to the United States consists of articles, such as containers and automobiles, the growth, product, or merchandise of the United States returned, admitted free of duty, and, therefore, already shown as nonpreferential. Table 107, however, makes deductions from Cuban imports from the United States of foreign merchandise not entitled to preference in Cuba and shows the net preferential imports into Cuba and the United btates. The results shown are as accurate as can be obtained without undue labor.'? The figures might be further refined, but the change of a figure after the decimal point or even the change of a digit before the decimal point in the ratio finally obtained would be of little significance, especially as the figures fluctuate so greatly from year to year. Net values of preferential imports.-Table 107 brings out more clearly the disparity already shown by the gross figures of Table 103, namely, that the value of Cuban exports to the United States falling within the general scope of the preferential provisions of the treaty has greatly exceeded the value of American exports to Cuba similarly affected, nominally at least, by the treaty. From 1904 to 1915, inclusive, American exports favored by the treaty were valued at less than one-half'6 the value of the Cuban exports similarly favored. During the war and the postwar period through 1921, American exports under the treaty increased relatively but without reaching on the average two-thirds of the value of Cuba's exports under the treaty. The more recent years, 1922-1925, inclusive, again show that from the superficial aspect of the subject to which this chapter confines itself, American exports nominally benefiting by the treaty were valued at only slightly more than one-half of the value of Cuban exports falling within the preferential provisions of the treaty. The values of the net preferential imports on the two sides and the ratios may be summarized as in Table 3. TABLE 3 Value of net preferential Ratio of imports Cuban imports from Period United State s Into Cuba Into United to Uited from United States from Sae imStates Cuba ports from Cuba 1904-1909 -................... X............-. $38,000,000 $88,000,000 43.1 to 100 1910-1914-.....................-............ 57,000,000 117, 000, 000 48.5 to 100 1915-1918 ---.. ---..-.-.,......,...........-.....-. 138,000,000 216,000,000 64.0 to 100 1919-1921 —.2,...0......0 —.................-...... --- — 21, 000, 000 445,000,000 65.2 to 100 1922-1925..-....-...................................... 157,000,000 307,000,000 51.3 to 100 1Certain inaccuracies arise (1) from not deducting American tobacco products from dutiable Imports into Cuba from the United States; (2) from applying the percentage of foreign products in American exports to Cuba to the Cuban import figures; and (3) from including in the (column) percentage of nonpreferential Imports into Cuba a small amount of American exportations of foreign products which are already covered by the column of free imports into Cuba. Detailed figures for 1905, 1914, and 1923 show that the inaccuracy under this third head is very slight-the articles of foreign production exported from the United States to Cuba are almost all dutiable. Apparently, the Cuban officials use due diligence in excluding from preferential entry articles not the product of the soil or industry of the United States. 'aThe years 1906, 1908, 1913, and 1914 show slightly more than one-half. CHAPTER IV COMPARISON OF THE BREADTH OF THE CONCESSIONS MADE BY CUBA AND BY THE UNITED STATES Pae The average Cuban concession expressed as a percentage of the duty — _ 45 The concessions measured in ad valorem terms_ --- —_ --- —----- 46 Validity of ad valorem comparisons_______-_ ----------------- 47 Ad valorem equivalents of Cuba's duties upon imports from selected countries-___ ------------------------ 48 The concessions of the reciprocity treaty are apparently unequal; the United States concedes a reduction of 20 per cent of its tariff rates and Cuba concedes reductions of 20, 25, 30, and 40 per cent.' The apparent inequality of these reductions merits inquiry no less than does the total value of the exports of each country which fall within the terms of the treaty. Two questions arise, (1) how unequal are the apparent concessions of the treaty; that is, what importance is to be attached to the concessions on the Cuban side which exceed the 20 per cent conceded by the United States and (2) what is the actual breadth of the concessions given, what are the absolute amounts of the concessions which the treaty expresses only as percentages of unspecified and changeable rates of duty? Does the apparent inequality of the concessions indicate a real inequality, and if so, on which side are the concessions the greater? An analysis of the trade between Cuba and the United States during the period covered by the reciprocity treaty brings to light two related facts(1) Cuba's reductions of 25, 30, and 40 per cent are relatively unimportant. A weighted average of the Cuban concessions shows that the United States conceded its 20 per cent reduction in return for an average reduction of about 24 per cent in the dutiable list of the Cuban tariff. (2) The reductions accorded by the United States, when converted to an ad valorem basis expressing them as percentages of the value of dutiable imports, are much greater than those accorded by Cuba, similarly expressed. The average Cuban concession expressed as a percentage of the duty.The concession by Cuba was 20 per cent on the greater part of her dutiable imports but included some reductions of 25, 30, and 40 per cent. The products benefiting by reductions greater than 20 per cent are not many2 and a consideration of their relative commercial importance shows that they do not dominate the situation. To determine the exact importance of these reductions Tables 116, See Ch. II, p. 28 for the reasons for these concessions, and Ch. IX, pp. 118 to 122, for a discussion of their effects on trade. Equal concessions on different articles (though articles of equal commercial importance) do not necessarily yield equal results.. See lists, Ch. IX, pp. 123 to 126. 45 46 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY 117, and 118 3 divide imports for 1905, 1914, and 1923 into groups according to the amount of the reduction granted to imports from the United States. In spite of the variations in the importance of particular items and of different groups, the final weighted averages of the total reductions for the three scattered years agree so closely that no calculations were deemed necessary for other years. It seems safe to assume that the intervening years do not depart materially from the average figures for the years given.4 In 1905 the weighted average of Cuba's tariff reductions on all dutiable imports from the United States was 24.16 per cent; in 1914, 24.11 per cent; and in 1923, 24.52 per cent. (Table 113.) This shows-as, of course, the value figures show also-the predominance of the articles admitted by Cuba under the smaller reductions, more specifically the 20 per cent group. The inclusion of imports from Porto Rico ' slightly reduces the percentages because it increases the amount imported under the class of 20 per cent reductions (Table 112); the average percentages of Cuba's reductions for the three years become 23.8, 23.6, and 24.3 per cent, respectively. For the whole series of years 24 per cent may be taken as representing the average percentage by which Cuba has reduced her duties on products of the United States and Porto Rico, in return for a 20 per cent reduction in the American tariff rates. The concessions measured in ad valorem terms.-A direct comparison of the concessions by the United States of 20 per cent of its duties with an average concession by Cuba of 24 per cent of her duties is of little significance, since the tariffs from which the concessions were made were not, nor are to-day, either equal or equivalent. Reductions expressed merely as percentages of the full tariff rates have little meaning in themselves; they become significant only when considered in connection with the height of the tariff rates affected and the relative importance in import trade of the articles to which they apply. Obviously, a 40 per cent reduction from a rate of 10 per cent ad valorem is less than a 20 per cent reduction from a rate of 5C per cent ad valorem. The rates of the United States tariff applying to Cuban exports have been and are so much higher than the Cuban rates applying to American exports that when the reductions are measured as ad valorem equivalents, the United States concession of 20 per cent has averaged nearly twice as much in ad valorem terms as Cuba's concession averaging 24 per cent of her tariff rates. The negotiators must have realized in 1902, from the existing trade and tariffs, that the result would fall in this direction, although they may not have worked out the estimates in detail. The Cuban tariff rates are very largely specific, as are also the Cuba. On both sides, therefore, the ad valorem equivalents have declined as rices have risen. Partly on account of the three tariff revisions of the United States, in 1909, 1913, and 1921-22, and partly because the equivalent ad valorem rate for the United States Tables indicated by numerals over 100 are In Appendix IV. ' The assumption may scarcely be warranted for the abnormal period of the war but the plan of this study excludes intensive analysis of that period. o offee, which falls in the fclass of 20 per cent reductions, averages 98 per cent of th ttal imports into Cuba from Porto 'Rico; for this reason all imports from Porto Rico have been considered as falling into th- e 20 per cent group. BREADTH OF THE CONCESSIONS 47 is almost entirely that applying to a single commodity,0 the ad valorem measure of the American concessions has fluctuated more markedly than the comparable Cuban figure.7 Tables 108 and 112 show that, on an ad valorem basis, the pre-war average reductions of the United States were twice as great as the Chban; 13.2 per cent as compared with 6.5 per cent. Under the tariff act of 1913 and the high prices which prevailed during the war and through 1920, the annual equivalent ad valorem figures for the United States dropped abruptly from 14 per cent to a minimum of 2.4 per cent in 1920. They averaged 6.6 per cent in 1915-1918, inclusive, or less than 50 per cent greater than the Cuban concession of 4.8 per cent, and averaged in 1919-20 only 3.3 per cent, actually less than the Cuban figure for the same period, in spite of the concurrent decrease in the ad valorem equivalent on the Cuban side to 3.8 per cent. Higher rates on sugar and tobacco under the emergency tariff act of May, 1921, and the low price of sugar brought the ad valorem of the American concessions back to 8 per cent, almost double the figure of 4.1 per cent for the Cuban concessions, for the year 1921; and for the years 1922-1925 it has averaged 11.8 per cent as compared with 4.8 per cent. In 1922 and 1925 this ad valorem equivalent has been higher than at any other time since the first six months of the treaty's operation. From Tables 108 and 112 the ad valorem equivalents of the average concessions made by the United States and Cuba may be summarized as follows: Concessions by ConcesUnited sions by Period States Cuba (ad (ad va- valorem lorem averages) averages) Per cent Per cent 1904-1909 --------------------------------—. --- —...... —... --- —.... 13.5 7.0 1910-1914. —. ---. ---- --------. --- —-....... -.....13. 0 6. 2 1915-1918. --- —-----------------—.. --- —-----------...- ---. 6.6 4.8 1919-1921..-. ----—. -—. --—............ 4. 1 3. 9 1922-1925 --- ----------—... --- —---------------—.-. --- —. --- —-— 1.. 11.8 4. 8 Validity of ad valorem comparisons.-Cuban duties on American products and American duties on Cuban products are and have been during the course of the reciprocity treaty predominantly specific s duties. Specific duties maintain a constant rate or amount of protection-that is, a duty of 3 cents per pound assures a definite and constant differential of that amount-though in relation to price or value the proportion or percentage of protection is liable to constant change. The American tariff rate of 1.76 cents on sugar represents 50 per cent of the foreign value when that is 3.52 cents per pound, and 100 per cent when it falls to 1.76 cents per pound. While there is no 6 A comparison of Tables 108 and 122 shows how sugar dominates the situation. While the ad valorem equivalent of the duty on tobacco (Table 125) has tended downward, the ad valorem equivalent of the duty on sugar has fluctuated markedly and so controls the average for all imports that the ad valorem equivalents of the concessions on the total trade had never, until 1925, differed by nrore than 1 unit from the similar figures for sugar. 7 It has never, however, with the exception of the single year 1920, been less than the Cuban. 8 Specific duties, as contrasted with ad valorem duties which are levied on value, are levied by weight, by measure, by tale, or by some other definite physical attribute. 48 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY doubt an element of truth in the belief that both consumers and producers scrutinize prospective losses of 1 cent a pound less closely in times of high prices than in times of low prices, it is easy to exaggerate the force of this tendency. In regard to standardized articles such as sugar, where competition rests largely upon small price differences, it seems not unreasonable to believe that traders give almost the same attention to price differences of one-tenth of a cent per pound whether the price be high or low and whether the duty be 75 per cent or 25 per cent. In regard to articles which compete on a basis of reputation, brand, appearance, style, adaptability, advertising, salesmanship, and other factors distinct from price, the proportion which one price bears to another may be a more important consideration than the absolute differences between the two prices. The measurement and comparison of tariff rates only upon an ad valorern basis then involves a fallacy in that it assumes that traders measure profits and losses only on a percentage basis; in other words, that they pay no more attention to price differences of 1 cent when prices are about 10 cents than they do to differences of one-half cent when prices are about 5 cents. It does not follow that because the average reduction accorded by the United States to Cuban products in 1915 was 8.4 per cent, and in 1919, 4.8 per cent that the concession operated in 1919 with only about one-half the force which it had exerted in 1916. In 1922 the United States increased its specific rate on sugar. The price then rose so that the ad valorem equivalent of the greater concession n 1923 was only 9 per cent, while in the previous year the smaller concession (in cents per pound) had been equivalent to 16.1 per cent ad valorem. It by no means follows that the concession in 1923 was less effective than in 1922. Nor can it be assumed that a 10 per cent ad valorein concession will be equally valuable or will produce similar results when applied to two different articles, even though they be products of the same industry and go into the same market. Still less can it be assumed that equal or similar concessions on two totally different articles moving into different markets will produce equal or similar results. Where one country exports few natural products and the other country exports a vast variety of natural and manufactured products, even if the average concessions on all products are equal, they are not necessarily of equal value. Just as the amount of the tariff advantage required in the domestic market varies from industry to industry and from item to item, so the amount of the concession necessary to enable American products to compete in Cuba and Cuban products to compete in the United States varies from industry to industry and item to item. The final test in all such cases, as has been said above, must be an examination of the trade and competitive conditions item by item. But in spite of the shortcomings of ad valorem percentages as here used and the danger of accepting them too literally, they offer the only feasible method of comparison in miany cases; concessions covering a wide range of articles can be averagel, compared, and generalized only in ad valorem terms. Since they must be used, they have been set forth, but with the caution that undue emphasis should not be attached to them. so t Ad valorem equivalents of Cuba's duties upon imports from selected countries.-The Cuban Government publishes the figures showing the BREADTH OF THE CONCESSIONS 49 amount of duty collected upon duitable imports from the different countries. These figures, summarized in Table 4 from Table 115, show that in the years immediately preceding reciprocity the rates of duty upon duitable imports from Germany, Great Britain, France, and Spain averaged higher than did the rates upon imports from the United States not including Porto Rico, and that the average rate upon imports from Canada was conspicuously low. The explanation no doubt is that the imports from Canada were in larger degree raw or semifinished materials dutiable at lower rates, while the imports from Europe consisted in larger degree of highly finished manufactures, wines, and liquors, and other articles of luxury. The first reciprocity figures differ from the earlier figures primarily because of the reductions accorded to imports from the United States and the increased rates imposed upon other imports, though other factors exerted some influence. Already in 1904-1909, rising prices made the ad valorem equivalents of the specific duties lower than they would otherwise have been, and the continuous decline in the figures for every country between 1904-1909 and 1919-1921 may be ascribed principally to rising prices. The lower prices of 1922-1924 are reflected in higher ad valorem equivalents. The other chief factor in the changes is the variation in the relative importance of the different elements composing the trade. For the importance of this last factor in the trade of the United States, see Chapter IX, pages 135 to 138. TABLE 4.-Average equivalent ad valorem rates of duty paid on dutiable imports into Cuba Averages for yearsImports from- Jan. 1, July 1, July 1, 1904 to 1909 to 1914 to 19021903 June 30, June 30, Dec. 31,919-1921 192-1924 1909 1914 1918 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent i Per cent Per cent All countries ----------- ------------- 25. 2 27.1 22. 5 16. 1 12. 7 17. 2 United States and Porto Rico -..... --- 1 25 22.5 19.6 15.1 12. 2 15 United States. — ---- -—.. --- 23.6 20.8 17.7 14.2 11.8 14.6 Canada — 1 — ------------------------ 112.4 19 18.9 9.1 8.3 15. 2 Great Britain ---------—.- ----------- 26 28.4 24. 2 18.6 12.8 18 Spain -. —. --- —------------ - 31.8 39.1 35 26.2 19.9 27.8 Germany -----------. ----. --- —----- 24.6 27.6 26.4 25. 1 1 8. 7 France ------ 28.3 33 30.5 24.8 23.4 27.2 11903 only. :: CHAPTER V COMPARATIVE AMOUNTS OF REVENUE NOMINALLY SACRIFICED BY THE TWO COUNTRIES Pag Nominal " sacrifice" of revenue greater for United States than for Cuba- 52 The unreality of the "sacrifice" of revenue --- ——. --- —-. ---. ---.. - 53 Readjustment of Cuba's tariff rates to maintain the revenues - ----- 54 Readjustment of United States tariff rates -----------------— _ --- —-. 56 Chapter III set forth the extent of the concessions by the two parties to the reciprocity treaty as measured by the value of their respective imports under the preferential provisions of that treaty. Chapter IV set forth the relative breadth of the concessions on the two sides as measured by the average ad valorem equivalent of the duties remitted under the terms of the treaty. These two measurements will now be applied in combination. If the total value or extent of the trade upon which concessions have been made be multiplied by the breadth of the concessions, there is obtained an inclusive or total figure representing the gross value of the total concession. The term "gross value" is used because this total figure, while significant and indicative, must be further analyzed and from it certain deductions should be made to yield a final net result. This total figure is the sum of the concessions upon a host of articles and as such combines effective and ineffective concessions without distinguishing the different circumstances affecting the trade in different articles. The resultant of the process just indicated is evidently the total revenue nominally sacrificed by each government on the preferential imports from the other country by reason of the treaty concessions. The figures given in the next to the last columns of Tables 108 and 1121 thus have a double significance. They are entitled "duties remitted" and represent first of all and directly the revenue nominally sacrified by the two governments year by year, but, secondly, they represent the total area, so to speak, of the concessions granted. As explained before, the extent of the trade affected by a reciprocity treaty may lack significance because the concessions on large parts of it may be too small to be effective; but these figures now before us represent a combination of the extent of the concessions and their breadth. Important items of trade upon which the concession is very small may have no more weight in making up this total than much less important articles upon which the concession is comparatively great. The figures represent the totals of the differential duties remitted in each of the two markets for the advantage of the exporters of the other. They may be said to represent the total See also the comparable column in Tables 118, 114, 116, 117, 118, 122, and 125. 51 52 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY protection given to American products in the Cuban market and to Cuban products in the American market; but as customs statistics yield no direct measure of the value of protective duties to the protected industries, so the statement that these figures represent this protection must be understood in the sense that they measure its total scope rather than its net value. The figures representing the total concessions or the total revenue nominally conceded on the two sides will now be given, to be followed by the reasons for speaking of the revenue remitted as only a' nominal sacrifice. Nominal "sacrifice" of revenue greater for United States than for Cuba.-In the fiscal year 1905, the first full year of the treaty's operation, the United States remitted not far from $9,000,000 on imports from Cuba. and Cuba remitted only $2,400,000 on imports from the United States, including Porto Rico. The size of the concession on the Cuban side was affected by increases of tariff rates in February, 1904, to offset the loss of revenue which the treaty would otherwise have involved. This tariff revision was presumably foreseen by tile negotiators of the treaty.2 The negotiators were apparently familiar with an estimate which put the prospective loss of revenue to Cuba at $6,000,000, with an increase of $2,000,006 after the first year, and if they relied on this estimate they did not contemplate a disparity as great as our figures indicate. They could not calculate exactly what would be the disproportion in revenues remitted by the two governments because they did not know exactly what increases of the duties would be made or how the trade would develop. Nevertheless, it must have been evident to them that the United States, with its larger volume of imports and its higher tariff rates, was conceding a greater amount. For reasons mentioned later, greater significance may perhaps be attached to the results of the treaty (of the kind now under discussion) during the continuance in effect of the United States tariff act of 1897 than to the results under later tariffs. The tariff act of 1909) became effective on August 5 of that year, so that the period from December 27, 1903, to June 30, 1909, substantially covers the operation of the treaty under the act of 1897. In this period the United States remitted some $62,700,000 in revenue, and Cuba only $15()00,000. Particular attention may be given to the $48,000,000 sacrificed by the remission of duty upon sugar; as shown in Chapter VI, this remission through the years 1904 to 1909 enured largely to the benefit of Cuban producers. In the early years of the treaty the IUnitedl States remitted over four times as much revenue as did Cuba. The disproportion was considerably less during and immediately after the war; but since 1922 it has even exceeded the earlier figure. Owing to the inclusion of the figures for 1915-1921, the gross total RA complete revision of the Cuban tariff had been reared in 1901 by the Tarff Revision PCi nission, under the presidency of Colonel Bliss appointed by the military government. However, the tariff proposed was not put into effect, as It was thought unwise to hamper the new government, whose inauguration was then shortly expected with en untried tariff. Moreover, even before the negotiations had begun, President Palma was pressed to restore the old Spanish rates, at least partially, and the 1902 platform of the Cuban Republican 'Party maintained that the tariff of 1897 should be considered as the only fair basis of treaty negotiation. Increases of duties were recommended in September, 1902, by a tariff committee appointed by the Cuban Government, but not put into effect, iperhaps because the pending treaty made the time inopportune. When President Palma urged the need of such increases he emphasized that they were not proposed in any unfriendly spirit but merely to h ave suficlent revenues to meet necessary expenses of government.ent revenues to meet REVENUE NOMINALLY SACRIFICED 53 for the whole period shows a nominal sacrifice of revenue by the United States of only about three times the sacrifice of the Cuban Government, namely $400,000,000 in comparison with $130,000,000; but the normal operation of the treaty during years of peace has shown total nominal concessions by the United States as at least four times the total nominal concessions made by Cuba. Table 5, summarizing Tables 108 and 112, gives the total concessions on the two sides and shows the ratio between them: TABLE 5.-Duties remitted by the United States and by Cuba, and the ratio between them; values of dutiable imports entered at reduced rates and the average concession, in per cent ad valorem; totals for selected periods, 1904 -1925 [Total values for periods in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] Dutiable imports Average ad valorem Duties remitted into- concession by- by- Ratio of..__._ __.___ ____..________,___ ______ United States to Period United Cuba Cuban States from United United "sacrifrom United States a States Cua fice" Cuba States 1 Per cent Per cent 1904-19-09 --- —----- ----------- 463.8 215.5 13.5 7. 0 62.7 15.0 4. 2 to 1 1910-1914 --- ——. —. --- —-.._- 584.1 289.4 13.0 6.2 75.7 18.0 4.2 to 1 1915-1918 --- —-------------—.. 954.5 646.6 6. 6 4. 8 63.4 30.8 2.1 to 1 1919-1921 -.. ----.. ---_.... —.. 1, 330. 2 897.9 4.1 3.9 54.4 31.8 1.6 to 1 1922-1925 -- - 1,225.6 650.1 11.8 4.8 144.1 30.9 4.7 to 1...............______] ______ ______ ______ __.._..,........._ _ ___ 1 1 Inclusive of Porto Rico. The unreality of the " sacrifice" of revenue.-Whatever may be the significance of the figures just cited as indicating the total trade concessions, they can not be understood to be an accurate measurement of any real sacrmifce by the two Governments concerned. This follows from the differences between the financial position of an individual and that of a government, and from the particular circumstances which usually attend reductions of tariff rates by treaty. The sacrifice of revenue by a government is quite unlike the loss or sacrifice of income on the part of an individual; nor is it comparable to the loss of a business firm as appearing on a statement of profit and loss at the end of some fiscal period.3 In recent years the Government of the United States has remitted taxation, that is, has " sacrificed revenue" to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This remission of taxation represents no loss to the people of the United States or to their government. It merely means that the citizens retain certain sums to spend individually instead of turning them over to their representatives to be spent for them collectively. The remission of revenue derived from one form of taxation may, none the less, be a disadvantage to the taxpayers. It may be necessary to replace the revenue remitted by income derived from otheri taxes which are more disadvantageous, that is, more expensive to collect, more burdensome or annoying to the taxpayers, or more 8 In a certain sense, perhaps, remissions of portions of customs duties by a government may be compared to the "sacrifices" of income by a business firm that arise from cash discounts or allowances for early payment on its sales. Such discounts are not a loss from doing business but represent an element of its financial policy, to be taken into consideration in fixing its prices. 54 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY undesirable or less desirable in their social effects. A remission of customs revenue-not so great that it visibly injures domestic industries-is a direct sacrifice only in so far as it may be true that the foreigner had been paying the duty or in so far as the remission precludes the reduction of more undesirable, or requires an increase in less desirable, forms of taxation. Those who believe that customs duties are generally paid by the foreigner will naturally attribute greater reality to the sacrifice of customs revenue through a reciprocity treaty than those who believe that customs duties are generally passed on to the consumer and exact from him greater payments than those collected by the government.4 The relative advantages and disadvantages of different forms of taxation need not be discussed here, especially as neither Cuba nor the United States had to resort to other forms of taxation to replace that remitted under the reciprocity treaty.5 Without undertaking to lay down any rule as to the circumstances under which or the extent to which the burden of the duty may be borne in part by the foreigner, it may be stated that it varies according to circumstances, and that, for this and other reasons, including the one discussed later, the revenue remitted under a reciprocity treaty does not afford any reliable measure of its disadvantages to the State treasuries or to the people concerned.6 The total revenue remitted under a treaty bears no necessary relation to the disadvantage, if any, involved in subsituting revenue from other sources. Readjustment of Cuba's tariff rates to maintain the revenues.-Ai second reason for attributing little or no reality to the gross " sacrifice of revenue " under the reciprocity treaty of 1902 is that both Governments, the Cuban immediately and that of the United States after a delay of some years, adjusted their tariff rates to the treaty concessions. The reductions of the reciprocity treaty were all defined in percentages and these percentages were applicable, by express stipulation of the treaty, to the rates in force at the time 7 and to any rates which either country might in future substitute for them.8 The immediate object of this arrangement was undoubtedly to allow The extrere view that the foreigner always pays the duty is not held by students of the subject. The Tariff Commission is on record that "the duty on Cuban raw sugars * * * is at the present time (April, 1923) included in the wholesale a n retail prices of granulated sugar," though this "is not equivalent to saying that if the tariff were reduced or removed prices to the consumer would necessarily be lower by the full amount of the reduction." (U.S. Tariff Commission Report on "The Relation of the Tariff on Sugar to th Rise in Price of February-April, 1923," 1923, p. 14.) 5The Cuban law of Feb. 27 1903 created nternal-revatnue taxes to be Imposed to provide funds for the interest and sinking fund of a national loan of $35,000,000, and 191-1918authorized export duties on cigars, cigarettes, and manufactured tobacco and an excise on sugar if the procees from the other taxes should prove insufficient; but it was not necessary to make use of the authorization. The nominal sacrifice of revenue by Cuba, although only one-fourth that of the United States In dollars and cents, was three times as great In relation to total customs receipts. United States Cuba (per cent) Cub a 1904-1909 -—. --- —------------— (per cent) 1915-1918-4. 8 1910-1914-11. 4 1919-1921 ----------------------- i7. 0 1915-1918 - _ 20.3 — 7. 2 1922-1925 -..2. 8 The general rates of the Cuban tariff of 1897 constituted a " bargaining tariff," with rates high enough to leave a margin for the reductions which Spain was planning to negotiate with the United States. But the lower rates on Spanish products later beoame the general rates and, subject to two revisions, with a number of reductions formed the basis of the tariff In force when the reciprocity treaty went into effect. In European terminology, both countries retained their tariff autonomy and neither granted any conventional or bound rates. REVENUE NOMINALLY SACRIFICED fi5 Cuba to revise her tariff so as to maintain her customs revenue. The maintenance of the Cuban customs income as then constituted was almost a condition precedent to any concession in favor of United States goods. Consideration of its importance on the part of the negotiators must be taken for granted, since the American delegate was the former collector of customs for Cuba and one of the Cuban delegates was the Secretary of the Treasury. The recently established Cuban Government was almost wholly dependent upon customs revenue9 and did not feel itself able to forego 24 per cent of the revenue collected upon imports from the United States, which even then supplied not far from half of Cuba's total imports. Further, this loss of revenue would become greater in proportion as the reciprocity treaty (and other causes) proved effective in shifting the source of Cuba's imports of dutiable goods from Europe to the United States. Accordingly, the Cuban legislature by a law of January 16, 1904-three weeks after the treaty became effective-conferred upon the Executive power to raise the existing tariff rates by not more than 30 per cent, and by decree of February 1, 1904, the President increased most of the rates by 25 or 30 per cent and a smaller number by 15 or 20 per cent. Only a few items remained exempt from the new surtaxes. The effect of the surtaxes was to increase the revenue from imports from sources other than the United States by some 25 per cent and to prevent in large degree the concessions to the United States from decreasing the revenue derived from preferential imports. A great number of the items entitled to 20 per cent reduction under the treaty were increased by 25 per cent; thus the new effective rate to the United States was the same as the old general rate. Upon a not inconsiderable list of American products the duty was actually increased, since many products were subject to a 30 per cent surtax before the subtraction of a 20 per cent reduction, so that they became dutiable at a net rate higher by 4 per cent than the old duty.10 Upon other American products-those upon which the surtax rate was only 15, 20, or 25 per cent and those upon which the preferential reduction was greater than 20 per cent-there was a net reduction of duty in spite of the surtaxes.11 Such reductions were small and relatively few in number. It is evident that the entire revision of the rates upon American and all other products resulted in a net increase of revenues. The reductions exceeded the increases, but the average rate of duty on products of continental United States was reduced by less than 10 per cent of the previous duties, as may be deduced from Table 5. 9 In 1900 customs duties had supplied over 90 per cent of the revenues of the Cuban Government. 10 It is significant that such treatment was accorded largely only to representative American products, such as lard, fresh and salt pork, hams, shoulders, and bacon, beef (except Jerked), fowl and small game, oleomargarine, shellfish, condensed milk, eggs, coffee, oats, oatmeal, hay and fodder, beer in barrels, chemical fertilizers, explosives, and fireclay pipes. Compare the list of commodities in the 20 per cent reduction group of which the United States supplied more than 80 per cent of total imports in 1902, as given in Ch. IX, p. 123. 11 Rice, for example, on a prereciprocity basis had been dutiable at $1 per 100 kilos; the surtax increase was 20 per cent of this rate, so that American rice, with 40 per cent preference was later admitted at a net rate of $0.72 per 100 kilos. Again, after granting to the United States a reduction of 30 per cent of the duty on wheat flour, Cuba raised the old general rate from $1 to $1.30 per 100 kilos, making the new rate on United States flour $0.91 per 100 kilos. CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY Table 5 shows the decreases in the ad valorem equivalents of the Cuban tariff rates as prices rose between 1904-1909 and 1922-1925. The net increase of prices averaged about 50 per cent, which corresponds to the decrease of approximately one-third in the ad valorem equivalents. The varying rates of decreases shown for the different countries correspond to variations in the courses of the prices of leading commodities exported from those countries which make up the weighted average for each country. These variations were of course producing their effects in the period 1904-1909 as well as later, and the changes in the average rates of duty between 1902-3 and 1904 -1909 can not therefore be attributed solely to the surtaxes of February 1, 1904. The figures of Table 5 none the less indicate that the net result of the treaty concessions, of the Cuban surtaxes of February 1, 1904, and of the rise of prices between 1902-3 and 1904-1909, was to reduce the rates upon American products by an average of 10 per cent of the duties previously imposed. As the figures show a reduction of exactly 10 per cent, and as some part of this reduction Inlust be attributed to the upward trend of prices in 1902-1909, the net effect of the treaty concessions and the surtaxes must have been a reduction of somewhat less than 10 per cent of the previous duty. Upon imports from the United States, excluding Porto Rico, the reduction is shown by the table to have been less than 10 per cent. The surtaxes apparently increased the rates of duty upon imports from the United Kingdom and Germany by about 10 per cent, from France by about 15 per cent, and from Spain by about 30 per cent. It is clear, since imports from the United States were less than half of the total in 1904, that the surtaxes were calculated to bring in more revenue than was remitted by the treaty concessions. The reciprocity treaty necessitated the labor of revising the tariff rates; it did not reduce Cuba's customs revenue. It involved no sacrifice of revenue except in the most nominal and unreal sense. Unless it were shown that in some way the revision necessitated an increase of rates to levels undesirably high and a decrease of rates to points undesirably low, it could hardly be shown that the rearrangement of Cuba's tariff involved any sacrifice. Since Cuba was able to preserve her necessary income without resort to other forms of taxation and since the readjusted rates remained in force substantially unaltered until 1925, it seems that the burden of proof would lie on anyone who wished to maintain that Cuba's concessions in the reciprocity treaty involved any sacrifice of revenue or any disadvantage in the substitution of less desirable taxes for more desirable taxes. Readjustment of United States tariff rates.-For five and one-half years after the reciprocity treaty became effective the United States did not revise its tariff rates. The rates, however, of the revision effective on August 5, 1909, and of the revisions of 1913, 1921, and 1922, were fixed to take account of the reductions already accorded to Cuban products and continued by these tariff acts. This has been true at least of sugar and tobacco and presumably of any other commodity in which Cuba has been the chief competitor of the domestic industry or the chief supplier of an article not produced in the United States. The statement is not invalidated by the fact that the rates of duty upon sugar and tobacco were not changed in 1909 REVENUE NOMINALLY SACRIFICED 57. If upon consideration-and two such important items necessarily received thorough consideration-the Congress left the rates unchanged, the failure of the Treasury thereafter to receive greater revenue for imports of these articles can not be ascribed to the concession made in 1903 in favor of Cuba.12 After the tariff revision of August, 1909, the sacrifice of revenue by the United States is, with exceptions noted later, as nominal as the sacrifice of revenue by the Government of Cuba from February 1, 1904. The situation prior to the tariff revision of August 5, 1909, was very different. During the period from December 27, 1903, to August 5, 1909, the United States sacrificed upon imports from Cuba approximately $64,000,000 in revenue, or over $11,000,000 a year for slightly more than five and one-half years. That sum represents the additional amount which would have been paid into the United States Treasury had imports from Cuba been as they actually were but subject to the full rates of duty. These full rates of duty had been in force since 1897 and, except for the reciprocity treaty, would have remained in effect upon imports from Cuba until the tariff revision of 1909. Unlike the Cuban treasury, the Treasury of the United States derived from customs duties in the years immediately following the reciprocity treaty many million dollars of revenue less than it would have derived had there been no such treaty.13 This revenue sacrificed by the United States was not simply a remission of taxation by a government in favor of its citizens. The analysis in Chapter VI establishes that a large part of the revenue remitted upon sugar enured to the Cuban producers. The total revenue remitted upon Cuban sugar through the fiscal year ended June 30, 1909, approximated $48,000,000, or three-fourths of the amount remitted upon alUl imports. Accordingly, it was a substantial sum which accrued to the Cuban producers at the expense of the United States Treasury during the five and one-half years following the reciprocity treaty. This advantage to the Cuban sugar producers did not cease abruptly on June 30, 1909. Under the tariff act of that year, and perhaps to a slight extent even later, the Cuban producers received in part at least the revenue conceded by the United States. In so far as they received that advantage that fact must be noted as an exception to the stateient above concerning the nominal character of the concessions by the United States after the tariff revision of 1909. For no concession can be regarded as nominal in respect of any amount remitted by the national treasury which accrues not to the residents of the country granting the remission but to the residents of the country which receives the concession. Similarly, a further exception is that in so far as remission of United States duties, under any of the tariff 2 On Mar. 16, 1909, President Taft convened the Sixty-first Congress in extra session li order to enable it to give immediate consideration to the revision of the tariff act of 1897. He referred in his message to the need of new sources of revenue to avoid a budget deficit which by the end of the then current fiscal year was likely to be $100,000,000. This state of affairs and the fact that imports of sugar, molasses, and manufactures thereof accounted for approximately one-fifth of the total $294,377,400 of customs duties collected during the fiscal year 1909, give added importance to the action of Congress. 3 The majority report of the Committee on Ways and Means, dated Nov. 13, 1903, Which recommended the passage of H. R. 1921 to put into effect the reciprocity conventiMn, carries no reference to the revenue situation. But the same committee had, on Mar. 31, 1902, favorably reported the Payne bill, regarding the fiscal aspects of which the Majority report stated that "1 a reduction of 20 per cent proposed in this bill means a "ss of revenue between seven and eight million dollars. So far as our revenues are conCerned, we could safely stand more than that." (57th Cong., 1st sess. H. Rept. No. 1276.) 58 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY acts, has raised the value of minor products to the Cuban producers instead of decreasing their cost to the importers, the duties remitted must be recognized as genuine concessions of revenue, concessions in effect from American taxpayers to Cuban producers. A point which might be thought to have some bearing on the reality of the sacrifice of revenue by the United States may be briefly dismissed. The suggestion has been made 14 that the United States prepared in advance for the sacrifice of revenue involved in reciprocity treaties by including, after the European manner, in the rates of the tariff act of 1897 amounts known to be otherwise excessive for the commercial and fiscal policy of the United States but included only to be bargained away in commercial treaties. The evidence to the contrary is, however, at least equally strongl5 and the point can not be established. A discussion of it is not necessary since even if the point could be established it would not affect the reality of the sacrifice of revenue in so far as revenue remitted by the United States enured to the Cuban producers rather than to American consumers. 14 See, for example, the U. S. Tariff Commission's summary report entitled " Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, 1919," pp. 202-203. 16 A single point of the evidence to the contrary may be cited. Sec. 4 of the tariff act of 1897, which provided for reciprocity treaties conceding reductions of not more than 20 per cent from the statutory rates, was adopted only after most of the rates of the tariff had been determined. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on Mar. 18 and passed on Mar. 31. The Senate Committee on Finance formally introduced the bill In the Senate on May 4, and the Senate took it up for debate on May 25. On June 30, Senator Allison proposed the amendment which became sec. 4 of the tariff act, and this amendment was debated and adopted on July 2, only five days before the Senate passed the tariff bill. The bill then went to a conference committee, and it was finally signed by the President on July 24, 1897. To establish that the rates of this tariff act contained bargaining margins, it would be necessary to show either that the rates were fixed with a foreknowledge of the adoption of sec. 4 or that the rates were generally increased in the last few days of the four months given to the consideration of the tariff measure. CHAPTER VI EFFECTS OF RECIPROCITY UPON CUBA'S EXPORTS Page Skepticism as to the probable effect of the treaty_________________ 59 The trade in general_ —__________ — ____ __ --------- 61 The sugar trade ---- -- ---------------------------- 64 Sugar prices il New York compared with sugar prices at Hamburg, 1900-1914-__ --- —------- -------------- 68 New York prices and " Hamburg parity "_____________________ 7) Conclusions as to effect of reciprocity on sugar trade prior to the war_ 78 Tobacco and tobacco products__. - --— _- _ ______ _-_ -— __- 78 Millor products of Cuba: Molasses --- —---------------------------------------- S3 Iron ore_ ---- ----------------------------- 85 Fruits and vegetables ______ --- — ------------------- 87 Sponges — _ —_ ---8 ---__ --- —--------- S-)9 Mahogany _ ---_ --- —-— __ -— 90 (ther articles______ ____ _ --- —----------------------- 91 Previous chapters set forth certain points of interest, but not of controlling significance, in determining how advantageous the reciprocity treaty was and is to either or both parties. Reasons have heretofore been given for discounting the importance of certain figures which were brought out. The presumption was stated to be that the actual effects were not proportionate to the figures which were compared or contrasted. This chapter, dealing with Cuba's exports, begins the attempt to measure the effects of the reciprocity treaty on the trade of the two countries. The value of the treaty must be judged by either or both of two effects: An increase of trade or increased profits per unit of trade. The latter effect is the more important in connection.with the exports of Cuba. SKEPTICISM AS TO THE PROBABLE EFFECT OF THE TREATY When the reciprocity agreement of 1902 was being negotiated, many persons in close touch with Cuban commercial affairs believed that the treaty would not materially affect either the distribution of the staple Cuban exports or the source of the Cuban imports. The major portion of the Cuban export trade already found its market in the United States; and it did not appear likely that great benefits would be derived from increasing the share of the Cuban imports contributed by the United States. Even the supporters of the treaty, it will be recalled, placed but little emphasis upon its possible comrnercial results. In a report in 1902 General Bliss,' the collector of customs at Habana, expressed the opinion that the preference would 1 Then Colonel Bliss. 10038-29 -5 59 60 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY not be capable of producing any great increase in the trade between the two countries. When the treaty was under discussion in the, Cuban Senate, Sefiores Gamba and Rodrigues, of the Merchants' Union, expressed the opinion that following the ratification of the measure there would not be much falling off of Cuban trade with F- -~ --- i <9zo im - -rpl~rr~" L~ IC,,ta 1& -rr <ear.. _.- -.........,.......-. "A"" "- C, L FLOAR Europe. To what extent these views proved to be correct will be shown by a statistical examination of the trade during the past quarter century.2 As was brought out in Chapter II,3 however, the negotiators of the treaty expected that it would result in higher profits to the Cuban sugar planters if not to other Cubans producing for export. 2 U. S. Tariff Commission's report of 1919 on Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, PP. 3 h. 324.II, p 28 See Ch. II, p. 28. EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 61, Motives which were unrelated to American commercial advantage likewise had strong influence in granting tariff preference to Cuban products. The exclusive character of this preference was evidence of the interest of the United States in the establishment of stable conditions in Cuba and the promotion of her industrial development. THE TRADE IN GENERAL A graph of the development of the total trade between Cuba and the United States from 1890 to 1926 is presented in Chart I. The detailed statistics from 1900 to 1925 are given in Table 1014 and summarized in Table 7. The curves in Chart I for both the: American exports to and imports from Cuba indicate decided increases for the first four years after the treaty went into effect, the imports rising more than the exports. After the decline in 1908 and 1.909 there is evident a continued tendency toward increased values in both phases of the trade, with still slight advantage in favor of' American imports. Table 6 summarizes from Table 102 Cuban exports to the United' States, including Porto Rico. Cuban imports from the United' States are given for comparison. TABLE 6.-Cuban-American trade: Average annual values for selected periodk according to the Cuban statistics Cuban ex- Cuban im- Cuban ex- Cuban imPic.od ports to ports from Period ports to ports from United States United States United States United States, 1900-1903 1 --- —---- - $45, 080, 000 $28, 401,000 1915-1918 3........... $232,181,000 $155,942, 000 1904-1909 2-....-... 92,147,000 44,842,000 1919-1921 —.... --- —- 430,020,000 317,853, 000. 1910-1914 -125,454,000 65,184, 000 1922-1925 --- —----- 313, 808, 000 172, 478, 000 -I Four fiscal years ended June 30, 1900 to 1903, inclusive, and the six months ended Dec. 31, 1903. 2 Second half of fiscal year ended June 30, 1904, and five fiscal years following. 3 Four fiscal years ended June 30, 1915 to 1918 inclusive, and the six months ended Dec. 31, 1918. Table 7 summarizes from Table 101 the figures for the same trade' but using United States statistics instead of Cuban. The discrepancies between the two tables are not greater than are to be expected;they can not be ascribed to the fact that trade between Cuba and' Porto Rico is not included in Table 7. The figures for values showy the more rapid growth of Cuban exports to the United States than' of Cuban imports from the United States; from every period to the, next the increase in the value of imports from Cuba was greater' than the increase in exports to Cuba (or the decrease was less)~.. But due to the smaller base upon which the percentages of American exports are reckoned, only in the first and last periods was the percentaqe of growth of Cuban exports more satisfactory than. the similar percentage for Cuban imports from the United States.?' 4 Tables numbered over 100 are in Appendix IV. 6 See Table 2 or Table 103 for ratios between imports into the United States from Cuba and imports into Cuba from the United States. CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TARLa T.-Ceban-Amerkcan trade: Average acnual values for selected perios according to American statistics, with percentages of increase Increases over pre- Increases over 1900 -ceding period 1 1903 Imports from Exports to c p Period Cuba Cuba - --— l --- Imports Exports Exports Imports Exports __ _ _ I...,. -- I I Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent 1900-1903 ---- - ------ $43,300,000 $25, 200, 000 ---- ---- 19-1909 --- —-------------- 91, 500, 000 43,900, 000 111 74 111 74 19!~0-1914 ~ ' --- ~' --- —---------- 122,100,000 63,000,000 33 44 182 150 1915-1918 1 ---- - -------------- 229, 900,000 160,200,000 88 154 431 536 1919-1921 ------------- 456,900,000 327,100,000 99 104 955 1,198 192.''~~-~1925 - -- ----- 316,900,000 179,700,000 -31 -45 632 613 I Reading across the page, the percentages of increase for the same periods are comparable. But in readdown the columns it must be remembered that the periods are not of equal length. The base period is 4years; the others are, respectively, 5,/, 5, 42, 3, and 4 years in length, making the intervals from the middle of one period to the middle of the next respectively 5, 5%, 43, 3%, and 312 years. Table 107 shows the preferential trade between Cuba and the United States, based in part upon estimates. Table 8 summarizes the figures of Table 107 and shows the rate of development of the preferential trade on the two sides. To obtain a base figure for the prereciprocity period, the same percentage of nonpreferential trade has been deducted from the total Cuban imports of 1900-1903 as was found to be the proper deduction for the period 1904-1909. This procedure necessarily shows that the preferential imports into Cuba grew in the first period exactly as fast as dutiable imports. TABm 8.-Net preferential imrports into Cuba from the United States and into the United States from, Cuba, and percentages of increase, by selected periods 1900-1925 Increases over pre- Increases over 1900 -Into Cuba Into United ceding period 1 1903 from United States from __ Period States Cuba (average (average Cuban United Cuban United value) value) imports States imports States i imports imports Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent 19-903........................ 2 $23, 970, 000 3 $40, 650, 000 1-1909 -.- -.-....,............. 37,847,000 87,824,000 58 116 58 116 1910-19114 ----....... ---,-...... 56,840,000 117,287,000 50 34 137 189 19181918 - ----...-.........3.... 138,165,000 215,729,000 143 84 476 431 1919-1921-...................... 290,518,000 445,425,000 110 106 1,112 996 1M- 1925 -----—..... 157,383, 000 325,373,000 -46 -27 557 700 See note to Table 7. X Estimated figure representing value of imports which would have entered at preferential rates if the trty had been in force. That is, dutiable imports from Cuba. Table 9. summarized from Table 110, gives the values and percentages of Cuba's exports to the chief countries of destination. The United States has always been Cuba's chief export market. In the prereciprocity years the United States took 75 per cent of Cuba's exports, that being the average for 1900-1903. This figure grew to EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 63 86.2 per cent 6 in 1904-1909, reaching a maximum of 88.6 per cent in 1907. The variation from year to year is due chiefly to changes in the quantity and value of Cuban sugar exported. The decrease from 86.2 per cent in 1904-1909 to 83.1 per cent in 1910-1914 and to 81.7 per cent in 1922-1925 is due to the rapidity in growth of Cuba's sugar production, which outstripped even the increasing demands of the United States market. TABLE 9.-Principal countries of destination of Cuba n exports, average values. and percentages for selected periods, 1900-1925 1 [Values in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] To United To To Great To To To To all | States Canada Britain Germany France Spain others Period e D;> a 00-10 3 a a 41a a a l> c oXe o' 3 Cc co e - -I --- - 1900-1903 ----- 60.1 45.1 75.0 0.4 0.7 5.7 9.5 4.6 7.6 1.2 2.0 10 1.6 2.2 3.6 1904-1909 --- — 106.9 92.1 86.2.6.6 5.4 5.0 3.8 3.5 1.3 1.3.8.7 2.9 2.7 1910-1914 150.9125.5 83.1 1.7 1.2 12.2 8.1 4.5 3.0 2.0 1.3.7.4 4.4 2.9 1915-1918 --- 309.1 232.2 75.1 1.4.5 57.3 18.6.1.1 7.0 2. 2 3. 7 1. 2 7.3 2. 1919-1921-_ 1 548.4 430.0 78.4 4.5.8 69.1 12.6.2 (2) 13.6 2.5 5.9 1.1 25.0 4.6 1922-1925-. — - 383.9 313.8 81.7 5.1 1.3 43.9 11.4 1.2.3 5.0 1.3 12.0.5 12.9 3.0 1 Summarized from Table 110. 2 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. Moreover, Table 9 shows that Cuba's exports to Canada in value and in percentage increased at a more rapid rate than exports to the United States. Since Canada extended preferential tariff rates7 to products of the British West Indies and not to Cuba, and the United States granted preferences to Cuban products, the increase of Cuba's exports to Canada illustrates the point that tariffs are frequently minor factors in trade. Table 10 shows how sugar and tobacco have dominated the exports of Cuba to the United States. It summarizes from Table 121, based upon United States import figures, the average value by periods of the sugar and tobacco imported into the United States from Cuba and the percentage of the total imports from Cuba. It shows a tenfold development in the value of Cuba's export of sugar to the IUnited States from 1900-1903 and 1922-1925, the percentage which sugar formed of total exports increasing from 61.2 to 84.6. Exports of tobacco to the United States, on the other hand, in the same period did not much more than double in value, and the percentage which tobacco formed of total exports into the United States from Cuba fell from 27 to 8.2. This decline in the relative importance of to6 These averages are affected by the division of the fiscal year 1904 between the prereciprocity and the reciprocity periods. The sugar trade is largely seasonal and the change from 72.6 per cent for July-December, 1903, to 88.5 per cent for January-June, 1904 (the two periods comprising the fiscal year 1904), is to be attributed more largely to the seasonal character of the sugar trade than to the results of reciprocity. Table 121 shows that Cuba exported to the United States $13,600,000 worth of sugar in Julylecenmber, 1903, and $42,900.000 in January-June, 1904. Similarly., in the last six months of the calendar year 1918, Cuba's exports to the United States lecreased to 60 per cent of the total. 7 In 1898 the Canadian preference on sugar was 18 cents per 100 pounds; in 1900, 24 cents; in 1907, 31 cents; and in 1903-1907 the preference over German sugar was raised to 48 cents, and in 1907-1910 to 55 cents by the imposition of a surtax on German products. U. S. Tariff Commission, Colonial Tariff Policies, 1922, pp. 672. 697-701. (The surtax was one-third of the full duty, as stated on p. 672; not 30 per.cent ad valorem, as stated on p. 701.) 64 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY bacco has not offset the increased relative importance of sugar, so that Cuba's two chief products together, though never constituting much more or much less than 90 per cent of the total, have shown a slight tendency to increase in percentage. That is to say, the impor-;iation into the United States of all other minor products of Cuba has:in the aggregate declined in relative importance, averaging in 1902-3, 11.8 per cent, and in 1922-1925, 7.2 per cent of the total. TABLE 10.-United States imports of Cuban sugar and tobacco, average values, and percentages of total imports from Cuba, for selected periods, 1900-1925 [Values in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] Ta United Stat United States United States United States Total United States imports of to- imports of sugar imports of all United imports of sugar bacco from and tobacco other products States from Cuba Cuba from Cuba from Cuba Period imports from _ _ _ Cuba, Per Per Per Per value alue Value e Value cent Value e cent cent cent cent 1900-1903 --- —---- ----- 43. 3 26.5 61.2 11.7 27.0 38.1 88.2 5. 2 11.8 1904-1909 --- —------ - 91.5 66.4 72.6 16.8 18.4 83.2 90.9 8.3 9.1 1910-1914 ---....... 122.1 91.7 75.1 19.1 15.6 110.8 90.7 11.3 9. 3 1915-1918 --- — --- - 229.9 189. 3 82. 4 17. 3 7. 5 206.6 89. 9 23. 3 10.1 1919-1921 --- —--— 456.9 412.3 90.2 26.9 5.9 439.1 96.1 17.8 3.9 1922-1925 -----—.-. —...- - 716.9 268.1 84.6 25.9 8.2 294.0 92.8 22. 9 7.2.1 Summarized from Table 121. THE SUGAR TRADES The reduction of 20 per cent in the rates of duty on Cuban sugar ~was the most important of the American concessions in the treaty. Most of the sugar imported from Cuba to the end of the fiscal year 1915 graded approximately 95~ polariscopic test. Sugar of this grade paid a duty of 1.65 cents per pound under the tariff acts of 1897 and 1909, and the reduction on Cuban 95~ sugar amounted to 0.33 cent. All raw sugar, however, is bought and sold on a 96~ polariscopic basis, and the most useful price quotations are also on that basis. For the purposes of this investigation it will therefore be convenient to make all calculations refer to 96~ sugar. Under the tariff acts of 1897 and 1909, 96~ sugar paid a duty of 1.685 cents, -and the reduction on Cuban 96~ sugar therefore amounted to 0.337 cent. Beginning March 1, 1914, the general rate on 96~ sugar was 1.256 cents and the Cuban rate 1.0048 cents, the reduction on Cuban sugar amounting to 0.2512 cent. As this reduced rate was in effect for only a few months prior to the outbreak of the war and was changed soon after the end of the war, there will be little occasion to refer to it in this report. From May 27, 1921, to September 22, 1922, the emergency tariff act, carrying a general rate of 2.000 cents per pound on 96~ sugar and a preferential rate of 1.600 cents per pound on Cuban sugar of the same grade was in effect. On September 22, 1922, the present tariff act went into effect carrying a full rate of 2.206 cents per pound on 96~ sugar and 20 per cent less, or 1.7648 cents per pound, on 96~ Cuban sugar, a reduction in favor of Cuban raws of 0.4412 cent per pound. SThis discussion, to the comment (p. 73), on Table 123, together with the conclusio on p. 78, Is republished from Rieciprocity and Commercial Treaties, with only slight changes. EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 65 Prior to reciprocity, in years when conditions were not unusual, almost all the surplus sugar of Cuba was exported to the United States. The reciprocity arrangement did not result in any diversion to the United States of sugar which but for reciprocity would have gone elsewhere. It created no new source of supply for the American market, for even without specially favorable treatment the United States was the most advantageous market for Cuban sugar. On the other hand, there have been in every year, beginning with 1910, but omitting 1911, fairly substantial exports of sugar from Cuba to countries other than the United States. The total exports of raw sugar from Cuba and the quantities and percentages of the total exported to the United States are given in Table 11 for the years 1900 to 1926. TABLE 11.-Exports of ralwi sugar from Cuba: Total quantities (in millions of libras; that is, 000,000 omitted) and quantities and percentages of the total exported to the United States, 1900-1926, with averages for selected periods Exports of raw sugar from Cuba Exports of raw sugar from Cuba Year ended Total To the United States _uan; _Per tQu- cent of tity 2 total 3 Year ended Total June 30: 1900.. --- 1901 ----------------- 1902. --- —---------- 1903 - ---------------- Average --- —------ '1904 -------------- 1905 --- —------------ '1906 --- —-------- 1907 ----------------- 1908-.. --- —--------- 1909 --- —----------- Average --- —------- 1910 -- ------------ 1911 --- —------------- 1912 ----------------- 1913 - --------------- 1914 --------------- Average --- —---- 696 1, 121 1,021 2, 348 696 1,121 1,020 2,309 99. 98 99. 99 99. 99 98. 32 1, 729 1, 716 99. 24 2, 811 2, 800 99. 59 1, 969 1,969 +99. 99 2,787 2,777 99. 64 3,111 3,098 99. 57 2,168 2,168 -+99. 99 2,861 2,861 99.99 2, 618 2,6121 99. 78 3, 655 3, 446 94. 26 3, 312 3,308 99.88 3, 547 3, 285 92. 64 4, 896 4, 407 90. 01 5, 673 4, 921 86. 74 June 30-Continued 1915 --- —----------- 1916. -—. --- —---- 1917 -1 --- —---- 1918 ----------- Dec. 31: 1918 (6 months) --- Average ----------- 1919 --- —------------ 1920 --- —------------ 1921 ----------------- 1922 --- —------------ Average --- —---- 1923 --- —------------ 1924 --- —------- 1925 --- —----------- 1926 --- —------------- Average --- —---- 5, 299 6, 747 6,122 6,435 2, 717 6,071 8, 850 6, 883 6,310 10, 972 8, 254 7, 636 8,750 10, 882 10,300 9, 392 To the United States Quan- Per Qaty- cent of tity i 2total 4, 694 88. 58 5,147 76. 29 4, 697 76. 72 4, 690 72. 88 1,601 58.94 4, 629 76. 24 6,980 78. 87 5,229 75.97 5, 233 82. 93 8, 773 79. 96 6,554 i 79.40 6, 840 89. 58 7, 528 86.03 8,087 74.31 8,399 81.55 7,714 82.13 4,217 3,873 91.86 I The figures for the fiscal years 1900 and 1901 and for the period July 1, 1901-May 19, 1902, are reported in pounds (Monthly Summary of Commerce of the Island of Cuba, Bureau of Insular Affairs, U. S. Department of War). Beginning with May 20, 1902, quantity figures are reported in libras (Republica de Cuba, Secretaria de Hacienda Comercio Exterior). But the Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound -avoirdupois, and no allowance for the difference between them was made in the statistics giving totals for the year 1902. 2 See footnote 3 under Table 12. 3 Percentages calculated before the figures were reduced to millions. The imports of sugar from Cuba have always been an important portion of the total brought into the United States. Imports from Cuba have increased greatly under reciprocity. Since 1906 they have formed more than half the total shipments of sugar into the continental United States in every year with but two exceptions. The receipts from the noncontiguous territories, under the stimulus of 66 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY the favored treatment which they enjoy, have likewise shown great increases. As a consequence the amount of the full-duty-paying imports underwent rapid diminution. In the three years immediately preceding reciprocity, full-duty imports average 48 per cent of the total receipts; in the three years following reciprocity they averaged only 24 per cent. In 1910 they fell to only 7 per cent of the total receipts, by 1913 they had fallen to a little over 3 per cent, and in 1914 they practically disappeared. The exceptional conditions of 1920 brought the full-duty imports up to 19.93 per cent of the total receipts, but in the years 1921-1925, inclusive, they averaged only 2.56 per cent. (See Table 12.) TABLE 12.-Shipmenrts of sugar into continental United States, 1900-1924' [In millions of poundsl Receipts from nonImports from contiguous terriCuba 2 tories of the countries paying Yep Total IUnited States 3 full duty Year receipts___._.___ Qua- Percent Quan- Percent Quan- Per cent tity I of y ofl tity of total of total m — —.... Fiscal 1900 -— 0 ----.-. --- —-- ---- 4,018 705 17.6 554 13.8 2, 758 68. 7 1901............... 4,803 1,099 22. 9 833 17.3 2,871 59. 8 1902. -.. - ------- - 3. 936 984 25.0 916 23.3 2 036 51.7 1903 --- —-------------------- 5, 217 2,396 45.9 1.020 19. 6 1,801 34.5 1904.. --- —.........-...- 4, 696 2 820 60.0 1,057 22.5 819 17.5 1905......................... 4.785 2. 545 32.3 1906 ------- - --- 5,136 i 2,782 54. 2 1, 227 23.9 1 128 22.0 1907 --- —-------------------- 5. 621 3, 236 57. 7 1. 254 22. 3 1,130 20.1 1908 -|... —.........-..-. 4 919 2309 46.9 1,585 32. 2 1, 024 20.8 1909 —. --- ——. ~-_- 5,7841 2, 862 49. 5 1, 595 27.6 1, 327 23.0 1910 - -............ 5. 774 3,510 60.8 1,856 32.1 409 7.1 1911 ---— 5, 595 3,348 59.8 1.887 33. 7 360 6. 4 1912 -------—....... - 6,0 44 3,187 52. 7 2, 375 39.3 1 482 8. 0 1913 --—. ---------------- - 6, 591 4, 312 65. 4 2, 053 31. 2 1 225 3. 4 1914 --- —--------------- 6, 821 4, 927 72.2 1, 873 27. 5 21.3 1915-.......... 7, 289 4, 785 65.6 2,197 30.1 308 4. 2 191 ---------—............ - 7, 618 5,151 67.6 2,204 28. 9 263 3.5 1917 C -- - -— 7, — ----- 7, 470 4, 669 62. 5 2, 40 8 32. 3 393 5. 3 1918-......................,, 921 4.954 71. 6 1, 905 27. 2 9 1919 -............... 8.939 6,.686 74.8 2115 23.7 137 1 5 1920 --- 9, --- —- 9,959 5,762 57. 2,212 22.1 1,985 19. 9 1921................... 7, 7763 5,180 66. 7 2,138 275 445 5. 7 1922 -- ----------- 11,852 9, 054 76.4 2692 22. 7 106 1923 -91 ---.........1 6, 8543 717 3 2.385 24 8 377 3. 9 1924......................... 10,415 7,385 70.9 2822 2 1 208 2.0 1925 ------- --- 11,63, 1, 7,846 67.5 71867. 6 I Foreign Commerce ond Navigation of the United States for these years; for ]Hawaii and Porto Rico 3192 to 1923, from Statistical Ahstract of the United States. 2 Twenty per cent preference sine Dec. 27, 1903. 3 The word receipts. i. used mfte..d of iports to avoid,ambiguity. Duty free from Hawaii, and since July 25, 1.1, from Porto Rio; 25 per cent reduction accorded to Piilippne sugar from Mar. 8, 1902, to 4 The imnport gures on sugar from Cuba in Tahle 12 and export figures of sugr from Cuba to United.7tates in T Pble 1(1 not agrec. 'This discrepancy is due to errors in the statistics, to shipments leaving Cubve at the end of the yer r and entering the U nited States in the followsng year, and to shipments entered n bond, and not recorded as imports for consumption until a later period. Not only did the percentage of full-duty imports rapidly diminish nder reciprocity, but in each year, and especiall e 1909, the bulk of the favored sugars has come in during a period of the year when there are no substantial imports of full-duty sugar. Java has been the most important source of imports of full-dudy sugars, and EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 67 the imports of Javan sugar have been confined mainly to the months from August to December. The full-duty beet sugar from Europe has also been imported mainly in the latter half of each year. During the first half of each year practically all of the sugar imports have been from Cuba. In the early years of reciprocity, it is true, there continued to be substantial imports from other West Indian islands, and these sugars are available for import at about the same time of the year as Cuban sugars. It is perhaps significant that the imports of the former exhibited a pronounced decrease in 1904, the first year of Cuban reciprocity.9 From 1909 to the outbreak of the war in 1914 very little full-duty West Indian sugar was imported. The imports rose again for the years 1915, 1916, 1917, decreased in 1918 and 1919, rising again in 1920 and 1921 to the highest since 1903, again decreasing considerably in the following years.10 During the first six months of the year Cuban sugar dominates the American market. It is in this period of the year that the bulk of the domestic sugar is offered for sale. If the whole preference to Cuban sugar enures to the benefit of the Cuban producer,"l the amount of protection to the domestic producers, including the producers in the noncontiguous territories, is not reduced by Cuban reciprocity. On the other hand, if the reduction of duty on Cuban sugar results in a reduction of price to the American purchaser of raw sugar, the protection to the American producer is reduced by a corresponding amount. TABLE 13.-Imports of full-duty sugar into the United States 1900-19)25 [In thousands of pounds] Cane sugar Sugar Cane sugar from the Beet above No. Total from the West e ugar 16 Dutch Year full-duty Dutch Indies ainly standard Allother sugar East other than from from Indies Cuba and Europe various Porto Rico sources Fiscal: 1900 --- —------------- 2,758,427 1,162,203 347,730 701,539 11,459 535,496 1901 --- ——..-...........2. 2,870,908 777, 987 360,051 908,683 109, 737 724,450 1902 --- —---------—.-...2 2,036,275 636,710 322, 654 255,030 91,093 730,788 1903 --- —----------—. --- — 1,800,837 891,758 347, 047 87,131 53,342 421.559 1904 ----------------—.. — 819,495 440,370 186, 524 2, 414 16,305 183, 882 1905 --- —---------------- 1 545,251 899,395 202, 640 223,945 22,802 196,469 1906 --- —-------- 1,128,056 781,892 151,477 48, 549 9,177 136,961 1907 --- —--------------- 1,130,209 448,680 113,084 397, 745 7,585 163,115 1908 --- —---------------- 1,024,400 589,680 142,143 221,037 6,938 64, 602 1909 --------------------- 1,327,161 916,858 95, 747 98,626 5, 874 210, 056 1910 --------------------- 409, 018 314,851 20,078 1 6,107 67,981 1911 ----------------- 360,021 228,079 28,021 24,669 4, 203 75, 049 '!12 ------------------—. 482,416 340, 396 41, 289 6, 506 5,984 88, 241 1913. --- —----------—. — 225,098 12,760 3,930 182,648 3,344 22,416 1914 ----- -------- 21, 370 0 4,319 2,368 794 13,889 1915 --------------------- 307,778 22 97,988 878 (b) 208,890 1916 -------------------- 263,232 32 111,076 2 () 152,122 1917 --- —--------- ---- 392,627 22 163, 367 29 (b) 329, 209 a Foreign Commerce and Navigation. b Not separately enumerated since 1914. 9Stocks of sugar in Cuba were unusually large at the end of 1903, in part at least due to the holding of sugar in anticipation of the ratification of the reciprocity treaty. See also U. S. Tariff Commission's report on Colonial Tariff Policies, p. 699, for the effect of the Brussels Sugar Convention and of the Canadian-German tariff war in stimulating exports of sugar from the British West Indies to Canada. 10 See Table 13. See also Table 124, which shows the amounts of sugar imported into the United States and exported with benefit of drawback. 11 Or to middlemen, shipping agencies, etc. 68 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 13.-Imports of full-duty sugar into the United States 1900-1925- ContIL [In thousands of pounds] Cane sugar Sugar Cane sugar from the above No. Total from the West Bee sugar16 Dutch Year full-duty Dutch Indies mainly standard All other sugar East other than from Indies Cuba and Euope various Porto Rico sources Calendar: 1918 -------—. —. --- —-- 61, 584 3 17, 235 0 (") 44, 346 1919 ---—,-. --- —...-. 137, 230 30, 963 27,726 1 (b) 78,540 1920- 1, 985,113 546,194 228,851 36,754 (b 1,173,314 1921 --------------------- 444,975 34,062 280,180 14 (b 130, 719 1922.. --- —--— 10 —6 — 6106,308 0 10,436 1 0 (b) 95,872 1923-... — - ----—. --- 377,376 9,510 96,026 0 () 271,840 1924 --—. --- -----------—, 208,073 9,826 22,685 4,13 (b) 171,423 1925 -.. -—.... - -—..... 66, 704 1,375 253 0 (b) 65,076 b Not separately enumerated since 1914. Sugar prices in New York compared with sugar prices at Hamburg,, 1900-1914.-A comparison of the prices-and especially of the relative fluctuations in the prices-of sugar in an important foreign market on the one hand and in New York on the other, if carried back to a period antecedent to Cuban reciprocity, should aid in determining the extent. if any, to which reciprocity resulted in a change in the relation of the American to the world price of sugar. For the purpose of such a comparison the best available price data are the quotations of Willett and Gray for 96~ centrifugal cane sugar in New York and the reports by the same firm of the London quotations for 88 per cent analysis beet sugar f. o. b. Hamburg. The lastnamed sugar is inferior to 96~ centrifugal cane sugar in refining value. The two sugars are consequently not altogether comparable. But the variations from year to year In the, allowances which would have to be made for the 88 per cent analysis beet sugar to bring it to parity with 96~ centrifugal cane sugar would be so small as to render calculation thereof unnecessary at this point in the investigation.12 In Chart II the average excess, in different months of the year, of the New York price for 96~ centrifugal sugar over the Hamburg price for 88 per cent analysis beet sugar-no allowance being made for the difference in grades-is charted for three separate periods. In the period 1901 to 1903, which was prior to reciprocity, there was no marked difference at different seasons of the year between the relations of the New York price to the Hamburg-or world-price. The excess of the New York over the Hamburg price was in this period greatest during the months in which Cuban sugar came upon the market. In the second period, from 1904 to 1909, Cuban sugar was admitted at a reduced rate, but the full-duty imports were still a substantial fraction of the total imports. During this period the average excess of the New York over the Hamburg price was less throughout the year than in the first period. Furthermore, there was in this S See p. 70, especially footnote 15. EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 69 period a noticeable difference between the average amount of the excess of the New York price over the Hamburg price in the months from July to November, when most of the full-duty imports entered, and the average amount of the excess in the remainder of the year, when Cuban sugar dominated the market. Relative to the Hamburg price the New York price was much lower during the months when: there were substantial imports of Cuban sugar than in the remainder of the year. In the third period, 1910 to 1913.13 the imports of full-duty sugar were small, and in each year they had a significant influence on price CHART II.-Monthly average excess of New York price of 96~ centrifugal sugar over the Hamburg price of 88 per cent analysis beet sugar. Averaged for the periods 1901 to 1903; 1904 to 1909; 1910 to 1913. 2.4 ISOIW I I03 220 2.2. — -___. _... -,0~ 0,|.8 =,E -0 --- —---- -, -,., '".... - g *- ----- [ '"...'..0 - -- - - 0.8.. 0.8............... _...... 0.0 0.4............. JAN, FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC, MONTHS only for a few weeks during the late summer when sugar from other sources was scarce. In this period the price levels showed tendencies similar to those of the second period but more pronounced. The excess of the New York over the Hamburg price was much lower throughout most of the year than it had been in the previous periods; there was a greater variation in the amount of the excess of the New York over the Hamburg price between the months of heavy Cuban imports and the months when the full-duty imports came in; and the average period of relatively high excess of the New York over the Hamburg price-the period when full-duty imports were an important factor in the determination of price-was much shorter in this than in the two preceding periods. 13 This period is further discussed on pp. 73 and 74. o0 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY The data exhibited by averages in this chart for the years 1910 to 1913 indicate that during the months when Cuban sugar dominated the market, a substantial portion of the reduction of duty established by reciprocity enured to the benefit of the American consumer.14 They also indicate both that the share of the reduction which went to the American consumer was greater, and that the period of the year during which the American price was on the basis of the Cuban duty was longer, in the years after 1909, when there were only small fullduty imports, than in the years 1904 to 1909, when the full-duty imports constituted a larger share of the total imports. New York prices and "Hamburg parity."-Chart III presents confirmatory evidence. In this chart there is shown by weeks, for the period from 1900 to the outbreak of the war in 1914, the relation of the New York price of 96~ centrifugal sugar to " Hamburg parity "or the equivalent, in cents per pound for 96~ centrifugal, after allowances have been made for the difference in grades, of the price at which 88 per cent analysis Hamburg beet sugar can be laid dowvn in New York with the duty paid.15 As long as there were substantial imports of European beet sugar, the New York price of sugar was based on the -Hanlburgl pIriceitself determined at London, the ruling market —and normally was approximately equal to Hamburg parity in New York. Tlie freiglht from Hamburg to New York was generally about the sallte as the freight from Hamburg to London. If the customs (lties of both countries be disregarded, the London price would under these co0.mditions be equal to the New York price. But the freight fromri Cuba to New York was substantially less than the freight from Cuba to London. As a consequence, when the New York price was equal to Hamburg parity, the New York bid for Cuban sgSigar f. o. b. Hiabana would be higher than the London bid.16 Prior to 1903 it had been necessary every year, at least for many years, to import European beet sugar in order to meet the American 14 The "consumers" or purchasers of Cuban raw sugar are the American sugar refiners. Whether the gain was wholly absorbed by the refiners or handed on in whole or in plrt to the ultimate consumer of refined sugar is another problem not touched upon in this study. ' The following illustration, of the method by which Hamburg parity is calculated is taken from lWillet and Gray, Oct. 3, 1912. p. 395: Parity of 88 per cent amitlvsis beet and 96 polarization catne sugar, duty paid, without bounty or countervailing duty: exchange at $48.K pel pound sterling. When beet is quoted by London at 9s. per hundredweight (112 pounds ) f. o. b. Hlamburg, add 7T/2d. for freight and lighterage to refinery. Cents Say 9s. 7 X2d. met per hundredweight c. and f. to New York_____________________ ~. 098 Insurance. banlk commission, lost weight, together 1Y2 per cent___ __ _____ 031 Duty (8. per cent Ianlysis outturn, 94~ polarization)1 _ _ ______ ________ 1 Difference in value to refiners between beet and cane ___ ______________ 19 Beet, 88 per cent f. o. b. Hamburg, parity of centrifugals, 96~ at New York, per pound _ _____ ' 6When the New York price was equal to Iamburg parity the amount of the excess of the New York over the London bid for Cuban sugar would be equal to freight Iabana to London minus freight HIabana to New York. It would be profitable to export Cuban sugar to Ellln}zd only when the New York prices fell below Hamburg parity by the amount of freirt flHabana to London minus Habana to New York. As a result of the differences in freight costs, there would be no exports to London fromn Cuba, when there were imports Into New York from Hamburg, and there would be no imports into New York from Hamburg when there were exports from Cuba to London. It is assumed here that freight Hamburg to New York was equal to freight Hamburg to London. In December 1.927, the all-water freight rates on sugar from Hamburg, Germany, to London, England, ranged from about $2.32 to $2.69 per ton of 2,240 pounds, and the rates from Hamburg to New York ranged, fronm, $ to $5 per ton. 1899 6 f i; > a 1900 1901 CHART M.-RELATION OF NEW YORK MARKET PRICE OF SUGAR TO "HAMBURG PARITY-" DURING THE YEARS 1899-1914. 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 5.3 -- saI sW^^ Ws 00 llK<ll 3ltOa 2d.i d (iZ 2 6 >,&t g;,a 2M.4 ~~,;3u'd0 Ji> z 1912 1913 1014. 2 -it; I _.~ i )hi 0U L Z > L j) C; Z a I' -qw<Q )::)Wu w (wdL<3 w~o iiir., i. —I!s S 1 '.. 5 W-15 n -%-a tn 0. 7 lb 'S rS I I..'se -%,,Cth Vf%3~!Xq,0.4;..:3,_* '! aa -'-Z, O u?.....I....!.G.I.'...... I". i...?...... -) (o. '. i..................................... 5.8 &6 54 &2 5. 0 4.8 4.6 4.4 I I 4.2 I 1 1 4.0 3.8 3.6 3,4 &2 GIN BETWEEN NEW YORK MARKET PRICE AND HAMBURG PARITY. 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 01 - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - 4- - -, -- - - 4 — -- - — I-,0 It -f- - LO6 -.. - I I-.~ I Ij — I- ---- -. —. —t.. — - - - - - - - - - -. - - - " ~- - - - - - - * - - -- - - - - - - - - - " - ' - - -" -- --- [-1 I-"il —. I- ~;.;/ -Lj ~k -.< --;;'.u;V. - 4WD /,/ u- J6. W &. 5."8 5..6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.,6 I^- - -~ Tl-]- 4 -- -,-4.2 4.0 3. 6 3.4P 3. 2. 1.0 0.8 0.6 O. 4 0.2 0.0 ^11~~~~IIR 11 IA1 0.2 0. 4 0. 6 0.8 I ft III vV Nea WYorkwhoesal qjotatlons for 96' centrifugal can sugar. Conts per pound au reported to Willett & Gray's Weekly Statistical Sugar Trade Journal............"Hamburg parity," La., parity with 9 centrifugal cane sugar In New York of 88 per cent analysis beet sugar based on the London quotations f. o. b. Hamburg, as roorded in Willett & Gray's. Cents per poud. X'Maqin betwen New York price and Hamburg parity. rns per poundL Above the 0 io rrepwsets th etoea 01 th New York price over amburg parity below t he 0 ln hows tte cesoibHafmbarg prity over the New York priBce ii 1 C-Of 10038-29. (Face p. 70.) I 1 i EFFECTS ON OUBA'S EXPORTS 71 demand.- In 1903, on the other hand, the domestic produtin of aane and beet sugar, the receipt from the. fvoredpossessions of the United States, and the Cuban exportable surplus were all unusually large, and, together with the imports from Java and the British West Indies, were much more than sufficient to satisfy the American demand at a price equivalent to Hamburg parity. As a consequence, the American price fell below Hamburg parity. As has been indicated, a fall below Hamburg parity would result in the diversion of Cuban exports to London only if great enough completely to offset the advantages in regard to freight rates which the New York market offered, compared with the London market, for Cuban sugar. In the spring of 1903 this was the case-for the first time in 20 years-and as a consequence there were Cuban sales to London and there were practically no imports of beet sugar into the United States.17 (See Tables 11 and 12.) A fall in the price of sugar below Hamburg parity is not oonelusive evidence, therefore, that the price of sugar to the American plurdhaser is lower than it would have been in the absence of Cuban reciprocity. It may merely indicate conditions in the American market of supply in relation to demand which result in there accruing to the American purchaser instead of to the Cuban producer the principal gain from the lower cost of transportation from Habana to New York as compared with the cost from Habana to London. In 1903 there were, as has been shown, some exports of sugar from Cuba to London. The average amount (0.36 cent) by which the New York price was ebdow Hamburg parity from February to May, 1903, may be taken as approximately the maximum possible amount of excess of Hamburg parity over the New York price.under equal tariff treatment of the European and Cuban sugar, and with shipping costs on the various trade routes remaining as they were in 1903. If the New York price had fallen below this point Cuban sugar would have been diverted to London until the New York price rose again. Under reciprocity and prior to the war the New York price night fall to a point more than 0.36 cent below Hamburg parity, to the amount by which the duty on Cuban sugar was less than the duty on German sugar; i. e., 0.337 cent until March 1, 1914, 0.2512 cent after March 1, 1914. This made the lowest possible New York price under Cuban reciprocity equal to 0.697 cent below Hamburg parity under the tariff acts of 1897 and 1909, and to 0.61 cent per pound after March 1, 1914, under the tariff act of 1913. Not until this point was reached would Cuban sugar be diverted to London. This statement, however, requires some qualification. It is based on the assumption, as stated above, that freight rates and other expenses incidental to transportation remained constant after 1903. In fact, these charges had increased even prior to the war, and the freight advantage:in favor of Cuban sugar had become greater than 0.36 cent per pound. The New York price under normal conditions could therefore faI 17 This indicates that in 1903 the New York price, miaus freight from Habana to:New York, was as low as, or lower than, tha e Hamburg price plus freight Hamburg to Londoa minus freight Habana to London-A. e., the New York bid for Cuban sugar f. o. b. Htba was as low ad, or lower than, the London bid, allowance being made,;of cou e, iTordiference In' grades between Hamburg eet and Cuban cane sugars. 72 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY below Hamburg parity prior to March 1, 1914, by somewhat over 0.697 cent, and after March 1, 1914, by somewhat over 0.61 cent. During the short periods of time, moreover, and especially if shipping conditions from Cuba to Europe were unfavorable, the Cuban exporters would accept bids below what would be for them a profitable basis during longer periods. With the Cuban sales organization and shipping schedules adapted to the prospective marketing of the Cuban sugar crop in the United States the sudden transfer to another market would always involve inconvenience and costs, and these consilerations would lead to the acceptance by Cuban exporters of what might otherwise be considered unacceptable bids for their sugar. On the other hand, tile New York bids were often out of harmony with the Cuban offers, and at such times the New York market quotations might be merely nominal, no business being done at the quoted prices. Nevertheless the length of the period in 1910 during which the New York quotations were exceeded by Hamburg parity by approximately 0.90 cent indicates that with shipping costs as they were prior to the war the New York price of sugar could fall below Hamburg parity by at least 0.90 cent per pound without diverting Cuban shipments to London. Prior to the war, when the New York price under Cuban reciprocitv was lower than Hamburg parity by more than 0.36 cent, it is safe to conclude that the American purchaser was getting a portion of the remitted duty on Cuban sugar equal at least to the amount by which the difference between Hamburg parity and the New York price exceeds 0.36 cent. When the New York price was below Hamburg parity, but by less than 0.36 cent, it is impossible to say to what extent this was due to the -fact of the preference on Cuban sugar. The data in Chart III show that the New York price fell below Hamburg parity in the early part of each year of the reciprocity period, and that until 1913 the New York price in every year reached or exceeded Hamburg parity during the months of late summer and early fall. These were the months, it will be remembered, in which little Cuban sugar enters, and in which the bulk of the full-duty imports are made. Until 1913, the period in each year during which Hamburg parity exceeded the New York price showed a tendency to lengthen corresponding with the diminution in the proportion of full-duty imports to total imports. From the calendar year 1909 on-when, it will be remembered, there occurred a sharp decrease in the proportion of fullduty to total sugar imports-the lengthening of the period in each year during which Hamburg parity exceeded the New York price, and the increase in the amount of this excess are especially noticeable. In the calendar year 1913 there were practically no imports of fullduty sugar and the New York price remained appreciably below Hamburg parity throughout the year. In that year all sugar was sold in the American market on the basis of the Cuban duty, and the full duty had become merely nominal. The amount by which Hamburg parity exceeded the New York price was greater than 0.36 cent luring the early part of each year from 1909 on, and in 1910 and 1913 it reached its normal maximum. It can be seen from Table 11 that EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 73 from 1910 on Cuba sent a portion of its sugar exports to markets other than the United States, and that the proportions sent elsewhere, in the period prior to the outbreak of the war, were greatest in 1910, 1912, and 1913. In the years 1910 to 1913, as has been shown, the imports of full-duty sugar into the United States dropped to new low levels. (See Table 12.) In the spring of 1912 New York-Hamburg parity of imported beet sugar often exceeded the market price of cane sugar by appreciably more than 0.69 cent per pound. In the third week of April the excess of Hamburg parity over the New York price reached 0.96 cent. Here an additional factor helps to explain the low New York quotation. The New York price during the early months of 1912 was a highly speculative price, owing to the apparently impending reduction of duty on sugar by Congress, for the New York importers, in anticipation of such remission, had discounted its effect in their bids for Cuban sugar.18 It is significant that at this time sales of Cuban sugar to London were reported.19 Table 123 gives general support to the conclusion that the Cubans received a higher price in the United States in the years following the reciprocity treaty than they could have obtained elsewhere. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States shows that the average value of raw sugar imported from Cuba from 1905 to 1910 was higher by an average of about one-half cent per pound than of raw cane sugars imported from other sources. In 1910 and 1911 the higher value attributed to Cuban sugars decreased to one-fifth and one-seventh of a cent, respectively, and beginning with 1913 the value of the full-duty raw sugar-of which only small amounts were thereafter imported-was higher than that of the Cuban. The figures are not comparable except in a general way, since they represent yearly average values.20 None the less, the shift in relative values after Cuba became definitely a large exporter to Europe is too striking not to constitute 'confirmatory evidence that the Cubans had previously been obtaining a price premium which they lost when their exports materially exceeded the import requirements of the United States. The figures of Table 12421 for the whole period 1900-1925 present confirmatory evidence of one striking feature of the previous analys1 Cf. Willett and Gray, Apr. 25, 1912, p. 166. " Our tariff outcome is now a matter of secondary importance. Porto Rican and Cuban sellers have had their scare and sold the market down, until at present values any likely reduction of tariff rates has been nearly discounted, and if the bill passed to-morrow sugar prices would scarcely go much lower, while if no bill passes at this session a recovery of prices is likely to the usual difference below European parity, such difference being now too large. * *." 19 Cf. ibid. 20 They have two chief defects: (1) They include various grades in the same average and in different proportions from year to year. Especially in the earlier years, Cuban sugars included a considerable percentage of the lower grades, tending to depress the average value. (2) Since Cuban sugar is imported more largely in the first half of the calendar year, if the price rises throughout the year the average value of the full-duty sugar appears too high in comparison; if the price falls throughout the year the reverse is true. 21 The basic assumption stated in footnote 1 of this table should carefully be noted. The figures are defective chiefly in that (1) they include various grades of sugar in the same average per unit value and average equivalent ad valorem rates of duties collected, used, respectively, for the computed values and amounts of duties collected and remitted, and (2) they make no allowance for the difference in time between importation of the raw surar and exportation of the articles in the manufacture of which the sugar was 'used. Foreign Commerce and Navigation reports only the import quantities for the year when the manufactures were exported. 74 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY sis: The fact that Cuba's exports of sugar in a relatively short period after the introduction of reciprocity outgrew the net import requirements of the United States. More specifically, the table brings out that the fiscal year 1913 was a turning point for Cuban sugar in one other respect, namely, that for the first time the quantities of raw cane sugar used in the manufacture of articles exported from the United States with benefit of drawback exceeded total full-duty sugar imports. This situation, with the exception only of the last half of the calendar year 1918 and of the year 1920, has since prevailed. No special importance is meant to be attached to the detailed figures for each year, but the net results are significant. Cuban sugar has very largely displaced imports of full-duty cane sugar from the American market not only for purposes of home consumption but also for use by the preserving and candy industries manufacturing for exportation. Two further points may be made concerning the United States tariff and Cuban sugar: On the one hand, the concession to Cuba did not prevent the growth of the American sugar industry both in continental United States and in the noncontiguous Territories. On the other hand, the tariff policy of the United States has allowed Cuba an expanding market in this country. As Table 14 shows, the production of sugar in continental United States in the fiscal years 1901 to 1903 or 1904 averaged over 1,000,000,000 pounds, in 1905-1909 it averaged over 1,500,000,000, and in 1910-1914 over 1,800,000,000 pounds. Reciprocity did not stop the growth of the domestic industry. Table 15 shows the figures for domestic production divided into cane and beet. It may be seen that production of beet sugar was rapidly increasing in the years prior to reciprocity; in fact, this branch of the industry had made only a fair beginning in 1899. After the reciprocity treaty became effective its growth continued. The output doubled from 1903-4 to 1906-7 and nearly doubled again by 1915-16; 1906-7 was the first year in which the domestic output of beet sugar surpassed that of cane sugar. EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 75; TABLE 14.-Sugar: Quantieties' and percentages of the, total supply annuallymade available in the Anwriecan market by domestic production, by receipts from noncontiguous territories, and by imports from Cuba, with averages forselectedc periods, 1901-1925 [In millions of pounds] Fiscal year ended June 30 -1901 --- —---- 1902.. --- —-- 1903 --------- 1904 4 ------------- Average --- —-- 1905 --- —--- 1906 --- —-------- 1907 ----... 1908 --- —--------- 1909 --- —--------—. Average --- —-- 1910 --- —------—..1911 --- —-----—. — 1912. --- —--- - 1913 --- —----- 1914. --- —-----—...Average --- —-- 1915................ 1916 -------—. —. --- 1917 --—. --- —------ 1918 -----—. --- —. — Average. --- —1919 1921 -1922.. --- —. --- Average --- —-- 192310 1924 -- 1925 1 --- —--------- Average --- — 1 Imports from foreign Re- countries ceipts Domes-, _ __ _ ______ Total Domes- from tips- - tic pro- noncon- teris abl luction tiguous t I C teirn-s torial All supply 3 terri- Total Cuba oh tories - Per cent of total available supply Domes- Domestic pro- tplus Cuba duction toal ~~Itori al 796 1,098 1,183 1,037 833 916 1,020 1,057 1,629 2,014 2, 203 2, 094 3, 970 3,020 4,197 3, 639 1,099 984 2, 396 2,820 2, 871 2,036 1,801 819 5, 599 5, 034 6, 400 5, 733 14.2 29.1 21.8 40.0 18.5 34.4 18.1 36.5 19.6 -19.6 37. 4 49.2' 1,029 956 1,985 3,707 1,825 1,882 5 692 18.1 34.9 32., 9... _. 1,314 1,182 2, 496 3,603 2,058 1,545 6, 099 21. 5 40. 9 33. 7 1, 407 1, 227 2, 634 3, 910 2, 782 1,128 6, 544 21. 5 40. 2 42. 5 1. 512 1, 254 2, 766 4, 367 3, 236 1, 131 7,133 21. 2 38.8 45.4 1,716 1,585 3, 301 3,334 2,309 1,025 6,635 25.9 49.8 34.8 1, 681 1, 595 3, 276 4,106 2, 862 1, 244 7,382 22.8 44.4 38.8 1, 526 1, 369 2, 895 3, 864 2, 649 1, 215 6, 759 22. 6 42. 8 39. 2 1,688 1, 856 3, 544 3,919 3,510 409 7, 463 22.6 47. 5 47.0 1,730 1,887 3,617 3,708 3, 348 360 7,325 23.6 49.4 45.7 1,921 2,375 4, 296 3,669 3,187 482 7, 965 24.1 53.9 40. 0 1, 710 2, 054 3. 764 4,537 4, 312 225 8,301 20. 6 45. 3 52.0 2, 068 1, 873 3, 941 4, 950 4, 927 23 8, 891 23. 3 44.3 55. 4.[.I I ---' 1, 823 2,009 3.832 4,157 3, 857 300 7, 989 22. 8 48.0 48. 1, 937 2,197 4,134 5,094 4, 785 309 9, 228 21. 0 44.8 51.8 2,026 2,204 4, 230 5, 416 5,151 265 9, 646 21. 0 43.8 53. 4 2. 263 2, 408 4, 671 5, 065 4,669 396 9,736 23. 2 48.0 48.0 2,022 1, 927 3, 949 4, 730 4, 561 169 8, 679 23. 3 45. 5 52. 6 2,062 2,184 4,246 5,076 4,791 285 9,322 22.1 45.6 51.4 2,091 2,130 4,221 5,625 5, 489 136 9,846 21.2 42.9 55.8 1, 697 1, 939 3, 636 7, 550 6,906 644 11,186 15.2 32. 5 61. 7 2, 530 2,133 4, 663 6, 673 4,926 1, 747 11, 336 22.3 41. 1 43.4 2, 696 2, 669 5, 365 7, 926 7, 720 206 13, 291 20. 3 40. 4 58. 1 2,253 2,218 4,471 6,944 6,9260 684 11,415 19. 7 39. 2 54.8 1,941 2, 459 4,400 8,180 8.042 138 12,580 15. 4 35.0 63.9 2,092 2, 546 4.638 6,899 6,515 384 11, 537 18. 1 40.2 56. 5 2,363 3,281 5,644 7.912 7,716 196 13,556 17.4 41.6 56.9 I 2,132 2,762 4,894 / 7,664 1 7,425 239 1 12, 558 17.0 39.0 59.1 1 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1923, pp. 212 and 213, and 1925, pp. 668, and 669. The figures as given represent sugar in various degrees of refinement not reduced to a common basis. For instance, theb figures showing domestic production include refined beet sugar in varying proportions while the imports are chiefly raw cane sugar. 2 That is, from Hlawaii, Porto Rico, and the Philippines. The Statistical Abstract does not mention, and apparently does not include shipments from the Virgin Islands, purchased by the United States in 1917. 8 That is, for con;u mption in the United States and for exportation (as refined sugar and in other forms). Stocks on hand at the beginning or end of each year are ignored. 4 The figures for the fiscal year 1904 represent the last prereciprocity domestic beet-sugar production. but. include the first imports from Cuba after reciprocity became effective, Dec. 27, 1903. 10038-29 --- 76 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABU 15.-Production of cane sugar in Cuba, and of beet and cane sugar in the United States, 1899-1900 to 1926-27 1 [In tons of 2,000 pounds] Continental United States Year Cuba Total Beet Cane 1899-1900 --- —-------------...-.. --- --------... --- —- 317,689 248,791 81,697 167,094 1900-1 ----- --------- 686,310 392,099 86,982 306,017 1901-2-..... ---.-.......... -........... —.. —. — - - 967, 447 548, 931 184,606 364, 325 1902-3 — --- - ------- ---—.. —. --- —--—. --- ——. ---- 1, 124, 327 591,309 218,406 372,903 1903-4 -...... ---.._ --- —---—. 2 1,179,218 518, 674 240,604 278, 070 1904-5 -- --............-...................._... 1, 331,012 657,108 242,113 414, 995 1905-6-....-....................................... -- 1, 390,932 703, 523 312,921 390,602 1906-7 - ------------------------ ------- - 1, 626,199 755, 772 483, 612 272,160 1907-8 ----------- ------------- -—.. --- —...... 1, 102,130 857, 863 463, 628 394, 240 1908-9 ------ ----------— 17,0 --- —---- 1,745,047 840, 284 425,884 414, 400 1909-10 -------------- ----------- 2,056, 525 844,195 512,469 331, 726 1910-11 ------------ ----- --------..... 1,667,256 865,212 510,172 355,040 1911-12 --- —---------------- --------------- 2,172,324 960, 374 599, 500 360, 874 1912-13 -----------------— 2, --- — 2,766,173 855,129 692, 556 162, 573 1913-14 -2, --- —------------------—. --- — 2,918,838 1,033,939 733, 401 300, 538 1914-15 -----------—. --- —-----------—.....-.. 2, 921, 995 968, 674 722, 054 246, 620 1915-16 ------------------------- 3, 398,780 1,012,840 874, 220 138,620 1916-17.. --- —------------------ 3, 421, 597 1,131, 557 820,657 310, 900 1917-18 ------------------------- 3,889,959 1, 011,047 765, 207 i 245,840 1918-19 --------—. --- ——. --- —-------- --—.- 4,490,906 1,045, 350 760, 950 284,400 1919-20 ---------- 4,183,675 848,576 726,451 122,125 1920-21 ---- ------— 4,406,413 1,265,135 1,089,021 176,114 1921-22 4, 517 471 1,348,190 1,020,489 327,701 1922-23 ------------................ --- -....... 4,035,259 984, 973 689,898 295,095 1923-24 - ----------------------------- 4, 554,639 1, 043,707 881, 683 162, 024 1924-25 ------- 5, 741,086 1,179, 569 1,091,087 88, 482 1925- 226 — 5, 470, 817 1,040,353 900,972 139, 381 1928-27...................................... 5, 049,544 944, 561 897, 396 47,165 1 "Concerning Sugar." X United States tariff reduction in favor of Cuban sugar effective Dec. 27, 1903. The cane-sugar industry of the United States was already a wellestablished industry in 1896-97 and 1897-98 when the outputs were. respectively, 320,000 and 354,000 short tons. In the three years prior to reciprocity, 1900-1 to 1902-3, the output averaged 348,000 short tons, and in the five years 1907-8 to 1911-12, inclusive, it averaged 371,000 tons. Its most prosperous period, therefore, followed the reciprocity treaty. Since 1911-12, however, the domestic canesugar industry has declined. Its average output was in 1916-17 to 1918-19, inclusive, 280,000 short tons, in 1921-22 to 1923-24, inclusive. 263,000 tons, and in 1924-25 to 1926-27 (with two very bad years out of the three) less than 92,000 tons. Table 14 shows that the noncontiguous territories supplied to continental United Sta{es about 1,000,000,000 pounds of sugar annually just prior to reciprocity, an average of 2,000,000,000 pounds in the years 1910-1914 and an average of 2,762,000,000 in 1923-1925. It may be seen, therefore, that domestic beet, domestic cane and territoral cane all increased in the years following the reciprocity treaty and prior to the readjustment of the United States tariff on sugar. While the American production of sugar has shown these substantial increases, the consumption of sugar in the United States has so rapidly increased that at the same time the United States has been EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 77 able to offer Cuba an expanding market. Cuba has not only sold increasing quantities of sugar to the United States but has supplied the United States with increasing percentages of its total consumption. The increase in the percentage is in part due to the decrease of imports from other sources, and is therefore compatible with the increase in the percentage supplied from American sources. Table 14 shows that in the fiscal years 1901 to 1903 or 1904 domestic (continental) production supplied 18.1 per cent of the total annually made available in the United States for consumption and export. This percentage increased to 22.6 in 1905-1909 and to 22.8 in 1910 -1914. Since, however, the table combines refined beet sugar with raw cane sugar and since beet sugar comprises a much larger part of the domestic production in the later than in the earlier years, the percentage would show a slightly greater increase if all the figures were reduced to the same basis. In the fiscal years 1919-1922 and 1923-1925 continental United States produced only 19.7 and 17 per cent, respectively, of the total available supply. Including the receipts from the noncontiguous territories, the total American supply prior to reciprocity was about 35 per cent of the total annually made available in the United States for consumption and export. It increased to approximately 43 per cent in 1905-1909 and to 48 per cent in 1910-1914. It declined to about 39 per cent in 1919-1925, a percentage smaller than that of 1901-2 or 1904-5. It may be emphasized that the tariff rates of the United States have not been sufficiently high to deprive Cuba of a market for her sugar. Even if 1903-4 be included as a prereciprocity year, Cuba in 1901-1904 supplied only about 32 per cent of the total sugar available for consumption in the United States and for export. This figure grew to 39 per cent in 1904-1909 and to 48 per cent in 1910 -1914. This development was closely parallel to that of the American (including the territorial) production, for which the corresponding percentages were about 35, 43, and 48, respectively. In recent years, however, the total American and territorial production-in spite of the free entry of sugar from the Philippine Islands-has declined relatively and has contributed less than 40 per cent of the available supplies, while Cuba supplied about 55 per cent in 1919-1922 and 59 per cent in 1922-1925. Even if it be granted that the Cuban sugar industry was not fully reestablished 22 prior to reciprocity and that no argument is to be based on the average for that period, the steady increase up to the present time in the percentage contributed by Cuba to the total sugar annually made available in the United States for consumption and export demonstrates that the United States has by no means pursued so drastic a tariff policy as to deprive Cuba of a market for her sugar. On the contrary, the average quantity of sugar imported from Cuba approximately doubled from 1901-1904 to 1910-1914 and again approximately doubled from 1910 -1914 to 1922-1925. Total Cuban production increased from 1,124,000 short tons in 1902-3 to 5,471,000 short tons in 1925-26, developing in the ratio of 100 to 487. Total United States production increased 22 In 1893-94 Cuba produced 1,180,000 short tons of sugar; in 1895-96 the revolt against iSpain brought the figure down to 252,000 tons; and the figure for the earlier year was not equaled again until 1903-4. 78 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY from 591,000 short tons in 1902-3 to a maximum output of 1,348.000 tons in 1921-22, or to 944,000 tons in 1926-27. The ratio of development from 1902-3 to 1921-22 was 100 to 230, but the figure for 1926-27 shows a net development of only 100 to 160. United States beet sugar increased from 241,000 short tons in 1903-4, the last prereciprocity crop, to 1,090,000 in 1924-25 (the latest bumper yield), or in the ratio of 100 to 453.23 For United States cane sugar, with its more fluctuating yield, a satisfactory statement is more difficult. From a 3-year prereciprocity average of 1921-22 to 1923-24, which are the last three fairly good years, the decline in output was 25 per cent; to the bad years 1924-25 to 1926-27 the decline has been nearly 74 per cent. Conclusions as to effect of reciprocity on sugar trade prior to the war.Under reciprocity the imports of sugar into the United States froml Cuba increased greatly, and by 1913 full-duty sugar had been substantially eliminated from the American market. From 1904 to 1909 the full-duty imports were still substantial, and, as a consequence, in these years the larger part of the remitted utlty went to the Cuban producer. This involved a loss to the United States Treasury without a corresponding gain to the American consumer. From 1910 to 1912 the imports of full-duty sugar were a very small fraction of the total imports. From this it resulted that in these years the American price throughout the larger part of each year was determined-in so far as the duty determines the price-upon the basis of the duty on Cuban sugar and not of the full dutty, and the American purchalser gained all or most of the remitted duty through a colespondin( reduction in the )price of sugar. In the fiscal year 19)13 impurts of full-duty sugar dropped to 3.4 per cent of the total rece l)ts or 2.1 per cent of the total estimated consumption for the year. 4 The American price throughout the entire year was consequently on the basis of the Cuban duty, and the remission of duty enured wholly to the benefit of the American purchaser of Cuban sugar. In this year and later the amount of protection to the domestic producers and to the producers of the noncontiguous territories was less, by the amount of the Cuban preference, than the rate of duty in the tariff act. TOBACCO AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS Tobacco occupies second place in value among the commodities which Cuba furnishes to the United States. The area best adapted to tobacco growing, however, is limited, and the development of Cuban tobacco has by no means kept pace with the rapid expansion of the sugar output. The relative importance of tobacco has therefore decreased. United States imports of tobacco and tobacco products frorn Cuba lecreased from 18.4 per cent of the total imports from Culba for the years 1904-1909 to 8.7 per cent for the years 1921-1925.'25 8 If 1902-3 be taken as the last prereciprocity year Instead of 19034, the ratio of Increase Is 100 to 500. a Total estimated consumptin for the fiscal year was 8 234000,000 pounds (Statistical bstact for 14, p 7); impoprts of full-duty sugar for the same period amounted to 225.000,000 pounds (see Table 12, p. 66). See Table 121. For the same periods imports of sugar Increased from 72.6 to 84 per cent of total imports from Cuba. EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 79 1)ue to various causes, such as tariffs to protect cigar makers, increased consumption of cigars in Cuba, and a tendency elsewhere to substitute cigarettes for cigars, exports of manufactured tobacco from Cuba have not increased in value in the last quarter century (Table 16), though the exports of unmanufactured tobacco have more than doubled in value (Table 17). TABLE 1G.-CubatI exports of all manufactured tobacco, 1900-19251 [Values expressed in thousands] Year 2 To all countries 19091 -'.. -. $11, 992 1901 12 853 1932..... I 13, 091 1 903.i 12, 821 1904 -.. - _ ---.. 12, 718 1905........ -... 14. 141 1985fS I5, 8.I 1906f.._...... 15,851 1907............: 13, 426. 1908- 1-5, 273 1909 I ------------- 12939 1910 ------------- 12, 370 1911 -.. ---- - 13, 099 1912 ----- 13,061 1913 ----------- 13, 914 191 -----------— 13, 773 1ua: omrIn xeir To Per nid cent to ' Unitate United States States $4, 539 37. 5 2, 586 20. 1 2,544 19.4 3, 234 25. 2 3, 055 24. 0 3,899 27. 6 4, 583 28. 9 4, 932 36. 7 4, 522 29. 6 3, 767 29.1 4, 021 32.5 4,311 32.9 3, 863 29. 6 3, 994 28. 7 3, 924 28. 5 ] --- I Average per cent to United States Year 2 25. 4 29. 3 1915-.. --- —----- 1916 -- -—.- ---- 1917 --- —----- 1918 -- -------- 1918 (6 months)-_ 1919 --- —__ --- —1920 --- —---- 1921 ----.. —. 1922 ---- - - - To all To coun- United tries States 8, 312 9, 495 9, 689 11, 700 8, 507 17, 309 18, 808 7, 846 10, 482 3, 071 3,411 4,370 3, 564 1,967 4, 846 5, 920 2, 951 3, 450 3,801 3, 217 4,642 Per cent to United States 36. 9 35. 9 45. 1 30. 5 23. 1 28. 0 31.5 37. 6 32. 9 36. 1 34. 0 36. 5._ Average per cent to United States 34.3 31.5 35.7 1923 ----------- 10,516 1924 ---—.. --- 9,456 1925 --- ------ 12,724 28. 9 1 Cuba: Comercio Exterior. 2 Fiscal years ended June 30, 1900-1918; calendar years 1919-1925. TABLE 17.-Cuban exports of unlmanfactured tobacco, 1900-1925 1 [Values expressed in thousands] Year 2 To all countries 3190(01.). $9,720 1901.. ---_ —_ — 16, 055 1902 ---------- 11,556 1903 --—. —. --- 12,655 1904 - - - - - 1905. --- — - 1906 --- -- -- 1907....... —. — 1908 1909 ----—.-. - 1910 ------------ 1911 --- -- -- - 12,088 12, 651 15, 753 15, 496 16,006 20,073 17, 789 16,889 17,396 21,650 19, 007 To Per te cent to United I Unitedt S States $8, 395 86. 3 10, 690 66. 5 9, 261 80. 1 10, 744 85.0 9,137 75.6 11,113 87.8 13, 778 87.5 14, 585 94. 1 14,083 88. 0 16, 486 82. 1 14, 626 82. 2 14, 319 84.8 14, 954 86. 0 16, 251 75. 1 16, 011 84.2 __ A verage per cent to United States 78. 2 86.8 84. 1 81.3 19155 ~ 14,637 1916 -------- --- 16,264 1917 ---__ __.-... 17,627 1918 i -------- - 20,329 1918 (6 months)- 11,305 1919 ----------— 30,196 1920 --------—. 29,894 1921 ------------ 25,402 1922 ----------- 24,586 1923 -. --- —---- 25,335 1924 ------------ 29,950 1925 -—. --- —--- 28,749 11,469 12, 567 15, 072 15, 878 8, 066 20, 552 25, 176 20, 791 20, 257 20, 438 24,045 22, 989 Year 2 78. 3 77. 3 85. 5 78. 1 71.3 68. 1 84. 2 81.8 82. 4 80. 7 80. 3 80. 0 To all I To coun- United tries States Per Avercent to age per United tcent to States United StatesStates 78.7 78.8 80.3 1 (Cuba: Comercio Exterior. 2 Fiscal years ended June 30, 1900-1918; ^ lendar years 1919-1925. 80 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY The Cuban cigar filler tobacco is generally regarded as superior in quality to that grown in other parts of the world, as is suggested by the unit values given in Tables 127 and 128.26 The semimonopoly which Cuban tobacco enjoys in the world's markets is due to a peculiar soil and favorable climatic conditions. Efforts to produce the Cuban filler type tobacco in the United States have thus far not met with success.27 The Cuban tobaccos remain the most desired, command higher prices, and are used in the higher-priced cigars. Cuban filler tobaccos are suitable for cigar making and not for cigarettes satisfactory to the American trade. Tobaccos of different varietioes from the same region and of the same variety grown in different soils and regions and from different parts of the same plant have different flavors and different characteristics-size, thickness. texture, freedom from defects, etc. Especially distinctive are three types of imports: Sumatra wrapper, Habana filler, and Turkish cigarette tobaccos. They are not competitive in the same sense in which cargoes of raw sugar from different countries are competitive; in fact, there is a much closer price relationship between raw and refined sugars than between the prices of different types of tobaccos. None the less, the taste of smokers does change, and they can be educated by advertising and by progressive changes of blends to appreciate new tobacco flavors. The gradual success of Philippine tobaccos in the American market bears witness to this. A smoker, however. is not easily induced, even by considerable difference in price, to leave his favorite brand. In the competition between different imported tobaccos price is therefore not a controlling factor, or, at least, it is a factor the effect of which only makes itself felt over a period of years. With' regard to any short period they may be said to be almost noncompetitive. Tobaccos do not lend themselves to scientific grading, as sugar is graded by the polariscope. The different grades and varieties do not have established market quotations. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect that the demand for any grade of tobacco would change, in response to comparatively small changes in price,28 with sufficient rapidity that the effects of the reciprocity treaty upon imported tobaccos could be measured by the method used for sugar. Tables 126 to 130 show for the five classes of tobacco,29 respectively, the quantity and value of total full-duty imports into the United States and of imports from Cuba. together with unit values and the ad valorem equivalents of the duties assessed. These tables bring out the higher unit values of Cuban cigars and wrapper and filler tobaccos, but also the striking fluctuations and reversals. 2aBut the fluctuations are great and in some years imports from other countries have had the higher unit values. SAcclimated strains of Cuban seed are grown under artificial shade in the FloridaGeorgia district and in the Connecticut Valley for the production of high-grade wrapper. s If the foreign price be taken as 100, and the duty 75, and freight, insurance, and other harges as 5, then the duty-paid price is 180(. A concession of 20 per cent reduces the duty to 60 and reduces the duty-paid priev from 180 to 165 a reduction of only 8.33 per cent. Cigars and cigaretts. whether dometic or imported, are also subct to ubsta only 8.33 p er nal revenue taxes, so that a reduction of 20 per cent of a high import duty makes a relatively small decrease in the total price, including all taxes. 9Smail imports of wrapper tobacco, stemmed, have been Ignored. EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 81 The rates of duty on tobaccos and manufactures of tobacco in effect in the United States since 1897 have been as follows: Reciproc- concesFull duty Reciproc- sion to Full dutyity rate sbto Filler tobacco: Stemmed -----------------------------------— per pound _ 0 $0. 50 $0.40 $0.10 Unstemmed __ --- —----------- do-.35.28.07 Wrapper tobacco: UnstemmedActs of 1897, 1909, and 1913 ------------------------ do -- 1.85 1.48.37 Act of 1921 --------------------------------------------- do-.... 2.35 1.88.47 Act of 1922 --- —------------------------------------------— do 2.10 1.68.42 Cigars and cigarettes --- —----------------------------------- do 4. 50 2 3. 60 3. 90 1 Plus 25 per cent ad valorem. 2 Plus 20 per cent ad valorem. 3 Plus 5 per cent ad valorem. The ad valorem equivalents of these duties given year by year in Tables 126 to 130 are among the very highest in the American tariff. On wrapper tobaccos other than Cuban the annual averages of the rates applied since 1904 have ranged from 263 per cent to 84 per cent ad valorem, and even the preferential rate on the more valuable Cuban wrapper has ranged from 98 to 49 per cent ad valorem. The duties have remained substantially unchanged and higher prices have tended to reduce the ad valorem equivalents. That the ad valorem equivalents or duties assessed on Cuban products are so much lower than the parallel figures for full-duty imports is due not alone to the concession of 20 per cent of the full duty, but also to the higher valuations placed on Cuban tobaccos. A change from specific to ad valorem duty would deprive the Cubans of a material advantage. Table 18 summarizes in the form of unweighted averages for certain periods the figures in the last columns of Tables 126 to 130 and conveniently indicates the range of the ad valorem equivalents. TABLE 18.-J-Unweighted averages by periods of the ad valorem equivalents of the United States tariff rates on Cuban tobaccos Filler, Filler, Wrapper, Cigarettes Period un- stemmed un- Cigars and paper stemmed stemmed cigars 1904-1909 ------ ------------------------—. --- — - --- 53.2 64.4 93.6 89.1 151. 6 1910-1914. —.-. ---. --- —-. --------------------- 49.1 61.2 92.6 80.8 114.1 1915-1918 -. ------------------------------------- 46.4 52.1 82.4 77. 2 167. 7 1919-1921. --- —-—. --- —------------------ 28.6 33.6 155.3 62.7 138.6 1922-1926 -.- -- ---------------------------------- 30. 7 35.2 75.1 64.9 76.5 The dividing point between this average and the next has been put at Sept. 22, 1922, so that 75.1 represents an unweighted average under the tariff act of 1922. The figure for 1919 to Sept. 22, 1922, is an' Aweighted average of the five figures given for this period in the last column of Table 126. The ad valorem equivalents of the duties collected upon Cuban tobaccos show that the concessions upon these tobaccos have ranged as follows: On cigarettes, 72.8 to 15.4 per cent, averaging 30 19.1 per cent in 1922-1926. On cigars, 24.8 to 15 per cent, averaging 16.2 per cent in 1922-1926. On wrapper, 24.6 to 12 per cent, averaging 18.8 per cent in 1922-1926. On filler, stemmed, 13.9 to 7.5 per cent, averaging 8.8 per cent in 1922-1926. On filler, unstemmed, 15.5 to 6.6 per cent, averaging 7.7 per cent in 1922-1926. 80 These are unweighted averages of the annual averages. S2 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY The higher rates are put first because, while prices have greatly increased since 1904, the rates of duty have remained the same or have increased only slightly, so that the ad valorem equivalents have fallen markedly. The duty has therefore in recent years given to domestic producers relatively less advantage over tobaccos, but the concessions in favor of the latter have also been of less relative importance. Concessions as large as most of those shown albove are necessarily advantageous to the Cubans, but there appears to be no evidence that they obtain therefrom the peculiar advantage of a price premium which the sugar producers obtained. The lack of competition between different types of tobaccos,31 together with Cuba's large production, has prevented this type of advantage from accruing to the Cuban producers. Tables 13 and 16 show Cuba's total exports and exports to the United States of manufactured and unmanufactured tobaccos, respectively. They show that there has been no substantial change in the percentage of Cuba's total exports taken by the United States; and Tables 38 and 39 show that decreasing percentages of United States imports have been supplied by Cuba. Since in practically every year a market other than the United States has had to be sought for at least 15 per cent of the unmanufactured tobacco and for 65 to 75 per cent,of the manufactured tobacco, it may be inferred that the Cuban producer has not been in a position to add to his price any part of the tariff concession made by the United States.82 In spite of the plausibility of the conclusion that concessions of such importance would stimulate the purchase of Cuban tobacco, the trade statistics fail to register any such movement. There has been mo significant rise in the percentage of Cuban tobacco exports to the United States. Following the reciprocity treaty the percentage of leaf tobacco exported to the United States rose, it is true, and from 1.905 to 1908, inclusive, averaged 89 per cent of the total, but in later years the figure has varied but little from the prereciprocity percent-.age.33 The percentage of Cuban tobacco manufactures exported to the United States has slowly increased from 25.4 per cent in 1900 -1903 to 35.7 in 1923-1925, but rather because total exports have fallen off than because the value of exports to the United States increased. In the absence of market quotations, the only available figures for price comparisons by countries are those of United States general "a The lack of competition s shown stati. tically by Tables 37 to 41, which bring out the independent variations in the prices of the different types. Even the lumping together of all other tobaccos does not give the appearance of a steady price, nor show that the fluctoations in the prices of Cuban tobaccos can be more closely correlated with changes in the p rices of other tobaccos than with the decreased Purchasing power of money. 3 hts conclusion would necessarily follow for an article like sugar competing only on a price basis, and seems to be justified in the present instance for tobacco. That the different types of tobacco are noncompetitive, however, might be made the basis of a different argument. If reductions of duty on Cuban tobaccos make them relatively more attractive to American manufacturers and tend to shift the demand to them, European cigar makers will not easily relinquish their usual supplies, and hence failure of the United States to take all the Cuban leaf tobacco would be compatible-as a similar state of affairs with respect to sugar would not be —with a stimulus to the demand which would tend to give the Cuban grower a part of the duty remitted by the United States. ~:~ The percentage for i.q00 —1.q0, inclusive, is unduly lowered by the year 1901. In that year, as in 1909 and 1913, the percentage exported to the United States shows a sudden drop, becaus e the steady demand from the United States did not rise with a larger-or at least more valuablesCuban crop. EFFECTS ON CUBAnS EXPORTS 83. imports.34 General imports do not separate stemmed and unstemmed filler tobacco.35 An examination of the unit values for a series of years before and after the reciprocity treaty became effective shows great variations in tobacco prices and still greater fluctuations in the difference between the average unit value of the Cuban tobacco imports into the United States and that of all other tobaccos, but the figures disclose no shift in favor of Cuban tobacco.36 We conclude that the advantage, if any, which accrues to the Cuban tobacco growers from the concession can not be measured statistically on the basis of available data. MINOR PRODUCTS OF CUBA Molasses.-In contrast with the imports of sugar, the percentage of the value of American imports of molasses originating in Cuba has fluctuated markedly and without any fixed tendency to increase. It was near 90 per cent in 1901-1905, in 1916-1919, and in 1925; but in 1906-1913 it was about 75 per cent; in 1920-1923 about 70 per cent. (See Table 19.) Quantity figures for recent years are given in Table 20. Changes in the proportion of imports of molasses coming from Cuba have resulted mainly from changes in methods of making sugar, in the taste of consumers, and in the industrial uses of inedible molasses. Improvements in the processing of sugar cane, such as those introduced in the reconstruction of Cuba's sugar industry after 1898, produced a poorer molasses, while less efficient regions were continuing to produce richer molasses.37 Between 1905 and 1911 imports from Cuba of molasses not above 40~ of sugar content increased from $313,000 to $700,000, while the richer molasses up to 56~ decreased from $729,000 to $46,000. In the same period imports of the richer molasses from other sources increased from $65,000 to. $229,000. Perhaps as a result of decreasing supplies of the richer molasses, many consumers have replaced molasses with sugar. On the other hand, there has developed since 1915 a tremendous demand in the United States for the inedible blackstrap molasses,. which was formerly largely treated as waste. This is used mainly in making industrial alcohol and mixed cattle feeds. 84 Imports for consumption are not shown by countries except that since the reciprocity treaty established a separate rate of duty upon imports from Cuba imports from that country have been segregated. Tables 126 to 130 show imports for consumption. '; The tendency for the trade to shift (especially since the war) from unstemmed tqe stenmmed filler (Tables 127 and 128) and the varying spread in value make the general import figures well-nigh useless.:! A comparison of the figures (general imports) for 1903 and 1905 alone would be very misleading with respect to wrapper tobacco. The comparison of these two years would seem to indicate that the remission of 37 cents a pound on Cuban wrapper had improved its price relationship with other wrapper tobacco by 72 cents a pound, but on the same b'lsis a comparison of 1902 and 1906 would show that Cuban tobacco was relalively worse off after reciprocity to the extent of 51 cents a pound. If from the figures for unstemmed filler tobacco in Table 34 the year 1908 be omitted, it might seem that the concession of 7 cents a pound on this tobacco took effect in 1907, 1909, and 1910 and changed the price relationship in favor of Cuba by the full amount of the concession. A similar change in favor of Cuban stemmed filler took place in 1906. But a consideration of the great fluctuations in the figures, including those for wrapper tobacco, shows the unreliability of any deduction concerning the effects of the treaty. 37 The quantity and quality of molasses depend in part upon the raw materials, cane or beets, and upon their characteristics; for instance, whether the cane is fully matured. 84 OUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 19.-Value of imports of molasses into the United State. ' [Values expressed in thousands] From Cuba Total From __________ otal Year imports British From Total of mo- West Canada e Average a lasses Indies Value ~oftotal percent exports lasses Indies Value of total Fiscal: 1900 --- —--------- - $890 $60 $14 $554 62.3 $596 1901 -----------—, --- —--- 1,124 112 16 991 88.2 534 1902 -..-..... --- —. 1,038 139 11 882 85.0 -650 1903 -------------------- 1,125 71 19 1,022 90.8 ---- 1 215 81.6 1904 -—.. —. ----.......- - 1,018 123 18 874 85.9 944 1905 --..l --- —-------—. 1,138 25 11 1,100 96. 7 780 1906 ------------------ 691 123 25 529 76. 6 -— 774 1907 ---. — --. 920 172 25 711 77. 3 -- 945 84.1 1908 --------------- 722 151 5 554 76. 7 871 1909 --- - -- —. 938 186 15 726 77. 4 - 1,553 1910 ------- —. --- 1,367 268 17 1,036 75.8 - 1,477 1911 ---------- --. 995 226 10 703 70.7 - 1209 --- 75.1 1912.. --- —------ 1,198 252 20 886 74.0 - 1,886 1913 - - ------ 1,456 309 11 1,091 75.0 1, 113 1914 ------- ------ 1,745 246 14 1,474 84.5 -2,445 1915 ------. --- —- 1,964 204 30 1,672 85.1 ---- 2,691 79.6 1916 ------------ 3,776 319 7 3,348 88.7 -- 4,250 1917 r --- —--- ---- 10,947 335 66 10,381 94. 7 ----- 8247,Calendar: 1918 --------- -- - 10,424 856 82 9,476 90.9 7, 418 1919 --------- -- 34,177 486 43 3,498 83.7 - 4,307 __ 89.5 1920 --- —--------- 3 5,118 1,166 86 3,680 71.9 4,230 1921 --------- ---- 1,884 242 94 1,438 76.3 ---- 2,114 1922 ------------- 1,656 258 34 1,214 73. 3 1,498 1923 - --------..- 4,097 286 40 2,472 60.3 - 3,145 _03[ 70.5.. 1924 ------------ 9,069 409 106 7,416 81. 8 7,194 1925 1- ----- ------ 18,984 472 110 16,927 89. 2 16, 695 1926 ---------------------- 10,472 574 101 8,599 82.1 -.. — 7, 904 I Foreign Commerce and Navigation. 2 Cuba, Comercio Exterior, for calendar years. 8 Includes $18,000 in 1919 and $61,000 in 1920 duty free from Virgin Islands. TABLE 20.-Imports of molasses into the United States, 1920-1925l [In gallons] II Calendar year Receipts Receipts Imports from Hawaii from Porto from Cuba (free) 2 Rico (free) 2 (dutiable) _ --- —---... __ ---I Full duty Total.imports dutiable imports 1920 — 922 - ---- -------------- - --- 1921 1923 --- —----- -------- - 1923 1924 --- —-- 1925 — -------- 12,126,000 6, 790,000 4,342,000 6, 722,000 14, 378,000 19,982,000 3 20,771, 000 16,833,000 9, 015,000 15, 758, 000 12,813,000 22,070,000 153,318,000 6,806,000 70, 992,000 7,118,000 101,060,000 3,825,000 165,973,000 17, 559,000 154,572,000 18, 783, 000 238,932, 000 17. 976.000 160,124,000 78,110,000 104,885,000 183,532, 000 173,355,0 C 256,908,000 I Foreign Commerce and Navigation. Monthly Summary of Commerce. a Not including 84,031 gallons of molasses free from the Virgin Islands in 1920. ___ EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 85 In Cuba molasses is a by-product and the quantity produced varies directly with the amount of sugar produced, though inversely with the efficiency of the process by which it is produced. Thus no change in the United States preferential tariff on molasses would increase or decrease the amount produced in Cuba, though a change in the duty on sugar might indirectly affect it. Under the tariff acts of 1897 and 1909 the rate of duty was 20 per cent ad valorem upon molasses not above 40~ and 3 cents a gallon on the better grades up to 56~. Figures for 1905 and 1911 indicate that 3 cents a gallon was roughly equivalent to 20 per cent ad valorem. The preference to Cuba was therefore about 4 per cent ad valorem on both classes. The tariff act ~of 1922 imposed on edible molasses a scale of duties graduated according to the degree of sugar content. This scale averaged less than 12 per cent ad valorem in 1924. On inedible molasses of 52~ 38 the same act imposed a duty of one-sixth cent per gallon, or less than 3 per cent ad valorem. It is evident, therefore, that the general trends in the molasses trade have been determined by industrial and other changes not due to tariffs on molasses, and in particular that the United States tariff preference on Cuban molasses has been a negligible factor in any changes in the trade. But the American preference on Cuban sugar, by stimulating the growth and improvement of the Cuban industry, has indirectly had a great effect upon the production of molasses in Cuba, causing an increase in its quantity, due to increased production of sugar. and a change in its quality. Iron ore.-Practically the total production of Cuban iron ore has been and is consumed in the United States. The reciprocity treaty made no change in this respect. During the period 1910 to 1920 Cuba furnished over half the total quantity of iron ore imported into the United States, as is shown by Table 21. After 1920 this proportion began to decline, and in 1925 and 1926 Cuba supplied only about one-third of the United States requirements of imported iron ore. The iron ore imported into the United States from Cuba is all used along the Atlantic seaboard and substantially all of it is mined, imported, and consumed by one large steel company. This company began to import iron ore from its own properties in Chile in 1922, and that country continues to be an important source of United States imports of iron ore. From 1922 to 1925 Chile furnished more iron ore to the United States than did any other foreign country. In 1925 the value of iron ore imported to the United States from Chile was $3,222,000, and in 1926, $1,561,000. During 1926 Cuba was again the most important source. The Mayari iron ore of Cuba contains considerable amounts of chromium and nickel, which, while desirable constituents for some iron and steel products, are not suitable for others. The Mayari ores also have a high moisture content and iequire drying before shipment. The unit value of ore imported from Cuba greatly increased several years before the reciprocity treaty became effective. a Practically the whole quantity is entered at 52~, since richer molasses is watered down to that point to avoid the higher rates of duty on the richer grades. 86 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 21.-Imports of iron ore as such, free and dutiable, into the United States [Values expressed in thousands of dollars] ITotal From From Cuba Year iron ore Canada found- Average 1from all Canada land Sweden Per o n average fromnall land and Value of t per cent countries Labrador of total er of tot al Fiscal: 1900 ------ -- $1, 497 $5 $650 $122 -- $479 32.0 1901 i --- —----------- - 1, 135 76 351 116 ----- 573 50.4 1902 ------ 2,362 685 406 72 -- 1,109 46.9 1903 --- —---------- -- 2,351 320 238 92 ----- 1, 622 68. 9 1904 ------—. —. ---. 1,593 283 141 64 --- 1,087 68. 2 1905-16. --- —------- 1,670 245 252 5 --- 1,153 69. 0 1906 ------ 2,728 220 437 35 --- 1,952 71.5 1907-_....... 3,360 52 626 117 $12 2,137 63.6 67. 7 1908 --------------- 2,9493 55 355 81 15 2,275 77.1 1909. --- —-- 2,714 1 12 567 102 32 1,915 70. 5 1910 -.-. --- —-- 6, — 6,763 97 1,009 385 983 3, 997 591 1911 ----------- 6,691 264 602 288 1,636 3,665 54. 7 62.0 1912 ---- - G,119 89 355 309 1, 754 3, 533 57. 7 1913 --------- 7,035 282 439 238 1,461 4,408 62. 6 1914 ------—. --- —-- 6.984 360 273 261 1,946 3,717 53.2 1915-3, --- —-------- 3,833 121 273 26 1,060 2,178 56. 8 1916 ------- ------- 4, 618 471 311-. 1, 163 2,422 52. 4 1917 -------- 3,- 3, 991 404 795 -- 778 1, 913 47. 9 1918 -:..-. --- —------- 3,116 871 125 — 92 1,05 61. 1 54. 1 Calendar: July 1-Dec. 31,1918- 2,364 463 425 1,457 61 6 1919. --- —-------—... 2,386 65 592 384 1 222 51. 2 1920 ------------ 4, 964 164 242 -- 341 3, 489 70 3 1921 -------.... 1, 06 16 17 30 384 493 45.8 1922 -----------.- 4,916 10 243 1,625 1,055 1, 581 32.2 50. 9 1923 -------- -- 11,309 9 8 503 3,704 2,696 2,780 24.6 1924 --- —---------- 1),581 116 180 o7,480 1,075 1, 141 10. 8 1925 -6 ----, 8,55 22 333 3,222 557 2, 075 30. 1 1C26 ----------------- 5, 876 60 236 1,561 215 2, 005 34.1 23. 1 The Cuban iron ore is not quantitatively important to the United States. The trade depends mainly upon the quality of the ore and upon freight charges. It is another instance of a specialized conmodity, the commerce in which has been relatively independent of tariff duties. In any case, little effect was to be expected from concessions as small as one-fifth of the duties which the United States imposed on iron ore prior to 1913. The rates established were, in 1897, 40 cents a ton, and in 1909, 15 cents a ton. The preferences in favor of Cuban ore were therefore only 8 cents and 3 cents per ton, and in 1913 the preference disappeared. Crushed stone is a very minor import from Cuba, but deserves notice because the reciprocity treaty exempts fronm duty all products of Cuba which were free of duty under the American tariff of 1897. It is, therefore, exempt f rom the duty of 30 per cent ad valorem otherwise leviable undler the Unite d States tariff act of 1922. Ilmports of c'rshed stone froln Cuba in 1926 were $267,250, classified in the statistics of imports for consumption as "earthy or mineral substances, manufactured, n. s. p. f." EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 87 Fruits and vegetables.-The production of fruits and vegetables, though still very small in comparison with sugar, constitutes an important factor in the diversification of Cuba's crops. Pineapples are the leading item, but the United States also imports from Cuba considerable quantities of grapefruit, tomatoes, and fresh peppers. Tables 22, 23, and 24 give the values of total imports into the United States and the imports from Cuba of pineapples, grapefruit, and fresh vegetables, respectively. The figures of all three tables show fairly steady increases in values. The value of the pineapples imported from Cuba hbs increased from less than $800,000 in 1905 to $3,220,000 in 1925, and even the averages for 1904-1909 and 1922 -1925 show that the value has tripled. Cuba's grapefruit plantations were only started about 1899 and later, and the United States imports from Cuba did not reach $100,000 per year until 1912. In recent years these imports have averaged about $500,000 per year. Imports of fresh vegetables from Cuba have developed less steadily than have those of the fruits just mentioned, but recent years show a rapid increase to a figure of $1,100,000 in 1925; that is, over six times the value of the average imports from Cuba in 1904-1909.39 By far the largest part of Uqited States imports of pineapples and grapefruit, throughout the reciprocity period, have come from Cuba; but the preferential imports of vegetables in their natural state have averaged only between 2 and 3 per cent, and for 1922-1925, 6 per cent of the total average values for such imports. TABLE 22.-Pineapples: " Total iimports for consumption into the Unitedt States and values and percentages of the total supplied by Cuba, with averages for selected periods, 1904-1925 Value of imports Value of imports Year Per Year Per Total From centTotal From cent Total T^total t Cuba of Cuba of total total Fiscal: Fiscal-Contd. 1904 (6 months) ------------ $592,000 --- 1917 --- —-- ---- 1905 --- -----— $1,015,000 778,000 76.6 1918 ---------- 1906 -- --------- 944, 000 803,000 85. 0 1918 (6 months) -. 1907 978, 000 652,000 66.7 1908 ------------- 1, 452, 000 898,000 61.8 Average ----.1909 ------- 1, 486,000 1,193, 000 80. 2 1,026,000 934, Q00 91.0 841, 000 791, 00 94.1 110, 000 82, 000 74. 9 Average ----- 1910 ---------- 1.911....... 1912. --- —----- 1913. --- —--- 1914 —. --- —--- Average ---—. - 1,175,000 894,000 76.0 1, 377, 000 1, 307,000 94.9 1,028, 000 961,000 93. 4 1,156, 000 1,100,000 95.2 1, 328,000 1, 214,000 91.4 1, 408, 000 1, 202, 000 85. 4 1, 260,000 1,157,000 91.8 Ualendar: 1919. --- —----- 1920 - -------- 1921 - --------- Average ------- 1922 -- ----—. — - 1923 ---------—.1924 --—. ---- --- 1925 976, 000 887,000 90. 9 1,057,000 1,036,000 98.1 1,550,000 1, 420,000 91. 6 1,650,000 1,553,000 94.1 1,419,000 1,336,000 94. 2 2, 294,000 2,102,000 91. 6 2, 832, 000 2, 592, 000 91. 5 3,048,000 2,685,000 88.1 3. (48R Onn 3. 220 000 88. 3 1915 --- —----- 1, 394, 000 1,221,000 87.6 2, —,,, 1916 -----— 1 — 1,020,000 962,000 94.3 Average 2,955,000 2,650,000 89.6 a In barrels, in crates, in bulk, and prepared or preserved. 39Mr. Frank G. Carpenter, writing in 1905 from Cuba, referred to the experiments made under the direction, for the most part, of experts from Washington for the development of farms in Cuba, especially for citrus fruits, pineapples, and vegetables. He ventured the opinion that Cuba, lying " in Uncle Sam's front yard, with a short waterway to his kitchen door," promised to be " the great winter fruit and vegetable garden of the United States." (Monthly Consular and Trade Reports, July, 1905, p. 239.) 88 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 23.-Grapefruit: 1 Total imports for consumption into the United. States and values and per~centages of the total supplied by Cuba, with averages for selected periods, 1904-1925 I* 1.... I....II Value of imports V ClU UL IJ UIV tLur Year Total bFrom Total Cuba Per cent of total I Fiscal: I 1904 (6 months) __! --- —------ 1905 --- —------ $38,000 1906 ------------- 45, 000 1907 --- 51,000 1908 ---------- 99, 000 1909 -------- 70,000 Average. 61,000 1910- --------- 91,000 1911 ---------- 101,000 1912- ------- -- 201,000 1913 --------- 146,000 1914 --------- 325,000 Average ----- 173,000 1915 --- —- - 294,000 1916 --------- 439, 000 (2) (2) $6,000 11,000 31,000 32,000 15,000 0.5 13.2 21.5 31.0 45. 8 24.0 I Year Fiscal-Contd. 1917 --- —---- 1918 --------- 1918 (6 months) - Average --- —Calendar: 1919 --- ----- 1920 ----------- 1921 ------------- Average --- —-- 1922 ---------- 1923 ------------ 1924 --- —------ 1925 ------------ Average --- —--- Per Total From cent Total Cuba of total $542,000 $506,000 $93.3; 349,000 306,000 87.6 157,000 127,000 80. 8 396,000 360,000 90. 0 611,000 560,000 91.6 628,000 601,000 95.8 606,000 596,000 98. 2 615,000 586,000 95. 2 69,0 61,00 9. I _ -1 49,000 53.6 50,000 49. 5 120,000 59.7 106,000 72. 7 251,000 77. 5 115,000 66. 8 278,000 94. 5 402,000 91.5 650,000 467,000 506,000 417,000 510,000 617,000 456,000 503,000 407,000 496, 000 94.9 97.8 99.5 97.6 97.2 I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~...... 2 Less than $500. 1 Inclusive of shaddocks and pomelos. 2 Less than $500. TABLE 24.-Vegetablesl: Total imports for consumption into the United States and values and percentages of the total supplied by Cuba, with averages for selected periods, 190]4-1925 Value of imports Peri Total Cuba cent of total Year I Fiscal: 1904 (6 months)- ----....1905 ------- $2,085, 000 1906. A..-. 2, 879,000 1907 -------- 2,670,000 1908 ----------- 4,558,000 1909 --- — - 9, 647, 000 Average -- -- 4,368,000 X1910Q. --- k 4,686,000 1911 -—.- -- 65,610,000 1912 ----------- 3,223,000 1913. --- —----- 5,405,000 1914 ----------- 8,658,000 Average --- —-- 7,516,000 1915 --- —----- 4,364,000 1916 ------------ 4, 829, 000 II I $129,000 10o, 000 88, 000 148, 000 238, 000 149,000 5.2 3. 1 5.5 5.2 1.5 I I I I 1 51 i1 i - 156.000 3.6 Year Value of imports From IPer Total bFrom cent of Cuba total 167, 000 178, 000 117,000 157, 000 204,000 3.6 3.2.9 2. 2.4 Fiscal-Contd. 1917 --- —------ 1918-... --- —--- 1918 (6 months) Average ---- Calendar: 01919. --- —---- 1920 -------- 1921 —. --- —Average --- —1922 ----—. 1923-.. --- 1924.... 1925 —. Average --- — 11,379,000 350,000 3.1 21, 351,000 275, 000 1.3 27, 671,000 262,000 1.0 12,463,000 199,000 1,6 20, 495,000 245,.000 12 -...... $19,779, 000 $410,000 16, 709, 000 556, 000 5, 524, 000 40, 000 2.1 3.3.7 164, 00 2.2 10,812,000 526,000 4.9 13,005,000 881,000 6.8 14, 375, 000 801, 000 5. 6 1, 174,000 1,102,000 6.1 14,092, 000 827, 000 5.9 171,000 396,000 3.9 8.2 Ii I In their natural state. In the early years onions, white potatoes, and beans and dried peas were the largest enumerated items. From 1903 the fresh vegetables not tabulated separately in Foreign Commerce and Navigation, but included under all other vegetables in their natural state, have greatly exceeded in value those enumerated. Since 1922 tomatoes have been separately enumerated, and at least in 1925 and 1926 the "all other" was composed largely of green peppers. The following covers all significant items for 1925: Onions, $5,000; dried beans, $7,000; potatoes, $25,000; green beans, $86,000; tomatoes, $410,000; all' others-dutiable, $554,000; free, $15,000. Of importance in 1926 were also lima beans, okra, egg plants, cucumbers, and pumpkins. EFFECTS ON CUBA'S EXPORTS 89 The rates of duty imposed by the United States upon fruits and vegetables of the kinds chiefly imported from Cuba have generally decreased either absolutely or relatively since the reciprocity treaty was signed. The tariff act of 1909 made only a few slight changes in the rates which had been in effect under the act of 1897. The tariff act of 1922 increased most of the rates as expressed in cents per pound, or other specific rates, but the increases were generally insufficient to bring the ad valorem equivalent of the duty to as high a point as it had been under the acts of 1897 and 1909. Table 25, based, however, upon single years, shows how the ad valorem equivalents of the rates of duty declined. TABLE 25.-Ad valorem equivalents of the rates of duty upon imports from Cuba Commodity 1905 1911 1924 1925 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Pineapples in packages. --- —----------------------. ----. 16.7 16.1 11.1 10. 9 Grapefruit 2.. --- —.__________________...____________________ — _ 49.3 52.8 24. 6 26. 1 Tomatoes -----------------.. --- -- ------... ---.. — -..-...- 20 20 7.45 7.6 Peppers ------------------------------------ 20 20 20 20 Green beans ---- -------------. --- —---------------- - 28.5 19.4 6. 2 6 Onions.. --- —.. ---- ------------------------ 50 35. 6 18. 5 17.1 Potatoes ---------------------—. — 32.9 21.1 8.9 8. 2 1 Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. 2 The rates of duty are based upon figures including shaddocks and pomelos. Alligator pears and certain other fruits of Cuba, either fresh or preserved, are exempt from duty under the provision of the treaty that products of Cuba free under the tariff act of 1897 should so con tinue. Under this provision in 1926, 8,400,000 pounds of fruits valued at $202,300 were admitted free, though similar imports from other countries were dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under the tariff act of 1922. From Cuban sources it appears that alligator pears constituted the bulk of this group. Coconuts from Cuba have been similarly exempt from a duty of one-half cent each since 1922. Imports from Cuba in 1926 were only $18,000, or somewhat over 1 per cent of total imports. The duty is equivalent to about 20 per cent ad valorem. Sponges.-The value of sponges imported by the United States from Cuba increased relatively slightly until after the war, the figures being particularly small in 1908-1913. Since the war, however, as may be seen from the figures of Table 26, there has been a rapid increase not only in the total value but in the percentage of the total imports of the United States supplied by Cuba. This percentage, which had not previously risen above 37 per cent, reached 72 per cent for the single year 1925, averaging 52.9 per cent for the period 922-1925. Under the tariff acts of 1897 and 1909 the United States duty on raw sponges was 20 per cent ad valorem, so that the percentage reduction upon imports from Cuba was 4 per cent ad valorem. Under the tariff act of 1922 the rate was reduced to 15 per cent ad valorem. CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 26.-Sponges: Total imports for coslumlption into the United States and values and percentages of the total supplied by Cuba, with averages for selected periods, 1904-1925 Value of imports Value of imports Year Per Year Per Total From cent Total From cent Total T otal Cuba of Cuba of total Itotal:Fiscal Fiscal-Contd. 1904 (6 months) —.. ---- $70, 000 --- 1917. --- — $648,000 $177,000 27.1 1905 --- —---------- 4 $416,000 148,000 35.5 1918 —... --- --—.. 530, 000 184, 000 34. 7 1906 --- —---------- 452, 000 161, 000 35.6 1918 (6 months)_- 242, 000 51, 000 21. 0 1907- --------- 336, 000 116,000 34. 4___ 1908 --- ——. --- —-- 246,000 89,000 36.1 Average --.....- 513, 000 153, 000 29. 8 1909. ----. ---. ---.- 243, 000 79, 000 32.7 j=.- '. —__ - ICalendar Average ---—..-. 339,000 120,000 3. 5 1919 -- 475, 000 168,000 35. 4....====__ ---— = --- =_ = 1920 --- —------—.- 699, 000 228, 000 32.6 1910 —..... ----..- 315,000 109, 000 34.5 1921 --- - 454,000 1.94,000 42.8 1911 --- —---------- 256,000 73,000 28.5 __, 1912 -—... ---... — 311,000 93,000 29.7 Average -------- 543,000 197,000 36.2 1913 --------—.. --- 290,000 77,000 26. 6 1914 --- —-—. --- — 382,000 129,000 33. 8 1922 -----— 705,000 343,000 48.6 i — -------- -_-_ 1923 ------- 880,000 457,000 51.9 Average.._____ — 311,000 96,000 30.9 1924 --- —-713,000 445,000 62.4 1 -, 5, -- 1925 -: 3 -- ----- 892,000 645,000 72. 3 1915 ---------— I — 376, 000 138, 000 36. 6 1916-1 --- — - - 13, 000 140, 000 27. 3 Average --- — 797,000 472,000 59.2 Mahogany.-The average annual value of mahogany exported from Cuba grew from $512,000 in 1901-1903 to $927,000 in 1912-1914 and declined again to $504,000 in 1919-1922 and $263.000 in 1923-1926. A large percentage was exported to the United States where, however, imports from Cuba formed only a small and generally declining percentage of total imports. Cuba supplied 15.5 per cent of the total imports of mahogany in 1900-1904, 6.7 per cent in 1904-1907, and 1 per cent in 1918-1923.40 Cuba's declining output makes it unlikely that she can supply a materially greater percentage of United States imports. Under the United States tariff acts of 1897, 1909, and 1913 logs of:mahogany were free of duty, and imports from Cuba therefore obtained no advantage under the reciprocity treaty. The tariff act of 1922 imposes a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem upon other imports, but under Article I of the treaty imports from Cuba remain free of duty. In 1919-1922 the United States was the destination of 18.6 per cent of Cuba's exports of mahogany. In 1923-1926 this fraction grew to 31.2 per cent. This growth may reflect the advantage obtained from the duty on competing products. On the other hand, this percentage is no higher than it had been for years prior to 1919, and the change indicated in 1923 may be a coincidence. If mahogany logs were of uniform quality, the 10 per cent duty would necessarily constitute a material advantage, since Cuba's mahogany is of the same variety as that of Central America. But size and irregularities give the logs individuality, and the logs command such widely different prices 'O But It may be noted that there are great discrepancies between the figures for Cuban,.exports and those for Imports into the United States. EFFEOTS ON OUBA'S EXPORTS 91 at the London auctions that the tariff differential in the United States may be less important to the seller than the chance of obtaining in the dominant market a fancy price for choice log~. Other articles.-Sugar and tobacco dominate the life and trade of Cuba; other products receive a correspondingly small place in this discussion, though a number of them are in a position to benefit by the preferential tariff reductions accorded by the United States. In concluding this chapter, a mere reference may be made to other minor exports from Cuba, which because they enter the United States free of duty from all sources have not been affected directly by the reciprocity treaty. Such articles are copper ores and concentrates, henequen and other raw fibers, cacao beans, beeswax, and bones, horns, and hoofs which have been exempt from duty under the tariff acts of 1897 to 1922 inclusive; and cattle hides, exempt under the acts of 1909, 1913, and 1922. Free entry into the United States on an equal footing with imports from other sources has given no special stimulus to exportation, particularly as long as sugar production, under the influence of reciprocity, was being built up to the point of satisfying total import requirements of the United States. In fact, the stimulus to the sugar industry seems to account in part not only for the relatively small development of some other exports but also for the failure of Cuban production to meet the Cuban demand for coffee and other foodstuffs. Bananas rank next to pineapples as the most important fruit exported from Cuba to the United States, but the reciprocity treaty has not influenced this trade as the United States has imposed no duty upon bananas since 1883. If Congress should again make bananas dutiable-and the suggestion has been made-Cuban bananas would remain exempt under the reciprocity treaty, and the Cuban producers would benefit in accordance with the height of the duty imposed. General imports of bananas from Cuba in 1926 were 2,881,000 bunches, valued at $1,399,000, or approximately 5 per cent of total imports. Canadian figures show that approximately 5 per cent of United States total imports were forwarded to that country. With few exceptions the United States is the chief, if not the sole, market for minor Cuban products. This is true both for articles which are on the United States free list and for articles which are dutiable and on which the Cuban product, therefore, receives a tariff preference. Cuba's manganese ore, crushed stone, pineapples, grapefruit, alligator pears, and other fruits and vegetables find their chief or sole market in the United States; but likewise, though without the assistance of tariff reductions, Cuba's iron and copper ore, bananas, asphalt, cacao beans, and crude wax find the United States their chief market. Among the very minor products of Cuba the principal ones which have not in recent years found their major market in the United States are cattle hides, mahogany logs, and honey. Cattle hides have been on the free list of the United States under the tariffs of 1909, 1913, and 1922; mahogany logs (except from Cuba) have been dutiable since 1922, and honey has been dutiable throughout the reciprocity period. Of sponges and 10038-29 ---7 92 CUBAN RECOIPROCITY TEBATY wax, the first dutiable and the other free, the United States has taken increasing percentages of Cuba's exports; of honey, the percentage exported to the United States rose from 28 in 1902-1903 to 56 during the World War, but fell in 1923-1926 to scarcely more than 1 per cent.41 During the same period exports of cattle hides averaged $1,490,500, of which $471,200 worth, or 31.6 per cent, were sent to the United States; and corresponding figures for other exports are as follows: Cacao, $55,100, $53,400, and 97 per cent; sponges, 712,100, $604,500, and 85 per cent; and crude beeswax, $107,800, $102,300, and 95 per cent. The tariff acts of 1897 and 1909 imposed a rate of 20 cents a gallon on honey; that of 1913, 10 cents a gallon; and that of 1922, 3 cents a pound, or approximately 86 cents a gallon equivalent in 1926 to 13.8 per cent ad valorem. CHAPTER VII EFFECTS OF RECIPROCITY ON TRADE TOTAL UNITED STATES EXPORTS TO CUBA Par Profits per unit sold- ------------- 93 Increase of trade over the whole period._ --- —--- --- ------ 98 The change in the percentage of Cuba's imports supplied by the United States _ ----_ --- —------------ --- ------ 102 The immediate effects of the treaty ----_ — ----- -- ---- 103 Chapter VI showed that Cuba's exports to the United States increased very rapidly under the operation of the reciprocity treaty, but that only a small part of this development can be attributed directly to the reductions of duty conceded by the United States. It showed that the great advantage of the treaty to Cuba lay in the higher prices which it brought to Cuban growers in the earlier years and still brings to producers of certain minor products. Turning to an examination of the export trade of the United States there is found a different situation upon which the effects of the treaty are different; so different, in fact, that the advantage derived from the treaty in the way of increased profits per unit of trade is negligible, and the advantage derived from Cuba's tariff concessions has been only a small factor in the expansion of trade. We shall take up first the question of profits per unit of trade; then three points concerning the effects of the treaty in stimulating trade. First, does the increase of the trade over the whole period of the treaty's operation give evidence of a special stimulus of exports to Cuba not found in trade with other countries; second, does the change in the percentage of Cuba's imports supplied by the United States show that the preferences enabled American importers to displace their European competitors; and third, disregarding the latter part of the period, does the increase of the trade or the change in the percentage which immediately followed the treaty's enforcement show that the treaty introduced into the competitive situation a new factor which produced important immediate changes in favor of the United States? PROFITS PER UNIT SOLD The striking advantage of the reciprocity treaty to Cuba, as shown in Chapter VI, lay in the price premium which sugar planters derived from it in the earliest years of its operation and which, to some extent, the producers of certain minor products continue to derive. No similar advantage has accrued to the United States. None was anticipated, so far as available material discloses. As was 93 94 OULBAt KBOIPROOITY TREATY previously stated, this type of advantage is distinctly unusual as an outcome of a commercial treaty, though it is not infrequently associated with the relationship of colonies to mother country. The reciprocity treaty did not permit and has not permitted Anlerican producers to obtain higher prices in Cuba than in other markets. That it did not operate to confer such a price premium appears from the testimony of American producers and exporters. By questionnaires and by interviews the Tariff Commission has collected information upon this point from some 300 producers and exporters of all lines of goods, of whom over 200 answered in some detail.1 The questionnaires and interviews unanimously support the conclusion that American exporters have not derived and can not derive any price premium from Cuba's tariff concessions to the United States. The inquiry took business men by surprise; the possibility of a price advantage in Cuba had not even occurred to them. Several who export upon a considerable scale did not know that the United States receives reductions in Cuba's tariff rates.2 American exporters in all lines stated that Cuba's tariff concessions to the United States enure to the benefit of the Cuban importers or consumers. There is no reason to doubt this testimony. The replies show a general desire to maintain the preferential concessions, and the existence of a price premium derived therefrom would support the argument that the preferences should be maintained. It can not be supposed that some manufacturers are obtaining higher prices from sales to Cuba but were unwilling to disclose it confidentially to the Tariff Commission. But if the total number of questionnaires and interviews is perhaps too small to demonstrate the universality of the result, by direct statement, the unanimous testimony may be said to prove the existence of conditions which naturally prevent American exporters from obtaining higher prices in Cuba than in other export markets. In the first place, American manufacturers and exporters usually do business on a one-price basis. They do business on a considerable scale. They sell by advertising, through catalogues and by published price lists. Their prices and their discounts are usually fixed for considerable periods of time. Typical replies to questions in regard to price policies are: "We sell for export at the same prices as in the domestic market"; "we have only one price list"; "our export prices to all markets are the same"; "we figure the same margin of profits on foreign and domestic sales ";" we have the same basic price but add 5 per cent on our foreign sales for additional packing and other expenses; our prices are the same for all who buy the same quantity; "our prices are shaved so close that we can't cut them for anybody." There are, to be sure, exceptions. In a few lines for instance, suar-mill equipment, each order is likely to be a contract to work or build to certain specifications, and no standardized price can be quoted in advance. A minority of manufacturers pursue the policy of quoting such prices as are deemed necessary to meet comhousr mation has of the largest mainly from manufacturers but also from exporting houses; from firms of the largest size and from small ones; from firms that exported to Cuba before tlhe reciprocity treaty became effective and from firms with less extensive experience in that business. everal of these firms deal in many lines and a great variet of goods, for example, thousands of Iron and steel products, but most of them handle a single product or a few related products. A Arm known throughout the United States wrote flatly " no preference is extended" and there tr "no preferential duties which accrue to the advantage, of American manufacturers in our line. This is not the only instance. EFFECTS ON UNITED STATES EXPORTS 95 petition; but apparently the effort even of these manufacturers is to maintain a fixed level of prices from which concessions are grudgingly made rather than to explore the possibility of getting an extra high price front certain sales or sales to certain markets. Secondly, American manufacturers and exporters, at least those selling to Cuba, sell their goods in the United States. Three-fourths of those who replied on this point make their quotations f. o. b.3 either in their home town or in the nearest port, or at the most they quote f. a. s.4 Most of the remainder quote c. i. f. prices.5 These methods all mean the quoting of prices in response to inquiries which may or may not reveal the destination of the goods. None of these methods involves any dealings with foreign tariffs or any necessity of knowing their amount. The selection of names for the questionnaire was such as naturally to bring into the list the most prominent exporters, and that list shows that of the American manufacturers exporting to Cuba less than 5 per cent sell through branches or subsidiaries established in Cuba.6 The mass of evidence makes it very clear that ordinarily it is a Cuban importer, broker, or agent who clears the merchandise through the Cuban customs and who gets the benefit of the reduced duties, unless competition compels him to pass it on or share it with his customers. A third condition which deprives American manufacturers exporting to Cuba of any price premium in that market is that they are subject to competition from three sources-the United States, Cuba, and other countries. (a) Through more than one-half of the export trade to Cuba in 1904 and through a greater part of the trade now,7 the competition which American exporters meet in Cuba is mainly from other American firms. The competing products are subject to the same tariff rates and the exporters are not in a position to obtain any advantage from the fact that these rates are lower than the nominal rates upon nonexistent imports from other countries. (b) In other lines, especially textiles, ceramic products, and the more elaborate fabrications of many kinds, European countries still compete in Cuba.s Where the competition is chiefly from European countries, the testimony of the exporting firms is generally that they must take full advantage of the tariff concession to get their goods into the Cuban market-they could not add its amount to their prices without losing sales to their European competitors.9 And considering that many of these American manufacturers feel themselves threatened in the American market by real or potential competition 3 Free on board-that is, the manufacturer pays the expenses of delivering to and loading on the train or the ship. 4 Free alongside-that is, the manufacturer delivers to the wharf or by lighter to the Side of the vessel but does not pay the expense of loading the vessel. 6 Cost, insurance, and freight-that is, the exporter pays the expenses incident to delivery to the foreign port; the importer or purchaser pays for unloading and subsequent charges, such as customs duties. 6 About 40 per cent deal through agents or brokers. The relations with the agents, of course, are various, but the total who make any effort to fix or control resale prices in Cuba is found to be not above 17 per cent. 7 See Ch. IX. In 1902-1903, 57 per cent of United States exports to Cuba was composed ~f articles of which 80 per cent or more of Cuba's imports came from the United States. 8 Of course, there are some lines in which Europe controls the trade but they are of no interest in the present discussion. 9 This testimony may be taken as conclusive in respect of the belief and the practice of the exporters; it is much less conclusive as establishing the inability on the part of American products to compete in Cuba without the aid of the preference. 96 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY from Europe in spite of protective tariff rates of from 20 to 50 per cent ad valorem or even more, it is not surprising that they are unable to obtain extra profits on their exports to Cuba by adding to their prices the amount of Cuban tariff concessions which probably does not average over 10 per cent ad valorem on the goods in question.10 (c) One manufacturer stated that the price of laundry soap on the Cuban market has been controlled since before the war "by tht local Cuban factories, in conjunction with the competition from the American manufacturers.11 In a number of other lines-for instance lumber, cement, salt, leather, and shoes-Cuban industries are developing and are offering competition at least with reference to certain grades or styles of merchandise and at least in the areas surrounding the factories. The importation of animals has practically ceased due to the reestablishment of the Cuban livestock industry. In foodstuffs, to some extent in building material, and perhaps in other lines, local substitutes tend to set a limit upon prices of imported articles. (d) The only American manufacturers exporting to Cuba who meet no competition there are those who have monopolies in their own lines. Producers of a few specialties meet little or no competition within the United States or abroad. Some of these are completely protected by patent monopolies, though only a relatively small percentage of patented articles are entirely free from competition from other products which serve the same ends. Holders of patents and manufacturers of other specialties, if they feel themselves sufficiently free from indirect competition for the consumers' dollar, may be able to fix their prices both in the domestic and foreign markets substahtially above cost of production at points where estimated sales multiplied by profits per sale will bring the maximum return. A price so fixed is known as an optimum price. American 10 The average concession for all American products has been shown as 4.4 per cent ad valorem in 1923. The figure here given as a rough maximum is put much higher because it refers to a limited range of articles, including many of the larger concessions. 11This soap manufacturer states: "We have been able to average a better price in Cuba than in other markets of the West Indies." The statement quoted in the text, however, shows that whatever the cause of this higher profit it was not due to any tariff preference over competitors. The other markets of the West Indies are largely British colonies where the American exporter may have had to cut his price because of the tariff preference in favor of British soaps. Certain other replies show apparent exceptions to the testimony that the Cuban market did not afford higher prices than other export markets, but the explanations show that the higher prices were not due to the preference. An enumeration follows: An electric company states that they obtain higher prices in Cuba " only when this can be done and we will still be lower than other American competitors." A seller of certain specialties in the dye line obtains "a little higher price" in Cuba than in other foreign territories by selling delivered to warehouse in Habana, thus securing "the profit due to an allowance for fluctuation in landed cost which would ordinarily go to the importer," although "the greater part of our competition comes from this country." An engineering company which owns its own offices in Cuba and whose "prices are always determlned by the competition" is usually able to obtain higher prices in Cuba thn in other prts of the wod. t attributes its success to a very careful study of the Cuban market, to a very strong sales organization and to the fact that It has built machinery and eruipment to suit Cuban conditions. "There Is some business that comes to our company because of the fact that American capital is Invested In Cuba." It ma be noted that the preference on sugar machinery and on other products of this company is only 2 per cent ad valorem and that they say their prices are "already shaved very close because of the intensely active competition of Holland, France Germany, and Rngland." Holland, A well-known lock manufacturer states: "Our prices and discounts to other foreign countries where we have encountered greater price competition, as well as freight, ineuro ance, and other expenses, have been lower than our Cuban." But he states further: iOur prices in Cuba are the same as those in the United States." The experience of this firm may be contrasted with that of a steel company which states that It has been forced to take tlower prices in Cuba than in more distant markets because of the competition o smaller American companies which do not reach foreign markets other than Cuba. EFFECTS BY COMMODITY GROUPS 97 firms of this favored class, if they find no European competition in Cuba, may find it feasible to maintain as high a selling price in that market as in the richer market of the United States, but since their products must pay from 60 to 80 per cent of the full Cuban duties. and they can not add this duty to the American wholesale price without tending to raise the price in Cuba above the optimum point, they may be inclined to set a lower rather than a higher price on their exports to Cuba. A producer who is free from competition may well set his export prices with careful regard to the height of the foreign tariff upon his products, since the addition of the tariff to his price may seriously interfere with his sales, but he may ignore even the largest nominal preferences either in his favor or in favor of the nonexistent competitive products of foreign countries. The several exporters who stated that they dealt in specialties and that they had little or no competition in Cuba all affirmed that the prices obtained on sales to Cuba were the same as those obtained in other foreign markets. It is plain that the underlying conditions which allowed Cuban sugar to command for some years a price premium in the American market do not exist in the sale of American products in Cuba. The conditions so favorable to Cuba were (1) an article of uniform composition and grade 12 competing on the basis of price alone, (2) an organized market with price quotations for current and for future delivery changing more or less continuously by small fractions, and (3) a demand supplied in part from a preferential source not capable of supplying the whole demand. Of these three conditions the first two may be regarded as essential to an exact, rigid, and full working out of the processes of conveying to the Cuban producers the advantage of the American tariff reduction, but even without them preferred producers who are unable to supply the demand are obviously in an advantageous position. The consumers naturally bid for their offerings. Even with respect to articles not fully standardized and not closely competing on a price basis with exactly competitive articles, the sellers occupy an advantageous position in so far as the buyers can not turn from their products to those of other countries without paying on the latter higher rates of duty and in so far as these duties are higher by substantial amounts the position of the preferred sellers is not only advantageous but strongly advantageous. American exporters undeniably enjoy an advantageous position on the Cuban market. The point here made, however, is that this advantage does not take the form of a price premium on their sales. The conditions which gave the price premium to Cuban sugar producers are absent: (1) Few American exports to Cuba are so precisely standardized as is sugar. A few chemicals may be put in that class, but Cuba's importation of them is very limited. Lumber, leather, plain piece goods, tin plate, grains, and flours are all less standardized in varying degrees than is sugar. (2) The more highly finished products, which form a large element of American exports to Cuba-automobiles, furniture, office equipment, agricultural and other machinery, prepared foods, hats and clothing, sporting goods, etc.-have little standardization and compete to only a limited degree 12Raw sugar is of many grades, but the standard quotations are for 96~ sugar, and other grades command proportionate prices. 98 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY on the basis of prices. Their sales are determined by style and appearance, by advertising, by the reputation of the brand or firm, by the salesmanship of the agents who handle them, by ability to give immediate delivery or to extend long credits, by ability to give "service " and provide spare parts, and by similar factors. In many lines of finished manufactures a small or moderate difference in price in favor of a given article may be outweighed by any one of half a dozen other factors. The most expensive of several makes may indeed command a market in part because of the belief of many customers that the highest priced article must be the best, or because the customer desires an article which will advertise his wealth. (3) The essential factor needed to give American producers a price premium similar to that enjoyed by the Cubans in the United States is inability to supply the whole Cuban demand. 13 But since the production of manufactured, articles can be so readily expanded, as long as the population of the United States is thirty times that of Cuba, it is unlikely that the United States will be unable to supply Cuba's demand for manufactured articles. Natural products stand on a somewhat different basis, since the supply can frequently be increased only at higher costs per unit. But most of the natural products which are exported from the United States are exported in great quantities to many countries. There is not a single one which is exported only to Cuba. And if at any given moment production in the United States sufficed for the domestic demand and only a part of the Cuban demand, this nice balance would in all probability be destroyed within a year or two by the growth or decrease of domestic demand or by the growth or decrease of domestic production. To summarize, a clearly defined price premium due to a tariff concession may be associated only with a rather uncommon set of circumstances, namely, tariff concessions, particularly those upon standardized articles, enjoyed exclusively by countries or colonies which by reason of relatively small productive capacity are unable to supply the whole demand in the country giving the concessions. It is inherently improbable that a country of tremendous productive power selling manufactured articles to a country of relatively small consuming power should reap such a benefit. That this benefit has not actually accrued to them is the unanimous testimony of American exporters. INCREASE OF TRADE OVER THE WHOLE PERIOD Chart No. 114 showed the tremendous increase in trade between the United States and Cuba from 1890 to 1926.15 It shows the increasing trade under the reciprocity agreement of 1891 and Cuba's increasing prosperity up to the outbreak of the Cuban war of independence; it shows the ruin of the trade during the war, the depression of 1902-3, and then the resumption of the upward swing which had been interrupted in 1897. What does this chart indicate with reference to the effects of the reciprocity treaty, effective December 1i This is a very different thing from ability to sell only a comparatively small quantity in competition with European manufacturers. See Ch. VI. p. 60. 4 ~Trade statistics prior to 1918 are for fiscal years ended June 30; since then for calendar years. EFFECTS ON UNITED STATES EXPORTS 99 27, 1903, on the increase in the trade? How much of this increase would have taken place in any case due to the rapid growth of Cuba's producing and consuming power and to the development of the competitive ability of American manufacturers? 16 Obviously the whole increase of United States exports to Cuba can not be attributed to the treaty, because the export trade of the United States to other destinations was also increasing rapidly. The problem is to measure the increase in exports to Cuba above and beyond the increase to the most nearly comparable market. The comparison of different markets involves so many factors that it becomes a question of judgment rather than a matter of statistical measurement. No country can be selected of which it can be affirmed that its commercial conditions were and are so similar to those of Cuba that the existence of the reciprocity treaty has been the outstanding and overshadowing factor of difference. Table 27 shows an increase in American exports to Cuba and exports to other markets selected for comparison, namely, Mexico, Canada, and a group of eight Caribbean countries-Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador, and Venezuela-whose total trade is comparable with that of Cuba. The table gives also the total exports from the United States and the total exports of manufacturers for the periods selected. For each of the periods 1900-1903, 1905-1907, 1912-1914, and 1922 -1925 the value of the average annual exports is given. TABL 27.-United States exports to Cuba and to other Imarkets, average values for selected periods, 1900-1925, and ratios of increase over 1900-1903 and 1905-1907 Millions of dollars Increase ratios over1905 -Exports of domestic products to- 1900-1903 1907 1900- 1905- 1912- 1922 -1903 1907 1914 1925 190- 1912- 1922- 1912 -1907 1914 1925 1914 __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - - -_ _-I- _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ Cuba........ --- —--------------—.. 23.6 43. 7 66. 2 174 185 280 738 151 8 Caribbean countries 1 ------------ 13.2 17.9 31.8 91.5 136 242 696 177 Mexico.... --- —--------------------- 37.4 55.9 2 47. 3 123 149 2126 329 2 85 Canada -----—. ---. --- —----—._... 100 150 347 592 149 346 589 232 All countries ---------------------- 1,390 1,688 2,310 '4, 293 121 166 309 137 All countries, manufactures only 3 -- 325 448 724 1, 550 138 223 477 162 1 Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador, and Venezuela. 2 This decrease reflects the disturbing influence of uprisings and revolution. 3 That is, finished manufactures, exclusive of manufactured foodstuffs and semimanufactures, as reported in Table No. 463, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1925, p. 442; in the original trade reports this class of domestic exports is labeled "Manufactures ready for consumption." The base upon which percentages are calculated is often of decisive importance. In the present instance the high percentage of increase of exports to Cuba may be due to the abnormally low base from o1 The increase in the value of the trade was, of course, due in no small measure to the' general rise in prices up to 1920. It may be recalled that prices increased, roughly, 50 Per cent from 1900 to 1914 and another net 50 per cent from 1914 to 1925. The methods of comparison adopted in this chapter are intended to eliminate the necessity of making corrections for changes in price, though no discussion of Cuba's trade can long escape reference to the price of sugar. 100 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY which the increase is measured. The use of an average for several years does not wholly escape the difficulty. In 1901 and 1902 Cuba's imports were less than in 1900 and there was a further decline in 1903. The decline reflected the low price of sugar, which seriously curtailed the purchasing power of the country. It was this depression in a country not yet recovered from the ravages of war which the reciprocity treaty was designed to alleviate. If Cuba had been normally prosperous the value of her imports should have increased from year to year after 1900. If, therefore, we select 1900 as a normal year 17 before the treaty became effective and make the trade of this year the basis of comparison, the results are appreciably different, as shown in Table 28. TABLa 28. —United States exports to Cuba and to other markets, value for 1900 and average values for selected periods, 1905-1925, and ratios of increase over 1900 Millions of dollars Increase ratios over 100 American exports to- -- 1900 1905-1907 1912-1914 1922-1925 1905-1907 1912-1914 1922-1925 Cuba --- —-------------- 25. 2 43. 7 66.2 174 173 262 691 8 Caribbean countries -----------—.,... 11.9 17.9 31.8 91. 5 151 267 769 Mexico - ---—.......................... 33. 7 55.9 47.3 123 166 140 365 Canada -—. — --------------------- 88. 0 150 347 592 170 395 673 All countries..-. —.............. 1,371 1, 688 2,310 4, 293 123 168 313 All countries, manufactures only- 332 448 724 1, 550 135 218 467 This comparison shows that in a quarter century exports to Cuba increased but little faster than exports to Canada in spite of the fact that since 1900 Canada has granted to British products preference of about one-third of the general tariff rates. If but a small allowance be made for the adverse effects of Canada's preferential tariff, it would appear from the comparison that exports to Cuba, in spite of the reciprocity treaty, increased less rapidly than might be expected in a prosperous neighboring country. The comparison with the eight Caribbean countries-markets that are possibly those most nearly comparable with Cuba geographically and in other commercial aspects 1 —similarly shows that United States exports to Cuba during the quarter century were rather behind than ahead of what might be called a normal rate of development.'1 A comparison based on the single year 1903 would naturally show a greater ratio of increase in Cuba's imports from the United States. from the United States and total imports, 1900 may not be considered wholly normal. See also. p. 41, note 8. 18Three of the eight Caribbean countries had discriminated against United States trade as follows: Guatemala, in favor of French products, May, 1923, to August, 1924. Nicaragua, In favor of products of France, Spain, Great Britain and Italy for various periods prior to 1911 and again from February 1921, to July, 1924. Some 50 products, ncluding various chemicals, preserved foodstuffs, olives and olive oil, hardware, and surgica instruments, receive a reduction of 25 per cent from the rates applicable to similar productstr the United States. Salvador, in favor of France since 19, Beliu since 1906, Geranoducts since 1908, Italy since 1911 and Spain since 1923. Various reductions are conceded to some 27 products. In 1919 the discrimination was increased by a general surtax of 25 per cent of the duty upon products of all countries except those specially favored. 19 The relatively small increases in exports to Mexico during the 25 years is accounted for-largely by Internal difficulties, and, as is shown below, does not represent a decline in the proportion of Mexican Imports supplied by the United States. EFFECTS ON UNITED STATES EXPORTS 101 But whatever the base selected the table would show a development of total American exports, of exports of American manufactures, and of exports to other Caribbean countries which may well be held to demonstrate that the development of the productive and competitive CHART]Z.- UNITED 5TATE5 D To C)CUBA,c() 8 CARIB8E (4'CANADA. AND() ALL COi 31925, wv,,,w RAW Iw~0 199, 19z 20 &,5 FPICAL; CAC CqQA^P power of the United States and the growth of Cuba's power of consumption were the predominant causes of the increase in the trade. The reciprocity treaty is perhaps not a negligible factor, but is certainly a minor factor. 102 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY THE CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE OF CUBA'S IMPORTS SUPPLIED BY THE UNITED STATES A second method of measuring the effect of the reciprocity treaty is by the change in the percentage of Cuba's imports supplied by the United States. This seems a better and more direct measure of the effects of a treaty which altered competitive conditions in favor of the United States.20 The percentages given year by year on Table 104 show that, relatively, European exporters have not maintained their ground in competition with American exporters.2' Yet even this fact is not conclusive, for the same condition is found on a greater or smaller scale in the world's markets generally, both those in which American products receive no tariff preference and even in those in which American products suffer from tariff discriminations. The growth in the percentage of imports supplied by the United States does not of itself, therefore, establish the effectiveness of the treaty in enabling Americans to compete in the Cuban market. A comparison of the share of the United States in the import trade of various countries shows this point clearly. Table 29 gives the comparisons for selected countries for the year 1900 and later periods. 'ITAB 29.-Percentages of total imports of selected cmnotries supplied by the United States in 1900, 1905-1907, 1912-1914, and 1922-1925, with increases over 1900 Increase over 1900 Increase imports from United States 1905- 1912- 1922- ov 1912 by- 1907 1914 1925 over 1905-1907 1912-1914 1922-1925 1905-1907 Cuba --------------- - 44.2 49.4 55.8 65.6 5.2 11.6 21.4 6.4 6 Caribbean countries 1 41. 1 50.8 55.4 67.3 9. 5 14.3 26. 2 4.8 available for olombia for years prior to 1905 and no figures have been found for Venezuela for 1900 to 1902; hence this table uses six Caribbean countries instead of the eight in Tables 27 and 28. Figures for Costa ica, 1905, and Nicaragua, 1907 were not found. if found they would probably raise the percentage for 1905-1907. For the Dominican epublic a figure for 1901 instead of 100 was usercntaged. a Fiscal years. a 1912 and 1913 only. 4 Through 190, fiscal years ended June 30; 1907, nine months ended Mar. 31, 1907; since then, fiscal years ended Mar. 31. Considering the development through the whole period shown in Mexico, and the six Caribbean countries, in spite of minor discrimni'If a treatx coveqte y11 1 P1Ift of the trade, or if it were really effective only ill of total imiorts supplied byv different ounties might obsur rdther than reveal its.aaciolsablte for Conclombia f or yeatan vrs 8 p rior o and no obgurefe raVenevetal ot; effccts. But if t treaty be generally reffe tie, or if the comparlsons are limited to articles actually aff cted. the comparison of the percentages of imports derived from different sources must disclose the effect of the treaty better than igures showing the growth 0of the trde In companrison with its previous value or, volume. But the percentages, both of total Imports and of particular items, supplied by differcut countries are constantly shifting, even where there are no changes of tariffs and no p referential reductions, and the conclusion that any given change is the result of a tariff concession can be accepted as established only after a thorough examination of all the circumstances. "Table 104 ashows that the valeuea of Imports from countries other than the United States has continued to Increase in spite of the reductions In favor of American products. And it would appear that iuropean exporters have at least maintained the quatity of exports to Cuba even when allowance has been made for the increase In prices. EFFECTS ON UNITED STATES EXPORTS 103 nations against American trade in two Caribbean countries and fairly important discriminations in Canada. Over the whole period the growth in this percentage has been greater in the six Caribbean countries (26.2 per cent) than in Cuba (21.4 per cent) and nearly as great in Mexico (18.5 per cent) as in Cuba. See page 104 for the change in the percentages immediately following the enforcement of the treaty. This review of the total trade and of its development through 25 years may be summarized. A consideration of the growth of imports from the United States expressed as percentages of total imports from all sources leads to the same conclusion as the consideration of the rate of development of the trade as a whole, namely, that while Cuba has presented a most excellent market for American products she has not stood in a class by herself but has merely headed the list of good customers in the area in which the United States has geographical advantages. Comparisons with American exports to other countries show that the reciprocity treaty has played a minor part in the expansion of trade with Cuba; the major part must be attributed to the growth of Cuba's consuming power and to the development of the competitive power of the United States. This conclusion does not mean that the reciprocity treaty has been without influence; it means that the treaty has not dominated the situation, that it has not controlled the total trade over the whole period, but rather that its effects must be seen in closer examinations of parts of the trade and portions of the period. THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF THE TREATY Presumptive evidence that the reciprocity treaty gave a special stimulus to Cuban imports from the United States may be seen in two points: The more rapid growth in the United States exports to Cuba which followed immediately after the treaty and the more rapid increase of trade in some items which received the larger concessions. A third point is the special stimulus which the treaty gave to the purchasing power of Cuba through the price premium on Cuban sugar.22 The first point will be discussed here but the second will be merely summarized from the discussions in later chapters. The reciprocity treaty introduced a new factor into the competition among the exporters of various countries for sales to Cuba. This new factor, if of sufficient importance, must be presumed to have had an immediately effective influence in increasing the percentage of imports from the United States. 2 The preceding chapter showed that the reciprocity treaty operated to confer upon Cuban sugar a price premium in the American market which it would not otherwise have enjoyed. The total amount of this premium in the years immediately following the reciprocity treaty may be estimated at six to eight million dollars a year. Cuba's total imports in the period immediately before and after 1904 ran from sixty to eighty million dollars a year, so that the total amount of the price premium was not negligible in comparison with the total import trade. The greater profit which the reciprocity treaty assured to the Cuban sugar growers undoubtedly was a factor in the rapid increase in total imports from all sources after 1904. That this premium, however, operated to the special advantage of the United States is scarcely more than a presumption. The increased profits took the form in the first instance of payments received from the United States or of credits established in favor of Cubans in the United States. These payments, however, did not necessarily take the form of goods imported from the United States. A part was paid in money. (Cuba's net imports of money in 1900-1904 varied from $900,000 to $2,400,000. In 1904 and 1905 the net imports were $4,800,000 and $6,100,000. In 1906, 1907, and 1908, however, the net exports of money totaled over $18,000,000.) Part of the profits represented interest dividends, or repayment of principal to foreign investors in Cuba, paid by transferring credits, and not calling for the importation of goods of any sort into Cuba. Some of the profits were no doubt used by Cubans in travel and education abroad and in foreign investments. In a general way the remainder was expended for goods, directly or indi 104 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY The reciprocity treaty and the political treaty, which became effective at about the same time,23 undoubtedly attracted the attention of American exporters to Cuba and served to advertise the United States as a source of supply for Cuban importers. The weight of this factor can not be measured, but it should not be ignored in attempting to measure the effects of the treaty. Table 27 shows that from 1900-1903 to 1905-1907 United States exports to Cuba nearly doubled (85 per cent increase), while exports to Canada and to Mexico increased by slightly less than one-half. But in the next five years-that is, comparing the figures for 1912-1914 with those for 1905-1907-American exports to Cuba grew by only one-half (51.7 per cent) or no faster than exports of manufactured articles to all markets favorable and unfavorable, while exports to the Caribbean countries increased by some 70 per cent and exports to Canada by 130 per cent. The total increase for the first decade of the treaty, as seen by comparing the figures for 1912-1914 with those for 1900-1903 (Table 27) and with 1900 alone (Table 28) shows that exports to Canada were growing more rapidly than exports to Cuba and that Cuba's development through the decade was closely comparable with that of the eight other Caribbean countries and not in a class by itself. These comparisons of the rates of growth of exports to various markets are not conclusive. But in so far as they are open to the interpretation that the reciprocity treaty acted as a special stimulus of American exports to Cuba, they must be held to show also that the stimulus soon exhausted itself. It enabled American trade with Cuba more quickly to reach a point which it would in any case have reached more slowly; at, the end of the decade the trade would probably have been much the same with or without the treaty. The percentage of Cuba's imports supplied by the United States increased more rapidly immediately after the treaty than it had done in earlier years, and the treaty probably had at least a temporary influence in changing a situation unfavorable to the United States into a favorable situation. The figures show that in 1900, 1901, and 1902 the United States supplied approximately 44.4 per cent of Cuba's imports, and this percentage decreased to 41.1 per cent in the fiscal year 1903 and 41.2 per cent in July-December, 1903. In the first six months of the treaty's operation the percentage increased to 42.7 and in the next fiscal year to 46.2. Thereafter with a slight recession in 1908 it increased steadily to 56.1 per cent in 1914. Although rectly, but It was expended perhaps as much for imports from urope as from the united Srat Inre ased dsuar sold thesdo as from the United lStates. Inc reased profit s from sugar sold n the Unted States o not necessarily stimulate American sales more than European sales to Cubar. (See Ch. III for Cuba's adverse balance of trade with Europe, offset by a favorable balance with the United States.) There are however, certain factors which make it not improbable that the United States received a somewhat greater percentage of the foreign orders due to the increased profits of the sugar growers. The fact that the credits originated in the United States made it somewhat more natural for the funds to be expended in this country rather than to be transferred to Europe. The United statehis untrwas already the dominant source ofthan supply for foodstuffs and manufacture, imported by the ubans, and It Is somewhat easier for a market which already does an enormous business to Increase, and it is propsomewhat easierion of the total. A third and perhaps more taingihIP factor is t at-due, however only in remot( sugar the Unit d Stt0 wihI 1900, 1901 and 1902 had been 700,000,000 0,000 pounds, increased in 1903 to 2,300,000,000 and in 1904 2,800,000,000 pounds and continued at similar figures through 1909 This increase freightage from Cuba to the United States may be presumed to have given stimulus t, return cargoes from the United States though tsif examination of the change in freight rates, if any thiPic t has not been verified by' a See Cih. I, p. 33, whichtook place in 1903 or 1904. EFFECTS ON UNITED STATES EXPORTS 105 the change of percentage between 1903 (41.1) and 1905 (46.1) may have been a temporary result of the treaty,24 it seems likely that the development of the competitive ability of the United States seen in the increase of the American share of Cuban imports from 44.4 per cent in 1900-1902 to 51.7 per cent in 1907 represents only a healthy growth, most of which would have taken place in any case. This interpretation of the figures is strongly supported by the figures of Table 29. In 1900 the United States supplied a somewhat larger percentage of Mexico's imports than of Cuba's and a smaller percentage of the imports of the six Caribbean countries, but between 1900 and 1905-1907 the percentage increased more rapidly both in Mexico and in the Caribbean countries than it did in Cuba.25 The percentage of Cuban imports supplied by the United States during the year and a half immediately before the treaty became effective was abnormally low due to temporary causes not connected with the treaty and not removed by the treaty. Our conclusions would not be changed by the use of an average for 1900-1903 as a base or by the use of the year 1903 alone, though the results would differ in detail. The increase in the Cuban percentage for 1905-1907 over 1903 alone would be 6.7 instead of 5.2 points, and the increase for Mexico would be reduced to 8.8, changes which are not significant. Changes of trade currents which coincide with the effective date of a commercial treaty may, indeed, be put down as results of that treaty with greater confidence than can later changes in the same direction. Nevertheless, it remains only a presumption that a reciprocity treaty of the type under consideration will produce a more striking effect in the first year or two of its operation than later. The trade between two countries is made up of an enormous number of articles, each of which may or may not be affected by the treaty. It is quite conceivable that the trade between two countries would be made up largely of articles in respect of which third countries could not compete. In this case, a reciprocity treaty presumably would have little immediate effect. But, as may be illustrated from the history of the Cuban flour trade, competition from some third country might later develop; imports therefrom might increase and imports from the favored country might decrease relatively or absolutely, so that the trade figures would entirely fail to show the advantage which the party to the treaty was deriving from the concession therein granted. One might suppose, to be more concrete, that American exports and potential exports to Cuba included many important articles in such direct and close competition with imports from other countries that a small tariff concession on the part of Cuba would quickly turn the balance and allow the United States to supply Cuba with 100 per cent of her imports of many articles. Such a concept would be essentially fallacious. It would ignore the many other factors influencing trade 24 The change between the two halves of the fiscal year 1904 is slight and may be a seasonal change. 25 The small increase in the percentage for Canada is largely accounted for by two Points: First, the fiscal year 1900 immediately preceded Canada's increase of the British preference to one-third of the tariff rates: second, when the percentage has attained a high level it is more difficult to increase it since the trade remaining to other countries includes a greater and greater proportion of articles not produced in the United States. Canada produces for herself so many of the articles which Cuba imports from the United States and Cuba produces for herself so few of the articles which Canada imports from the United States that the percentage of imports from the United States might well be considerably higher in Cuba than in Canada. 106 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY and grossly exaggerate the sharpness of competition in price. It would assume that a price factor averaging only 4 to 7 per cent and only rarely above 10 per cent of the total price,26 plays a very much larger part in trade transactions than it actually does. At any rate, no examples can be given of articles in which the United States and Europe divided the import trade of Cuba more or less equally prior to 1904 and which were supplied almost exclusively by the United States from 1904 on. Perhaps the most striking development which can be attributed, in part at least, to the treaty was in iron and steel pipes and couplings, in which the United States expanded its percentage from 43.2 per cent in 1902-3 to 85.7 per cent in 1905-1907 and thereafter increased the percentage. But very few articles approached this record, and it may well be kept in mind to offset any disposition to attribute trade changes wholly to the influence of the treaty that the United States supplied Cuba with 26.8 per cent of her imports of natural fertilizers in 1902-3 and with 100 per cent in 1905-1907; but these fertilizers were on the free list and unaffected by the tariff. See Chapter X for further discussion of the immediate effect of the treaty upon selected articles. Extending our consideration of the immediate effects, or the apparent effects, of the treaty to the end of the first decade of its operation, caution is demanded in interpreting the last column of Table 29. The figures show that the percentage of Cuba's imports supplied by the United States increased by 5.2 (44.2 to 49.4 per cent) between 1900 and 1905-1907 and by 6.4 points (49.4 to 55.8) between 1905-1907 and 1912-1914. But the earlier period spans four and onehalf prereciprocity years and only three and one-half years of the reciprocity period, and the later period covers five years of the treaty's operation. Accordingly, assuming that the whole increase shown by 1905-1907 over the year 1900 took place after 1904,27 the progress of American trade per year is seen to be greater in the earlier period. In fact, if the period 1900 to 1905-1907 be considered to include only two reciprocity years,28 the increase in Cuba's imports from the United States may be set down as 2.6 points per year for the first two years of the treaty's operation, while between 1905 -1907 and 1912-1914 the increase averaged only 1.3 points per year. With respect to the other countries included in Table 29, the periods 1900 to 1905-1907 and 1905-1907 to 1912-1914 may be considered to be of approximately equal length. In the later period American exporters were more successful in increasing their trade with Canada than in the former, the low figure for the increase of 1905-1907 over 1900 perhaps reflecting the initial effects of the British preference. But in this later period (1905-1907 to 1912-1914) the percentage of imports supplied by the United States increased more rapidly in Cuba than in Canada, Mexico-where, indeed it fell off sharply-or in the six Caribbean countries. a For the ad valorem equivalents of Cuba's tariff concessions, see Ch. X. It will be recalled that the year 1900 was used in Table 29 because the United States exports to Cuba were smaller in the three following years than in 1900. The increase began in 1904. in th e middle of which the trety became effective. With respect to the total trade, as distinguished from the trade in articular articles, the assumption that the whole growth took place in the reciprocity period Is not wide of the mark. "e The fiscal years 1905-1907 extend to a point three and one-half years after the reciprocity treaty became effective. An average figure for the trade of three years, however, may be said to represent the state of the trade at the middle of the period, which In this case would be Jan. 1, 1906. The average figure, therefore, may be said to refiect the effects of the treaty only during its first two years of operation. CHAPTER VIII EFFECTS OF RECIPROCITY ON TRADE CUBAN IMPORTS BY COMMODITY GROUPS Pap Effect of the World War__-_________ --- —------------ 107 Five commodity groups made relatively little progress —__________ __ 108 Six commodity groups made great progress'-_____ _______. --- —— _ 110 Nonmetallic minerals -— __ ____ __ --- —--------------- 112 The miscellaneous group____-___________ --- —-------- _ 113 Animals and animal products________ - --------------— _. 113 Conclusion --— _ ----______ ____ --- —----------- 115 Certain general features of Cuban trade and the changes that occurred therein after the reciprocity treaty became effective may perhaps be made clear by discussing 10 broad groups of dutiable imports. The 10 groups are here listed in the order of their relative importance: Foodstuffs; textiles; machinery, apparatus, instruments, and vehicles; metals and manufactures of metal, except machinery and the like; chemicals and allied products; animals and animal products, except foodstuffs and fibers; nonmetallic minerals; miscellaneous commodities; wood and manufactures of wood; paper and manufactures of paper. Free (nonpreferential) imports constitute an eleventh group. Table 135 summarizes Cuban import trade of these 11 groups of commodities. It shows the total value and the value and percentages of each group supplied by the United States and by all other countries; by annual averages for selected periods. Chart V shows graphically the changes in the percentages supplied by the United States. Tables 136 to 149 detail the trade of each group and of three important subgroups by the principal countries of origin, 1902-1924, together with averages for the selected periods. At the point of departure, 1902-3, the United States supplied 45 per cent or more of the import trade of Cuba in 7 of the 11 commodity groups. Of three of the remainder-chemicals, animals, and paper-the United States had from one-fourth to one-third of the trade; in the other, textiles, it had less than 7 per cent. (See Table 135 or Tables 30 and 31.) After the establishment of reciprocity the percentage supplied by the United States increased in almost every group, whether the figures for 1904-1909 or 1910-1914 be considered. In 1910-1914 the United States supplied practically 45 per cent of Cuba's imports of paper; only of textiles was the percentage smaller. EFFECT OF THE WORLD WAR The World War affected almost every group of imports markedly and immediately. As the figures for 1915 show, Cuban imports from the United States of most of the groups increased approximately by the amounts that Germany no longer could supply, even though 10038-29 ---8 107 108 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY the value of total imports of several groups declined. Imports from France fell off in practically all groups during the war years, although not to the same extent as those from Germany; imports from the United Kingdom declined only gradually from 1915 to 1918. These relative decreases signified special improvement in the position of the United States and advantages to Spain and certain other countries. Of the postwar period, the years 1920 and 1921 were highly abnormal so far as trade conditions in Cuba were concerned. The exceptional prosperity which Cuba enjoyed during the conflict by reason of an increased demand for sugar in countries ordinarily dependent on European supplies reached a climax in 1920, when the average value of Cuban raw sugar was about four times as high as in 1914. Stimulated by rich returns from the export trade, business generally throughout Cuba flourished and capital was available in plenty. Enormous importations of all classes of foreign merchandise were made, many of them ordered upon exaggerated estimates of the continued purchasing power of the country. During this postwar boom, prior to Europe's recovery of its export markets, the United States lost little of its war-time gains, and in several groups increased them. The crash in sugar prices that came late in 1920 caused a general crisis. Merchants were heavily overstocked and unable to dispose of their wares at any price. Imports in 1921, consequently, were greatly reduced and were largely confined to necessities. Since 1922 most of the groups have shown increased imports, but the increase has halted whenever Cuba's buying capacity has been adversely affected by unfavorable conditions in the sugar industry. As the countries most injured by the war have recovered, they have in part regained their relative positions in the Cuban market, so that in 1922-1924 the percentages supplied by the United States declined in comparison with the figures for 1919-1921 for all groups except the animals and animal products group and the miscellaneous group. The 11 groups may be listed in the two divisions shown on Chart V and on Tables 30 and 31 according to the rate of increase of United States trade in comparison with that of other countries. FIVE COMMODITY GROUPS MADE RELATIVELY LITTLE PROGRESS In four of these commodity groups the reciprocity treaty and all other trade influences produced prior to the war no substantial increases in the percentages of imports supplied by the United States. Table 30 shows that three of them started at percentages of 47 to 51 and increased in the whole period to 1922-1924 only to 56 or 57 per cent. Separate mention may be made of each of the four groups. Foodstuffs, whose value was equal to that of almost any other four groups, began at 48.7 per cent, increased only to 52.5 per cent in the pre-war period, failed to reach 64 per cent during the war period, and ended at 57.3 per cent, a net gain of less than 9 points in the percentage supplied by the United States. Nonmetallic minerals fell off slightly in the first reciprocity period 4nd in the latest period had fallen below the percentage of 1909-1914. The net gain in a score of years was less than 5 points. TEN DUTIABLE COMMODITY GROUPS AND FREE GOODS, ANNUAL AVERAGES FOR SELCTED PERIODS, 1902- I 9Z4. PER CENT PER CcNT O- --- - - -- 100I - - 0 —.. -......... 90.... / --- —- - 90 _9__0\__ I __ ___. b0 r:"~", /-.. 60 [ 60... 10 - I I.... 0 -V -0i --—. - 70 70 ---- - - ---- I /1 I I I I I I I IC I'1 30 -,3.0 --- - - t0o --- t.0 ---- w0000.....O i i i 1 1 1 1 1,,1 il,,ili!, 1 1 1 1i,...........ii 1"8W-a2, 4Face p. 108.) I ii I I a i -~- u I n a rt i d r i ~. r r f I~ EFFECTS BY COMMODITY GROUPS10 'TAni 30U.k-AFmveommod1tt ~rroep, of import# Pinto Cuba in which the United Sttlete, trade, fnoreoaed least rapi4y tinder rectproomtV (ratweage awml4WL vao~s~e in mZillione of dollars) from the Uni~ted~ Statea and from aflother cousntri ee, wkith percentages 81&ppli6Z by the United States, for six, selected periods, 1902-19~24 Nonmetallic Miscellane-Mchnry Fe United Other United Other united Other united Other unite Other States tries States on States ou-States cu-States on 1902-3: Value --- —-------— 11.1 11L7 1.0 1.0 0. 9 1.0 2.4 1.0 3. 5 1.0 Per cent United States --- —- 48.7 51.2 47.4 70.4 78.2 1904-909:11II Value -----------— 16.2 116.2 1.8J 1.L9 1. 9; 1.4 5.8;1 2.3 6.6;1 1.1 Per cent United States --- —- 49.9 48.9 56.3 70.7 83.2 1910-1914:23522.941 71 Per cent United States --- —- 52.5 57.7 47.0 72.0 87.0 Value --- —-------— 49.8 1 28.6 7.4 11.4 3.3 13.4 30.1 I 1.0 12.3 1 1.1 Per cent United States ----- 63.8 84.0 49.5 96.7 92.0 Value ------------— 94. 2 54. 2 16.8 1 4.4 7.4 7.6 63.1 1 2.7 18.61 1. 6 Per cent United States ----I — 63. 5 79.4 49. 1 95.9 91.9 1922-1924: 513. Per cent United States ----- 73 55.6 56.9 92.2 85.5 The relatively unimportant miscellaneous. group showed no gain after 10 years of reciprocity and. practically no grain during the war. It ends with a net gain of less than 10 points fo-r the -whole period. Machinery, apparatus, instruments, and vehicles, now third in importance among the commodity gyroups, started with 70 per cent of the trade in tehands of the United States, and this percentage remained practically unchanged until the war. After the post-war boom, however, there was les-s recession in this group than in any other Lexcept the two groups which made slight gains in 1922-1924, and the 92 per cent shown in the latest period is a net gain of 20 points over the, 72 per c ent of 1909-1914. 'To these four groups the free goods may be added, since the total net gain is only 7.3 points in the whole period; but as the free group started with the highest percentage of all (78.2), there was relatively little room for improvement., Without the aid of a tariff preference the United States over the whole period raised its proportion of the free imports from four-fifths to six-sevenths. In the above fve grroups the percentage of imports 'from the United States, increased but slowly while total imports 'increased at a fairly rapid rt.Hence, only in machinery,,apparatus, etc., and in this grou ony dring and, after,the war, was there-an. actual diminution in values of iports from all other countries. (See Table 82.) The greatest relative.increase in value of imports frmother countrie's occurred in the grroup of nonmetallic minerals,,the alverageL annual value increaing from less than $1,000,000 in '1902-.3 to $2,000,0,00 in 19,10-1U014 anidto t$7,000,000 'in 192-1924 .110 110 ~~CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY T.&jsip 31.-Sim commodity groups of impo~rt& into Cuba in, whzieh~ the United States trade increased most rapidly under reciprocity (average annual values millions of dollars), from the Unilted States and from all other co utrics, 'with percentages supplied by the United States, foyr 8ix selected periods, 1902-1924 Animals Textiles and animal Metals Chemicals Wood Paper products MS ~ 0 M I$ 0 00 ~ 0. 1 44 4.1902-3: Value --------— 0. 7 8.9 2.1 6.2 1.7 2.1 1.0 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.3 1.0 Per cent United States- 6.9 25. 7 45. 1 3. 3 60. 8 23. 8 Value - 1. 7 12. 3 4. 0 4. 1 3.7 1 3.2 1.91 2.1 1.7.8.6~ 1.0 Per cent United States- 11.8 49.3 53.8 48. 2 68. 7 38. 6 Value --------— 3.1 1 13.7 4.5 1.4 5.9 2.5 3.9 3. 2 2.3 1.0.9 1.1 Per cent United States- 18. 5 75. 8 70. 0 54. 8 70. 9 44. 9 Value --------— 12.5 1 15.9 8.8 1.4 13.4 1.0 10.7 3.6 4.7.9 3.0.7 Per cent United States- 43. 9 86. 5 92. 9 75. 1 84. 3 81.4 1919e-191 --- —- 38.7 122.1 17.2 12.5 28.0 I 2.1 19.2 15.6 8.2 1.2 6.3.9 Per cent United Sta~t~es.. 63. 6 87. 2 92.9 77. 6 87. 5 87. 3 Value --- —- 20.11 14.9 10.3.9 13.9 1 2.4 11.5 4.5 4.11 1.1 2.81 1.3 Per cent United States. 57. 4 92. 1 85.3 71. 8 79.3 68. 0 SIX COMMODITY GROUPS MADE GREAT PR OGRESS The other six commodity groups, those of Table 31, namely, textiles, animals metals, chemicals, wood, and paper, show decided gains for the trade of the United States, so much so that imports from other countries as measured in value either diminished or increased only slightly. Table 32 gives the ratios of increase or decrease. The largest increase in average annual value for imports from other countries is in the chemical group; prereciprocity imports of chemicals and allied products valued at less than $2,000,000 increased to $3,000,000 in 1904-1909 and to $4.500,000 in 1922-1924. In the important textile group the average' value of imports from all other countries was only 10 per cent greater in the latest period than in the 1909-1914 period. In all these six groups, except, perhaps, chemicals, it is evident that when the increase of prices is taken into account there have been declines in the quantities exported to Cuba from countries other than the, United States, but that this result has been attained in the war and postwar periods rather than in the pre-war periods.' In textiles, prior to the war, the rapid increase in percentage of imports from the United States did not prevent a more rapiid increase in values from all other countries. Average imports from the United States grew from 0.7 million in 190.2-3 to 3.1 millions in 1910-1914, but imports from all other countre grwfo 1See below for the exceptional group of animalso and animal products. EFFECTS BY COMMODITY GROUPS 11l 8.9 to 13.7 millions, an increase of 4.8 millions compared to only 2.4 millions for the United States. Imports from Germany and from Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, and Ireland (combined in Table 137 under "Other European") increased from 0.7 to 2.8 millions, thus falling only a little short of the increase shown by the United States. This fourfold expansion of exports of certain other countries coincident with the grant of preferential tariff rates to products of the United States suggests once more that the tariff concessions were not of dominating importance in the changes which were taking place in the Cuban import trade. TASBL 32.-Increases in value of Cuban imports from the United States and from all other countries by dutiable commodity groups and total free goods, shown by the ratios of increase over the aerage of 1902-3, taken as 100, for four selected periods [Average annual values in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] 1902-3 1904-19091 1910-1914 1 1922-1924 1 Group Other OUnited Other United Other United Other States oun- coun- r States un- States coun_tates States. tries tries tries tries Foodstuffs — ----------------- 11.1 11.7 16.2 16.2 23.5 21.2 53.2 39.7 Ratio --- —------------------ 100 100 146 139 212 182 480 340 Nonmetallic minerals ----- 1.0 1.0 1. 8 1.9 2.8 2.1 8. 8 7.0 Ratio -------- -------------- 100 100 177 194 276' 213 860 722 Miscellaneous ---------.9 1.0 1.9 1.4 1. 6 1.8 5.1 3. 9 Ratio ------------------------- 100 100 200 140 172 175 552 377 Machinery- ----------------- 2. 4 1.0 5.6 2. 3 9.4 3.6 27. 3 2. 3 Ratio --- —---- -------------- 100 1 22 224 382 354 1,115 224 Free goods --- —----------- 3.5 1.0 5.6 1.1 7.3 1.1 9.9 1.7 Ratio --------- --------------- 100 100 158 115 207 111 280 170 Textiles -- - -- -----.7 8.9 1.7 12.3 3.1 13.7 20.1 14.9 Ratio. ---- -------------- 100 100 250 139 469 154 3,030 167 Animals and animal products --- —-- 2. 1 6.2 4.0 4.1 4. 1. 4 10.3.9 Ratio ----—. --- —- ---- 100 100 189 77 212 23 481 14 Metals -- -------------- 1.7 2.1 3.7 3.2 5.9 2.5 13.9 2.4 Ratio ------------- ----------- 100 100 216 153 341 120 806 114 Chemicals --------------- 1.0 1.9 1.9 2.1 3.9 3.2 11.5 4.5 Ratio ----- -- -------- 100 100 189 110 375 168 1,113 238 Wood - ----------------------.9..6 1.7.8 2.3 1.0 4.1 1.1 Ratio ---- - -- ---------------- 100 100 195 138 258 164 453 183 Paper -. --- —-------.3 1.0.6 1.0.9 1.1 2.8 1.3 Ratio - -------------------------- 100 100 204 101 308 118 924 135 1 The interval between the first average period and those that follow is 3i4, 9, and 202 years, respectively. In these six commodity groups, whatever the percentage of the total with which the United States started-and the percentage varied from 7 per cent for textiles to 61 per cent for wood and manufactures thereof-the United States has advanced by securing onehalf or more of the percentage supplied by other countries in 1902-3; in the metals group the fraction is three-fourths, and in the animals and animal-products group no less than eight-ninths, since this group started with one-fourth of the trade and ended with 92 per cent. This percentage is equaled only by that for machinery, apparatus, etc., of which the United States has started with a percentage of 70 per cent. The animals and animal-products group is conspicuous also in that most of the increase-namely, that from 25.7 to 75.8 per cent-was made prior to the war. In general, in all the six groups 112 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY the percentages increased from period to period up to 1915-1918, underwent little change during the postwar boom, and then fell off as European countries began to recover. The similarity is such that no comment, group by group, is needed. There are, however, several exceptions to the general development. The United States percentage for products of wood grew very little between the first and second reciprocity periods, and the paper and chemical groups showed comparatively little growth during that time. The paper group advanced very rapidly with the outbreak of the war when imports were cut off from Germany. The textile group made a similar jump in this period, but continued to gain rapidly during the postwar boom. In all these groups except animals and animal products the greatest advances from one period to the next are found to be due to the World War, and with the further exception of the metals group, the growth which may be attributed primarily to the war-as shown in the averages for the 41/2 years 1915 -1918-exceeded that which took place in the preceding 11 years. 1904-1914. Further comment may be made on three groups: Nonmetallic minerals, the miscellaneous group, and the group of animals and animal products. NONMETALLIC MINERALS Nonmetallic minerals and the miscellaneous group are the only ones for which Chart V shows decreases in any period prior to 1919-1921. The graph for nonmetallic minerals shows that the percentage of Cuban imports supplied by the United States decreased from 1902-3 to 1904-1909. This decrease serves to call attention to the importance of changes in the relative position of different elements of the trade which go to make up the average for the group. Mineral oils are the outstanding product within the group. In 1902-3 and in 1904-1909 the United States supplied, respectively, 99.34 per cent and 99.36 per cent of Cuba's imports of mineral oils. The United States thus maintained its dominating position in a product which increased 50 per cent in value. In all other products of the group the United States increased its percentage from 30.2 in 1902-3 to 31.7 in 1904 -1909. It, therefore, slightly bettered its position in these products of which Cuba's imports doubled in value in the period. But when these figures, each favorable in itself, are combined into a weighted average, the result is a decline from 51.2 to 48.9 per cent of the total. simply because mineral oils constituted 30.4 per cent of the whole group in 1902-3 and only 25.4 per cent in 1904-1909, and hence in the later period exerted less influence in raising the average of the rest of the group. Later the relative importance of mineral oils again increased, rising in 1922-1924 to more than one-half of the whole group, but the percentage supplied by the United States diminished as Mexico and Venezuela increased their production. The per centages for the six periods shown in Chart V, separated into two classes, are as follows: Mineral oils-..,__. ___ 99.3 99.4 99.2 97.6 85.2 56.8 Other nonmetallic minerals__ — __ 30. 2 31.7 44 75 74 1 54.2 EFFECTS BY COMMODITY GROUPS 113 THE MISCELLANEOUS GROUP The miscellaneous group alone records a net loss in percentage for the United States over the first two treaty periods, and from 1904-1909 to 1910-1914 the average value of such imports from the United States declined by 26 per cent and the percentage from the United States fell from 56.3 to 47 per cent of the total. Partial explanation of this may lie in changes of statistical classifications. Many amendments became necessary during these years in order to adapt the existing customs measure, based largely on the 1897 tariff of the Spanish regime, to changing conditions. A complete revision of the Cuban customs law was frequently proposed, only to be postponed for one reason or another. Nothing remained then but to decree new and import items of the Cuban import trade to be assimilated to numbers of the existing tariff. No doubt, however, many such items had been recorded during the early years of rapidly expanding trade in the " basket" group of articles not separately enumerated. If this procedure of assimilation were applied to products imported mainly from the United States more freely than to other articles, it might easily explain the changes in the Iniscellaneous group. Changes of classification taking half a million dollars worth of imports out of this group might produce important changes relative to the size of the group without materially affecting the figures for the larger groups among which the new classifications would presumably be scattered. ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS Animals and animal products deserve special consideration. It is in this group that the United States has most remarkably increased its share of Cuban trade. More than in any other, the increase in this group has been independent of war conditions; prior to the war it showed the most rapid gain, and it and one other group alone showed continued gain in 1922-1924. In 1902-3 the United States supplied only 25.7 per cent of Cuba's imports of animals and animal products, but in 1910-1914, 75.8 per cent. In 1902-3 the largest item in the group was cattle, comprising about four-sevenths of the total. As American cattle are not suited to the Cuban market,2 imports from the United States were small both before and after reciprocity, and the percentage of imports from the United States for the whole group was correspondingly small. 2 * * * The question of the remission of the present trifling duty of $1 per head upon cattle is not regarded as a matter of any consequence by importers of cattle, either for breeding purposes, for ordinary draft purposes, or for food. To anyone intending to import graded cattle the duty of $1 per head would give little concern. What cattle breeders here especially desire is not the remission of the present duty, but that the United States shall use its good offices with certain South American countries in order to secure the removal or a lessening of the present prohibitive export duty, which in one case amounts to $19.50 per head. It is from those countries that cattle will be imported, as experience proves the undesirability of cattle from the United States for use in this Island. About 40 per cent of them die from change of food and climate, and they do not usually Possess the physical qualifications as to horns and weight which are found in the South American cattle. In Cuba cattle are bred either for agricultural purposes or for food, no attention being paid to milch cows or animals with pedigree. As the agricultural work it the island is performed almost exclusively by oxen, which are yoked by their horns, the care and attention of cattle breeders has been confined to obtaining animals of heavy weight, With strong, well-proportioned horns. On this account Jersey shorthorns or those of similar blood are unsuited for Cuba. Cattle from Texas, although well qualified as to horns, are unsuited on account of their lack of weight." Annual Report of the Collector of Customs for Cuba (MaJ. Tasker H. Bliss), fiscal year ending June 30, 1899; in Civil Report of Maj. Gen. John R. Brooke, 1900, p. 385. 114 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY But the cattle trade was only temporary. Cuba normally imports few cattle,3 but for some years after the restoration of peace imports of cattle were heavy. When these imports fell off-and in 1910 -1914 they averaged only $10,000-the percentage supplied by the United States of the whole group would have increased considerably even had there been no other change in the trade. Table 33 shows the figures for this group, excluding cattle, and the percentages of trade from the United States both excluding and including cattle. TABLE 33.-Dutialble imports into Cuba of animals and animal products Exclusive of cattle Including cattle, per Period Frmthe Per cent cent from Total Unite From other from United Total United countries United States States States 1902-1903 ---..... —............ $3, 615,000 $1, 370,000 $2, 245,000 37. 9 25. 7 1904-1909 ---—. —.. —............_. 5, 541,000 3,470,000 2,071,000 62.6 49.3 1910-1914 --- —--— _ ----........ 5, ---- 5,950, 000 4,510,000 1,440,000 75.8 75. 8 1915-1918...-............_........... 10,058, 000 8,710,000 1, 348,000 86.6 86. 5 1919-1921 - -----------—.-....... 17, 624,000 16,369,000 1,255,000 92.9 87.2 1922-1924 --- —-.................... 10, 896,000 10,119,000 777,000 92. 9 92.1 Even excluding cattle, the group of animals and animal products shows a noteworthy increase in the percentage of Cuban imports supplied by the United States. The explanation seems to lie in the larger percentage of the trade in this group reserved to Spain by the colonial tariff system-an artificial condition, since Spain was not in a position to supply these articles upon a competitive basis. The liberation of Cuba came at a period when the export of American manufactures was rapidly expanding, especially in neighboring markets. Exports of American shoes were increasing greatly, and, after cattle, shoes formed the most important article in this group. The period between the liberation of Cuba and the establishment of reciprocity was not sufficient to allow American manufacturers and exporters to break the hold of the Spaniards, who had been in complete command of the market. But both before and after reciprocity, as has been shown in the preceding chapter in respect of shoes, American trade progressively replaced Spanish trade. The exceptional progress of American exports in this group was not due to the effectiveness of the preferences granted upon the articles concerned, but to the artificial position which Spain, the chief competitor, had occupied in the Cuban market. a Cattle raising had been one of the three great enterprises of Cuba, surpassed in importance only by sugar and tobacco. To what extremity this industry, as well as the other two depending upon it for work animals, was reduced by the years of revolution and war appears from the fact that the number of cattle in Cuba at the end of the war was less than 10 per cent of the two and one-half million head before the war. Several years of heavy importations were required to restore this industry to its former prosperity, besides meeting Ihe increased demand for immediate food consumption. The number of cattle imported during 1899, 1900, and i9Oi was 399,800, 288,300, and 368 800, respectively, with a reported total stock of 805,500 in January, 1902. Imports of live'animals other than cattle averaged about $1,000,000 in 1902-1909 and fell off in later years, but their excluWon would change only slightly the perc ntages shown for imports in this group exclusive of cattle alone. EFFECTS BY COMMODITY GROUPS 115 It will be observed that in this group the total trade of all countries other than the United States has continuously declined, even when cattle are excluded and when value rather than quantity is considered. The figures for cattle imports (see Table 134), dutiable as well as free, may safely be interpreted as one of many instances which indicate that the differential tariffs granted by Cuba to the United States were minor factors in the development of American exports to the island. The several changes in the tariff affecting imports of cattle during the years 1899-19044 apparently had no appreciable effect on the share of the United States. The latter supplied $1,323,200, or 17.3 per cent, of total dutiable cattle imports amounting to $7,654,400 during the fiscal year 1901 and an annual average of $763,000, or 16 per cent, of $4,700,000 for the calendar years 1902 and 1903. With 40 per cent preference under reciprocity, the share of the United States for the period 1904-19085 was only 21 per cent. During the years 1919-1921, the only other period when cattle imports into Cuba assumed large proportions,6 $881,000 worth of the total $2,148,000, or 41 per cent, originated in the United States. Little significance attaches to the figures for the other periods. CONCLUSION This general review of Cuba's imports by commodity groups shows a great diversity in the development of the share of the United States in the different groups. It shows incidentally that the import trade does not remain constant but that changes in the relative importance of the different commodities composing the total may be sufficient to affect materially the weighted averages of imports by countries of origin. *The customs tariff promulgated to take effect on Jan. 1, 1899, the date of surrender of sovereignty by the Spanish authorities, carried a duty of $1 per head of cattle, a trifling rate compared with the $22, $10, and $8 per head of oxen of cows, and of calves, heifers, and steers, respectively, of the former tariff. (Report of the Census of Cuba, 1899, p. 540.) On Mar. 31, 1900, a revised tariff was issued, effective June 15, 1900. It did not alter the rate of $1 per head on calves and heifers; but for oxen, cows, and bullocks the new rate was $2 per head. By the Cuban law of Sept. 15, 1902. cows suitable for breeding and calves, also cows with calves, and bulls of special types were transferred to the free list; yearlings were to pay $1, male cattle of certain types and specified weights, from $5 to $8, and lean cattle, $2 per hea&. The surtax law of February, 1904, added 30 per cent to these rates. Under the treaty, m.nerican cattle received 40 per cent reduction. Yearlings from the United States thereafter paid a net rate of $0.78 per head; from other countries, $1.30; lean cattle, $1.56 and $2.60; and special types from $3.90 to $6.24 and from $6.50 to $10.40, respectively. Among the latter, $3.90 was the rate applicable to " Florida male cattle "; the rates upon Honduran, Mexican, or Venezuelan and Colombian cattle were $6.50 to $10.40 each. The'fiscal year 1909 was excluded from this average because total imports dropped off to $68,200, with $25,600 worth from the United States. In explanation, attention may be direcied to Tariff Decree No. 731 of July 7, 1908 (Gaceta Oftcial, July 8, 1908), which changed the dutiable basis from "per head " to per 100 kilos gross weight and made the rate of duty $2.25 per 100 kilos for all cattle, except those which continued to be admitted free for breeding purposes. The decree of Provisional Governor Charles E. Magoon sets forth that the Agrarian League and other associations representing cattle raisers and merchants had petitioned for a duty of 3 cents per kilo, and that the Government departments concerned and all three political parties supported the measure at least in principle. Representatives of the cattle raisers signed an agreement that the price of cattle on the hoof was not to rise above 6 cents per pound during months of drought and 512 cents per pound during other months, and the Meat Sellers Union of Habana, representing 112 butcher shops, offered to adjust the retail price of meat to the price of the livestock, and agreed that such retail price should in no case exceed the previously arranged price of the two preceding years. 6" The partial revival of United States exports of cattle since the World War is accounted for in that they consisted largely of medium and low-grade animals shipped to neighboring countries to restock denuded ranches and for slaughter." The Cattle Industry and the Tariff, L. R. Edminster, Institute of Economics, 1926, p. 85. 116 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY In textiles and wood products, and still more in metals, chemicals, paper, and in animal and animal products, the United States has made notable advances in its share of the Cuban market; but the very general analysis presented in this chapter does not indicate the causes of this progress. Since the various commodities within the same group have different rates of duty in Cuba and receive different concessions, no attempt has been made to correlate these group totals with the concessions of the reciprocity treaty. The group figures show, however, that in respect of foodstuffs, nonmetallic minerals, and products classed by the Cubans as miscellaneous, and also until the outbreak of the war for machinery, reciprocity was not a sufficient stimulus to American trade to produce any material increase in the share of Cuban imports supplied by the United States. Since the preference accorded by Cuba has been ineffective in stimulating large groups of exports from the United States, it may easily be that the growth of other groups has been due not to reciprocity but to other influences. CHAPTER IX EFFECTS OF RECIPROCITY ON TRADE CUBAN IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES, BY PREFERENTIAL GROUPS AND BY COMPETITIVE CLASSES PagP Cuban imports grouped on the basis of the reductions accorded by the treaty-_ __ --- —------— __-___ __ --- —-_ — 118 Cuban imports further divided into competitive classes-___ --- —---- 122 Relative decrease of United States trade in Class I ---__ --- —--- 129 Relative increase of United States trade in Class II ____ --- —- 130 Trade changes in Class III_ --- —_ —_ --- —--- _ — 132 Summary of the changes in the three classes --— ___ —_.________- - 133 Changes due to fluctuations in the compo)sition of Cuba's imports-___ ---_ 135 The preceding chapter presented statistics of total United States exports to Cuba and of Cuba's total imports. It set forth the growth of the total trade and of the percentage of Cuba's imports supplied by the United States. By various comparisons it showed that this growth was not unique, that the development of United States exports to Cuba was paralleled, and in some cases exceeded by developments in comparable markets. Confining the attention to the total trade, as in the previous chapter, tends to minimize the effects of the reciprocity treaty in three ways. First, the total includes articles which the reciprocity treaty could not directly affect, because they are free of duty or nonpreferential. Second, it includes noncompetitive articles, either those of which the United States even before reciprocity supplied practically the whole Cuban demand or those of which the United States could not expect to supply any considerable portion even with the advantages given by the treaty. Third, it includes competitive articles in respect of which American exporters tended to lose out more slowly than would have been the case in the absence of the treaty. Further, the reductions approved by the treaty are not uniform, and an examination might show that the larger concessions had a material effect, whereas the smaller had little or none. The present chapter, therefore, is to throw further light on the course of the Cuban import trade under reciprocity by an analysis of groups of imports or of individual items. Several difficulties confront us in this attempt to analyze in detail the Cuban imports. Foremost among these is a lack of uniformity between the classification of the Cuban customs tariff, those of the Cuban trade statistics published in Comercio Exterior, and those specified in the reciprocity treaty. Accordingly it was well-nigh impossible accurately to arrange all of the dutiable imports from the 117 118 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY United States into the five groups, as indicated by Articles III, IV, and VI of the treaty.' A minor source of inaccuracy in our analysis consists in the fact that the Cuban statistics, prior to 1926, do not distinguish between preferential and nonpreferential imports from the United States; i. e., between articles which are and which are not the product of the soil or industry of the United States. Only research, necessarily long and tedious, in the Cuban customs offices could accurately detail the customs treatment for each shipment of goods.2 The statistics now to be given have been compiled without attempt at such refinement and on the assumption that substantially all of each individual import reported in the Cuban statistics as coming from the United States has been accorded the preferential reduction of duty to which. under the treaty, it is entitled, providing it be a product of the soil or industry of the United States. CUBAN IMPORTS GROUPED ON THE BASIS OF THE REDUCTIONS ACCORDED BY THE TREATY On the basis of the tariff treatment accorded under the reciprocity treaty all Cuban imports may be divided into the following five groups 3: 1. Articles admitted free of duty regardless of origin (Art. I) and tobacco and its manufactures subject to the full rates of duty regardless of origin (Art. VI). These constitute the nonpreferential group, numbering about 30 statistical items. 2. Approximately 150 articles accorded reductions of 20 per cent of the full rates of duty, unenumerated in the treaty. (Art. III.) 3. Twenty-seven articles accorded reductions of 25 per cent. (Art. IV, Schedule A.) 4. Sixty-one articles entitled to 30 per cent reduction. (Art. IV, Schedule B.) 5. Twenty-two commodities with 40 per cent reduction. (Art. IV, Schedule C.) Table 34 summarizes the trade in these groups for four selected periods,4 giving average annual values and percentages of total imports in each group supplied by the United States.5 It shows that the amount of preference granted under the treaty varied inversely with the proportions of imports of free goods and of the 20, 25, 30, and 40 per cent groups contributed by the United States prior to ' According to the treaty, for example, machinery and apparatus from the United States. in which copper or its alloys enter as component of chief value are admitted at a reduction of 25 per cent of the general rates of duty all others at 26 per cent reduction. But no such distinction is made in the official import statistics where figures for the chief classes and kinds of machines and appliances are reported with no reference to the material of chief Value in them. A similar confusion Is found in the paper group; certain papers. prints, and books enjoying either a 20 or 30 per cent preference are reported in composite trade figures. Regarding the schedule of textiles this difficulty is even more involved All these cases were determined necessarily by consideration only of the bulk of the imports concerned and on the strength of several random test calculations. In Ch. III the percentages of exports of foreign merchandise in total United States exts to Cuba were made the basis of deductions from total Cuban imports from the United similar procedure for the individual items of trade would be an endless task and one that would frequently fall to yield accurate results because of differences in the classifications employed in the two countries. See Ch. III, p. 41. a See pp. 123 to 126 for li sts of chief articles in each group 41902-3, calendar years, these being taken as the last 2-year period before the reciprocity agreement became effective on Dec. 27, 1903; 1905-1907 and 1912-1914, fiscal years; and 1922-1924, calendar years. The detailed tables giving the results of this statistical investigation and of the further subdivision into classes I, II, and III (see p. 122) have not been included in Appendix IV. EFFECTS BY COMPETITIVE CLASSES 119 reciprocity. In the nonpreferential group containing lumber, coal, agricultural implements, barbed wire, mineral waters, and natural fertilizer, the imports were predominantly from the United States (81 per cent). At the other extreme, of those imports upon which the United States received a 40 per cent reduction of duty, the United States supplied prior to reciprocity less than 4 per cent of Cuba's imports. In the 30 per cent class, excluding flour, corn, corn meal, turpentine, resin, and pitch,6 only 18 per cent of the imports was supplied by the United States in 1902-3. The figures show clearly that the higher percentages of reduction were granted in the main upon articles in which the United States had shown inability to compete. TABLE 34.-Cubbs imports from the United States, by preferential groups;1 average annual values in thousands of dollars and percentages supplied by the United States of total imports in each group, for four selected periods 1902-1924 Oroupn | 190232 1905- 1912- 1922 -Group 19023 3 1907 s 1914 s 1924 8 Nonpreferential: 4 Value, United States --- - -------------------- 3, 515 5, 851 7, 845 10,004 Per cent, United States -------------------- ------ 80. 8 85. 3 87.0 85.2 Change in percentage --- —-------------------------------------- +4. 5 +1.7 -1.8 20 per cent group: Value, United States ---- 13, 637 24,460 40,319 92,489 Per cent, United States --- —------------ -------- 54. 5 58.0 64.0 71.7 Change in percentage --- —-- ----------------------------------- 3. 5 +6.0 +7.7 25 per cent group: Value, United States --- —---------------------- 1, 882 3, 572 6,047 14, 654 Per cent, United States - ---------------- ------ 37.7 43.6 54. 2 66.7 Change in percentage -- --------------— + --- —--------- --- +5.9 +10.6 +12. 5 30 per cent group: Value, United States 5,386 9,745 15, 883 43, 682 Per cent, United States — ------------------- 33. 4 41. 3 48. 9 72. 2 Change in percentage ---- --------------------------------------- +7.9 ++76 +23. 40 per cent group: Value, United States --- —------------------------------- 234 775 1,156 5,499 Per cent, United States -- ------------------ 3. 9 8.4 9.6 24.5 Change in percentage --- —-------------------------------- ------ +4. 5 +1.2 +14.9 Total preferential: Value, United States ---—. -------------- - 21,138 38,552 63, 405 156, 323 Per cent, United States ---- ------------------ 40. 6 46. 4 53.4 66.8 Change in percentage --- —-------------------------------- ------- +5.8 +7.0 +13.4 Total: Value, United States ---- ------ --- ----- - 24,654 44, 403 71,250 166,327 Per cent, United States ------------ --------------- 43. 7 49. 4 55.8 67.7 Change in percentage --- —---------------------------------------- +5.7 +6.4 +11. 9 Exclusive of cattle and of imports from Porto Rico generally, but inclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico. The inclusion of cattle (dutiable imports of cattle are shown in Table 134, Appendix IV) would distort the figures for the 40 per cent group. The explanation is given on p. 114. 21902-1903 and 1922-1924 are calendar years, 1905-1907 and 1912-1914 are fiscal years. 3 The intervals between the successive average periods are 3, 7, and 10V years, respectively. That is, imports of commodities free of duty and of small amounts of tobacco paying full duty. Referring to the increases in the percentages supplied by the United States, the first impression may be that on the whole the higher percentages of reduction were a somewhat greater competitive advantage than were the smaller percentages. This, furthermore, tends to show that the treaty was the cause of the increase. The foregoing tendencies appear in the gains of the period 1905-1907 over the preceding period, and with the exception of the 40 per cent class in the gains of the period 1912-1914 over 1905-1907; with the 6 For flour, corn, and corn meal the negotiators had agreed upon 20 per cent reduction. which by amendment of the U. S. Senate, was increased to 30 per cent. The other three items named received 30 per cent by reason of their inclusion in the group "Simple drugs," Art. IV, Schedule B. 120 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY one exception noted, the rate of displacement of competitors was more rapid in the 30, 25, and 40 per cent groups than in the 20 per cent group. But further scrutiny brings out two considerations suggesting that these differences in rates of increase may have other explanations than the differences in the reductions conceded by treaty.7 First, in the five years ending 1912-1914 the 40 per cent concession proved a very small aid to American exporters in competition with their competitors, and over the whole period before the war the increase in the percentage for nonpreferential goods was actually greater than in the 40 per cent group; that is, American products displaced others more rapidly where no preference was given than where the preference was 40 per cent of the duty. Second considering the room for expansior in each group it may be said that the progress made by American exporters was more satisfactory in the nonpreferential group than in any preferential group, and that the 40 per cent group showed the least expansion. In the nonpreferential group American exporters had 80.5 per cent of the trade in 1902-3, leaving only a possible 19.5 per cent to be acquired. The figures for 1912-1914 show that they had acquired one-third of this possible 19.5 per cent, reducing the foreign share to 13 per cent of the total. In the 20, 25, and 30 per cent groups the progress in the same period represented in each case not far from one-fourth of the distance to be covered to obtain full control of the market; in the 40 per cent group, however, at the end of the period other countries still supplied over 90 per cent of Cuba's imports, American exporters having acquired only a little more than one-twentieth of the possible expansion shown by the percentage originally held by other countries. Table 34 is intended to bring out a second point, the difference in the rate of growth in the different periods following the introduction of reciprocity. The period 1905-1907 takes us to the end of 31/2 years of reciprocity and the period 1912-1914 to the end of 101/, years.8 For each period after the first the table gives figures indicating the increase over the preceding period in the percentage of the total Cuban imports of each group supplied by the United States. Bearing in mind that the interval between the first two periods is only three years, while that between the second and third is seven years and that the figures show the total increase through the whole interval,9 it is evident that the growth of American exports in competition with those of other countries was relatively more rapid immediately after the treaty became operative than it was in later See also the discussio n in ch. X, pp. 189 to 142, of the ad valorem equivalents of the different reductions of duty. s The average figure for the years 1905-1907 does not, of course, indicate the state of the trade at the end of the fiscal year 1907, but rather its state at the middle point of the period; that is, Jan. 1, 1906. The average for 1902 and 1903, which are calendar rears, may be said to represent the state of the trade as of Jan. 1, 1903. The difference n the two figures, therefore, represents the growth in three years, two of them after reciprocity became effective, and the difference between the averages for 1902-3 and 1912-1914 represents the growth in 10 years. The use of these averages may be Justified on general statistical grounds but is open to the objection that the comparison of the two averages before and after reciprocity does not adequately indicate the effects of three years of' reciprocity. "That is, not the annual rate of growth. EFFECTS BY COMPETITIVE CLASSES 121 years. The 25 per cent group, in which the United States acquired an additional 5.9 per cent of the trade in the first three years under reciprocity and 10.6 per cent in the next seven years, came the closest to continuing the same rate of growth per year in the second period. The percentage for the 30 per cent group shows less development in the 7-year interval than in the previous 3-year interval, while the percentage for the 40 per cent group is shown to have remained almost stationary during the 7-year interval. It should be remembered, however, that these results, which tend to reflect the immediate effectiveness of the treaty, do so, in part at least, because 1902 and 1903 were unfavorable years for American exports to Cuba. The third interval, between the fiscal years 1912-1914 and the calendar years 1922-1924, is 101/2 years, or longer than the other two combined. The figures for 1922-1924 may be said to indicate the net amount of the war-time trade which the United States was able to hold as Europe began to recover from the post-war depression. In the 20 per cent group, representing three-fifths of the total, the United States made only moderate progress, adding to its percentages of the total by less than one point a year. In the 30 and 40 per cent groups, however, the progress was much greater than in the first decade of reciprocity. For the whole preferential trade the progress was in the first decade 12.8 per cent and in the next 101/2 years 13.4 per cent. The proportions in which Cuba's imports were divided between the United States and other countries and the tendency of the trade to shift from other countries to the United States indicate-when proper allowance is made for other factors-that the treaty exerted some influence. Of much less significance is the relative rapidity of expansion of the values represented by the different groups. Table 35 summarizes the rate of expansion for each of the groups specified in the treaty. The first two periods both show that there was practically no difference in the rate of growth in the groups receiving reductions of 20 and of 30 per cent; that these groups grow more rapidly than the free imports and less rapidly than the groups receiving reductions of 25 and of 40 per cent. The explanation is that there was relatively less room for expansion in the free and the 20 and 30 per cent groups than in the other two.10 The 25 and 40 per cent groups, moreover, include such a limited number of articles that one or two striking changes may unduly influence the percentage of increase for the group. How little significance attaches to the percentage figures alone, is shown by the value figures in the 40 per cent group; for example, where the increase of imports was chiefly in imports from countries other than the United States."1 10 The diversification of Cuba's imports is discussed on p. 135. '1 Considering the percentages, the table shows that over the whole period to 1922-1924 Cuba's imports of the 40 per cent group from the United States grew in the ratio of 2,347 to 100 and from other countries by only 297 to 100. But this is merely an excellent example of the misleading results of comparing either ratios or percentages of increase when one of the figures is very small to start with. The values prove that, in spite of the growth by 2,247 per cent as compared with 197 per cent, the American exporters in 1922-1924 were further behind their competitors in total values than in 1902-3. Imports from the United States grew, as a matter of fact, from $234,000 to $5,500,000, but in the earlier period the American exporters were only $5,478,000 behind their competitors, while in 1922-1924 they were $11,456,000 behind. 122 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 35.-Increases in value of Cuban. imtports from the United States an4 from all other countries,1 by preferential groups, shown by the ratios of increase over the average of 1902-3, taken as 100, for four selected periods, 1902-1924 [Average annual values in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] 1902-3 1905-1907 1912-1914 a 1922-1924 Group United Other United Other United Other United Other States nations Statesnations States nations States nations Nonpreferential: 4 Value --—. --- —---------------- 3.5 0.8 5.9 1.0 7.8 1.2 10.0 1. 7 Ratio --- —---------------------- 100 100 166 120 223 140 285 207 20 per cent group: Value --- —-. --- —------ 13.6 11.4 24.5 17.7 40.3 22.6 92.5 36.5 Ratio ------------------—.. — - 100 100 179 155 296 199 678 320 25 per cent group: Value --- —------—. —..... --- —- 1.9 3.1 3.6 4.6 6.0 5.1 14.7 7.3 Ratio -------------—.. --- —.... 100 100 190 149 321 165 778 235 30 per cent group: Value. --- —--------—. —. 5.4 10.8 9.7 13.8 15.9 16.6 43.7 16.9 Ratio -------- ----------- 100 100 181 129 295 154 811 157 40 per cent group: Value.2 5.7.8 8.4 1.2 10.9 5.5 17.0 Ratio - ----- 100 100 331 147 494 192 2, 347 297 Total preferential: Value i --- —-------------- 21.1 31. 0 38.6 44.6 63.4 55. 3 156. 3 77.6 Ratio --------—. --- —--..... 100 100 182 144 300 179 740 251 Total: Value -------------------- 24.7 31.8 1 44.4 45.6 71.2 56.5 166.3 79.3 Ratio ----------- - 100 100 180 143 289 178 675 250 Exclusive of cattle, and of imports from Porto Rico generally, but inclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico. ' 1902-3 and 1922-1924 are calendar years; 1905-1907 and 1912-1914 are fiscal years. 3 The intervals between the first average period and those that follow are 3, 10, and 202 years, respectively. 4 That is, imports of commodities free of duty and of small amounts of tobacco paying full duty. CUBAN IMPORTS FURTHER DIVIDED INTO COMPETITIVE CLASSES A closer examination of the working of reciprocity may be made by further subdividing the preferential groups of total Cuban imports into three classes according to the average proportion contributed by the United States during the calendar years 1902-3 and observing the changes based on the average values for 1905-1907, 1912-1914, and 1922-1924. Accordingly, Class I is composed of imports which Cuba obtained predominantly from the United States 12 in 1902-3; that is, the latter supplied more than 80 per cent of the total value, respectively, of each of the following commodities, arranged approximately in the order of their importance at that time:13 Exclusive of Porto Rico generally, but inclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico. "LThe items listed are mutually exclusive. In a few instances articles not separately enumerated for one or both of the pretreaty years were later assimilated to one or another of the three classes regard being taken of the special trade situation and of the respective undetailed and detailed statistics. EFFECTS BY COMPETITIVE CLASSES 123 WITH BEDUCTION OF 20 PER CENT UNDER THE TREATY [The items printed in italics are for the purposes of Tables 37, 119, and others, considered noncompetitive] Lard. Coffee. Pork, salt and fresh. Hams, shoulders, and bacon. Mineral oils and products. Apparatus.1 Condensed milk. Furniture of ordinary wood. Ordinary wood. Eggs. Rail and tramway coaches. Oats. Carriages and accessories. Hay and fodder. Oils for soap. Residues and fats for soap making. Wagons, trucks, and carts. Tarpaulins and oilcloths. Beef (except jerked). Oleomargarine. Apples and other fresh fruits. Various woods. Fowl and small game. Varnishes. Hogs. Fire-clay pipes. Large geldings. Various animal fats. Shellfish. Refined sugar. Large mules. Cottonseed oil. Beer in barrels. Gypsum. Waste and scrap metal. Oatmeal and other flours. Charcoal. Automobiles and accessories. Chemical fertilizers. ot separately enumerated Explosives. REDUCTION OF 25 PER CENT Iron and steel wires and cables. Pumps, boilers, and motors (with copper the constituent of chief value)." Canned salmon. WITH REDUCTION OF 30 PER CENT Wheat flour. Corn. Turpentine. Resin and pitch. Corn meal. WITH REDUCTION OF 40 PER CENT Glucose. Class II includes those imports which Cuba obtained predominantly from countries other than the United States; that is, the latter supplied less than 20 per cent of the total value, respectively, of each of the following commodities: WITH REDUCTION OF 20 PER CENT Jerked beef. Red uwie in barrels. Olive and other edible oil8. Sugar bags. Hats. Saffron. Onions. Candles and other articles of paraffin, stearin, and wax. Steam vessels.l1 Peas. Gold and silver jewelry. Miscellaneous vegetables, fresh and dry. Games and toys. Hemp sandals. Miscellaneous vegetable oils, nonedible. Cork and its manufactures. Threads of vegetable fibers other than cotton. Articles of fire clay. Amber, tortoise shell, and jet. " If copper is the constituent of chief value, 25 per cent reduction; but the statistics do not distinguish between the two. Sewing machines, typewriters, velocipedes, and scales aln balances are the important items. 6 Otherwise, 20 per cent reduction; but the statistics do not distinguish between the two. 1 Entitled to 25 per cent reduction, if with iron or steel hulls; but the statistics do not dstinguish between the two types. 10038-29 ---9 124 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY Fans. Celluloid. Twine. Raisins. Reed, willow, and rush, unmanufactured. Marble. Horns and whalebone. Matches Almonds. Feathers and other animal by-products. Fine biscuits. Roof tiles.17 Small stallions. Zinc in sheets. Gloves. Alcohol. WITH REDUCTION OF 25 PER CENT Iron and steel bars and plates. Liqueurs. Earthen dishes and hollow ware. Canned fish. Glass bottles and containers. Sardines. Mirrors. WITH REDUCTION OF 30 PER CENT Plain cotton fabrics. Fabrics of linen and other vegetable fibers. Twilled cotton fabrics. Miscellaneous papers.l8 Ordinary soap in bars. Cotton laces. Miscellaneous manufactures of cotton. Cotton thread and yarn. Preserved vegetables. Butter. White wine. Salts. Cotton velvets and plushes. Ci4er. Ready-made clothing of linen other vegetable fibers. Pianos and accessories. Cotton tulles. Miscellaneous musical instruments. Cotton piques. Red wine in bottles. Cotton passementerie. Window glass. Champagne. Cardboard boxes. Knit goods, laces, etc., of linen other vegetable fibers. Rubber. and and WITH REDUCTION OF 40 PER CENT Rice. Umbrellas and parasols.19 Cotton knit goods. Porcelain dishes and hollow ware. Miscellaneous manufactures of silk. Miscellaneous articles of chinaware.2 Woolen fabrics and clothing. Silk ready-made clothing. Cheese. Floor tiles. Perfumes and essences. Silk knit goods. Miscellaneous manufactures of wool. Paper pulp. Silk fabrics. Preserved fruits. Watches. Wool, raw and in yarn. Olass III comprises those imports which Cuba obtained in less unequal proportions from the United States and from all other countries; presumably these represent the articles of more direct competition in the Cuban import trade of the period just prior to the time when the reciprocity agreement went into effect. That is, the 17 Entitled to 40 per cent reduction, if glazed; but the statistics make no such distinction. W Some paper reported under this item is entitled to 20 per cent reduction only. e mports of canes likewise are reported under this item but are entitled to 20 per cent reduction only.,o Some articles reported under this item are entitled to 25 or 20 per cent reduction only. EFFECTS BY COMPETITVE CLASSES 125 United States supplied between 20 and 80 per cent of the total value, respectively, of each of the following commodities: WITH REDUCTION OF 20 PER CENT Machines and accessories.2l Manufactures of precious metals. All articles not specially enumerated Manufactured lead. or provided for.22 Biscuits. Sugar-plant machinery and acces- Manufactured zinc. sories.21 Tin. Beans. Clocks and accessories. Potatoes. Cocoa. Barrels and hogsheads. Bristle brushes. Copper and manufactures. Macaroni and vermicelli. Hides, skins, and leather. Glue and gelatin. Small geldings. Manufactures of flour. Cement. Letterhead paper. Boxes. Sailing vessels.25 Miscellaneous manufactures of leather. Glycerin and olein. Preserved meats. Harness and saddles. Dried fruits. Miscellaneous spices. Miscellaneous meats and meat prod- Furniture of fine wood. ucts. Bristles, hair, and horsehair. Lime and earths. Starches.26 Books, prints, etc.23 Moldings and ornaments of wood. Mares. Lead in lumps. Manufactures of rubber.2 Chocolate. Wrapping paper, bags, etc. Lead pipes. Small mules. Nickel. Manufactures of wood. Grapes. Sweetmeats and honey. Alimentary pastes. Reed, willow, and rush, manufactures Various animals. of. Animal oils. Stones. Bricks. Barley and rye. Sticks for umbrellas and parasols. Cordage and tackle. Building stones. Miscellaneous metals. Vanilla. Waterproof fabrics.24 Saccharin. Articles of wood. Not separately enumerated Calcium carbide. Tea. Cartridges. Vinegar. Coffins and accessories. Artificial flowers. WITH REDUCTION OF 25 PER CENT Miscellaneous manufactures of iron Cast-iron manufactures. and steel. Tin-plate sheets and manufactures. Codfish. Cast-iron in pigs and bars. Miscellaneous glassware. Firearms. Tools. Herrings. Iron and steel in pieces. Incandescent lamps. Nails. Wire gauze. Iron and steel pipes and couplings. Mackerel and salmon. 21 The important items are locomotives, electrical and agricultural machinery, and parts and accessories of machinery. If copper is the constituent of chief value, 25 per cent reduction; but the statistics do not distinguish between the two. 22 It is possible that articles entitled to a reduction of duty greater than 20 per cent are reported under this item. 23 Some articles reported under this item may be entitled to 30 per cent reduction. 24 After 1911 waterproof fabrics, including boots and shoes of rubber, were admitted With a reduction of 30 per cent if manufactured with cotton fibers and 40 per cent reduction in the case of silk and wool. But the statistics make no such distinctions. For the Sake of comparability, no change in classification was made in the computations. 25 Entitled to 25 per cent reduction if of iron or steel, but the statistics do not distinguish between the two types. 20 Dextrin, entitled to 40 per cent reduction, is likely reported with these industrial Stalrches. 126 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY WITH REDUCTION OF 30 PER CENT Men's shoes. Women's shoes. Beer in bottles. Miscellaneous pharmaceutical products. Paper sheets. Colors. Miscellaneous chemicals. Children's shoes. Cotton ready-made clothing. Patent medicines. Simple drugs. Plated ware. Pickles and condiments.2 Lithographs and the like.2 Acids. Cutlery. Opium. Blank books." Oxides. Raw cotton. Miscellaneous manufactures of linen and other vegetable fibers. Ordinary soap. Inks and dyes. Table cutlery. Cardboard sheets. Other cardboard. Surgical instruments. Carton pierre. Miscellaneous footwear. Carpets of cotton. WITH REDUCTION OF 40 PER CENT Canned fruit. Fine soap. Silk, floss and on spools. This classification 80 offers an opportunity to determine whether after 3 and after 10 years of reciprocity United States products continued to predominate in the Cuban market in the same lines as before reciprocity, and whether, moreover, the United States notably increased its share of any import or group of imports which prior to reciprocity came largely or even almost wholly from other countries. The results of this statistical investigation are summarized in Tables 36 and 37, which show the average values and percentages contributed by the United States of the total value of imports in each competitive class and preferential group. Since each group is made up of the same commodities throughout, changes in the proportions contributed by the United States and by other countries may serve as a basis for gauging the effect of the varying degrees of preference upon the Cuban import trade. Table 37 differs from Table 36 only by the exclusion of certain articles in which the United States did not or could not well compete-rice, jerked beef, alcoholic beverages, olive oil, saffron, tea, hemp sandals, fans, matches, almonds, opium, and paper pulp. Since the United States can not compete in these articles, they fall naturally into Class II except that Mustard, sauces, and food extracts for seasoning purposes, reported under this item, are entitled to 20 per cent reduction only. Maps and charts, reported under this item are entitled to 20 per cent reduction only., With printed headings, also reported under this item, 20 per cent reduction only. It is to be noted that only tobacco and cattle, of all the dutiable import commodities, are not mentioned above, nor are figures for cattle included in the calculations which follow, since otherwise the figures for the 40 per cent group in the three classes would be distorted. The figures for tobacco and its manufactures, which by the treaty were excepted from any reduction of duty, are shown separately in Table 121. A word of caution is in place against accepting the given figures as absolutely conclusive. Because of the variance, already referred to, among the classifications of the Cuban customs law, of the trade statistics and of the reciprocity agreement, it is impossible accurately to group all the imports for any year. The greatest number of changes in classification were introduced almost simultaneously with the going into effect of the reciprocity treaty, so that the figures for the Periods 1902-3 and 1905-1907 are perhaps less exactly comparable than those for 1905-1907 and the later periods. EFFECTS BY COMPETITIVE CLASSES 127 128 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY the inability to compete in beer, due to the constitutional prohibition in the United States, affects Classses I and III, and that tee and opium are deducted from Class III. Imports of the selected articles from the United States have been very small so that the omission does not greatly affect the value figures; but the larger subtractions from the values of imports from other countries produce more important changes in the percentages. TABLE 36.-Dutiable Cuban imports from the United States,1 by competitive classes and preferential groups; average annual values in thousands of dollars and percentages supplied by the United States of total imports in each group, for four selected periods 1902-1924 CLASS I CLASS II-Continued Group Group 1902- 1905- 1912- 1922- 1902- 1905- 1912- 1922 -1903 ' 1907 s 1914 1924 3 1903 2 1907 3 1914 3 1924 Values Percentages 20 per cent --- —-- 8,802 13,035 22, 768 49, 600 20 per cent ---- 4. 2 6. 8 16. 8 21. 8 25 per cent — l 232 277 423 860 25 per cent- - 10.4 26.1 44.8 55.2:30 per cent --- — 3,035 4, 533 6, 271 10.234 30 per cent 6. 2 12. 9 21. 2 60. 6 40 per cent ---- 5 7 18 54 40 per cent 3. 4 7. 7 8.9 23. 7 Total --- —- 12,074 17,852 1 29,481 60,748 Total- 5.0 | 10.3 18.5 I 39.9 Percentages CLASS III -- Values 20 per cent --- 96.0 90. 1 87.7 85.2alues 25 per cent --- —- 86.1 69. 6 80. 2 91.5 30 per cent - 99. 2 96. 8 94.5 87.0 20 per cent 4,519 10,667 15,470 38, 177 40 per center cent2.6 99. 1, 25 per cent538 2, 779 4, 050 9, 399 - 30 per cent ---- 1, 836 3, 728 6,287 15, 272 Total ---- 96. 6 91.3 88.9 85.6 40 per cent --- — 31 78 | 77 249 Total'- 7,924 }7,251 | 25,884 63,097 CLASS II _ ___ Values Percentages 20 per cent --- 315 759 2,080 4,712 20 percent- 54. 8 64.3 62. 8 77. 6 25 per cent --- 113 516 1,573 4, 396 25 per cent - 42.2 47.8 56.9 71. 9 30 per cent --- 514 1,484 3, 324 18,175 30 per cent --- 38.7 49.8 61.8 81. 3 40 per cent --- 199 690 1,062 5,196 40 per cent --- 36.1 44.4 45. 9 53. 9 Total.-. 141 3, 449 8,039 32,479 Total — 47. 4 57.5 61. 5 77. 4 Exclusive of cattle, tobacco, and of imports from Porto Rico generally, but inclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico. 2 1902-3 and 1922-1924 are calendar years; 1905-1907 and 1912-1914 are fiscal years. 'The intervals between the successive average periods are 3, 7, and 101/2 -ears, respectively. EFFECTS BY COMPETITIVE CLASSES 129 TABLE 37.-Dutiable Cuban imports from the United States,' esolusive. of certain noncompetitive comm0odities,2 by competitive classes and preferential groups; average annual values in thousands of dollars and percentages supplied by the United States of total imports in each group, for four selected periods 1902-1924 CLASS I CLASS II-Continued Group Group 1902 -3 1905- 1912- 1922- 9 3 1905- 1912- 1922 -3 1907 4 1914 4 1924 4 1907 4 1914 4 1924 4 Values Percentages 20 per cent --- 8,796 13,033 22, 765 49, 600 20 per cent --- — 9.3 11.5 30.9 36.6 25 per cent- - 232 277 423 860 25 per cent ---- 11. 5 28.0 47. 5 66. 2 30 per cent --- 3, 035 4, 533 6, 271 10, 234 30 per cent ---- 6.3 13.4 22.0 64.1 40 per cent.- 5 7 18 54 40 per cent --- 7. 2 9.6 16.9 43.0 Total --- —- 12,067 17, 850 29, 478 60, 748 Total --- — 7.4 13.3 26.0 54.7 Percentages CLAss III 20 per cent --- Values 25 per cent ---. — 96.0 90.0 87.7 85.2 30 per cent ---- 86.1 69.6 80.2 91.5 40 per cent ----- 99.2 96.8 94.5 87.0 20 per cent ---- 4,519 10,667 15, 467 38,170 97.0 80.2 99.6 99.1 25 per cent ---- 1,538 2,779 4,050 9,399 30 per cent- - 1,699 3,495 6,151 15,257 Total --- — 96.6 91.3 88. 9 85. 6 40 per cent ---- 31 78 77 249 Total -- - 7,786 17,019 25, 744 63,075 CLASS II Values Percentages 20 per cent ---- 292 659 1,950 4,954 20 per cent- - 54.8 64.3 62.8 77.7 25 per cent --- — 102 501 1,553 4, 355 25 per cent ---- 42.2 47. 8 56.9 71.9 30 per cent ---- 511 1, 474 3, 312 18, 145 30 per cent 39. 7 51. 8 63.4 83.2 40 per cent 198 48 108 40 per cent 36. 1 44.4 45.9 53.9 Total — 1,104 3,071 7,608 31,201 Total --- 47.9 58.1 61.9 77.9 1 Exclusive of cattle, tobacco, and of imports from Porto Rico generally, but inclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico. 2 That is, jerked beef, red wine in barrels, olive oil, hemp sandals, saffron, almonds, fans, matches, tea and beer in barrels, of the 20 per cent group; liqueurs, of the 25 per cent group; white wine, beer, and red wine in bottles, cider, champagne, and opium, of the 30 per cent group; and rice and paper pulp, of the 40 per cent group. 31902-3 and 1905-1907 are calendar years; 1905-1907 and 1912-1914 are fiscal years. 4 The intervals between the successive average periods are 3, 7, and 101 years, respectively. Relative decrease of United States trade in Class I.-In Class I,31 where the United States started with nearly 97 per cent of the trade, the percentage (never the total amount) fell off in every group in the first interval. In the 20 and 30 per cent groups the percentage continued to fall, but in the 25 and 40 per cent groups figures for the third and fourth periods show a full recovery. The relative decline of United States trade in Class I, especially in the first reciprocity period, constitutes possibly the most striking fact brought out by Table 36. Why could not the United States, in whose hands market to the same relative extent in 1905-1907,32 when it had the 31 Concerning this class, Table 37 differs from Table 36 only by the omission of beer in barrels from the 20 per cent group, a negligible difference. 92 The first American occupation of Cuba covered less than five months of 1902-3, about One-fifth of the period; the later American intervention included nine months of 1905-1907, or one-fourth of the whole period. 130 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY added advantage of the tariff concessions? It might well be expected that the reciprocity concessions would at least enable the United States to maintain its hold in this line of commodities, that the preferential rates would make its competitive position absolutely secure. But the fact remains that during the first reciprocity period the United States supplied Cuba with a smaller proportion of many of her imports than before reciprocity.33 This falling off included the following articles: Coffee-that is, from the United States and Porto Rico combined-condensed milk, corn, oats, hay and fodder, rail and tramway coaches, carriages and accessories, sewing machines, wagons, trucks and carts, boilers, pumps, fire-clay pipes, and oleomargarine.34 It might be suggested that in the absence of the treaty, presumably, foreign competitors would have succeeded in taking away from the United States even larger shares of Cuban imports in these lines, and presumably, too, would have made a better stand against the United States' recovery, which is indicated for most of the articles in the third or fourth period. Viewed thus, however, greater effectiveness is attributed to treaty reductions that show negative or indirect results than our later analysis ascribes generally to the concessions with positive results. The same presumption exists that the trade of other countries in wheat flour, mineral oils, oils, residues and fats for soap making, chemical fertilizers, and typewriters, all of which items register substantial relative declines for the United States in 1922-1924,5 would have developed sooner and more rapidly. Obviously, the reciprocity treaty was not the cause of the relative falling off of the United States trade in the various commodities named above. The treaty could not have aided the competitors of the United States but it is impossible to determine how far it impeded them. Class I of Table 36 demonstrates in part why the earlier tables presenting total figures show so little of the effects of reciprocity. Twelve million dollars of the $21,000,000 of trade shown for 1902-3," or 57.1 per cent, consisted of articles in which the United States had little or no competition in prereciprocity days and in which any effect of reciprocity necessarily took the negative form of impeding the development of importations from other countries. It was foreseen that the reciprocity treaty could have little effect upon this 57 per cent of Cuba's imports from the United States. Relative increase of United States trade in Class II.-Class II includes articles in which the United States competed to only a small extent in 1902-3. This class then included 44.1 per cent of the total here classified. The amounts approximately trebled from each of the selected periods to the next; the percentages also increased, but considering the rapidity with which small percentages may rise, these increases are perhaps of less significance than those in Class III. In general, Class II as a whole shows less immediate response to the introduction of reciprocity, although the United States share of major items like salts, candles and other articles of paraffin, of m Unimportant items and small changes in percentage are disregarded in this discussion. For this reason no reference is made to glucose, the single item constituting the 40 per cent roup of Class I. 4 or decreases in Class III, see pp. 132 and 133. "Relative decreases for imports from the United States appear in this last period like wise for several Class III articles. (Ibid.) 8 Cattle, tobacco, and nondutiable articles are not included. EFFECTS BY COMPETITIVE CLASSES 131 stearin and wax, iron and steel bars and plates, preserved fruits, pianos and accessories, miscellaneous manufactures 6f wool, ordinary soap in bars, and steam vessels increased between 14 and 47 points in the interval between 1902-3 and 1905-1907. At the same time, however, the most important commodities, the cotton fabrics in the 30 per cent group, showed relatively insignificant changes and not a few items, even slight declines. Within Class II the 25 per cent group started with the smallest total value and made the greatest increase in percentages before the war, 15.7 points in the first interval and 18.7 points in the second. This increase was due almost entirely to the relative advance made by American iron and steel bars and plates from 14.9 per cent of Cuba's total of such imports in 1902-3 to 41.9 and 77.3 per cent, respectively, in 1905-1907 and 1912-1914. The outstanding development, however, was the war-time growth in the 30 per cent group, the largest group in this class, which, after showing only a moderate response to the introduction of reciprocity, shot up from 21.2 per cent in 1912-1914 to 60.6 per cent in 1922-1924, or, taking the figures of Table 37, from 22 to 64.1 per cent. Increases in the neighborhood of 40 and 50 points were added to the percentage share of the United States for such major items as plain and twilled cotton fabrics, ordinary soap in bars, ready-made clothing and knit goods, laces, etc. of linen and other vegetable fibers, cotton velvets, plushes, and piques; and only slightly smaller gains appear for most of the other commodities in this group. A similarly striking though less important war-time development appears in the 40 per cent group of Class II, where more than 95 per cent of the total value of 40 per cent imports is accounted for in each period. As Table 37 shows, 40 per cent preference in Class II effected practically no improvement for the United States in the first or second reciprocity period, leaving American exporters further behind their competitors in values supplied than in 1902-3. In this earlier period the United States supplied only $198,000 in the 40 per cent group, representing but 7.2 per cent of the total value of such imports, with similar foreign goods in the lead by almost $2,400,000. This spread stood at over $3,000,000 for the next two periods, but in 1922-1924 was reduced to $1,300,000, when the United States supplied $4,108,000, or 43 per cent, of the total $9,562,000 for the 10 per cent group of Class II. Of the 16 statistical items here included, only five-cheese, perfumes, watches, miscellaneous articles of chinaware, and floor tiles-show gains in the percentage supplied by the United States in 1922-1924 less than 22 points over and above the respective percentage in 1902-3; for seven items, on the other hand, increases of 50 points or more appear, viz, preserved fruits, miscellaneous manufactures of silk, miscellaneous manufactures of wool, raw wool, and in yarn, silk knit goods, cotton knit goods, and silk fabrics. No reference is here made to rice, the most important 40 per cent item, because, for the purposes of Table 37, this was excluded. As already stated, it is almost wholly in respect of Class II that Table 37 differs from Table 36. Class II is affected by the omission of jerked beef, red wine in barrels, olive oil, hemp sandals, saffron, almonds, fans, and matches, in the 20 per cent group; liqueurs in the 25 per cent group; bottled wines in the 30 per cent group; and rice and paper pulp in the 40 per cent group. 132 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY Trade changes in Class III.-Class III covers classifications in which the United StateA started with from 20 to 80 per cent of the trade. It included in prereciprocity years 32 per cent of the total trade here classified. This class comprises commodities which both the United States and other countries, prior to reciprocity, could and did deliver in the Cuban market in substantial quantities and is, therefore, the one upon which reciprocity might be expected to exert the most significant influence. The first short interval shown in the table discloses substantial progress on the part of the United States which increased its percentage of the total from 47.4 to 57.5 per cent, as seen in Table 36. This indicates an immediate response to the reciprocity treaty. The 20 per cent group is and has been much the largest in this class. It showed a substantial gain in the first three years after reciprocity-9.5 per cent-but the percentage representing the United States trade actually decreased in the following seven years, largely accounted for by the heavy decline in the important " basket item" (aNl articles not specially enumerated or provided for), in beans, potatoes, miscellaneous meats and meat products, barley and rye, sweetmeats and honey, manufactures of rubber, of reed, willow, and rush, of lead, and of flour, and in grapes, and building stones. Several commodities, of which the United States share had already declined in 1905-1907, for example, sugar-plant machinery and accessories, agricultural machinery and locomotives of the machinery group a7, dried fruits, stones, starches, and bricks show a further relative falling off in 1912-1914. In the former period gains in the percentage share of the United States, ranging between 14 and 38 points, appear for some of the major articles of this group, such as hides and skins, cement, boxes, preserved meats, small mules, mares, and letter-head paper as well as for less important commodities such as manufactures of rubber, wrapping paper, bags, etc., sailing vessels, lime and earths, manufactured zinc, biscuits, and macaroni and vermicelli, while other important items show negligible increases. A few articles-manufactures of wood, miscellaneous metals, lead pipes and lumps, and chocolate-with noteworthy decreases in 1905-1907, recovered in 1912-1914 and show substantial increases in 1922-1924. This last period, however, shows some weighty relative losses for the United States, indicating increased competition on the part of Europe as compared with 1912-1914. Important instances of this are cement, wrapping paper and bags, calcium carbide, macaroni and vermicelli, sailing vessels, and furniture of fine wood, with decreases in the percentage share of the United States ranging from 13 to 52 points. The 30 per cent group made the greatest relative increase in each of the intervals shown, starting with 38.7 per cent and adding, respectively, 11.1, 12, and 19.5 per cent, and ending with a total of 81.3 per cent. Table 37, omitting opium and bottled beer from this group, shows a total change from 39.7 to 83.2 per cent. It is significant that some of the leading commodities in this group showed definite and immediate response to the preferential treatment z For statistical reasons the entire (dutiable) machines and accessories group was put iry and locomotives in 1902-3the United States supplied 96 per cent of both agricultural machin51907 and locomotives in 19023. In the former item the percentage declined to 83.7 in 15-1907 and to 65.8 per cent in 1912-1914; for locomotives the drop was to 90.2 per cent In 1912-1914. EFFECTS BY COMPETITIVE CLASSES 133 established by the treaty and continued with sizable additions to the relative share of the United States in the two following periods. This holds true notably of such competitive items as men's, women's, and children's shoes, paper sheets, patent medicines, cotton readymade clothing, and ordinary soap, and to a smaller extent of colors, miscellaneous chemicals, blank books, oxides, and cardboard. Decreases appear in only a few items, but they were substantial in pickles and condiments, and lithographs for 1905-1907, in miscellaneous pharmaceutical products, simple drugs, and plated ware for 1912-1914, and in table cutlery for both periods. Only the last two, failed to equal or improve upon the prereciprocity position in 1922 -1924, which period shows increases over 1912-1914 throughout this group. In the smaller 25 per cent group of this class the largest gains for 1905-1907 were made by pipes and couplings and miscellaneous manufactures of iron and steel, tools, and tin-plate sheets and manufactures, all of which increased the percentage supplied by the United States through the pre-war and post-war periods. But the favorable developments for 1905-1907 were largely offset by material declines in the case of codfish, miscellaneous glassware, iron and steel in pieces, cast-iron manufactures, and incandescent lamps. Only the last item experienced a further falling off in 1912-1914, with a net drop of 43 points compared with the prereciprocity period. One striking decrease appears for 1922-1924, when imports of firearms from the United States amounted to only 52 per cent of the total over against 78 per cent in 1912-1914; this adverse development is all the more significant because the increase of 42 points in the prewar period was the largest in the group. The 40 per cent group in this class is too small to be of significance as such, though one of its three items, canned fruits, progressed very consistently from 34 per cent of the total as the United States share in 1902-3 to 48 and 58 per cent in the next two periods, respectively, ending with 97 per cent in 1922-1924. Summary of the changes in the three classes.-No distinct or positive development which may definitely be correlated with the tariff concessions characterizes any of the competitive classes or preferential groups of dutiable Cuban imports from the United States as shown in Tables 36 and 37. This statement is not equivalent to saying that the preferential reductions have been without influence; it means, rather, that the tariff element has not been the dominant factor in the competition to supply the Cuban market, for a large number of different commodities, ranging from raw materials to finished luxury goods. This analysis emphasizes the need of further distinction and refinement on the basis of cost problems as between commodity and commodity and country and country, much of which, however, cau not even be attempted by reason of lack of details in the statistical classifications and of authoritative information on competitive commodity prices and transportation rates. Of course, the division of dutiable Cuban imports into articles supplied predominantly by the United States or by other countries, with all intermediary items in a third class, presumably precludes substantial changes upwards or downwards, respectively, in Classes I and II. That is to say, because the United States supplied, with 134 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY few exceptions, more than 90 per cent of all Cuban imports included in Class I in 1902-3, little improvement for the relative percentages could be expected in 1905-1907; similarly, there was no room for heavy declines in Class II in which the share of the United States was for most items under 15 per cent, and for many, less than 10 per cent of the total in the prereciprocity period. Although some commodities in this class were given 25, 30, or 40 per cent preference, the results indicated that the negotiators of the United States failed in many cases to obtain preferences sufficient to conform to the principle (see p. 28) that Cuba's concessions should exceed 20 per cent wherever necessary to make the concessions effective. The 20 per cent group of Class II imports from the United States, entitled to preference merely under the basket clause of the treaty, must have been the " hopeless list " in the minds of the negotiators.38 As a matter of fact, after more than 20 years the position of the United States regarding the bulk of the trade in these times has been such that the most important of them have been considered noncompetitive and therefore excluded for the purpose of Table 37. In three respects the analysis fails to point to any direct or positive conclusion as to the effectiveness of the preferential arrangement: First, of the 54 statistical items included in Class I, 45 show some decrease in the percentage share of the United States for one or another of the three reciprocity periods. Of these 45 commodities only 13 register declines of less than 5 points; for the other 32 items, or almost 60 per cent of the entire Class I, the surprising statement holds true that during one or more of the periods selected after 1902-3 the United States supplied the Cuban market with from 5 to 78 points less in percentage of the total for individual imports than before reciprocity. Inasmuch as the more important commodities among them show the greatest falling off in the third or fourth period, it may be that indirectly the concessions were of advantage for the same articles in 1905-1907 or 1912-1914.89 Secondly, speaking generally for the individual commodities of Classes II and III,40 we observe more of a gradual and progressive than of an immediate and direct improvement for the relative position of the United States under reciprocity. This was to be expected. perhaps, for Class II articles in which the United States hardly competed in 1902-3. In Class III, however, contrary to expectations, many items show a quite substantial falling of in 1905-1907. This immediate decline and the more numerous and larger increases for other commodities in the later periods establish additional lack of direct correspondence between tariff concessions and trade movements. Thirdly, the figures for the individual changes in the 20, 25, 30, and 40 per cent groups of Classes II and III do not indicate any pronounced or more rapid increase in the United States share of trade in the groups which receive the larger treaty reductions. Moreover, because the remarkable improvement in Class II is very largely a war-time development and because relatively greater additions apu8 Few variations, it is thought, would result by the use of statistics, for instance, for 1900-1903 even if It were possible to adhere to the same for instancei fo equivalents of the reductions from period to period (ee c of the ad valorem o It must be remembered, however, that the weighted av erages the percentage shares of the United States for all the items of Class III, and especially of the per cent group in this class, do show significant response to the introduction of reciprocity. EFFECTS BY COMPETITIVE CLASSES 135 pear earlier in the 20 than in the 25 and 30 per cent groups of Class III, even the very substantial additions in the percentages of imports from the United States do not of themselves conclusively establish the effectiveness of the concessions given. It does not necessarily follow that the same results would have been brought about without the tariff reductions; it seems more exact, rather, to say that the preferential customs treatment together with the growing strength of the United States as an exporter and of Cuba as an importer produced the changes indicated. It is quite impossible, moreover, to state definitely the extent to which the treaty reductions actually improved the sale of American products subject to competition in the Cuban market. A 20-point gain in percentage share for one article may be no more significant, in this respect, or reflect no greater competitive advantage than a 10-point increase for another. CHANGES DUE TO FLUCTUATIONS IN THE COMPOSITION OF CUBA'S IMPORTS This analysis of the trade divided into three classes leads to two comments upon the shifting nature of international trade. The use of three-year averages to a large extent eliminates the difficulties due to the incidental or accidental variations from year to year in the amounts and still more in the values of single articles, but Cuba's trade history clearly shows the importance of progressive changes in the nature of the articles comprising her imports. Table 36 supplemented by further analysis of individual items of trade shows an increasing diversification of Cuba's imports. Not only in Class I as a whole but also in some articles of Class III the percentage of imports from the United States was not maintained, but other countries obtained larger shares in spite of the preference in customs duties. These changes are observable in the latest as well as in earlier periods. The postwar period was that in which general conditions perhaps most favored the United States, but it was also the period in which the Cuban preferences were smallest in proportion to the value of the products. In some cases European or Canadian articles very closely competitive with American products-for instance, flour, corn, potatoes, coffee, cement, steam vessels, typewriters, firearms, calcium carbide, canned salmon, and wrapping paper and bags-obtained a share in the Cuban market; in other cases, as for example, oils, residues, and fats for soap making, furniture of fine wood, and macaroni and vermicelli, Cubans came to buy a wider variety of goods of the same general classification from other sources than the United States, or, as with peas, raisins, spices, vinegar, and the like, resumed buying according to their preferences the products of various other countries having different characteristics from American goods. Other commodities, for example, mineral oils, chemical fertilizers, sugar bags, and cork and its manufactures, for which the United States itself had become dependent more and more upon imports, were purchased by Cuba from the original countries of supply. Certain products, also, such as rice and sugar bags, were imported more largely from India, Japan, etc., and less by transshipment from European countries. A consideration of the division of the trade between the three classes brings out the second point, namely, that the United States 136 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY increased its percentage of the total in part because the Cuban import trade shifted, relatively, away from Class II in which the United States had a small share to Classes I and III in which the United States had larger percentages. This change is summarized in the following figures, which show the percentage of the total 'classified trade for each class in each of the four periods: Period Class I Class I Class III Total Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent 1902-3 --- —— _ - - ---- ------ ----- -- -- ------ ------------------ 23.9 44.1 32.0 100 1905-1907 —; --- —----------— ] --- —-------------- 23.5 40.4 36.1 100 1912-1914 -.. ----.-.. --- —. --- —------------ - 27.9 36.6 35.5 100 1922-1924 -..... -............. --- —---------------------------- 30.3 34.8 34.9 100 The increasing importance of Class I, supplied largely by the United States, operated to enlarge the American share of the total trade of Cuba. It did so in spite of the continuous decline in the percentage supplied by the United States in this class, since even when that percentage had declined to 85.6 it remained higher than in every group of the other classes. Likewise Class III increased in relative importance whereas the relative importance of Class II, representing articles imported chiefly from other countries, declined immediately after tie introduction of reciprocity and continued to decline. If the reductions conceded by Cuba had been great enough to produce conspicuous changes in relative price levels of different commodities, it might be supposed that the result shown was an illustration of the workings of indirect competition, that American products in Classes I and III took the place of closely competitive products of other countries belonging to Class II.41 An examination of the trade classifications, however, suggests that the explanation lies rather in distinctive changes in Cuba's wants and needs. Cuba as an industrialized or large-scale producer of sugar and tobacco, of minerals, of hardwood timber, and of fruits, has come to be a better customer for American materials and machinery for the development of those industries than for the more personal consumption goods. It so happens that already in 1902-3 the United States supplied the greater share, or at least a large part of such articles of trade, which, therefore, according to our division, fall in Classes I and III. Furthermore, we find that while Cuba's population almost doubled during the two decades and the values of her total imports grew in the ratio of 3.8 to 1, the aggregate values, based 1 It is perhaps worth noting, however, that Cuba's duties upon articles in Class II, which includes most of the luxuries on the list, are on the average higher than in the,other classes. Table 42 suggests the truth on this point for the year 1905, indirectly, by giving the ad valorem equivalents of the reductions accorded to the United States. The dominance of the 30 per cent group in Class II indicates an average full duty for the whole class of not far from 45 per cent ad valorem. In Class III the 40 per cent group was negligible and the average full duty appears to have been not over 25 per cent aI valorem. In Class I, supplied largely by imports from the United States, the effectiwv.rates of duty on all articles other than coffee apparently average less than 25 per cent ad valorem. Since Cuba neither produced the articles of Class II nor constituted the dominant market for them, the inference is clear that the average difference between the price in the countries of export and the price In Cuba must have been greater for articles in Class II than for those in Classes I and II. The concessions to the United States by the Teciprocity treaty and the increases of duty Incident thereto presumably somewhat in-creased this contrast between the average price levels of articles in the different classes. EFFECTS BY COMPETITIVE CLASSES 137 on annual averages for 1902-3 and 1922-1924, of certain groups of imports which may be termed industrial commodities or producers' goods,42 increased in the ratio of 7 to 1, whereas the ratio increase of the aggregate value of foodstuffs and certain other consumers' goods was 4 to 1. Together, these two groups of dutiable commodities accounted for 65.2 per cent of Cuba's total imports in 1902-3 and 81.2 per cent in 1922-1924, the so-called industrial commodities increasing their share of the total from 15.5 to 28.4 per cent, while the relative proportion of the consumers' goods changed but slightly from 49.7 to 52.8 per cent. Since, on the basis of the 1922-1924 figures, less than one-fifth of the total remains to be accounted for by all other imports, compared with a little over one-third in 1902-3, we have another indication that as Cuba's import trade expanded supposedly in response to the prosperous condition of her export activities she imported proportionately more staple commodities and less of variety or luxury goods. The explanation doubtless is that the profits of expanding Cuban industries were being largely reinvested in further developments. The fact that imports into Cuba were shifting from finished to semifinished products or to raw materials, indicates that new industries were being organized. There is some doubt, however, as to the interpretation to be put on the words staple and luxury. Automobiles and accessories, for example, not even separately enumerated in 1902-3, appear as a new and important item in the machinery and vehicle group in 1922-1924, although undoubtedly some of the automobiles imported were luxury articles. Moreover, the petroleum products consumed by such pleasure cars might be excluded from the mineral oil group. Conversely, deductions from the group of consumers' goods might be made for red wine in barrels and beer in bottles. The following tables indicate the variations in the ratio increases between the items and groups of items that were referred to above by aggregates for the industrial and consumers' groups. The figures given show the increases in value of selected Cuban imports by the ratios of increase in 1922-1924 over the annual average of 1902-3 taken as 100. The articles are listed in descending order of increase for total imports; the corresponding figures for imports from the United States indicate in which lines American products set the paoe or increased much more or less than similar goods from the other competing countries. Table 39 includes details for the leading items of the foodstuffs group which fail to indicate an Americanization of Cuba's tastes or a pronounced tendency to buy relatively more or less of articles that might be considered typically non-American. Caution is required in interpreting both tables because neither indicates the relative importance of the different articles; in some cases the ratio increases are very high because the figure in 1902-3 was so snall.43 Nor has any allowance been made for the varying rate of rise in prices of items composing the two groups. "Not exclusively capital goods in the economic sense. "8 Rice is an extreme case in point. As reported in the Cuban statistics, the value of rice imports from the United States averaged $1,000 in 1902-3 and $1,086,000 in 1922 -1924; comparable figures for total imports being $3,077,000 and $12,362,000. 138 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABV 38.-Increase in vauae of Cuban imports selected as the "industrial group " totals and from the United States, 8hown by the ratios of inorease in 19Z2-1924 over the average of 1902-3 taken as 100 Ratio increase Ratio increase for imports for imports from- fromCommodity or group of commodi- Commodityorgroup of commodi.-._... ties ties All United All United n ted coun- States tries tries Mineral oils and products ----- 1,376 787 Colors, dyes, etc --- —-------- 622 1,024 Glass bottles and containers ---- 877 2,996 Copper and products- - 603 932 Machinery, apparatus, instru- Iron and steel and manufactures_ 462 841 ments and vehicles --—.. 851 1,115 Acids. --- —---- -- 341.462 Hides, skins, and leather ------ 821 1,638 Barrels and hogsheads --- —---- 120 206 Sugar bags - - 776 2,186 -- Ordinary and other wood. --- — 764 781 Aggregate ------------- 700 973 Cement- 746 977 Total imports --- —----- 381 620 Oils, fats, and residues ------ - 703 813 TABLE 39.-Increase in value of a(ban imports seleoted as the "consumers' group," totals, and from the United States, shown by the ratios of increase in 1922-1924 over the average of 1902-3 taken as 100 Ratio increase Ratio increase for imports for imports from- fromCommodity or group of commodi- __ Commodityor group of commodi- ____ ties ties All United All United coun- coun- States States tries tries Fine soap-. ---- ----- 1,620 2,117 Lard -------------------- 371 373 Eggs — ---- ------ 1,569 1,601 Corn — ---- 370 307 Condensed milk --- —-------- 969 890 Shoes -------- 355 920 Peas ------- - --- 865 1,646 Silk and manufactures --- —---- 291 1,541 Potatoes --------------- 861 840 Cheese ------------------- 289 686 Pork, salt and fresh ---------- 678 679 Wool and manufactures-.. --- — 280 2,386 Perfumes --- —---- - 646 1,581 Jerked beef ---------------- 267 — Beans -—. — - --------- 486 851 Hams, shoulders, and bacon -- 6 236 246 Onions.. ----4 --- —--- 418 6,778 Olive oil -— 205 --- —------- 205 - Cotton and manufactures --- —- 413 3,810 Beer in bottles --- —------------ 112 --- All foodstuffs I - ----------- 408 480 Red wine in barrels ---------- 80. Games and toys --- —------------ 408 1,392 Rice --- —------ ---------- 402 108,800 Aggregate --- —-- ------ 405 634 Wheat flour --- ------------ 392 348 Aggregate exclusive of foodPorcelain, china, and earthenware. 392 1,374 stuffs ----------- 397 1,954 Patent medicines --- - 379 1,277 I Including foodstuffs named separately. CHAPTER X EFFECTS OF RECIPROCITY ON TRADE AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS OF CUBA'S CONCESSIONS, BY GROUPS AND BY ARTICLES Pae Equivalent ad valorem concessions in the three competitive classes-__-_- 142 Equivalent ad valorem reductions on individual commodities ---__ 145 Analysis covers 130 articles, or 92 per cent of the trade in 1905-1907- 146 Articles divided into five lists according to change in percentage of total supplied by the United States --- —------ —.- ---- 147 Four sections of preferential trade according to apparent effectiveness of duty reductions --- —--------------------- 151 Forty-one articles suggesting that the concessions did not directly cause trade improvement --- —--------- ---- ---- 152 Thirty-five articles with ad valorem concessions and competitive increases, both of which are substantial______ --- —-------- 154 United States exports, total and to Cuba, for the same 35 items, 1905-1907 --- —----------------- ---------- 158 Increase in trade to Cuba and to five comparable markets for 13 important articles among the 35- ____ --- —------------- 161 Conclusion —usion -----------—. --- —--- ----- --- 164 Chapter VIII began to analyze in detail the effects of the reciprocity treaty on Cuban imports from the United States. It examined the changes in percentages of Cuba's imports supplied by the United States, by preferential groups and competitive classes, to find evidence whether the preferences enabled American products to prevail over competitive commodities, paying particular attention to the analysis of the trade situation which followed directly upon the treaty's enforcement. This chapter continues the attempt to determine whether the preferential concessions constituted new and controlling factors in the competitive situation. The paramount object of this examination is to ascertain whether important individual American exports to Cuba show immediate competitive improvements that are measurably proportionate to the size of the concessions they received. In conformity with the plan of the previous chapter, Table 40 presents the same basic information on Cuban imports from the United States, divided into preferential groups, as is given in Table 34. The significant additions are the figures which express the ad valorem equivalents of the duties remitted by Cuba in the individuzl 10038-29 —10 139 140 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY years, 1905, 1914, and 1923.1 Because the figures for average annual values have not been repeated, reference to Table 34 2 is necessary to maintain contact with the relative importance of the trade in each group. TABLE 40.-Cuban imports from the United States, by preferential groups;1 percentages and changes in percentages of imports supplied' by the United States compared with the ad valotrem equivalents of duties remitted2 for four selected periods, 1902-1924 Group 1902-3 a 1905-1907 4 1912-1914 4 1922-1924 Nonpreferential: a Per cent, United States ---------—. —.. --- —----- 80. 8 85.3 87.0 85.2 Change in percentage --------- - ---- --------- -- +4. 5 +1. 7 -1.8 Ad valorem reduction, per cent ------------------------- None. None. None. None. 20 per cent group: Per cent, United States... --- —-----------—.-. — 54. 5 58.0 64.0 71.7 Change in percentage ---. --- —------------------------------------- 3. 5 +6.0 +7.7 Ad valorem reduction, per cent ------------------------- None. 6. 70 5.05 4.05 25 per cent group: Per cent, United States --- —.- ------------------------- 37. 7 43. 6 54.2 66.7 Change in percentage -. ---. --- —.... ---. --- —-. --- —--—,_ +5.9 +10.6 +12.5 Ad valorem reduction, per cent. --- —. --- —. —. --- —------- None. 6. 85 6.33 3. 81 30 per cent group: bi Per cent, United States. --- —------------------------- 33. 4 41.3 48.9 72.2 Change in percentage --- —. --- —---—. --- —------------- - - +7.9 +7.6 +23.3 Ad valorem reduction, per cent --- —------------ None. 8.21 8.16 5.25 40 per cent group: Per cent, United States...-. --- —---------—. -.. --- —-_ 3. 9 8.4 9. 6 24. 5 Change in percentage ------------------—.. --------- - 4.5 +1. 2 +14.9 Ad valorem reduction, per cent_ ---_ — _ --- —---------- None. 14.87 11.21 12. 96 Total preferential: Per cent, United States -- ----— _ - - 40. 6 46.4 53.4 66.8 Change in percentage --- —--- ---- -— __. _ +5.8 +7.0 +13. 4 Ad valorem reduction, per cent --- —---------------— _ None. 7. 44 6.10 4. 71 Total: Per cent, United States ----------— _ --- —----— _ —_,-__ 43. 7 49.4 55.8 67.7 Change in percentage ----- --------------— +....- +5. 7 +6.4 +11. 9 Ad valorem reduction, per cent -— None. 6. 19 5.46 4. 40 1 Exclusive of cattle and of imports from Porto Rico generally, but inclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico. X Computed for the individual years 1905, 1914, and 1923. Because of the inclusion of Porto Rican coffee and of the exclusion of cattle imports, the ad valorem equivalents of duties remitted in the 20 and 40 per cent groups and the weighted averages for the total trade do not correspond with the figures shown in the last column of Tables 116, 117, and 118. 1902-3 and 1922-1924 are calendar years; 1905-1907 and 1912-1914 are fiscal years. 4 The intervals between the successive average periods are 3, 7, and 10Y4 years, respectively. 8 That is, imports of commodities free of duty and of small amounts of tobacco paying full duty. The average ad valorem equivalents of the concessions on total dutiable imports from the United States as set forth in Chapter IVuseful in contrasting the concessions, by each party to the treaty, translated into terms of percentage relation to total values of tradeare of significance only as averages and must be interpreted with caution. A great number of Cuban imports are dutiable at such low rates that the average rate is not a representative rate. Even 1Because of the inclusion of Porto Rican coffee and of the exclusion of cattle imports, the ad valorem equivalents of duties remitted in the 20 and 40 per cent groups and the weighted averages for the total trade do not correspond with the figures shown in the last column of Tables 116 117 and 118. 2 Or to the more detailed tables in Appendix IV Nos116 6 117, and 118, which give also (1) the amounts and the ad valorem equivalents of duties paid by imports from the United States and from competing countries; (2) percentages indicating the changes in relative importance of the preferential groups among dutiable and total imports; and (8) the distribution, both absolute and relative, of duties paid and remitted, among the same groups. EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 141 the data for preferential groups, as presented in Table 40, give composite results which still conceal many details necessary to their full appreciation. However, this table does emphasize one significant fact concerning the nature of the Cuban concessions, namely, that the treaty reductions offer a very rough indication of the real worth of the concessions, not only when measured in relation to the value of the goods to which they apply but also when gauged by their results of diverting trade to the United States.^ More particularly, Table 40 shows, in the first place, that the average concessions in the 20 and 25 per cent groups, measured in terms of percentages ad valorem, were in fact almost identical and that there was little difference between these average concessions and those for the 30 per cent group. In 1905, for example, the reductions for the 20, 25, and 30 per cent groups of imports from the United States averaged 6.7, 6.85, and 8.21 per cent ad valorem; in 1914 the percentages were, respectively, 5.05, 6.33, and 8.16; and in 1923, 4.05, 3.81, and 5.25. By accident or design, the negotiators of the treaty included in the 25 per cent group articles of trade on which the rates of duty averaged about one-fifth lower than the rates in the 20 per cent group. The result is a negligible difference in the average ad valorem equivalents of the reductions in the two groups. The 40 per cent group, with average reductions of approximately 15, 11, and 13 per cent ad valorem, respectively, for the three years, stands out as the only group in which the greater treaty concession (expressed as a percentage of the full duties) works out to a materially higher concession in fact (that is, expressed as a percentage of the value of the goods affected). In the second place, Table 40 gives evidence of the fact that there was little correlation between the size of the ad valorem equivalents of the four treaty reductions and the increases in percentage of Cuban-imports in these groups supplied by the United States. The larger of the reductions failed to shift trade in any conspicuous degree to the United States. For instance, from 1905-1907 to 1912 -1914 the United States increased its share in the 40 per cent group by less than 2 points, though the ad valorem equivalent of the concessions was 11.2 per cent; in the 25 per cent group, on the contrary, with an average reduction of 6.3 per cent, the competitive improvement was 11 points. This contrast appears more pronounced if we note that there was much less room for relative expansion in' the 25 than in the 40 per cent group. In the third place, Table 40 shows how the concessions averaged lower and lower ad valorem equivalents, reflecting a decline in the ad valorem equivalents of Cuban tariff rates. (See Tables 112 to 118.) This decline is due largely to rising prices coupled with the general use of specific duties, but in part to the more rapid increase of imports subject to the lower rates of duty, which thereby increased 8 With few exceptions the higher ad valorem concessions identify duties whose general rates were high in the Cuban tariff of 1897, which formed the basis of the customs law of 1900, and because such duties were largely in the nature of sumptuary taxes and discouraged imports, relatively small amounts of trade came under the influence of the larger concessions. It would be difficult even roughly to trace and estimate the force of the higher duties as a deterrent influence on trade. 142 CUBAIN RECIPROCITY TREATY their importance in making up the weighted average.4 The steadying influence of ad valorem duties can be observed in the 1923 figures for the 40 per cent group, whose items, excluding rice, are predominantly subject to ad valorem duties.5 From 1914 to 1923 the average ad valorem concession rose from 11.15 to 12.76 per cent, making it higher than the 11.81 per cent of 1905. With this one exception, the average ad valorem equivalent of the reductions greatly decreased, for each group, and from each period to the next. EQUIVALENT AD VALOREM CONCESSIONS IN THE THREE COMPETITIVE CLASSES The general decline in the ad valorem equivalents of the treaty preferences suggests that they had the greatest influence in the years immediately after the treaty became operative since they were then largest; and since the effect of a factor in a competitive trade situation is most obvious when it first appears, the immediate effects of this reciprocity treaty may reasonably be expected to have been its greatest effects and the ones most easily identifiable as being the result of the treaty.6 The question immediately arises whether the concessions inaugurated by the treaty were sufficiently important to have an immediately effective influence in improving the competitive position of the United States. That is, were the reductions in 1905-1907-when they stood at a maximum in relation to trade values-large enough to stave off a decline for American products that were facing increased competition, or to turn an otherwise only potential export commodity into an actual American export to Cuba, or for other American exports to change a competitive situation otherwise unfavorable into a favorable situation? For this reason Tables 41 and 42 make a more detailed examination of the size of the concessions granted by Cuba and their effects in the first years of the reciprocity treaty. 'The influence of the latter factor is observable in the 20 per cent group. Here the average ad valorem equivalent of the duties collected dropped between 1905 and 1914 from 24.8 to 17.7 per cent and the ad valorem equivalent of the reductions from 6.20 to 3.88 per cent. (These figures are taken from Tables 116 and 117.) Not so great a drop in the equivalent ad valorem reductions appears in Table 40 due to the inclusion of Porto Rican coffee. The explanation is that among 20 per cent imports from the United States some important articles, for example, agricultural and sugar-plant machinery and accessories (including, by special concession, all sugar-plantation railway material and other accessories) dutiable at comparatively low rates and involving smaller ad valorem reductions, expanded relatively more than the others. The change is the more striking because a substantial proportion of the 20 per cent group is subject to ad valorem duties which, of course, maintain the same equivalents regardless of changes in prices. Only the following are dutiable at specific rates: Cotton knit goods, cheese, porcelain and chinaware, fine soap, floor tiles, glucose, and paper pulp; and among the perfumes, essences are subject to a compound duty (specific plus ad valorem rate). For the change effected by the exclusion of rice, see footnote 10 below. e Working only with average annual trade values for the period 1905-1907 our figures do not show the progress or loss of trade by single years. Import figures for the first six months of reciprocity were excluded from the averages for 1905-1907 for several reasons. Cuban importers, on the one hand, had placed heavy orders in Europe in anticipation of the increases in duty which became effective February 5, 1904, and this excess supply affected the proportion of imports from the United States for 6 or 8 months. This may partly explain the dissatisfaction then quite prevalent among American manufacturers and exporters regarding the lack of improvement of trade to Cuba in the first year of reciprocity. On the other hand it is but natural to expect that European manufacturers repared to tiffen their competition in Cuba, to offer their most attractive prices, and eraps for a time even to sell at lower prices than elsewhere in order to hold their own fn a market where they had been disposing of large outputs. In these two respects, perhaps, the 3-year averages are better indicators of the Immediate results of reciprocity than the figures for 1905 alone. EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 143 TABLE 41.-Dutiable Cuban imports from the United States,1 exclusive of certain noncompetitive commodities,2 by competitive classes and preferential groups; percentages and changes in percentages of imports supplied by the United States in 1902-3 and 1905-1907 8 compared with the ad valorem equivalents of duties remitted in 1905 Per cent of total Ad valfrom United States Change orem Group in per- reduction centage 1905 (per 1902-3 1905-1907cent) CLASS I 20 per cent --- —---------------------- Same, excluding coffee --- —------- ----— _ 25 per cent ----- -----------------------—.. --....... — -- -- 30 per cent - -------------------------------—. ----. —.40 per cent --- —------------------—.. ----... --- —------- --- - Class total --- ---------—.-. --- —--------—.. Same, excluding coffee --- —----.. --- —-----—.....-. -- 20 per cent - ---------------------------------------------—... 25 per cent ---------—. --- —-------—.............-............ 30 per cent —.. --- —------—. --- —--—...................... 40 per cent --- —---------------------------............... --- —Class total --- —-------------------—. --- —--------. 96.0 90.0 -4.0 8.76 96.3 93.0 -3.3 6.08 86.1 69.6 -16.5 6.01 99.2 96.8 -2.4 6.41 97.0 80.2 -16.8 18.03 96.6 91.3 -5.3 8.01 96.8 93.5 -3.3 6.20 CLASS II 9.3 11.5 +2.2 5.41 11.5 28.0 +16.5 8.48 6.3 13.4 +7.1 13.92 7.2 9.6 +2.4 22.10 7.4 13.3 +5.9 12.94 CLASS III 54.8 64.3 +9.5 4.35 42.2 47.8 +5.6 6.73 39. 7 51. 8 +12.1 8.00 36.1 44.4 +8.3 15.49 47.9 58.1 +10.2 5.49 GROUP TOTALS 66.2 66.3 +.1 6.70 64.3 65.6 +1.3 5.22 39.0 44.4 +5.4 6.83 33.9 42.4 +8.5 8.12 8.2 11.0 +2.8 21.13 20 per cent ------------------------—... —.........-........... 25 per cent --------------------------------------------—. --- — 30 per cent --- —-. ---. ----. ---.. --- —--- ---------—........... 40 per cent.. -..- --- ----—. — ----.................... ---- --- Class total --- -------------------------—. --- —------ 20 per cent ----------------------------------------------—.-. Same, excluding coffee --- —----—. — _, --- —---—.....-.-...... 25'per cent --—.. --- —-----------------—. --- —--—. ---..30'per cent —... — --------------------------------------- 40.per cent -----------------------------------------------—. Grand total --------------- --------------------------—. Same, excluding coffee -- -------------------------------- 48.0 46. 6 52. 7 52. 0 +4.7 +5.4 7.31 6.45 1 Exclusive of cattle, tobacco, and of imports from Porto Rico generally, but inclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico. 2 That is, jerked beef, red wine in barrels, olive oil, hemp sandals, saffron, almonds, fans, matches, tea, and beer in barrels, of the 20 per cent group; liqueurs, of the 25 per cent group; white wine, beer and red wine in bottles, cider, champagne, and opium, of the 30 per cent group; and rice and paper pulp, of the 40 per cent group. 31902-3 are calendar, 1905-1907, fiscal years. Table 41 presents dutiable Cuban imports of the three competitive classes established in Chapter VIII, excluding those commodities in which the United States could not compete regardless of the treaty concessions7 and subdividing each class into the preferential groups 7 Beer in bottles, however, was a competitive item in 1905-1907 and is included in Table 42, List 2, p. 148. 144 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY created by the treaty. This allows direct comparisons by competitive classes and preferential groups, of the percentages and changes in percentages of Cuban imports, supplied by the United States in 1902-3 and in 1905-1907, together with the ad valorem equivalents of duties in 1905. The table brings out the general lack of correlation between the ad valorem amount of the concessions and changes in relative trade situation. Two illustrations may be mentioned. First, the figures for Class I make more prominent the inability8 of 'the United States to maintain the full measure of its predominance of the Cuban market in articles of which it had supplied between 86 and 99 per cent before reciprocity. The decreased percentages in every group of Class I, and only in Class I, which includes some of the highest ad valorem reductions, averaging, by preferential groups, between 6 and 18 per cent ad valorem, strikingly illustrate a decline in competitive ability in spite of established trade conditions and preferential tariff treatment. This situation, accentuated by the growing importance of Class I among total Cuban imports, in itself establishes that a large portion of the Cuban concessions was without powtiev effect. Secondly, Classes II and III show in every group increases in the percentage of Cuba's imports supplied by the United States, but with the most diverse relations between size of concession and increase of trade percentage. In fact, it may be pointed out that the table exhibits an inverse correlation; that is to say, the greatest concessions, in general, are shown to have produced the smallest effect. This is most strikingly seen in the 40 per cent group of Class II, where a concession equivalent to 22 per cent ad valorem, the largest on the table, is associated with an increase in the relative portion of the United States of only 2.4 points, one of the smallest on the table. On the other hand, the 25 per cent group of Class II, with but itimod( erate average ad valorem reduction of 8.5 per cent, registers an addition of 16.5 points to the percentage share of the United States, the greatest relative increase for any group in the three classe,s. The conclusion may be drawn that inasmuch as the negotiators of the treaty had agreed upon the principle that the concessions should be large enough to be effective, they were on the whole conservative in granting the greater percentages of reduction.9 The table shows some imports from the United States which were at sc great a disadvantage that even the larger ad valorem concessions granted to them proved ineffective in bringing about any substantial improvement in the competitive position of the United States. 8 Already shown in Table 36. 9 The negotiators were more conservative in granting the larger reductions than appears in the treaty as proclaimed, for the United States Senate amended the treaty as negotiated and increased the concession on wheat flour, corn, and corn meal fromn 20 to 30 per cent. In spite of this, imports from the United States did not hold their own. In the case of corn the relative decline was from 97.6 per cent of the total in 1902-3 to 89.4 per cent ill 1905-1907. Three other increases in percentage reduction were effected by amendments of the United States Senate, as follows: Plain cotmon fabrics, classified under par. 114. and twilled cotton fabrics, under par. 116 —that is, exclusive, respectively, of fabrics weighing less than 10 kilos per 100 square meters-of the Cuban customs tariff, were transferred from Schedule A, Art. IV, of the Reciprocity Convention to Schedule B, from the 25 to the 30 per cent reduction group; and cattle, from Art. I to Art. IV Schedule C from the 26 to the 40 per cent reduction group. ' EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 145 Table 40, in conjunction with the values, strengthens the conclusion previously arrived at that when reduced to ad valorem equivalents the larger of the concessions involved comparatively small amounts of trade and did not in any outstanding measure divert it to the United States. Thus, for almost one-fourth of all Class II imports from the United States in 1905-1907 the concessions averaged so little as to be presumably ineffective; for the other three-fourths, indeed, the ad valorem reductions appear substantial, but the portion of the trade to which they apply was less than 7 per cent of total dutiable imports from the United States in 1905-1907.10 On the other hand, a consideration of relative figures, but with some regard for importance of values, lends sufficient indication that the reductions in the 30 per cent group of Class III were immediately and later continued to be of greater significance than those in any other group. That is, many of the concessions granted American products in this group signify real and effective preferences against competitive articles; so also in the 30 per cent group of Class II; in both they early began and continued, in different degree, of course, to have the effect not only of impeding the growth of, but finally also of reducing the trade, of competing countries. In Classes II and III combined the 30 per cent groups were before reciprocity less than half as large as, but in 1922-1924 had grown to over three-fourths of the value of the combined 20 per cent groups. EQUIVALENT AD VALOREM REDUCTIONS ON INDIVIDUAL COMMODITIES The final test of the effectiveness and success of the reciprocity provisions here considered must be an analysis of the trade item by item. An approach to this was made in Chapter VIII where significant changes in the percentage supplied by the United States of many important commodities were set forth in a general way. A more detailed examination would seek the explanation why certain American products were able to displace practically all competitive articles whilst others succeeded only partially; some competing countries lost their places, others held on and even increased their shares, in the Cuban market. The individual commodity tables in Appendix IV 11 give statistics of Cuban imports for the years 1902-1926 of the leading reciprocity articles by principal countries of origin together with total United States exports, where similarity of schedules makes this possible. But the tendencies indicated by an analysis of Cuban imports of these articles can be attributed only with the greatest caution primarily to the influence of the tariff concessions. Abnormal business conditions prevailed during more than half of the first 24 years of '0 Not exclusive of noncompetitive items. It should carefully be noted, moreover, that the average ad valorem reductions for the 20, 25, and 30 per cent group totals in Tables 36 and 37 are practically identical with or without the noncompetitive items. The exclusion of rice, however, effects a considerable divergence for the 40 per cent group, raising the average concession from 14.87 to 21.13 per cent ad valorem even as the former figure was raised from 11.81 per cent (Table 116) by the exclusion of cattle. In the complete group, therefore, these two articles were much more important in 1905-1907 than all the others combined. " P. 248 if. 146 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY the operation of the treaty. Special attention, therefore, may again be given to the years immediately following upon the introduction of reciprocity when the influence of the tariff reductions was probably at its maximum.12 Analysis covers 130 articles or 92 per cent of the trade in 1905-1907.Table 42 comprises, in all, 130 leading articles of Cuban imports (122 dutiable and 8 free items), divided into two major parts, commodities of which the United States supplied a larger percentage in 1905-1907 than in 1902-3, and those showing decreases. Each of these parts is subdivided into smaller lists according to the size of the change, whether the increase or decrease is substantial (more than 10 points), or moderate (5 to 10 points), or only slight (less than 5 points). Herewith are shown the ad valorem equivalent of duties remitted on the respective preferential imports during 1905 and, to indicate the importance of each item, the average annual values of imports from the United States and from all other countries for 1905-1907. This comparison should help to determine whether imports of American products were stimulated approximately in proportion to the size of the concessions. These lists include almost 92 per cent of total as well as of preferential and more than 91 per cent of free imports into Cubs from the United States for 1905-1907.13 Thus the indicated equivalent ad valorem rates of the duties remitted in 1905 may fairly be regarded as typical of the preferential treatment that all United States imports into Cuba received under the first three years of reciprocity. Speaking generally for the several lists of Table 42, of the 131 items 14 of imports from the United States, totaling $42,008,000, 56 commodities show increases in percentage supplied by the United States ranging from 73 down to 5 points. These include, therefore, the very substantial as well as the more moderate upward changes, leaving 75 items that register either practically no increase, or decreases varying all the way up to 51 points. Roughly, these groups may be taken to represent the two types of influence exerted by the preferential reductions on American trade, namely, positive and negative. The former group, exclusive of four commodities free of duty regardless of origin, numbers 52 items of imports from the United States and amounts to $12,252,000, or 34 per cent of the total value of $36,180,000 for dutiable, i. e., preferential imports from the United States shown in this tabulation; the remainder of $23,928,000, or 66 per cent, being the sum total of the other 71 concessional 12 Not that the lower ad valorem reductions of later years necessarity operated with a proportionately smaller force, direct or indirect, but rather that in 1905 the concessions were relatively more valuable on an ad valorem basis and presumably also, in the relatively undeveloped state of American manufacture, filled a greater need. The United States met in the Cuban market greater competition in manufactures than in natural products. Because a few large items, like jerked beef and red wine in barrels, supplied almost wholly by countries other than the United States are not included, the trade of other countries covered in these lists is only 81 per cent of total and of preferential and 72 per cent of free imports. "4 The additional item is accounted for by the two sets of figures for coffee imports, respectively, from the United States and from Porto Rico. EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 147 articles. In other words, American preferential products showing immediate and substantial competitive gains in the Cuban market constituted one-third of the total; two-thirds of the trade showed no appreciable relative improvement, or even a decline. TABLE 42.-One hundred and thirty selected (bamn imports,1 dutiable and free, listed in the order of the magnitude of the increase or deore se in percentage supplied by the United States before and imediatjely after the introduction of reciprocity, and compared with the ad valorem equivalent of the reductions in 1905 and the average annual value of imports for 1905-1907-List 1: 31 commodities showng substantial increases in percentage supplied by the United States [In thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Per cent of total Average value of from United States Change Ad imports, 1905-1907 in perw valorem Commodity in p- nt reduccentage tion 1905 1902-3 1905-1907 () (per cent) d Other Natural fertilizer, including cowpeas —. —_ 26.8 100.0 73.2 None. 163 Cattle, miscellaneous, dutiable ------------ 2 9 66.8 65. 9 15. 29 134 67 Wrapping paper, bags, etc --- —--------- 29.3 78.3 49.0 9.97 61 16 Salts —. ----. ---- ---------- 10.1 56.7 46.6 33.84 112 85 Iron and steel pipes and couplings --- —-- 43.2 85. 7 42. 5 7.35 222 37 Mules, small and large --- —-------------- 40.4 82.4 42.0 2.16 300 65 Candles and other articles of paraffin, stearin, and wax. ---. ---- ------ 12.8 49.8 37.0 6.19 126 126 Coffee, Porto Rican 3 --------- --- 19.0 51.7 32.7 18.48 1,246 587 Letter-head paper ------------ 2- 246.3 74.3 28.0 2.08 138 47 Iron and steel bars and plates ------------- 14. 9 41.9 27.0 8.62 401 555 Men's shoes --- —---—. --- —-. 227.2 53.7 26.5 7.43 688 593 Children's shoes -— 2 --- —--------------- 2 40.8 64.6 23.8 7.53 312 171 Mares fit for breeding -- ------—. 17.5 39.6 22.1 3.58 83 128 Preserved meats ---------— 2 45.4 67.1 21.7 6.26 267 131 Miscellaneous manufactures of iron and steel ---------—. ---- -------- 43.8 62.8 19.0 6.97 1,247 740 Pianos and accessories-. --- ------------ 16.6 35.4 18.8 15.64 41 74 Hides, skins, and leather ------- ---- 49.0 67.1 18.1 4.32 330 162 Paper sheets- ----- - 31.2 49.3 18.1 16.66 156 160 Tin plate sheets and manufactures -. ---- 34.4 50.8 16.4 4.34 121 118 Patent medicines --— 2.... --- —--------- 2 21.8 37.8 16.0 3.90 93 153 Ordinary soap in bars ---- ----- 3.9 18. 7 14.8 8.20 57 247 Miscellaneous apparatus ------ -- 78.4 93.0 14.6 4. 98 186 14 Cement - - ------------ --- 60.9 75.4 14.5 8.16 342 112 Canned fruits --- - 33.7 48.2 14. 5 13.09 49 52 Boxes ----------- -. -------- 36.0 50.2 14.2 2.25 224 222 Steam vessels -------- 9.4 23.0 13.6.25 120 402 Women's shoes ----— 2 48.3 60. 5 12.2 7.69 892 581 Olive oil --.2 11.4 11.2 5.27 86 666 Potatoes --- —---- ---------- 57.4 67.9 10.5 5.00 616 292 Copper and manufactures -------- 54.3 64. 7 10.4 6.30 443 242 Simple drugs ---. ---- ------ 27.2 37. 6 10.4 4.75 91 150 Total value -... --- —-- --- - ----- ---- 9,347 6,995 1 The items as listed total 131 because coffee appears twice, imported respectively from the United States and from Porto Rico. All other figures in the lists referring to the United States are exclusive of Porto Rico. 2 Based on figures for 1903 only. 3 That is, the figures pertain to coffee imports from Porto Rico, entitled under the treaty to 20 per cent preference; the imports from "Other countries" are nonpreferential and exclude imports from the United States which are shown separately. The trade percentages however are reckoned on total imports including those from the United States. (See List 5, note 3.) ;148 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TA TABw 42.-List 2: Twenty-five commodties showing moderate inoreases in percentage sa pplied by the United States [In thousands of dollars; that Is, 000 omitted] Per cent of total han Ad Average value of from United States in per- valorem imports, 1905-1907 Commodity 9entag7 r ti Uned- Other 1902-3 1905-1907 tion 1905 United Other 1902 15-17 () (per cent) States ountries Cattle, breeding ------— 38.0 47.8 9.8 None. 602 658 Articles of fire clay ------—, ------ - 15. 8 25.6 9.8 5. 53 34 98 Twilled cotton fabrics ------- 12.1 21.6 9. 5 15. 72 326 1,182 Cast iron in pigs and bars ---------- 51. 8 61.1 9. 3 3. 33 102 64 Cotton ready-made clothing. —.-.-.- - 29.5 38.7 9. 2 16.08 110 175 Acids ----------- ----------------------.... 68.8 77.7 8.9 3. 23 74 21 Glass bottles and containers ----------- 15. 7 24. 5 8. 8 6. 96 65 198 Plain cotton fabrics ---------- 6.8 15.1 8. 3 11. 42 662 3,710 Oxides ------- - ------. 37.8 46.0 8.2.93 50 60 Cotton velvets and plushes ---------- 3. 7 11. 6 7. 9 28. 58 14 111 Coal and coke ----------- ------ 89. 2 97. 0 7.8 None. 2,194 67 Fine soap -. --- —- 31. 8 39. 3 7. 5 17. 70 24 36 Cordage and tackle -- - 59.4 66.8 7.4 6. 02 74 38 Cotton knit goods --- —-------- -- 3. 2 10. 5 7. 3 27. 27 102 874 Small geldings --- —---------------- 44. 2 51. 5 7. 3 1. 26 95 89 Manufactures of rubber ----------- 72. 5 79.8 7. 3 3. 21 69 17 Apples and other fresh fruits --- —----- 1 86. 9 93. 2 6. 3 3. 00 98 7 Agricultural implements.... --- —---- 64.3 70.3 6.0 None. 215 90 Miscellaneous paper_,,-l- 11 8 --- — 17. 6 5. 8 13. 22 102 475 Rice ----------—. --- — —.. —.. ----. 5.7 5. 7 11. 13 253 4,174 Onions --- -------------------- 3.1 8.4 5.3 6.31 30 332 Beer in bottles - --------------- 30.9 36.1 5.2 8. 74 223 396 Barrels and hogsheads -----------.- 40. 8 45.9 5.1 3. 03 264 310 Waterproof fabrics and footwear ------- 39. 9 45.0 5.1 7.91 88 108 Colors --—. --- —--------------- 46. 3 51. 3 5. 0 8.48 209 198 Total value - -. --- —. --- —---------------- ------- ---- 6,079 13,488 1 Based on figures for 1903 only. TABLE 42.-List 3: Thirty commodities showing alight increases or no change in percentage supplied by the United States [In thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Per cent of total han Ad Average value of from United States i per valorem imports, 1905-1907 Commodity ------— in_ pinjer reduc 1902-3 1905-1907 cenage tion 1905 Uited Other _ _ (per cent) States countries Barbed wire for fences. --- —------------- 94.3 98. 5 4. 2 None. 376 5 Silk manufactures --- —--- - ------. 8.7 12.9 4.2 25.47 122 820 Hats ------ ------------------ 14.9 19.0 4.1 6.17 95 405 Miscellaneous chemicals --- - - - 44. 2 48. 2 4. 0 5.25 80 85 Preserved vegetables -------- ---------- 6.4 9. 8 3.4 8. 54 24 224 Dried fruits --- —- ----------- 2 22. 2 25.4 3. 2 3.69 35 105 Furniture of ordinary wood --------------- 94.2 97. 0 2. 8 6. 99 421 13 Mineral waters, natural --- —----------. 6.0 8. 7 2. 7 None. 11 117 Lean cattle ---- - 15.1 17.5 2.4 6.21 587 2,761 Cottonseed oil ------ 3 97. 3 99. 7 2. 4 6, 58 108 () Cotton thread and yarn -------- 1.3 3. 2 1.9 22.04 9 274 Tarpaulins and oilcloths ---------- -1 88. 5 90. 3 1.8 3. 34 114 12 Parts and accessories of machinery --- —- 72. 2 73.8 1. 6 4.98 1, 264 449 Eggs-98. --- —------------------ 98.0 99.6.1.6 4.16 679 2 Residues and fats for soap making-_' 2 97. 3 98. 9 1.6 1.45 140 2 Woolen manufactures ---— 4.5.... --- 4. 5 6.1 1.6 18. 82 65 999 Barley --- — ----------------------- 23.9 25.4 1.5 2.35 39 115 Games and toys ---------- --------- 11.4 12.5 1.1 6.24 22 150 Butter19 — 2 l --- —----------- -- 1. 1 9. 9 7 7.00 52 209 Chinaware and porcelain ---------— 6.0 6.7.7 19.80 16 226 Perfumes1 0.4 --- —------ --- ----- 10.4 10.9.5 23.58 43 352 Lard ------------- ---- --------------- l 99. 5 99. 8.3 5. 86 3,370 8 Fabrics of linen and other vegetable fibers..9 3 15 74 15 1,706 Tools —_ --- ----------- ----—. —. 66.0 66.2.2 4.73 211 108 Beans ----.-1 --- —------ ------- 244.5 44.6 1 3.10 434 539 Salt pork ------------ --- ------- 99.8 99.9 1 492 1066 (4) Mineral oils, crude and refined ----------- 99. 6 996 -15. 46 881 4 Ordinary wood____ ---- -— __.__,97.9 97.9 9 -------- 2. 28 468 10 Hams and shoulders --- —------------- 92.7 92.7 7 6. 51 605 40 Cheese cloth a --- —------------------------ 100.0 100.0 -------- None. 148 Total value... - -------— | --- —---— | --- —----- 11,400 9, 740 1 Added to free list by law of Sept. 15, 1902., Based on figures for 1903 only. I Inclusive of small amounts of other edible oils, for 1902. 4 Less than $500. I Added to free list by law of July 29, 1902. EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 149 'TABL 42.-List 4: Twenty-one oommodities showing slight decreases in percentage supplied by the United States [In thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Per cent of total Change Ad Average value of from United States C ange valorem imports, 1905-1907 ________________ in- -- redc — Commodity reduc1902-3 1905-1907.t.on 1905 g (per cent) States countrie Wheat flour -99.8 99.7 0.1 6.90 3,203 10 Electrical machinery -- ------ 78. 8 78. 5.3 5. 04 56 15 Locomotives ------------- 96. 7 96.3.4 5.00 461 17 Miscellaneous pharmaceutical products 55.1 54.7.4 6.27 340 281 Turpentine --------------- - 98. 9 98. 3. 6 6.63 75 1 Cotton laces ------------------.9.1. 48 1 622 Miscellaneous machinery ------------- 80.6 79.7.9 3.76 1, 194 304 Miscellaneous manufactures of leather -- 1 41.3 40. 2 1.1 5.63 113 168 Peas --- —-------- ------------- 110.5 9.4 1.1 5.98 58 563 Watches ------------------------ 16.6 14.7 1.9 14.27 27 155 Varnishes ------------------ 82.5 80.6 1.9 10.06 36 9 Jewelry and other manufactures of precious metals ---- ---------------- 4. 8 2.6 2.2 5.26 25 856 Raw cotton ------------------ ----- 58.5 56.3 2.2 2. 73 i 45 35 Iron and steel wires and cables ---- -- 82. 5 80.1 2.4 4. 50 131 32 Umbrellas and parasols (and canes) --- —- 8. 2 5.6 2.6 13.26 7 123 Reed, willow, and rush, manufactures of - 66. 5 63.8 2. 7 5.06 108 62 Plated ware --- -------------- 57.8 54. 6 3. 2 9.78 100 84 Miscellaneous manufactures of wood --- — 68.6 65.4 3.2 7.78 191 102 Sugar-plant machinery and accessories.. - - 65. 5 62.1 3.4 2.03 1,417 865 Cheese -- -------------------------- 11.3 7.7 3.6 10.34 40 480 Nails -------------------- 72.3 68.0 4.3 8.29 178 84 Total value - ------------- ------ --------— ' ---- ------ - 7,806 4,868 X Based on figures for 1903 only. TABLE 42.-List 5: Twenty-four commoities showing moderate and substantial decreases in percentage supplied by the United States [In thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Per cent of total Change Ad Average value of from United States Changpe valorem imports, 1905-1907 Commodity in per- reduc- - 1902-3 1905-1907centage tion 1905 United Other _' (per cent) States countries Tin ----------------------- 125.8 20.4 1 5.4 4.41 23 89 Earthenware - ----------------------- 10.6 4. 7 5. 9 7.16 10 199 Pine lumber, not dressed - ----- 95. 7 89. 2 6. 5 None 2,119 257 Iron and steel in pieces ---- ------ 75. 0 68. 3 6. 7 8. 84 281 130 Incandescent lamps ------ ---- 76.1 69.4 6. 7 6. 23 23 11 Sugar bags. --- -- ----- 9.9 2.8 7.1 5.31 32 1,132 Condensed milk ---- ------—. 85. 0 77. 5 7. 5 2.62 700 203 Corn - ------------------------------- 97.6 89.4 8.2 4.75 1,187 141 Sewing machines -------------------—.-. 95. 6 87.0 8.6 5.01 323 48 Pumps ------------------------ -- 96.4 86.9 9.5 8.14 31 5 Cutlery ------------—.. — ---- 43.8 33.9 9. 9 11.37 62 122 Miscellaneous glassware- ------------ 33.1 22.3 10.8 8. 56 173 606 Oats ----------- --------- 100.0 89.1 10.9 4.05 265 33 Rail and tramway coaches ---------------- 99. 6 88. 3 11. 3 7. 24 159 22 Oleomargarine -------------------------- 97.4 85. 1 12.3 10.45 42 8 Carriages and accessories- ------------ 180.9 68.5 12.4 6.32 240 110 Pickles and condiments ---------------- 43. 2 30. 2 13.0 10.59 40 93 Cast-iron manufactures ----- 60.1 44.0 16.1 4. 61 118 150 Codfish -..... --- —----- --------- 22.6 5.2 17.4 3.74 50 911 Wagons, trucks, and carts --- ------ 2 98. 0 73.3 24. 7 6.26 590 215 Yearlings. -. --- —-— 5 --- —-------- 57. 2 32. 2 25.0 4. 77 80 167 Boilers ------------------- 85.8 57. 2 28.6 6.75 104 78 Hay and fodder --- —------------------- 99.6 69. 7 29.9 6.58 145 63 Coffee, from the United States 3 —... 75. 0 24.0 51.0 29.56 579 587 Total value - ------------------ ------ 7,376 5.380 I Based on figures for 1903 only. 2 Based on figures for 1903 only, classified "All other vehicles." Exclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico, shown separately in List 1. The percentages of trade, however, are reckoned on total imports including those from Porto Rico. The Cuban Customs Circular No. 325, Jan. 19, 1905, laid down the rule that, since roasting does not change the nature of coffee or the use for which it is destined, the roasting of a foreign-grown coffee in the United States does not make the roasted coffee a "product of industry" of the United States within the meaning of the reciprocity treaty. Accordingly, little or none of the coffee recorded as imported from the United States may have received the preferential reduction of duty. This failure to obtain a special advantage throws no light upon the reasons for the marked decline in the business which American roasters had been doing in supplying Cuba with coffee. 150 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY But many items of the 71 commodities of the latter group could show very little positive effect of reciprocity. More than $14,000,000 of the $23,928,000, or 60 per cent, consists of articles of which the United States supplied more than or nearly 90 per cent in 1902-3 and approximately the same in 1905-1907.15 It was not to be expected that the preferential reductions would do much more than maintain these favorable quotas. For eight commodities, however-corn, sewing machines, pumps, oats, rail and tramway coaches, olemargarine, wagons, trucks, and carts, and hay and fodder-the percentage share of the United States was from 8 to 25 points smaller in 1905-1907 than in the prereciprocity period. Again, the one-third portion of the total preferential trade presented in Table 42, whose 52 constituent items show substantial or moderate increases in percentage supplied by the United States, in. cludes not a few articles with ad valorem reductions relatively so small that they can not plausibly be claimed as a dominant cause of the favorable results. Selection of such articles is very difficult because so much depends upon not only the nature of the commodity itself but also the methods and conditions of the individual trade. For example, a duty reduction of 5 per cent ad valorem on highly competitive but standardized products like tin-plate sheets, cast-iron pigs and bars, or candles is likely to influence sales, especially as they are imports for the account of jobbers or manufacturers. On the other hand, a similar reduction on articles like patent medicines, letterhead paper, or miscellaneous apparatus, which sell primarily according as they appeal to the final consumer's taste and wants and only secondarily as they meet the limitations of his pocketbook, will not control the course of trade. Similar considerations need carefully to be weighed for each individual item before an approximation can be made as to the effectiveness of varying sizes of concessions. To simplify the analysis, however, there are excluded from our first group those commodities with reductions equivalent to less than 5 per cent ad valorem.16 This leaves 35 concessional imports valued at $9,814,000 in 1905-1907 that showed significant increases in the percentage share of the United States over 1902-3 ranging from 5 to 46 points, with ad valorem reductions, between 5 and 33 per cent, large enough to be considered effective. There are, accordingly, four sections of the tabulated preferential trade according to the prima facie degree of affinity between height of concession and change in competitive strength, which may be set forth and analyzed on the basis of the statement in Table 43. Furniture of ordinary wood, cottonseed oil, tarpaulins and oilcloths, eggs, residues and fats for soap making, and lard show slight relative increases; salt pork, mineral oils, crude and refined, ordinary wood, and hams and shoulders, no change; wheat flor, locomotives and turpentine, a very slight decline. The articles with larger setbacks are named later in the text. 'I Listed in Table 44. EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 151 TABLE 43.-One hundred and twenty-three seleoted preferential Cuban imports from the United States divided into four seotions according to the apparent effectiveness of the duty reductions: Number of items in each section together with the average annual value for 1905-1907 and percentages of total Number Average Per cent Characteristics of annual value of total articles 1905-1907 value Significant competitive improvement coupled with substantial ad valorem reductions ------------- ----- ----- 35 $9,814,000 27.1 Substantial competitive improvement but concessions less than 5 per cent ad valorem — ------------------------- 17 2,438,000 6.8 Predominantly supplied by United States even before reciprocityconcessions merely nominal --------------------------- 21 14,233,000 39.3 Decreases or very slight increases in percentage supplied by United States-concessions without positive effect ----------------—.- 50 9,695,000 26.8 Total. --- —--------------—, --- 123 36,180,000 100 Table 43 clearly indicates the relatively limited extent of the presumably effective concessions as measured by the value of the 35 preferential items of trade that register great or substantial increases in the share of the Cuban market. In other words, less than $10,000,000 of the total $36,180,000, or 27 per cent, is the aggregate value of the trade on which it may be plausibly inferred from the size of the equivalent ad valorem rates that the duty reductions exerted an immediate and significantly favorable influence. This portion of the preferential trade involved remissions of duty totaling $788,900 in 1905 and equivalent to 10.49 per cent ad valorem.17 If from these figures we exclude coffee imports from Porto Rico, there remains but $8,500,000 of this trade regarding which the two preliminary conditions for presuming effective concessions hold true. That is, in the case of only 34 articles of Cuban imports from the United States representing somewhat less than 24 per cent of the total preferential trade of 1905-1907 tabulated in Table 42, do we find changes in percentage supplied by the United States and ad valorem reductions ranging upward from 5 points or per cent, respectively. The concessions on this limited American export trade aggregated $647,000 in 1905, equivalent to 9.58 per cent ad valorem. This again indicates that those preferences which were smallest in proportion to the value of the products applied to a relatively much greater volume of trade than the reductions ranging over 10 per cent ad valorem. 7"This average reduction is influenced by the inclusion of several of the so-called non competitive items. See footnote 10, p. 145. 152 CUBANT RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 44.-Forty-one selected Cuban impor-ts from the United States indicating a pronounced lack of correlation between the size of the ad valorem reduction in 1905 and the change in percentajge stpplied by tMhe UMited States in 1905 — 1907 as compared with 1902-S1 20 commodities with substantial reductions but small or no improvement2 21 commodities with small or no reductions but substantial improvement s Ad valorem Change reduc- in pertion centage (per (+) cent) Commodity Commodity Ad valorem reduction (per cent) Change in percentage Coffee from the United States - - Silk manufactures --- —----------- Perfumes --- —-------------------- Cotton thread and yarn --- —----- Chinaware and porcelain --------- Woolen manufactures ---------- Fabrics of linen and other vegetables fibers --- —------------ Watches. --- —------------------- Cotton laces --- —---------------- Umbrellas and parasols (and canes) ----------------------—. Cutlery — ---- --------- Pickles and condiments --------- Oleomargarine --- —-------------- Cheese --- —. --- —---------------- Varnishes. --- —----------------- Plated ware --- —----------------- Iron and steel in pieces --- —--—. Miscellaneous glassware --------- Nails. --- —-----—.. --- —. —.. Pumps --- —------------------—. 29. 56 25.47 23.58 22. 04 19. 80 18.82 15. 74 14.27 13.48 13.26 11.37 10 59 10.45 10.34 10.06 9.78 8.84 8.56 8.29 8.14 -51.0 +4.2 +.5 +1.9 +.7 +1.6 +. 3 -1.9 -.8 -2. 6 -9. 9 -13.0 -12.3 -3. 6 -1.9 -3. 2 -6.7 -10. 8 -4.3 -9.5 Natural fertilizer, including cowpeas -------— _ --- —. --- —--—._ Mules, small and large --- —----- Letter-head paper --- —----------- Mares fit for breeding. --- —--- Hides, skins, and leather ---—. - Tinplate sheets and manufactures_ Patent medicines -. --- —---—. Miscellaneous apparatus -—. ---Boxes -- ---- Steam vessels...._._. Simple drugs -----------—. --- Cattle, breeding ------------- Cast iron in pigs and bars. --- — Acids -------- Oxides ---—._ —. —.. — --—. — Coal and coke -- ------------ Small geldings -------—. ---Manufactures of rubber-........ Apples and other fresh fruits. --- Agricultural implements ------- Barrels and hogsheads --- —------- Average reduction (excluding free items) ----.. None. 2.16 2.08 3.58 4.32 4.34 3.90 4.98 2.25.25 4.75 None. 3.33 3.23.93 None. 1.26 3.21 3.00 None. 3.03 3.04 73. 2 42.0 28.0' 22.1 18.1 16.4 16.0 14.6 14.2 13.6 10.4 9. 8 9.3 8. 9 8.2 7.8 7.3, 7. 3 6.3 6. ( 5.1 Average reduction ---- - 19. 74 -. Same, excluding coffee --- — 12. 61 -.... _ I I --- 1 Taken from Table 42 where the percentages supplied by the United States in the two periods and the average values of imports from the United States and from all other countries for 1905-1907 also, are shown. (See pp. 147 to 149.) 2 Arranged according to height of ad valorem reduction. l Arranged according to magnitude of increase in percentage supplied by the United States. The fact that of the 30 articles among the total 123 preferential items tabulated, which show ad valorem reductions over 10 per cent,8 but 14 are included in the more select group of Table 45, immediately qualifies the assumption of direct causal relation between reductions and competitive increases, both of which are substantial. Table 44 is here inserted, therefore, to give evidence once more of the futility of drawing conclusions from the size of the concessions or their ad valorem equivalents alone. There are presented in this Table 45 of the 131 selected Cuban imports for which detailed statistics are given in Table 42. These 41 articles exhibit a pronounced lack of correlation between the size of the ad valorem reduction in 1905 and the change in percentage supplied by the United 1s For 7 items the ad valorem reduction is greater than 20 per cent; for 11, between 15 and 20 per cent; and for 12, between 10 and 15 per cent. EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 153 States in 1905-1907 as compared with 1902-3. On the one hand we have 20 commodities which upon their importation into Cuba enjoyed duty reductions ranging from equivalents of 8 to approximately 30 per cent ad valorem. But not one among them shows any substantial improvement for the relative position of the United States; on the contrary, 13 of the 20 items register decreases between 1 and 13 points, and for coffee from the United States the decline is 51 points. The average reduction in this group is 19.74 per cent ad valorem, or almost twice as much as the average for the 35 selected items which seem to manifest a significant correlation between ad valorem reduction and competitive improvement. Excluding the exceptional article, coffee, from Porto Rico and from the United States, respectively, reduces the spread between these figures by more than one-half; the " favorable" group showing an average ad valorem concession of 9.58, the " unfavorable " group, 12.61 per cent. Nevertheless, the difference between them and the differences between the ad valorem reductions of their constituent items contrasted with the divergent trade developments are such that the immediate effectiveness of the concessions as outstanding factors may well be challenged, even where some of the larger reductions apparently effected favorable results. On the other hand, we have 21 commodities, 17 of which entered Cuba with duty reductions that in 1905 were equivalent to less than 5 per cent ad valorem, the other 4 being free of duty regardless of country of origin. In the trade of these articles, the percentage share of the United States shows additions ranging from 5 to 73 points, with the best improvement for natural fertilizers, one of the free items. The weighted average of the reductions in this group is only 3 per cent ad valorem. Table 45 gives further details for the 35 selected items that exhibit a significant correlation between the size of the ad valorem reduction in 1905 and the change in percentage supplied by the United States in 1905-1907 as compared with 1902-3. Here the commodities are listed in the order of size of the ad valorem reduction. In addition to the statistical information taken from Table 42, this table shows equivalent ad valorem rates of duty paid by imports from the United. States and from all competing countries. These figures not only indicate the difference in tariff treatment as between preferential and full-duty imports but reflect as well the differences in price between these same imports. 154 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 45.-Thirty-ftve selected Cuban imports from the United States indicating an apparent correlation between the size of the ad valorem reduction in 1905 and the change in percentage supplied by the United States in 1905-1907 as oompared with 1902-8; average annual value of imports for 1905-1907 and equialent ad valorem rates of duties paid in 1905 [In thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Increase Average value of Equivalent ad valoAerein pues paid Ad in er-ntage imports, 19051907 rem duties paid, valorem centage prs190 Commodity 1 vre- supplied _- _ - - treidc5 inpe. by United tion105 Ued United Other t All other 0 Unitesd States countries goods goods _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ gooS ta te s I.__ _ Salts I ------------------------- Cotton velvets and plushes-.. —. --- —-- Cotton knit goods ----- Coffee, Porto Rican 3__ ---,_______________ Fine soap -_.... - -— ^ — - -- Paper sheets. --- —-------------- Cotton ready-made clothing ---------- Twilled cotton fabrics —: --- —------- Piano and accessories-... --- —------- Cattle, miscellaneous, dutiable ------- Subtotal value --- ------------- Miscellaneous paper... --- —---—. --- Canned fruits -------------------- Plain cotton fabrics4.... Rice-... --- —------ --------... — Wrapping paper, bags, etc ---- Beer in bottles...- --- ------ Iron and steel bars and plates --- —---- Colors. --- —------------ ----... — Ordinary soap in bars ----................ Cement Subtotal value- -------------- Waterproof fabrics and footwear -....... Women's shoes —. -- Children's shoes ------------------ Men's shoes -. --- — -... -- Iron and steel pipes and couplings —. --- Miscellaneous manufactures of iron and steel..- ------- Glass bottles and containers-.;.... Onions ------------------------------ Copper and manufactures-.... --- —-- Preserved meatsCandles and other articles of paraffin stearin, and wax. ------ ----— _,________ Cordage and tackle —..-.......... Articles of fire clay -........ Olive oil 6 --—. --- Potatoes. ---- ----- ---.....-. Subtotal value — ------------- Total value — ----------- - _ Per cent 33.84 28. 58 27. 27 18.48 17. 70 16.66 16.08 15.72 15.64 15.29 46.6 7.9 7.3 32.7 7.5 18.1 9.2 9.5 18.8 65. 9 112 14 102 1,246 24 156 110 326 41 1.4 85 111 874 587 36 160 175 1,182 74 67 Per cent 78.96 66.68 40.91 73.94 26.55 38.87 37.51 36.68 36. 50 9. oa Per cent 105. 59 59. 95 44.97 121.30 27.49 45.45 26.76 41.43 51.93 90 ~1. 2,265 3,351 --- —-- - 13.22 5.8 102 475 30. 85 34.14 13.09 14. 5 49 52 19.63 32.52 11.42 8.3 662 3,710 26.64 33. 53 11.13 5. 7 253 4,174 16.70 28.31 9.97 49.0 61 16 39.89 60.82 8.74 5.2 223 396 20.40 25.78 8.62 27.0 401 555 25.86 31.54 8.48 5.0 209 198 19.79 33.59 8.20 14.8 57 247 19.15 54.29 8.16 14.5 342 112 32.64 42.97.. --- —- ----- 2,359 9,935 ----- ------. VJ 0.1 7.69 12.2 7.53 23.8 7.43 26.5 7.35 42.5 6.97 19.0 6.96 8.8 6.31 5.3 6.30 10.4 6.26 21.7 6.19 37.0 6.02 7.4 5.53 9.8 5.27 11.2 5.00 10.5 1. _ 88 892 312 688 222 1,247 65 30 443 267 126 74 34 86 616 108 581 171 593 37 740 198 332 242 131 126 38 98 666 292 31.65 17.95 17. 58 17.34 22.06 20.90 20.88 25.25 25.18 25.05 24. 75 24.07 22.12 21.07 20. 00 24.18 30.25 26.42 29.71 28. 80 25.66 19.05 21.95 33.65 31.27 32.48 27.09 52. 89 20.76 28.02 5, 1901 4,353 1. ----. --- 0.1A' 17 Ron I - k - _ _ I.1 ' A i I V OU I - -- -- - - -I — -- - - -.. _ The items are listed according to height of ad valorem reduction. s Because of difficulties as to statistical classifications, the figures used pertain to the entire group of "Salts" in the chemical schedule, the figures for "ordinary salt " alone, reading across the table, are: 45.10, 80.8, 82, 18, 105.23, and 249.57. The last two figures indicate that salt from the United States was priced higher per pound than salt from Europe by an amount equivalent to more than twice the duty differential due to the preference. I See Table 42 list 1, notes 1 and 3. The Cuban tariff of 1900 divided plain cotton fabrics into the finer weighing less than 10 kilos per 100 square meters, and the heavier and coarser. Effective Apr. 1, 1901, there was added to the coarser and cheaper class with the lower rates of duty, fabrics less than 65 centimeters (25.59 inches) in width and weighing 8 kilos or more per 100 square meters. A customs circular of Mar. 13, 1905, provided that the width should be measured from one true selvedge to the other;. e., it removed from the classification created in 1901 fabrics woven on wide looms and then split. Inasmuch as American cottons were characteristically narrow (24 or 25 inches) and splitting as not an American practice, the two changes especially the second, gave the American producers a relative advantage oPer their European competitors. This advantage was by no means decisive as may be seen by comparing the progress of American trade in plain and in twilled fabrics (see tables, pp. 284, 286; alsoI P. 163); but in so far as the changes in classification promoted American exports of plain cottons, this increase of trade can not be attributed to the reciprocity treaty. A Table 46 shows that there were no United States exports of domestic olive oil to Cuba in 19051907 and that exports of foreign olive oil were negligible. Cuban imports from the United States must therefore have consisted of reshipments or transshipments of foreign oils which had not entered the commerce foref the United States and were not recorded as exports of foreign merchandise. Probably the Cuban customs recorded the imports as from the United States without according the preferential reduction granted to "products of the indstry" f the United States; if so, the item should be deleted from Table 45, reducing by so much the total trade shown as exhibiting an apparent correlation between the preferential reduction and the increase of trade. EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 155 Regarding not a few of these items, the figures suggest that products of the United States were not of the same kind or grade and therefore probably not closely competitive with those from other sources.19 Of cotton velvets and plushes, for example, European countries seem to have supplied the finer and more expensive qualities, with the less expensive goods coming largely and in increased proportion from the United States and paying equivalent ad valorem rates of duty which, on full-duty basis, were larger by one-half than the full duties paid by the European products. The same holds true of cotton knit goods, fine soap, waterproof fabrics and footwear, and glass bottles and containers. The rates were larger by one-fourth for paper sheets, twilled cotton fabrics, miscellaneous cattle, miscellaneous paper, and onion.s. But imports of ready-made cotton clothing from the United States paid specific duties which, on a full-duty basis, were equivalent to ad valorem rates twice as large as those paid by imports from Europe.20 In a few cases only among the 35 items shown in Table 45 American products are recorded as having had unit values higher by an amount exceeding the duty preferential than similar articles from other sources. For these few articles the specific duties resulted in ad valorem equivalents substantially lower than on similar goods from other sources.21 Shoes merit special attention as an instance in point, and as an example of striking trade improvement following immediately upon the introduction of reciprocity, which, nevertheless, fails to be conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of the particular concession. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900,22 the United States supplied $473,000 worth of shoes or only 21 per cent of the total $2,283,000 of such imports into Cuba 23 compared with $1,760,000, or 77 per cent from Spain.24 In the calendar years 1902, 1903 Ameri"9 This inference is based on a detailed comparison of the ad valorem equivalent of specific duties paid by full-duty imports and the equivalent ad valorem rates which imports from the United States would have paid on a full-duty basis. That is, to the figure for the ad valorem equivalent of duties paid by the United States article is added the ad valorem reduction. Thus, the specific duties paid by imports from the United States of cotton velvets and plushes in 1905 were equivalent, on a full-duty basis, to 90 per cent ad valorem, or larger by one-half than the 60 per cent ad valorem equivalent rates paid by the full-duty Imports reported in the same customs classification. "0 At least, prices of all these American products must have been considerably lower than prices of European goods registered in the same customs statistics, usually by an amount somewhat less than the duty differential due to the preference. Regarding five of those items, however-namely, cotton velvets and plushes, waterproof fabrics and footwear, glass bottles and containers, and onions-it is clear that in varying degree prices of imports from the United States were lower than on imports from Europe by an amount even larger than the preferential reduction. 1Extreme instances of this are Porto Rican coffee, ordinary soap in bars, and articles of fireclay. European countries supplied cheaper soaps and articles of fireclay; presumably, since there was a relative gain for the higher-priced articles, the products of the United States were of better quality or of different varieties and commanded a market in spite of higher prices. To a smaller extent this holds true likewise for women's, children's, and men's shoes. 22 The first full 12 months for which figures of imports are available under the customs law of Jan. 1, 1899, and during which imports from Spain no longer enjoyed preferential rates. 23 This figure is exclusive of boots, but inclusive of sandals. 24 For the period July 1, 1900, to May 19, 1902, imports of boots and shoes into Cuba amrounted to $3,1'96,000, of which $2,294,000, or 71.8 per cent, still came from Spain, and $892,000, or 27.9 per cent, from the United States. This period covers the latter half of the American occupation when the tariff of June 15, 1900, was in operation. This tariff greatly simplified and partly reduced the rates of the boot and shoe schedule of the customs law of Jan. 1, 1899. It is of interest to compare the preferential rates of the last Spanish-Cuban tariff effective Sept. 19, 1897, with the general and preferential rates established by the reciprocity treaty and modified by the surtax law. 10038-29 — 11 156 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY can competition accounted for 37.4 per cent of Cuba's boot and shoe imports, reducing Spain's dominating share to 62.5 per cent; of the total value of imports for these two prereciprocity years amounting to $3,874.000, the United States supplied $1,447,000 and Spain $2,422,000. The percentage imported from the United States had risen from 21 to 37.4, an improvement of 16.4 points. Reciprocity introduced a new but not a determining factor. On the basis of the respective import values for 1905, the concessions to the American products were equivalent on the average to 7.4 per cent ad valorem.25 Since, for the purposes of valuation by the Cuban customs of any article subject to an ad valorem duty, the value of imported merchandise is the foreign export val ue,26 the ad valorem equivalents of duties paid by imports from the United States and from all other countries-that is, almost exclusively Spain-as shown for 1905 reflect differences in export prices as between the United States and competing sources. In other words, the market price in the United States of both women's and men's shoes, ready for shipment to Cuba, was higher than the comparable price of the competitive Spanish articles by an amount exceeding the Cuban duty reduction, and the concession was not large enough fully to offset the handicap of the higher price. After reciprocity, as seen by the trade figures for 1905-1907, American shoes, not only higher priced but different in style and material from the article formerly used by the Cuban consumer, continued substantially to reduce Spanish control of the Cuban market. Of the total average value of Cuba's shoe imports for 1905-1907, amounting to $3,238,000, $1,892,000, or 58 per cent, came from the United States. For men's shoes the increase over 1903 in the percentage supplied by the United States was 26 points, for children's shoes 24 points, and for women's 12 points, giving the United States percentage share of total imports, respectively, of 54, 65, and 60 per cent compared with 27, 41, and 48 per cent in 1903. The total increased from 37.4 to 58 per cent or 20.6 points. The increase of 16.4 points in two and one-half years.before reciprocity therefore compares not unfavorably with the progress of 20.6 points in the three and one-half years following. Reciprocity did not increase the 25 Men's shoes had been dutiable at 15 cents a pair plus 10 per cent ad valorem. The surtax of February, 1904, added 30 per cent of these rates, so that American shoes, with 30 per cent preference, were thereafter admitted at net rates of 14 cents a pair and 9 per cent ad valorem. Comparable rates on the Spanish product were 20 cents and 13 per cent ad valoreni. " Customs Regulations of Cuba, art. 100: The valuation of imported merchandise subject to ad valorem duties and the duties that are affected in any way by the valuation shall be in accordance with the actual market price or wholesale price of such merchandise, as bought and sold in usual wholesale quantities at the time of exportation to the island of Cuba, in the principal markets of the country from which imported, and in the condition in which such merchandise is there purchased and sold for exportation to the island of Cuba, including the value of all the cartons, boxes, crates, cases, bags, and coverings of any kind, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to packing the merchandise and making it ready for shipment to the island of Cuba. EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 1.57 rapidity with which American shoes displaced others on the Cuban market.27 Nor was Cuba the only expanding market for American shoes (luring this time. Average annual exports to Cuba grew from $519,000 in 1902, 1903, to $1,746,000 in 1905-1907; that is, the ratio of increase was 100 to 336. But in the same period sales of American shoes to Central America increased from $77,000 to $371,000, or in a ratio of 100 to 482. The base on which this increase is reckoned is to be sure very small, but exports to Mexico and to Canada show important increases in values, though less in percentages. Table 46 gives United States statistics of domestic exports and of imports for consumption for the same 35 selected items of Cuban imports wherever comparable compilations could be made. On the basis of these average values for 1905-1907, Cuba appears as the predominant market for but three of the commodities for which domestic export figures are given, the shipments to Cuba representing 55, 43, and 40 per cent of total exports, respectively, of potatoes, rice, and Porto Rican coffee. Cuba was a good customer for several other articles, taking almost 23 per cent of United States exports of cement, 21 per cent of beer in bottles, 19 per cent of all shoes, and 12 per cent of onions. For no other item shown did sales to Cuba amount to as much as 10 per cent of the total of such exports, and the average for all items was only 4.7 per cent since domestic exports of articles here tabulated were $8,518,000 to Cuba and $181,926,000 to all the world. For comparison, Table 46 shows imports for consumption into the United States, together with equivalent ad valorem rates of duties paid by total full-duty imports. The ad valorem reductions on United States imports into Cuba previously shown measure the favor or preference accorded to the same classes of United States products in the Cuban market and are in effect protective tariff rates for the favored American imports against those of other countries. The table suggests once more the need of caution in reaching any conclusion that a given change in trade has been the direct result of a change in tariff rates. A number of items again suggest the applicability to trade improvement of one or other of two points, both inimical to the theory that changes in trade following small or moderate tariff changes may plausibly be assumed to be their result without further inquiry. 7 Cuba as a market for American shoes was relatively much more important in 1905 -1907 than 1902-3, taking 19 per cent compared with 8 per cent of total domestic exports. From 1902-3 to 1905-1907 sales of American shoes to Cuba more than tripled. To all other markets combined they were larger only by about one-fourth. 158 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 46.-Thirty-five selected American exports with significant competitive improvements in Cuba (as indicated in Table 45) shown in relation to the general export and import situation of the United States: Domestic exports and per cent to Cuba, dutiable imports for consumption and equivalent ad valorem rates in 1905 [Average annual values for 1905-1907 in thousands of dollars, that is, 000 omitted] Imports for conDomestic exports sumption, total full duty Commodity I Equivar lent ad Total To Cuba teo cet Value valorem to Cuba duties duties paid Per cent Salts --- —- - ---------- --------------- 986 88 9. 0 2,457 24.95 Cotton velvets and plushes ---(2) -- ----------- - 1, 328 6. 89 Cotton knit goods -----------—. --- —------------ (2) - ---- ---- - 6,933 60.62 Coffee, Porto Rican --- —--------------------------- 3,354 1,342 40. 0 (2) Free. Fine soap -------------------------------- 1,039 37 3. 6 482 34.05 Paper sheets- -------------------- (2) -------- ------- 148 33.91 Cotton ready-made clothing ---- - - 4, 203 287 6.8 3, 576 54. 36 Twilled cotton fabrics ---- ---------- (2) ------ --- (3). Pianos and accessories -------------------- - 1,419 48 3. 4 (2) 45. 00 Cattle, miscellaneous, dutiable --- —---------------- () - -340 27. 78 Miscellaneous paper --- —------------------ - 4,412 180 4.1 1, 496 25. 00 Canned fruits — ----------—. --- —------- 2,157 45 2.1 777 5 42.34 Plain cotton fabrics --- —------- (2) ------ (3) ---------- Rice ------------- -------------------------------- 826 353 42.7 1,278 64. 73 Wrapping paper, bags, etc... --- —-) --- - - ------------ (2) 625. 00 Beer in bottles- ---- --- -------- -.- 1, 040 216 ' 20.8 1,544 42. 62 Iron and steel bars and plates — -------------- 6, 808 185 2. 7 1,008 22.00 Colors --- - ---------------------------------- 3,610 170 4. 7 1, 733 32. 68 Ordinary soap in bars --- —------------- 2, 047 45 2. 2 423 19. 63 Cement ---------------------- --------- 1,277 288 22.6 2,130 23.85 Waterproof fabrics and footwear --- —---------------- 1, 317 6.4 19 47. 38 Women's shoes. --- —--------------------- Children's shoes --- —------ - 9, 289 1, 746 18. 8 157 25.00 Men's shoes ---------------- Iron and steel pipes and couplings ---- 8,418 537 6. 4 137 34.56 Miscellaneous manufactures of iron and steel- -. —, 27,988 1, 834 6. 6 1,612 40.14 Glass bottles and containers — ------------ (2) — ___- _ 2, 624 55. 71 Onions ---------- -------------------------------- 203 24 11. 7 715 7 52. 92 Copper and manufactures --- —--------------- 87, 423 91.1 82 15.75 Preserved meats --- —----------------------- 3, 096 277 8. 9 338 25.00 Candles and other articles of paraffin, stearin, and wax ----- --------------------------- 9,168 138 1. 5 429 20. 58 Cordage and tackle --- —------------ --------- 914 69 7.5 70 16.95 Articles of fire clay ------------------------------ (2) - 85 25. 00 Olive oil, edible-8 -..1, --- —-- -- ------ 8.1 2,638 43.29 Potatoes --- —------- 924 512 55.4 398 9 26. 31 Total value. --- —--—.. --- —-----—. — 181,926 8,518 4.68 34,957 --- 1 In the case of not a few items here shown, accurate comparisons based on the figures of this table and of Table 45 are precluded owing to the lack of direct comparability as to classification in the statistics of imports and of exports of the United States and of Cuban imports. 2 Not separately enumerated. 3 All countable cotton cloths, $10,866,000, paying duties equivalent to 38.55 per cent, ad valorem. 4 Rate provided in tariff act. 5 Preferential imports from Cuba, $17,000, i. e., 2.2 per cent of total dutiable paying reduced duties equivalent to 42.84 per cent ad valorem. d Rate provided in tariff act on wrapping paper n. s. p. f.; on bags, 5 cents per pound and 30 per cent ad valorem. Preferential imports from Cuba, $12,000, i. e., 1.6 per cent of total dutiable, paying reduced duties equivalent to 49.99 per cent ad valorem. Exports of foreign (dutiable) olive oil, of which only $21 worth was sent to Cuba in 1905 and none in 1906 and 1907. There were no recorded exports of domestic olive oil. Preferential imports from Cuba, $7,000, i. e., 1.6 per cent of total dutiable, paying reduced duties equivalent to 32.94 per cent ad valorem. First, even the most definite trade classifications, for instance, rice, cement, or pianos, usually include a wide range of sizes, grades. or varieties. Even where they do not include totally distinct and noncompetitive articles (as are found in such headings as readv EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 159 made clothing, glass bottles, or canned fruits 28), the growth of American trade in Cuba and its relative displacement of competitive articles may be in reality only a growing consumption of some grade or variety of the article in which there had been at no time any competition from other countries. The increased demand for one grade or variety may reflect a higher standard of living following upon increased prosperity. It may be due to changes of style. It may have been induced by advertising. Or, again, a new grade or variety may have points of such superiority that its adoption by consumers is assured as rapidly as they can be induced to give it a trial. Second, there is no great reservoir, so to speak, of any given article produced or producible at a certain cost and salable at a certain price which will be excluded wholly from a given market by a certain tariff and which will flow in immediately and irresistibly with a small change of tariff or the introduction of a small preference or the change of any other small factor which just turns the balance of price in favor of a given article. Trade is a matter of habit, of established connections; it is a matter of slow development rather than of sudden and mechanical shifting in response to price changes.29 Table 46 supplies data in support of the two points just made. If competition were primarily a question of prices and tariff, it would be indeed hard to explain how foreign producers were able to sell to the United States $1,544,000 worth of beer in spite of a duty equivalent to 45 per cent ad valorem while American producers were selling $216,000 worth of the same or of a similar article in Cuba where the tariff advantage was only 8.7 per cent ad valorem and $824,000 worth in other markets where they had no tariff advantage. Even so standardized an article as cement shows the relative importance of other factors-freight, stocks on hand, the ability to deliver, advertising, salesmanship, etc. Otherwise how explain imports into the United States to the value of $2,130,000 over a duty equal to 24 per cent ad valorem when the United States was exporting cement to the value of $288,000 to Cuba where the tariff advantage was 14.5 per cent ad valorem and nearly $1,000,000 worth to other countries in which American producers had no advantage or suffered a handicap. Since European countries could ship to Cuba as easily as to the United States, if they could compete at all on a price basis in United States ports, they should so much the fhore have been able to compete in Cuba because of the freight incurred by the American product and the smaller tariff advantage in favor of the American producers. None the less the figures show that American exports to Cuba were gaining upon imports from Europe. Three commodities shown in Table 46 illustrate a supplementary or seasonal exchange between the United States and Cuba. Onions, 28 On the other hand, there may be closer competition between two distinct fruits than between two different grades of soap. ' The text does not mean to deny that this mechanical view of trade has a limited application to sales (but not to production) of a few great commodities which are caretully graded and standardized. These products are sold upon exchanges by traders who never see the commodities themselves but who deal in quantities and established grades, and narrow margins of prices determine the sales. The same commodities, however, may be produced at a loss for successive years and the international competition is determined by many factors not directly connected with prices or costs of production. If this be true, much more is it true that the sale of an infinite variety of manufactured products depends upon salesmanship and the breaking down of sales resistance rather than upon narrow margins of price. 160 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY potatoes, and canned fruits move both ways and under the treaty are entitled reciprocally to 20 per cent reduction. These formally identical concessions are unequal when reduced to ad valorem equivalents and apply to imports of very different importance on the two sides. American onions, potatoes, and canned fruits entering Cuba in 1905 enjoyed tariff concessions equivalent, respectively, to 13.1, 6.3, and 5 per cent ad valorem; for Cuban products entering the United States the concessions amounted to 10.7, 12.5, and 8.2 per cent ad valorem. The reductions in favor of American exports were indeed smaller than those enjoyed by similar Cuban products entering the United States, but they applied to trade values at least twice, and in the case of potatoes 100 times, as large.30 Table 47 supplements the information concerning the relative importance of Cuba as a market for selected American products in 1905-1907 by indicating the growth of United States exports to other not incomparable markets. The figures based on United States exports are necessarily not precisely comparable and coextensive with those of Table 45, but the 13 items of Table 47 cover approximately 72 per cent of the trade covered by the other.31 It presents average annual values of domestic exports from the United States to Cuba, to five more or less comparable markets (the other West Indies, Central America, South America, Mexico, and Canada), and to all the world.32 a0 Note that no deduction is here made, and on the basis of these data alone none can be made, as to the relative benefits to Cuba and to the United States of these concessions They throw no light on what the trade would have been in the absence of reciprocity. o There are two sets of figures for cotton cloths, colored and uncolored, respectively, and together they are directly comparable with the total of the two cotton cloth items, namely, plain and twilled fabrics appearing in Table 45. Cuban trade statistics classify textiles on the basis of the weave, regardless of the color. 3 The table takes the fiscal year 1902-3 as a prereciprocitv period suitable for comparison with Cuban import statistics for the calendar years 1902, 1903; the index figures indicate the ratio increases of the average annual values for 1905-1907 over the former period. f Total exports Commodity Cuba Value Ratio Value Ratio Miscellaneous manufactures of iron and steel:4 Per cent Per ceni 1902-3 --- -------------- -------- 16,144 100 812 100 1905-1907 --- —--------------------- 27,988 173 1,834 226 Boots and shoes: 1902-3 ------- ------------- --- 6,424 100 519 100 1905-1907 -------- ----------------- 9,289 145 1,746 336 Uncolored cotton cloths:5 1902-3 --------------------------------- 17,706 100 79 100 1905-1907 ---------------------- --- 27,995 158 553 700 Iron and steel pipes and fittings: 1902-3 --- —---- ---------------- 5, 292 100 226 100 1985-1907 --- —----------------------- 8,418 159 537 238 Potatoes: 1902-3 --- —---- ------------- 559 100 277 100 1905-1907 ----------------- --------- 924 165 512 185 Colored cotton cloths: 6 1902-3 --- —------- ------ --- 7,901 100 144 100 1905-1907 --- —--- ---------------- 7,252 92 433 301 Cement: 1902-3 --- —---------------------------- 536 100 75 100 1905-1907 --- —------------------------ 1,277 238 288 384 Cotton wearing apparel: 1902-3 ------ ------------------- - 2,346 100 83 100 1905-1907 --- —------ ------------- 4,203 179 287 346 Preserved meats: 7 1902-3 ------- --------------- 3,574 100 150 100 1905-1907 -------- 3,096 87 277 185 1 Listed in the order of importance as an export to Cuba in 1905-1907. 2 British, Danish, Dutch, and French West Indies; Haiti; and Santo Domingo. 3 Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and Salvador. 4 Includes steel rails and structural iron and steel. Unbleached and bleached, 1907. a Dyed, colored, or printed, 1907. 7 Canned pork, sausages, and miscellaneous canned meat products. Selected countries to which exported Other West Indies2l Central America3 South America Mexico Cana b1e Value Ratio Value Ratio Value I Ratio I Value Ratio Value tI I i i i I I I I I 142 158 455 482 465 324 38 27 22 25 1,084 1,388 10 17 113 136 25 33 Per cent 100 111 100 106 100 70 100 71 100 114 100 128 100 170 100 120 100 132 270 1,479 77 371 324 579 44 483 18 76 436 961 14 107 56 274 13 55 Per cent 100 548 100 482 100 179 100 1,098 100 422 100 220 100 764 100 489 100 423 685 4,184 188 382 1,036 1, 535 177 561 16 12 2,054 1,882 22 76 84 98 37 62 Per cent 100 611 100 203 100 148 100 204 100 75 100 92 100 345 100 117 100 168 3,802 4,231 644 1,405 102 136 937 1,228 80 91 122 132 58 140 134 296 46 109 Per cent 100 111 100 218 100 133 100 131 100 114 100 108 100 241 100 221 100 237 6,062 9,117 578 1,110 300 317 1,108 2, 227 96 125 422 400 350 633 576 887 94 120.a e Ratio M H Per cent 100 t 150 14 100 192 100 l 106 r 0 100 1 201 t 100 130 t 100 c 95 100 181 100 154 100 128 I-A TABLS 47. —Increase in value of 13 selected articles of United States domestic exports to Cuba, to 5 comparable markets, and to all the world, ' showm by the ratio of increase over the average for 1902-3 taken as I00-Continued [Average annual values in thousands of dollars, that is, 000 omitted] Selected countries to which exported Total exports Commodity Cuba Other West Indies Central America South America Mexico Canada Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio Beer in bottles: Per cent Per et Per cent Per cent Per r cent Per cent Per cent 1902-3 --- —----------- 1,141 100 153 100 6 100 50 100 42 100 30 100 64 100 1905-1907 ---- ------------ 1,040 91 216 141 56 93 184 368 47 112 29 97 221 345 Salts: 8 1902-3 — - ------------------- 1,066 100 2 100 2 100 9 100 25 100 94 100 67 100 1905-1907 ------ -- - -------- 986 92 88 4,400 1 50 29 322 73 292 99 105 94 140 Cordage: 1902-3 ---------- --------- ------ 824 100 22 100 73 100 38 100 2 100 70 100 160 100 1905-1907 --- —----------------- 914 111 69 314 66 90 101 266 323 110 94 134 90 56 Onions: 1902-3 --- —------------------------ 117 100 2 100 12 100 7 100 10 100 24 100 12 100 1905-1907 -------- ------------- 203 174 24 1,200 12 100 32 457 4 40 40 167 55 458 0 t-1 0 Hd H H bPO9 41 Hj s Common salt and copper sulfate. EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 163 The five markets selected for comparison were not and are not necessarily closely similar to Cuba with regard to trade possibilities for any and all of the items here shown. The increase of exports to each market depends on many factors-proximity, prosperity of the consumers, rapidity of development of the country, changes in taste and style, checking of the demand for imports by the rise of domestic industry, and so on. One important factor qualifies, in general, the increases to Cuba over and above the increases to the other markets, namely, the depression in Cuba during 1902-3.33 The increases for the trade with Cuba are calculated on what is relatively a lower base. Again, since the trade naturally develops with great irregularitya point sufficiently illustrated by the figures under consideration-and since the items of Table 47 were selected because they represent large increases of American trade in Cuba it would be contrary to probability that they should all show equal increases in other markets. The table confirms for individual articles or groups of articles a point previously shown for United States exports as a whole. It shows that reciprocity did not make Cuba the only expanding market for any of the articles listed but that, so far as this list extends, every article which was then expanding in the Cuban market was also making progress in other regions. Eight of the 13 items show substantial progress 34-increases of 45 to 138 per cent in the short period indicated-in exports to all destinations; but even the 4 which indicate declines of total exports show substantial increases for the markets selected for comparisons with Cuba. The large percentages of increase in exports to Cuba for two minor items, salts and onions, were reckoned on such small bases that they have little significance, especially in comparison with the large percentages of increase to markets which were already substantial in 1902-3. In cordage there was little difference in the expansion of the exports to Cuba and to Central America. Disregarding these three items, only two failed to show greater expansion in some other region than in Cuba. This is the more surprising as the figures for Central and South America represent totals for a number of markets and hence conceal the greater variations in individual countries. In the iron and steel products shown, in cement, preserved meats, bottled beer, potatoes, boots and shoes, and cotton wearing apparel, American exports to Central America increased relatively more rapidly without reciprocity than they did in Cuba with reciprocity. In several of these items there were greater increases, or comparable increases, in various other markets also. The two items of any importance in which the development of exports to Cuba was not matched by increases to Central America or to other markets shown in the table are cotton cloths, colored and uncolored. A general survey of the figures of Table 47 indicates that the first point which calls for explanation is why Cuba in 1902-3 was such a peculiarly poor market for these articles. For instance, for other important articles Cuba was a much more valuable market than the other West Indies collectively. In cotton goods, however, 88 See Ch. VII, p. 100. Cordage, a minor item, shows only a slight increase, a moderate increase in South Amerita being offset by a heavy decline in Canada, where a domestic industry was developj1g. But exports to Central America increased in value more rapidly than to Cuba an~ In percentage with almost equal rapidity. 164 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY Cuba was conspicuously inferior to the other West Indies. This backwardness was in part due to a temporary slump in American exports to Cuba. United States exports to Cuba of cotton cloths, both colored and uncolored, had been twice as great in 1900 as they were in 1902. If the figures for 1900 be used instead of those for 1902-3, the ratio of increase for 1905-1907 is for uncolored 309 instead of 700, and for colored 163 instead of 301. These smaller ratios of increase are, to be sure, larger than the ratios shown in the other markets for the period from 1902-3 to 1905-1907, except that colored goods to Central America show a higher ratio. It may be noted. however, that the ratio for uncolored goods is calculated on a base figure for 1900 smaller than that for any other country except Mexico, and that percentages tend to lose their comparability where there is a great difference in their bases. There is reason therefore for believing that even in the absence of reciprocity United States exports of cotton goods to Cuba would have recovered from the slump of 1902-3. Undoubtedly the preferential tariff was a stimulus to their exportation; but that it constituted an essential competitive advantage without which American exports to Cuba could not have advanced or could have advanced but slowly is denied by their progress in Central America.85 The results of this chapter bring us to a clear but qualified conclusion. The attempt has been made to select from the Cuban imports from the United States those articles which exhibit the greatest apparent effects of the reciprocity treaty. Thirty-five articles have been found upon which the Cuban preference; was substantial and which show apparently significant increases in the trade. But that the tariff preferences were not the primary and direct cause of the increases in the trade is suggested by the fact that the seemingly conclusive instances of the effectiveness of reciprocity may be matched by enumerating either other preferential Cuban imports equally important and with reductions just as large exhibiting substantial declines in the percentage supplied by the United States or articles which benefited by small or moderate reductions or by no preferential treatment at all which register substantial improvement for United States trade. Finally, nearly three-fourths of the trade covered by the 35 selected articles has been analyzed, with the result that more rapid expansion has been found for the important articles, except cotton goods, in certain other markets without reciprocity than in Cuba with reciprocity. The more favorable results are for the most part found in Central America, a market perhaps more closely comparable to the Cuban market than are Canada, Mexico, and South America. It may, of course, be argued that the exports to Cuba should not fairly be compared with exports to the most favorable market existing during the first decade of the century, since Reverting for a moment to the Cuban figures, in 1902-3 the United States supplied 1313,000, or 8 per cent of the average annual total of $3,957,000 for imports of cottonf clothls into Cuba; in 1905-1907 imports from the United States admitted with a concession equivalent to 12.8 per cent ad valorem averaged $987,000 or 17 per cent, of the total 5,878,000. Thus, even though American exports of cotton cloths to Cuba expanded over three times In value between 1902-3 and 1905-1907, in total value their expansion was none the less slower than that of their competitors Before reciprocity mports into Cuba of cotton cloths from Europe had exceeded the value of the Imports from the United States by $3,300,000; in 1905-1907 this figure increased to $3,900,000. Consideration of the figures for the expansion of United States exports tends to give too rosy a view; the competitive situation shown by Cuban imports establishes the relatively weak position of the United States in that market. EFFECTS BY AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS 165 among many markets one can well be found in which trade is expanding with much greater than normal rapidity. On the other hand, for many reasons other than reciprocity the trade of the United States was due to increase more rapidly in Cuba than elsewhere, as has been shown particularly in regard to boots and shoes and cotton goods. In various lines American trade during the Spanish occupation was at a great disadvantage in Cuba and had very little of the market. In the period of substantial progress of American exports to all markets which began with the century, it was but natural that exports to a neighboring market of rapidly expanding purchasing power, from which American goods had previously been largely excluded, should have exceeded exports to other markets. The final conclusion from the comparisons instituted in this chapter must be that the reciprocity treaty was not the major cause of the rapid increase of that fraction of the total American export trade to Cuba which did in fact rapidly expand after reciprocity. The major cause of the increased exports to Cuba was the increasing efficiency of American business and of its competitive power in foreign markets. This conclusion leaves a minor share of the expansion of American exports to Cuba in the years immediately following the reciprocity treaty to be accredited to this treaty. The analysis of previous chapters, however, tends strongly to prove that the effectiveness of reciprocity as a stimulus to American exports became a factor of less and less significance. During and after the war, due on the one hand to the decrease in the ad valorem equivalents of Cuba's concessions to United States trade and on the other hand to the strength of the other influences affecting the trade, Cuba's concessions have come to play so little part that United States exports to Cuba would now in the absence of reciprocity have approximately the same range and value that they actually exhibit. CHAPTER XI INVESTMENTS IN CUBA An inquiry to determine what effect, if any, the reciprocity treaty between the United States and Cuba had upon American investments in Cuba gives disappointing results because of the inadequacy of the data available. A number of general estimates of the amount of foreign capital in Cuba, particularly American capital, have been made at various dates but the lack of details makes it impossible to determine their accuracy. Available data, however, perhaps justify certain general conclusions of a negative nature. Cuba as a Spanish colony did not develop its resources to the extent warranted by the inherent wealth and potentialities of the island. Inadequate provision was made for roads and railroads, harbors, docks, warehouses, credit facilities and other improvements necessary to insure steady progress and prosperity to the colony. Unsatisfactory political conditions with recurrent insurrections made the continued peace of the island at all times doubtful and made foreign capital cautious about otherwise promising investments in Cuba. Burdensome taxation, high interest rates, and the lack of capital militated against the prosperity which should have resulte( from increasing sugar and tobacco production. The properties of the island, even in relatively prosperous years, were overburdened with mortgages, largely held by Spanish and English merchants, at interest rates of 12 to 20 per cent.l The. lack of improved transportation routes was particularly serious and prevented the development of large tracts of virgin and fertile land for sugar and tobacco cultivation. Under proper conditions the economic possibilities of the land would have proved a magnet for foreign capital but even under the prevailing conditions there were substantial foreign holdings. By 1895 it is estimated that $50,000,000 of American capital was invested in the island; 2 about $30,000,000 in sugar property; $13,000,000 in iron and manganese mines; 3 and the remainder in fruit, tobacco, and other enterprises. British investments were probably as large as those of Americans but were primarily in railroads, which, prior to 1900, were almost entirely controlled by the British.4 There were also some British investments in sugar and tobacco. Smaller amounts of French, German, and other foreign capital had also been invested in various projects of the island. The revolution which began in 1895 and ended in 1898 caused tremendous losses in Cuba; estimates vary widely, but it seems possible that two-thirds of Cuba's wealth disappeared.5 While many of the urban districts suffered considerably by reason of the cessation of business, the physical losses were preponderantly agricultural. Sugar 1 Hearings on Reciprocity with Cuba, H. Doc. No. 535, 57th Cong., st sess., p. 380; Report of the Military Governor of Cuba on Civil Affairs, for the year ending June 30, 1900, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 76. 2Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of United States, August, 1903, p. 381; North American Review, August, 1902, p. 197. U. S. Department of State, Consular Reports, February, 1894, p. 346. 4Monthly Summary, August, 1900; July 1901, p 217; Reciprocity Hearings, p. 382. Monthly Summary, July, 1 899, p. 20. 166 INVESTMENTS IN CUBA 167 and tobacco plantations were ruined, sugar mills and railroads were destroyed, cattle disappeared, and the mines stopped operating. At the end of the war Cuba was an economic ruin. And while much physical property had been destroyed, the mortgages with which this property was heavily encumbered still remained. In January, 1900, the valuation of rural property was about $185,000,000, which was mortgaged to the extent of $127,000,000. Urban property valued at $140,000,000 was encumbered to the extent of $117,000,000.6 To prevent the rich lands from passing out of Cuban hands entirely, a law suspending mortgage payments was passed in 1897, and later this law was extended well beyond 1900. Almost no free capital remained in the island; it is estimated that as much as $30,000,000 of Cuban money was invested in American securities at this time.7 The dearth of ready money was further accentuated by the emigration of Spaniards who took with them large amounts of capital.8 A review of the period of American occupation indicates that the primary accomplishments were in government, sanitation, education, and other fields not primarily economic. The economic aspects of Cuba's problems were not ignored, but the financing of business and industry was left to private interests which began even at this early date to make substantial investments in railroads,9 banks, and sugar mills and plantations. Cuba's independence from Spain and the presence of the American Army inaugurated a period of peace and security, and American administrators were assisting in bringing order out of chaos. The future promised well for investments: Cuba's independence, the maintenance of her Government, and internal stability were permanently assured from June 12, 1901, when the Constitutional Convention accepted the terms of the Platt Amendment as a part of the Cuban Constitution.10 This assurance of stability was a prerequisite for attraction of foreign capital. Banking facilities which had heretofore been lacking and which were essential to the stability and development of Cuba rapidly increased. Among the banks established during the period of occupation were the North American 6 Hearings, pp. 144, 380; Report of Military Governor on Civil Affairs, p. 177. (See the tabulations in the Report on the Census of Cuba, 1899, p. 41.) 7 North American Review, August, 1902, p. 197; International Indebtedness, Yale Review, November, 1900. In 1900 Major Ladd, Treasurer of Cuba, reported that there was no apparent scarcity of money for circulation, but that it was true that there was a scarcity of money for loans, as shown by the fact that loans on prime bonds and stocks could readily be made at 8 per cent. He stated that while the amount of money in Cuba seemed ample for all commercial purposes, a large percentage of this money was lying idle in private safes, not on deposit with banks, because the experience of the past had taught people largely to distrust banking institutions. (Report for 1900, p. 37.) Other American officials explained that the hesitation of capital in supplying agricultural loans and in embarking upon new enterprises was due in part, at least, to the uncertainty regarding Cuba's political future, (see Civil Report of Maj. Gen. John R. Brooke, 1899, pp. 13-14; the same report contains pertinent statements by Gen. William Ludlow, commanding the Department of Habana, pp. 362-363, and by Gen. James H. Wilson, p. 336), owing to which, furthermore, rates of interest were high (in certain of the rural districts, as high as 24 per cent) and loans difficult to obtain, and when obtained were usually subject to harsh conditions. (General Wood, Report for 1900, p. 76.) The Secretary of War, Mr. Elihu Root, in his Report for 1900 (p. 37) emphasized the same point: " Only doubt as to the stability of the future government and uncertainty as to the continuance of a market for her products retards the influx of capital and the development of Cuba's extraordinary resources.' 8 Monthly Summary, August, 1900, p. 194. 8 General Ludlow reported that " undoubtedly large Investments have been made and transfers of important interests been effected. English and American capital has purchased corporate rights and holdings, the Habana City Railway and other concessionary rights, the Cienfuegos Railway and Caibarien and the Sagua railways. Other acquisitions are under negotiation-sugar and tobacco plantations, mines, forests, and town sites." (Civil Report, etc., p. 362.) Investments involving grants of property, franchises, or concessions, however, were prohibited during the American occupation. Army appropriation bill for 1900, sec. 2. 10 See Ch. II, p. 33. 168 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY Trust Co., National Bank of Cuba, and the Bank of Habana, all of which were supported by American capital or were under American control. British, German, and other interests also established a number of banking companies in Cuba at this time. Notwithstanding the utter destitution of Cuba at the cessation of hostilities and the beginning of American occupation future prospects for the island were promising. The destruction of many of the sugar plantations and mills had its brighter side, for it cleared the way for modern improvements which were badly needed. It was clearly recognized that the future prosperity of Cuba was based on expansion of sugar lands and that great economies would result from large-scale production. To a considerable extent the small plantation mills (ingenios) had been replaced by larger and consolidated mills (centrales) even before the revolution. Now in reconstruction the smaller mills disappeared and the reconstructed mills were generally much larger. The influx of capital into the large projects of the island, especially sugar and tobacco, was not nearly as rapid as seems to have been expected. Some old sugar plantations were bought by foreigners, particularly Americans, and some new tracts were developed, but internal conditions were not as yet so attractive as to encourage very rapid advance. Many contradictory statements were made at the time of the amounts of American money entering the island during the period of American occupation, but the best evidence indicates that new American investments probably did not exceed $30,000,000,11 of which the railroad development represents about $10,000,000.12 The bright hopes for the future are nowhere better illustrated than by the beginning in 1898 of a new railroad which, by connecting with existing lines, provided for the first time through transportation from one end of the island to the other and opened up a large tract of virgin land suitable for agricultural purposes. The first elected Cuban administration took office on May 20, 1902. at the termination of American occupation. Though establishing an independent Cuba, the United States was disposed to maintain close political ties and to promote the prosperity and peace of the island. There were, indeed, definite prospects for reciprocal trade concessions. But one factor from the first hindered economic prosperity, namely the lack of capital. A student of Cuban affairs at that time expressed the general feeling, saying thatCuba's h'ghest and most rapid development hangs chiefly upon the utilization of her resources by American capital and upon an open doorway to the markets of her northern neighbor. * * * Spanish capital is not inclined to industrial exploitation. More or less of it is available for loans and for investment in fairly stable enterprises after they are established, but it is rarely available for the 'initiation of such enterprises. The Cubans have no ready money for either investment or development. Few of them now have enough for even the proper upkeep of their mills and plantations. Some European capital is already in Cuba, notably the English investment in Cuban railways and cigar factories. But it is to American capital that Cuba will look for its widest development."a I Monthly Summary, August, 1903, p. 381; May 1905, p. 3915; Reciprocity Hearinas, p. 449; North American Review, Auust, 1902, p. i97.Hearin Monthly Summary, May, 1905, p. 3930. Albert G. Robinson, Industrtal and Commercial Conditions in Cuba, North American Review, August, 1902, p. 192. INVESTMENTS IN CUBA 169 Between 1902 and 1906 American investments in Cuba increased from eighty to nearly one hundred and twenty million dollars. According to the estimates made at that time the greatest increase took place in investments other than sugar. A conservative statement places the investment in sugar and tobacco at $54,000,000; in railways and street railways at $27,000,000; in other agricultural and city properties (including fruit lands) at $14,500,000; in mining properties at $3,000,000; in commercial and banking investments (including mortgages) at $10,000,000; and in steamship interests at $1,000,000.14 While the primary interest of American investors in Cuba was the development of sugar plantations and mills, progress was relatively slow. The greatest expansion was taking place in the eastern half of the island, which had been in 1900 almost virgin soil.15 Here it was necessary not only to clear the lands and install plantation equipment but also to build roads and railroads. Americans did not merely buy out prior owners transferring properties from one nationality to another; they did pioneer work in developing resources not touched under the Spanish regime. The character of this work in part accounts for the relative slowness of expansion of American sugar interests in Cuba before 1910. That American interests were not the only ones to benefit by the favorable opportunities offered for investments in Cuba is indicated by the following extract from a report of the American Minister at Habana: Recent activity on the part of Englishmen interested in Cuba bespeaks an ambition to extend their operations heretofore confined chiefly to transportation development to other fields * * *. The total British investment, estimating railroads at $90,000,000, shipping at $5,000,000, and real estate and industries at $5,000,000, may be approximated at $100,000,000, as against nearly $120,000,000, of American money in the island. * * * British banking interests are represented by branches of the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Nova Scotia; their charges vary from 6 to 8 per cent on ordinary and from 10 to 12 per cent on cattle and sugar loans. In the past two or three years several Canadian colonization companies have been organized and have purchased large tracts of land which have been sold in small lots to settlers. It is estimated that the total British investment in lands amounts to nearly $2,000,000.16 A review of this period, 1902-1906, indicates steadily expanding American investments in Cuba but shows that other foreign countries were also taking advantage of the opportunities for profitable investment. It was particularly in sugar investments that Americans were taking the lead. In 1906 thirty American sugar plantations in Cuba produced 28 per cent of the crop (2,227,000 bags) and the six British plantations 3 per cent of the total.1 During the period from 1906 to 1912 great strides were made in the economic development of Cuba, particularly by the opening up of new lands, building of sugar " centrales," establishment of banks and shipping lines, construction of harbors, docks, warehouses, rail1 U. S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Monthly Consular Trade Reports. May, 1906, p. 171; Department of Commerce, Special Agents Series No. 5, Report of Trade Conditions in Cuba. In 1906 Mr. Atherton Brownell estimated that private investments of American capital in Cuba aggregated $159,000.000, including $30,000,000 for American holdings of cattle. (Appleton's Magazine, October, 1906, The Commercial Annexation of Cuba.) 15 North American Review, August, 1902, p. 199. t; U. S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Monthly Consular and Trade Reports, August, 1906, pp. 17-23; January, 1908, pp. 5, 6. 17 Monthly Consular and Trade Reports, August, 1906. 170 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY ways, street railways, and other public utility enterprises. In all of these activities American capital took a prominent part both through direct participation and through loans to Cuban interests. Foreign money, other than American, was, however, also abundant and available data do not prove that the close commercial relations between the United States and Cuba exerted a greater stimulas upon the investment of American money than of other foreign capital. In 1912, according to the best estimates, about $220,000,00018 of American money was invested in Cuba, of which $30,000,000 represented holdings in the United States of Cuban Government obligations. Of the remainder, about $75,000,000 was invested in sugar and tobacco and other agricultural lands; 19 $45,000,000 in railways, street railways, and public utilities; $25,000,000 in mercantile and manufacturing enterprises; $25,000,000 in banks and mortgages; $15,000,000 in mines; and $5,000,000 in shipping.20 At about the same time British investments were estimated at over $161,000,000.21 It is evident, therefore, that close relations between the United States and Cuba had not affected adversely the attractive opportunities in Cuba for other foreign capital. It was about this time that Americans began to expand so greatly their holdings in Cuban sugar. Prior to 1902 the holdings of Americans probably totaled 20 per cent of the entire crop and a substantial part of this dated before the revolution. The proportion of American holdings increased to about 30 per cent in 1906 22 and 35 per cent in 1910.23 Until 1910 it is also probable that no great quantity of American money was invested to increase the holdings during that period. Total sugar production was expanding considerably and there was a small increase in the percentage of the crop controlled by Americans, but very likely the expansion which took place was largely due to increased efficiency, further development of lands already held, and substantial reinvestments of profits. A review of the growth of American investments in Cuba between 1895 and 1912 does not show that the expansion which occurred can be attributed directly to reciprocity, nor are the preceding figures certain enough to attribute any great significance to the relatively larger proportion of increase which occurred between 1902 and 1906; that is, immediately prior to and immediately after reciprocity. While a number of writers and reporters on Cuban affairs optimistically predicted a rapid advance in American investments in Cuba following the end of the war in 1898, they put more stress on the stability of government and close political relations than on the benefits of reciprocity.24 Reports of consular officers and others from 18 North American Review, May, 1912, p. 689. For 1911 Consul General J. L. Rodgers listed a total of $205,000,000 of American investments in Cuba, inclusive of the Cuban public debt but exclusive of the property of United States citizens resident in Cuba. (Cuba Review, July, 1911.) if U.. D.epartment of Commerce and Labor, Daily Consular and Trade Reports, July 7, 1911. p. 95; June 10, 1912, p. 1033. 20 Compare with D)unn, American Foreign 1Investments, p. 120, which estimates American investments in 1909 at $141,000,000. 21 Department of Commerce, Daily Consular and Trade Reports, Mar. 17, 1914, p. 1018. 28 M'onthly Consular and Trade Reports, July. 1908, p. 78. 2a Daily Consular and Trade Reports, June 10, 1912, p. 1033. 24 General Wood. however, stressed reciprocity; his final report as military governor, dated July 5, 1902, states: * * * with reciprocity, capital will flow into Cuba to develop her immense latent possibilities, and we, [the United States] as the nearest power, will derive the greatest benefit, and Cuba, on her part, will be in a position to INVESTMENTS IN CUBA 171 Cuba during the first years following reciprocity fail to indicate that the reciprocity treaty was itself the cause of increased investments of American capital. Another factor of importance which should not be overlooked in the consideration of growth in either investments or trade is that the reciprocity treaty practically coincided with an improvement in the sugar market, in itself due to the Brussels Sugar Convention. The years 1901 and 1902 were unprofitable years for the Cuban sugar industry and tended substantially to retard the expected rehabilitation and development of Cuba. The low price of sugar did not apparently upset the land market enough to make purchases of going plantations attractive to outside investors. An estimate 25 of American investments in Cuba in 1927 places their amount at about one and one-half billion dollars, which is even somewhat greater than a recent estimate of American investments in Mexico. According to estimate, these investments in Cuba are distributed approximately as follows: Sugar companies, $800,000,000; railroads, $120,000,000; public utilities, $110,000,000; Government loans, $109,000,000; manufacturing, $50,000,000; tobacco, $50,000,000; other lands and properties, $150,000,000; merchandising, $40,000,000; mining, $35,000,000; banking, $25,000,000; miscellaneous, $15,000,000. Undoubtedly reciprocity exercised some influence by providing a ready market for the rapidly expanding sugar production of Cuba and in stimulating interest of Americans in investment possibilities. But there is no evidence to show that American capital would not have been invested in Cuba if the reciprocity treaty had not been signed, nor is there any evidence that the existence of reciprocity itself encouraged American investors and discouraged Europeans. On the whole the most that can be said is that its indirect influence, by bringing prosperity to Cuba, encouraged foreign capital and that the peculiar and close relations between Cuba and the United States served to some extent to give advantages to the United States or to draw particular attention of American investors to the Cuban market. carry out efficiently those obligations which we have imposed on her. * * * Cuba has immense possibilities in her sugar, tobacco, coffee, fruits, vegetables, and mines. There is no country which offers better resources for investors, always provided that we do not close to her the only markets available-our own. * * * The island is so rich that her planters can secure capital on easy terms whenever there is reasonable surety of a good market for sugar. * * * What Cuba needs is a liberal degree of reciprocity with the United States, thereby securing a market where her products can be sold at a reasonable profit. This condition once established, the great industries will prosper and the subordinate ones which depend largely upon them will share in the general benefits received." (Report for 1902, pp. 12 and 13.) 25 Finance and Investment Division, Bureau of Domestic and Foreign Commerce, U. S. Department of Commerce. In 1924 the Department of Commerce published figures (quoted in Bulletin of the Pan American Union, July, 1924, p. 729) showing American investments in Cuba, by groups, which totaled $1,250,000,000, not including $110,000,000 of Cuban Government bonds. The total and individual estimates of the Department of Commerce are accepted and commented upon in detail by Mr. Robert W. Dunn (American Foreign Investments, p. 119 ff.). IIe shows, for example, as of Oct. 1, 1925. but $87,500,000 of Cuban Government loans outstanding in the United States (ibid., p. 176), and that the figure of $750,000,000 for all American interests in sugar properties includes $125,000,000, representing the investment of Cuban companies " financed and controlled by Americans," with $625,000,000 representing "American sugar companies in Cuba." The Tariff Commission's Report on Sugar to the President of July 31, 1924. p. 98, compares " the $417,568,000 of American capital invested in Cuban sugar mills " with the $483,914,000 of " capital invested by the domestic [beet sugar, and Louisiana, Hawaii, and Porto Rican cane sugar] sugar manufacturers, as estimated from the commission's figures for mills reporting for 1922 and 1923." Mr. Leland H. Jenks, a recent investigator, has been "I wholly unable to accept" the $750,000,000 figure; the results of his investigations indicate $600,000,000 in sugar properties and an aggregate of $1,140 -$1,150,000.000 for total American investments in Cuba. (Our Cuban Colony, published early in 1928, pp. 299-300 and 339-340.) The Bulletin of the American Chamber of Commerce In Cuba Habana, in August, 1927, published a table on American investments ll Cuba made up of the same items as given in the text, except $110,000,000 for government bonds. 10038-2 —9 12 APPENDIX I TEXT OF THE RECIPROCITY CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CUBA Signed at Havana December 11, 1902. Ratification with amendments advised by the Senate March [9, 1903. Ratified by the President March 30, 1903. Ratified by Cuba March 30, 1903. Ratifications exchanged at Washington March 31, 1903. Proclaimed December 17, 1903. Effective December 27, 1903. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION WHEREAS a Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba to facilitate their commercial intercourse by improving the conditions of trade between the two countries, was concluded and signed by their respective plenipotentiaries at the city of Havana on the eleventh day of Deceimber, 1902, the original of which Convention, being in the English and Spanish languages, is, as amended by the Senate of the United States, word for word as follows: The President of the United States of America and the President of the Republic of Cuba, animated by the desire to strengthen the bonds of friendship between the two countries, and to facilitate their commercial intercourse by improving the conditions of trade between them, have resolved to enter into a convention for that purpose, and have appointed their respective Plenipotentiaries, to wit: The President of the United States of America, the Honorable General Tasker H. Bliss; The President of the Republic of Cuba, the Honorable Carlos de Zalo y Beurmainn, Secretary of State and Justice, and the Honorable Jose M. Garcia y Montes, Secretary of the Treasury; who, after an exchange of their full powers found to be in good and due form, have, in consideration of and in compensation for the respective concessions and engagements made by each to the other as hereinafter recited, agreed and do hereby agree upon the fallowing Articles for the regulation and government of their reciprocal trade, namely: ARTICLE I During the term of this convention, all articles of merchandise being the product of the soil or industry of the United States which are now imported into the Republic of Cuba free of duty, and all articles of merchandise being the product of the soil or industry of the Republic of Cuba which are now imported into the United States free of duty, shall continue to be so admitted by the respective countries free of duty. ARTICLE II During the term of this convention, all articles of merchandise not included in the foregoing Article I and being the product of the soil or industry of the Republic of Cuba imported into the United States shall be admitted at a reduction of twenty per centum of the rates of duty thereon as provided by the Tariff U. S. Statutes at Large, 58th Congress, 1903-1905, vol. 33, pt. 2, pp. 2136-2144. 172 RECIPROCITY CONVENTION 173 Act of the United States approved July 24, 1897, or as may be provided by any tariff law of the United States subsequently enacted. ARTICLE III During the term of this convention, all articles of merchandise not included in hle foregoing Article I and not hereinafter enumerated, being the product of the soil or industry of the United States, imported into the Republic of Cuba shall be admitted at a reduction of twenty per centum of the rates of duty thereon as now provided or as may hereafter be provided in the Customs Tariff of said Republic of Cuba. ARTICLE IV During the term of this convention, the following articles of merchandise as enumerated and described in the existing Customs Tariff of the Republic of Cuba, being the product of the soil or industry of the United States imported into Cuba shall be admitted at the following respective reductions of the rates of duty thereon as now provided or as may hereafter be provided in the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Cuba: Schedule A To be admitted at a reduction of TWENTY-FIVE (25) per centum: Machinery and apparatus of copper or its alloys or machines and apparatus in which copper or its alloys enter as the component of chief value; cast iron, wrought iron and steel, and manufactures thereof; articles of crystal and glass, except window glass; ships and waterborne vessels of all kinds, of iron or steel; whiskies and brandies; fish, salted, pickled, smoked or marinated; fish or shellfish, preserved in oil or otherwise in tins; articles of pottery or earthenware now classified under Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Cuba. Schedule B To be admitted at a reduction of THIRTY (30) per centum: Butter; flour of wheat; corn; flour of corn or corn meal; chemical and pharmaceutical products and simple drugs; malt liquors in bottles; non-alcoholic beverages; cider; mineral waters; colors and dyes; window glass; complete or partly made up articles of hemp, flax, pita, jute, henequen, ramie, and other vegetable fibers now classified under the paragraphs of Group 2, Class V, of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Cuba; musical instruments; writing and printing paper, except for newspapers; cotton and manufactures thereof, except knitted goods (see Schedule C); all articles of cutlery; boots, shoes and slippers, now classified under Paragraphs 197 and 198 of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Cuba; gold and silver plated ware; drawings, photographs, engravings, lithographs, chromolithographs, oleographs, etc., printed from stone, zinc, aluminum, or other material, used as labels, flaps, bands and wrappers for tobacco or other purposes, and all the other papers (except paper for cigarettes, and excepting maps and charts), pasteboard and manufactures thereof, now classified under Paragraphs 157 to 164, inclusive, of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Cuba; common or ordinary soaps, now classified under Paragraph 105, letters "A" and "B," of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Cuba; vegetables, pickled or preserved in any manner; all wines, except those now classified under Paragraph 279(a) of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Cuba. Schedule C To be admitted at a reduction of FORTY (40) per centum: Manufactures of cotton, knitted, and all manufactures of cotton not included in the preceding schedules; cheese; fruits, preserved; paper pulp; perfumery 'and essences; articles of pottery and earthenware now classified under Paragraph 20 of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Cuba: porcelain; soaps. other than common, now classified under Paragraph 105 of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Cuba; umbrellas and parasols; dextrine and glucose; watches; Wool and manufactures thereof; silk and manufactures 'hereof; rice; cattle. 174 CTUBAN RECIPiROCITY TREATY ARTICLE V It is understood and agreed that the laws and regulations adopted, or that may be adopted, by the United States and by the Republic of Cuba, to protect their revenues and prevent fraud in the declarations and proofs that the articles of merchandise to which this convention may apply are the produce or manufacture of the United States and the Republic of Cuba. respectively, shall not impose any additional charge or fees therefor on the articles imported, excepting the consular fees established, or which may be established, by either of the two countries for issuing shipping documents, which fees shall not be higher than those charged on the shipments of similar merchandise fiom any other nation whatsoever. ARTICLE VI It is agreed that the tobacco, in any form, of the United States or of any of its insular possessions, shall not enjoy the benefit of any concession or rebate of duty when imported into the Republic of Cuba. ARTICLE VII It is agreed that similar articles of both countries shall receive equal treatment on their importation into the ports of the United States and of the Republic of Cuba, respectively. AaTICLE VIII The rates of duty herein granted by the United States to the Republic of Cuba are and shall continue during the term of this convention preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries, and in return for said preferential rates of duty granted to the Republic of Cuba by the United States, it is agreed that the concession herein granted on the part of the said Republic of Cuba to the products of the United States shall likewise be, and shall continue, during the term of this convention, preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries. [Provided, That while this convention is in force, no sugar imported from the Republic of Cuba, and being the product of the soil or industry of the Republic of Cuba, shall be admitted into the United States at a reduction of duty greater than twenty per centum of the rates of duty thereon as provided by the tariff act of the United States approved July 24, 1897, and no sugar, the product of any other foreign country, shall be admitted by treaty or convention into the United States, while this convention is in force, at a lower rate of duty that that provided by the tariff act of the United States approved July 24, 1897.] 2 ARTICLE IX In order to maintain the mutual advantages granted in the present convention by the United States to the Republic of Cuba and by the Republic of Cuba to the United States, it is understood and agreed that any tax or charge that may be imposed by the national or local authorities of either of the two countries upon the articles of merchandise embraced in the provisions of this convention, subsequent to importation and prior to their entering into consumption in the respective countries, shall be imposed and collected without discrimination upon like articles whencesoever imported. ARTICLE X It is hereby understood and agreed that in case of changes in the tariff of either country which deprive the other of the advantage which is represented by the percentages herein agreed upon, on the actual rates of the tariffs now in force, the country so deprived of this protection reserves the right to terminate its obligations under this convention after six months' notice to the other of its intention to arrest the operations thereof. And it is further understood and agreed that if, at any time during the term of this convention, after the expiration of the first year, the protection The Congress of the United States by Sec. IV, Par. B, of the tariff act of Oct. 3, 1913, abrogated and repealed the proviso here set forth within brackets. RECIPROCITY CONVENTION 175 herein granted to the products and manufactures of the United States on the basis of the actual rates of the tariff of the Republic of Cuba now in force, should appear to the Government of the said Republic to be excessive in view of a new tariff law that may be adopted by it after this convention becomes operative, then the said Republic of Cuba may reopen negotiations with a view to securing such modifications as may appear proper to both contracting parties. ARTICLE XI The present convention shall be ratified by the appropriate authorities of the respective countries, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America, as soon as may be before the thirty-first day of January, 1903, and the convention shall go into effect on the tenth day after the exchange of ratifications, and shall continue in force for the term of five (5) years from date of going into effect, and from year to year thereafter until the expiration of one year from the day when either of the contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its intention to terminate the same. This convention shall not take effect until the same shall have been approved by the Congress. In witness whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed the same in duplicate, in English and Spanish, and have affixed our respective seals, at Havana, Cuba, this eleventh day of December, in the year one thousand nine hundred and two. TASKER M. BLISS. [SEAL.] CARLOS DE ZALDO. [SF.AL.] JosE M. GARCIA MONTES. [SEAL.] AND WHEREAS by the terms of the said Convention it is provided that the ratifications thereof should be exchanged at the City of Washington as soon as may be before the thirty-first day of January, 1903, which period was by a Supplementary Convention signed by the respective plenipotentiaries of the two countries on January 26, 1903, extended to the thirty-first day of March, 1903; AND WHEREAS the said Convention of December 11, 1902, as amended by the Senate of the United States. and the said Supplementary Convention of January 26, 1903, have been duly ratified on both parts and the ratifications of the two Governments were exchanged in the City of Washington on the thirty-first day of March, 1903; AND WHEREAS by its resolution of March 19. 1903, the Senate of the United States added at the end of Article XI of the said Convention of December 11, 1902, the following amendment: " This Convention shall not take effect until the same shall have been approved by the Congress;" AND WHEREAS the Congress gave its approval to the said Convention by an Act approved December 17, 1903, entitled "An Act To carry into effect a convention between the United States and the Republic of Cuba, signed on the eleventh day of December, in the year nineteen hundred and two," which Act is word for word as follows: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the President of the United States shall receive satisfactory evidence that the Republic of Cuba has made provision to give full effect to the Articles of the convention between the United States and the Republic of Cuba, signed on the eleventh day of December, in the year nineteen hundred and two, he is hereby authorized to issue his proclamation declaring that he has received such evidence, and thereupon on the tenth day after exchange of ratifications of such convention between the United States and the Republic of Cuba, and so long as the said convention shall remain in force, all articles of merchandise being the product of the soil or industry of the Republic of Cuba, which are now imported into the United States free of duty, shall continue to be so admitted free of duty, and all other articles of merchandise being the product of the soil or industry of the Republic of Cuba imported into the United States shall be admitted at a reduction of twenty per centum of the rates of duty thereon, as provided by the tariff Act of the United States, approved July twenty-fourth, eighteen hundred and ninetyseven, or as may be provided by any tariff law of the United States subsequently 176 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY enacted. The rates of duty herein granted by the United States to the Republic of Cuba are and shall continue during the term of said convention preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries: Provided, That while said convention is in force no sugar imported from the Republic of Cuba, and being the product of the soil or industry of the Republic of Cuba, shall be admitted into the United States at a reduction of duty greater than twenty percentum of the rates of duty thereon, as provided by the tariff Act of the United States, approved July twenty-fourth, eighteen hundred and ninety-seven, and no sugar the product of any other foreign country shall be admitted by treaty or convention into the United States while this convention is in force at a lower rate of duty than that provided by the tariff Act of the United States approved July twenty-fourth, eighteen hundred and ninety-seven: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be held or construed as an admission on the part of the House of Representatives that customs duties can be changed otherwise than by an Act of Congress, originating in said House. "SEc. 2. That so long as said convention shall remain in force, the laws and regulations adopted, or that may be adopted by the United States to protect the revenues and prevent fraud in the declarations and proofs, that the articles of merchandise to which said convention may apply are the product or manufacture of the Republic of Cuba, shall not impose any additional charge or fees therefor on the articles imported, excepting the consular fees established, or which may be established, by the United States for issuing shipping documents, which fees shall not be higher than those charged on the shipments of similar merchandise from any other nation whatsoever; that articles of the Republic of Cuba shall receive, on their importation into the ports of the United States, treatment equal to that which similar articles of the United States shall receive on their importation into the ports of the Republic of Cuba; that any tax or charge that may be imposed by the national or local authorities of the United States upon the articles of merchandise of the Republic of Cuba, embraced in the provisions of said convention, subsequent to importation and prior to their entering into consumption into the United States, shall be imposed and collected without discrimination upon like articles whencesoever imported." AND WHEREAS satisfactory evidence has been received by the President of the United States that the Republic of Cuba has made provision t.o give full effect to the articles of the said convention: NOW, THEREFORE, be it known that I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in conformity with the said Act of Congress. do hereby declare and proclaim the said Convention, as amended by the Senate of the United States, to be in effect on the tenth day from the date of this my proclamation. WHEREFORE I have caused the said Convention, as amended by the Senate of the United States, to be made public to the end that the same and every clause thereof, as amended, may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed. DONE at the City of Washington, this 17th day of December, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and three and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and twenty-eighth. [SEAL.] THEODORE ROOSEVELT. By the President: JoHN HAY, Secretary of State. CUBAN REGULATIONS OF DECEMBER 19, 1903 CIRCULAR OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OF CUBA, PUTTING INTO EFFECT THE PROVISIONS OF THE RECIPROCITY TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES ' Treaty will take effect beginning with the 27th instant (December, 1903). Invoices of goods imported must have added to the declaration now made by manufacturer or producer in the United States, in which he states that the prices and other particulars of the invoice are exact, "that the articles contained in said invoice are products of the soil or industry of the United States." ' As reported to the Department of State by telegram, dated Dec. 23, 1903. Monthly summary, Nov. 1903, p. 1756. RECIPROCITY CONVENTION 177 The treaty must be enforced to the letter, and cases of doubt arising must be immediately reported to this department, which will give preferential attention thereto. For general information, to the end that doubt may be avoided as far as possible, some of the clauses of the treaty having already been subject of inquiry, the following remarks are made: It will be observed that all of Group 5 of Schedule 1, assessing crystal and glassware, enjoys in virtue of article 4, in Schedule A, advantage of 25 per cent. Paragraph 12, B of said group classifies window glass or other articles. This window glass is excepted from said 25 per cent advantage, and enjoys instead 30 per cent, being included in Schedule B of said article. In this paragraph it should be understood that only window glass enjoys 30 per cent advantage; other glass than window glass, classified together with window glass, enjoy only the general 25 per cent of Group 5 of Schedule 1, and importers should be made to take oath that it is for windows. Under Schedule C of said article 4 porcelains enjoy 40 per cent advantage. Articles of this material are specially classified in paragraph 23 of the tariff, but porcelain articles classified in paragraph 24 also enjoy the 40 per cent advantage.. All other articles comprised in paragraph 24 enjoy the 20 per cent advantage of article 3 of treaty. Groups 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 classifying cast iron, wrought iron, and steel enjoy 25 per cent fixed by Schedule A of article 4, excepting cutlery, which enjoys the 30 per cent advantage granted in Schedule B of the same article. All the articles included in Schedule 4 of the tariff, cotton and manufactures thereof, which are specially mentioned, enjoy the 30 per cent advantage granted by Schedule B of article 4 of the treaty, with the single exception of knitted goods classified in paragraph 122 in letters A, B, C, D, which enjoy the 40 per cent advantage granted by Schedule C of the said article. Manufactures of wool classified in paragraphs 144, 145, 146, and 147 enjoy the 40 per cent advantage established in Schedule C of the treaty. Other articles classified in these paragraphs not of wool shall enjoy only the 20 per cent of article 3 of the treaty. Printing paper, other than for newspapers, enjoys the 30 per cent granted by Schedule B of article 4. Paper classified in paragraph 122 enjoys only the 20 per cent granted by article 3 of the treaty. Paragraph 154 enjoys the advantage of 30 per cent granted by Schedule B, blank books and paper envelopes classified by the same paragraph being included in this advantage. Cattle is the only live stock that shall enjoy the 40 per cent granted by Schedule C of article 4 of the treaty; all other kinds shall enjoy the 20 per cent of Article 3. Machinery of paragraph 22 enjoys the 25 per cent advantage granted by Schedule A of Article 4, and other machinery classified by the tariff paragraphs of Schedule 11, when copper or alloys thereof predominate in said other machinery as the component parts of greatest value, also enjoys the 25 per cent advantage, but when in the machinery classified by other paragraphs of the group in question copper does not predominate as component part of greatest value they shall enjoy only the 20 per cent advantage provided by article 3 of the treaty. Paragraph 244 of tariff classifies butter and oleomargarine. It should be borne in mind that butter alone enjoys the 30 per cent advantage, oleomargarine or butter mixed with oleomargarine enjoying only the 20 per cent concession of article 3. Only merchandise reaching the island of Cuba after the time at which the treaty takes effect, or that is after 12 o'clock on the night of the 26th instant, shall enjoy the benefits of the treaty. APPENDIX II THE CUBAN SURTAXES OF FEBRUARY 1, 1904 PARAGRAPHS AND ARTICLES OF THE CUBAN CUSTOMS; TARIFF AFFECTED BY THE SURTAX DECREE OF FEBRUARY 1, 1904 Pursuant to an act of the Cuban Congress of January 16, 1904, President Palma issued a proclamation on February 1, 1904, decreeing certain increases in the Cuban tariff rates, to go into effect on February 5, 1904. The changes were very numerous and affected all except about 30 or 35 of the paragraphs of the tariff existing at the date named. The increases were at the rates of 15, 20, 25, and 30 per cent. A full list of the paragraphs and articles affected by the several increases follows: SURTAX OF 15 PER CENT OF THE DUTY 128. Trimmings of cotton; ribbons and galloons. 132-135. Fabrics of hemp, linen, ramie, jute, or other vegetable fibers not specially mentioned, plain, twilled, or damasked, all weights. 136. Velvets and plushes of linen, jute, etc. 137. Knit goods of linen or hemp, mixed or not with cotton or other vegetable fibers, even with needlework. 138. Tulles of hemp, jute, linen, ramie, etc. 139. Lace, blonde, and tulles for borders, of hemp, jute, linen, ramie, etc. 140. Carpets of jute, hemp, or other vegetable fibers without admixture of wool. 141. Fabrics, called tapestry, for upholstering furniture and for curtains. mixed or not with cotton, figured or damasked, provided they be manufactured with yarns dyed prior to being woven; table covers and counterpanes of the same kind. 142. Trimmings of hemp, jute, linen, ramie, etc.; ribbons and galloons. 145. Woolen yarn and worsted. 146. Swanskin of pure or mixed wool. 147. Manfactures of wool, including knitted stuffs with or without an admixture of cotton or other vegetable fibers, even with needlework, and fabrics of bristles or horsehair, with or without an admixture of cotton or other vegetable fibers. 148. Silk and floss silk, spun or twisted. 149. Silk on reels. 150. Fabrics of silk, pure or mixed. SURTAX OF 20 PER CENT OF THE DUTY 114-118. Fabrics of cotton, countable. 119. Cotton piqu6s, of all kinds. 120. Carded tissues of cotton. 121. Velvety fabrics of cotton, such as corduroys and velveteens, 3-ply plush fabrics, etc. 122. Cotton knit goods, even with needlework. 123. Cotton tulles. 124. Cotton lace, blondes, and tulle for borders, of all kinds. 125. Carpets of cotton. 126. Cotton fabrics called tapestry, for upholstering furniture and for curtains, manufactured with dyed yarns; table covers and counterpanes of the same kind. 178 CUBAN SURTAXES 179 127. Wicks of cotton, for lamps, etc. (excepting wicks for making candles and matches, which are dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 242. Jerked beef (tasajo). 253. Rice, husked or not. SURTAX OF 25 PER CENT OF THE DUTY lb. Marble, jasper, and alabaster slabs, plates, or steps, of any dimensions, polished or not. Ic. Marble, jasper, and alabaster sculpture, high and bas-reliefs, vases, urns, and similar articles for house decoration. Id. Marble, jasper, and alabaster, wrought or chiseled into all other articles, polished or not. 2. Other stones, natural or artificial. 3. Earths employed in manufactures and arts, including lime and gypsum. 3a. Cement. 4. Gypsum manufactured into articles. 5. Tar and mineral pitch, asphalts, bitumens, and shales. 6. Crude oils derived from shales, including crude petroleum; axle grease for cars and carts (excepting crude lubricating oils, which are dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 7. Petroleum and other mineral oils, rectified or refined (excepting refined lubricating oils, which are dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 8. Benzine, gasoline, and mineral oils, not specially mentioned, including vaseline. 9. Ores. 25. Gold and platinum or alloys thereof in jewelry, with or without precious stones or pearls; silver in jewelry with precious stones or pearls; and precious stones, pearls, and seed pearls, not set. 26. Gold or platinum or alloys thereof wrought in articles, other, of all kinds. 27. Silver, in ingots, bars, plates, sheets, or powder. 28. Silver, in jewelry, without precious stones or pearls. 29. Silver wrought in articles, other, of all kinds, and platinum in ingots. 59. Copper scales (laminae), copper of first fusion, scrap copper, brass, etc. 60-62. Copper and alloys of copper. in ingots, rolled in bars of all kinds, and rolled in sheets. 63-65. Copper wire and copper wire gauze; conducting cables for electricity. 66. Copper pipes, bearings, plates for fire boxes, and boiler makers' wares, partially wrought. 67. Copper nails and tacks, except as included in paragraph 301. 68. Copper pins or pens, crochet hooks, and hairpins. 69. Articles of copper and its alloys, not specially mentioned. 70. Articles of copper and its alloys, gilt or nickeled, not specially mentioned. 71. Mercury. 72. Nickel, aluminum, and their alloys, in lumps or ingots, bars, sheets, pipes, wire, and in other articles of all kinds. 73. Tin and alloys thereof (britannia metal), in lumps or ingots, bars, sheets, pipes, wire, and in other articles of all kinds (excepting tin foil and capsules for bottles comprised in 73c, which are dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 74. Zinc, lead, and other metals not specially mentioned, and their alloys, in lumps or ingots, bars, sheets, pipes, wire, and in other articles, gilt or nickeled; shot; type; zinc nails and tacks. 89. Varnishes. 90. Blacking. 10la. Vegetable oils, solid (coconut, palm, etc.). lOb. Vegetable oils, liquid, except olive oil and cottonseed oil. 102a. Cod-liver oil and other medicinal oils, not refined. 129. Thread or yarn of hemp, flax, pita, jute, and other vegetable fibers; also the fibers of abaca, henequen, pita, jute, and other vegetable fibers (raw or spun), prepared or manufactured in any way not specially mentioned in the tariff. 131. Rope and cordage, including rope and cordage of cotton; twine or rope Yarn and cord of hemp; ropemakers' wares of hemp, abaca, henequen, pita, jute, or other fibers. 143b. Bristle brushes, in which the bristles are the material of chief value. 152-154. Paper, unprinted, including printing paper, wrapping paper (except real manila), writing paper, envelopes, and blank books. 180 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY 166. Ordinary wood, in boards, deals, rafters, beams, round wood, timber for shipbuilding, and planed or dovetailed for boxes and floorings, broomsticks, and cases wherein imported goods were packed. 167. Fine wood for cabinetmakers, in boards, deals, trunks, or logs, or sawn in veneers. 168a. Cooper's wares, fitted together. 170. Latticework and fencing, of wood. 171-176. Wooden furniture of all kinds, with or without upholstery or metal ornaments; barber's and dentist's chairs; billiard tables; battens; bar fixtures; including wicker and cane furniture, and manufactures of wood or in chief value of wood, not specially provided for. 177. Charcoal, firewood, and other vegetable fuel. 179, 180. Rushes, vegetable hair, cane, osiers, fine straw, palm, genista, and esparto, raw, or manufactured into articles of all kinds (excepting straw for making hats, which is dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 181-183. Horses and mares, mules and asses. 185-187. Swine, sheep, and goats, and animals not specially mentioned. 188. Singing birds, parrots, etc. 189. Pelts, in their natural state or dressed. 190. Hides or skins, raw or uncured, dry, salted, or pickled. 191, 192. Hides, tanned, dressed, or finished, including rough leather, sole leather, sole-leather cut soles for mending, belting leather, upper leather, harness and saddlery leather. 193. Skins, tanned, dressed, or finished, including calf, kangaroo, sheep, lamb, goat, and kid skins. 194. Hides and skins, varnished, japanned, or enameled, and skins with figures, engravings, or embossed. 195. Leather cut into shoe uppers or vamps or other forms suitable for conversion into manufactured articles, and also manufactures of leather, finished or unfinished, not otherwise provided for. 196. Gloves of leather. 199. Riding boots. 200. Sandals made without leather (hemp sandals or alpargatas). 201. Saddlery and harness; saddlery and harness makers' wares; valises, hatboxes, etc. 202. Other manufactures of leather or covered with leather. 204. Feathers, not for ornament; feather dusters. 205. Intestines, dried. 206. Animal wastes, unmanufactured, not specially mentioned. 212. Clocks with weights, and alarm clocks and detached parts. 213. Works for wall or table clocks, finished or unfinished, with or without cases. 214. All weighing machines, including scales and detached parts thereof. 217-226. Stationary steam motors; marine engines; steam pumps; hydraulic, petroleum, gas, and hot or compressed air motors; boilers, of sheet iron or tubular; locomotives and traction engines; turntables, hydraulic cranes, and columns; machines of copper and its alloys, and detached parts of the same metals; dynamo-electric machines, inductors, and detached parts; sewing machines and detached parts; velocipedes, bicycles, and detached parts and accessories, and bicycle lamps; and other machines and apparatus not specially mentioned and detached parts thereof. 227-231. Carriages of all kinds; coaches and berlins, new, used, and repaired; railway carriages, vans, trucks, cars, miners' trolleys, tramway carriages, wagons, carts, and handcarts. 232-234. Sailing vessels and steam vessels of all kinds. 235. Salvage from wrecked vessels. 266-268. Clover seed, flaxseed, alfalfa seed. 273. Alimentary preserves not specially mentioned; sausages, truffles, sauces, anu mustard; alimentary flavoring extracts. 274 a and b. Olive oil; cottonseed oil (except for the manufacture of soap). 281. Vinegar, saffron, safflower, and flowers of " tobar." 282, 283. Cinnamon, Chinese cinnamon (canelon), cloves, pepper, and nutmegs. 284. Vanilla. 285. Tea. 294. Refined sugar. CUBAN SURTAXES 181 SURTAX OF 30 PER CENT OF THE DUTY 10. Common or ordinary hollow glassware; electric insulators. (Excepting ordinary glass receptacles for Cuban industries, which are dutiable according to the previous tariff rate.) 11. Crystal, and glass imitating crystal. 12. Plate glass or plate crystal, including slabs for paving or roofing, window glass, and other articles of plate not specially mentioned. 13. Glass and crystal, tinned, silvered, or coated with other metals, including mirrors of all kinds. 14. Glass and crystal, in statuettes, flower stands, vases, and similar articles; spectacles and watch glasses; imitations of precious or fine stones; enamel. 15. Incandescent electric lamps, mounted or not. 16. Articles of fire clay. 17. Vitrified brick for paving or for sewers, vitrified block, vitrified invert block, and vitrified invert brick for sewers. 19. Vitrified clay and terra-cotta sewer pipe, and slabs or conduits of clay, cement, or stoneware. 20. Ceramic tiles of all kinds, and glazed roofing tiles. 21. Hollow ware of clay or stoneware, including household and kitchen utensils, dishes, common bottles or earthenware, flower pots of common earthenware, and similar articles. 22. Earthenware (faience), in dishes or hollow ware. 23. Porcelain in dishes or hollow ware. 24. Statuettes, flower stands, and vases, high and bas-reliefs, articles for toilet purposes (adornos de tocador) and house decoration, of fine clay, faience, stoneware, porcelain, or bisque. 30. Gold and silver plated ware of all kinds, and jewelry made of metal, gold or silver plated, with or without precious stones or imitations thereof. 32-34. Cast-iron bars, beams, plates, grates for furnaces, columns and pipes; lubricating boxes for railway trucks and carriages and railway chairs, and all other cast-iron articles, except pigs, polished or not, turned or not, ornamented or not. 36. Wrought iron or steel, rolled, in rails, bars of all kinds, including rods, tires, and hoops, and bars of all kinds of fine crucible steel. 37. Wrought iron or steel, rolled, in sheets of all kinds, including hoop iron (excepting tinned and tin plate, which is dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 38, 39. Wrought iron or steel, cast in pieces, unfinished or finished, including wheels, fish plates, chairs, sleepers, springs, straight axles, bent axles, cranks, and lubricating boxes. 40, 41. Wrought iron or steel pipes and wire. 42. Wrought iron or steel in large pieces, composed of bars, or bars and sheets fastened by rivets or screws; the same unriveted, perforated, or cut to measure for bridges, frames, and other buildings. 43-46. Anchors, chains for vessels or machines, moorings, switches, signal disks, anvils, wire gauze, cables, netting, furniture springs. 47. Wrought iron or steel tools and implements of all kinds (not apparatus). 48. Screws, nuts, bolts, washers, rivets, nails, clasp nails, tacks, and brads. 49. Saddlery hardware made of iron or steel, including bits, spurs, and all iron or steel finishes for common harness. 50-52. All iron or steel buckles, needles, pins, pens, crochet hooks, hooks, and hairpins. 53. Cutlery of all kinds; scissors; pocket cutlory; fishing hooks; hooks, surgical, including dental instruments; side arms (not firearms) and pieces for the same; razors. 54,55. Small arms and barrels and their detached parts; sporting arms and their detached parts. 56. Manufactures of tin plate. 57, 58. All other articles of wrought iron or steel not specially mentioned. 77. Oleaginous seeds, copra, or coconuts. 78b. Spirits of turpentine. 78c. Caoutchouc and gutta-percha. 79. Extracts of licorice, camphor, aloes, and other similar vegetable juices. 80. Tanbark. 81. Opium. 182 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY 82. Other simple vegetable products not specially mentioned (excepting hops * * * for making beer, which are dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 83. Animal products employed in medicine, not specially mentioned. 91. Sulphur, bromine, boron, iodine, and phosphorus (excepting phosphorus for making matches, which is dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 96. Organic salts, including acetates, oxalates, citrates, and tartrates. 97. Alkaloids and their salts; chlorides of gold and silver. 98. Chemical products not specially mentioned (excepting extract of lupuline and meal of hops for making beer, which are dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 99. Pills, including those of quinine, capsules, medicinal dragees, and the like. 100. Pharmaceutical products not specially mentioned. 103. Mineral, vegetable, or animal wax, unwrought, and paraffin in lumps (excepting paraffin in lumps for making matches and candles, which is dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 104. Articles of stearin and paraffin, and wax of all kinds, wrought. 105. Soap of all kinds. 106. Perfumery and essences. 108. Starch and feculae for industrial uses; glucose. (Dextrin continues dutiable according to the previous tariff rate.) 109. Glues, albumens, and gelatin. 110. Carbons prepared for electric lighting. 111. Gunpowder and explosives; miner's fuses; fireworks;. 112. Raw cotton and cotton waste, when imported in manufactured articles. (In other cases they are dutiable according to the previous tariff rate.) 113. Cotton yarn and thread for crocheting, embroidering, and sewing (excepting yarn for making textiles, which is dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 155-157. Books, bound or unbound, and similar printed matter; headed paper, forms for invoices, labels, cards, and the like; prints, maps, charts, etc.; drawings, photographs, engravings, and pictures; lithographs, chromolithographs, oleographs, etc., printed from stone, zinc, aluminum, or other material, used as labels, flaps, bands, and wrappers for tobacco or other purposes. 158-160. Wall paper, printed; common packing paper, straw, sand, or glass paper; blotting paper. 161. Other paper not specially mentioned, including manila paper and presscopy books (excepting cigarette paper, which is dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 162. Bristol board and cardboard in sheets, including paper-covered cardboard and fine cardboard. 163. Manufactures of Bristol board or cardboard, including boxes of pasteboard or of cardboard, and articles not specially mentioned. 164. Paste and carton-pierre, including moldings. 184. Bovine animals. 197,198. Boots, shoes, and slippers. 207-210. Pianos, harmoniums, organs, harps, violins, violoncellos, guitars, mandolins, flutes, fifes, and all other musical instruments, and detached parts for wind instruments of wood or brass. 211. Watches and chronometers; watchcases and works for watches. 236-241. Poultry and small game; meat in brine; lard; tallow, except when imported for the manufacture of soap; bacon; hams and shoulders. 243. Canned beef, fresh beef, fresh mutton, fresh pork. 244-246. Butter, oleomargarine, cheese, condensed milk. 247-251. Salt cod and stockfish, hake, and haddock; herring, pickled, smoked, salted, or marinated; skate, salted; mackerel, pickled, smoked, salted, or marinated; salmon, smoked, salted, or marinated; oysters of all kinds; and shellfish, dried or fresh. 252. Eggs. 255. Corn, rye, oats, and barley (excepting barley or malt for making beer which is dutiable according to the previous tariffrate). 256. Flour and meal, of wheat, rice, corn, or oats. 257-260. Beans, peas, onions, potatoes, and other fresh vegetables not specially mentioned. CUBAN SURTAXES 183 261. Flour of pulse. 262. Fresh fruit. 264. Dried or desiccated fruits. 265. Chestnuts, dried or fresh. 269. Fodder and bran, including corn or broom straw (millo) (excepting nlillo for making brooms, which is dutiable according to the previous tariff rate). 270. Fish or shellfish, preserved in oil or otherwise, in tins. 271. Vegetables and pulse, pickled or preserved in any manner. 272. Preserved fruits. 275. Alcohol. 276. Brandies, liqueurs, cordials, and all spirituous liquors; compound spirits not specially mentioned; whisky, rum, and gin. 280. Beer (malt liquor); cider, natural or artificial; ginger ale, root beer, and other nonalcoholic beverages not otherwise provided for. 286. Coffee in the bean or ground; chicory roots and chicory. 287. Cocoa of all kinds, in the bean, ground, or in paste; cocoa butter. 288. Chocolate and sweetmeats of all kinds. 289. Pastes and feculse for soups and other alimentary purposes. 290. Biscuits. 291. Honey. 292. Molasses. 295. Saccharin. 296. Fans. 297. Trinkets and ornaments of all kinds, except those of gold or silver, or of gold or silver plate, or except those in which the predominant substance is amber, jet, tortoise shell, coral, ivory, meerschaum, or mother-of-pearl, or except those in which the predominant substance is horn, whalebone, celluloid, bone, or compositions imitating these materials, or compositions imitating those mentioned in paragraph 298. 298. Amber, jet, tortoise shell, coral, ivory, meerschaum, and mother-of-pearl. 299. Horn, whalebone, celluloid, and bone; also compositions imitating these materials or those mentioned in paragraph 298. 300. Walking sticks and sticks for umbrellas and parasols. 301. Coffins and accessories. 302. Human hair, manufactured into articles of all kinds. 303. Cartridges, with or without projectiles or bullets, for unprohibited firearms; also primers and caps for such arms. 304. Tarpaulins coated with sand, for vans; felts and tow, tarred or coated with pitch. 305. Oilcloths. 306. a and b. Cases of fine wood or leather, and of common wood, carboard, osier, and the like, including letter file. 308. Matches of wax, wood, or cardboard. 309. Caoutchouc and gutta-percha manufactured into any kind of articles not otherwise provided for, including rubber hose and piston packing. 310. Games and toys, except those of gold or silver, and except those made of the articles mentioned in paragraph 298 and paragraph 299. 311. Umbrellas and parasols. 312. Oil and water-color paintings. 313. Hats, bonnets, and caps of all kinds, finished or unfinished. 314. Waterproof or caoutchouc stuffs, including rubber boots and shoes. 315,316. All other goods, wares, merchandise, and effects not otherwise enumerated or provided for. APPENDIX III THE SUGAR DEFENSE LAW OF CUBA1 Published in the Official Gazette, Habana, October 5, 1927 I, Gerardo Machado y Morales, President of the Republic of Cuba, Hereby make known: That the Congress has passed and I have approved the following LAW NATIONAL SUGAR COMMISSION Article I.-There is hereby created the " National Commission for the Defense of Sugar," which shall be composed of five members, appointed by President of the Republic, who shall serve without any compensation, or per diem allowances, whatsoever. These commissioners shall be competent and duly qualified, in the judgment of the President of the Republic, in matters pertaining to the sugar industry and the statistical knowledge necessary for the purpose of preparing annual estimates of the world production and consumption of sugar. Article II.-The commission shall be permanent in character and its members shall be subject to removal, in whole or in part, whenever in the judgment of the President it shall be for the good of the interests which the commission represents. All vacancies through resignation, incapacity, or death shall be filled in the manner provided for in Article I of this law. Article III.-As soon as they are appointed the members of the commission shall meet for the purpose of assuming charge of their offices and shall elect one of their number to act as chairman. Future meetings shall be held at such times as the chairman of the commission may consider advisable and pursuant to the issuance of due notice to that effect. In order that the meetings may be valid, at least three of the members shall be present, and resolutions shall be adopted by the majority vote of those present. In order to have the effect of law all resolutions must be submitted to the President of the Republic who may approve or disapprove the same. DUTIES OF THE SUGAR COMMISSION Article IV.-The commission shall inform and advise the President of the Republic upon all problems of the sugar industry, such, for example, as the date when the grinding of the sugar crop shall begin and, particularly, during the months of October, November, and December of each year with regard to the estimates of production and consumption of sugar in the world, taking into account the carry-over from previous crops in this and foreign countries, the visible stocks and, as far as possible, the invisible stocks; prospects of production in other countries; the present and future consumption requirements, domestic and foreign, and, in short, whatever data and information may be necessary to arrive at a proper basis for intelligent and effective action. As soon as the commission has made its estimate in terms of tons of 2,240 pounds of the quantity of Cuban sugar required for consumption in this country, and in the United States of America, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, other countries which have need for our sugar during the year in question, the President of the Republic shall fix the amount of the authorized Cuban crop for the ensuing year and its proper proportionate allotments, it being understood that if, as a result of this far-sighted policy of Cuba, the producing countries of sugar throughout the world should make progressive increases in their plantings and industrial establishments and thus neutralize the effect sought by this law, then the commission shall in its annual recommendation to the President of the Republic, advise him not to make use of the power to restrict production granted him by this law, and upon the acceptance of this recommendation by the President it shall remain in force and be irrevocable during the succeeding twelve months. In translation. The word pound as herein used refers to the Cuban "libra," which is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. 184 SUGAR DEFENSE LAW OF CUBA 185 CROP RESTRICTION AND TAX ON EXCESS PRODUCTION Article V.-The authorized crop for the purpose of this law and for the purpose of the tax upon production herein provided for shall be understood to be the quantity of centrifugal sugar of 96~ polarization exempt from said tax which may be produced annually by the sugar mills of Cuba, and which shall be exported in the manner and proportion fixed by Article IV, et seq., of this law. Article VI.-There is hereby established a special production tax of $20 on every sack of sugar of 325 pounds net, 96~ polarization, which exceeds the authorized crop of each mill in a given year. This tax shall be collected by the respective revenue collectors in the same manner as the present tax of ten cents per sack of sugar is now being collected. The Chief Executive is hereby authorized to enforce and secure compliance with the provisions of this article for each crop. Article VII.-The mills shall grind the cane of their planters as called for by their contracts with the sole reduction of the"necessary percentage which represents the difference between the estimate of the normal production for each mill, made in accordance with the terms of the present law, and the quantity of sugar to be manufactured by each mill as its authorized crop. SUGAR EXPORT CORPORATION Article VIII.-Authority is hereby granted for the organization of a company which shall be incorporated under the existing laws; the stockholders of which shall be the persons, natural or legal, who may be the owners, lessees, or operators in any form whatever of sugar mills in Cuba, at the time this law is published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, or which may acquire them in the future, in proportion to the number of sacks of sugar of 325 pounds net, 96~ polarization, manufactured by their respective mills during the 1926-27 crop. All of the planters of the Republic may also be stockholders of this company and they shall have the right to subscribe up to 10 per cent of the capital stock of the same, in proportion to the number of sacks of sugar of 325 pounds net, corresponding to each planter for the 1926-27 crop, and in the ratio to that subscribed by the respective mill or mills; therefore, the sugar mills shall place at the disposal of their planters, whenever so requested, and within a maximum period of twelve months from date of publication of this law in the Official Gazette of the Republic, the shares of stock corresponding to each planter, the value of which shall be paid to the mill or mills in the same manner as was paid by the latter, that is, at the rate of one cent per sack of 325 pounds net. The company shall be organized as a joint stock company and shall be called the Cuban Sugar Exporting Company (Compailia Exportadora de Azficar de Cuba) and shall be subject to the legal requirements governing such stock corporations. In order that the corporation may be established according to law, the necessary powers are hereby granted to the five members of the National Commission for the Defense of Cuban Sugar for the execution and filing of the necessary articles of incorporation of the company, making formal delivery of the same to the officers elected by the stockholders in accordance with its by-laws, in which shall be embodied the fundamental aims and purposes hereinafter set forth. (A) The authorized capital of the company, which shall be distributed wholly in the form and proportion hereinafter specified, shall be $250,000, divided into 25,000 shares, having par value of $10 each. (B) The capital stock shall be increased whenever a new mill or concern becomes a member of the company, in accordance with the provisions of this law, the number of shares being increased accordingly. (C) The resolutions relating to the election of the board of directors and all other resolutions which are to be adopted at the general meetings of stockholders of the company, regular and special, shall be passed by a majority vote, counting one vote for each $10 share. The President of the National Association of Planters (AsociaciOn Nacional de Colonos) shall always be a member of the said board of directors, whether a stockholder of the company or not, since for this purpose he shall be considered as representing the indirect interest Which the sugar planters have in the operation of the Cuban Sugar Exporting Company. (D) The company shall devote itself exclusively to the sale on a pro rata bsis and for the account of all the producers of Cuban sugar, or those repre 186 CUBANS RECIPROCITY TREATY senting them, of the excess of production of this product in its raw state; the term excess production in this case being understood to mean all the sugar exceeding the domestic consumption requirements and the quantity to be exported to the United States of America, that is, the sugar not protected by tho reciprocity treaty in force between Cuba and that Republic. (E) For the proper verification of its destination the sugar sold by the company shall be accompanied, upon exportation, by the necessary certificates of identity. (F) The company may within its sole and essential function of a selling agency carry on all the operations inherent in its nature, such as exportation. shipments, chartering of vessels, land and marine insurance against all kinds of risks, issuance of drafts and checks, and the execution of any and all documents that may be necessary for the usual conduct and successful transaction of its business. Article IX.-Each new mill, or owner thereof, who shall in the future establish himself in the territory of the Republic, shall be obliged to become a stockholder in the Cuban Sugar Exporting Company in an amount equal to one cent for each sack of sugar of 325 pounds net, or the equivalent, which may be manufactured in its first normal crop. Article X.-The President of the Republic shall subscribe directly, or shall cause subscription to be made by such intermediary as he may consider proper. to 25,000 shares representing the capital stock of the Cuban Sugar Exporting Company, which amount shall be paid from funds in the public treasury not otherwise appropriated, and he shall distribute those shares pro rata among all the companies and individuals which are at present owners, lessees, or operators in any form whatever of sugar mills in Cuba. The pro rata distribution of these shares shall be made in proportion to the number of sacks of raw sugar of 325 pounds net each, or its equivalent, produced by each mill from the 1926-27 crop. It shall be obligatory for these concerns in their capacity of owners, lessees, or operators of sugar mills in Cuba to become stockholders of the company in the proportion indicated. Article XI.-There is hereby established a transitory (temporary) tax of one cent per sack on all raw sugar of 96~ polarization, 325 pounds net weight or its equivalent, produced in the national territory during the 1927-28 crop; this tax shall be in force only during the said crop, and shall be collected by the respective revenue offices in the same manner as the regular tax is now being collected, the proceeds thereof to be transmitted to the national treasury in accordance with the provisions which will be issued at the proper time. the Government thus reimbursing itself for the amounts expended in compliance with the preceding article. Article XII.-Upon the approval by the President of the Republic of the resolutions of the National Commission for the Defense of Sugar, relative to the quantity stipulated for grinding from each crop, and in consequence exempt from the special tax created by Article VI of this law, he shall fix the proportionate part of the sugar which is to be used for local or domestic consumption and that which is to be sold through the exporting company to countries other than the United States of America, as well as the percentage corresponding to each mill or producing unit, there remaining at the free disposal of each mill owner or planter who receives sugar in payment for his cane, or their lawful successors and assigns, the sugars which under the rigid pro rata distribution established by this law shall be sold and exported to the United States of America without any further limitation than the obligation of the shippers exporting sugar, either for their own account or for the account of others, to produce the necessary certificates which shall duly authenticate the final destination of the sugar (landing certificates) within a period not to exceed six months and subject to satisfactory surety bond, the amount of which shall be fixed in the respective regulations. Article XIII.-The certificates of identity covering the sugar intended for countries outside of the United States of America shall be delivered to the exporting company so that the said sugars may be sold and shipped to those countries, to do which the exporting company has the sole and exclusive right. Article XIV.-The distribution of sugar from each crop shall be made by fixing definitely and on a pro rata basis the number of sacks of 325 pounds net which shall be produced in each sugar mill, but at the request of an interested party this distribution may be extended to companies or groups, provided that by so doing no injury is caused to established interests in the various districts in which existing mills are now located; that is, the companies or SUGAR DEFENSE LAW OF CUBA 187 individuals owning more than one mill, or the groups mentioned, may grind part of their individual allotment, in other mills, when for unforeseen reasons or force majeure they can not do so completely at the mills in whose favor the allotment was made, provided that there latter mills do not leave unground any cane of planters subject to contracts previously made. Article XV.-The pro rata distribution of the authorized crop among all the mills, both as regards the amount which each mill may produce, as well as the proportional part which it has a right to sell and ship to the United States of America, shall be made by the President of the Republic through the present sugar commission, which shall be obliged to make a general and equitable distribution in strict accordance with the provisions of this law. In order to facilitate commercial transactions for the sale and shipment of sugars destined to the United States of America, whether such transactions are effected within or outside of Cuba, as well as for the more expeditious mobilization of credit with pledges of the product, both in respect to sugars to be consumed in the country and those to be exported to the United States of America, together with the sugar to be delivered to the exporting company, there shall be issued by the sugar commission, referred to by this article, certificates of identity against warehouse certificates to be exhibited by each producer, planter, or their successors or assigns, in the proportion corresponding to each lot of sugar manufactured and in warehouses; that is, the local holders of the product shall be entitled to have issued to them at their request under practical and simple regulations which shall be issued for this purpose, the required certificates of proof of identity or authorized destination of said sugars, whether dealing with sugars of free disposal for sale or shipment to the United States of America, or the remainder of their crop which includes the sugars intended for local consumption and those which are to be delivered to the exporting company for the purposes hereinbefore indicated. Article XVI.-The basic unit which shall always be employed in the distribution and pro-rata apportionment referred to by this law, in so far as it relates to the raw product, is the sack of centrifugal sugar of 325 pounds net weight, 96~ polarization; but in the case of refined sugar for sale in the Republic, for exportation to the United States of America or other countries, this shall not prevent the interested party from making sales and shipments by deducting its raw sugar equivalent from the corresponding certificate or certificates of identity. Article XVII.-The National Commission for the Defense of Sugar, when recommending to the President of the Republic the percentage of overproduction of Cuban sugar to be sold through the exporting company to countries other than the United States of America, shall take into account and include in the said percentage the quantity which it considers necessary for the exportation of refined sugar from the United States of America to other consuming countries, and for that purpose after verification in each case of the exports of refined sugar above mentioned, the exporting company shall provide said refiners or their legal representatives with the corresponding equivalent in raw sugar, taking the same from its own stocks, that is, from the Cuban overproduction. Article XVIII. —The Government of Cuba shall pay annually to the Cuban Sugar Exporting Company a sum not to exceed $250,000, payable in monthly installments, which shall be used by the company in defraying its expenses of organization and propaganda, after approval in each case by its board of directors, this sum to be used preferably in carrying on propaganda and advertising of Cuban sugar in those countries not consuming it now in important quantities, or those in which there is a possibility of increasing consumption, distributing samples on a large scale and in an intelligent way among the inhabitants of the countries who are unacquainted with the use of sugar or employ it in very limited quantities. Article XIX.-The Sugar Exporting Company of Cuba is hereby exempted from the payment of all existing taxes or those which may be established in the future in the Republic by the national, provincial, or municipal governments. Article XX.-In order to guarantee the operations of the company and to secure its credit, both in Cuba and abroad, the authority granted to it by this law for the sale of the Cuban surplus production shall not be withdrawn without giving at least two years' advance notice, during which time it may liquidate its business in a methodical and orderly manner if it shall consider 10038-29 — 13 188 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY that such aid is indispensable to it for its proper functioning, or to prepare itself for continuing its functions without government aid and with the sole cooperation of its stockholders, clients, capital, and moral solvency already acquired. Article XXI.-As soon as the National Sugar Defense Commission and the Sugar Exporting Company of Cuba have been organized, the Chief Executive shall issue such regulations as may be necessary for the functioning of both organizations in accordance with the terms of this law, obtaining for this purpose the advice and counsel of the members of the former and the board of directors of the latter. The Chief Executive shall also issue the necessary regulations concerning the new duties to be assumed by the Sugar Commission now existing, and provision shall be made in these regulations for penalties in the form of fines, which shall range between $500 and $10,000 for each and every violation of this law or of the orders and resolutions issued by the Sugar Commission. Article XXII.-Pending the inclusion in the budget of the amount referred to in Article XVIII of this law, the Chief Executive may take the same from funds In the national treasury not otherwise appropriated. Article XXIII.-All orders, regulations, etc., now in force, in so far as they conflict with the strict enforcement of this law, are hereby repealed. Article XXIV.-This law shall take effect upon its publication in the Official Gazette of the Republic, and shall remain in effect during the years 1927-1928, from 1928 to 1929, 1929 to 1930, 1930 to 1931, 1931 to 1932, and from 1932 to 1933. Before May 30, 1933, the date on which this law shall cease to be in force, the President of the Republic shall address Congress, requesting, if he considers it advisable, that the same continue in effect. The life of the company authorized by this law shall in no case exceed the period during which this law is in effect. In case of the dissolution of the company through expiration of the time limit fixed by this article, said company shall not enjoy the right of sale granted it in Article XX of this law. Transitory (temporary) provision.-In case circumstances warrant or it is deemed necessary, the President of the Republic may direct that of the sugars on hand in warehouses or mills in the Republic on the day of the publication of this law in the Official Gazette, a proportional amount may be withdrawn, which in the aggregate shall not exceed 150,000 tons, to be delivered to the exporting company and by it sold pro rata and for the account of the interested parties in accordance with the provisions of this law. The owner or owners of sugar who have not contributed their proportional part fixed by the Executive order for the purpose of this transitory (temporary) provision, shall incur a fine of $5 for each sack of sugar of 325 pounds net weight, which it should have delivered to the exporting company. The proceeds from the fines imposed shall be used in defraying the expenses of the campaign of propaganda, advertising and distribution of Cuban sugars which will be made by the exporting company. Therefore, I hereby direct the enforcement and execution of the present law in all its parts. Done at the presidential palace in Habana on October 4. 1927. GERABDO MACHADO. MANUEL J. DELGADO, Secretary of Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor. APPENDIX IV STATISTICAL TABLES These tables (and those appearing in the body of the report) have been compiled from the statistics of imports and exports as given in "Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States" for the years 1900-1926, and in "Comercio Exterior," 1902-1926, published by Secretaria de Hacienda, Republica de Cuba; the Cuban trade figures for 1900 to May 19, 1902, are reported in "Monthly Summary of Commerce of the Island of Cuba," Bureau of Insular Affairs, United States Department of War. The values of Cuban imports and exports and the duties collected by the Cuban customs are stated in United States gold dollars. Unless otherwise indicated, figures pertaining to Cuban imports from the United States do not include shipments from Porto Rico, predominantly coffee; but they are inclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States-either articles which may have entered the commerce of the United States and are recorded as exports of foreign merchandise, or goods received from foreign countries and destined for Cuba, which, without being separately recorded in the commerce of the United States, entered for immediate transit across the territory or for transshipment in the ports of the United States. Prior to 1926 the Cuban statistics made no separation between preferential and nonpreferential imports from the United States. However, only in the case of coffee (see Ch. X, Table 38, List 5, note 3; also, Table 166), rice (see Table 153), olive oil (see Ch. X, Table 41, note 5), and a few other staple commodities, such as chickpeas, beans, codfish, and with some of them only in intermittent years, this may be a source of material inaccuracy in the amounts of duty reductions and in the deductions concerning their effectiveness. 101. Trade of the United States with Cuba: Exports to, imports from, and total trade with Cuba, compared with all exports, imports, and total foreign trade of the United States, values and percentages by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods. 102. Trade of Cuba with the United States: Exports to, imports from, and total trade with the United States, compared with all exports, imports, and total foreign trade of Cuba, values and percentages by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods. 103. Total imports into the United States from Cuba, and into Cuba from the United States, compared by the ratio of Cuban to United States imports, by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods. 104. Cuba's trade balance: Total balance and balances with the United States and with all other countries; value of exports and of imports, and the ratios between them, by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods. 105. Trade of Cuba with continental United States and with Porto Rico: Imports dutiable and free, and exports, by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods. 106. Preferential and nonpreferential imports: Dutiable and free imports into the United States from Cuba, and into Cuba from the United States, with percentages for free; values and percentages by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods. 189 190 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY 107. Net preferential imports into Cuba from the United States and into the United States from Cuba, with ratios. Domestic and foreign exports from the United States to Cuba, with percentages for foreign; percentages of total imports into Cuba from the United States, and into the United States from Cuba, representing imports free or not entitled to preferential reductions; values and percentages by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods. 108. Dutiable imports for consumption into the United States from Cuba, duties collected and remitted, with ad valorem equivalents by years, 1904-1925, with totals and averages for selected periods. 109. Import and export trade of Cuba, summarized by principal countries of origin and of destination, values and percentages of total trade with each country shown by annual averages for selected periods, 1902-1924. 110. Export trade of Cuba, by principal countries of destination, values and percentages of total trade with each country, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods. 111. Import trade of Cuba, by principal countries of origin, values and percentages of total trade with each country, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods. 112. Dutiable imports into Cuba from the United States and Porto Rico, duties collected and computed duties remitted, with ad valorem equivalents, by years, 1904-1925, with totals and averages for selected periods. 113. Dutiable imports into Cuba from the United States, duties collected and computed duties remitted, with ad valorem equivalents, by years, 1904 -1925, with totals and averages for selected periods. 114. Dutiable imports into Cuba from Porto Rico, duties collected and remitted, with ad valorem equivalents; also, comparable figures for coffee alone, with percentages of total dutiable imports, by years, 1904-1925, with totals and averages for selected periods. 115. Average annual equivalent ad valorem rates of duty paid on dutiable imports into Cuba, by principal countries of origin, 1902-1925, with averages for selected periods. 116. Imports into Cuba grouped according to the amount of reduction granted to products of the United States: Values and percentages of imports from the United States and from all other countries, with duties collected thereon, computed duties remitted on United States products, and ad valorem equivalents, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1905. 117. The same, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1914. 118. The same, for the calendar year 1923. 119. Dutiable imports into Cuba, exclusive of noncompetitive commodities and of cattle and tobacco, divided into three classes according to the degree of competition between the United States and all other countries, and subdivided into groups according to the amount of reduction granted to products of the United States under the reciprocity treaty: Average annual values and percentages of totals, by classes and groups, from the United States and from all other countries, for four selected periods. 120. Dutiable imports into Cuba (exclusive of cattle and tobacco) reclassified according to the degree of competition between the United States and all other countries and subdivided into groups according to the amount of reduction granted to products of the United States under the reciprocity treaty: Average annual values and percentages of totals, by classes and groups, from the United States and from all other countries for calendar years 1922-1924. 121. United States imports of Cuban sugar and tobacco: Values and percentages of total imports from Cuba, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods. 122. Cane sugar: Imports for consumption into the United States from Cuba, duties collected and remitted, with ad valorem equivalents, by years, 1904-1925, with totals and averages for selected periods. 123. Raw cane sugar: Differences between average per unit values of Cuban and of full-duty imports for consumption into the United States; quantities and values, with average values per 100 pounds, and ad valorem equivalents of duties collected, by years, 1904-1925, and averages for selected periods. 124. Raw cane sugar: Computed quantities and values of and duties collected and remitted on United States imports from Cuba used in the manufacture of articles exported with benefit of drawback; full-duty imports for consumption compared with total imports used in drawback exports, 1904-1925. STATISTICAL TABLES 191 125. Tobacco: Imports for consumption into the United States from Cuba, duties collected and remitted, with ad valorem equivalents, by years, 1904-1925, with totals and averages for selected periods. 126 to 130, incl. Imports for consumption of full-duty and Cuban tobacco, quantities and values, values per unit, and equivalent ad valorem rates of duties paid, 1900-1926, with average for selected periods: 126. Wrapper tobbaco, unstemmed. 127. Filler tobacco, unstemmed. 128. Filler tobacco, stemmed. 129. Cigars. 130. Cigarettes. 131 and 132. Imports of tobacco into the United States, by principal countries of origin, and percentages of the total supplied by Cuba, with averages for selected periods, 1900-1926: 131. Leaf tobacco. 132. Cigars, cigarettes, and cheroots. 133. Imports of tobacco and manufactures of tobacco into Cuba: Values and duties collected, total and from the United States, 1902-1926, with averages for selected periods and average percentages from the United States. 134. Imports of cattle, dutiable and free, into Cuba: Total values and from the United States, and duties collected on dutiable imports, 1902-1926, with averages for selected periods and average percentages from the United States. 135. Import trade of Cuba, summarized by commodity groups of dutiable articles together with total free goods, with values and percentages supplied by the United States and by all other countries, shown by annual averages for selected periods, 1902-1924. 136 to 149, incl. Imports into Cuba, by principal countries of origin, 1902-1905, with averages for selected periods, as follows: 136. Foodstuffs. 137. Textiles. 138. Dutiable cottons and cotton manufactures. 139. Machinery, apparatus, instruments, and vehicles. 140. Metals and manufactures of metals. 141. Dutiable iron and steel and manufactures. 142. Chemicals and allied products. 143. Colors, dyes, and varnishes. 144. Animals and animal products. 145. Nonmetallic minerals. 146. Wood and manufactures of wood. 147. Paper and manufactures of paper. 148. Miscellaneous articles. 149. Articles admitted free into Cuba. 150 to 221 incl. (except Tables 154, 167, and 172). Imports into Cuba, total and by principal countries of origin, with averages for selected periods and percentages from the United States; total United States domestic exports (for articles with comparable statistical classifications), with averages by periods; values (and quantities, if available), 1902-1926: Foodstuffs150. Barley. 151. Corn or maize. 152. Wheat flour. 153. Rice. 155. Dried fruits. 156. Canned fruits. 157. Beans. 158. Potatoes. 159. Onions. 160. Preserved vegetables. 161. Preserved meat products. 162. Codfish. 163. Condensed milk. 164. Butter. 165. Cheese. 166. Coffee. 168. Beer in bottles. 192 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY 150 to 221 incl.-Continued. Textiles169. Cordage and tackle. 170. Plain cotton fabrics. 171. Twilled cotton fabrics. 173. Cotton ready-made clothing. 174. Miscellaneous manufactures of cotton. 175. Cotton knit goods. 176. Silk fabrics. 177. Miscellaneous manufactures of silk. Machinery, apparatus, instruments, and vehicles178. Sugar-plant machinery, accessories and implements. 179. Miscellaneous machinery. 180. Parts of machines and accessories. 181. Carriages and accessories. 182. Pianos. 183. Watches. Metals and manufactures of metals184. Copper and its alloys and manufactures thereof. 185. Iron and steel bars and rods. 186. Iron and steel plates and sheets. 187. Iron and steel in pieces. 188. Iron and steel pipes and couplings. 189. Nails. 190. Tin plate manufactures. 191. Fine tools. 192. Miscellaneous manufactures of cast iron. 193. Miscellaneous manufactures of iron and steel. 194. Plated ware. Chemicals and allied products195. Candles. 196. Glycerin, olein, etc. 197. Colors of metallic base. 198. Ordinary salt. 199. Miscellaneous salts. 200. Acids. 201. Miscellaneous simple drugs. 202. Miscellaneous chemicals. 203. Patent medicines. 204. Miscellaneous pharmaceuticals. 205. Ordinary soap in bars. 206. Perfumes and essences. Animals and animal products207. Hides, skins, and leather. 208. Men's boots and shoes. 209. Women's boots and shoes. 210. Children's boots and shoes. 211. Miscellaneous manufactures of leather. Nonmetallic minerals212. Cement. 213. Glass bottles and containers. 214. Miscellaneous glassware. Wood and manufactures of wood215. Barrels and hogsheads. 216. Wooden boxes and cases. 217. Manufactures of reed, willow, rush, and grass. Paper and manufactures of paper218. Wrapping paper, bags, etc. 219. Paper sheets. 220. Miscellaneous paper. Miscellaneous articles221. Manufactured rubber and waterproof fabrics. 154. United States exports of rice, domestic and foreign, to Cuba, and Cuban imports of rice from the United States, 1901-1926, with averages for selected periods. STATISTICAL TABLES 193 167. United States exports to Cuba of domestic green and roasted coffee and of foreign coffee, and Cuban imports of coffee from the United States, including Porto Rico, 1901-1926, with averages for selected periods. 172. United States exports of domestic cotton cloths, including duck, to Cuba and to other markets, 1902-1926, with averages for selected periods. TABLE 101.-Trade of the United States with Cuba: Exports to, imports from, and total trade with Cuba compared with all exports, imports, and total foreign trade of the United States, values and percentages by years, 1900 -1925, with averages for selected periods [Values in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] United States exports United States imports United States foreign trade Year endedTo Per Per Per Total Cuba cent of Tot centct of Total b cent of atotal I Cuba total 1 Cuba June 30: 1900 —... ---....... 1901 -------- 1902 --- —------- 1903 --------------- Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months) Average ------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) 1905 ------------- 1906 ---------- 1907 --- --------- 1908 - ---------- 1909 ------------- Average --- —----- June 30: 1910... -- - 1911 ---- ------ 1912 --------— ^1913 —. --- —------- 1914 ------------ Average - ------ June 30: 1915 -- —. ---1916. ---—. 1917 _ _ 1918 -- Dec. 31,1918 (6 months)Average -. —. Dec. 31: 1919 --- ----- - 1920 -------- 1921 _ —. --- —-- Average --- —----- Dec. 31: 1922 --------------- 1923 --- —-- --- --- 1924 --- --------- Average --------- Dec. 31, 1925 --- —----- 1,394.5 1,487.8 1,381.7 1,420.1 787.1 26. 5 26. 0 26. 6 21.8 12. 7 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.6 I 849. 9 823.2 903. 3 1,025.7 482. 8 31.4 43.4 34. 7 62.9 22. 2 I 3.7 5.3 3.8 6.1 4.6 2,244.4 2,310. 9 2,285.0 2,445. 9 1,269.9 57. 9 69.4 61.3 84. 7 34.9 2.6 3.0 2.7 3.5 2.7 1,438.0 25.2 1.8 907.8 43.3 4.8 2,345.8 68.5 2.9 673.7 14.7 2.2 508.3 54.8 10.8 1,182.1 69.5 5.9 1,518.6 38.4 2.5 1,117.5 86.3 7.7 2,636.1 124.7 4.7 1, 743.9 47.8 2. 7 1,226.6 85.0 6.9 2,970.4 132. 7 4.5 1,880.9 49.3 2.6 1,434.4 97.4 6.8 3,315.3 146.7 4.4 1,860.8 47. 2. 5 1,194.3 83. 3 7.0 3,055.1 130.4 4.3 1, 663.0 43.9 2.6 1,311.9 96.7 7.4 2,974.9 140.6 4.7 1,698.3 43.9 2.6 1,235.1 91.5 7.4 2,933.4 135.4 4.6 1,745.0 52.9 3.0 1,556.9 122.5 7.9 3,301.9 175.4 5.3 2,049.3 60.7 3.0 1,527.2 110.3 7.2 3,576.5 171.0 4.8 2,204.3 62.2 2.8 1,653.3 120. 2 7.3 3,857.6 182.4 4. 7 2,465.9 70.6 2.9 1,813.0 126.1 7.0 4,278.9 196. 7 4. 6 2,364.6 68.9 2.9 1,893.9 131.3 6.9 4,258.5 200.2 4.7 2,165.8 63.0 2.9 1,688.9 122.1 7.2 3,854.7 185.1 4.8 2,768.6 75.5 2. 7 1,674.2 185.7 11.1 4,442.8 261.2 5.9 4,333.5 127.2 2.9 2,197.9 229 0 10.4 6,531.4 356. 2 5.5 6,290.0 178.3 2. 8 2,659.4 253.4 9.5 8,949.4 431.7 4.8 5,919.7 235.5 4.0 2,945.7 264.0 9.0 8,865.4 499.5 5.6 3,174.9 104.4 3.3 1,485.2 102.3 6.9 4,660.1 206.7 4.4 4,997.0 160.2 3. 2 2,436.1 229.9 9.4 7,433.1 390.1 5. 2 7,920.4 278.4 3.5 3,904.4 418.6 10.7 11,824.8 697.0 5.9 8,228.0 515.2 6.3 5,278.5 721.7 13.7 13,506.5 1,236.9 9.2 4,485. 0 187. 7 4. 2 2,509.1 230.'4 9.2 6,994.2 418.1 6.0 6,877.8 327.1 4. 8 3,897.3 456.9 11. 7 10,775.2 784.0 7.3 3,831.8 127. 9 3.3 3,112.7 267.8 8.6 6,944.5 395.7 5.7 4,167.5 192 4 4.6 3,792.1 376.4 9.9 7,959.6 568.9 7.1 4,591.0 199.8 4.4 3,610.0 361.7 10.0 8,200.9 561.5 6.8 4,196.8 173.4 4.1 3,504.9 335.3 9.6 7,701.7 508.7 6.6 l1~...... I 4,909. 8 I 198.7 4.1 4,226.6 261.7 I 6.2 I 9,136.4 460.3 5.0 I Percentages calculated before figures were reduced to millions. 194 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY T HL 102.-Trade of Cuba with thd United States:li Exports to, imports from, and total trade with the United States, compared with all exports, imports, and total foreign trade of Cuba, values and percentages by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods [Values in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] Cuban exports Cuban imports Cuban foreign trade Year ended- To Per From Per With Per Total United cent of Total United cent of Total United cent of States total I States totals States total *,............... ~ ~ J June 30: 1900.. --- —--—.1901.- -------.. --- 1902... ---1903.. Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months)Average - ------- June 30: 1904 (6 months).. 1905-. ---1906 -... --- ——.-. 1907. --- —-------- 1908. --- —------- 1909.... --- —----- Average. --- ——. June 30: 1910 —. — 1911. --- — 1912. --- —------ 1913 ------------- 1914.. ---Average ---—. --- June 30: 1915 ------- 1916 ------ 1917 ---------. --- 1918 ------ ----- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)Average....... -- Dec. 31: 1919. --- —----—. 1920. ---1921.. --- —-. --- — Average -—. —,,Dec. 31: 1922 ------ 1923.. — 1924 ------- Average ----—. —. Dec. 31, 1925 --- 45. 2 63.1 51.1 Z7.8 33.1 I I 34. 7 45.5 35.8 62.8 24.0 76. 7 72.1 70.2 80.6 72.6 71.7 65.1 65.2 58.8 34.0 31.7 29.3 28.6 24. 2 14.0 44.2 45.0 43.9 41.1 41.2 116.9 128.2 116.3 136. 7 67.2 60.1 45.1 75.0 65.5 28.4 43. 3 125. 6 73.5 58.5 60.0 53.1 88.5 36.1 15.4 42.7 96.1 68.5 71.3 2 84.7 85.4 83.8 38. 7 46.2 183.0 123.5 67. 5 105. 2 89.0 84.6 104.4 50. 2 48.1 209.6 139.3 66. 5 110.8 98.2 88.6 96.7 50.0 51.7 207.4 148.2 71.4 97.4 81.7 83.9 97.0 48.1 49.6 194.4 129.8 66. 8 115.6 100.0 86.5 83.9 44.2 52.7 199.6 144.2 72.3 106.9 92.1 86.2 91.2 44.8 49.1 198.2 137.0 69.1 144.0 122.3 84.9 98.2 52. 2 53.1 242. 3 174.4 72.0 128.5 112.9 87.8 108.0 59.7 55.3 236.5 172.6 73.0 146.8 123.0 83.8 119.0 66.0 55.5 265.8 189.0 71.1 165. 2 132.6 80.3 132.3 74.1 56.0 297.5 206.7 69. 5 170.1 136.4 80.2 131.8 74.0 56.1 302.0 210.4 69. 7 150.9 125.5 83.1 117.9 65.2 55.3 268.8 190.6 70.9 214.9 183.0 85.2 122.8 76.5 62.3 337.7 259.5 76.8 302.0 229.9 76.1 171.8 122.8 71.5 473.8 352.7 74.5 332. 3 255.5 76. 9 234.8 171. 4 73. 0 567. 2 426. 9 75.3 376.9 276.6 73.4 297.0 226.0 76. 1 673. 9 502. 6 74.6 164.7 99.8 60.6 139.3 105.0 75.4 304.1 204.8 67.4 309.1 232.2 75.1 214. 6 155.9 72.7 523.7 388.1 74.1 573.0 440.0 76.8 356.6 275.6 77.3 929.7 715.6 77. 0 794.0 627.0 79.0 557.0 410.7 73.7 1,351.0 1,037.8 76.8 278.1 223.0 80.2 354.4 267.3 75.4 632. 5 490.3 77.5 548.4 430.0 78.4 422.7 317.9 75.2 971.0 747.9 77.0 325. 5 260. 7 80. I 180.3 122. 3 67.8 505.8 383.0 75. 7 421.1 367. 4 87.2 268.8 184.1 68.5 689.9 551. 5 79.9 434.9 362.4 83.3 289.8 194.2 67.0 724.7 556.6 76. 8 393.8 330.2 83.8 246.3 166.8 67.7 640.1 497.0 77.6 66.4 74.8 64.5 86.9 38.1 56.8 58.3 55.5 63.6 56.7 I i 354.0 264.7 74.8 297. 3 189.4 63.7 651.3 454.1 69.7 j _ Inclusive of Porto Rico. 2 Percentages calculated before figures were reduced to millions. STATISTICAL TABLES 195 TABLE 103. —Total imports into the United States from Cuba, and into Cuba from the United States,1 compared by the ratio of Cuban to United States imports, by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods Ratio of United States Cuban Cuban Year ended- imp om morts from im I - to Cuba United United States 1 States imports June 30: Per cent 1900. ---- ------- $31,372,000 $31,698,000 101.0 1901 -..... --- — —... ---- 43,423,000 29,288,000 67.4 1902 -,- -.- ---—. --- —-—. --- — 34,695,000 28,637,000 82.5 1903 --- ---—..-.. ---- - 62,943,000 24,161,000 38.4 Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months) -—..... —.. --- — 22,230,000 14,042,000 63.2 Average —. - --—. --—.. ------ 43,258,000 28,401,000 65 6 June 30: 1904 (6 months)-.-5 --- —--------. — ---- 54,754,000 15,409,000 28.1 1905 --------------------. --- —------—, — 86,304, 00 38, 727, 000 49 1906 --- - ---- ----—... ---- ------—... 84,980,000 50,241,000 59.1 1907 - --- —. —..... —..-. 97,442,000 49,968,000 51.3 1908 -—. —....... —........... --- —.......... 83,285,000 48,084,000 57.7 1909 ----...-....................-. 96,722,000 44,203,000 45. 7 Average................. --------------------------- 91,543,000 44, 842, 000 49. June 30: 1910 -—. -.... ----... —...... — 122,528,000 52,159,000 42.6 1911 -.. --- ----------—.... 110,309,000 59,696,000 54.1 1912 --------------- --------- 120,154,000 65,984,000 54.9 1913 -- -------- — 126,088, 000 74,109, 000 58. 8 1914...................... 131,304,000 73,973,000 56.3 Average --—.. — -........-........ 122,077,000 65,184,000 53. 4 June 30: 1915 ---....... — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.....1916 ------------ 1917 -.-.- -------—... --- —---- 1918. --- —--- -------—. --- —-—. Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- ------------------------—. 185,707,000 228,978,000 253,395,000 264,024,000 102,294,000 MU... A 76,480,000 122,806,000 171,446,000 226,017,000 104,992,000...... 41.2 53.6 67.7 85.6 102.6 -~x t*._ _ _ --- —-_ —. ----_ ---.__.__._ ___..-..__..__I ____._... U, I o O, U I 0. a ~;~t~, ~, tJ~JU IOO, ~, ~ O[.,ec. 31: 1919.... --- —-.. -.. 1920 -- -- ------------------------- 1921.. Average --- ---------------------------- ---- Dec. 31: 1922-..-..... 1923........... " "" --- 1924 A rorarm 418,610,000 721,694,000 230,352,000 275,568,000 410,709,000 267,283,000 65.8 56.9 116.0 456, 885, 000 317,853,000 69.6 267,837,000 376,443,000 361,721,000...... 122,269,000 184,067,000 194,197,000 45.6 48. 9 53.7 It n DA Af Dec. —. - -...........-.............................. 00) 0, t, UU3V j.UW, (no, ' Ut.' 0 11, 1925 --- —--------------------- 261,673,000 189,380,000 72. 4 1 Inclusive of Porto Rico. 196 CUBAN, RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 104.-Cuba~s trade balance,: Potal balance and balances with, thec United fStates1 and with~ all other countries; value of ea~portS2 aind of imports, and the ratios between th~em, by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods [Values in millions and tenths of millions of dollarsi Year ended United IStates'1 rn 4 N —. 0.,, N'.' 0 0" -.0 '0 All other countries rn —, I 4 + '. - t I 0 June 30: 1900 — - - - - -- - - - 1901 - - - - - - - - - - 1902 - - - - - - - - - - 1903 - - - - - - - - - - Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months). ---. Average ------- lune 30: 1904 (6 months) ---- 1905 - - - - - - - - - - 1906 - - - - - - - - - - 1907 - - - - - - - - - - 1908 - - - - - - - - - - 1909 - - - - - - - - - - Average ------- June 30: 1910 --- —------ 1911 - - - - - - - - - - 1912. — - - - - - - - - 1913 - - - - - - - - - - 1914 - - - - - - - - - - Average ------- June 30: 1915 - - - - - - - - - - 1916 - - - - - - - - - - 1917 - - - - - - - - - - 1918. — - - - - - - - - Dec. 31, 1918 (6 maonths)..... Average ------- Dec. 31: 1919 - - - - - - - - - - 1920 - - - - - - - - - - 1921 - - - - - - - - - - Average ------- Dec. 31: 1922 - - - - - - - - - - 1923 - - - - - - - - - - 1924 - - - - - - - - - - Average ------- Dec. 31, 1925 ------ 31.7 29. 3 28.6 24. 2 14.0 34.7' 45. 1 35. 8 62. 8 24. 0 3. C 16. 2 7. 2 38. 6 10.0C Per cent 91.1 64. 3 79. 5 38. 2 58. 4 40. ( 35. 0 36. 0 34. 20. C I r I I I I 10. 5 29. 5 17. 6 18. 2 15. 2 21. 4 15.1 19.6 9.11 10.9 Per cent 26. 3 49. 2 41. 7 43. 5 45. 5 71. 7 65. 1 65. 2 58. 8 34. 0 45. 2 63. 1 51. 1 77. 8 33. 1 -26. 1 -2.C( -14. 1 19. C Per cent 158. 5 1103.15 1127. 7 75. 6 102. 7 28.4 45.1 16. 7 63.0 37.1 15.0 22.1 40. 4 65. 5 60.1 -5.4 109.0 15.4 53.1 37. 7 29.0 20.7 6.9 13. 8 33. 3 36.1 60.0 23.9 60.2 38. 7 84. 7 46.0 45.7 45.1 14.4 30. 7 32.0 83. 8 99. 2 15. 4 84.6 50. 2 89. 0 38. 8 56.4 54.2 16. 2 38.0 29. 8 104. 4 105. 2. 8 99.2 50.0 98. 2 48. 2 50.9 46.7 12.61 34.1 26.9 96.7 110.8 14.1 87.3 48.1 81. 7 33. 6 58.8 48.9 15. 7 33. 2 32.1 97.0 97.4. 4 99.5 44. 2 100. 0 55. 8 44.2 39.7 15.61 24.1 39.4 83.9 115. 6 31.7 72. 5 44.8 92.1 47. 3 48. 7 46.4 14. 81 31. 6 31. 9 91.21 106. 9 15. 7 85.3 52. 2 122.3 70.1 42.6 46.1 21. 7 24. 4 47. 2 98. 2 144. 0 45.8 68.2 59.7 112. 9 53. 2 52:91 48:3 15:7 32. 6 32. 4 108.0 128.5 20.5 84.0 66.0 123. 0 57. 0 53.6' 53. 0 23. 7 29.3 44. 8 119.0 146. 8 27.8 81. 1 74.1 132. 6 58. 5 55. 9 58. 2 32.'6, 25 6 56.0 132.3 165. 2 32. 9 80.1 74.0 136.4 62.4 54.2 57. 8 33. 71 24: 1 58: 2 131.8 170.1 38.3 77. 5 65. 2 125. 5 60. 3 52.01 52.7 25.51 27. 2 48. 4 117.91 50. 91 33. 0 78.1 76.5 183.0 106.5 41.8 46.3 11. 9 34. 4 68. 8 322.8 214. 9 92.1 57.1 122. 8 229. 9 107. 1 53. 4 49.0 72. '0~23: 0 147. 0 171. 8 302. 0 130. 2 56.9 171. 4 255. 5 84. 1 67. 1 63. 4 76.9 9+13. 5 121. 3 234. 8f 332.- 3 97. 5 70.7 226. 0 276.6 50. 6 81. 7 73.0 100.3 +29.3 141. 3 297.0 376. 9 79. 9 78. 8 105.0 99.8 -5. 2 '105. 2 34.3 64.9~+30.6 189. 0 139.3 164.7 25.4 84.6 155.9 232.2 76. 3 67. 21 58.7 76. 9+18. 2 1,31. 0 214. 61,309.11 94. 5 69.4 275. 6 440.0O 164. 4 62. 6 83.1 1333. 0~51. 9 364.11 356. 6 573. 0 216. 4 62.2 410. 7 627.01 216. 3 65. 5 146. 3 167.0 0+20.7 114.11 557.0O 794. 0 237. 0 70.2 267. 3 223.0 -44. 3 119.9I 87. 1 55._11 32: 0 63: 2 3,54.4 278. 1 -76. 3 127.1 317.9 430.0 112. 1 7.9~ 104.8 118. 31+1.i- 5 112.9 422. 71 548. 4 125. 7 77. 1 122.3 260.7 138.4 46.91 58.0 64.8 +6. 8 111. 6 180.3~ 325. 5 145. 2 55.4 184. 1 367. 4 183. 3 50. 1 84. 8 53. 7 31. 1 63. 3 268. 9! 421. 1 152. 2 63.8 194.2 362.4 168. 2 53.6 95. 6 72.5 23.1 75.8 289.81 434.9 145.1 66.6 166.8 330.2 163. 4 50. 5 79.5 63.6 1. 80.1 26.3 393.8 147.5 6. 189.41 264. 71 75.3 71. 51 107. 91 89. 31 18. 61 82. 71 297.31 354.01 56. 7 84.0 I I I I I I I I Inclusive of Porto Rico.I I Inclusive, 1900-1917, but exclusive thereafter, of reexports of foreign merchandise. The bulk of these shipments has continuously been sent to the United States, as is shown by the following average annual values for six periods (1901-1903, 3Y2 years; 1904-1909, 5P/2 years; 1910-1914, 5 years; 1915-1.917, 3 years; 1918 -1921, 4Al years; and 1922-1925, 4 years); total reexports: $394,700, $157,300, $468,000, $947,000, $1,369,600, and $1,667,000; reexports to the United States (exclusive of small amounts to Porto Rico ranging betweenl $1,600 and $43,200): $294,400, $117,800, $358,300, $775,700, $864,000, and $1,113,900. 8 Percentages calculated before figures were reduced to millions. STATISTICAL TABLES 197 TABLE 105.-Trade of Cuba with. continental United States and wth. Porto Rico: Imports, dutiable and free, and exports, by years 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Cuban imports fromYear ended- Continental United States Porto Rico Dutiable Free Total Dutiable Free Total June 30: 1900 --- —--------------------------- 1901 --- —--------------------- 1902 --- —----------------------- 1903 --- —------------ ------- Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months) --- —----------- Average --- —--------------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —-- --------- 1905 - - ----------------------------- 1906 ---------- --------------- 1907 --------------------------------- 1908 --- ---------- ---------- 1909- ---------------------- Average --- —----------------------- June 30: 19101 -- --------------------- 1911 --- —-------------------------- 1912- ------------ 1913 ------------------------------ 1914 -- ------ ------------ --- Average --- —---------------------- June 30: 1915 --- --------- ---------- 1916 ------------------------ 1917 ----------------------------- 1918 - ---- 1918_,_,_-__ --- —- ----------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)- ------------- Average-.. ------------------- Dec. 31: 1919 ------------ --------- 1920 —, --- —------------- 1921 ----------------- -------- Average- -- ------------------- Dec. 31: 1922 ----------------- 1923. --- —---------------- 1924 ------ ----------------- Average ------------------------- (1) 25, 389 24,955 20, 570 11,871 (') 2 2, 747 2 3,064 3,070 2,005 30,087 28,136 28,019 23, 640 13, 876 (1) (I) (1) 423 93 (1) 98 73 1,611 1,132 618 521 166 -27,502 ----- -- 900 12, 599 2,185 14, 784 428 197 625 31,456 6, 230 37, 686 906 135 1,041 42, 815 6,016 48,831 1,309 101 1, 410 42,069 6,123 48,193 1,771 4 1,775 40, 666 5,785 46,451 1, 6331,633 38,214 4,398 42,612 1,591-1,591 37, 785 5, 589 43, 374 1, 389 79 1,468 I j I 44,048 5, 907 49,956 2, 202 1 2, 203 49,823 7, 253 57,076 2, 617 3 2, 620 55,059 7, 383 62, 442 3, 5433, 543 62, 533 8,173 70,706 3,403 1 3,404 63, 194 7, 792 70, 986 2, 986 2 2,988 54, 931 7, 302 62, 233 2, 950 2 2, 952 67, 551 6, 501 74, 052 2, 426 2 2, 428 111,358 9, 021 120,379 2, 427 - - 2,427 155, 683 12,594 168, 277 3,165 4 3,169 204,188 18, 301 222, 489 3, 527 1 3, 528 94,911 8, 751 103, 662 1, 328 2 1, 330 140,820 12,260 153,080 2,861 2 2, 863 256, 554 14, 952 271, 506 4,061 1 4,062 377,519 26, 867 404, 386 6, 323-6,323 249, 630 13, 885 263, 515 3, 767 -- 3, 767 294, 568 18, 568 313, 136 4, 717 1 4, 718 113,594 6, 665 120, 259 2,009 1 2,010 169,753 11,863 181, 616 2,449 2 2,451 180,500 11,071 191,571 2, 624 2 2,626 154, 615 9,867 164,482 2,361 2 2,363 111, 551 ~ ~ ~ 1925. --- —-- -------------------- 177,065 10,1591 187,224 2,155 1 2,.156 I Not separately stated. 2 Exclusive of small amounts reported under "All other articles, dutiable and free," but probably largely dutiable. 198 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TAiU 105.-Trade of Cuba witkh continental United States and with Porto Rioa: Imports, dutiable and free, and eaports, by years 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods-Continued Cuban imports from- Cuban exports toYear ended- United States and Porto Rico Conti- United i ___________ _nental Porto States United Rico and Porto Dutiable Free Total States Rico..~~-~~ June 30: 1900-.. ---. --- —---------- 1901. --- —------------------ 1902. —. --- —-.. --- —---------- 1903 --------..-................ - Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months).. --- —------ Average.. --- —----—.. —. --- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- -----—... --- 1905-. --- —-------------—. ---1906 -- -.... --- —-- - --- ----- 1907 ---.............. --- ——.1908 --- -...... 1909 --- -........ —_ '2_- " — " ' " - - - - - Average --—.-.......... --- —June 30: 1910. --- ------ 1911... —......-....:: - - - - ': - 1912 --...................... — 1913 -—..................... 1914 ----..................... Average -----.......June 30: 1915-....-.................. 1916 -... --- —-------. ---. --- —1917 ---....... — 1918... --- —------------—. —..." --- — Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ---—.. --- —Average --- -................ Dec. 31: 1919 -----—.................. 1920 ---................ ---- -__ 1921 -—........................... Average -. ---................ Dec. 31: 1922........................ 1923............................. 1924.................................. Average........................... 20,992 11,963 3, 169 2,078, 31,698 29, 268 28,637 24,161 14,041 34,621 45, 503 35, 828 62,758 24,043 82 3 10 7 3 34, 703 45, 506 35, 838 62, 765 24,046 28,401 45,056 24 45,080 13,027 2,382 15, 409 53, 057 29 53,086 32,362 6, 365 38, 727 84, 717 12 84, 729 44,123 6,117 50,240 88,981 57 89,038 43,840 6, 128 49,968 98, 141 52 98,193 42,299 5,785 48,084 81,716 23 81,739 39,805 4,398 44, 203 99,974 51 100,025 39,174 5, 668 44, 842 92,107 40 92, 147 46,250 5,908 52,158 122,199 90 122,289 52,439 7,257 59,696 112, 834 37 112,871 58, 601 7, 384 65,985 122,969 74 123,043 65,936 8,1 7474109 132,581 51 132 632 66, 179 7,794 73,973 136, 3898 49 136, 438 57,881 7,303 65, 184 125, 394 60 125, 454 69, 977 6, 503 76, 480 182,963 75 183,038 113,785 9,021 122, 806 229, 860 56 229,916 158, 848 12,598 171,446 255,411 58 255,469 207,715 18, 301 226,016 276,469 84 276,553 96, 240 8,752 104,992 99,781 57 99,838 143, 681 12,261 155,942 232, 107 74 232,181 260, 616 14, 952 275, 568 439,935 79 440,014 383,842 26,867 410,709 626,915 133 627,048 253, 397 13,886 267, 283 222,963 34 222,997 299, 285 18, 568 317, 853 429,938 82 430,020 115, 603 6, 666 122, 269 260, 609 89 260,698 172,202 11,865 184,067 367,346 48 367,394 183, 124 11,073 194, 197 362, 265 142 362,407 156,976 9,868 166,844 330,074 93 330,167._,~~~~~~~~, _ 1925 -............................. 179,220 10,160 189,380 264,200 532 264, 732 STATISTICAL TABLES 199 TACB 106.-Preferential and nonpreferential imports: Dutiable and free imports into the United States from Cuba, and into Cuba from the United States,1 with percentages for free; values and percentages, by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods United States imports from Cuba Cuban imports from United States Year endedDutiabl e e r cent Dutiab e Dutiable FreeDutible Free Per cent free free June 30: 1900 --- —------- 1901 --- —-------- 1902 ------------- 1903 ------------ Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months)_Average --- —------ June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —-- 1905 ------------- 1906 ------------- 1907 --- —------- 1908 --- —------- 1909 ------------ Average --- —------ June 30: 1910 _ --- —-—.. — 1911 -, --- —--- 1912 --- —------ 1913. --- —----- 1914 ------------ Average. --- —-- June 30: 1915 —. --- —---—. 1916 ------------ 1917 -------------- 1918 ------------ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months).. Average. --- —---- Dec. 31: 1919 -------—. --- 1920 ------------ 1921 ------------- Average --- —----- Dec. 31: 1922 ------------ 1923. ----- ------ 1924 ---—. --- —Average --- —------ Dec. 31, 1925 --- — $29, 517, 000 40,731,000 32, 051,000 59, 828,000 20, 799, 000 $1,855,000 2,692,000 2,644,000 3,115,000 1,431,000 5.9 6.2 7.6 5.0 6.4 (3) (3) (3) $20,992,000 11,964,000 (s) (0) (3) $3, 169,000 2,078,000 13. 1 14.8 40,650,000 2,608, 000 6. 0 21,971,000 3,498, 000 13.7 51, 806,000 2,948,000 5. 4 13,027, 000 2, 382, 000 15.5 82,922,000 3,382,000 3. 9 32, 362, 000 6, 365,000 16. 4 81,832,000 3,148,000 3.8 44,124,000 6,117, 000 12. 2 92,868,000 4, 574,000 4. 7 43,840,000 6,128, 000 12. 3 80, 285,000 3,000,000 3. 6 42, 299,000 5,785,000 12. 0 93, 318,000 3,404,000 3. 5 39, 805,000 4, 398, 000 10. 0 87, 824,000 3, 719, 000 4. 1 39,174,000 5, 668,000 12. 6 118,823,000 3,705,000 3. 0 46, 251,000 5,908, 000 11.3 106, 308,000 4,001, 000 3. 6 52,439, 000 7, 257, 000 12. 2 116,159,000 3,995,000 3. 3 58, 601,000 7,383,000 11. 2 121, 730,000 4,358,000 3. 5 65,936,000 8,173, 000 11.0 123, 417,000 7,887,000 6.0 66,179,000 7, 794, 000 10.5 117, 287,000 4,789,000 3.9 57,881,000 7,303,000 11. 2 174, 375,000 11, 332,000 6.1 69,977,000 6, 503, 000 8. 5 214,143, 000 14, 835, 000 6. 5 113, 785, 000 9, 021,000 7.4 237, 693, 000 15, 702,000 6. 2 158, 848,000 12, 598,000 7.4 250, 233,000 13, 791, 000 5. 2 207, 715,000 18,302,000 8. 1 94, 335, 000 7,959,000 7.8 96, 240,000 8, 752, 000 8. 3 215, 729, 000 14, 138, 000 6. 2 143, 681, 000 12, 261, 000 7. 9 406,171, 000 12,439, 000 3.0 260,616,000 14, 952, 000 5.4 708,960,000 12, 734,000 1. 8 383, 842, 000 26, 867,000 6. 5 221,145,000 9, 207,000 4. 0 253, 397, 000 13, 886,000 5. 2 445, 425, 000 11,460,000 2. 5 299, 285, 000 18, 568, 000 5. 8 256, 784,000 11, 053,000 4. 1 115, 603, 000 6, 666, 000 5. 4 365, 541, 000 10,902, 000 2. 9 172, 202,000 11, 865,000 6. 4 353, 795,000 4 7, 926,000 2. 2 183,124, 000 11, 073, 000 5.7 325, 373,000 9,960, 000 3. 0 156, 977, 000 9, 868, 000 5. 9 251,110, 000 10,563, 000 4. 0 179, 220,000 10,160,000 5.4 1 Inclusive of Porto Rico. X Inclusive of relatively insignificant amounts of tobacco imports paying full duty, which, for the purpose of this table, should be added to free imports. ' Not separately obtainable. Exclusive of articles dutiable under the tariff act of 1922, but entitled to free entry from Cuba, which, for the purpose of this table, have been added to dutiable imports. 200 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 107.-Net preferential imports into Cuba from the United States and into:the United States from Cuba, with ratios; domestic and foreign exports from the United States to Cuba, with percentages for foreign; percentages of total - imports into Cuba from the United States,l and into the United States from Cuba, representing imports free or not entitled to preferential reductions; values, and percentages, by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods Cuban imports United States exports to Cuba f r o m U n it e d States Year ended- -....._. - - Domestic Foreign t ^ ^t. SS Domestic Foreign Per cent Per cent Per cent DomstiF I foreign free 3 nonpreferential 4......~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ June 30: 1900 — ------------------- 1901 _ --- —------------------- 1902 ---- ----------------------- 1903 --- —-------------- ------- Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months) --- —--------------- Average --- —-------- ----------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) - ----------- 1905 --- —---------- 1906... --- —-----—. --- —--—. 1907 --- —--------------- --- 1908 --- —---------------------------- 1909. --- —----------------- Average --- —------------------- - June 30: 1910 ------------------------- 1911._ --- —------------------ 1912 --- —------------------ 1913 --- — ---------------------- 1914 ---------------- --------— _ Average-. --- --------------- June 30: 1915 ------------------------- 1916 — ---------------------- 1917 ------------------------- 1918 -. --- —-- ---------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). --- —----- Average --- -.. --- —------—..Dec. 31: 1919 __ ---- -------- -. —_ --- —--- 1920 ---------------------—.1921._.... --- —---------------- Average ---—. --- —---—.. --- Dec. 31: 1922. --- —-------------------- 1923 - --------------------—.- -.. 1924. --- —--------------------- Average —. ---------—.. ----- Dec. 31, 1925. --- —------------—. — $25,237,000 24,100,000 25,012,000 20,140,000 11,963,000 $1,277,000 1,864,000 1,611,000 1,622,000 690, 000 4.8 7.2 6.1 7.4 5.4 13.1 14.8 23,656,000 1,570,000 6. 2 13. 7 13,848,000 877,000 6.0 15.5 21.5 36,408, 000 1,973,000 5.1 16.4 21.5 46,377,000 1.386,000 2. 9 12. 2 15.1 48.331,000 974, 000 2. 0 12.3 14.3 46,501, 000 660, 000 1.4 12. 0 13.4 42,630,000 1,283,000 2. 9 10.0 12.9 42,563,000 1, 301,000 3. 0 12. 6 15.6 51,795,000 1,064,000 2. 0 11. 3 13.3 59,963,000 746,000 1. 2 12. 2 13.4 61,134,000 1,069,000 1.7 11.2 12.9 69,606,000 976, 000 1. 4 11.0 12.4 67, 798, 000 1,086,000 1.6 10. 5 12.1 62,059,000 988,000 1.6 11.2 12.8 73,989,000 1, 54, 000 2.0 8. 5 10.5 123,426, 000 3, 773, 000 3.0 7. 4 10. 4 174,886,000 3,407,000 1.9 7.4 9.3 227, 020, 000 8,450, 000 3.6 8.1 11.7 96,589,000 7,856,000 7.5 8. 3 15.8 154,647,000 5,562,000 3. 5 7.9 11.4 266,960,000 11,431,000 4.1 5. 4 9.5 503,199,000 12,010,000 2.3 6.5 8.8 183,987,000 3,740,000 2.0 5.2 7.2 318,049,000 9,060, 000 2.8 5. 8 8.6 124,149,000 3,725,000 2.9 5.4 8.3 187,013,000 5,425,000 2.8 6.4 9.2 193,467,000 6,311,000 3.2 5.7 8.9 168,210,000 5,154,000 3.0 5. 9 8. 9 --- --, - ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~__._..-. 192, 513,000 6,142,000 3.1 5.4 8.5 1 Inclusive of Porto Rico. 2 Inclusive of relatively small amounts of United States exports of foreign merchandise which were entered free of duty in Cuba. Strictly considered, these should be excluded. 8 See footnotes 2 and 3, Table 106. Computed by the addition of "Per cent foreign, United States exports to Cuba," and "Per cent free, Cuban imports from the United States," and taken to represent Cuban imports from the United States entered without preferential treatment by reason of being either on the free list generally or not the products of the soil or industry of the United States. The export figures have been resorted to because Cuban statistics do not distinguish between imports from the United States that are entitled to reductions of duty and those that are not. STATISTICAL TABLES 201 TABLE 107.-Net preferential imports into Cuba from the United States and into the United States from Cuba, with ratios; domestic and foreign exports from the United States to Cuba, with percentages for foreign; percentages of total imports into Cuba from the United States, and into the United States from Cuba, representing imports free or not entitled to preferential reductions; values, and percentages, by years, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods-Continued United Net preferential imports States imports Year ended- from Cuba, Ratio of ~~~Year endedpercent Into Cuba Into United Cuban to free; that from United States from United is, nonpref- States 5 Cuba States erential imports June 30: 1900 --------------------------- 1901 --------------------------- 1902 ---------------------------- 1903 ---—. --- —----------------—.Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months) --------------. -------- Average ------------------------------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- — ------------------ 1905 ------ ------ ------ --------------- 1906 --- —------------------------- 1907... --- —-----—... --.. --- —------------ 1908 ----—... — -—. — ------- 1909. —............. -----------—... --- Average -- ------------- ----------—. ----- June 30: 1910 -- -------—.. — -- 1911 —.. — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1912-.. --- —-................ --- 1913 -— 3 -- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - 1914 -------—. --- — ---------—. --- —--- Average ---------------------------------- June 30: 1915 --------------- ------—... — 1916. --- - - ---- - - - - - 1917 ----------------- ----------- 1918 -..-. --- —---------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) - -.. --- —. --- —---------- Average ------------------- ------------- - Dec. 31: 1919..-... ------- ------ ------- 1920. --- —-—. — ---------------- 1921 -...... --- —-—. --- —---------—.. --- — Average ----—. --- —------------------- Dec. 31: 1922 --- - --- - - - - --- - - -- - - - 1923 -... --- —------------------- 1924 -. --- —-- ------------------- Average- ------------------------------ Dec. 31, 1925 ---- ------------------------------ 5.9 6.2 7.6 5.0 6.4 Per cent 6.0. ---------- ------- --------- 5. 4 $12, 096.000 $51,806, 000 23.3 3. 9 30, 401,000 82, 922,000 36. 7 3. 8 42, 655, 000 81,832, 000 52. 1 4. 7 42, 823, 000 92, 868, 000 46. 1 3.6 41,641,000 80,285,000 51. 9 3. 5 38,501, 000 93,318,000 41.3 4.1 37,847, 000 87, 824, 000 43. 1 3. 0 45, 222, 000 118, 823, 000 38.1 3. 6 51,697,000 106,308,000 48. 6 3. 3 57, 472, 000 116,159,000 49. 5 3. 5 64, 919,000 121,730, 000 53. 3 6. 0 65,022,000 123, 417, 000 52. 7 3.9 56,840,000 117,287,000 48.5 6. 1 68,450, 000 174, 375, 000 39.3 6.5 110,034,000 214,143,000 51.4 6. 2 155,502, 000 237,693, 000 65.4 5. 2 199,573, 000 250, 233, 000 79. 8 7.8 -88, 403,000 94,335, 000 93. 7 6. 2 138,165,000 215,729,000 64. 0 3. 0 249,389,000 406,171,000 61.4 1.8 374, 567, 000 708, 960, 000 52. 8 4. 0 248,039,000 221,145,000 112.2 2. 5 290, 518, 000 445, 425,000 65. 2 4. 1 112,121, 000 256, 784,000 43. 7 6 2. 9 167,133,000 365, 541,000 45. 7 62.2 176,913,000 353,795,000 50. 0 3. 0 151,996,000 325, 373, 000 46. 7 l I.~~~ 6 4.0 173, 283,000 251,110, 000 69.0 a Computed on the basis of total Cuban imports from the United States (inclusive of Porto Rico) and the percentages of nonpreferential imports. 6 See footnote 4, Table 106. 202 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 108.-Dutiable imports for consumption into the United States from Cuba, duties collected and remitted, with ad valorem equivalents by years, 1904-1925, with totals and averages for selected periods Duties collected Duties remitted I Year ended Value of total Equiva- Equiva. i simports I Amounts lent ad Amounts lent ad Amounts Amounts valorem valorem rates rates... _-:~" June 30: 1904 (6 months) ---- --------- 1905- ------------------ 1906 ---------------------- 1907. --- —------------------- 1908 --- —--------------- 1909 --- —--------------- Total for period. --- —-- Average ------ ---------- June 30: 1910 --- —--- ------------ 1911 - ------------------- 1912. --- —------------- 1913 -------------------------- 1914. --- —------------ Total for period. --- —----- Average --- —---------------- June 30: 1915 --- —--------------------- 1916 --------------- ---- 1917 --------------------- -- 1918. —. -------------- --- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- —---- Total for period ---------- Average --- ----------------- Dec. 31: 1919.19 -. --- —---------------- 1920.. --- —------ 1921 ----------------- 1921............. ---. --- —------- Total for period -------—. Average --- —--------- ----- Dec. 31: 1922 -. --- —-------------- 1923 -... --- —-- 1924 ---------------------- Total for period ---------- Average ---------------------- Dec. 31, 1925 ----------------- $49,107,000 75. 691, 000 79, 152, 000 91,937,000 81,862,000 86, 063,000 $30,953,000 35,819,000 43,929,000 52,648,000 42,152,000 45,256,000 Per cent 63.0 47.3 55. 5 57.3 51.5 52.6 $7, 738,00 8,955,000 10, 982, 000 13~ 162, 000 10,538,000 11, 314,000 Per cent 15.8 11.8 13.9 14.6 12. 9 13.1 463,813,000 250,755,000 --- 62, 689,000. --- 84,330,000 45,592,000 54.1 11,398,000 13.5 116,167,000 114,330,000 115, 582,000 110,125,000 127,921, 000 56,469,000 59,511,000 53,891, 000 60,988,000 71,886,000 48. 6 52. 1 46. 6 55. 4 56.2 14, 117,000 14,878,000 13, 473,000 15, 247,000 17,972,000 12.2 13. 0 11.7 13.8 14.0 584, 126,000 302, 745,000 — 75, 686,000 ------ 116,825,000 60,549,000 51. 8 15,137,000 13.0 165, 809,000 55, 631,000 33. 6 13, 908, 000 8. 4 211,815,000 62,529,000 29. 5 15,632,000 7.4 241,832,000 60, 555, 000 25. 0 15,139,000 6.3 246, 624,000 54, 593,000 22.1 13, 648, 000 5. 5 88,456,000 20, 346,000 23. 0 5,087,000 5. 954, 537,000 253, 654,000 ----- 63, 414, 000 - - 212, 119,000 56, 368,000 26. 6 14,092,000. 6.6 402,518,000 76,753,000 19.1 19,188,000 4. 703, 480,000 68, 693,000 9. 8 17,173, 000 2. 4 224, 225,000 72, 137, 000 32. 2 18,034, 000 8.0 1,330, 223,000 217, 582,000 ---- 54, 396, 000 -443, 408,000 72, 527, 000 16. 4 18, 132,000 4. 1 257, 482, 000 157,021,000 61.0 39, 255,000 15. 2 363, 077,000 130,590,000 36. 0 32, 648,000 9. 0 357, 513,000 140,896, 000 39. 4 35, 224,000 9. 978,072,000 428,507,000 - - 107,127,000 -- 326, 024, 000 142, 836, 000 43.8 35,709,000 11. 0 247, 495,000 148, 056,000 59.8 37,014,000 15. 0 Grand total.-... --- —--- I4 4,558,265,000 1,601, 300, 000 35. 1 4 400,325,000 8.8 1 Exclusive of articles dutiable under the tariff act of 1922 but entitled to free entry from Cuba by Article I of the reciprocity treaty. Imports of these articles have been as follows: Value of imports: Total duties remitted: 1923.-. --- —--------------—. $402, 000 1923 -........- $269, 000 1924- --------- - 623,000 1924 - ----- - 569, 00 1925 -------- -------------------- 607,000 1925 --- -----—. — 369,000 ' Percentage by which full duty is reduced: 20 per cent. I Including Dec. 27-31, 1903. 4 See footnote 3, Table 122, for certain deductions that should be made. See also note 1 above. STATISTICAL TABLES 203 TABLI 109.-Import and export trade of Cuba, 8ummarfzed by prknoipal counttries of orifin and of destination, values and percentages of total trade uwtl eachl. country shown by annual aiverages for selected periods, 1902-1924 [Values in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] IMPORTS United aGreat Spain GerStates 1 C Britain many Total value - ~~ Pr PI 3~ ~ Pk P 4 P Pt 1900-1903 --------— 65.5 28.4 43.3 0.2 0.3 10.2 15.6 9.7 14.9 3.4 5.2 3.2 4.9 10.4 15.8 1904-1909 --- —----- 91.2 44.8 49.1 1.2 1.4 15.1 16.5 8.9 9.8 6.3 6.9 5.2 5.7 11.5 12.8 1910-1914 --------— 117.9 65.2 55.3 1.6 1.4 14.2 12.0 9. 3 7.9 8.1 6.8 6.2 5.3 13.3 11.5 1915-1918 --------— 214.6 155.9 72.7 2.9 1.4 14.4 6.7 12.5 5.8.5 2 5.7 2.7 22.6 10.5 1919-1921 --------— 422.7 317. 9 75.2 6.1 1.4 14.5 3.4 19.2 4.5 2.8 7 12.1 2.8 50.1 12.0a 1922-1924 --------— 246.3 166.8 67.71 5.0 2. 0 11.4 4.6 12.0 4.9 7.1 2.9 8.0 3.2 36.0 14.7 EXPORTS3 1900-1903 --------— 60.1 45.1 75.0 0.4 0.7 5.7 9.5 1.0 1.6 4.6 7.6 1.2 2.0 2.2 3.6 1904-1909 --------— 106.9 92.1 86.2.6.6 5.4 5.0 8 7 3.8 3.5 1. 1. 2.9 2.7 1910-1914 --------— 150.9 125.5 83.1 1.7 1.2 12.2 8.1 7.4 4.5 3.0 2.0 1.3 4.4 2.9 1915-1918 --------— 309.1 232.2 75.1 1.4 5 67. 3 18.6 3.7 1.2.1.1 7.0 2.2 7.3 2.8 1919-1921- 548.4 430. O 78.4 4.5.8 69.1 12.6 5.9 1.1.2 (4) 13.6 2.5 25.0 4.8 1922-1924- 393.8 330. 2 83.8 4.6 1.2 39.9 10.1 2.0.5 1.j.3 4.8 1.2 11.3 2.9 1 Inclusive of Porto Rico. 2 Percentages calculated before values were reduced to millions. 1 Inclusive, 1900-1917, but exclusive thereafter, of reexports of foreign merchandise 'Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. 10038-29 ---14 204 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 110. —Eport trade of Cuba, by principal countries of destination, values, and percentages of total trade with each country, 1900-1925, with averages for selected period [Values in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] Values I Year ended_- Total Countries to which exported exports ____ Cnd |( United a Great Ger- France Sain States 2 Canada Britain many prance a other June 30: 1900 --- —--------- 1901 --------------- 1902 --------------- 1903 -------------------- Dec. 31,1903 (6 months). Average --------.. — June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —. --- 1905 ------------------ 1906 --------------- 1907 -------—. --- —1908 ----------------- 1909 ---------------- Average -..-....... June 30: 1910 —. --- —----—. --- —-- 1911.._ --- —- --... ---1912. --- —--—. ----. --- —1913 ---------------- 1914.. --- —-. --- —-------- Average --------—.June 30: 1915 ---------------------- 1916. --- —---------- 1917 ----------------—.... 1918 ---------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). Average ----------- Deo. 31: 1919 -—. --- —------ 1920 ---------------- 1921 -------—...-.. — Average -------.. — Dec. 31: 1922 --- —-----. --- — 1923 ---------------- 1924 --- ------------- Average --—... --- — 45.2 63. 1 51.1 77.8 33. 1 34.7 45.5 35.8 62.8 24.0 0.2.4.4.4.3 4.4 5.9 6.0 6.4 3.0 2.3 6.7 3.9 3.8 3.8 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.1.4 0.8.6 1.2 1.2.5 1.7 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.2 60.1 45.1.4 5.7 4.6 1.2 1.0 2.2 60.0 53.1.2 2.9 1.4.8.5 1.1 99.2 84.7.4 6.2 3.8.9.7 2.4 105.2 89.0.6 5.9 4.3 1.6.8 3.0 110.8 98.2.7 4.4 3.1 1.0.4 2.8 97.4 81.7.7 5.1 3.7 1.8.8 3.5 115.6 100.0.7 5.0 4.5 1.3 1.0 3.1 106.9 92.1.6 5.4 3.8 1.3.8 2.9 144.0 122.3 1.1 11.0 4.3 1.4.5 3.4 128.5 112.9 1.1 5.1 3.7 1.4.7 3.6 146.8 123.0 1.5 11.1 3.7 2.5.5 4.5 165.2 132.6 2.9 15.7 6.5 1.8.7 5.0 170.1 136.4 2.1 18.2 4.4 2.7 1.0 5.3 150.9 125.5 1.7 12.2 4.5 2.0.7 4.4 214.9 183.0 1.4 24.2.6.9 1.5 3.3 302. 0 229. 9.8 52.1 ---- 8. 3 2.4 8.4 332.3 255.5 1.0 53.5 --- — 9.0 5.0 8.3 376.9 276.6 2.0 76.7 --- 9.0 3.6 9.0 164.7 99.8 1.1 51.4 - -... — 4.3 4.2 3.9 309.1 232.2 1.4 57.3.1 7.0 3.7 7.3 573.0 440.0 3. 7 82.5 -- 23.0 8.1 15.7 794.0 627.0 7.5 98.4 ----- 13.0 7.0 41.1 278.1 223.0 2.3 26.5.5 4.9 2.5 18.3 548.4 430.0 4. 5 69.1.2 13. 6 5. 9 25.0 325.5 260.7 5.0 38.0.6 7.7 3.1 10.5 421.1 367.4 5.6 32.4.6 2.6 1.6 10.9 434.9 362.4 3.3 49.3 1.7 4.2 1.4 12.5 393.8 330.2 4.6 39.9 1.0 4.8 2.0 11.3 - - -- - I Dec.31, 1925. -- - 354.0 264.7 6.5 | 55.6 2.21 5.6 1.91 17.5 1 Inclusive, 1900-1917, but exclusive thereafter, of reexports of foreign merchandise. Average annual values of total reexports and of reexports to the United States are given in Table 104, note 2. 2 Inclusive of Porto Rico. STATISTICAL TABLES 205 TABLE 110.-Export trade of Cuba, by principal countries of destination, values and percentages of total trade with each country, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods-Continued [Values in millions and tenths of millions of dollarsj Percentages Year ended- Countries to which exported United Great er- nAl States2 Canada Britain many France Spai other June 30: 1900 --- —------—. --- —--- 1901 _-_ --- —------------- 1902 --- —----—. --- —---- 1903 --- — ------------------------- Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months) ------------ Average ---------—. June 30: 1904 (6 months) -------------- 1905 ---—. --- —------- 1906 ---- --------- 1907-.. --- —-------- 1908 --- —- -------------- 1909 _ ----------------------- Average --- —------------------ June 30 1910-. --- —--------------- 1911 --- --------------- - 1912 ------------------—.1913 --- —--------------- 1914. ---- ------------- Average --- —------------------- June 30: 1915. ----- -, — ------- 1916.. ---- ---------------- 1917 -— _ --- —-------------- 1918. --- —------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ------- --- Average --- —------------------- Dec. 31: 1919 ---------------------- 1920 ---- ------------------ 1921 -. --- —. ----.. --- —-- Average --- —------------------- Dec. 31: 1922 -.. --- —-------------- 1923 ------------------------ 1924 ----------------------- Average ------------—. —, ----. Dec. 31, 1925 ----------------------—. 76.7 72.1 70.2 80.6 72.6 0.5.7.7.6.9 9.6 9. 3 11.7 8.3 9.0 5.1 10.6 7.7 4.8 11.3 2.6 2.2 2.6 1.4 1.1 1.8.9 2.4 1.5 1.6 3.7 4.2 4.7 2.8 3.5 75.0.7 9.5 7.6 2.0 1.6 3.6 88.5 85.4 84.6 88.6 83.9 86. 5.4.5.6.7.8.6 4.8 6.2 5.6 4.0 5.3 4.3 2.3 3.8 4.1 2.8 3.8 3.9 1.4.9 1.5.9 1.8 1.1.8.7.7.4.8.9 1.8 2.5 2.9 2.6 3.6 2.7 86.2.6 5.0 3.5 1.3.7 2.7 84.9.8 7.6 3.0 1.0.4 2.3 87.8.9 4.0 2.9 1.1.6 2.7 83.8 1.0 7.5 2.5 1.7.3 3.2 80.3 1.8 9.5 3.9 1.1.4 3.0 80.2 1.2 10.7 2.6 1.6.6 3.1 83.1 1.2 8.1 3.0 1.3.4 2.9 85.2.7 11.3.3.4.7 1.4 76.1.3 17.3 ----- 2.8.8 2.7 76.9.3 16.1 ------- 2.7 1.5 2.5 73.4.5 20.4 ----- 2.4 1.0 2.3 60.6.7 31.2 ---- 2.6 2.6 2.3 75.1.5 18.6.1 2 1. 2.3 76.8.6 14.4 ---- 4.0 1.4 2.8 79.0.9 12.4 --- -- 1.6.9 5.2 80.2.8 9.5.2 1.8.9 6.6 78.4.8 12.6 () 2.5 1.1 4.6 80.1 1.5 11.7.2 2.4 1.0 3.1 87.2 1.3 7.7 2.6.4 2.6 83.3.8 11.3.4 1.0.3 2.9 83.8 1.2 10.1.3 1.2.5 2.9 74.8 1.8 15.7.6 1.6 I.51 5.0 3 Inclusive of Porto Rico. Percentages calculated before values were reduced to millions. 'Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. 206 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLr 1ll.-Import trade of Cuba, by prtncipal countries of origin, values and percentages of total trade with each country, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods [Values in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] Values Countries from which imported Year endedTotal - tain- many o the — imports United reat Spain Ger- France All States Canada Britain pain many France other June 30: 1900-.. ---. --- —--- 1901 --- —---------- 1902 --- —--------- 1903 - ---------------- Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months) ---.. Average. --- —--—. — June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —--- 1905 ---------------- 1906 ------------ 1907 --- —-------------- 1908 --- —------------ 1909 --- —--------- Average --- —------—. - June 30: 1910.-_ --- —------- 1911 ------------- 1912 -------------- 1913 ---------------- 1914 ---------------- Average --- —-------- June 30: 1915 -------------- 1916 -------------- 1917 ------------ 1918 --- —------- -- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- — Average --- —------ Dec. 31: 1919 ---------------- 1920. --- —---------- 1921 -, --- —--------- Average ----------- Dec. 31: 1922 --------------- 1923 --------------- 1924 ---------------- Average ----------- Dec. 31, 1925 --- —- ------- 71.7 65. 1 65.2 58.8 34.0 31.7 29.3 28.6 24.2 14.0 (1) 0.2.2.3.1 12.0 9.3 9.6 9.2 5.9 11.0 9.5 9.5 9.3 4.6 2.6 3.4 3.5 3.7 2.1 3.6 2.9 3.1 3.0 1.9 10.7 10.5 10.7 9.2 5.4 65.5 28.4.2 10.2 9.7 3.4 3.2 10.4 36.1 15.4.3 6.6 4.4 2.5 1.9 5.0 83.8 38.7 9 12.5 9.7 5.1 4.6 12.2 104.4 50.2 1.4 15.0 10.6 6.6 5. 6 15.0 96.7 50.0 1.3 13.6 8.3 6.4 5.8 11.3 97.0 48.1 1.5 14.6 8.8 7.8 5.9 10.5 83.9 44.2 1.4 10.6 7.2 6.4 4.8 9.2 91.2 44.8 1.2 13.3 8.9 6.3 5.22 11.5 98.2 52.2 1.7 12.5 8.8 7.8 5.5 9.7 108.0 59.7 1.5 12.8 8.5 7.2 5.5 12.8 119.0 66.0 1.7 14.8 9.5 7.5 6.5 12.9 132.3 74.1 1.5 16.1 9.4 9.5 6.6 15.1 131.8 74.0 1.7 14.6 10.2 8.3 6.9 16.2 117.0 65.2 1.6 14.2 9.3 8.1 6.2 13.3 122.8 76.5 1.3 14.1 10.2 2.2 3.8 14.6 171.8 122.8 1.3 15.7 12.1.1 5.4 14.5 234.8 171.4 3.6 18.2 15.7 1 -- 6.2 19.6 297.0 226.0 4.8 12.5 11. 7 — 6.9 35.1 139.3 105.0 2.0 4.3 6.7 ---- 3.5 17.8 214.6 155.9 2.9 14.4 12.5.5 5.7 22.6 356.6 275.6 7.7 8.8 15.9.2 9.9 38.5 557. 0 410.7 5. 7 17.7 28.0 2.9 16.9 75.2 354.4 267.3 5.0 17.1 13.7 5.4 9.4 36.6 422.7 317.9 6.1 14.5 19.2 2.8 12.1 50.1 180.3 122.3 3.8 9.1 8.4 3.5 6.0 27.3 268.8 184.1 5.7 13.0 13.2 7.9 8.4 36.6 289.8 194.2 5.5 12.1 14.5 9.8 9.5 44.2 246.3 166.8 5.0 11.4 12.0 7.1 8.0 36.0 - -.-f ]_ _ _ __. 297.3 1 189.4 | 6.61 12.0 13.1 9.4 11.3 55.5 1 Inclusive of Porto Rico. I Less than $100,000. STATISTICAL TABLES 207 TABLE 111.-Import trade of Cuba, by principal countries of origin, values and percentages of total trade with each country, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods-Continued [Values in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] Percentages' Year ended- Countries from which imported United Canada Great Spain Ger- France All States anada Britain pa many France other June 30: 1900 ----------- 1901..... --- —---------—. 1902_ --- —1903. --- —---------- Dec. 31, 1903 (6 months). --- —----- Average --------- June 30: 1904 (6 months). --- —-------- 1905-.. --- —-----—. --- —--- 1906 —. --- —--------------- 1907 ------------------ 1908_ _-_-_ --- —-------- ---------- 1909 ----------------- Average. --- —----- June 30: 1910. --- —----------------- 1911 ----------- 1912-.. ---. --- —-------—. --- 1913.. --------. 1914. ---. --- —-—. --- —-. --- Average ----------- June 30: 1915.... --- —-- 1916 _ --- —--- 1917 ----------------------- 1918 ----- --------------—. Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). --- —----- Average ---------—. --- —Dec. 31: 1919 _.. --- -... --- —---—.. 1920 -...- -------------------------, 1921 -..-.. --- —---..-. --- —Average ------------ Dec. 31: 1922.. --- —.......... 1923 -... — _,__.. --- —------- 1924 ----------- Average --------------- Dec. 31, 1925. --- —-------------------- 44.2 45.0 43.9 41.1 41.2 0.1.2.4.4.4 16.7 14.2 14.7 15.7 17.3 15.4 14.6 14. 6 15.7 13.4 3.7 5.2 5.3 6.3 6.2 5.0 4.5 4.7 5.1 5.6 14.9 16.3 16.4 15.7 15.9 43.3.3 15.6 14.9 5.2 4.9 15.8 42.7.8 18.3 12.1 7.0 5.4 13.7 46.2 1.1 14.0 11.6 6.1 5.5 14.6 48.1 1.3 14.4 10.2 6.3 5.3 14.4 51.7 1.3 14.1 8.6 6.7 6.0 11.6 49.6 1.5 15.0 9.1 8.0 6.0 10.8 52.7 1.7 12.7 8.6 7.6 5.7 11.0 49.1 1.4 14.56 9.8 6.9 5.7 12.6 53.1 1.8 12.8 9.0 7.9 5.6 9.8 55.3 1.4 11.8 7.9 6.7 5.1 11.8 55.5 1.4 12.5 8.0 6.3 5.5 10.8 56.0 1.1 12.2 7.1 7.2 5.0 11.4 56.1 1.3 11.1 7.7 6.3 5.3 12.2 55.3 1.4 12.0 7.9 6.8 5.3 11.3 62.3 1.1 11.5 8.3 1.8 3.1 11.9 71.5.8 9.1 7.0 (i) 3.1 8.5 73.0 1.6 7.8 6.7 ---- 2.6 8.3 76.1 1.6 4.2 3.9 -- 2.3 11.9 75.4 1.5 3.1 4.8 — 2.5 12.7 72.7 1.4 6.7 5.8.2 2.7 10.5 77.3 73.7 75.4 2.2 2.5 4.5.1 2.8 10.6 1.0 3.2 5.0.5 3.0 13.6 1.4 4.8 3.8 1.5 2.6 10.5 75.2 1.4 3.4 4.5.7 2.8 12.0 67.8 2.1 5.0 4.6 2.0 3.3 15.2 68.5 2.1 4.8 4.9 3.0 3.1 13.6 67.0 1.9 4.2 5.0 3.4 3.3 15.2 67.7 2.0 4.6 4.9 2.9 3.2 14.7 63.7 2.2 4.0 4.4 3.2 3.8 18.7 Inclusive of Porto Rico. ' Percentages calculated before values were reduced to millions. Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. 208 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 112.-Dutiable imports into Cuba from the United States and Porto Rico, duties collected, and computed duties remitted, with ad valorem equivalents, by years, 1904-1925, with totals and averages for selected periods Duties collected Computed duties Average remitted -- )percentage by Value of total Equiva- whicEquiva Year ended- imports lent ad full duty lent ad Amlounts valorem is re- Amounts valore rates duced 1rate rates June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —---- 1905 ------------------ 1906 ---------------- ---- 1907 ------ ---------- 1908 ---------------- 1909 ---------------- Total for period --- — Average. --- —---------- June 30: 1910 --- —- ----------- 1911 -1 --------------- 1912 -—. --- ------------- 1913 ------------------- - 1914. --- —--------------- Total for period --- — Average --- —------------ June 30: 1915 --- —------------ 1916 -------- 1917 ---- ---- 1918- - Dec. 31,1918 (6 months). Total for period --- —---- Average --- —------------ Dec 31: 1919 9 ---- --------------- 1920 ---------------- 1921. --- —-------------- Total for period, ----. --- Average. --- —--------- Dec. 31: 1922 -----—.- -------- 1923 -- ---.. --- —1924 ----------------- ------ Total for period --- —---- Average --- —. ---- ---- Dec. 31, 1925 —. --- — ----- $13,027,000 32,362,000 44,123,000 43, 840,000 42,299,000 39,805,000 $3,145, 000 7,697,000 9,783, 000 9, 605,000 9, 100, 00 8,962,000 Per cent 24.1 23.8 22. 2 21.9 21.5 22.5 Per cent 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.6 23. 6 23.7 $983, 000 2,412,000 3, 051,000 2,968,000 2,810,000 2,778, 000 Per cent 7.55 7.45 6.91 6.77 6.64 6.98 215, 458,000 48,292,000 ----------- 15,002,000..o 39, 174,000 8, 780,000 22. 4 23. 7 2, 728, 000 6.96 46, 250,000 9, 680,000 20.9 23. 5 2,971,000 6.42 52,439, 000 10, 752, 000 20. 5 23. 5 3, 309, 000 6. 31 58,601,000 11,938, 000 20. 4 23. 5 3, 672,000 6. 27 65,936,000 12,972,000 19.7 23. 6 4,011,000 6.08 66,180,000 12,976, 000 19.0 23. 6 4,015,000 6. 07 289,406,000 58, 317,000 ----- ------ --- 17,978,000 ---57,881,000 11,663,000 20. 2 23. 6 3, 596,000 6. 21 69,977,000 13,426,000 19. 2 23. 7 4,169,000 5.96 113, 785,000 19,974, 000 17. 6 23.9 6, 281,000 5. 52 158,848,000 24,152,000 15. 2 24. 0 7,616,000 4.79 207, 715, 000 27, 713, 000 13. 3 24. 0 8,744,000 4.21 96, 240,000 12,547,000 13. 0 24.1 3,980,000 4. 14 646, 565,000 97, 813,000 -------- --- - 30, 789,000 — 143,681,000 21,736,000 15.1 23.9 6, 842,000 4. 76 260,616,000 31,376,000 12. 0 24.2 10,020,000 3.84 383,842, 000 45,122, 000 11.8 24. 2 14,401,000 3.75 253,397,000 32, 658,000 12.9 24. 2 10,421,000 4.11 897,855,000 109,156,000 -— 34,842,000 -299,285,000 36,385,000 12. 2 24.2 11,614,000 3.88 115,603,000 17, 650,000 15. 3 24. 2 5, 645,000 4.88 172,202,000 25, 329,000 14.7 24. 3 8,153, 000 4.73 183,124,000 27, 534,000 15.0 24.4 8,861,000 4.8 470,929, 000 70,512,000 -— 22,659000 --- — 156,976,000 23,504,000 15. 0 24.3 7, 553, 000 4.81 179 220, 000 25, 576, 000 14. 3 24.4 8, 258,000 4.61 ~~~~~~~~~,,..:._I Grand total -...... 2,699, 433,0 49000 40,6, 15. 2 24.0 129,9,52000 4.80 I Computed and estimated for im orts from the United States and taken as 20 per cent for imports from Porto Rico.. 7. STATISTICAL TABLES 209 TABLE 113.-Dwtiable imports into Cuba from1 the United States, dutie8 collectedt and computed duties remitted, wit h- ad ttvOorem equlivalents, by- years, 1904 -1.925, u~ith totals and averages for selected periods Duties collected Average C mputed dte e _____ ____ ____ ____ percent- m t e Year ended- Value of total age by Year ended- imports ~ Equiva- which qva lent ad full duty lequtaAmounts vlrm is re- Amounts vloenta rates dedrates June 30: 1904 (6 months) ------ 1905 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1906 — - - - - - - - - - 1907 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1908 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1909 - - - - - - - - - - - - Total for period --- —Average ----- June 30: 1910 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1911. 1912 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1913 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1914 - - - - - - - - - - - Total for period ----- Average --------- June 30: 1915 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1916 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1917 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1918 - - - - - - - - - - - - Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) Total for period ----- Average --------- Dec. 31: 1919 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1920 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1921 - - - - - - - - - - - - Total for period ----- Average --------- Dec. 31: 1922 — - -- - - - - - - - - 1923 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1924 — - - - - - - - - - - - Total for period ----- Avera~ge. --- —---- Dec. 31, 1925 ------ $12, 599,000 31,456,000 42,815,000 42,06,9,000 40,666,000 38,215,000 $2, 877,000 7, 108,000 8,867,000 8,316,000 7,879,000 7,894,000 Per cent 22. 83 22. 60 20. 71 19. 77 19. 37 20.66 Per cent 24. 16 24. 16 24. 15 24. 15 24. 14 24. 14 $916, 000 2,265,000 2,822,000 2,646,000 2, 505,000 2,511,000 Per cent 7.27 7.20 6.59 6.29 6.16 6.57 207,819,000 42,940,000 ----- ----- - 13,664,000 37,785,000 7,807,000 20.66 24.16 2,484,000 6.58 44,048,000 8,087,000 18.36 24.13 2,572,000 5.84 49,823, 000 9,133,000 18.33 24.13 2,905,000 5. 83 55,059,000 10, 176, 000 18.48 24. 12 3,232,000 5. 87 62, 533,000 11,311,000 18. 09 24. 11 3,596,000 5. 75 63,194,000 11,400,000 18. 04 24.11 3,621,1000 5.73 274,657,000 50, 107, 000 ------ — 15, 926,000. --- — 54,931,000 10,021,000 18. 24 24. 13 3,185,000 5.80 67, 551,000 11,856, 000 17. 55 24. 15 3, 776, 000 5. 59 111, 358,000 18, 547, 000 16. 65 24.20 5,924, 000 5. 32 155, 683,000 22,397, 000 14. 39 24.25 7, 177,000 4. 61 204, 188,000 25, 570, 000 12. 52 24.29 8,208,000 4.02 94,911,000 11,815,000 12.45 24. 31 3, 796, 000 4.00 633, 691,000 90, 185,000 --- —----- 28,882,000 ----- 140,820,000 20,041,000 14.23 24.27 6,418,000 4.56 256,554,000 50,086, 000 11.73 24.35 9,698,000 3.78 377, 519, 000 43, 090, 000 11.41 24.39 13, 893,000 3.68 249,630, 000 30,813,000 12. 34 24.43 9,960, 000 3.99 883, 703,000 108,988,000 ----— 33,551, 000. --- — 294,568, 000 34,663,000 11.77 24.41 11,184,000 3.80 113,694,000 16,696,000 14.70 24.48 1 5,407,000 4.76 169, 753, 000 24,292,000 14. 31 24. 52 7,893, 000 4.65 180,500,000 26,600,000 14.73 24.50 8,628,000 4.78 463,846,000 67,588,000 ---------— 21,928,000 ------ 154,615,000 22,529,000 14.57 24.51 7,309,000 4. 73 177,065,000 24,912,000 14.07 24.51 8,092,000 4.57 Grand total -------- 2, 640, 781, 000 379, 721, 000 14.38 24.32 122,043,000 4.62 I Estimated on the basis of detaile~d computations for 1905, 1914, and 1923, for which see Tables 116, 117 and 118, 210 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABhI 114.-Dutiable imports into Cuba from Porto Rico, duties collected and remitted, with ad valorem equivalents; also, comparable figures for coffee alcne, with percentages of total dutiable imports, by years, 1904-1925, with totsl and averages for selected periods Total dutiable imports Duties collected Duties remitted Year ended-..... Values Equiva- Equiva. Amounts lent ad Amounts lent ad Amounts Amounts valorem valorem rates rates' June 30: 1904 (6 months)-. -------. 1905 ------—. --- —------—.. — 1908.. --- —--- ------ 1909 -------------------------- Total for period -------------- Average --- ---------—. --- —June 30: 1910. --- —----------- 1911. --- —- -----------.. --- — 1912.. --- —------- 19132. --- —----------—.. 1914.. --- —------------- Total for period ----------—. — Average. --- —--------------- June 30: 1915. --- —----------------- -. 1916. --- —-------------------------- 1917.. --- —-----------—. ---1918 -------------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)......... Total for period ------------- Average — ------------—. — 'Dec. 31: 1919 ----------------.-...... 1920.. --- —----------------- 1921.. ---------------------- Total for period ---............ Average --- —----------------- Dec. 31: 1922. -------------------- 1923 ----- ----------.. --- 1924, --- —---------------.... ---Total for period --------------- Average. -----—. --- —---—. Dec. 31, 1925. --- —----- ---—. --- $428,000 906, 000 1,309,000 1, 771, 000 1,633,000 1,591,000 $268, 000 590,000 917,000 1,289,000 1,221,000 1,068,000 Per cent 62.6 65.1 70.0 72.8 74.8 67.1 $67, 000 147, 000 229,000 322,000 305,000 267,000 Per cent 15.6 16.3 17.5 18.2 18.7 16.8 7, 638, 000 5, 352,000- 1, 338, 000 --—. - 1,389, 000 973, 000 70. 1 243,000 17.5 2, 202,000 1, 593, 000 72 3 398,000 18.1 2, 617, 000 1, 618,000 61. 8 405,000 15. 3, 543,000 1,762,000 49.7 441,000 12. 4 3,403,000 1,661, 000 48.8 415,000 12.2 2,986,000 1,576,000 52.8 394,000 13.2 14,750,000 8,211,000 ----.2,053,000 --—. — 2,950, 000 1,642,000 55.7 411,000 13.9 2,426,000 1,570,000 64.7 392, 000 16.2 2, 427,000 1, 428, 000 58. 8 357, 000 14. 7 3,165, 000 1,755,000 55.5 439, 000 13.9 3,527,000 2,143, 000 60.8 536,000 15.2 1,329,000 732,000 55.1 183,000 13.8 12,874, 000 7, 628, 000 -----— _ 1,907, 000 --- — _ - 2,861,000 1,695,000 59.2 424,000 14.8 4,061,000 1, 290,000 31.8 323, 000 7.9 6,323,000 2,032,000 32.1 508,000 8.0 3,767,000 1,845, 000 49.0 461, 000 12. 2 14,152,000 5,167, 000 - --- 1, 292, 0 -00. — 4,717,000 1,722,000 36.5 431, 000 9.1 2,010,000 953,000 47.4 238,000 11.9 2,450,000 1, 037,000 42.3 259,000 10.6 2, 624, 000 934,000 35.6 233,000 8.9 7,083,000 2,924,000 -,-0. — 731,000 -- 2, 361, 000 975, 000 41.3 244, 000 10.3 2,155,000 664,000 30.8 16,0 00oo _ - _... - - -1. ~~~~~~~~, I I~~~ urana total........... ----— 58,552,000 1 29,945, 000 51.1 7,486,000 12.8 At Because of the predominance of coffee imports, admitted with 20 per cent reduction, the average percentage by which the full duty on total dutiable imports is reduced has been taken as 20 per cent. Detailed tabulations for the first three and one-half years indicate no higher figure tha 20.10 per cent. STATISTICAL TABLES 211 TABLE 114.-Dutiable imports into Cuba from Porto Rico duties collected and remitted, with ad valorem equivalents; also, comparable figures for coffee alone, with percentages of total dutiable imports, by years, 1904-1925, with totals and averages for selected periods-Continued Imports of coffee Duties Duties collected retted remitted Year ended- Per cent ___ Yer -Values of total dutiable Equiva- Equivaimports Amounts lent ad lent ad valorem valorem rates rates June 30: 1904 (6 months).. --- —-- 1905 --------------- 1906 -- ---- ------------------ 1907 -------------------------- 1908 ------------------- 1909 —............. --- —---------------- Tptal for period —.. --- —-------- Average --------------------- June 30: 1910. --- —-------------------- 1911 -------------------------- 1912. --- —--------------------- 1913. --- —------------- 1914 ------------ Total for period ------------—. --- Average --- —---- ---- June 30: 1915. --- —---- 1916 - -------- 1917 ----- --- ---- 1918 ------ -------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) — ------ Total for period ----------------- Average ---------------------------- Dec. 31: 1919 —. --- —----------------- 1920 ---- --------------------- 1921.... ---. --- —----- Total for period --- —----------- Average ---- --------------- Dec. 31: 1922 -------------------- 1923 ------------------- 1924 - --------------- Total for period. --- —-- --------- Average --- —----------------- Dec. 31, 1925 ---------------------------—. $328,000 770,000 1,220,000 1,749,000 1,614,000 1,577,000 76.6 85.0 93.2 99.3 98.8 99.2 $255,000 569,000 905,000 1,287, 000 1,218,000 1,065,000 Per cent 77.8 73.9 74.2 73.6 75.5 67.5 Per cent 19.4 18.5 18. & 18.4 18& 16.9 7,258,000 ---- 5, 299, 000. --- — 1,320,000 95.0 964,000 73.0 18. 2 2,184,000 99.2 1, 566,000 71.7 17.9 2,598,000 99.3 1,610,000 62.0 15. 6 3,525,000 99. 5 1,755,000 49.8 12.4 3,383,000 99.4 1,654,000 48.9 12. 2 2,967,000 99.4 1,569,000 52.9 13.2 14,657,000 8,154,000 --------- 2,931,000 99.4 1,631,000 55.6 13. 2,404,000 99.1 1,563,000 65.0 16. 2 2,395,000 98. 6 1,410,000 58.9 14. 7 3,087,000 97. 5 1,742,000 56.4 14.1 3,414,000 96.8 2,128,000 62.3 15. 6 1,286,000 96.8 729,000 56. 7 14. 2 12,587,000- 7,572,000 -2,797,000 97. 8 1,683,000 60.2 16. 0 3, 963,000 97. 6 1,275,000 32.2 8. 0 6,258,000 99.0 2,024,000 32.3 8.1 3,704,000 98.3 1,833,000 49.5 12.4 13, 925, 000 ----- 5,132, 000 4,642,000 98. 4 1,711,000 36.8 9. 1, 999, 000 99.5 949,000 47. 5 11.9 2,417,000 98.7 1,029,000 42.6 10.6 2,546,000 97.1 909,000 35. 7 8.9 6,962, 000 --- 2,887,000 2,321,000 98.3 962,000 41. 5 10.4 2,102,000 97. 5 648, 000 30.8 7.7 Grand total ---...... ---- ------ 57, 491,000 98. 0 29,692,000 51.6 12. 9 2 Beginning with 1909, these figures have been computed from the quantities and the specific rate of duty; comparison with total duties collected and with the percentages of coffee in total dutiable imports shows that the computed figures can not be greatly in error. 212 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLB 115.-Average annual equivalent ad valorem rates of duty paid, on dutiable imports into Cuba, by principal countries of origin, 1902-1925, with averages for selected periods Equivalent ad valoren rates of duties collected on total dutiable imports from Year ended All countries United States and Porto Rico I Canada Great Canada rt Britain United States GerSpainmany many I France I Dec. 31: 1902. --- —- ------ 1903 --- —------- Average --------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- ----- 1905 --- —---------- 1906 --- —---------- 1907 --- —---------- -- 1908 --- —---------- 1909 --- —---------- Average --- —------------ June 30: 1910 --- —-------- 1911 - _ — ----------- 1912 ------------- 1913 --- —-------- --- 1914 --- —---------- Average --- —------- June 30: 1915 --- —------------ 1916 --- —--------- - 1917 -------- -- 1918 --- —----------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) — Average ----------- Dec. 31: 1919 ---- ----------- 1920 ---------------- 1921. --- —-------- Average --—. --- — Dec. 31: 1922 --- —------------ 1923. --- —----—. —. 1924. --- —------—.Average --- —--—. Dec. 31, 1925.. --- —--- 24.4 (1) 22.7 () 25. 6 31.4 24 28.9 26 25 24.6 12.4 26.2 32.1 25.1 27.7 25.2 ----- 23. 6 -- -. 25.9 31.8 24.6 28.3 28.7 25 23.7 14.5 29.6 38.5 27.8 31.3 29 23.8 22.6 18.9 31.4 38.5 29.3 33 26.7 22.5 21 18.4 28.4 39. 2 29.1 33.6 26. 4 22 19.8 18.4 27.1 39.4 27. 6 33.6 26.1 21.5 19.4 18.2 26.8 39 26.8 32.4 27 22.5 20. 7 21.9 28.2 40.1 25.7 33.2 27.1 22.5 20.8 19 28.4 39.1 27. 6 33 26.1 20.9 18.4 23.1 28.3 37.8 26.9 33 24.4 20.5 18.3 19 25.2 36.6 29.1 32.8 23.3 20.4 18.5 17.1 23.6 34.9 26.2 29.2 22.3 19.7 18.1 17.5 22.5 35.8 24.6 29.2 21.8 17.4 16 17.3 22.2 30.5 25.9 29.3 22.5 19.6 17.7 18.8 24.2 35 26.4 30.5 20.5 19.2 17.6 18.1 21.4 28.8 25. 2 26.5 18.9 17.6 16.7 11 20.2 28.3 22.2 26.5 16.3 15.2 14.4 8.7 17.8 24.9 23.2 26.5 13. 7 13.4 12. 5 7.6 16 25.3 26.1 22 13.2 13 12.4 7.3 13.9 22.6 ----- 22.5 16.1 15.1 14.2 9.1 18.6 26.2 25.1 24.8........... I.. -- -- 12.5 12 11.7 7.4 13.2 19.2 5.2 22.7 12.1 11.8 11.4 7.8 12.4 17.7 18.9 22.7 13.7 12.9 12.3 10.2 13 25.4 18.8 25.4 12.7 12. 2 11.8 8.4 12.8 19.9 18.5 23.4 17.1 15.3 14.7 15.2 17 27.8 21 25.8 17.4 14.7 14.3 13.8 18.7 28.2 18.9 28.7 16.9 15 14.7 16.6 17.9 27.4 17.7 26.7 17.2 15 14. 6 15.2 18 27.8 18.7 27.2 _ 1 _ l i _ 5. 15.8 14.3 14.1 1 14.5 15. 5 26.6 17.2 I 25.4 I I Not obtainable. STATISTICAL TABLES 213 TABLE 116.-Imports into Cuba grouped according to the amount of reduction granted to products of the United States: Values and percentages of imports from the United States and from all other countries, mwth dutites oollected thereon, computed duties remitted on United States products, and ad valorem equivalents, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1905 Value of imports from- Duties collected on imports from Group United Other All United Other All States countries countries States countries countries Articles free of duty -------- $6,231,000 $1,895,000 $8,125,000 - --- - -- Per cent from all countries. 76. 7 23. 3 100 Per cent total --- —------- 16.5 4.1 9. 7 ----- -- Tobacco and manufactures, no reduction ------------ - $66,000 $4,000 $70, 000 $21,000 $2,000 $23, 000 Per cent from all countries_. 94. 7 5.3 100 91.6 8.4 100 Per cent total dutiable -.2 (1).1.3 (1).1 Per cent total --- —-----.2 (1).1 -- ------ Articles with 20 per cent reduction ---------- ------ $18,280,000 $16,290,000 $34, 570,000 $4, 536,000 $6,078,000 $10,613,000 Per cent from all countries - 52. 9 47. 1 100 42. 7 57. 3 100 Per cent total dutiable- -- 58.1 36. 8 45. 7 64.1 40.8 48.3 Per cent total --------- 48. 5 35.3 41.2 --- ------- Articles with 25 per cent reduction ----- ------------- $2,422.000 $3,902,000 $6,324,000 $498,000 $1,045,000 $1,543,000 Per cent from all countries- 38.3 61.7 100 32. 3 67. 7 100 Per cent total dutiable -- 7.7 8. 8 8. 4 7.0 7.0 7.0 Per cent total --- —--—.- 6.4 8.4 7. 5 ------- Articles with 30 per cent reduction ----- - $8,638,000 $13,698,000 $22,336,000 $1,655,000 $4,715,000 $6,370,000 Per cent from all countries- 38. 7 61.3 100 26.0 74.0 100 Per cent total dutiable - - 27. 4 31.0 29.5 23. 4 31.7 29. 0 Per cent total ----------- 22.9 29.7 26.6 ---- --- - Articles with 40 per cent reduction --- -- - $2,061,000 $10,356,000 $12,418,000 $365,000 $3,052,000 $3,418,000 Per cent from all countries- 16. 6 83.4 100 10. 7 89. 3 100 Per cent total dutiable - 6. 6 23.4 16.4 5. 2 20.5 15.6 Per cent total --- — ---- 5.5 22.4 14. 8 ------ Total dutiable --- —-------- $31, 468, 000 $44,250,000 $75,718,000 $7,075,000 $14,892,000 $21,967,000 Per cent from all countries 41.6 58.4 100 32. 2 67.8 100 Per cent total --- —----- 83. 5 95.9 90.3 - -- ----- Total ---—... --- —. —.. --- — $37, 699,000 $46,144,000 $83,843,000 -- - -- - ------- bIPer cent from all countries- 45. 0 55.0 100 -- ----- Equivalent ad valorem rates Computed duties reon imports from- mitted ______________ Reduc-____ tion Group tion Q~G~~~T~~roup ~under EquivaUnited Other All treaty Amounts lent ad States countries countries valorem rates Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Tobacco and manufactures, no reduction. 32.06 52.01 33.13 ------- --- Articles with 20 per cent reduction ---- 24.81 37. 31 30.70 20 $1,134.000 6. 2 Per cent total dutiable ----------- ----- ---—.- 50. 3.Article with 25 per cent reduction - 20.56 26. 79 24.40 25 $166, 000 6.85 Per cent total dutiable. --- —--- ----------- ------- 7. 4 -- Articles with 30 per cent reduction 19. 16 34. 42 28. 52 30 $709,000 8. 21 Per cent total dutiable ---- ---------------------- 31.5 5 — Articles with 40 per cent reduction --- 17. 72 29.47 27. 52 40 $243,000 11.81 Per cent total dutiable - -------- -- —. 10.8 Total dutiable ---- ---- ---- 22.48 33.65 2 24.16 $2, 253,000 27. 16 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. If computed on the basis of "total dutiable," exclusive of the relatively insignificant imports of tobacco and its manufactures, this weighted average of the reductions granted by the treaty would be 24.20 per cent and the equivalent ad valorem of the reductions, 7.17 per cent. 214 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLet 117.-The same, for the ftscal year ended June 30, 1914 Value of imports from- Duties collected on imports fromGroup United Other All United Other All States countries countries States countries countries Articles free of duty --- —--—. $7,829,000 $981, 000 $8, 809,000 Per cent from all countries ----—..... --- 88.9 11.1 100 Per cent total --- —-. — 11.0 1.6 6. 7 Tobacco and manufactures, no reduction ---------- $46,000 $6,000 $52,000 $13, 000 $4,000 $17,000 Per cent from all countries --- —--------- 88.7 11.3 100 76.8 23. 2 100 Per cent total dutiable -. 1 (1) (). ().1 Per cent total --- —-- 1.1 ( (1) Articles with 20 per cent reduction - --- $38,977,000 $27, 483,000 $66, 460,000 $6,904,000 $6,858.000 $13, 762,000 Per cent from all countries - --------- 58. 6 41.4 100 50.1 49. 9 100 Per cent total dutiable-. 61.3 46.2 54.0 59.8 44.0 50.7 Per cent total -------- 4.6 45.5 50.4 ---------------- Articles with 25 per cent reduction ----- ---- $6, 366,000 $5,384, 000 $11, 750, 000 $1, 210,000 $1, 274,000 $2,484,000 Per cent from all countries-... --- — 54.2 45. 8 100 48. 8 51. 2 100 Per cent total dutiable.... 10.0 9.1 9.6 10.5 8.2 9.2 Per cent total ------- 8.9 8.9 8.9 -- --- Articles with 30 per cent reduction ---------- $16,397,000 $16,012, 000 $32,410,000 $3,121,000 $4, 369, 000 $7, 490,000 Per cent from all countries ------------- 50.6 49.4 100 41.4 58.7 100 Per cent total dutiable - 25.8 27.0 26.4 27.0 28. 0 27.6 Per cent total- ---- 23.0 26.5 24.6 Articles with 40 per cent reduction ----- ------ $1, 807,000 $10, 539,000 $12, 346, 000 $302,000 $3,098,000 $3,400,000 Per cent from all countries -------- -- 14.6 85.4 100 9.2 90.8 100 Per cent total dutiable - 2.8 17.7 10.0 2. 6 19. 8 12.5 Per cent total- ------ 2.5 17.4 9.4 Total dutiable --- ---- $63, 594, 000 $59, 423,000 $123, 017, 000 $1000 5,603,000 $27,153,000 Per cent from all countries ---------- 51.7 48.3 100 42.5 57.5 100 Per cent total ----- 89. 0 98. 4 93. 3 Total ---- ------- $71, 422,000 $60,404,000 $131,827,000 - Per cent from all countries —. --- —-. 54.2 45.8 100 ---- ------------ Equivalent ad valorem Computed duties rates on imports from- remitted ReducGroup tion Other All under EquivaUn ted Treaty Amounts lent ad. States cour- coun- valore Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Tobacco and manufactures, no reduction- 27. 78 65.94 32.09 Articles with 20 per cent reduction 17. 71 24. 95 20. 71 20 $1, 726,000 4.43 Per cent total dutiable -47.0 -Articles with 25 per cent reduction 1 9 --- -.. 1900 2366 21. 14 25 $403,000 6.33 Per cent total dutiable. --- —----.0 - Articles with 30 per cent reduction-19.03 27. 28 23. 11 | 30 $1, 337,000 8.16 Per cent total dutiable -6 — ----—. 5 5 ---- Articles with 40 per cent reduction 16. 72 29. 39 27. 54 40 $201,000 1.15 Per cent total dutiable- -........ 5. Total dutiable --- ----------- 16 26 226 22.07 "' 24.11 $3,668,000. 7 1 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. If computed on the basis of "Total dutiable," exclusive of the relatively Insignificant imports of toba..o and its manufactures, this weighted average of the reductions granted by the treaty would be 24.12 per cent, but the equivalent ad valorem of the reductions would still be 5.77 per cent. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!;0,0E"i'1 STATISTICAL TABLES 215 TABLE 118.-The same, for the calendar year 1923 Value of imports from- Duties collected on imports fromGroup United Other All United Other All States countries countries States countries countries Articles free of duty... Per cent from all countries --- —---- ------ Per cent total ---— ' --- — Tobacco and manufactures, no reduction --- —---- Per cent from all countries --- —------ Per cent total dutiable — Per cent total --- —---- Articles with 20 per cent reduction --- —----------- Per cent from all countries-. --- —---------- Per cent total dutiable - Per cent total --- —----—. Articles with 25 per cent reduction --- —------------ Per cent from all countries. --- —---------- Per cent total dutiable Per cent total --- —-- Articles with 30 per cent reduction --- —------------- Per cent from all countries - ------------ Per cent total dutiable - Per cent total --- —----- Articles with 40 per cent reduction -. -.. ------ ---- Per cent from all countries --- —------------- Per cent total dutiable - Per cent total --- —----- Total dutiable.-. ----- --- Per cent from all countries -.. — -----—.Per cent total. —, --- — Total.. --- —- - Per cent from all countries --- —--—. ---. — $11, 868,000 86.5 6.5 $142,000 70.1.1.1 $93, 466, 000 69.6 55.1 51.5 $18, 526, 000 70.0 10.9 10.2 $51, 077,000 $1,848,000 13. 5 2.1 $61,000 29. 9.1.1 $40,747,000 30.4 47. 7 46.7 $7, 948,000 30.0 9.3 9.1 $18,205, 000 $13,716,000. --- —--. --- — 100~~~[............. 100 5.1 $203, 000 $22,000 $20, 000 $42,000 100 i 52.2 47.8 100.1.1.1.1.1 ----- ------ ----- $134, 213, 000 $14, 494, 000 $10, 808, 000 $25,303, 000 100 57.3 42.7 100 52.6 60.0 53.1 56.9 49. 9 ---- ------ $26, 474, 000 $2,120, 000 i $1, 650, 000 73.7 26.3 30.1 21.3 28.1 20. 9 $6, 544, 000 26.2 3.9 3.6 B169, 755, 000 66. 5 93. 5 $181, 623,000 67. 6 $18,418,000 73. 8 21.6 21.1 $85, 379,000 33. 5 97.9 $87, 226,000 32.4 100 10.4 9.8 $69, 281,000 100 27.2 25.8 $24,962, 000 100 9.8 9.3 $255,134,000 100 94.9 $268,850,000 100 56.2 8.8 $6,256, 000 63.3 36.7 100 25.9 17.8 22.2 43.8 8.1 $3, 629,000 $3, 770,000 100 8.5 $9,884,000 $1,252,000 $4,235,000 22.8 5.2 77.2 20.8 $5, 487,000 100 12.3 p24, 144, 000 $20 342, 000" $44, 486,000 54.3 45.7 100 Equivalent ad valorem Computed duties rates on imports from- remitted............... Reduc - _.__...___. otin Group ti ~~~~Group ~~Otherk All under Equiva'U Somurt- coun - ^ Amounts United coun- coun- treaty Amounts lent ad States coun- cn- valorem Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Tobacco and manufactures, no reduction 15. 53 33. 34 20. 86 ----------- --- Articles with 20 per cent reduction-. --- 15. 51 26. 53 18. 85 20 $3,624,000 3. 88 Per cent total dutiable --- ---------------- 46. 2 Articles with 25 per cent reduction ------- 11.44 20. 76 14. 24 25 $707,000 3.81 Per cent total dutiable.- --------- --------- 9.0 --- Articles with 30 per cent reduction ---- - 12.25 19.93 14. 27 30 $2,681,000 5.25 Per cent total dutiable ----------------------- 34.2 -— 2 Articles with 40 per cent reduction ------ 19.13 22.99 21.98 40 $835,000 12.76 Per cent total dutiable......... --- —-- -------- ------ 10.6 ---- Total dutiable ----------------------- 14.22 23. 83 17. 44 1 24. 52 $7,846,000 1 4. 62 1 If computed on the basis of "Total dutiable" exclusive of the relatively insignificant imports of tobacco and its manufactures, this weighted average of the reductions granted by the treaty would still be 24.52 per cent and the equivalent ad valorem of the reductions also 4.62 per cent. 216 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 119.-Dutiable imports into Cuba, exclusive of noncompetitive commodities1 and of cattle and tobacco, divided into three classes according to the degree of competition between the United States and all other cotuntries,2 and subdivided into groups according to the amount of reduction granted to products of the United States under the reciprocity treaty: Average annual values and percentages of totals, by classes and groups, from the United States and from all other countries, for four selected periods s [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Class I, im- Class II, im- Class III, im- Group total, imports from- ports from- ports from- ports fromTreaty group United Other United Other United Other United Other States Staoun- tes oun tates triesoun tates CO tries tries tries 20 PER CENT GROUP 1902-3: Value.................. 8, 796 370 292 2,848 4, 519 3, 732 13, 607 6,950 Per cent from all countries 96. 0 4.0 9. 3 90. 7 54.8 45. 2 66. 2 33. 8 1905-1907: Value ------------- 13,033 1,433 659 5,053 10, 667 5,919 24,358 12,406 Per cent from all countries 90. 0 10.0 11. 5 88. 5 64. 3 35. 7 66.3 33. 7 1912-1914: Value --—... —.. —....... 22, 765 3,194 1,950 4,363 15,467 9,152 40, 182 16, 709 Per cent from all countries ----- 87.7 12. 3 30.9 69.1 62. 8 37. 2 70.6 29.4 1922-1924: Value -----—...... 49, 600 8,600 4,594 7,963 38,170 10,975 92,364 27,538 Per cent from all countries 85. 2 14. 8 36. 6 63.4 77. 7 22. 3 77.0 23.0 25 PER CENT GROUP 1902-3: Value --- -------- --- 232 37 102 783 1, 538 2,107 1,871 2,928 Per cent from all countries --- —-- 86.1 13.9 11. 5 88. 5 42. 2 57. 8 39.0 61.0 1905-1907: Value --------- ---- 277 122 501 1, 291 2, 779 3, 036 3,558 4,448 Per cent from all countries - 69. 6 30. 4 28. 0 72. 0 47. 8 52.2 44.4 55.6 1912-1914: Value ----- ---- ---—. 423 105 1, 553 1, 714 4,050 3,068 6,027 4,886 Per cent from all countries ------ 80. 2 19.8 47. 5 52. 5 56.9 43.1 55.2 44.8 1922-1924; Value ---------- - 860 79 4, 355 2.227 9, 399 3, 668 14,614 5,974 Per cent from all countries- 91.5 8.5 66.2 33.8 71.9 28.1 71.0 29.0 30 PER CENT GROUP 1902-3: Value ------------ 3,035 23 511 7,608 1,699 2,582 5,245 10,213 Per cent from all countries - 99. 992. 8 6. 3 93. 7 39.7 60.3 33.9 66.1 1905-1907: Value ---------- ------- 4, 533 152 1,474 9, 512 3,495 3, 246 9,502 12,910 Per cent from all countries 96.. 8 3. 2 13.4 86.6 51.8 48.2 42.4 57.6 1912-1914: Value - ------------ 6, 271 366 3, 312 11, 730 6,151 3, 558 15,734 15,654 Per cent from all countries 94.5 5.5 22.0 78. 0 63.4 36.6 50.1 49. 9 1922-1924: Value --- —---- ------- 10, 234 1, 527 18,145 10,175 15, 257 3, 078 43, 637 14,780 Per cent from all countries - 87. 0 13. 0 64.1 35.9 83.2 16.8 74. 7 25.3 40 PER CENT GROUP 1902-3: Value -5 (4) 198 2,562 31 54 233 2,618 Per cent from all countries 97. 0 3. 0 7. 2 92.8 36.1 63.9 8. 2 91.8 1905-1907: Value --- — ------- 7 2 438 4,129 78 97 522 4, 229 Per cent from all countries 80.2 19.8 9.6 90.4 44.4 55. 6 11.0 89.0 1912-1914: Value -------------. 18 (4) 793 3,899 77 90 888 3,989 Per cent from all countries- 99. 6.4 16.9 83.1 45.9 64.1 18.2 81.8 1922-1924: Value ----------— 5.. 54 (4) 4,108 5,454 249 213 4,409 5,669 Per cent from all countries- 99.1.9 43.0 57.0 53.9 46.1 43.7 56.3 1 That is, jerked beef, red wine in barrels, olive oil, hemp sandals, saffron, almonds, fans, matches, tea, and beer in barrels, of the 20 per cent group; liquors, of the 25 per cent group; white wine, beer, and red wine in bottles, cider, champagne, and opium, of the 30 per cent group; and rice and paper pulp, of the 40 per cent group. 2 Class I comprises articles of which the United States (exclusive of Porto Rico generally, but inclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico), on the basis of average values for the calendar years 1902 and 1903, sUpg plied 80 per cent or more of imports into Cuba; Class II, less than 20 per cent; and Class III, from 20 to 80 per cent. s 1902-3, calendar years; 1905-1907 and 1912-1914, fiscal years; and 1922-1924, calendar years. 4 Less than $500. STATISTICAL TABLES 217 TABLE 119.-Dutiable imports into Cuba, exclusive of noncompetitive commodities and of cattle and tobacco, divided into three classes according to the degree of competition between the United States and all other countries, and subdivided into groups according to the amount of reduction granted to products of the United States under the reciprocity treaty: Average annual values and percentages of totals, by classes and groups, from the United States and from all other countries, for four selected periods-Continued [Values in thousands of dollars; that is 000 omitted] Class I, im- Class II, im- Clas III, mi- Group total, imports from- ports from ports from- ports from — Treaty group United Other United her UnitedOther Unitedother States States coun coun- States cotatuntries tries tries triesCLASS TOTAL 1902-3: Value --------------------- 12, 067 431 1,104 13,800 7, 786 8,477 20,957 22, 708 Per cent from all countries ---- 96.6 3.4 7.4 92. 6 47.9 52.1 48. 0 52.0 1905-1907: Value ---------------------- 17,850 1,708 3,071 19, 987 17, 019 12,298 37,940 33,993 Per cent from all countries —. --- 91.3 8. 7 13.3 86. 7 58.1 41.9 52. 7 47.3 1912-1914: Value ------------------------- 29,478 3,665 7, 608 21,705 25, 744 15, 868 62, 831 41, 238 Per cent from all countries --- — 88. 9 11.1 26. 0 74.0 61.9 38.1 60.4 39. 6 1922-1924: Value. --- ------ ---- 60,748 10,207 31,201 25, 819 63, 075 17,935 155,024 53,968 Per cent from all countries- 85. 6 14. 4 54. 7 45. 3 77.9 22.1 74. 2 25.1 218 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABXM 120.-Dutiable imports into Cuba (exclusive of cattle and tobacco), reclassifed according to the degree of oompetition between the United States and all other countries1 and subdivided into groups according to the amount of reduction granted to products of the United States under the reciprocity treaty: Average annual values and percentages of totals, by classes and groups, from the United States and from all other countries, for calendar years 1922-1924 Class I,2 imports from- Class II,3 imports fromTreaty group United Other All coun- United Other All counStates countries tries States countries tries 20 per cent group —... --- —. $62,734,000 $3,454,000 $66,188,000 $166, 000 $9,165,000 $9,331,000 Per cent from all countries-....... ---....... 94.8 5.2 100 1.8 98.2 100 Per cent class total --- — 62. 7 42.8 61.2 8.6 34.0 32.3 Per cent group total- -. 68.1 9.5 51.5.2 25.2 7.3 25 per cent group_ ----,.-... $12,262,000 $1, 543,000 $13,805,000 $528,000 $3,586,000 $4,114,000 Per cent from all countries —............... 88.8 11.2 100 12.8 87.2 100 Per cent class total. ---. 12. 2 19.2 12.8 27.4 13.3 14.2 Per cent group total-. --- 83.7 21.1 62.8 3.6 49.0 18. 7 30 per cent group --- $24, 493,000 $3, 040,000 $27, 533,000 $79,000 $2,603,000 $2,682,000 Per cent from all countries..-......... —. 89.0 11.0 100 2.9 97.1 100 Per cent class total --- —- 24.5 37.7 25.4 4.1 9.6 9.3 Per cent group total. — 55.6 17.9 45.1.2 15.4 4.4 40 per cent group --- —--- - $594,000 $24,000 $618,000 $1,154,000 $11,639,000 $12, 793,000 Per cent from all countries -....-... —..... 96.1 3.9 100 9.0 91.0 100 Per cent class total. —.. 6.3.6 59.9 43.1 44.2 Per cent group total 1.. 10.2 10.4 21.0 68.6 34.8 Class total -------------- $100,082,000 $8,061,000 $108,143,000 $1,927,000 $26,994,000 $28, 921,000 Per cent from all countries -. --- —--—..-. 92. 5 7. 5 100 6. 7 93.3 100 Per cent class total -...- 100 100 100 100 100 100 Per cent group total.. 64.0 10.4 46.2 1.2 34.8 12.4 X Class I comprises articles of which the United States (exclusive of Porto Rico generally, but inclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico), on the basis of average values for the calendar years 1922-1924, supplied 80 per cent or more of imports into Cuba; Class II, less than 20 per cent; and Class III, from 20 to 80 per cent. Similar classes, based on the trade of 1902-3, were discussed in Ch. IX, pp. 122-135. The footnotes below name the items which have shifted from one to another of the three classes. For example, for 1902-3, mineral oils and products are listed in Class I, the United States supplying 99 per cent of total Cuban imports, but for 1922-1924 this share is reduced to 57 per cent, putting the item in Class III. The majority of the changes, however, reflect improvements of the relative position of the United States. It should be noted, moreover, that because of the wide spread between 20 and 80 per cent in Class III many striking advances for the United States (of paper sheets, for instance, from 31 to 76 per cent) are not brought out; and that, because of the changes in the nature and relative importance of the articles comprising the Cuban import trade (commented upon on p. 135 if.), the order of arrangement indicated for 1902-3 would not be the same for 1922-1924. For details as to classifications, see the footnotes on pp. 123-126. 2 Composed of the commodities listed on pp. 123 and 126, except for the following additions and transfers: T ransfer from the 20 per cent group, coffee (from the United States plus Porto Rican), mineral oils and products, condensed milk, oats, waste and scrap metal, oatmeal, and other flours, charcoal, and chemical fertilizers to Class III, and beer in barrels to Class II; from the 25 per cent group pumps and canned salmon to Class III; add to the 20 per cent group, candles, etc., miscellaneous vegetables, celluloid, small stallions, zinc in sheets, gloves, and alcohol from Class II, and machines and accessories, sugar-plant machinery and accessories, copper and manufactures, hides, skins, and leather, small geldings, cement, miscellaneous manufactures of leather, miscellaneous meats and meat products, mares, manufactures of rubber, small mules, barley and rye, biscuits, manufactures of flour, glycerin and olein, harness and saddles, mouldings and ornaments of wood, lead in lumps, lead pipes, grapes, building stones, cartridges, and coffins and accessories from Class III; to the 25 per cent group, iron and steel bars and plates, and labeled glass bottles from Class II; and miscellaneous manufactures, pieces, and pipes and couplings of iron and steel, as also tools, nails, cast-iron pigs and bars and manufactures, tin-plate sheets and manufactures, and wire gauze from Class III; to the 30 per cent group, ordinary soap in bars, salts (ordinary and miscellaneous), pianos and accessories, knit goods of other vegetable fibers, and rubber from Class II; and men's, women's, and children's shoes, colors, cotton ready-made clothing, acids, blank books, oxides, cardboard sheets, and other cardboard from the 30 per cent group, and waterproof fabrics and rubber boots and shoes from the 20 per cent group of Class III (see footnote 24, p. 125); to the 40 per cent group, preserved fruits from Class I, and canned fruit from Class III. a Of the articles listed in Class II on pp. 123,124, those in italics remained in that class in 1922-1924, and the following, raisins and marble, in the 20 per cent group; glass containers in the 25 per cent group; cotton lacesand assementerie of other vegetable fibers in the 30 per cent group; and miscellaneous chinaware andoor tiles in the 40 per cent group. From the earlier Class III have been added tea and artificial flowers, to the 20 per cent group; codfish, to the 25 per cent group; and beer in bottles and opium, to the 30 per cent group. STATISTICAL TABLES 219, TABLE 120.-Dutiable imports into Cuba (exclusive of cattle and tobacco), re, classified according to the degree of competition between the United States and all other countries and subdivided into groups accord4ng to the a tmout of reduction granted to products of the United States under the reciprocity treaty: Average annual values and percentages of totals, by classes and groups, from the United States and from all other owuntries, for calendar years 1922-1924 — Continued Class III, imports from- Group total, imports fromTreaty group.... United Other All coun- United Other All counStates countries tries States countries tries 20 per cent group -.........$29, 226,000 $23, 774, 000 $53, 000,000 $92,126, 000 $36,393, 000 $128,519,000 Per cent from all countries-...-............. 55.2 44.8 100 71.7 28.3 100 Per cent class total --- 53.8 55. 9 54. 7 58.9 46.9 54.9 Per cent group total --- 31.7 65.3 41.2 100 100 100 25 per cent group -----—..- $1,865,000 $2,190,000 $4, 055, 000 $14,654,000 $7,320,000 $21,974,000 Per cent from all countries.................. 46.0 54.0 100 66.7 33.3 100 Per cent class total --- — 3.4 5.1 4.2 9.4 9.5 9.4 Per cent group total - 12. 7 29.9. 18.5 100 100 100 0 per cent group -... $19,472,000 $11,302, 000 $30, 774,000 $44,044,000 $16, 945,000 $60,989,000 Per cent from all countries................... 63.3 36.7 100 72.2 27.8 100 Per cent class total 35.9 26.6 31.8 28.2 21.8 26.1 Per cent group total —.- 44.2 66. 7 50.5 100 100 100 40}per cent group-.......... $3, 751,000 $5, 292,000 $9,043,000 $5,499,000 $16, 955,000 $22,454,000 Per cent from all countries-........... 41.5 58.5 100 24.5 75. 5 100 Per cent class total -- - 6.9 12.4 9.3 3.5 21.8 9.6 Per cent group total - 68.2 31.2 54.8 100 100 100 Class total ---------- $54,314,000 $42, 558,000 $96,872,000 $156, 323,000 $77, 613,000 $233,936,000 Per cent from all countries 56.1 43.9 100 66.8 33.2 100 Per cent class total 10 100 100 100 100 10 0 100 Per cent group total - 34.8 54.8 41.4 100 100 100 10038-29 — 15 220 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABL 121.-United States imports of Cuban sugar and tobacco:1 Values and peroentoages of total imports from Cuba, 1900-1925, with averages for selected periods [Values in millions and tenths of millions of dollars] Total Imports of sugar Imports of tobacco Imports of sugar Year ended- imports from Cuba Value Per cent Value Per cent Value Per cent of total of total of total June 30: 1900. --- —- -- 1901. --- —------—.1902. --- —------—.1903 --- —-. --- —-—. Dec. 31,1903 (6 months). Average.. ---. --- —-- June 30: 1904 (6 months). --- —-- 1905 --- —--------- 1906. --- —---------- 1907 --- —-- 1908. --- —1909 -. --- —Average. --- —------ June 30: 1910 -------- 1911 ------------—. — 1912.... --- —-------- 1913. --- —----------- 1914. --- —----------- Average. --- —-------- June 30: 1916. ---.-. 1916. --- —--------—. 1917 ----------- 1918 — Dec. 31,1918 (6 months)-,. Average -------------- Dec. 31: 1919 ---------- 1920. --- —---------------- 1921. --- —---- Average -------—. — Dec. 31: 1922 ---------- 1923 ---------------- 1924 ----------------- Average ---------—. 31.4 43.4 34.7 62.9 22.2 18.2 26.4 18.2 42.7 13.6 58.2 60.7 52.5 67.9 61.2 9.8 12.1 10.9 13.1 6.5 31.3 28.0 31.4 20.9 29.2 28.0 38.5 29.1 55.9 20.1 89.4 88.7 83. 9 88.8 90.4 43.3 26.5 61.2 11. 7 27.0 38.1 88.2 54.8 42.9 78.4 6.3 11.5 49.2 89.9 86.3 64.4 74.6 14.8 '17.1 79.1 91.7 85.0 60.2 70.8 17.5 20.6 77.7 91.4 97.4 70:6 72.5 17.5 17.9 88.1 90.4 83.3 58.3 70.0 17.3 20.8 75.6 90.8 96.7 68.9 71.2 19.3 19.9 88.1 91.1 91.5 66.4 72.6 16.8 18.4 83.2 90.9 122.5 93.5 76.3 18.0 14.7 111.5 91.0 110.3 81.7 74.0 18.4 16.7 100.1 90.8 120.2 91.1 75.8 18.6 15.5 109.7 91.3 126.1 93.7 74. 3 20.3 16.1 114.0 90.4 131.3 98.4 74.9 20.1 15.3 118.5 90.2 122.1 91.7 75.1 19.1 15.6 110.8 90.7 185.7 156.2 84.1 14.2 7.7 170.-4 91.8 229.0 192.6 84.1 15.5 6.8 208.1 90.9 253.4 204.5 80.7 19.6 7. 7 224.1 88.5 264.0 219.5 83.1 19.0 7.2 238.4 90.3 102.3 79.2 77.4 9.3 9.1 88.5 86.5 229.9 189.3 82.4 17.3 7.5 206.6 89.9 418.6 373.7 89.3 25.5 6.1 399.2 95.4 721.7 668.9 92. 7 32. 5 4.5 701.4 97.2 230.4 194.2 84.3 22.6 9.8 216.8 94.1 456.9 412.3 90.2 26.9 5.9 439.1 96.1 267.8 227.3 84.8 23.6 8.8 250.9 93.7 376.4 331.9 88.2 25.2 6.7 357.1 94. 361. 7 313.2 86.6 27.4 7.6 340.6 94.1 335.3 290.8 86.7 25.4 7.6 316.2 94.3 3.2. —. —=_:_-, I Dec. 31, 1925 -------- 261.7 199.81 76.3 27. 4 10.5 I 227.2 86.8 I General imports, 1900-1903 (Dec. 31); imports for consumption, 1904-1925. i Percentages calculated before values were reduced to millions. STATISTICAL TABLES 221 TABLE 122.-Cane sugar: Imports for consumption tnto the United States from Cuba, duties collected and remitted, with ad valorem equivalents, by years, 1904-1925, with totals and averages for selected periods Duties collected Duties remitted i Year ended- Values Equiva- Equivalent ad Amounts lent ad Amounts Amounts valorem valorem rates rates ilne 30: 1904 (6 months) 2 --- —-------- 1905 -5 --- —--------------- 1906 --------------------- 1907. ----. --- —----—. --- —---- 1908. --- —----------------- 1909 --- —-—. --- —---—.Total for period --- —------------ Average ---- - ------- June 30: 1910 -------— _ --- —---------- 1911. ---. -. --- —1912.. --- —- ---—. --- —----- 1913, ------------—. --- —---- 1914 --------------------------- Total for period ------------ Average --- —------------ June 30: 1915 --- —---- 1916 '..... --- —------------- 1917.. --- —--- ------------ 1918 ----- ----- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months), ------- Total for period ------------ Average... --- —-- ------ Dec. 31: 1919 1............ 1920._........... 1921.......... --- -. Total for period — --------- Average ----------------------- Dec. 31: 1922.....1923.. --- —--- ------- -..1924-. ----...... Total for period, ----------- Average. --- —-------- Dec. 31, 1925 ---------------------—. $40,496,000 57,941,000 59,337,000 69,012,000 60,505,000 64,558,000 $25,603,000 25,178,000 32,729,000 41,386,000 32,165,000 34,758,000 Per cent 63.2 43.4 55.2 60.0 53.2 53.8 $6,401,000 6,294,000 8,182,000 10,346,000 8,041,000 8,689,000 Per cent 15.8 10.9 13.8 15.0 13.3 13.5 351,849,000 191,819,000 --- 47,6 47,955,000 63,973,000 34,876,000 54.5 8,719,000 13.6 90,952,000 45,611,000 50.2 11,403,000 12.5 89,826,000 47,606,000 53.0 11,902,000 13.2 91,139,000 42,569,000 46.7 10,642,000 11.7 84,456,000 49,443,000 58.5 12,361,000 14.6 105,418,000 61,170,000 58.0 15, 292,000 14.5 461,792,000 246,399,000 --- - 61,600,000 — 92,358,000 49,280,000 53.4 12,320,000 13.3 146,495,000 46,061,000 31.4 11,515,000 7.9 190,407,000 51,816,000 - 27.2 12,954,000 6.8 209,166,000 47,682,000 22.8 11,921,000 5.7 218,492,000 44,966,000 20.6 11,241,000 5.1 73,002,000 15,269,000 20.9 3,817,000 5.2 837,561,000 205,794,000 -51,448,000 --- 186,125, 000 45,732,000 24.6 11,433,000 6. 1 373,012,000 66,400,000 17.8 16,600,000 4.4 667,919,000 57,133,000 8.6 14,283,000 2.1 195,158,000 63,314,000 32.4 15,829,000 8.1 1,236,089,000 186,848,000 --- 46,712,000 --- 412,030,000 62,283,000 15. 1 15,571,000 3.8 226,848,000 145,726,000 64.2 36,431,000 16.1 330,392,000 119,175,000 36.1 29,794,000 9.0 317, 519,000 130,250,000 41.0 32,563,000 10.3 874,759,000 395,151,000 8 --- —- 98,788,000 --- —-- 291,586,000 131,717,000 45.2 32,929,000 11.3 199,433,000 136,742,000 68 6 34, 185,000 17. 2.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I Grand total a -.- --------- --- 3,961,483,000 1, 362,752,000 34. 4 340,688,000 8.6 Percentage by which full duty is reduced: 20 per cent. 2 Including Dec. 27-31, 1903. 3 eductions should be made from these figures for imports of Cuban sugar used in manufacture for export with benefit of "drawback" and for duties so refunded. The total amounts of these imports and drawbacks 1904-1925, would be in the neighborhood, respectively, of $315,000,000 and $105,000,000; correSpondingly, the estimated duty remitted under the reciprocity treaty should be reduced by some such figure as $26,000,000. 222 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 123.-Raw cane sugar: Differences between average per unit values of Cuban and of full-duty imports for consumption into the United States; quantities and values, with average values per 100 pounds, and ad valorem equivalents of duties collected, by years, 1904-1925, and averages for selected periods Imports of Cuban sugar 1 Imports of full-duty sugar Average value per 100 pounds Year ended June 30: 19041 ---- ------- 1905 --------- 1906 ---- ------- 1907 --- —----- 1908 ---- -------- 1909 ----------- -- Average --- —-- June 30: 1910 --- —------ 1911 --- —------ 1912 -------------- 1913 --- —----------- 1914 ------------ Average --- —---- June 30: 1915 --- —---------- 1916 --- —--- ---- 1917 --- —---------- 1918 --- —--------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months): Average --- —--- Dec. 31: 1919 --- —--------- 1920 --- —----------- 1921 --- —----------- Average — ----- Dec. 31: 1922 ------ 1923 - -. --- - 1924. - - ------- 1925 --- —------- Duties Duties Difference collected collectedin favor of8~, 1|S S~ 5,SS I i I s a a g a b sa a I a a _Cy.O W Po Q 4 Mill. Mill. Mill. ATil. Mill. Mill. Ibs. dolls dolls. P. ct. bs. dolls. dolls. P. ct 1,965 40.5 25.6 63.2 -- - --- $2.06 1,925 57.9 25.2 43.5 1.305 26.0 21.4 82.6 3.01 $1. 99 $1.02'" 2,523 59.3 32.7 55. 2 1,105 23.5 18.2 77.7 2.35 2.13.22 3,166 69.0 41.4 60.0 743 13.9 12.2 88.1 2.18 1.87.31 2,462 60.5 32.2 53.2 872 17.1 14.4 83. 8 2.46 1.97.49 2,646 64.5 34.7 53.8 1,228 25.8 20.4 79.3 2.44 2.10.34 2,670 64.0 34.9 54.5 1,167 23.6 19.3 81.6 2.40 22.02.38 --- 3,469 91.0 45.6 50.2 427 8.9 7.1 79.5 2.62 2.08.54 3,611 89.8 47.6 53.0 260 6.0 4.4 73.4 2.49 2.29.20 3,230 91.1 42.6 46.7 473 12.7 7.8 61.9 2.82 2.68.14 3,747 84.5 49.4 58.5 39 1.0.6 66.3 2.25 2.46 $0.21 5,271 105.4 61.2 58.0 17 4 2 62.0 2.00 2.31.31 3,865 92.4 49.3 53.4 243 5.8 4.0 69.8 2.39 2.37.02 4,672 146.5 46.1 31.4 261 8.6 3.2 37.0 3.14 3. 29.15 5,201 190.4 51.8 27.2 282 10.6 3.5 32.7 3.66 3.74 -.08 4,791 209.2 47.7 22.8 507 22.3 63 28.2 4.37 4.40 -.03 4,522 218.5 45.0 20.6 226 11.2 2.8 25.1 4.83 4.98 ---.15 1,552 73.0 15.3 20.9 184 8.5 2.3 27.2 4.70 4.59.11.4,608 186.1 45.7 24.6 324 13.6 4.0 29.5 04 4.04. 19.15 6,673 373.0 66.4 17.8 121 8.3 1.5 18.1 5.59 6.91 1.32 5,741 667.9 57.1 8.6 1,644 244.7 21.0 8.6 11.63 14.88 - 3.25 5,062 195.2 63.3 32.4 514 35.5 7.5 21.2 3.86 6.89 -- 3.03 5,825 412.0 62.3 15.1 760 96.2 10.0 10.4 7.07 12.66 ---- 3.59 9,053 226.8 145.7 64.2 85 3.5 1.7 49.5 2.51 4.06 1.55 6,803 330.4 119.2 36.1 374 18.4 8.3 45.2 4.86 4.90 — 1.04 7,438 317.5 130.3 41.0 215 9.4 4.8 50.4 4.27 4.38.11 7,803 199.4 136.7 68.6 56 1.8 1.3 70.4 2.56 3.24 -.68 Average ---- 7,774 268.5 133.0 1 49.5 I 183 8.3 4. 4 48.5 1 3.45 14.52 1 - 1.07 I For the period Dec. 27, 1903, to June 30, 1904. 2 44-year average only. STATISTICAL TABLES 223 TABLE 124.-Raw cane sugar: Computed quantities and values of, and duties collected and remitted on United States imports from Cuba used in the manufacture of articles exported with benefit of drawback; full-duty imports for consumption compared with total imports used in drawback exports, 1904-1925 Cuban sugar used in drawback exports Year ended Total drawback exports Total full-duty imports Quantities 1 Import duties 3 Values 2 1 --- — Collected I Remitted June 30: 1900 --- —--- ---------------- 1901 - 1901 --- —---------------------------- 1902 -------------------- 1903 ---------------------------------- Average -------------------------- June 30: 1904 ------------------------------- 1905 --------------------------------- 1906 -- ------------ -------- 1907 ---------------------------------- 1908 - -------- -------------- 1909 - -------------------------------- Average ------------------------ June 30: 1910 -------------------------—. ---1911 --------------------------------- 1912 -----------—. --- —---- 1913 -------- -----------—. 1914 - -- ------------------- Average --- —--------------------- June 30: 1915 -------------------------------- 1916 ----------------------------- 1917 ---------------------------------- 1918 ---------------------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ------------------- Average --- —------------------------ Dec. 31: 1919 -—... --- —---------- 1920 --- --------------------------- 1921 ------------------------------- Average ---------------------------- Dec. 31: 1922- ----------—? -------- 1923. --- —------------------ 1924 --- ---------------------- 1924 1925 ---------- A1925ve ge ------------------------- Average............ --- —-. --- —---- Million pounds 86 70 60 44 Million Million pounds pounds.........-I... -- -.......... I-.......... Million Million dollars dollars ]-]]-]]]]].......... Million dollars 65 ------ --- ---- 50 1,916 62 1,305 i.. --- —-.-.... ----- 74 1, 105 -— l ---—. --- — ------ 62 743 - -- ---- 72 872 --- -- 147 1,228 - - -------- 78 1,195 ---- ------ - _8 _1185i~l7 --- —------ 132 142 87 99 47 427 260 473 39 17 60 29 ----------: --- —----- 1.35 1 0.79.58 5.34 0.20.08 101 243 445. 97 4.56 4.14 519 261 259 8.1 2.6.64 1,367 282 1,085 39.7 10.8 2.7 1,543 507 1,037 45.3 10.3 2.6 1,021 226 796 38.4 7.9 2.0 142 184 --- —-- 1,021 324 706 29.2 7.0 1.8 1,497 121 1,376 76.9 13.7 3.4 1,388 1,644 ------------------ 1,116 514 601 23.2 7.5 1.9 1,334 760 659 33. 4 7.1 1.8 2,167 85 2,081 52.2 33.6 8.4 553 374 178 8.66 3.1.78 509 215 294 12. 6 5.1 1.3 815 56 760 19.4 13.3 3.3 1,011 183 828 23.2 13.8 3.4 Total, 1913-1925, inclusive ---- 12,783 4,525 8,556 326 109 27 For the purpose of this table it has been assumed that all full-duty sugar is used in manufacture for export with benefit of drawback before any Cuban sugar is so used. Accordingly, figures appear in this column only for those years in which the reported quantities of drawback exports exceeded total amounts of full-duty imports. 2 Calculated on the basis of the average value per pound of total raw cane-sugar imports from Cuba (see Table 40) for the year, respectively, in which the drawback exports are reported. 3 Calculated on the basis of the average equivalent ad valorem rates of duties collected on total raw canesugar imports from Cuba. (See Table 123.) ' 2 year average only. 224 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 125.-Tobacco: Imports for consumption into the United States from Cuba, duties collected and remitted, with ad valorem equivalents, by years, 1904-1925, with totals and averages for selected periods Duties collected Duties remitted 1 Year ended- Values Equiva- Equivalent ad lent ad Amounts valorem Amounts re valo rem valores rates rates June 30: 1904 (6 months)' ----- 1905 ------------------------ 1906 ------------ ---- 1907 ---- ------------------- 1908....... --- —---- 1909 ---------------- Total for period -------------- Average --- —-------- -------- June 30: 1910 -------------- 1911 ---------------—. — 1912 --- —------------ 1913... --- —------ 1914 -------------- Total for period --- ------- Average --------------------- June 30: 1915 ------------- 1916 -------------- 1917 --- —----------- 1918 --- —--------- -- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) — -- Total for period | --- —------- Average. --- —------ ------ Dec. 31: 1919 ------------- --- 1920 — _._ --- —---------— __ 1921 --- —----------- Total for period --- —Average ---------- Dec. 31: 1922 --------------------- 1923 ---------------- 1924 --- —----------- Total for period ---- Average --------- Dec. 31, 1925 ---------- $6,600, 000 14,083,000 15, 821,000 18, 395, 000 16,831,000 16,684, 000 $4,888,000 9, 909, 000 10, 564,000 10, 679, 000 9, 370, 000 9, 799, 000 Per cent 74.1 70.4 66.8 58.0 55.7 58. 7 $1, 222,000 2,477,000 2,641,000 2,670,000 2,342,000 2,450,000 Per cent 18.5 17.6 16.7 14.5 13.9 14.7 88,415, 000 55, 209, 000 --- 13,802,000 16,076,000 10,038,000 62.4 2, 510,000 15.6 17,916,000 10,119,000 56.5 2,530,000 14.1 18, 417, 000 11, 311,000 61.4 2,828,000 15.4 18, 078, 000 10, 662, 000 59.0 2,665,000 14.7 18,114,000 10,817,000 59.7 2,704,000 14.9 17, 617, 000 10,140,000 57.6 2, 535,000 14.4 90,142,000 53,049,000 --- 13,262,000 --- — 18, 028, 000 10, 610, 000 58.8 2, 652, 000 14.7 15,481, 000 9,059, 000 58. 5 2, 265,000 14.6 15,410,000 9,808,000 63.6 2,452,000 16.9 19,364,000 11,184,000 57.8 2,796,000 14.4 16,944,000 8, 227,000 48.6 2,057, 000 12.1 10,015,000 4,428,000 44.2 1,107,000 11.0 77,214,000 42, 706,000 --- - 10,677,000- -- 17,159,000 9,490, 000 55.3 2,373,000 13.8 23,228,000 9,599,000 41.3 2,400,000 10.3 28,474,000 10,708,000 37.6 2,677,000 9.4 24,839,000 8,352,000 33.6 2,088,000 8.4 76,541,000 28,659,000 7 ---- - 7,165,000.25, 514,000 9,553,000 37.4 2,388,000 9.4 24, 984, 000 10,321, 000 41.3 2, 580, 000 10.3 24,932,000 10,446, 000 41.9 2,611,000 10.5 27,374,000 9,762,000 35.7 2,441,000 8.9 77,290,000 30,528, 000 7,632, 000. --- — 25,763,000 10,176,000 39.5 2,544,000 9.9 26,048,000 10,225,000 39.2 2,556,000 9.8 Grand total ------ -. 435,651,000 220,377, 000 50.6 55,094,000 12.6 X Percentage by which full duty is reduced: 20 per cent. 2 Including Dec. 27-31, 1903. STATISTICAL TABLES 225 TABLES 126-130, INCLUSIVE.-IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF FULL-DUTY AND CUBAN TOBACCO, QUANTITIES AND VALUES, VALUES PER UNIT, AND EQUIVALENT AD VALOREM RATES OF DUTIES PAID, 1900-1926, WITH AVERAGES FOR SELECTED PERIODS 'TABLE 126.-Wrapper tobacco, unstemmed [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Total full-duty Imports 2 Imports from Cuba Equiva- EquivaYear I lent ad lent ad Quan- Value Unit valorem Quan- Valu Unit valorem tity value rates of tity value rates of duties duties paid paid 1900 --- —------------- 1901.. --- —----- 1902 ------------ 1903 ---------- 1904 ---------------- Average. 1905. --- —------ 1906 ------------ 1907 ------------- 1908 ---- -------- 1909 __ --- —----- Average. ---.1910 ----------------- 1911 ----------------- 1912......... 1913 --— 1 --- — 1914 —. --- —----- Average.. 1915. --- —-------- 1916 -- -—.. 1917 ------------ 1918 ----------------- 1918 -- ------ --- 1918............... Average.. 1919 ---— __... 1920 --- --------- 1921................. 19214. 1922 5____________ 19226 ------- Average - 1923 1924.... 1925... 1926..... Pounds 4,146 4,808 5,073 5,542 5,614 4,198' 4,529 4,978 4,948 4,412 Per lb. $1.00.94.98.89.79 Per cent 188.8 196.4 188.5 207.2 235.4 Pounds..74 113 Per lb. $1."52 Per cent 97.2 5,037 4,613.92 --- — - ----- --.. --- —6,017 4,496.75 247.6 133 225 1. 69 87. 6 6,172 4,346.70 262. 7 124 207 1.67 88.5 6,435 6,367.99 187.0 119 178 1.50 98. 5 5, 303 5,927 1.12 165.5 93 146 1.57 94.3 5,355 5, 767 1.08 171.8 119 185 1. 55 95.3 5,856 5,380.92 ------- 117 188 1. 60 -5,457 5, 82 1.07 172.8 77 124 1. 61 91.9 5,720 6,042 1.06 185.1 75 113 1.51 98. 0 5,311 5,880 1.11 167.1 155 241 1.55 95.6 5, 478 6,892 1. 26 147. 0 199 306 1. 54 96.3 5,153 6,940 1.35 137.4 170 309 1.82 81.6 5,424 6,319 1.16 ---— _ 135 218 1.61 --- — 5, 143 5,140 5,569 4,115 4, 055 6, 773 6,454 7, 685 5,566 5, 609 1.31 1.25 1.37 1.35 1.38 140.5 147.3 134.1 136.8 133.7 112 103 147 136 139 205 195 297 230 225 1.82 1.88 2.00 1.69 1.61 80.9 78.5 73.5 87.5 91.7 4,804 6, 417 1.34 ---- 128 230 1.80 4, 761 7,178 1. 51 122.7 101 259 2.58 57.4 6,894 10,927 1.59 116.7 70 211 3.00 49.3 8,185 14,973 1.83 101.1 92 254 2.77 53.4 732 1,409 1.93 122.0 28 97 3.49 53.8 2,697 5,535 2.05 114.5 60 181 3.01 62.5 1,690 3,658 2.16 97.0 34 83 2.45 68. 6 6,240 10, 920 1.75 - ---- 96 271 2.83 ---6,629 15, 271 2.30 91.2 237 428 1.80 93.2 5,861 14, 707 2.51 83. 7 121 313 2.59 64.9 5,808 14,160 2.44 86.1 199 422 2.13 79.0 6,030 13,647 2. 26 92.8 186 449 2.41 69. 7 Average --- 6,082 1 4,4461 2.38 —... 1 186 4031 2.17 I Fiscal years, 1900-1918; calendar years, 1918-1926. Includes imports from Cuba, 1900, to Dec. 27, 1903. 3 Tariff act of 1913, Jan. 1 to May 27. 4 Emergency tariff act, May 27 to Dec. 31. Emergency tariff act, Jan. 1 to Sept. 21. e Tariff act of 1922, Sept. 22 to Dec. 31. 226 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 127.-FilZer tobacco, unstemmed [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Total full-duty imports Imports from Cuba Equiva- Equiva. Year I lent ad lent ad Quan- Value Unit valorem Quan- Vale Unit valorem tity u value rates of tity value rates of duties duties paid paid....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1900. --- —------ 1901. --- —------ 1902 --- —-------- 1903 ------------- 1904. --- —------ Average - 1905 -..-. - 1906.. --- —----- 1907... --- —---- 1908... --- —---- 1909.. --- —-—.Average. --- 1910. --- —--—.1911.. ---.... --- 1912 ------------ 1913 --- —. 1914 ------ Average --- —1915 --- —---- 1916 --- —-------- 1917 ----------- 1918, ---1918 ------------ Average ----- 1919. --- —------ 1920 ------------ 1921 --—. 1922 ------- Average ----,1923. --- —----- 1924. --- —------ 1925. — 1926 --------- Pounds 10,809 13,108 16, 559 20,085 10,334 6,764 7,591 8, 018 8,997 4,873 Per lb. $0.63.58.48.45.47 Per cent 71.4 60.4 72.3 78.1 74. 2 Pounds 8,931 4,037 Per lb. $0. 45 Per cent 61.9...... —:5 14,179 7,248.51. -- 3, 813 1,876.49 71.1 18,244 8,597.47 59.4 4,758 2,580.54 64. 5 18,781 9,609.51 54. 7 9,104 4,956.54 64.3 19, 610 11, 703.60 46.9 7,545 3,510.47 75.2 16,520 10,207.62 45.3 9,295 4,658.50 69.8 19,293 10,518.55 51.4 6,903 3,516.51-18,490 10,127.55 --- — 10,186 5,587.55 63.8 19 096 11,386.60 47.0 11,334 5,068.45 78.3 21,111 11,308.54 52. 3 13,734 6,913.50 69.5 18,799 10,820.58 48.7 15,785 7, 210.46 76. 6 19,274 10,856.56 49.7 19,829 7,538.38 92.1 18,127 10,619.59 47.8 14, 174 6,463..46 ------ 19,281 10,998.57 -17,399 7,063.41 86.2 16,878 i9,614.57 49.2 22,455 8,000.36 98.2 17,675 8,693.49 56.9 22, 623 9,813.43 80.7 18,052 10,195.56 49.6 16,581 9,093.55 63.8 11,079 7, 741.70 40.1 20,369 13,177.65 54.1 10,407 8,078.78 36.1 19,885 9,429.47 -14,818 8,864.60 _ _ —,-_I _ — ------------ 25,763 21,040.82 42.9 10,044 8,781.87 32.0 28,204 24,016.85 41. 1 9,460 9, 630 1.02 27.5 29,926 25,077.84 41.8 8,590 9,160 1.07 26.3 32,087 27, 665.86 40.6 10, 322 8, 714.84 33.2 28,995 24, 450. 84 — 9,604 I 9,071.94 - _-: _ o _. -— = —L — --—,=:=~ 31,290 23, 908.76 45. 8 9,462 8 198.87 32.3 32,703 24,689.76 46. 4 8 205 8 105.99 28.4 36,345 29,224.80 43.5 7,826 7,479.96 29.3 40,253 29,459.73 47.8 7,986 7,416 93 30.2 -. _ A I _. I I ~ Average ---- 35, 148 26,820.76 -------- 8,3701 7,799.93 ' _. I I I I I Fiscal years, 1900-1918; calendar years, 1918-1926. 3 Includes imports from Cuba, 1900 to Dec. 27, 1903. STATISTICAL TABLES TABLE 128.-Filler tobacco, stemmed [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] 227 Total full-duty imports Imports from Cuba Equiva- EquivaYear 1 lent ad lent ad Quan- Vale Unit valorem Quan- V1u Unit valorem tity value rates of tity value rates of duties duties paid paid 1900 -------- 1901 --- —-------- 1902 --- —---- 1903. --- —------ 1904 ------------- Average --- — 1905 ------------ 1906 —. --- —-.. --- 1907-..-........ 1908. --- —------ 1909 --- —------ Average —.... 1910. --- —----- 1911 _ --- —-—. — 1912. --- —------- 1913 3- ---------- 1914 --- —Average --- —-- 1915 ------------ 1916 ------------ 1917. -—. — -- -- 1918 -. --- —------ 1918. --- —------ Average --- 1919. — -----—.1920 ------------ 1921.......... 1922 ------------ Average-.. 1923............. 1924 --- —----- 1925 ---------- 1926 ------------ Pounds 386 807 1,566 2, 035 1,099 263 501 853 1,041 651 Per lb. $0.68.62.54.51.59 Per cent 73. 5 80.5 91.9 97.8 84.3 Pounds 1, 311 Per lb. $0. 53 Per cent 75. 5 1, 179 662.56 -2 2.98 51. 1 2, 728 1,456.53 75. 3 1.41 122.3 3,692 2,036.55 72.5 (8) (4).60 83.9 3,772 2,537.67 59. 5 1 (.26 189.1 3,117 2,449.79 50.9 1 (4) 19 258. 0 3,034 2,291.76 53.0 2 1.52 3 --- —- 3,269 2,154.66 --- 2 2.81 61. 5 3,655 2,479.68 59..0 (3) (4).27 183.0 4,353 2,733.63 63.7 3 3.87 57. 5 4,589 2,982.65 61. 5 (5) (4).24 209.8 4,486 2,858.64 62.8 (3) (4).72 69.2 4, 244 2,880.68 58.9 1 1.76 ---- 4,265 2,786.65 (8) 1 1.44 34.8 3,879 2,482.64 62. 5 243 100.41 121.2 4,619 2,986.65 61.9 188 120.64 78. 2 6,329 4,586.72 55. 2 153 119.78 63. 8 6,160 5,798.94 42.5 124 126 1.01 49.4 7,206 7,492 1. 04 38.5 142 93.66 --- —_ 5,639 4,669.83 --- 2 1.35 141.3 8,938 9,576 1.07 37.3 135 89.66 75. 5 10,768 12,892 1.20 33. 4 92 56.61 81.9 8,744 11,664 1.33 30.0 171 149.87 57.2 10, 890 11,847 1.09 36.8 100 74.74 ------ 9,835 11,495 1.17 — 270 266.99 50. 7 11,067 12,003 1. 09 36.9 221 249 1.13 44. 5 11, 268 14,778 1.31 30. 6 24 32 1.32 37.9 11,828 13,556 1.15 34.9 65 82 1.26 39.8 14,006 15,165 1.08 36.9 Average..145.1. 15 157 1. 02,042 13,876 1 1.16 1 Fiscal years 1900-1918; calendar years 1918-1926. 2 Includes imports from Cuba 1900 to Dec. 27, 1903. 'Less than 500 pounds. 4Less than $500. 228 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 129.-Cigars [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Total full-duty imports Imports from Cuba Equiva- I EquivaYear 1 lent ad lent ad Quan- Value Unit valorem Quan- Value Unit valorem tity value rates of tity value rates of duties duties paid paid ~.............. 1900. --- —----- 1901 ------------ 1902 ------------ 1903 --- —------- 1904 ------------ Average --- — 1905 ----------- 1906 -. --- —----- 1907 ------— 7 --- 1908 ------------ 1909 --- —-------- Average- - 1910 ------------ 1911 ----------- 1912 ----------- 1913 ------------ 1914 ---- -------- Average-.. 1915 ------------ 1916 -------- 1917 ------- 1918 ------------ 1918 ------- - ---- Average --- 1919 ----------- 1920 ------------ 1921 -.......... 1922 - ------- Average-. 1923 —.......... 1924 ----------------- 1925... --- —--- 1926. --- —------ Average.. Pounds 415 420 407 536 245 2,179 2,280 2, 297 3,113 1,178 Per lb. $5.25 5.44 5.64 5.80 4.80 Per cent 110. 9 107.8 104.8 102.5 118.7 Pounds 385 Per lb. $4.54 Per cent 99.4 405 2,210 5.46-. ----- 4 15 3.81 143.0 756 3,786 5.01 91.9 3 8 3.06 172.0 782 3,948 5.05 91.3 2 7 3. 52 152.9 745 3,957 5.31 87.8 3 12 4.12 134.2 700 3,997 5.71 83.1 3 13 4.12 133.4 622 3,673 5. 90 81.0 3 11 3.77 -—.... 721 3,872 5.37 --- 7 19 2.65 194.8 657 3,890 5.92 80. 8 3 11 4.28 130.1 722 4,202 5.82 81.9 3 11 3.74 145.2 664 3,913 5.89 81.1 4 13 3. 73 145. 6 662 4,007 6.05 79.5 5 20 3.85 141.9 626 3,712 5.93 80.7 4 3415 3. 47 ----- 666 3,945 5.92 3 9 3. 29 161.8 503 2,983 5.93 80.7 7 40 5.50 106.8 540 3,329 6.16 78.4 19 127 6. 59 93.3 645 4,054 6.28 77.3 12 79 6.59 93. 2 446 2,878 6.46 75.7 8 51 6.65 92.7 443 2,957 6.67 73.9 10 61 6. 26 --- — - 515 3, 240 6.29 -- 1 4 4.49 125.2 527 4, 218 8.00 65. 0 13 31 2.35 216.2 620 5,177 8.35 63.1 2 12 6.73 91.9 348 3,112 8.95 60.2 6 331 4.78 119.1 459 3, 565 7.77 66.3 6 19 3.48 — 488 4,018 8. 23 -- 24 70 2.89 180.9 451 3, 569 7.92 65.5 10 59 5.83 102.1 416 3,387 8.15 64.2 10 60 5.77 102.9 472 3,995 8. 46 62.6 11 30 2.64 195.6 440 3,463 7.87 65.8 - — I I - —,1 14 55 3.90.- - 445 3,6041 8.10 1 Fiscal years, 1900-1918; calendar years, 1918-1926. 2 Includes imports from Cuba, 1900, to Dec. 27, 1903. STATISTICAL TABLES TABLE 130.-Cigarettes [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] 229 Total full-duty imports 3 Imports from Cuba Equiva- EquivaYear lent ad lent ad Quan- Value Unit valorem Quan- Val Unit valorem tity alue value rates of tity Value value rates of duties duties paid paid 1900 ------------- 1901 ------------- 1902. --- —------- 1903._ --- —------ 1904. ---------- Average --- —-- 1905 ------------- 1906.. —. --- —-- 1907 ------------ 1908 ------------- 1909 ------------ Average --- —1910,. --- —---- 1911. --- —-—. --- 1912 ----------------- 1913 —. --- 1914.......-. I, ---. Average ---. — 1915 1 ------ 1916-.. --- —-- 1917.7.. - 1918 8 --------- -- 1918 ----- Average-... 1919 _... --- ---- 1920. --- —------ 1921. --------- -- 1922 --- —--------- Average --- —-- 1923 - -.. 1924 ----- 1925.. 1926 ---—.-.. ------ Pounds 20 17 18 16 14 76 61 65 58 49 Per lb. $3.80 3.50 3.62 3.65 3.43 Per cent 143.7 153.7 149.4 148.2 156.1 Pounds --------- Per lb. $2. 90 Per cent 144. 2 17 62 3.61 -13 48 3.59 150.3 (a) (4) 1.92 207. 9 13 45 3.55 151. 7 1 4 3. 17 133. 21 77 3. 69 146.7 1 3 3. 58 120. 7 20 63 3.10 170.2 2 6 2.93 142.8 13 46 3.68 147.2 1 2 2.56 160.7 16 56 3.50 --- —- 1 3 3.00 -- 16 55 3.34 159. 8 1 6 6.10 79. 0 16 57 3.64 148.7 1 2 3.02 139.2 16 54 3.43 156. 2 6 32 4.99 92.1 14 54 3.76 144.7 1 3 3.37 126.8 15 56 3.81 143.1 (3) 1 3.18 133.2 15 55 3. 59 --- — 2 9 4.71 — 11 43 3.97 138.3 1 3 3.95 111.1 11 42 3.68 147.1 2 6 3.57 120.7 10 41 4.02 136.9 (3) 1 2.32 174.7 4 17 4.22 131.5 (3) (4) 1.32 291.2 2 10 5.48 107.2 () 1 2. 98 140.9 8 31 4.00 ----- 2 3.32 1 ---3 16 5.57 105.8 (3) 1 1.63 240.7 11 57 5.38 108.7 2 13 5.72 83.0 7 31 4.44 126.4 (a) 1 2.62 92.2 10 49 5.08 113. 6 3 27 8.72 61.3 38...... 81- 38 5.08 --- —--- 2 10 6. 81 --- 8 41 5.25 110.8 1 10 7.12 70.6 10 54 5.20 111.6 1 6 6.71 73.7 11 60 5.66 104.5 1 3 5.88 81.2 16 80 4.98 115.3 3 14 4.75 95.8 Average 11 -1 591 5.24 --- —. 11 8 5.72 1 Fiscal years, 1900-1918; calendar years, 1918-1926. 2 Includes imports from Cuba, 1900, to Dec. 27, 1903. 3 Less than 500 pounds. Less than $500. 230 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLES 131 AND 132.-IMPORTS OF TOBACCO INTO THE UNITED STATES, BY PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN, AND PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL SUPPLIED BY CUBA, 1900-1926, WITH AVERAGES FOR SELECTED PERIODS [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Total -- ----- ------ Year ended- imports Cua Nether- Tury G Cuba d Turkey Germany, ~I June 30: 1900 ------------------- - 13,297 1901 ----------------- 16, 290 1902 - ----------------- 15,211 1903- 17 --- —------------ 17, 234 1904 ------------------ 16, 939 Average ------------- ---- 15, 794 June 30: 1905- - - --—. ---- 18,038 1906 ------- ------ --- 22,447 1907 ------------------- 26, 055 1908 --------------- 22, 870 1909 --- ------------ 25,400 Average ------------------------ 22, 962 June 30: 1910 ------------------ --- — 27,751 1911 -------------------- 27, 857 1912 -- -- - ---------------------- 31,918 1913 3 --- —---------------------- 35, 933 1914 ----------------------- 35,032 Average - -------------- 31,698 June 30: 1915. --- --------- ----------- 27,160 1916 --- -------------- 24, 629 1917 --------------------------- 25,482 1918 ----- --------------------------- 45,321 Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months).. --- —--------— 26,414 Average ------ ----------- 33,112 Dec. 31: 1919 ------------------------- 75, 006 1920 ---- -------------------------- 81,197 1921 ---------------------- 53, 979 1922 -------------------- 65,818 Average --------------------------- 69,000 Dec. 31: 1923 ------------------— 56,304 1924.74 60 --- —-. --- — ----- 74, 460 1925 --- —----------------------- - 70, 669 1926 ---------— 59, 882 Average -------- --------------- 65,329 Amount 7,615 9, 834 8, 578 9, 967 9, 793 Per cent 57.3 60. 4 56.4 57.8 57.8 4, 569 5, 609 4, 835 4, 355 5, 251 275 293 1,176 1, 766 735 138 166 289 547 438 9,157 58.0 4,924 849 316 10, 825 60.0 5, 024 1,044 579 13, 510 60.2 6, 235 1,258 994 13, 590 52. 2 8, 270 2,428 1, 272 13,114 57.3 6,157 2,105 1,170 15, 797 62.2 5, 073 2,949 1,134 13, 367 58. 2 6,152 1,957 1,030 14, 128 50. 9 6, 222 4,369 2, 287 14, 203 51. 0 6,180 6,392 497 14, 705 46. 1 7, 835 8, 596 234 16, 295 45. 3 8, 038 10,086 753 16,385 46.8 7,461 9,837 212 15,143 47.8 7,147 7,856 797 11,259 41. 5 9, 027 5,398 73 12,169 49.4 7,080 38 ---15,482 60.8 2,956 22 -- 15, 987 35.3 575 ---- 7, 634 28.9 1 10 -13,896 42.0 4,364 1,215 2 21,206 28. 3 179 15,480 --- 26, 880 33. 1 14, 712 19, 523 108 19,902 36. 9 9,033 6,171 735 19,898 30.2 13,114 5,785 2, 313 _ 1 1 ]5,., 21,972 31.8 9,260 11,740 740______I________ I 789 I I I,__.. I I I 20, 765 2, 391 22, 521 22,852 36.9 31.3 31.9 38. 2 18, 566 14, 961 14, 769 14, 485 '2,170 4, 791 5,582 5, 530 ' 2, 289 3, 035 772 565 1, 665 I 22, 360 34.2 15,695 4,518 STATISTICAL TABLES TABLE 132.-Oifgar, cigarettes, and chroots [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] 231 Countries from which imported Year ended- Total imports United PhilipCuba King- Egypt pine dom Islands - 1~~ — I June 30: 1900 _ --- —---- 1901 ------------------------- 1902. --- —------------- 1903 ---------------- 1904 ---—. --- —---—.. Average ---. --- June 30: 1905 ---------------.... --- 1906 ------------------ 1907. ----. --- —----------- ------ 1908................. 1909 --—. --- —----------------- 1909- --. -........... Average --- —----- ------ June 30: 1910. ----. --- —----- 1911-.. —. --- —-- 1912.......... -- 1913. ------------ --—.. 1914 --- —---—. —.-. Average ---...-. --- —-. -- June 30: 1915 ---------------- 1916 6. --- —- --------.1917 --------.............1918 -------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ------------- Average --------- Dec. 31: 101Q 2,299 2,401 2,411 3, 271 3,054 Amount 2,185 2, 292 2,317 3,175 2,970 Per cent 95.0 95.5 96.1 97.1 97. 2 74 59 56 49 40 4 7 4 9 12 1 14 6 8 6 2,687 2,588 96.3 56 7 7 4,028 3,931 97. 6 55 10 2 4,031 3,964 98.3 25 11 4 3,995 3,889 97. 3 28 47 3 4, 245 4,163 98.1 19 40 1 3, 519 3,460 98.3 20 18 2 3,964 3,881 97.9 29 25 2 5,581 5, 212 5, 291 7, 753 5, 193, Q IW 3,829 4,218 3, 882 4,000 3, 684 9 Q-09 68.6 80.9 73.4 51.6 70.9 R,7 A 24 24 17 25 25 0M 25 23 22 25 26 1,665 921 1,339 2,327 1,385 u, ovu, o.o [ j.,.~,.[V I I I _ _ _.I VI.vl I _ = 4,368 4, 815 6,642 7, 506 4,696 2,978 3,349 4,126 2,977 1, 697 68. 2 69. 6 62.1 39.7 36.1 20 19 19 17 5 29 27 19 22 1 1,318 1,383 2,478 4,494 2 993 6,228 3,362 54.01 18 22 2,815 6, 228 3, 362 54. 0 i 18 22 2, 815 - __E 11. 912 1920. --- —------- 16, 708 1921 --- -------- 5,882 1922. ---- --- - 7,509 4,302 5,626 2,694 3,586 38.4 33.7 45.8 47.8 10 41 24 35 6 6,828 20 11,007 6 3,145 11 3,862 Average - --- ------------ Dec. 31: 1923 ---------—.....- - 1924 _ _ _ ________.................. 1925 ----- ------- 1926 ------ ---- 10,326 4,052 39.2 | 28 11 6,21l 9,329 3,705 39. 7 24 11 5,567 8,077 3,369 41.7 3 -— 4,695 9,468 4,313 45.6 5 -- 5,137 8,399 3, 279 39. 0 2 1 5,09( 8,818 3, 666 41.6 5,122 I Free after Aug. 5,1909. 232 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 133.-Imports of tobacco and manufactures of tobacco into Cuba. Values and duties collected, total and from the United States, 1902-1926, with averages for selected periods and average percentages from the United States [In thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Value of imports Duties collected Per cent of total Year ended- Fm the from the From the Total United ntates Total United States ats States Dec. 31-1902 --------------- ----------- 74 69.-....-.. 26 22 1903 ------------ --------- 65 63 -, ---- 21 20 Average —. --- —------------------ 69 66 95.8 24 21 June 30-1904 (6 months) --- —- 53 52 15 15 1905 -------------------------------------- 70 66 ------ 23 21 1907 ----. ------ - 109 104 ---- 34 32 1908 ---- ---------- 113 104 -- 34 30 1909 ------ ------ - 93 86 --------- -- Average - ----- - 92 87 94.3 29 326 1910- ----------------- 61 56 ---- 1911 ------------- 61 54 ----- -. 1912 --- ----------- 61 57 _ --- — 19 -- 1913 ------ --—. ---- 53 47........ 17 1914 --- — --- --- --- - - 52. 46 -. - - 17 -- -- Average -. ---. ---—. — 58 52 90.3 4 18 -- 1915 --- —------------------- 58 49 --------- 19 1916 ------------------- 53 46 1 --- — 16 -, 1917 --- —----- - 67 57 - 19 ---—. — 1918 - ------------ 118 98 27 - Dec. 31-1918 (6 months) ------------------- 61 50 ------- 11 -- Average -------------------- 80 67 84.0 21 1919 ------------ - 156 131 ---- 27. 1920 --- —----------------------- 166 130 ------ 39 ---- 1921 -------------------------- 207 148. ----- 47 1922 — ---------- - 197 149 ----- 54 --- — Average --- —-. --- —--- 182 140 76.9 42 -- 1923 - -------------------- 203 142 ------- 42 -- 1924 --- —----- - 210 132 ----- 45 -- 1925 --- — --------------- 179 135 ------- 41 -- 1926 ------------- ----- - - --- 150 6 117 ----- 33 Average --- —---------------- 186 132 70.9 40 i Not separately reported after 1908. J Not reported 1909-1911, inclusive. ' 4A-year average. 4 3-year average. t Including $12,600 worth of tobacco products corresponding to foreign exports from the United States. STATISTICAL TABLES 233 TABLE 134. —Imports of cattle, dutiable and free, into Cuba: Total values, values from the United States, and duties collected on dutiable imports, 1902-1926, with averages for selected periods and average percentages from the United States [In thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Cattle subject to duty Cattle free of duty Per cent of total imports from the Value of im- Duties col- Value of im- United States Year ended- ports lected ports From From From T thne Tn~th e t h e I 0 Duti- F otal ite Total thited Total United u Free United United o United able States States States ------------------ --- -- --.- --. ___ __.___ Dec. 31-1902-,........-. —. -- 4, 948 807 430 84 488 163 - -—.. 1903 -4, --- —--------- 4,452 719 598 89 1,364 540 ----. Average --------- June 30-1904 (6 months) --- —-... 1905 ---------------- 1906 _ --- —------- -- 1907 _ --- —----------- 1908 --- —------------ 1909... — ------------- Average --—. --- 1910. _ ---. --- —------ 1911. --- —-----—. — 1912 -_. -_ --- —------- 1913.... --- —--------- 1914-.. --- —---------- Average ---------- 1915 ---------------- 1916 ----------- 1917 --—. --- ------—. 1918. --- —----------- Dec. 31-1918 (6 months) --- —---- Average ---------- 1919 -------- 1920 ------- 1921. --- —---------- 1922 -------- Average. --- —---- 1923 --- — 1924. --- —---------- 1925 --- —--- 1926 ----------------- Average ------ 4, 700 763 514 87 926 352 16.2 38.0 1,879 3,979 5,607 1,800 1,101 68 488 872 1,246 283 137 26 249 543 752 256 155 (2) 51 95 146 40 18 1,031 2,107 1,492 180 7 2 463 1,056 648 104 6 (3) 2,624 555 4435 78 876 414 21.1 47.2 6 6 4 — - ----- 4 4 — 12 12 1 9 --- —--- 3 - 8 4 (3) -- 16 10 -18 18 1 --- 10 6 -- 10 9 51 ----- 8 90.8 56.5 8 7 7 1 1 — 11 1 - 29 29 2 -- 55 11 -... - --- 123 67 16 --- 62 9 — 122 78 8 ---- 140 80 --- 28 25 2 ---- 46 13 ----- 69 46 6 --- 70 25 66.6 36. 5 1,710 580 205 —. — 77 41 -- 2,928 1,074 361 4- 4 1,805 989 193 --.12 12 — 120 120 8 -----. 4 4 ---1,641 691 192 ---- 24 15 42.1 62.6 153 444 464 593 151 137 153 182 10 84 122 90 2- 2 --- 23 23 — 5 4 — - 18 15 — 414 156 77 -- 12 11 37.6 I- - _1e 92.5 1 Not separately reported after 1908. 2 Not reported 1909-1911, inclusive. Less than $500. * 4-year average. A 3-year average. 234 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 135.-Import trade of Cuba, summarized by commodity groups of dutiable articles together with total free goods, with values and percentages supplied by the United States' and by all other countries, shown by annual averages for selected periods, 1902-1924 [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Groups of dutiable imports nA) ~ U, a..o Period a E 0I 1 - c ~ - 1 0 - __ i i.i 04 E- C3 r a l 1902-3, total --- —------ United States ---------- All other countries — ------ 1904-1909, total. ---- United States-... --- —--- All other countries ------- 1910-1914, total -- ---------- United States ------- --- All other countries ------ - 1915-1918, total.. --- —----- United States ------ ---- All other countries — 1919-1921, total -- ---------- United States --- —--------- All other countries ---- -i 1922-1924, total ------------- United States ---------- All other countries ------- 1902-3: United States -. --- —------- - All other countries --- —-- 1904-1909: United States ---------- All other countries —. --- — 1910-1914: United States ---------- All other countries --- —..1915-1918: United States --- —------ All other countries --- —--- 1919-1921: United States..- ------ All other countries --- —--- 1922-1924: United States ---------- All other countries. --- —-- 27, 749 9,570 3,4781 3,8311 2,9241 8,315 1,9891 1,4771 1, 2711 1,954 4,512 11, 086 662 2,450 1,728 1,031 2,133 1,018 898 302 926 3, 529 11,663 8, 908 1.028 2,103 1, 893 6,182 971 579 969 1,028 983 32, 411 14,002 7, 855 6,950 4,038 8, 165 3,683 2, 546 1, 593 3,288 6, 717 16, 166 1, 657 5,555 3, 738 1,947 4,025 1,801 1,749 616 1,852 5,589 16,245 12,345 2,300 3, 212 2091 4, 140 1,882 797 977 1,436 1,128 44,676 16,795 12,999 8,422 7,056 5,960 4,881 3, 265 2, 071 3, 397 8,396 23.468 3,103 9,358 5,891 3,869 4,519 2,815 2,315 930 1 595 7,302 21,208113 692 3,641 2,531 3,187 1,441 2,066 950 1,141 1802 1,094 78, 385 28, 384 31, 165 14, 392 14, 300 10, 127 8,811 5, 596 3,659 6,639 13,320 49, 828 12, 471130, 122 13, 366 10, 740 8,756 7,404 4,717 2,980 3,286 12,260 28, 557 15, 913 1,043 1,026 3, 560 1,371 1,407 879 679 3,353 1,060 148, 418 60, 801 65, 748 30,142 24, 796 19,771 21, 200 9, 341 7,26315,00220,201 94, 218 38,702 63, 075 28, 008 19, 233 17, 250 16, 839 8, 1701 6,341 7, 373 18, 568 54,20022,099 2, 673 2,134 5, 563 2, 521 4,361 1, 17 922 7,629 1, 633 92,861 34,915 29, 609 16, 324 15, 971 11, 135 15, 767 5, 124 4, 103 8,98311, 536 -a I --— 1 _ — I! --- — ____ 53,191 39, 67C P. ct. 48.7 51.3 49.9 50. 1 52. 47. 5 63.M 36.4 63. t 36.1 57. 42.7 20, 055 14, 86 P.ct. 6. 9 93.1 11.8 88. 18.5 81. 43.9 56.1 63. C 36.4 57.4 42. 27,311 2, 298 P.ct. 70. 4 29. 6 70.7 29.3 72. C 28.0 96.7 3.3 95. 9 4.1 92. 2 7.E 13, 93 2,391 P.ct. 45.1 54.9 53.8 46.2 70. 30. C 92. 1 7.1 92. 9 7.1 85. 14. 7 11, 468 4, 50 P.ct. 35.3 64.7 48.1 51.E 54. E 45. 1 75.1 24. 9 77.1 22.4 71. 28. S 10,255 880 P. Ct. 25. 7 74.3 49.3 50.7 75.81 24.2 86.5 13. 5 87.2 12.8 92.1 7.9 8,761 7,006 P.ct. 51.2 48.8 48.9 51.1 57.7 42.3 84.0 16. 0 79.4 20. 6 55.6 44.4 4,064 1,060 P.ct. 60.8 39. 2 68.7 31.3 70.9 29.1 84.3 15.7 87.5 12.5 79.3 20.7 2, 791 1, 312 P.ct. 23.8 76.2 38.6 61.4 44.9 55.1 81.4 18. 6 87.3 12.7 68.0 32.0 5,109 9,867 3,874 1,669 P. ct. P. ct. 47.4 78.2 52.6 21.8 56.3 83.2 43. 7 16.8 47.0 87.0 53.0 13.0 49.5 92.0 50.5 8.0 49.1 91.9 50.9 8.1 56.9 85.5 43.11 14.5 1 Exclusive of imports from Porto Rico generally, but inclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico. * Except machinery and the like. I Except foodstuffs and fibers. STATISTICAL TABLES 235 TABLES 136-149, INCLUSIVE, IMPORTS INTO CUBA, BY PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES or ORIGIN, 1902-1925, WITH AVERAGES FOR SELECTED PERIODS TABLE 136.-Foodstuffs [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Year ended- Other Other To United Ger- Great All States 2Am- rance many Britain Span Euro- otheran Tota icnpa ~......l Dec. 31: 1902 - -----------— I 11,947 1903 ----- ------------ 10,226 2,496 2,774 266 248 1,371 1,475 2, 551 2,429 4, 159 3, 772 759 706 149 171 23, 698 21,801 — I Average --- —---------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —-- 1905 ----—._ --- —1906. --- —-------- 1907 --------------- 1908 -------------- 1909 -------------- Average -------- June 30: 1910 --- ---------- 1911.1... --- — 1912 -- ---------- --- 1913 --- —--------- 1914 --- —-------- Average -------- June 30: 1915 5 — ------------ 1916. --- —---------- 1917 —. --- —---- 1918.. --- —--------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). Average --- —-- Dec. 31: 1919 ---- ----------- 1920 --- ---------- -- 1921... --- —------- Average --- —------- Dec. 31: 1922... --- —-------- 1923. --- —--------- 1924. --- —-------- Average ---Dec. 31, 1925 ------------- 11,086 2,635 257 1,423 2,490 3, 965 733 160 22,749 5,613 1,670 111 978 1,501 1,679 403 109 12,064 13,738 4,794 272 1,516 2,424 3,945 883 463 28,035 15,423 5, 277 361 1,700 2,959 4,457 1, 140 522 31,839 18,768 5,325 591 2,451 3,201 3,734 1, 163 938 36,171 17,687 4,940 496 2,733 3,050 3,923 1,346 1, 110 35,285 17,681 5,218 472 3,149 2,754 3,423 1,068 1,104 34 86 16, 165 4,950 419 2,278 2,889 3,847 1, 091 772 32,41 20,399 5,080 478 3,302 2,893 4, 117 1,397 1,292 38,958 21,016 5,130 485 3,057 3,183 4,023 2,117 1, 528 40,539' 23,096 5,844 545 3,233 4,222 4,786 1,488 1,729 44,943 26,629 5,865 596 3,932 4,440 4, 206 1, 753 1, 898 49, 319 26,199 5,817 511 2,829 4,928 4,806 2,648 1, 883 49,621 23,468 5,547 523 3,270 3,933 4,388 1,881 1,666 44,676; 28, 754 4,995 330 452 5,877 5, 252 2,857 1,806 50,323 40, 178 5,474 427 --- 6,458 5,972 1,765 2, 508 62,782 50, 158 10,652 423 --- 6,996 7,172 688 3, 541 79,630 75,184 16,091 401 ---- 2,660 5,136 693 11,008 111,173 29,952 4,999 137 - 294 4,059 59 9,326 48,82 49,828 9,380 382 101 4, 952 5, 131 1,347 6,264 78, 385 91,754 17, 93 493 3 729 9,199 719 15,068 135,458 115, 160 22,626 1,624 249 2,422 16, 682 2,461 33, 582 194,806 75, 740 15,247 638 437 3, 218 7,018 2,510 10,183 114,991 94,218 18,456 918 229 2, 123 10,966 1,897 19,611 148,418 46,200 11,274 646 1, 212 4,355 5,321 2,351 6,885 78, 244 53,344 15,314 777 1,427 3,322 8,884 3,148 8,942 95,158. 60,029 18,141 937 1,600 2,087 9,489 3,837 9,061 105,181 53, 191 14,910 787 1,413 3,254 7,898 3,112 8,296 92,861 59,892 1 21,789 1,272 1,529 -2,922 1 8,484 5,591 11,747 113, 226 I Exclusive of articles free of duty, namely, relatively small amounts of fresh fish and natural mineral waters, the former almost entirely from the United States, the latter largely from other countries. ' Inclusive of coffee imports from Porto Rico. 10038-29 —16 236 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TAmLE 137.-Textiles 1 [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Year ended- Unted Other Ger re ther Total 1-r- Frane-bEuro- l Total States A ce many Britain Spai e other AetrF pean Dec. 31: 1902 ------------ 1903 --- —----- Average --- —---- June 30: 1904 (6 months) — --- 1905. --- —------- 1906 _ --- —---------- 1907 ------------- 1908. --- —------- 1909 -------------- Average ----------- June 30: 1910 --- —-- ------ 1911 --- 1912. 1913 ---- --------. 1914 ---------- Average --- ------ June 30: 1915 -------------- 1916... --- —----- 1917 ------------ - 1918 ------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)) Average ---------- Dec. 31: 1919. ---_ --- —------- 1920 ------------ 1921 -------------- Average- -- ---- - 607 717 4 1,119 518 5 1,162 581 4,558 5,800 1,781 1,705 171 211 93 108 8,851 10, 289 662 5 1,141 549 5,179 1,743 191 100 9,570 504 4 665 342 3,726 828 158 * 117 6, 344 1,477 14 1,583 716 7,266 2,014 376 179 13,625 1,852 12 1,838 874 7,104 2, 511 498 341 15,030 1,654 22 1, 959 792 6,575 1,610 496 354 13, 462 1,528 25 2,300 1,284 7, 525 2,089 738 409 15,898 2,098 24 1,593 742 5,481 1,484 879 353 12,654 1,657 18 1,807 863 6,850 1,916 572 319 14, 002 1,832 22 1,939 998 6,395 2,076 1,406 704 15, 372 2,406 14 1,871 966 5,376 1,688 1,351 824 14,496 3, 561 16 2,227 971 6,352 1,953 1,511 714 17,305 3,778 18 2,250 1,039 7,187 2,023 1,917 919 19,130 3,939 20 2,129 1,045 5,479 1,986 1,692 1,383 17,673 3,103 18 2,083 1,004 6,158 1,945 1,575 909 16,795.I. _ I 5,615 88 842 400 5, 564 1,760 1,549 1,529 17, 347 8,524 75 832 8 6,256 2,430 1,513 1,834 21,472 11,702 23 1,107 2 8,170 4,195 1,713 3,243 30,155 18,844 51 1,021 — 8,072 3,254 1,503 6,939 39,684 11,433 43 444 — 2,811 1,067 575 2,698 19,071 12,471 62 943 91 6, 861 2,823 1,523 3, 610 28, 384 30,304 158 1,144 ---- 5, 642 2,859 905 4,689 45,701 63,020 2, 016 1,907 271 10,257 5,307 2,680 8,557 94,015 22,783 581 1, 169 563 9,392 2,562 1,415 4, 222 42, 687 38, 702 918 1,407 278 8,430 3, 576 1,667 5,823 60, 801 _,_I I. I _. _~~- Dec. 31: 1922 ----------- 1923 --------------- 1924 -------------------- Average, --- —---- Dec. 31, 1925 --- 12,901 91 654 460 3,056 757 521 4,830 23, 270 24,944 45 1,294 1,708 6,036 1,473 1,846 3,759 41,105 22,322 82 1,947 1,617 6,183 1,810 3,176 3, 230 40,367 20,055 73 1,298 1,262 5,092 1,347 1,848 3,939 4,915 I.._.__ I -. S 18,123 66 2, 122 1,2801 5,237 1,443 2,851 7,293 38,415 I Exclusive of articles free of duty, namely, relatively small amounts of raw hemp, flax, sisal, and the like; jute yar for the manufacture of sugar bags only; empty sugar bags returned; cheesecloth; and samples of no commercial value. STATISTICAL TABLES TABL 138.-Dutib4 e cottons and ootton manufactures (Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] 237 Countries from which imported Per cent -Yearended — ___ ___ --- - A -C __ -a _- - of total Year ended- ofrom United Other I Other from Amer- France Ger Great Spain Euro- All United States can many Britain pean States -— Ica....i Dec. 31: 1902 -—......... 401 1903 --- —-_ --- 453 - 459 2 515 244 219 2,701 3, 550 1,490 1,449 102 5, 401 -. 129 6,318 ----- Average. ---. ----.June 30: 1904 (6 months). ---1905. — ------------ 1906 -... --- —------ 1907 ----------—. — 19 08. --- —----------- 1909 -------—. --- — I Average-.. --- —.. — June 30: 1910 _ --- —-------- 1911........ ----.... —... 1912. --- —--------- 1913 -----— _ 1914.-_ --- —------- Average -----—. - June 30: 1915. --- —------ 1916.... --- —-- 1917....... ---- 1918... ----. --- —-- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). Average. --- --—.Dec. 31: 1919. --- —1920. _ --- —---- 1921. --- — Average. --- —--—. Dec. 31: 1922. —. —. --- 1923. --- —-—. ---. 1924. --- —Average. --- —----- Dec. 31, 1925................ 427 1 487 232 3,126 1,470 116 5,860 7.3 360 ----- 319 169 2,039 657 108 3,654 — 1,179 1 774 482 4,505 1,679 294 8,915 -—. — 1.444 - - 796 605 3,972 2,072 382 9, 273 1,296 6 924 545 3,592 1,290 373 8, 040 - 1,246 8 1,297 910 4,699 1 754 496 10,417 — 1,677 9 816 484 3,438 1, 216 368 8,024 --- —-- 1,309 4 896 581 4,045 1,576 367 8,786 14.9 1,431 4 1,078 712 4,186 1, 749 629 9,804 1,843 1 1,062 696 3,610 1,360 693 9,278.2,636 1 1,362 735 4,597 1,605 730 11,686 -. ---2,570. ---- 1,506 842 4,992 1,661 1,042 12,647 ---- 2,250 10 1,236 844 3,576 1,612 931 10,479 — 2,146 3 1, 49 766 4,192 1,597 805 10,779 19.9 3,644 10 524 324 2,925 1,431 840 9,716 -—. - 5,725 20 497 5 3,805 1,941 790 12,819 ---—. -8,216 6 734 2 4,348 3,474 968 17,822 ----. — 14, 644 8 779 --- 5,422 2,729 821 24,497 --- —-- 7,382 ---- 356 -- 2,209 837 309 11,143 --- — 8,802 10 642 74 4,158 2,314 828 16,888 52.1 20,852 85 889 ---- 4,196 2,304 624 29, 266 --- — 51,466 1,934 1,585 225 7,169 4,166 1,621 68,468. --- — 18,188 551 942 465 6,976 1,936 1,038 30,375 --—. - 30,169 857 1,139 230 6,114 2,802 1,094 42,703 70.6 10,138 43 539 401 2,142 563 406 14,338 --- —20,190 24 953 1,357 4,107 1,079 1,123 29,012 ---—. 18,479 57 1,545 1,142 4,281 1,441 2,046 29,247 --- —-- 16,269 41 1, 012 967 3,510 1,028 1,192 24,19 67. 2 I...I 1-....-....... -------— I..... -'- -- 13,6661 34 1,544 734 3,006 973 1,499 21,677 238 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY, TABE 139. -Mach,6 atpparattus, istrumets, ang vehicles.x [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Year ended- Unit Other Ot her l States Amer- France Britain Spain Euro Total ican pean ~~~~~~~~~~~~~te T ota Dec. 31: 1902 --- —--------------- 2,216 1903 ------------- 2,684 4 198 155 504 3 130 209. 08 24 67 ---- 3, 68. 28 225 ----- 3,787 I Average --- —----- June 30: 1904 (6 months) — --- 1905 --- —--------- 1906 --------------- 1907- ------------ 1908 --- —--------- 1909 --------------- Average --- —------- June 30: 1910 --- —----------- 1911 -, --- —---- 1912. --- —------- 1913. --- —----- 1914, --- —-—. ---Average -. --- —-- June 30: 1915 --- —---- 1916 --------- 1917 --- —------- 1918.-, --- —-—. — Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)-. Average --- — ------- Dec. 31: 1919. --- —--------- 1920 —.. --- —---- 1921....-.. --- —-—. Average --- —Dec. 31: 1922 ------------- 1923 ---------------- 1924-. --- —--------- Average -.... --- —Dec. 31, 1925..6 --- — 2,450 4 164 182 506 26 146 --- 3,478 1, 352 2 89 152 384 10 121 -- 2,110: 4, 543 8 222 578 612 36 258 ---- 6,257 8,469 33 389 927 1, 721 50 976 -- 12, 565 6, 226 11 272 668 932 69 476 -- 8,654 5,518 2 265 634 1,274 37 117 -- 7,847 4, 445 7 234 382 547 37 120 - - 772 5,555 11 268 608 994 43 376 7,855, 6,088 7 473 371 935 45 329 -- 8,248 9,012 17 513 672 1,363 58 851 1 12,487 9,743 15 944 579 1,475 97 539 13,492 10,685 33 428 1,429 1,370 62 -1,337 2 15,347 11,262 5 571 1,055 1,166 53 1, 303 5 15, 420 9,358 15 586 841 1,262 63 872 2 12,999 10,484 12 130 299 492 46 689 9 12,061 25, 550 26 195 6 581 60 243 26, 661 41, 050 235 195 - - 524 121 236 4 42,365 39,223 54 71 — 112 50 122 1 39, 633 19,242 118 29 - 77 18 36 -- 19,520 30,122 99 138 68 397 66 272 3 31,165 47,544 111 153 4 284 46 169 4 48,315 76,421 105 479 843 713 157 314 1 79,033 65, 259 69 829 1,086 1,691 213 744 6 69,897 63,075 95 487 644 896 139 409 3 65,74& 18,354 126 204 293 178 53 422 1 19,631 28,964 224 469 519 414 85 194 7 30, 875 34, 613 107 797 916 1,125 209 554 1 38,323 27,311 152 490 576- 572 115 390 3 29,609 36,087 180 581 1 864I 794I 148 1,271 1 39, 926 1 Exclusive of articles free of duty, namely, agricultural implements if proved to be solely used for agricultural purposes and scientific instruments for the use of schools. STATISTICAL TABLES TABLE 140.-Metals and mannufactures of metals1 [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] 239 Countries from which imported Year ended- Othe United Amer- France Ger- Great Spain ter All Total States Ame mmany Britain other /U ~~ ~~ t Dec. 31: 1902 ----...-:: --- —--- 1903 --- —----- Average --- —-------—. June 30: 1904 (6 months) ---. --- 1905. --- — 1906 -----— 0 --- —1907 —.. --- —-- -- 1908 ---------- 1909, --- —------—, Average --- —-—..June 30: 1910 -------—......1911. --- —-------- 1912. --- —-... 1913 -- —. --- —------- 1914 --- ----—. --- --- Average --- —-... ---June 30: 1915 -------------------- 1916 -----------—.. --- — 1917 -------------------- 1918 ------------ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months).. Average -------------- Dec. 31: 1919 ------------—. ----, 1920 -------------------- 1921 5 --- —--------- Average --- —--------- Dec. 31: 1922 -_-_ --- —----- -- 1923 --------------- 1924 --- —-1.. --- —Average -------------- Dec. 31, 1925 --------------- 1,970 - -..... 203 753 776 101 141. 3,944 1,486 2 376 559 958 118 217 1 3,717 1,728 1 290 656 867 110 179 --- 3,831 804 5 280 401 505 47 184 ---- 2,226 2,397 152 615 711 1,105 136 348 - 5,464 4,806 1 808 1,088 1,668 154 414 1 8,940 4,110 7 753 902 1,501 89 359 1 7,722 4,595 63 549 901 1,424 111 268 1 7,912 3,848 8 462 535 750 70 288 1 5,962 - -I I. I._~~~1 5 3,738 43 1 6311 8251 1,264 110 338 1 4, 993 5,147 6, 318 6, 246 6, 750 3 2 128 - - -- - 343 297 298 255 282 597 636 634 645 591 1,074 1,337 1,081 1,000 1,118 84 104 85 94 92 345 453 298 290 474 1 1 2 1 1 6, 950 7,440 7,977 8,844 8,531 9, 316 5,891 28 295 621 1,122 92 372 1 8,422 5,542 5 104 182 489 76 136 1 6,535 9, 269 32 152 7 472 121 115 -- 10,168 17,230 16 195 1 825 399 86 60 18,812 18, 733 50 97 I ---- 464 145 18 10 19,517 9,370 56 49 ---- 193 651 7 7 9,733 13,366 35 133 42 543 176 80 17 14,392 22,753 217 147 139 558 190 55 41 24,100 33,515 183 261 439 1,259 277 91 31 36,056 27,754 73 281 855 894 203 171 39 30,270 28,007 158 229 478 904 223 106 37 30,142 7,114 6 116 326 222 46 53 4 | 7,887 17,555 92 221 1,060 1,033 104 251 3 20,319 17,128 56 317 1,291 716 188 1,064 5 20,765 13,932 52 218 892 567 113 456 4 16,324 *i== I=: 1- - -—:~, --- —: 16,076 471 325 1,237 736 170 1,3801 17 19, 988 1 Except machinery and the like, and exclusive of articles free of duty, namely, relatively small amounts of barbed wire and staples, and reimported empty drums. CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 141.-Dutiable iron and steel and maatfactures [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Per cent of Ye-r.- total Year ended- Other Ger- rea Other All from teAmeri- Francemany Britaro other TotalUnited can pean States Dec. 31: 1902 -------- 1903 --- —-- Average --- June 30: 1904 (6 months)_ 1905 1 --- —--- 1906 --- —------- 1907. --- —1908 --- —---- 1909 ------- Average ---June 30: 1910. --- —-- 1911. --- —----- 1912 --- — 1913 —. --- —-- 1914 --- —-- Average. ---June 30: 1915 --- —---- 1916 --- —---- 1917 --------- 1918 -------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- —--- Average ---Dec. 31: 1919 --- —--- 1920 ------- 1921. --- —--- Average —.Dec. 31: 1922 -s --- — 1923 - ------ 1924 ----—.Average --- Dec. 31, 1925.... 1,658 --- 120 581 1,178 1 117 326 689 54 850 69 104 -- 3,207. 179 1 ---- 2,721 ----- I ".... 1 2._......., 49........._ 1, 418 ---- 118 | 454 770 62 142- 2,964 47.8 1,418 - 118..... 641 -79 205 441 27 102 --- 1,494 ---1,978 5 165 390 990 84 194 -- 3,805. 4, 074 227 479 1,478 89 335 ---- 6,682 -- 3,285 2 161 413 1, 287 46 291 5,484 4,018 1 157 411 1, 137 40 179- 5,943. 3,316 1 113 220 622 29 222 1 4,524 --- 3,148 1 164 385 1,083 57 241 ----,079 62.0 4,301 1 147 362 914 46 305 --- 6,077 - 4,407 2 144 365 1,135 56 403 6,513 ---5,457 1 178 375 908 56 249 2 7, 226 ---5 175 - - 152 406 802 52 227 -- 6,814. ---5,645 5 144 297 934 42 393 - 7,460 ---4,997 2 153 3611 939 501 315 --- 6,818 73.3 4,667 -54 114 401 32 77 ---- 5,346 ---7,931 9 68 5 350 36 88 -- 8,489 --- — 368 - 73 --- 16 112 4 2 577 --- 16,180 39 47 ----- 376 17 11 1 16,671 —..... 8,138 54 14 ---- 156 7 6 4 8,379 --- 19,443 138 56 11 396 29 42 23 20,139 ---29,157 154 150 272 1,022 60 74 11 30,901 ---24,507 69 136 653 750 69 121 18 26,323 18 ---24,369| 120 114 312 1 -723 3563 79 17 125,788 94.5 6,269 6 45 197 180 21 35 1 6,754 ---15,214 85 107 694 886 49 225 ---- 17,261 ---14,292 31 186 888 568 18 990 2 17,064 ---- 11,925 41 113 593 45 59 417 ---- 1 13,693 87.1 13,2961 11 170 8021 615 781 1,219 3, 16,194 I. I STATISTICAL TABLES 241 TABL 142.-Chemicals and allied products1 [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Year ended-ted reat Other A To United Amer F.a Ger- Great pain Eur All States France many Britain Spain T- other al St~~~a n ys pte a n Dec. 31: 1902 _ — ------------ 1903 -------------- Average --- —------—. June 30: 1904 (6 months) ------ 1905 -------------- 1906 -------------- 1907 --------------- 1908 ------------------- 1909. --- —-—. ---. Average --- —--------- June 30: 1910 -------------- 1911._. --—. — - - 1912. --- —-------—. 1913 --------------- 1914 —, --- —-------- Average --- —-----—. June 30: 1915 1 --- —-----—. — 1916 -6. ---------—. 1917-.. ------------- 1918 ------------- -. Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)-... Average --- —-----—.Dec. 31: 1919 ------------—. 1920- __ --- —---—.1921 -----------------—. Average --- —-----—.Dec. 31: 1922 ---- ----------- 1923 -__ --- —------- 1924 -.. ---—. — -- - Average. --- —------ Dec. 31, 1925 ----------- 933 1,129 2 7 519 127 591 171 264 326 759 58 748 110 77 2, 739 27 3,109 1,031 555 149 295 753 84 52 2,924 697 3 336 76 188 237 34 1 1,572 1, 523 35 716 150 343 476 120 6 3,369 1,823 31 903 180 453 444 117 11 3,962 2,202 8 912 188 496 408 139 7 4,360 2,242 22 978 234 485 408 161 10 4,540 2,219 8 989 187 468 370 143 23 4,407 1,947 19 8791 185 442 426j 130 10 4,038 2,861 22 1, 120 246 476 419 191 16 5,351 3, 653 31 1,167 279 594 474 205 16 6,419 4,344 22 1,404 296 767 543 206 15 7,597 4,403 22 1,583 398 944 450 265 22 8,087 4,085 63 1,456 399 944 484 385 11 7,827 3,869 32 1,346 324 745 474 250 16 7,056 5,604 196 1,186 204 941 502 272 18 8,923 8,329 89 1 677 15 864 590 138 31 11,733 11,649 388 1, 527 ---- 644 679 99 100 15,086 16,426 831 2,259 ---- 170 503 110 93 20,392 6,321 746 720 --- - 157 189 61 24 8,218 10,740 500 1,638 48 617 547 151 59 14, 300 18,976 1,429 2,633 7 256 900 247 142 24,590 25,434 389 3,529 257 1,041 1,227 198 176 32,251 13, 289 81 2,175 655 396 565 249 137 17,547 19,233 633 2,779 306 564 898 231 152 24,790 7,527 223 1,687 254 374 409 90 57 10,621 12,691 790 2 143 677 624 461 342 56 17,784 14,186 309 2,358 979 621 496 425 134 19, 08 11,468 441 2,063 636 540 455 286 82 15,971 12,599 267 3,011 1,2071 803 596{ 766 101 19,350 1 Exclusive of articles free of duty, namely, relatively small amounts of quinine not in pills and natural fertilizers, including cowpeas. 242 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE; 143.-Colors, dyes, and varnishes [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Per cent -----— P e — cof total Year ended- Other Other from Amter- ' France n Euro- Total United States can Fra many Britain Spain pean States Dec. 31: 1902 ------ ---- 142. 18- 1 18 97 6 4 284.. 1903 --- —--------------- 174 ---._ 26 18 111 11 8 349 Average --- —---- 58 --- 22 18 104 8 6 316 50.0.June 30: 1904 (6 months) ----- 81 -. 9 8 77 5 4 184 1905 --- —--------------- 199 --- 25 21' 116 9 8 378 -- 1906 --------- ---------- 277 1 23 30 159 -, 8 12 508 - 1907 ------------------ 302 1 27 35 179 5 13 561 --- 1908 --------- ------ 282 ------ 26 33 147 4 14 507 - 1909 ------ - 292 ----- 29 27 152 3 12 515 -- Average ---- --- 261 -_ --- —- 25 28 151 6 -1 482 54.2 June 30: - = _ 1910. ---- --------- 390 27 24 166 5 21 633 — 1911 --------- 441 ---- 23 36 177 8 24 710 --- 1912.. --- — ----- 409.. 21 31 220 7 23 710 ---- 1913 ------------- 547 --- 22 32 242 11 22 874 --- 1914 --------- 550 -------- 21 39 205 12 41 868 Average --- —-467 23 32 202 9 26 759 61. 5 June 30: - ~ 1915 ------—.. --- — 550 1 9 15 164 16 10 764 ------- 1916 ----------------- 893 2 12 128 20 1 1,056 ---- 1917 -------- ---- 1,157 9 5 -------- 139 30 1 1,341 ----- 1918 - ----- 1,711 2 8 ----- 63 9 - 1,795 ---- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months).... 999 ----- 3 ------- 12 6 - 1,021 -------- Average --- —-- 1,180 3 8 - 112 18 3 1,328 88.9 -Dec. 31: = 1919- 2,246 1 10 ------- 110 8 3 2,384 --—.1920 - ------ 2,763 1 14 17 305 19 4 3,140 ----- 1921 ------ -- ---- 2,041 1 11 23 165 8 19 2,287 ------ Average --- ---- 2,350 1 12 13 193 12 9 2,604 90.3 Dec. 31: I 1922 ------------ 1,013 4 7 24 169 7 4 1,227 ---- 1923 --------- ---- 1,936 ----- 30 32 310 6 13 2,332 ---- 1924 --- - ----- 1,905 3 25 42 315 6 32 2, 333 -------- Average- 1,618 2 21 33 265 6 16 1,964 82.4 Dec. 31, 1925 -2,033 1 30 46 336 18 26 2,496 ---- TABLE 144.-Animals and animal products 1, [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Year ended- Unitd Other Stae A ' Ger- Great h Other All aStates Amer- France maer Britain Spain Euro- other Total — i~~~~~~~~~~pa -— e Total- - I --- ^ 1-II Dec. 31: 1902 ---. --- —------- 1903 --------------- Average ----. ---June 30: 1904 (6 months) ------ 1905.. --- —-------- 1906 --- —----------- 1907 ------------—. 1908 --------------—. 1909..... --- —------- Average --- —---------- June 30: 1910 _ --- —-------—. 1911 —. --- —------- 1912. --- —-----—..1913. --- —--------- 1914. --- —-----—..Average -------—. ---. 1,745 4,416 42 2,521 4, 849 94 23 54 16 1,301 20 1. 532 6 6 7, 542 9, 082 2,133 4, 633 68 38 18 1, 416 3 8,315 1,942 2,241 44 17 14 969 3 4 5, 234 3, 277 3, 637 115 45 42 1, 787 15 5 8,923 5,354 5,542 133 78 64 1,451 11 10 12,643 4, 274 1, 694 140 65 52 1, 124 8 11 7,368 3,846 1,011 97 74 62 1,043 15 20 6 168 3,446 77 76 54 24 873 10 12 4,572 4,025 2, 582 110 61 47 1, 318 11 11 8,165 3,907 34 81 66 37 987 9 30 5,151 4,448 8 81 87 47 1,023 4 34 5,732 4, 241 8 71 79 39 1,204 14 30 5,686 5,330 9 82 66 54 1 340 10 36 6,927 4,667 28 70 59 43 1,396 16 27 6 306 4,519 18 77 71 44 1,190 10 31 5,960 -I..,..,.' _16.-2 Except foodstuffs and fibers; and exclusive of articles free of duty, namely, cattle and other animals Imported for breeding purposes, of importance in the early years only. . STATISTICAL TABLES 243 TABLE 144.-Animals and animal products-Continued [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries-from which imported Year ended- United Other GFer Great Other All States Amr- many Britai n Eur o Total States can pean her June 30: 1915 ----------------- 5,201 27 37 16 25 1,205 11 49 6,571 1916 ---------- - 7,167 96 31 1 21 1,227 2 46 8,591 1917.. --- ------—. ---- 8,614 132 50 ------- 31 1,308 1 82 10,218 1918 --- — -------- --- 12,361 156 35 ---- 23 1,066 3 50 13,694 Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ---- 6, 060 43 10 ------- 14 358 1 11 6,497 Average. --- —---- 8,756 101 36 4 25 1,148 4 53 10,127 Dec. 31: - - 1919 --------------- 16,577 1,173 35 -28 709 2 82 18,606 1920-, ---- - 21,957 1,899 30 12 67 1,312 7 91 25,375 1921 --------------- 13,217 844 25 14 54 1,081 5 93 15,333 Average ------ - 17, 250 1,305 30 8 50 1, 034 5 89 19, 771 Dec. 31:. - 1922 -6, --- —------- 6,352 12 18 12 13 559 7 33 7,006 1923 ---------------- 12,392 10 28 29 21 638 5 64 13,187 1924. --- —-------- 12,021 320 46 34 38 709 7 39 13,214 Average -- ------— 10,255 114 31 25 24" 635 6 45 11,135 Dec. 31, 1925 --- -------- 9,921 324 81 51 43 590 17 10 11,037 TABLE 145.-Nonmetallic minerals [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Year ended- United Other Ger Great Other Al States A - Frace many Britain Spain Euro- other Total ocan tpean Dec. 31: 1902. --- —--------- 1903. --- —--------- Average --- —---------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) ---—. —. 1905. --- —--------- 1906... --- —-- ------ 1907 --------------- 1908 -—. --- —----- -- 1909. --- —--------- Average --- —--------- June 30: 1910. — ----------- 1911 -------------------- 1912..... --- —---------- 1913 --------------- 1914. --- —--------- kAverage ---- June 30: 1915.................... 19165. --------- -. — 1916 ----- ----- 1917. --- —-------------- 1918. --- —--- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)___ Average —.. — ---- Dec. 31: 1919.. ------ 1920. --- —--------- 1921. ---------- Average --- —-------- Dec. 31: 1922... ------ -- 1923 -- 1924. ---- Average --- —--------- Dec. 31, 1925. --- —----- I 1 988 2 137 224 144 311 109 2 1,917 1,049 3 166 315 135 238 153 2 2,061 1,018 2 152 270 139 275 131 2 1,989 591 2 111 262 77 114 111 2 1,270 1,364 3 266 570 211 267 228 4 2,913 1, 712 42 312 769 298 338 364 6 3,841 2,015 69 347 649 222 269 395 8 3,974 2196 41 296 989 238 329 470 5 4,564 2,029 1 246 588 177 243 403 8 3 695 1,801 29 287 696 222 284 358 6 3,683 2,163 1 291 437 215 233 457 5 3,802 2,359 1 317 622 240 246 437 8 4,230 2, 575- - 359 678 295 232 529 6 4,674 3, 322 1 338 841 309 293 589 7 5,700 3,653 3 346 688 302 315 684 10 6,001 2,815 1 330 653 272 264 539 7 4,881 3,386 --- 156 200 20 025 302 365 5 4,619 5,610 2 193 11 289 471 322 39 6,937 6,944 3 185 1 391 534 351 58 8,467 11,361 198 116 ----- 1 477 387 152 35 12,726 6,017 172 34 --- 268 216 178 17 6,902 7,404 83 152 47 362 425 304 34 8,811 13,531 750 153 5 657 487 468 61 16,112' 21, 087 1,863 249 358 851 861 805 150 26,224 15,900 2,118 263 627 655 768 839 93 21,263 16,839 1,577 222 330 721 706 704 101 21,200 7,219 2,699 252 346 455 407 497 18 11,893 8, 671 3,837 291 850 599 573 836 19 15,676 10,394 4,279 464 1,290 528 685 2,056 36 19, 732 _ I I I _ I _ I I.51 86 1 2 6 8, 761 11, 258 3,605 335 829 528 555 6,018 578 1,210 634~ 676 1,130 24 15,76T 1,468 54 21,896 t Exclusive of articles free of duty, namely, relatively important amounts of coal and coke, largely from the United States, common bricks for building purposes, coarse sand, and rough paving stones, the last argely from other countries. 244 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABI 146.-Wood and manufatwures of wood [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Year ended- - |.. Ia. |. m _ t _ - O - a ~Year ended- r rOther Other United Other Ger- Greath Al it Amer- France m any Britain Spain Euro- Total States ican many Britain pean other Dec. 31: 1902 ----—. --- —-------- 1903. —................ Average --- —-.. —. June 30: 1904 (6 months) ----. — 1905 —..1906 --- ------- 1907. -------------- 1908 -------- 1909. ----. --- Average-.. --- —. — June 30: 1910 --------------- 1911... --- —------------ 1912. --- —------- 1913 -. --- —--- 1914. --- —-- Average ---- June 30: 1915. ---- - 1916 ------------------ 1917. --- —1918 --- ---------—. Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)-. Average ---------- Dec. 31: 1919 -----— _ --- 1920. --- —--------- 1921 -._ --- —-- Average --------- Dec. 31: 1922... ------- 1923 —. --- —-------- 1924.. --- —Average ---------—. Dec. 31, 1925 --- IZ 838 11 50 43 73 957 11 57 59 96 346 328 27 48 1, 392 1, 562 6 898 11 54 51 84 337 37 5 1,477 626 14 39 46 56 178 33 5 997 1,382 49 94 99 107 356 83 11 2,181 2,222 61 98 117 140 365 89 17 3,109 2,018 61 128 90 122 325 91 19 2,854 1,862 30 128 117 113 327 106 16 2,699 1, 507 31 88 77 90 283 80 8 2,164 1,749 45 104 99 114 334 '87 14 2,546 1,875 31 131 89 108 288 88 11 2,621 2,084 75 130 107 162 282 90 13 2, 943 2,272 60 135 155 200 284 96 24 3, 226 2,868 50 166 206 202 296 139 37 3,964 2,475 51 218 170 167 291 166 35 3, 573 2,315 53 156 145 168 288 116 24 3,26 2,452 72 59 47 168 322 107 16 3, 243 4,496 61 93 2 326 341 71 25 5,415 4,641 75 130 - 326 407 62 35 5,676 6,638 77 64 209 332 35 43 7,398 2,999 41 21 -- 146 224 4 16 3,451 4,717 72 82 1 1 261 361 62 30 5,596 6,458 85 78 1 280 419 41 39 7,401 11,441 67 106 44 434 574 190 45 12,901 6,612 71 126 132 250 337 134 59 7,721 8,170 74 103 59 322 443 122 48 9,341 2,656 4,998 4,536 27 60 73 150 229 53 27 3,275 46 95 174 483 332 94 37 6,259 38 122 211 361 346 136 88 5,838.... --— -r. 4,064 37 92 152 332 302 94 51 5,124 - — I I -_ -- - I -I — - - - I 4, iA1 94 1 117 1 202 1 3971 336 1 171 78 5, 726.. _ _. _ I _...... _., ~...................... Exclusive of articles free of duty, namely, relatively important amounts of pine lumber, not dressed very largely from the United States, and of small amounts of beekeepers' supplies and reimported packing boxes. STATISTICAL TABLES TABLE 147.-Paper and manufactures of paper1 [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] 245 Countries from which imported Year ended — Other Othe United Oter FrneGer- Great er All Total Stte Amer- France many Britan Spain ot al Statesicn many Britain pe other ican peand Dec. 31: 1902. --- —---—. --- 1903 --- —----------- Average.. --- —-. — June 30: 1904 (6 months)-,..... 1905. --- —-—. --- 1906 -.. — ----------—. 1907. --- —---—. 1908. --- —---------- 1909. --- —-------- Average —. --- ——. — June 30: 1910 — _.. --- —----—. 1911 —. --- —--—. — 1912. — ---------—. 1913. --- —-----—.1914 -----------—.Average. --- ——. — June 30: 1915... --- —----—. 1916 -. --- —-----—. 1917. --- —----—. --- 1918 —. --- —-. --- — Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). Average. --- —------- Dec. 31: 1919 ----------—. — 1920. --- —---------- 1921.. --- —-------- Average... --- —--—. Dec. 31: 1922. --- —-------- 1923. --- —--------- 1924. --- —--------- Average. --- —----- Dec. 31, 1925. ----------- 305 11 210 243 299 1 202 315 11 21 454 36 1 413 29 1 1,261 1,281 1,271. 302 1 206 279 161 433 33 1 206 ---- 63 145 12 155 32 1 614 684 2 205 341 24 392 32 1 1,681 482 7 153 475 24 436 41 3 1,621 590 5 158 323 19 354 46 4 1,499 742 9 190 432 26 284 39 5 1,727 682 7 206 354 26 271 73 3 1,622 616 5 177 376 24 344 48 3 1,593 716 9 217 386 35 340 116 3 1,822 886 12 205 449 29 344 59 3 1,987 854 12 163 369 35 328 133 5 1,899 992 6 226 394 49 345 199 4 2,215 1,201 13 178 405 59 404 171 4 2,435 930 10 198 400 41 352 136 4 2,071 1,183 12 83 128 39 324 146 3 1,918 2,092 23 65 7 101 394 161 6 2,849 3,464 15 54 ----- 86 489 135 15 4,258 4,209 36 52 1 18 369 31 10 4, 725 2,463 3 18 ---- - 6 212 4 10 2,716 2,980 20 60 301 56 397 106 10 3,659.5,985 23 70 ---- 16 524 14 25 6,657 7,186 34 75 66 27 594 134 11 8,127 5, 854 88 76 441 32 315 150 49 7,005 6,341 49 74 169 25 478 99 28 7,263 2,742 40 52 251 25 170 136 9 3,425 3,076 52 63 748 45 213 544 12 4,753 2,554 32 69 905 49 206 279 36 4,130 2,791 41 61 635 40 196 320 19 4,103 --- 3- 18- - -2T - 12- -4- - --— I 2, 716 3,265 43 111 754 581 2101 326 24 4,751 I Exclusive of articles free of duty, namely, wood pulp for the manufacture of paper; newsprint paper; maps and standard textbooks for the use of schools; and advertising matter, samples, and overissue periodicals (within six months of date of publication), of no commercial value. 246 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 148.-Misoellaneous articles' [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Year ended- Other Other United. er- Great in r All t Amr rance pean Dec. 31: 1902. —... 877 150 273 1903 --- —------- - -- 974 142 309 138 147 81 245 103 25 1,892 83 179 154 27 2,015 Average. --- —------ June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —1905 -------------- 1906 ------------------- 1907 ---------. ---1908... --- —------- 1909 _ --- —--------- Average ------------ June 30: 1910D -------—. --- 1911 —, --- —------- 1912 — ------—. ---1913 -------------- 1914 --- —----------- Average --- —--------- June 30: 1915 -----— _........ 1916 -------------- 1917 ---— _... 1918 ----------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) Average --- —-------- Dec. 31: 1919 _- ----------- 1920.a --- 1921 -------------- Average --- —------ Dec. 31: 1922 -------------- 1923 -------------- 1924 ------------- Average --------- Dec. 31, 1925 --- —------- 926 146 291 142 82 212 129 26 1, 954 591 85 174 100 44 117 90 28 1, 229 1 842 185 362 224 109 261 248 39 3, 270 1,892 125 472 332 161 341 309 59 3'691 1, 962 120 441 257 135 222 263 57 3,457 2 063 87 433 301 129 162 331 55 3 561 1,837 1 322 219 99 107 196 43 2,874 1,852 119 401 261 123 220 261 51 3,288 1,398 55 353 264 157 147 255 47 2,676 1,408 136 381 280 166 141 270 64 2,846 1,576 72 308 392 157 148 309 72 3,034 1,664 126 529 503 156 127 316 121 3, 542 1,930 91 1,061 967 183 187 369 98 4,886 1, 595 96 526 482 164 150 304 80 3,397 1,734 150 852 275 139 270 281 67 3,768 2,537 325 1,627 9 158 273 94 92 5,115 3, 557 438 2, 373 ---- 265 369 274 144 7,420 4,623 397 2,699 ------ 145 239 195 210 8, 508 2,339 202 2,025 - - 120 267 26 88 5,067 3,286 336 2,128 63 184 315 193 134 6,639 6,636 583 4,958 38 -187 407 56 287 13,152 8,557 439 8,535 318 278 649 170 330 19,276 6,926 289 3, 679 431 278 424 146 403 12, 576 7,373 437 5,724 263 248 493 124 340 15,002 4,528 167 2,172 250 112 179 69 137 7,614 5,535 240 2, 912 538 125 234 230 208 10,022 5,264 248 2,322 664 114 194 239 268 9,313 5,109 218 2,469 484 117 202 180 204 8,983 5,512 421 3,024 705 173 236 360 264 10, 695 i Exclusive of articles free of duty, such as trees and plants in their natural state, works of art, specimens and collections, personal and household effects, and items not separately reported. STATISTIC AL ABLES TABLE 149.-Artfiles admtted free into Cuba [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] 247 Countries from which imported Year ended- Other Other United Amer France Ge- Great Euro- Total States ican many Britain peanSpain other Total Dec. 31: 1902 --- —-------— 3 3,190 841 1903 —.. --- —------ 3,868 334 28 36 17 101 63 4 19 4,263 38 424 52 9 --- 4,761 Average --- ------ June 30: 1904 (6 months) ------ 1905 ------------- 1906 ----- ---------- 1907. --- —- ------- 1908 --------------- 1909.. --- —------------ Average. --- —------ June 30: 1910 --- —----------- - 1911 ----------------- 1912.. --- —-------- 1913.. --- -------- 1914.- ----------- - Average --- —-—.June 30: 1915. --- —--------- 1916. ------- 1917 —. --- —-------- 1918 --- —----------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)-. Average-.. —..... — Dec. 31: 1919. --- —---- ----- 1920 ----------------- 1921. -------------- Average ------------ Dec. 31: 1922.... ----------- 1923 —. --- —------- 1924. --- —---------- Average -. --- —----- 3,529 587 32 28 262 58 6 10 4,512 2,185 78 32 7 100 34 8 12 2,456 6,230 1,354 170 43 256 69 3 -- 8,125 8016 482 97 54 397 100 10 -- 7,156 6,123 431 79 48 386 70 12 -7,149 5,785 458 123 64 226 102 34 -- 6,792 4,397 314 105 65 224 80 78 4 5,267 5, 588 567 110 51 289 83 26 3 6,717 5,907 338 105 93 213 90 53 ---- 6 6,799 7,253 386 92 55 263 104 197 1 8,351 7,383 484 88 51 211 112 246- - 8,575 8,173 420 126 64 386 136 182 1 9,488 7,792 295 119 60 192 139 165 3 8,765 7,302 385 106 64 253 116 169 1 8,396 6,501 325 63 16 159 166 266 6 7,502 9,021 402 66 ---- 158 221 117 - 9,985 12,594 375 30 ---- 210 224 146 - 13,579 18,301 552 61 ----- 158 204 234 43 19,553 8,751 268 30 ---- 172 11 89 --- 9, 321 12,260 427 55 4 190 184 189 11 13,320 14,952 745 65 1 177 209 389 1 16,539 26,867 556 83 22 357 333 734 1 28,953 13,886 226 94 135 208 170 386 7 15,112 18,568 509 81 53 247 237 503 3 20,201 6,665 37 97 71 163 227 176 1 7,437 11,863 179 96 208 269 216 869 10 13,710 11,071 429 128 339 262 190 1,008 33 13,460 9,867 215 107 206 231 211 684 15 11,536 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,, ' "~:- ' —...~... '.... ',, Dec. 31, 1925 --------- 10,159 291 1 1461 339 232 166 931 51 12, 315 TABLES 150-221, INCLUSIVE (EXCEPT TABLES 154, 167, AND 172).-IMPORTS INTO CUBA, TOTAL AND BY PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES OF t' ORIGIN, WITH AVERAGES FOR SELECTED PERIODS AND PERCENTAGES FROM THE UNITED STATES; TOTAL UNITED STATES DOMESTIC 00 EXPORTS (FOR ARTICLES WITH COMPARABLE STATISTICAL CLASSIFICATIONS), WITH AVERAGES BY PERIODS; VALUES (AND QUANTITIES, IF AVAILABLE), 1902-1926: TABLE 150.-Barley [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 2.35 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total Total United States from United domesticexports Year ended- United States Germany Other American All States domestic exports Quantity Value Quantity Val ue Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value 0 Qj Dec. 31: Libras 2 Libras Libras Libras 1902 -. --- —------------..- 771 $16 1, 262 $42 22 (3) 2,593 $68 1903- ----------------- ---------- 843 16 1,553 49 45 (3) 2,460 66 Bushels 8,713 9,800 I ----" Average --- —------ --------------—. 807 June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —.... —..- 764 1905 --—. --- —----- 1, 785 1906.., --- —- -- 2,773 1907 --- —---------- - 1,939 1908 --- —------------------------ 4 1909 ----------------------- 10 Average --- --- ----------- 1,323 June 30: 1fi1n I..161 1,408 ' 46 34 (3) 2,526 67 31.9 24.0 9,256 I - -I ---- -1 I - - —; — -...I 16 34 47 36 (3) (3) 778 1,547 3,906 5,320 8, 180 8,986 22 54 126 154 254 338 10 4 3 (3) (3) 1, 601 3,661 6,918 7,377 8,312 8,998 40 — 92 178 192 259 338 2,564 10,662 17,729 8,239 4,349 6,580 $4,713 5,678 0 0 5, 1968 1,471 | 5,586 8,653 1 4, 556 3,206 4,672 g 5,117.. 24 5,221 172 6,703 200 19.7 12. 2 9,113 203 73 20 192 2 3 3 (3) 4 2 10,522 9,362 13,259 14,920 10,067 348 260 314 402 344 123 119 32 367 1 2 1 6 2 11,045 9,687 13,454 14,972 11,135 357 264 319 402 372 4,312 9,399 1, 585 17,537 6,645 3,053 5,381 1,268 11,412 4,253 5,073 Average -------— 99 11,626 334 128 12,058 343 1.8.7 7,896 STATISTICAL TABLES 249 TABLE 151.-Corn or maize (Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 4.75 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Cn Countries from which imported into Cuba I Vau___________ -_ _______________ ___ Per cent of total from Total United States United States domestic exports Year ended- United States Argentina Uruguay All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Dec. 31: Libras s 1902 ---------------------------- 63,853 19-03- __ --- —--------------------- 55,957 $990 607 Libras (3) 2, 628 $32 Libras (3) 605 (3) $7 $7 Libras 63,854 59,204 $990: --- 645 --- — --- Bushels 18,724 91,733 $11,568 49,135 Average ------------- ----- June 30: 1904 (6 months) — --------------------- 1905 --- —-------- ------------ 1906 ------------- -------------------------- 1907 --- -_.. --- —---------------- 1908- ------------------- 1909- ----------------------------- Average _. -. ---- ------ ----- ------------------- June 30: 1910 _ ---- ---------------------- 1911. --- —--------------------- 1912 ------------------------ 1913. --- —---------------- 1914 --- —-------------- ---- Average -—. --- ——. --- —----- June 30: 1915 ---- ------------------------ 1916 ------------ 1917 ---- ---------- 1918 -. -. --- —------- --- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) — ---------- 59,905 799 1,314 16 303 3 61,529 818 97.4 97.6 55,228 30,352 38,611 467 343 3 1,062 11 40,016 481 -___ - ____ --- —---- 26,045 13,869 83,864 943 2,982 31 2,310 26 89,801 1,007 -___.... --- —-----. 88,807 47,447 109,762 1,149 3,595 36 1,117 12 115,265 1,209 -- _ -------— _ 117,719 62,062 147, 210 1,470 17, 573 184 1,557 20 174, 005 1, 767 -__ --------- 83,301 44,262 101,109 1, 255 14, 712 185 1,030 12 117,0 11,462 1 --- —---- -- -_....- 52,446 33,942 99,635 1,386 7,307 81 144 2 107, 769 1,479 -______ ---------- 35,853 25, 194 105,489 1, 213 8,456 94 1,313 15 117,157 1,346 90.0 90.1 73,486 41,232:,,~,, i 134,736 1, 697 10,785 150 3,000 44 148,621 1,892 ---------- ----- ----- 36,802 25,428 128,946 1,457 20,160 280 580 9 149,687 1,746 --— _ ----- ---------- 63,761 35,961 124,883 1,712 1,841 30 ---- - - 126,769 1,743 -__ - --------- 40,039 28,957 139,323 1,869 31,946 474 --- - - - 171, 511 2,347 ___ ---- ----- 49,065 28,801 133,896 1,958 34,405 487 --------- 168,354 2,446 ------— _ ---------- 9,381 7,008 132,357 1,739 19,828 284 716 10 152, 988 2,035 86. 5 85.4 39,810 25,231 129,240 2,066 18,488 289 --- ----- - 147,804 2,356 --------- 48,786 39,339 181,800 2,874 23,328 425 107 1 205,310 3,301 --- ------ - 38,217 30,781 162,052 3, 276 20,674 520 ------- 182,996 3,802 ---------- 64,721 72,497 68,838 2,311 10,043 404 ------------------ 107,773 3,653 ------------------- 40,998 75,306 30,778 1,006 2,213 58 283 5 33,681 1,083 --------— 1 --- —----- 11,364 17,926 127,269 2,563 16,610 377 87 1 150,570 3,155 84.5 81.2 45,352 52,411 0 q.4 0 Q 3.-I Average. -. — ------------ Dec. 31: 1919. --- ——. — --- ---- --------------------- 1920 ----------—, --- —----------------- 1921 ------------------------- 1922.._ -..-.. ---- —.- ------—. --- —- -. ---. ---.C5 Average.. ---. --- —- ------------------ Dec. 31: 1923 ------ ----- —...... -----—. ----. ---.. 1924 —. --- —---—. --- ------------ 1925 —. --- —---------------------- Av926 e ---------- -1 Average 101, 528 99, 775 139, 663 144,932 3, 460 3, 769 2, 745 1,947 18, 431 67, 974 23,606 23, 953 473 1,808 496 408 69 3 3 123,323 1, 624 56 173,188 539 13 163,808.. ---.. —...- 170,404 4,023 -- 5, 818 3, 254 -------- 2,379 --------- 11,193 17, 761 128,975 163, 609 18, 624 26,454 92,767 115,095 121,475 2,980 33,491 796 558157,681 3, 77.0 77.0 80,384 63,235.9 6 I ~ 1I7,. 81 1,474.9 8 151,514 2,682 26,617 410 -- --- - 178474 3,099 -— 42,188 36,806 140, 544 2,731 46,870 635 137 2 199,113 3,591 ----— l-. ---- - 18,366 17,825 127,077 2,812 40,157 778 73 1 177,534 3,801 - - - 12,762 14,253 5108,388 1,745 32,842 553 ------ - 145,439 2,390 -- 23,064 19,840 2 I-I...... I.. 1-9 r 131.881 2.492 36. 621, v _I_ --- —--------------------------------, -- _ I -- I - 1 594 53 1 175,140 3,220 75.3 77.4 24,095 22,181 1 Imports from Haiti bulked large in 1918, amounting to 23,338,000 libras, $746,100, but averaged only 156,300 libras in 1923-1926. Imports from Santo Domingo were small and irregular from 1915 to 1923, but expanded to 10,677,800 and 8,544,000 libras in 1924 and 1925, dropping to 3,531,000 in 1926. 2 The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. 3 Not separately enumerated, but only $9 worth was imported from "Other American countries." 4 Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to libras. 5 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 392,600 libras, $7,900. c33 -1 i 02 TABLE 152.-Wheat flour [Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 6.90 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba1 Per cent of total Total United States.- ___ _ -from United States domestic exports Year ended- United States Spain Canada All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Dec. 31: Barrels 1902 --- --- -------—. — 595 $2,228 1903. --— 5 --- —. _ ---------. 564 2,085 I Barrels Barrels (3) $3 --- —1 3 ------- Barrels 595 564 $2,232 2,089 ---—. Barrels 18,328 19,554 $68,246 75,188 'Average --- —-----------------------—..... June 30: 1904 (6 months) ---- ------------- ------ 1905 ---- ------------------------------------ 1906 -------------------- -- 1907 ---------------------------- 1908 ---------------------------- 1909 --------------------------- Average - -------------------------—.... June 30: 1910. --- —--------------------- 1911 -. --- —---------------------- 1912. --- —--------------------—. 1913 ------------------------- 1914 --------------------------- Average ----------------------- rune 30: 1915 --- ------------------- - --- 1916 --- —- ---------- 1917 -------------------------- 1918 --------------------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ---- --- --------- Average --- ——..- --------------------—... 579 2,157 3)3 ---- -— 8080,160 99.9 99.8 18,936 71,717 345 1,502 (3) 2 ---- ----- 345 1,504 ---- ---------- 6,818 29,071 658 3,314 1 6 (3) (4) 659 3,320 ----- 8 ---- 8,826 40,176 795 3,268 2 10 (3) (4) 800 3,289-13,919 59,107 815 3,027 (3) () (3) 817 3,030 --------- 15,585 62,175 786 3,62 (3) (4) (3) $1 786 3, 626 ------ --- 13,927 64,171 776 3,661 ) (4) 776 3, 662 --- — 10, 521 51,157 759 3,345 1 3 (3) (4) 760 3,351 99.8 99.8 12,654 55,610 _ _.. _ l. —..... _-. _ _ C) 0 c) I W. H H W 1 867 850 852 949 1,200 4,350 3,838 3,886 4,324 4,468 (3) (3) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) 1 _ - - - - - - - - - 1 1 (3) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 3 2 ---------- 867 851 853 949 1,200 4,352 3,842 3,889 4,328 4,468 9,041 10,129 11,006 11,395 11,821 47,621 49,387 51,000 53,172 54,454 944 4,173 --- — (3) 2 944 4,176 1 99.9 99.9 10,678 51,127 9i I- 44 4,173.................... _ ____ _._ I - - I =_l 943 1,154 993 636 212 5,464 6,267 7,961 7,996 2,458 (4) (4) --------- ---.; -- 944 1, 154 993 641 218 5,468 ---- 6,267 ---- 7,961 ---- 8,052 1 --- — 2,517 i. 16,183 15, 521 11,943 21,880 7,638 94,869 87, 338 93,198 244,861 83,574 875 6,699 ----- ----- (3) (878 6,726 9 9.7 99.6 16,259 134,187 -. I__ -1__ _ I 8 7 I I- 1 6, 2 1 3, Dec. 31: 1919 --------------------------------- 1920 ---- ------------------------------ 1921 ------ -------------------------------- 1922 ---------------------------------------- Average --- —----------------------------- Dec. 31: 1923 --- —-------------- 1924 _ _ — ------- _ --- —- -— _ -_ 1925 — -------- -------—. 1926 5 - __ ______ _ _ -_______ _ _ _ -- __ 1,339 / 15,686 1,339 17, 032 1,182 10,892 1,065 7,310 (8) (3) (4) 2 27 48 41 109 347 1,367 16,046 ---------- 591 1,388 17,640 1 --- —----- 395 1,226 11,319 ------ 697 1,175 8,011 ------ 26,450 19,854 16,801 15, 025 293,453 224,472 117,698 85.483 I. ''_._. _. I _ _ _'_I - 1, 231 12,730- (3 () 56 508 1,289 13,254 95. 5 96 19,532 180,276 1,135 7,342 (3) (4) 190 1,171 1,325 8,515 ---— 16,310 88,151 1,208 7,903 --— ________ ----_ 174 978 1,383 8,885 ________ -— 15,990 91,210 1,193 9,998 ______ --------- 81 650 1,275 10,652 _____-_ --- — - 11,119 85, 067 6 1,085 8,459 (3) 2 130 1,001 1,234 9,599 -_________ 11,850 83,133,~~~~~~~~~0 — Il, Average-1,155- 8,4 --- —(3 --- 1,155 I 8, 425 1 (3) 1 144 950 1,304 9,413 88.6 1 89.5 13,817 86,890 I In 1915 there were shipments from Mexico amounting to $4,300; in 1919 and 1920, Argentina supplied $11,500 and $16,400 worth, but these imports practically disappeared in 1922. 1 barrel equals 196 pounds avoirdupois. 3 Less than 500 barrels. 4 Less than $500. a Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to barrels. H 6 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States, amounting to 17,700 barrels, $137,200. C) TABLE 153.-Rice [Forty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 11.13 per cent ad valorem; 1 quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted]:;3 ^Jl Countries from which imported into Cuba 2 Per cent of Total United total from States domestic Year ended- United States Great Britain Germany British India Spain All United States exports Y ear enUedoQuan- Value Quan- Value Quan- Value Quan- Value QUan- Value Qutn- Value Quan- Value Quan- Value tity tity tity tity tity tity tity tity Libras ] Dec. 31: 1902 ----------------- 1903 ----------------- Average --- —------------ June 30: 1904 (6 months) _ --- —----- 1905_ 1906 -- - - - - - - - - - - 1907 --- —--------—. —_1908 9 --------------- 1909....................... Average --- —---------—, June 30: 1910,__.. 191, ______ ---- -------- 1911 - -------- 1912 --- —------- 1913 --- ----- 1914 ------------------ Average --- —------------ June 30: 1915_- -------------- 1916 - --------------------- 1917,...................{ 1918 ------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) I Libras 3 7 54 (4) $1 Libras 95,538 $1,773 76, 375 1, 562 Libras 67,036 64, 229 Libras $1,164 (5) 1, 233 6, 737 Libras Libras (5) 1,651 $52 169,842 $3,126 ----- ---- $163 2,178 67 149, 574 3,027 ---- Pounds 494 972 $23 47 30 1 85,956 1,668 65,632 1,198- -- - 1,915 59 159,708 3,077 () (6) 733 35 505 11 57, 399 1, 099 39,146 802 4,623 105 1,040 32 103,071 2,055 -- - --- --- 1, 720 57 37, 523 738 95,717 1,770 60,153 1,200 20,654 452 1,797 50 216,146 4,216 ------------ 74,867 2,254 611 12 102, 520 2,027 65,265 1, 328 22,864 493 2,123 62 194,088 3, 937 - 3,970 139 387 8 89, 779 2,146 90,890 1,989 34, 993 841 3, 593 94 221,267 5,127 - ------- 2,443 85 777 26 86,933 2,071 82,466 2,072 42,716 1,001 2,943 85 216,181 5,264 --- —-- -- - 2 196 88 1,024 23 82, 715 1,842 104,870 2,305 42, 449 951 3, 714 98 234, 074 5,220 --- —1, 567 61 7,423 149 93, 648 1,992 80,507 1,763 30,600 699 2,765 76 215,423 4,694 3.4 3. 2 15, 775 488 3, 828 83 86,400 1,882 103, 134 2,393 51, 389 1, 137 3, 690 102 248, 513 5,598 ---- -- -- 7,050 222 2, 216 52 97, 375 2,088 109,001 2, 309 59, 581 1,328 3, 901 104 273, 837 5,920 ------ ------ 15,575 624 9,234 255 83, 549 2,195 97,414 2,490 56, 703 1,486 2,038 71 258,400 6,754 1- ------- 26,798 851 5,394 178 80,006 2,298 118,540 3,202 55,141 1, 661 3,688 108 270, 582 7, 694 - ------- 24,801 765 13,375 373 109,018 2,702 84,950 2,078 63,626 1,670 3, 237 119 284,902 7, 220 ------- 18,223 721 6, 809 188 91, 270 2, 233 102,608 2, 495 57, 288 1,456 3, 311 101 267, 247 6, 637 2. 6 2. 8 18,489 637 34,908 1,284 179,587 4,768 12,823 330 56,650 1,598 4,857 211 292,638 8,305 ------ 75,449 3,158 60, 817 2,190 180, 503 5, 735 ----- -- 59, 347 1,780 4, 634 213 319, 692 10,396 --- —— 120, 695 4,942 49,930 11,915 184,105 6,381 - ------- 50,570 1,647 2,551 116 326,577 11,473 -------- -------- 181,372 9,330 116, 876 6, 723 46,027 2,429 ---... — -- 80,935 4,575 — [ ---- -, 341, 710 19,555 ------ --- 196,363 14,175 73, 258 5,122 3,467 251 1 — ------ -- 78,611 4,851 172 9 212,701 13,945 - ------- 38,264 3,027 0 (71 W 0 tt H H H c3 H I Average --- —-----. ----. — 74, 620 I 3, 830 131,931 1 4,348 1 — 3,-8 --- —---— 1 72,470 3,211 2,714 122 i 331,848 I 14, 150 22.5 1 27.11 136,032 7,696 Dec. 31: 1919 ----------------------- 1920 ---------------------- 1921 ------------------ 1922 ---------------- Average ---- --------- Dec. 31: 1923 ---------------- 1924 --- —------- ---- 1925 ----------------- 1926 7 --- —-—. --- —--- Average --- —--- 126, 923 132, 526 59,122 41, 626 11, 132 744 14,851 3, 750 3, 467 42, 577 1, 396 92,628 59 472 1,817 2,637 6,904 31, 579 -1 ------- 49, 638 ----- 1 48, 816 247 81,578 1, 140 1 157,627 3, 302 4, 410 4,950 4,945 --— 319,933 25,438 ---5,460 824 475,621 49,314 ------ 1,517 75 255,490 15,655 ------ 4,646 159 386, 200 12,146 ----. 376, 876 392, 613 600,059 358,827 34, 776 37, 469 20,727 14, 379 90, 049 7,712 34,925 1,246 9,621 347 84,415 4,402 2,906 264 359,311 25,638 5.1 30.1 432,094 26,838 33,198 793 62, 280 1,708 35, 253 1,312 244, 302 6, 690 7,878 244 442,984 12,626 --- —- -- -- 292, 852 11,574 33,371 1,076 36,016 1,135 35,070 1,319 272,644 6,601 11,750 397 444,707 12,315 - ---- 122,543 6,022 32, 585 1,118 41,949 1, 395 17, 160 781 277, 557 9,446 10, 345 392 423, 849 14, 672 --------- 39,907 2, 375 84,830 137 72,929 2,677 25,257 941 320,939 11,408 9,846 338 470,480 16,991 — 77,081 3,536 25,996 781 53.293 1.729 28, 185 1,088 278,860 8,536 9,955 343 445,505 14,151 5.8 5.51 33,096 5,877 I See Table 154, where United States exports of rice to Cuba are shown with separate figures for domestic and foreign exports; and consult the statement on p. 189. 2 Imports from China, Japan, and Siam show a striking development after 1915; but those from China and especially from Japan fell off in 1923-1926. (Corresponding gains in the imports, by transshipment, from England and Germany are shown in the table for 1921-1926.) Following are the annual averages (in thousands) by periods beginning with 1916: Imports fromPeriod China Japan Siam Quantit Quantity Value Quantity Value...........~ I 2 Q vP H. 1916-1918 (3A years)....... ------------- 1919-1922 —. --- —------------------------------- 1923-1926......... --- —-- ---------- Libras 31,359 72,892 26,882 $1, 700 6,355 823 Libras 17,882 $1,008 55,315 4, 719 2,050 72 Libras 6,451 $304 4,699 344 m 11, 077 410 In the boom year 1920 imports from Brazil were 5,386,500 libras, $394,400, which fell off to 915,400 libras, $88,400, in 1921, after which there were no more shipments. a The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. 4 Less than $500. * Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classification "All other countries " are 5,609,800 libras, $138,000. 6 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. 7 Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to libras. 8 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 10,937,100 libras, $417,800. TABLE 154.-(See p. 366.) TABLE 155.-Dried fruits I [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent in 1905 to 3.69 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omittedl Countries from which imported into Cuba t _______________________ Per cent of total Total United State from United States domestic exports Year ended- United States Spain Great Britain All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantiy Va or Dec. 31: 1902 ------------ 1903 --- —------------- Average --- —--------------------------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) ----- --------- --------- 1905 -._ --- —------------- -- 1906 _ --- ------------------------------- 1907 ----------------------------- 1908 - --------------------- 1909 ------------------------ Average --- —-----—. --- —------------------ June 30: 1910 -. --- —-------------------- 1911 ------------------------- - 1912 ----—, --- —----------- -- 1913 ------------------------ -- 1914 ------------------------------ Average ----— _ --- —------ ---- June 30: 1915 --------- 1916 --- --- ----- 1917 --------- 1918 ---------- ---- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- —----------------------- Average --- —------------ ------------------ Libras 3 Libras 1, 577...378- - $21i $62 Libras Libras 87 -- -$5" -2, 090 Pounds - 93,591 114, 648 $5,735 5,962 $92 ---- ---- ---- -- -- ---- ---- ---- -8. 18 22.3 104,120 5,848 113 6 396 8 34 1 567 17 --- - 58,017 3,226 514 28 3,010 92 106 6 3,766 130 -. 101,121 5, 270 688 43 2,133 89 165 8 3,180 151 67,665 4,891 577 35 2,551 86 80 5 3,398 137...- 94,616 6,091 760 44 3,501 123 177 11 4,558 189 54,760 3 962 544 30 2,560 80 206 13 3,496 134 75,078 5,081 581 34 2,573 87 140 8 3,448 138 16.8 24.6 82,047 5,186 644 37 2,916 105 104 6 3,887 162...- 128, 738 7,444 631 41 3,328 126 173 11 4,690 210 ----- ----- 99,289 7,801 583 40 4, 281 162 140 11 5,451 244 145,832 11,824 834 53 2,969 127 93 6 4,111 198 -- 201,073 13,512 723 47 2,715 156 42 4 3,765 223 ---— 127,494 9,679 683 44 3,242 135 110 8 4,381 208 15. 6 21.01 140,485 10,052 727 47 2,024 112 18 2 3,116 177 — 124,297 9,621 1,302 84 3, 341 283 (5) () 4,872 380 - 111 321 8,342 1,300 103 3,680 249 (0) () 5,335 379 -- - 88,032 7,635 1,590 194 3,726 251 1 () 5,607 479 ------- -46, 623 4,787 674 112 2,081 178 ------ ---- - 2,838 295 - - — 12,730 1,501 1,243 120 3,300 238 4 (a) 4,838 1 380 25.7 31. 5 85,112 7,086 I 243 12. C) 0 CO o3 3 Dec. 31: 1919 9 19 --- —------------ --- 1920 --- ---—. --- —------------ 1921 ------------------------ -- 1922 ------------------— __ ---—. Average e --- —------------------ Dec. 31: 1923 --- -------- - - —. --- 1924 --------- ----------------- 1925 --------------------------- 1926 7 --------- ----------------- --- 1,637 1, 598 1,447 1.210 270 290 160 119 2,340 3, 655 3,092 2, 596 338 511 168 134..... _. --- —--- 4,162 ----— l- i ----- ---- 5,692 4 - -(6).. 4,892......... 33,923 636 855 356 259 179,078 101, 773 166,364 127,229 29,897 17,295 16,382 14,550 I 1,. 3 I l 2, I I 1,473 210 2,921 288 I4 (6) 4,667 527 31.6 39.8 143,611 19, 531 1, 393 122 5,400 356 (5) (6) 7, 630 532 -100,637 9, 573 1,849 161 5,113 273 7 1 8,234 527293,660 21,689 1,507 151 4,761 291 1 ) 7, 606 543 193, 779 18, 074 709 78 1, 298 86 -------- 3, 727 281 207, 693 17, 718 I Average ------ 11,365 128 4,143 251 2 (6) 6,799 - 471 20.1 27. 1 198,942 16,764 _I I In the Cuban import statistics the largest item is "Other dried fruits," to which have been added the figures for prunes and apples. The export figures combine dried apples, apricots, prunes, and (beginning with 1905) peaches. 2 Imports from China, in 1922, were 12,800 libras, $1,400 and, for the last period, averaged 882,600 libras, $58,000; reaching in 1926, 1,211,700 libras, $75,000. ' The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. 4 Comparable figures not given. a Less than 500 libras. I Less than $500.? Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to libras. I Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 358,400 libras, $31,800. N0 1*3 258 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 156.-Canned fruits 1 [Forty per cent reduction equivalent, In 1905, to 13.09' per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent Total of total United Year ended- n d from States United domestic United Spain France All States exports States........... — I Dec. 31: t I1e 18 42 18 17 5 65. --- —- 1,764 7 42 ---- 2, 2,688 1 1~~~~ Average --------—. --- — - June 30: 18 29 6 53 33.7 2,226 I~~~ -._ 10 33 47 66 68 88 4 14 42 71 54 45 1 6 9 8 10 4 16 53 100 149 136 142 291 2,541 2,348 1, 581 1, 550 2,899 1909. --- —-------------------- Average. --- — ---------- June 30: 1910 -- ------------ 1911. ----------- 1912. --- —---------- 1913, —. --- —------------- 1914 --- —------- Average -------------------- June 30: inl't 57 42 7 108 52. 2 2,038 5 2, o _3 -sr-:. _l:o a.l.... 36 54 20 51 21 29 21 9 26 12 7 4 2 9 4 76 85 32 90 38 2, 656 2, 686 4,012 5, 599 4, 864 37 [ 19 - 5 64 57.0 3,963 = I -a -I -= --- - -- - - - 24 62 112 256 43 9 1 5 19 4 2 4 1 1 35 67 ' 118 276 47 6,065 7, 050 6,139 7,025 2,148 Dec. 1918 (6 months) --- —--------- Average. --- —--------—. — Dec. 31: 1919 ------------ 1920 ------------- 1921 ------------------------- 1922 --- —---- Average ------------- Dec. 31: 1923 ------—. --- —----------- 1924. ------------------- 1925 ---------------- 1926. --- —-------- 111 8 2 121 91.6 6,317 286 771 475 48 22 68 13 1 308 841 489 50 41, 476 21, 515 14,381 22, 324 395 26 (9) 422 93. 6 4,2492... 105 193 240 ' 152 5 2 1 1 (a) 3 (2) 1 111 197 242 154 15, 076 34, 449 26, 829 22, 684 24, 760 173 2 1 176 98.2 I Single classification for the import statistics, and for the statistics of United States exports from 1902 to 1917 inclusive; beginning with 1918, the export figures represent 2 or more items combined, including apples and apple sauce, apricots, cherries, prunes, peaches, pears, pineapples, plums, and "all other." I Less than $500. ' Exclusive of insignificant nonpreferential imports from the United States. r ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TABLN 157.-Beans ITwenty per cent reduction, equivalent in 1906 to 3.10 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] 0t Cr Countries from which imported into Cuba pTotal United ~~~______~_____ __________ __________ __________ ___Per cent of total from Sdotaes domestic Year ended- United States Mexico Germany Great Britain Spain All United States exports 1 Quan- Value BQun- Value V- Value Q Val- a n-ue Quan Value n- Value Value tity tity ' ity tity tity tity tity tity tity tity- 'au tity Dec. 31: Kilos 1902 ' ----------- — J1903 --- —--...-..-... - 2,909 Kilos -- 679 - Kilos 1,'389 Kilos..493 IKilos 131 Kilos.7, 87: Bushels 265 243 $567 557 '"i-3-l:::::::: ---- Average ------------------—. June 30: 1904 (6 months),-.-................ 1905 ---------------------—.-.. ---1906 - ---------—.-. 1907 -----------------------—.-.-.. 1908 ----------------------------—. 1909 ---------------------------—.. Average ----------------—.-. — -_ June 30: 1910 -----------------------—..-... 1911 ------------------------------- 1912 -----------------------—. --- — 1913 -------------------------—.. — 1914 ------------- ----------------- Average-. --- —. --- —-------—.. — June 30: 1915 ------------------------------- 1916 ------------------------------- 1917 ------------------------------- 1918 ------------------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --------------- Average ------------------------- ---— _____ —__- - -----—. --- —--- —. --- — -----—.. — —.- --—. 36.9 44.5 254 562 556 53 1,390 68 1,445 117 726 48 41 4 4,613 319 --- —- ----- 97 200 3,318 323 4,418 229 1,416 130 454 24 137 10 10,400 761 1 --- —-- -----— 1 330 731 5,771 512 4,920 313 1,186 96 357 29 171 14 12,755 989 -------- -------- 447 961 5,856 466 5,926 447 2,043 150 671 46 101 8 15,262 1,168-. --- —--- ---- -I 435 932 3,438 306 4,447 363 4,005 268 367 13 150 13 13,405 1,025 -------- -------- 307 708 2,763 238 3,943 320 4,861 344 48 4 258 12 12,792 979 ---- ----- ---- 298 703 3,946 345 _ 4,553 316 2,719 201 477 30 156 11 12,587 953 31.4 36.2 348 770 3,764 402 4,989 381 5,954 456 49 4 353 28 16,952 1,406 --- —- - ------ 366 973 1,928 260 5,510 482 4,874 369 101 9 203 14 14,822 1,303 -, -------- 289 815 3,659 410 5,517 370 5,408 438 182 16 202 16 15, 797 1,329 -------- -------- 341 1,011 4,840 507 5,953 489 2, 507 216 228 20 1,465 91 17,436 1,528 -------- -------- 401 1,080 3,296 304 6,949 465 2,728 226 880 100 1,295 107 17,480 1,402 -- ---- ---- 315 875 3,498 377 5,784 438 4,294 341 288 30 704 51 16,498 1,394 21.2 27.0 342 951 17,256 2,514 3,551 264 --- -- - 98 14 112 17 21,138 2,824 ------- 1,760 5,914 12,273 2,181 2,642 385 -------------- 1,565 247 20,490 3,346 ---- --- --- 2,165 10,428 17,809 3,887 1,852 352 --- —-- ------— 87 16 26,946 5,486 ---- ---- 1,517 9,097 3,543 790 318 96 — -------- 2 () 12 3 7,599 1,767 ------ 1,355 8,138 13,111 2,322 3,755 394 ---- ---- 48 1 422 66 20,889 3,396 62.8 68.4 1,780 8,270 a 0 0 H H H Dec. 31: 1919. _ --- —---- - ____ --- —-- 1920 _-_ --- —--— ___ —_ --- —-----— _ 1921 -----—.. --- —------- 1922 ---------------------------- Average, ------------------------- Dec. 31: 1923 -----------------—, --- —--- 1924 --------------------- 1925 ------------------------------- 1926 --—. --- —------------------ Average ------------------------- 13, 835 25, 303 25, 892 18,736 2,492 1,019 4,668 1, 397 3,971 490 2,555 1,848 272 1 --- 281 ---- 57 — 182 79 90 -! --- —:ii, 2 3 18,520 5 (a) - 30,082 88 9 28,816 20 3 24.361 3,439 5, 512 4,334 3,111 I ' --- —-- I --- —--- - -- - - - - -:- -- - - ----- -----------.. --- —-. I --- —-- 3,795 1,765 1,410 803 19,966 7,672 4,852 2.871 18,441 3,422 1,188 198 20 2 33 1 28 3 25,445 4,099 72. 5 1 83. 7 1,943 8, 840 18,758 2,512 5,121 589 63 5 163 12 12 28 7 29,508 3,673 760 2745 18,124 2,490 3,352 464 257 26 2 (a) 76 11 32,167 4,146 --- 605 2,406 14,384 2,238 2,800 463 1,964 222 33 4 71 6 36,282 4,722 499 2,151 12,925 1,595 686 78 2,770 288 14 3 134 11 35,356 3,896 586 2,089 -16,048 2,2091 2,990 398) 1,263 135 53 5 102 9 33,328 4,109 48.22 53.8 612 2, 348 1 Dried peas included, 1902-1917. s Beans and peas not separated. ' Less than $500. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 5,876,800 kilos, $585,100. Hr a O: II TABLE 158.-Potatoes [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 5 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total Total United ------ _ --- —-------------—.-________ -- _ from United States domestic Year ended- United States Great Britain Spain Canada All States exports Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Dec. 31: 1902.. ---................. 1903 —.-....-...-...................... Average -----------------------. —.June 30: 1904 (6 months) ----............ —. 1905................................ 1906 --- —--------- 1907 ------—.......... 1908..................... —.......... 1909 -................................ Average -----------—....-...... ---June 30: 1910... --- —----------- 1911....... ----......... -. - - 1912-............................... --- 1913 --------......................... -- 1914.. --- —------------—.. --- Average -----------------—... June 30: 1915 -----------—. --- —--------—.-. --- 1916 —..-.............................. 1917. --- —----------- 1918 ---------------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --------------- Average --- ——..-..... ---- ------- - Kilos Kilos 15,246 $390 7,281 $164 9,010 266 7,937 195 Kilos 852 50 Kilos Kilos $24 11,529 1$38 25,387 1 1, 442 43 18, 906 Bushels I a017 $626 517... $462 534 12,128 328 7,609 179 451 13 1,485 41 22,146 571 54.8 57.4 714 498 2,156 70 2,905 59 139 4 1,948 58 7,155 191 138 132 17,367 427 596 14 645 15 7,188 165 26,165 631 -... 1,163 750 17,944 476 801 25 89 3 11,484 318 30,372 824.1, 000 744 30,783 945 89 2 164 4 11,471 313 42,656 1,268.. --- —--- - - 1, 530 1,278 24,424 759 380 11 368 8 17,125 454 42,943 1, 250 1,204 1,078 11,956 346 235 9 437 8 24,681 590 40, 788 1,058 - -- ---- 764 716 19,024 550 910 22 335 8 13,436 345 34,560 950 55.0 57.9 1,054 854 14,157 358 436 12 590 9 33,746 747 50,983 1174 ----999 759 35,138 887 64 2 170 5 18,018 474 54,388 1, 390.- 2,384 1,536 26,579 986 1,910 54 161 5 16,055 498 46,844 1, 603 1, 237 1,414 34,214 1,246 252 9 518 12 18,722 537 57,011 1,897 - ------ - 2,028 1,646 30,096 893 2,272 54 715 18 17,620 492 60,843 1, 662 -1, 794 1,464 28,037 874 9861 26 431 10 20,832 550 54,014 1,545 51. 9 56. 6 1, 688 1,364 50,115 1,469 133 3 126 4 16,841 401 68,971 1,939 -- 3,135 2346 69,038 2,448 5,602 160 94 3 6,810 215 81,689 2,829 - - --- 4018 3,486 38, 637 2,117 - - -- 129 5 26,803 1,911 65,589 4,033 - ---- 2,489 3,514 53,290 3,384 -- -- - —. 1,570 71 30,128 1,871 84,991 5,3261 - -------- l 3,453 4,946 45,438 3,053 6 (2) 52 4 5,233 329 50,745 3,388 ----- 2,356 3,970 57,004I44 4._8 ^-. I __*iii_ I I __.__ } j- ____-_ _ __ __ 1 --- 0 0 P 0 tt td, H H H-g r33 av MC 1 57,004 2,771 1,2761 36 1 438 19 19,0701 1,050 1 78,219 3.892 72.9 71.21 3.434 4. 058 I_ _-_._ _ _ _ _ __-__-_._;_ __ — _ ___ _. I I -_ _ _ _.._.__ _.. I _ _ _ _ _ _ _i -----— ~~~~~~~~~~~~I-^ ---- ----- i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ' --- —--- - - - - = Dec. 31: 1919 -- ------------------------------- 662, 448 1920 -------— ___ --- —---------------- - 62, 906 1921, ---- ------------------ 80,931 1922, ---------------—. --- —------------ 55,155 Average. --- —-------------- 65, 360 Dec. 31: 1923 -_ --- —------------------ 50,651 1924 -.... --- —--------------- 69,680 1925 ---------------------—. — 38,698 1926 -------------------- a 29,656 Average --------------------- 47, 171 4, 763 7, 472 5,884 2, 594 1, 735 541 98 129 74 2 4 50 79 67 (2) 8 2 3 26, 408 11,162 35, 593 45,838 1, 588 1,074 1,820 1, 688 88,890 76, 258 118,119 102,189 6, 354 8,711 7, 838 4, 324...~~~..!........... ---------- i — [ — I ------ -— i. ~- ~. ~ - -. -. ~. ~ I.i- ~.- - - ~, - 3, 642 4,154 3, 500 2,897 6, 475 10, 200 4, 720 3, 217 5, 178 594 51 50 3 29,750 1,542 96,364 6, 806 678 76.1 3,548 6,153 '"-'-_.- - j,- I ~ I. 2, 816 2, 859 2,156 1,957 2,447 1, 555 1, 659 803 37 66 26 1, 442 1,476 114 964 999 26 52 10 56 49, 346 60,507 90, 228 57, 386 2,449 2,026 3,109 3,874 108,648 132, 268 131, 370 97,149 5,482 4, 949 5,353 6, 322 --------— I --- —--- 2, 696 3, 862 2, 323 2, 033 2,728 3, 761 4,192 3, 226 3,497 3, 669 36 64,366 2,864 117,359 5,5271 40.2 44.3 I Classified "Other American countries." ' Less than $500. 3 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 4,073,700 kilos, $258,200. H H 1-3 H TABLE 159.-Onions [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent in 1905 to 6.31 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba 1 Per cent of Total total from United States United domestic Year ended- United States Spain Canary Islands Uruguay Mexico All States exports Year ended — Quan- Q- Value Q- a uan- Value u VaQuan - Value Quan- Value Qu- alue n- Value tiy tity tity tity tity tity tity tity ________________~~~ _________,> Dec. 31: 1902 ---------------------- 1903 --- --------------------- Average --- —------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —---- 1905 ---- --------- ------------ 1906 --- —- --------------- 1907 --------------------------- 1908 ------- ----- ----- 1909 ---- -------------------- Average --------------------- June 30: 1910 ----. --- —-—. 1911 ---- -------------------- 1912 -- ------------ ------ 1913 --- —-------- 1914 ------------------------ Average --- —--- ------------- June 30: 1915 _ --- —-------- ----------- 1916 ------------- --------- 1917. --- —---------------- 1918 ---------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). --- —------ Average --- —---- Kilos 14 $1 541 18 Kilos Kilos 6, 210 $269 (2) (2) 6,106 264 34 $2 Kilos (2) 147 Kilos Kilos (2) (2) (2) 6,415 $11 112 $14 7,310 $281 321 Bushels -....... --------.131.... — --—.. ---- 150 278 9 6,158 1 266 I --- —--- I --- — ---- - - 6,862 1 301 4.0 3.11 140 I I i ----— I --- — i --- —l — I --- — -I- I 1 1 1=== - I 1=== I I -- -I 25 576 900 1,211 481 1,473 848 1 18 26 47 18 50 1,608 7,025 6,522 5,243 6,216 4,869 61 280 295 215 210 192 44 154 1,693 1,532 2,212 1 4 61 53 84 214 299 534 715 158 517 24 21 33 48 13 44 128 67 24 2 7 45 50 12 6 2 (5) 1 5 1,997 8,057 8,714 9,034 8,462 9,156 100 328 379 379 298 377 32 234 205 258 175 367 $113 W 111 P tl 112 39 210 I 182 E 218 0 184 Q 318 209 291 5,724 228 1,0241 37 443 34 8,2581 3381 10.3 8.51 231. — ---— ==-z I.. - 1,277 39- 5,543 276 1, 890 64 744 77 91 11 9,742 478 ---------- 254 208 865 32 5,236 248 3,188 93 ' 537 66 186 16 10,182 466 ------ 234 224 563 30 6,410 275 4,763 119 271 20 45 212,400 464B — ------- 31 313 307 1,370 59 5,938 253 3,081 84 314 30 94 6 11,629 469 ------ - 574 398 597 31 4,826 247 4,162 107 122 20 129 1101,546 441 ------— 3 — 386 436. — -I I -. I _.. — - - - — I- -— _ / H Cj CPC a9A I 9o1 1 Kn I OA1 A19 f nq I QOQ I A9 In I ao I in a I ARA I Q A I Q C I 2AO 912 _ UV1: VCX | ______ V I VD ' VV w p z Vl ' _ _ V' V I Ivs V Ut V. V / V._ ________ - O I —= 1 I -JA I -IU I - 8 I. I -1 - 7 --- -- L..- - I. -I - - — J I -.U U. V --. -. -- 2,492 2,995 3,785 4,204 6, 144 110 153 230 328 480 5,961 5,520 6,701 7,340 2,156 377 474 534 379 207 3, 767 4,370 4,416 2, 700 802 109 141 218 109 27 64 28 5 12 6 (2) 141 110 58 19 55 42 15 17 4 11 12,480 13,110 14,975 14, 294 9, 159 654 802 1,001 822 726 -.-. ---- 728 --------. 564.. ----.. 409: --- —--- 534: ----":T 445 603 579 750 789 760 4.360 289 6,151 438 3,568 134 22 4 85 20 14,226 890 30.6 32. 5 774 I l -_. I -. - ] 8 5I, I Dec. 31: 1919. --- —— _ --- —--------- 1920 --- —--- ------ 1921 --— _ ----- ----------- 1922 - - ------- Average. --- ---------- Dec. 31: 1923 ----------- 1924 ---------- 1925. --- —---------------------- 9,896 9,996 11, 831 9,497 1,104 5,778 1,146 5,949 918 5,364 780 5,928 1, 259 1,083 307 384 1,118 1, 578 1,424 1,413 103 71 46 48 140 205 7 181 18 53 1 26 9 4 8 1 84 18 16,957 17, 746 18,637 17, 185 2,488 --- 2,357 ---1,273 ---1,266 --- -- 817 946 867 813 2,095 2,076 1,279 1,439 1,722 10,305 987 5,755 7581 1,383 67 1 133 25 25 6 17,631 1,846 58.4 53.55 861. — - I --— i ---l --- I ] I 1 ---- I - — i -- 1 8,399 8,102 6,675 583 466 489 372 8,007 5,924 6,487 5,456 498 338 445 346 2,687 1,668 1, 351 1,274 108 72 31 23 79 7 150 52 6 1 19 7 108 4 127 99 10 12 13 9 21,056 19,831 19,874 21,598 1,334 -1,174 1,345 — -- 1, 379 i,.. --- —--- I l 494 684 516 616 864 949 879 833 881 1926 --------------------------- 4 6,106 Average -----—.-..-. —..- 7,320 478 6,469 407 1,745 58 72 81 84 20,590 1,308 1 35.6 36.5 578 ~ I I I I I I I i I, I 1 Imports from Egypt averaged $3,600 for the period 1910-1914, then practically ceased until 1923, and in 1926 reached 3,904 kilos, valued at $232,000. Imports from Chile suddenly developed in 1923-1926, attaining in 1926, 1,549 kilos, valued at $113,000. Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classification "Other American countries" are 154,100 kilos, $10,000. Less than $500. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 1,955,500 kilos, $123,700. TABLE 160.-Preserved vegetables [Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 8.54 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba c Total I __ *_ '-Per cent of total United -----— ' --- —-----------------—,- from U nited States Year ended- United States Spain France Belgium All States domestic exports Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Value Dec. 31: Kilosi K Kilo los Kilos Kilos 1902 --—...-.............. 186 $18 2, 454 $165 119 $21 (s) (3) 2,827 $210 1903 ---— 8.I6 ---.. — - 86 8 2,8611 171 56 9 10 $1 3,048 192 ------- - " --- — $551 683! Average --- —---- -- June 30: 1904 (6 months) ---------------- 1905 -—. --- —----—... 1906. --- —-----------------------—.. 1907. --- —--------------—. 1908 — _-_-__-_. --- —------------— ____ 1909. --- —-------------------- Average --- —-----------------—.... June 30: 1910 ----------- 1911 ----------- 1912 ----------- 1913 -------------—... 1914 --- —--- Average. --- —----—. June 30: 1915 --- ------ 1916_ --- —--- 1917 ----- ------ 1918 -—. --- —Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ------------ Average — ---- 136 13 2,6568 168 87 15 -, --- —--- --- 2 201 4.6 6. 4 617 69 6 1,520 83 24 4 ( 1,632 94 -287 204 20 2,399 153 45 8 (4) (5) 2,667 182 58( 279 26 3,842 218 79 14 1 (5) 4,264 265 --— 65f 314 28 3,378 337 142 22 24 4 3,914 297 - 59/ 164 15 3,617 267 249 42 47 7 4,183 342 622 212 17 2,965 210 125 20 76 11 3,501 269 -72 226 20 3,222 230 121 201 27 4 3,666 264 6.2 7.6 63 0 10' 3 T 0 1 ' 2 H 1 2 9 11 362 533 591 805 455 28 4,156 40 4,387 52 3,503 61 5,183 37 2,609 319 306 248 353 180 166 234 380 259 252 26 46 46 34 33 165 176 287 172 233 20 4,965 21 5,562 35 5,035 24I 6,686 30 3,788 403 430 403 498 302 78] 1,06] 1, 82 1,811 1,52] 549 44 3,968 281 258 37 206 26 5,207 407 10.5 10.7 1,401 819 65 3,223 215 78 12 66 8 4,355 315 -------- 1,899 2,085 176 4,343 304 49 8 - --- 6,738 512 -- - -------- 2, 530,924 304 6,905 601 24 8 --- - 9,934 920 -— 4,765 1,905 311 4,730 564 35 23 --- 6,736 906 --— 7,192 277 50 1,729 291 1 () ---------- ---------- 2,037 346- - ---- 8,093 1,7801 2011 4,651j ~39I.41 il - -......... 666"" 26I.91.... 3.2.... 5,40 1,780 2011 4,651 4391 41 11 I --- —----- --------— I 6,622 666 26. 91 30. 2 5,440 Dec. 31: 1919 -------------------------- 1920 -------------------- 191 921 1921 -------------------- Average --- —------------- | Dec. 31: t 1023 --- —---------- 194 --- —----------- 1925 --------------------------- 192 -------------- XO Average -------------- 5,004 5, 288 3,020 2,374 802 906 481 370 4, 214 6,103 3,176 2,046 731 1,131 513 1 244 85 126 123 21 12 48 35 7 21 47 45 4 7 13 11 1 9,617 11,676 6,549 4,529 1,602 2,116 1,062 639 11,356 6,341 _.... --- — 3,429...... ---- 5,369 3,921 640 3,884 655 89 26 29 8 8,093 1,355 48.4 47.2 [ 6,624 3, 542 3,264 2,887 62.264 518 504 390 341 5,460 7,260 5,612 4,666 688 739 566 494 117 34 137 238 24 8 27 26 90 91 96 193 12 17 18 28 9,507 10,969 9,305 8, 280 1,282 1,303 1,056 977 5,175 5,621 5,918 6,751 I _ -I -I I I.1 I I - -- - I 2,989 438 5, 750 622 1 31 22 117 19 9,515 1,154 31.4 38.0 I I n A ~ Single classification for the import statistics; the export figures are reported under the one heading " Canned vegetables," quantity figures not being given for most of the years here included. ) ' Imports from Italy after 1908 gradually developed to 170,100 kilos, $15,000, in 1914, and 161,900 kilos, $16,400, in 1916. After the war there was little recovery until 1925, when H they were 245,300 kilos, $16,500, increasing, in 1926, to 606,700 kilos, $48,700. Beginning with 1906 there were small but regular shipments from China of about 40,000 to 60,000 kilos, p $2,000 to $4,000 per year to 1918, after which they gradually increased to annual averages of approximately 125,000 kilos, $1,O00W, in 1923-1926.. 'Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classification "Other European countries" (exclusive also of small amounts from England and Germany) are 15,300 kil os, $1,900 r 4 Less than 500 kilos. 5 Less than $500. s Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 108,000 kilos, $11,200 0 01 0) TABLE 161.-Preserved meat products 1 [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent in 1905 to 6.26 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Total Per cent of total United. --- —-- from United States Year ended- United States Spain France Great Britain Al States domestic exports Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Value - -- 1- i -alt - ---------- -~- - ---- - - --- Dec. 31: 1902 s Kilos Kilos Kilos Kilos Kilos AfrI - 1 I AI 471 1K OQ lfi Q e I I _ IAA I - __n _.u.ov ------------------— _ --- - --— w ----z WzW Ix j o o Iu j I4I jxz Wt 1 --- —--- I --- —- -- -..4. 'I! A....f~y~V- 'V-B - ';-B - 4~,,.... —' I.. --- —II -... -I..I June 30: 1904 (6 months) -------- 1905 ----------- 1906 ------ ------------ 1907 ------ ------ 1908. ---- —._ --- —---------- 1909. --- —----- I I I I 1 I - I - — I 417 1,112 1,403 1,402 1,182 1,397 87 200 292 309 270 306 209 355 366 231 300 202 59 99 105 82 104 69 16 31 58 49 43 29 8 15 24 23 22 17 3 6 27 8 6 5 1 2 3 4 2 1 663 1,529 1,947 1,722 1,574 1,644 163 324 444 426 412 399 Q $3,692 i 3,870 3,781 t 1,722 3,639 3,691 1,958 2,766 0 2, 678 0 H 2,992 2,118 2,266 3,025 2,736 H 2,801 Average _. --- —-------------- June 30: 1910.... --- —------------ 1911 --- —---- 1912 --------------------------- 1913. --- —------------ 1914.... --- —- --.. ---Average. --- —---------------------- 1,257 266 302 94 1_ 41.20 10 ____ 1651 394 76.2 67.__ 1,257 266 302 94 4 10 2 1, i 76.2 67.6 I I.. 1, 39 1,452 817 1,185 1,094 325 232 195 273 289 182 279 229 182 202 69 66 79 65 74 37 32 47 45 32 19 18 22 20 21 7 9 10 9 16 2 3 4 2 3 1,520 1,815 1,146 1,487 1,403 423 326 312 377 405 1,158 263 215 71 38 20 10 31 1,474 369 78.5 71.3 2,589 * ~ ~~ ~~~.Ij.. _ I I I 786 1,017 1,542 1,883 739 207 278 433 639 265 102 317 251 176 1 37 96 109 84 1 49 36 26 14 4 10 21 16 13 4 5 7 11 5 _ 2 2 4 2 1,079 1,524 1,921 2,231 764 277 414 572 759 272 4,092 7,653 9,725 12,154 7,994 1918. --- —------------------- Dec. 31 1918 (6 months) ---Average -— _... --- —---—,, 1,3261 405 188 73 29 | 14 6 2 1,671 10 79.4 79.5 9.248 _........ I I Dec. 31: 1919 —. _ _ — ---—, 1920 —... --- -------- 1921. --- --—. 19 -- - - - - - — 22. —. — - -- -- Average —..-. ---Dec. 31: 1923 - _ __..._ --- -- -- ---- 1 --- ---— 24_1925 -—. _ --- —--—. 192 -------— 1 --- Average ----------- ------- 1,194 2,023 1,375 770 427 876 659 350 56 366 152 37 42 384 105 31 12 27 27 13 17 22 15 11 9 44 13 12 5 23 8 8 1,346 2,556 1,828 905 515 ---1,320 ---- 826- -- 414. ----..1 24,047 -- -I 1, 3,765 8,344 -— 537 1, 341 578 154 140 20 16 20 11 1, 659 768 80.8 75. 2 13,173; —.,,.: |.._-.. ~: I.:... 1,146 1,206 1, 202 3773 343 407 457 270 188 407 345 163 111 233 180 101 16 46 38 39 9 19 23 21 32 13 23 41 15 8 12 18 1, 539 1,809 1, 986 1,227 496 683 706 437 6,700 6,148 6,740 5,490 1, 082 369 276 156 35 18 27I 13 1,640 581 66.0 63.6 1 Single classification for the import statistics; the export figures combine three items-sausage and sausage meats, canned pork, and other canned meats except beef; quantities can not thus be shown for most of the years here included. I Not separately enumerated. s Exclusive of insignificant nonpreferential imports from the United States. W c33 00 H H t-4 ( TABLE 162.-Codfish [Twenty-five per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 3.74 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omittedj Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total Total United from United States domestic States exports 2 Year ended United States Canada Norway I Great Britain All Quantity Value Quantityl Value Quantity Value QuantityI Value Quantity Value QuantityI Value Quantity| Value Dec. 31: 1902. --- —------------------------- 1903 --- —--------------- Average ----------------------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months). --- —-- ----------- 1905 — ------------------------- 1906 ---- _ --- —---------------- 1907 -----------------— _ --- —-- 1908 --- —------ ------ 1909 ------- ------ -_ --- —----— _ Average ------------------------------- June 30: 1910 -- -- ------------------- 1911.. --- ——,,.. --- —-------------- 1912 ------------ ----- 1913 --- —-------- --- 1914 ---_,,, --- —---------- ----- Average --- —------------------------- June 30. 1915 --------------------------- 1916 ------------— 7 --- —--- 1917 --- —--------- 1918 -- --------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ------------ Average --- —--------------------------- Libras a 5, 218 4,412 I Libras Libras Libras Libras $199 (4) (4) (4) (4) 4,719 $193 19, 710 $869 | ---- - ---- 183 3,753 $160 5,181 $295 4,264 180 17,692 823 -------- --- Pounds 4,007 3,036 $188 148 4,815 191 ---- ------------- 4,491 187 18,701 846 25. 7 22.6 3,522 i 168 502 22 3,432 181 2,368 151 2,011 101 8,384 460 -— 1,943 89 1,640 71 8,010 429 4,925 282 1, 726 113 16,621 916 4, 660 214 1,320 54 8,473 460 5,540 394 1,623 110 17,198 1,033 - -------- 5, 280 245 475 23 7,648 390 6,470 410 1, 609 107 16, 253 934 -3, 464 185 274 12 7,221 383 6,864 443 1, 459 103 15,925 947 3,386 I 180 250 8 7,849 314 6,949 419 1,950 132 17,068 878 --- - 3,162 138 811 35 7, 751 392 6,021 382 1,887 121 16, 627 940 4.9 3,981 191 C) z C) W tp W C) H 1-3 ~-3 H Hd 403 261 724 715 1,393 22 15 46 46 139 7,658 6, 599 6, 178 7,355 8,434 371 398 396 428 530 4,183 5, 533 5, 723 6,424 9, 762 266 341 342 411 630 2, 793 5,107 6, 509 5,560 6,353 186 374 490 428 418 15,109 17, 699 19,332 20,172 26, 667 849 1, 138 1,282 1,320 1,761 3,051 1, 799 3,473 4,484 6,157 151 111 205 246 395 699 53 7,245 425 6,325 398 5,264 379 19,796 1,270 3.5 4.2 3,793 222 3,210 206 7,150 458 14,132 945 2,985 230 27,727 1,855 --- —------- 7,788 480 10,896 828 10,510 748 7,805 694 381 37 29 630 2,309 1-_ ---- -- 19,752 1,329 8,454 904 13,860 1,176 738 61 378 54 23,484 2,196 1 --- — - - 21,579 2,064 8,605 1,167 17,833 2,065 76 11 110 16 26,663 3,261 1 — - - - 29,842 3,361 6,376 1,027 9,065 1,256 5 2 70 18 15,541 2,309 --- 1 — - 12,896 2,111 8,342 918 12,982 1,267 5,057 380 472 79 27,343 2,651 30.5 34.6 20,413 2,077 STATISTICAL TABLES 271 TABLE 163.-Condensed milk [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent in 1905 to 2.62 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total Total United Per cent of total Total United from United States domestic Year ended- United States Great Britain Norway Germany Switzerland All States exports ' Quantity1 Value Quantity Value Qauntity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Dec. 31: 1902 ------------------- 1903 ----------- Average --- —------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) ------- 1905 ------------------- 1906 ------------------- 1907 -------------—. --- 1908 ------------------- 1909 ------------------- Average ------------- June 30: 1910 ------------------- 1911 ------------------- 1912 ------------------- 1913 ------------------- 1914 ------- -------- Average ------------- June 30: 1915 — -------- 1916 --- —----- 1917 --- —--- 1918 ----------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)... Libras a1 6,699 $412 6,123i 386 Libras 1,063 $61 1.319 76 Libras Libras 3 (4) 18 $1 Libras Libras 7,746 7.487 74~ 1::::::::::/::::I:::II:::::::::::::....... $474 465 L --. -- -----— I ----,__ _ 39 1 [19__ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ----"~ ___ _ I. __' _:::__:i::_ _- - - - - - 6,396 399 1,191 68 --- —--- 11 68 -i-_ 1 -__ 1 7,617 469 84.0 85.0 - 4,409 272 713 41 ----------------------—... 5,132 313 ---10,352 624 1,487 83.-. --- —- -- 6 ( ---------- 11,863 709 --- —......... $2, 157 11,706 672 2,948 164 ------ - 4 (3) 83 $5 14, 983 853. —. 1, 890 13,266 804 5,324 287 167 $9 680 37 127 5 19,671 1,147 --- —---— " — - 2,191 12,552 878 5,006 332 165 11 111 6 645 42 18,722 1,285 -- ----- 2,455 10,145 700 6,124 376 1,152 68 411 25 35 2 17,950 1,176 --- —---------- 1,375 11,351 718 3,928 233 270 16 220 12 162 10 16,058 997 70.7 72.0 ----- -- 1,831 10,200 653 7,587 441 5,35 337 393 20 45 3 23,921 1,476........13, 311 1,024 10,725 624 6,013 348 13,549 807 244 10 93 6 31,223 1,823 8 --- —---- -------- 12,180 936 12,260 833 15,049 1,063 2,938 204 210 9 4 ( 30, 542 2,110 --- -- - 20,643 1,652 10,909 795 15,807 1,158 2,226 163 187 10 ----- --- 29,700 2,166 16,526 1,433 9,748 725 15,966 1,152 7,114 519 278 12 17 1 34,283 2,484 ----, ---- 16,209 1,341 10,768 726 12,084 832 6,236 406 262 12 32 2 29,934 2,012 36.0 36.1 15,774 1,277 12,117 895 7,478 547 11,488 840 10 ( 113 8 32,988 2,416 --- —- ---- 37,236 3,067 29,232 2,251 2,080 160 4,811 348 ----------------- 16 1 36,661 2,798 ---- 159,578 12,713 34,263 2,861 1,252 111 78 3 --- — ------------ 36,899 3,092 --- —-, 259,141 25,137 40,415 4,679 18 2 ---- - - --------- 40,508 4688 --- —— 528,759 68,046 13,657 1,497 --------- -------- ------ ------ ---- ------ ---- 13,657 1,497 --- —----- 304 556 40344 28,819 2,707 2,406 182 3,639 265 -------- 29 2 35,714 3,220 80.7 84.1 286,504 33,179 0 CI 0 0 34 B0 Average T-. —... Dec. 31: 11919 -----------— _ --- 1920 _ ---.. --- —------- 1921 — _____._ --- —----- 1922. ----------- Average ------------ Dec. 31: 1923 —. --- —--------- 1924 ---- ------- 1925 -------------- 1926 6 --- 40, 557 49, 538 40,104 25,646 I f 5, 499 8, 153 5,983 2,445 29 1,479 1,964 9,762 7! --- — 276 --- 376 -- 951 --- 6 1 ','.'."." —. — ' --- ---- - ----- ^ 19 2 --- () () 867 82 40,601 51,215 42,208 40,659 5, 510 8,468 6,380 3,865 852,865 414,250 299,168 193,686 121,893 65,239 37,680 19,464 38,961 5,520 3,309 403 -2 (4) 222 21 43,671 6,056 89.2 91.2 439,992 61,069 35, 718 3,605 5,780 611 223 23 ----- --— 692 71 46,300 4,639 -------- 196,701 22,497 41,809 4,598 410 49 201 23 30 2 712 78 47,312 5,135 -------- -- - 211,808 22,962 26,704 2,746 3,667 424 5,954 682 1,707 195 5,205 594 47,316 4,994 ------..] -- --- 151,412 17, 938 723, 713 2, 473 7,366 948 2,974 353 3,341 386 3,744 399 47,881 5,196 — ------ 117,210 14,596 - --- --- 1,42 I Average.. --- — - 31,986 3,356 4,306 508 2, 338 270 1,2701 1 146 2,588 286 47,202 14,9911 67.8 67.2 1169,283 19, 498 1 Imports from Canada were 209,600 libras, $13,300, in 1910, and 502,000, $24,400, in 1911, and, after a cessation, 1,214,800 libras, $110,200 in 1917; with irregular shipments to 1922, when they were 1,532,500 libras, $124,100, they continued to be of considerable importance, averaging 2,128,000 libras, $187,800, in 1923-1926. 2 Classified as condensed, evaporated, and powdered milk. 3 3 The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. 4 Less than $500. 5 Less than 500 libras. H 6 Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to libras. 7 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States, amounting to 1,870,800 libras, $212,300. Ct TABLE 164.-Butter [Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent in 1905 to 7 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba r c o t Per cent of total Total United ------------------------------- ---------- -from United States domestic Year ended- United States Denmark Spain Holland Germany All States exports Quantity Value Quantity Value uantit a Qu antity Val ue Quantity Value Quanty Quantity Value Quantity Value.! ~~~Quantit ---~l ValueI Quantit__yy[VlueeQuti___y Value Quantit__~y Value i unityL I _. Dec. 31: LibrasJ Libras Libras Libras Libras 1902 ---- -------- - 141 $31 (3) (3) 182 $32 (3) (3) 26 $6 1903 -. --- —---- 108 22 275 $63 282 42 26 $6 24 7 Libras 600 $125 761 148 Pounds -- 8,959 9,345 $1,682 1,600 Average --- —------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- 1905 -- ---------- 1906. --- —--------- 1907. --- —----- 1908 -------------- 1909 ----------- Average --- —-------- June 30: 1910 ---------- 1911 _ —_ --- —--- 1912 -------- --- 1913 ---------- 1914 4 --- —-------- Average --------- June 30: 1915 ------------- 1916. --- —--— _ --- 1917 ------------- 1918... --- —Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)_Average. --- —— _ --- 124 26 --- -- - 232 37 — 25 6j 681 136 18.3 19.2 9,152 1,641 79 15 131 31 166 21 11 2 () ( 406 74 — — 6,443 1,036 206 37 421 96 298 36 6 2 43 17 1,067 206 -- — 10,077 1,648 301 48 613 131 352 55 55 12 63 16 1,450 275 - - 27,361 4,923 362 70 568 150 368 48 73 20 8 5 1,451 302 --- - ---- ---- 12, 545 2,429 271 57 673 203 330 46 80 21 47 15 1,430 351-6,463 1 408 286 60 413 124 381 54 28 8 54 19 1,195 275 5,981 1268 274 52 512 134 344 47 46 12 39 13 1,272 270 21. 5 19.4 12,521 2,311 329 73 731 203 312 43 60 13 24 7 1,504 352 -— 3,141 786 348 69 934 272 239 35 76 21 51 14 1,697 425 ----- ------- 4,878 1,059 241 56 726 189 277 38 53 15 6 2 1,332 307 -- -- -------- 6,092 1,468 207 55 687 216 192 32 82 14 1 (6) 1,204 328 3,586 877 263 60 656 192 322 65 203 27 2 (5) 1,492 358 - -------- 3,694 837 278 63 747 214 268 42 | 95 18 17 5 1,446 354 19.2 17.7 4,278 1,013 206 60 874 242 272 57 149 40 ------- --- 1,527 408 - - 1 --- —--- 9,851 2,392 240 60 628 244 336 68 77 16 --- —- - ---- - 1,287 388 -- -- ------ 13,487 3,590 340 112 820 373 271 62 27 8 1 ---- -------- 1,488 555 ------- -— 1 --- —--- 26,835 8,749 338 131 884 484 269 73 12 4 --. --- —--- 1,512 697 --- -- __. -------- 17,736 6,853 176 77 28 18 16 3 --------- ------- -------- ------ - 221 98 --------- -------- I 11,387 5,128 289 98 718 302 259 58 59 15 ---------- 1,334 477 21.7 20.5 17,621 5,936 0 0 o P.l 0 K{ CPC Dec. 31: 1919 ----------- 575 279 416 321 363 176 105 69 1, 707 942 34,556 17, 504 1920 ------- 767 521 1,070 848 I 775 320 291 154 ------- -- 2,994 1,909 ------- 17,488 10,142 1921 - -----— 821 419 506 348 502 121 125 57 --- 2,007 972 8,015 3,270 -1922 - --------- ----- 753 288 508 301 319 60 70 41 1,678 702 — 10,938 4,064 Average --- —-------- Dec. 31: 1923 --------------- 1924 --- —--------- 1925. --- —------ 1926 8 -------------- 729 377 625 455 490 169 148 80. - -- 097 1,131 34.8 33.3 17,749 8,745 743 361 945 500 504 89 61 32 - -- - 2,285 992 -5,846 2,569 879 400 802 421 448 83 274 110 --------- 2,443 1,030 ----- --------- 8,257 3,429 973 449 956 521 442 86 233 93 12 6 2,655 1,168 -— 5,343 2,411 7795 355 652 381 322 65 215 64 (4) (5) 2,138 939 5,483 2,529 Average| 847- -| 391i 839 | 456 429 81| 196 | 75 3 1 2,380 1,032 35.6 37-9 6,232 27 1 Imports from France averaged 22,600 libras, $4,400, in 1902-3; 33,300 libras, $7,700, in 1904-1909; and 24,800 libras, $7,400, in 1910-1914; then they bulked large only in 1919, with 239,500 libras, $88,900; after that, practically no shipments were recorded until 1926 with 10,000 libras, $9,300. 2 The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. 3 Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classification " Other European countries " (exclusive also'of small amounts from England and France) are 230,900 libras, $52,000.. Less than 500 libras. 5 Less than $500. * Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to libras. 7 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States, amounting to 88,400 libras, $41,000. Q TABLE 165.-Cheese [Forty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 10.34 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total Tot nied Per cent of total Total United from States domestic Year ended- United States Holland Great Britain Spain Switzerland All United States exports ~~~UYeare eandedtity |Vale |tityn| Vale tity Value tity alue tity Value tity Vae tity Value tity ale Dec. 31: Libras 2 1902 -------- 305 1903 ---------- 203 Libras Libras $52 (3) (3) 254 36 2,390 $265 165 Libras $32 82 19 66 Libras Libras $12 (3) (3) 3,120 10 36 $6 2,901 $434 --- 343 --- Pounds 19,095 19,634 $2, 109 2,302 Average ---- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- 1905 ---------- 1906 ----------------- 1907 --- —-------- 1908._ _. --- —--- 1909 ----------------- Average --------- June 30: 1910, -------------- 1911 --- ----- 1912 --- —--- 1913_- ------ 1914 --- —------- Average --- —-------- June 30: 1915 --- —------ 1916 -------- 1917 -------------- 1918 -- --------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)... 254 44 ___ -- ---- _210 26 74 11 -------- 3,010 388 8.4 11.3 19,364 2,206 94 17 1,338 160 56 8 32 4 28 5 1,566 196 ---- — 13,396 1,348 143 23 3,546 404 103 15 63 7 41 6 4,089 481 -------- ----- 10,134 1,084 219 42 3,227 414 272 36 71 10 33 6 4,010 591 --— 16,562 1,941 305 55 3,899 352 253 35 60 7 74 14 4,765 489 - -------- 17,285 2,013 214 42 3,956 420 149 22 68 7 58 11 4,683 535- ---- -- 8,439 1,092 209 41 3,448 279 80 10 53 6 44 8 3,939 358 6,823 857 215 40 3,530 369 166 23 63 8 50 9 4,191 482 5.1 8.3 13,207 1,515 268 58 3,994 309 81 11 45 7 77 16 4,596 417 -- - 2,847 441 223 46 3,980 299 29 4 44 6 120 24 4,623 409 ---- 10,367 1,288 196 45 3,476 284 6 1 58 8 83 18 3,970 380 ------ 6,338 898 301 59 3,930 309 3 1 32 4 110 24 4,475 414 ----- ---- 2,599 441 404 74 4,603 339 12 1 67 6 187 37 5,388 472 -------- 2,428 414 278 57 3,997 308 26 4 49 6 116 24 4,611 419 6.0 13.6 4,916 696 590 109 2,297 280 6 1 24 3 46 10 3,042 417 --- --- 55,363 8,463 1,578 298 1,216 199 1 (4) 11 2 52 12 2,943 525 ------ 44,394 7,430 1,302 311 569 83 3 1 16 2 11 4 1,989 414 -------- 66,050 15,240 2, 854 768 6 1 ------- ----- 61 10 --- —-- 3,002 794 --- — 44, 303 10,785 1,112 333 _ ---_ — ------ - 6 2 ---- l - - 1,119 335 - -- 11,260 2,885 Average - 1,653 40 908 12S 21 1 26 24 6 2,~ 5 [ 6....73..2 4913,5 0 41 w 0 0 0 1-3 k, H;p3 mW H3 H4 Average |. --- —------- 1,653 404 9081 125 21 1 26 41 24 6 2,6881 552 1 61.5 1 73.2 49,193 I l ~~~~~~7.2. 9,956 Dec. 31: I 1919-......... —, - 2,674 790 106 38 1 (4) 30 6 --- - 2,882 846 - 14,160 5,350 --— 1920_ — ----- - 2, 813 877 2,429 684 4 1 94 26 ----—. --- 5,4,478 11,620 -1 ---,5j ----, 16,292 5,054 1921 -..-....-......... 1,655 478 2,868 741 10 6 16 4 3 2 4,672 1,249! --- —- 11,772 2,716 1922 1.024 250 2. 553 692 7 3 28 6 59 13 3. 788 991 5.007 1.248............_ __I_ I_ ___ ---------------------— I Average --------- Dec. 31: 1923 ---—.. --- —-- 1924 ---—. --- —--- 1925 --- - - _-___ 1926 ---— __________ 2,041 599 1,989 539 5 3 42 15 4 4,205 1,176 486 509 11,08 3,592 1,426 352 3,272 688 10 3 31 6 116 22 4,995 1, 088. --- — ---- - 8,331 2,179 1,218 303 3,861 887 5 1 37 8 322 57 5,619 1,284 ---— 4,299 1,118 1,175 304 3,666 971 (5) 49 8 414 64 5,499 1,387. --- — I ----- 9,190 2,420 7909 254 2,769 731 2 1 37 8 390 70 4,400 1,140 ---- -!3,903 1,115 _ 2, 7I - ~ ~ - ~... ' I.... -.. Average ---- - 1,182 304 3,392 819 5 1 38 71 310 53 5,128 |1,225 23.0 24.8 6,431 1,708 1 For the three pre-war periods shipments from Germany averaged, respectively, 30,000 libras, $3,600; 59,600 libras, $8,000; and 36,100 libras, $3,600. There was some recovery only in 1920, 1924, and 1926. 2 The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. m 3 Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classification "Other European countries" (exclusive also of small amounts from France and Germany) are 2,422,700 libras, $331,000. H 4 Less than $500. a Less than 500 libras. 6 Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to libras. 3 7 xclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 152,600 libras, $41,800. to7I TABLE 166.-4Coffee [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 29.56 per cent ad valorem for coffee from the United States,1 not including Porto Rico; and to 18.48 per cent ad valorem for coffee from Porto Rico; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cubar cent of Per cent of Total United Per cent of Per cent of Total United -total from total from States exports Year ended- United States Porto Rico Brazil Venezuela Santo Domingo All UnitedStates Porto ico of coffee Quan Vu Quan- Q uan QuanQuan- Value Quan Vu Q aan tty Value Q - Value Qt Value Qt Value t- Value QUt Value Qttn- Value Qyn Value Quan- Value Dec. 31: Libras 3 1902 --- ---, 16, 387 $1, 052 1903 --- —----- - 14,418 873 Libras 3,006 2, 254 Libras $281 (4) 207 262 (4) $18 Libras Libras (4) 240 (4) $16 Libras 21,134 $1, 446 ----- 17, 218 1, 121 --—. Pounds 26,000 33, 678 $2, 998 3,788 Average —........ June 30: 1904 (6 months)-.. 1905 --- —-------- 1906 --- —-------- 1907 ------— _ --- 1908 --- —------ 1909 --- ------- - Average - -------- June 30: 1910 --- --------- 1911 -.. --- —---- 1912 --- —---- 1913 ----------- 1914 --- —------ Average --- —------- June 30: 1915 --- —--- 1916 ------------ 1917 ---------------- 1918 ----------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). 15,402 963 2,630 244 ----- -- ------ ---------- - ----- - 19,176 1,134 80.3 84.9 13.7 21.5 29,839 3,393 5,037 392 3,236 328 1,155 98 204 $14- - - 9,685 836 — 17,989 2,089 8,193 734 6,610 770 2,786 238 6,091 540 82 8 24,002 2,312 ---- - - 16,109 2,048 5,927 554 9,998 1,220 2,024 188 2,486 217 162 14 20,690 2,204 3, --- —- ------—.29,184 3,601 3,854 449 15,069 1,749 1,971 214 3,281 287 72 8 24,365 2,720 ---- -— 41,034 4,989 2,572 233 14,401 1,614 2,835 239 2,681 217 65 5 22,601 2,312 ------- 39,657 4,788 6,642 584 12,543 1,577 3, 738 308 1,674 166 62 5 24,749 2,649 -29,616 3,886 5,859 535 11, 247 1,320 2,638 233 2,985 262 81 7 22,926 2,370 25.6 22.6 49.1 55.7 31, 562 3,891 1,586 160 18,448 2,184 3,309 298 1,666 134 - ---- 25,197 2,789 ------ ---- 46724 5,900 1,053 144 18,965 2,598 504 66 844 106 17 2 21,394 2,917 _ ---, - -------------- 36,338 5,381 2,599 436 20,670 3,525 43 6 645 79.. — -.23,994 4,050 1,.-[.-. -------- --— _ 42,249 7,171 2,947 488 19,479 3,383 1 (5) 105 15 ----- -- - 22,572 3,895 1 --- —--- ------- ----— I- -—. --- — 52,193 9,010 2,120 324 18,480 2, 967 49 5 74 1 14 --- — - -- 20,837 3, 328 -- -------- --- ---- 54,465 8,978 2,061 310 19,208 2,931 781 75 667 70 3 (5) 22799 3,396 9 9.1 84.2 86.3 46,394 7,288 1,842 235 18,405 2,404 24 2 137 12 5 (5) 20,613 2,681 -1-.. --- —------- -- 51,599 7,303 1,602 232 16,613 2,395 446 46 295 30 -------- --- 19,299 2,748 - ---- -------- -------- 37,194 5,739 2,919 415 20,515 3,087 92 10 26 3 11 1 24,242 3,633 --- —-- - -— 45,084 6,845 2,765 375 25,065 3,414 --- ----- { 133 15 37 4 28,121 3,823 --— 1. -------- ---- 1 42,705 6,287 579 89 8,585 1, 286 1-. — ---- 10 1 237 24 9,411 1,400 -------- --------. — -- ---- 22,501 3,388 I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I_ ________ I i________ _________ ________ - — _______ -1- _______ -- I - 1-____ - -I_______ ____________________ ________ -.________ I ______ - I. Average -, 157 29 19,81 2,797 25 13 14 14 64 7 22, 57 3, 17 9.6 9. 87.71 8.1 44,41,6,56 0 ci w 0 H -F1 cC Kl;r Average ----------—! 2,157 299 19,818 1 2,797 _ 125 13 134 14 64 7 22,597 3,174 9.6 1 9.4 87.71 88.1144,241 6, 569 Dec. 31: 1919 --------- 2,020 490 15,016 3,963 129 30 703 130 416 73 22,956 5,593 --------—. --- —---- --- 34,351 8,818 1920 ---------- 6,937 923 23,834 6,258 3,236 610 1,024 235 196 36 43, 811 9,583 36,758 9,804 1921__ --- —1_ _ - 2,268 375 21,593 3,704 1,390 167 306 40 905 117 29,450 4,759 V —...... 34,573 5,895 1922 ----------- - 1.304 220 11.183 1.999 490 67 366 54 1.579 212 18.944 3,208 -.I --- —. I — 26.750 5.147 ___ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ ___ __ __ __ ____ __ __ __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ I __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ I Average --- —------- Dec. 31: 1923 ------------ 1924 -------—. --- 1925 -------------- 1926 6 --- —-- - 3,132 502 17,907 3,981 1,311 218 600 115 774 110 28,790 5,786 10.9 8.7 62.2$ 68.8 33,108 7,416 5.071 856 12,122 2,417 2,996 416 3,290 494 693 95 36,744 6,165 - = ------- ----- 26,366 5,231 5,920 1,136 10,703 2,546 7,266 1,288 2,195 460 1,944 354 35,920 7,075 ------ - ------- 28,731 7,078 5,316 1,368 7, 633 2,102 4,490 1,062 1,284 301 1,524 366 28,202 7,138 -. --- —25,207 7,464 1,386 386 8,688 2,357 609 143 144 30 1,698 374 15,49 3, 950 ------------- ------— 29,433 8,582 Average --- —- 4,423 936 9,787 2,356 3,840 727 1,728 322 1,465 298 29,079 6,082 15.2 15.4 33.7 38.7 27,434 7,089 1 See Table 167, where United States exports (inclusive of Porto Rico) of coffee to Cuba are shown with separate figures for domestic and for foreign exports. Note that according to Cuban Customs Circular No. 325, of Jan. 19, 1905, green coffee imported into the United States and roasted, does not thereby become a product of the industry of the United States within the meaning of the reciprocity treaty and is not entitled to the preferential reduction. 2 There have been irregular shipments from Mexico, for instance, in 1919, 2,602,200 libras, $516,400; in 1923, 671,900 libras, $112,200; in 1925, 454,700 libras, $171,600; but with much smaller figures in the intervening years, and only $2,500 worth in 1926. Simultaneously with increasing imports from Santo Domingo in the post-war periods, shipments from other Caribbean sources show striking, though irregular, developments. Thus imports from San Salvador averaged 1,040,600 libras for 1919-1922 and 2,562,000 libras in 1923-1926. Haiti supplied 6,987,700 libras, in 1920, but averaged only 821,600 in 1923-1926. Shipments from Guatemala developed from 230,700 libras for 1919-1922, to 737,300 for 1923-1926, comparable figures for the British West Indies being 288,000 and 542,400 libras. Prior to 1921 there were no imports from Nicaragua; by 1923 they had grown to 2,484,300 libras, but averaged only 1,320,200 libras for 1923-1926. 3 The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. 4 Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classification "Other American countries" (exclusive of Porto Rico) are 1,733,500 libras, $112,000. 5 Less than $500. 6 Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to libras. 7 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 303,400 libras, $82,600. TABLE 167.-(See p. 368) TABLE 168.-Beer in bottles [Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent in 1905 to 8.74 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] 0 Countries from which imported into Cuba I ~________________ - _______ - -____ ____.Per cent of total Total United States from United States domestic exports 2 Year ended- United States Great Britain Germany All Quantity V Quantity Quantity Value Quantity Value Qutity Value Quantity Value....!. 1- Dec. 31: Dozens 1902 -._ -------—.-...................... 174 $140 1903 --......... --.................... 103 100 Dozens 219 $234 237 241 Dozens 36 28 Dozens $36 429 $410 33 367 375 --------- Doz. qts. 856 653 $1,238 934 Average --- -- -. --- —- - - --- June 30: 1904 (6 months). --- —-------------------- 1905 —. --- —--------------.. 1906 --- —----------------- 1907 -----------....... 1908_ ---.... —_-...._......... 1909 ---..-.....................-........... Average _... June 30: 1910....1911. ------—.............. --- —------- 1912 ---19132.. --- —---—. --- —-_ -__ 1914 ---—.-........................ ---- - Average ---- ------- June 30: 1915 --- —-- --- --- --- --- - 1916 --------------- --- -- -- - 1917 -.............. 1918 ---- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months).. --------------- 1 381 120 228 238 32 34 398 392 34.7 30.6 754 1,086:_ _______.,,,_ _, _:.:..... 34 46 88 105 8 131 130 165 243 350 114 164 287 321 21 29 425 515 - 626 932 176 232 362 418 31 43 573 695 -728 1,060 223 264 289 316 31 38 553 619 743 1,128 130 167 301 319 22 27 455 516 ------------- 643 964 111 137 208 239 20 26 340 404 --— 635 965 143 184 279 312 24 32 450 530 31.8 34.6 658 982 54 68 182 237 10 14 246 319 ---- - ---------- 597 877 130 81 261 230 18 16 414 334 ---------- 689 990 114 90 266 233 25 26 408 351 754 1,101 181 146 315 273 36 27 536 449 _ — - - ---- - 867 1,301 191 123 280 252 21 18 497 397 ---— 963 1,406 134 102 261 245 22 20 420 370 31.9 27.4 774 1,135 142 116 179 165 10 9 334 294 ------ --------- 697 1,010 226 192 205 217 ---- ----- 433 411 ---— 675. 969 244 234 215 304 ----- ----- 467 545 ----- ------ 966 1,380 281 281 87 171 ----------— t 369 452 -- -------- 1,013 1,681 181 203 6 10 — - 186 214 679 1,352 239 228 154 193 - 398 426 60.0 53.6 896 1,420.. z _... t;~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 0 A;> 0 )-4 Average ---------—. --- —------ Dec. 31: 1919- --------------------------------- 1920 ------------------------------- 1921 ----- _ --- —---------- ----— _ _ - 1922 ------------------------ Average -------------- Dec. 31: 1923 --------------. 1924 --- —------------------- 1 25 ----------------—. 1926 3 _'____________ --- —------------------- Average --- —---------- 510 828 170 8 638 159 1,032 j 385 243 204 14 115 370 864 384 224 72 1 149 671 1,486 589 192 1,010 2,354 917 303 1,007 i 2,180 372 i 748 4 9 --------— _ --- —----- 74 52 45 45 379 482 216 460 502 69 734 1,146 51.6 42.1 346 1 734 2 4 136 280 50 62 200 362 -18 27 190 381 143 188 394 660 -- - -- -- -- 21 49 155 319 172 229 410 708 ----------------- (4) 4 - - 268 -- 221 -567 __ _......... 2..1.... 5 14 211 5 160 312 ~ 10 51221 1751 5335 5741 54.2 I Imports from Canada in 1920 were 115,600 dozen, $178,300; and in 1921, 78,400 dozen, $119,700. s Classified as malt liquors in bottles. 3 Quantities, reported in kilos, can not readily be converted. Exclusive of insignificant nonpreferential imports from the United States. ' 1923-1925 only. TABLE 169.-Cordage and tackle 1 [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent in 1905 to 6.02 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] 893 fs Countries from which imported into Cuba ' __________________ ___________________ Per cent of total from Total U nited States United States domestic exports Year ended- United States Spain All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Dec. 31: 1902. --- —- ------- ------------ 1903 -—........................ Average --------- --- -------- ------ June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- — - ---—..... —_ 1905. _ --- —------------ 1906 ------------ ------------------ -.. -------- 1907............ --- —-- -—....... 190 — 8 --- —---------------------- 1909 -- ---- _ --- —---------- Average ----.. --- —-—... — - ------ June 30: 1910 ----------- ------ - ------------- --- 1911-, ---. —_.... --- —----------- 1912 ---, --- —----------- 1913 --- --------------------------------- 1914 ------------------ ---------. ---Average --------------- -------------- June 30: 1915 ------------------------ 1916 --- —------------------ ------- 1917. --- —----------------------------- 1918 _ --- —-------------------- 1 ec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --------------------- Average -----—. --- —-------------- Kilos 94 186 Kilos $26 47 $16 47 77 21 Kilos 167 292 Pounds $48 ----- ------------ 6,486 75 ----------- 10,705 $712 1,068 I1. _I 140 37 62 18 229 62 61.0 59.4 8,596 890 77 20 24 6 115 30 -— 4,466 436 289 72 81 23 382 98 -9,258 920 315 80 96 28 543 128 ---— 8,198 887 296 72 85 21 440. 109 ---— 8,621 935 166 44 102 23 373 161 -- — 8,452 885 286 87 92 24 411 120 ------- ----- 9,256 825 260 68 88 23 412 118 63. 2 58.0 8,773 889 376 74 121 34 546 122 --- -10,954 908 389 76 145 43 572 131 --— 10,774 889 302 58 95 28 426 95 ---— 12,084 974 196 55 98 30 316 93 -— 10, 158 1,044 121 41 67 19 206 65 ---------------- 9,466 1, 021 277 61 105 31 413 101 67.0 60.1 10,689 967 172 46 52 19 245 71 --— 8,250 876 264 82 70 23 360 114 ---— 15,177 1,798 210 97 56 23 267 121 --- - - 16,992 3,027 220 145 15 8 235 153 --— 9,837 2,544 205 154 2 1 207 156 - ------------ 8,707 2,273 238 116 44 17 292 137 81. 5 85. 2 13,103 2,337........ 0 ci 0-: Q Cto Q a ' p 3 Dec. 31: 1 1i __ __ --- —----------------- ------------ 449 1920 _ ___ --- —--— _..-____.__ —__ --------------- 1, 723 1921 --- ---------— 646 1 1922 —..-................ —. —. 500 Average - - ----------------- - 829 Dec. 31: 1923 ------........-......-...........- 469 1924 - --.......-..-...,.... —....... 5385 1925 - ---—. —. ---...-. 303 1926- ---- ---—. ---- -----. --- 3221 Average.. --- —------—. --- —---- 344 256 13 941 55 376 20 166 14 11 37 16 11 519 1,825 775 546 290 1, 007 445 188 ------ ----- ----- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------ ------------ --------------—, --- —, --- 20,286 17,292 5,313 9,964 4,316 4 101 1,030 2,473 435 25 19 916 483 90.5 90.1 13,214 2,980 170 70 43 628 242 --— 11,630 2,781 154 40 31 506 222 - ----------- 12,584 2,966 129 47 34 464 209 ---- ---------- 12, 550 3 659 99 32 25 306 148 ------------ ------- - 12,527 3,418 138 47 33 476. 205 72 4 67. 2 12,323 3,206 1 Cuban imports are "cordage and tackle "; United States exports, 1902-1921, are "cordage," excluding binder and other twine. Beginning with 1922, the export figures include the items: Cotton twine and cordage; jute yarn, cordage, and twine; and manila, sisal or henequen, and other cordage. 2 Imports from Italy, before the war, averaged from $3,000 to $6,000 per year, reaching $9,000 in 1916, and for 1923-1926 the annual average is 43,800 kilos, $18,400. Shipments from 3 England were intermittent and small, but amounted to $88,900 in 1908 and $44,100 in 1921; after that the largest figure is $11,400 for 1925. a Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 8,800 kilos, $5,400. - 0 H TABLE 170.-Plain cotton fabrics [Thirty cent reduction, equivalent in 1905 to 11.42 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba _Per cent of total from United States Year ended United States Great Britain Spain France Switzerland All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity - Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Dec. 31: Kilos 1902 - -.............. 332 $212 1903 -.-............ 310 208 Kilos 2,275 3,077 Kilos Kilosilos ilos 367 $629 52 $136 (3) (a) 1,407 779 60 141 9 39 Kilos 3,086 $2,726 ----- 4,922 3,487 ---- --- ---------- ---------- Average ----------.... — -- June 30: 1904 (6 months)......... 1905-.. --- ---—. --- — 1906 -—... — 1907.............. 1908 -..._.-.._ 1909 -— _.... -------—.... Average --------- June 30: 1'll 321 210 2,676 1,959 887 704 56 138 ------------------- 4,004 3,107 8.0 6.8 242 186 1, 519 1,248 417 356 41 99 12 51 2,272 1,994 ---... --—.. 1,079 650 3,631 2,924 1,025 816 103 248 33 106 6,001 4,903 ------ --- 1,105 765 2,528 2,100 1,333 1,112 91 188 43 151 5,276 4,432 ---797 570 2,267 2,040 897 735 71 147 37 197 4,140 3,781 ---- 691 550 2,901 2,884 1,360 1,105 108 299 56 254 5,251 5,309 --- —- ------- 1, 536 955 2,619 2,096 1,002 781 109 219 20 73 5,456 4,306 — --- 991 668 2,812 2,416 1,097 9892 95 218 37 151 5,163 4,495 19.2 14.9 0 Q C: > 0 H Hd 1912 ------ 1913 ---------- 1914 --- —-- Average -------------- June 30: 1915 --- --- 1916 _______ --- —----— _ 1917 --- —--- 1918 --- — -------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months).. Average --- —------------ 934 1,142 2,309 1,796 1,317 621 3,078 846 2,182 1,539 3,184 1,307 3,094 930 1,700 2,355 1,830 2,713 2,913 1,680 1,289 825 992 1,136 924 1,039 682 940 830 804 116 84 149 228 70 241 208 445 532 155 20 55 24 49 81 88 245 102 193 278 5; 821 4,496 6,996 6,784 4,387 4,692 4,018 6,097 6,310 4,146 i~_~~~ ' --- —----- -- - - - - - - --- - - - - - 1,500 1,049 2,648 2,298 1,033 859 129 316 46 181 5,697 5,053 26.3 20.8 2,724 1,848 1,606 1,379 617 581 32 57 17 56 5,295 4,234 ---------- 3,981 2,789 2,010 1,679 1,093 1,008 37 84 22 101 7,499 6,087 1 --- —-- ------ - 3,997 3,724 1,254 1,482 1,321 1,446 31 66 71 323 6,964 7,416 ---------- ---------- 5,079 7,132 1,539 2,444 688 831 29 84 40 184 7, 617 11,056 ------ -------- 1,447 3,040 490 1,032 123 186 13 16 (4) 6 2,173 4,492 1 --- —-—, --- — - 3,829 4,118 1,533 1,781 854 900 32 68 33 149 6,566 7,396 58.3 55.7 Dec. 31: 1919 --- —-------------------- 1920 ------------ ----- 1921...... --- —1922 ' --- —- ---- Average ------------- Dec. 31: 1923 --------------- 1924 ----------------- 1925 X -------------- 1926 --- —-------------- 4, 954 10,177 10, 504 26, 542 3, 871 9,479 3,233 5,288 603 1,009 1,173 501 1, 650 3,140 3,375 930 294 659 507 76 554 1,659 755 107 17 73 58 13 56 335 138 41 10 61 72 25 94 516 511 188 6,093 13, 533 6,026 3,961 13,085 34,761 15,175 6,750 I I 5,641 12,872 822 2,274 384 769 40 143 42 328 7,4031 17,443 76.2 73.8 6,669 10,789 1,194 1,910 105 155 42 97 71 198 8,268 13,481 -7,170 10,402 1,130 1,791 197 301 108 223 82 347 9,007 13,692 ----- 5,201 7,413 742 1,442 225 282 76 180 82 264 6,563 10,010 5 5,252 7,025 601 1,046 165 196 44 96 46 172 6,362 9,033 -- --- --- ---............. _,__....l _,!,..... —.........I_........ Average --- - 6,073 8,907 917 1,547 173 233 67 149 70 245 7,550 11,554 80.4 77.1 1 United States domestic exports not shown because of the lack of direct comparability as to classification. Cuban import statistics classify cotton textiles on the basis of the weave, regardless of color; United States export statistics, on the basis of color, regardless of the weave. Table 171 shows the Cuban imports of twilled cotton fabrics and Table 172 United States exports of domestic cotton cloths, uncolored and colored. The two sets of export figures may be combined and are thus directly comparable with the totals of the two sets of import figures, plain and twilled cotton fabrics, respectively. 2 Omitting the war period, imports from Germany show the following averages, respectively: 44,800 kilos, $41,600; 80,800 kilos, $92,400; 22,000 kilos, $40,600; 2,600 kilos, $11,300; H 20,800 kilos, $60,200. Imports from Ireland were $22,100 in 1908 and $110,100 in 1909, and show a remarkable development during the last pre-war and the war periods, when they - averaged, respectively, 265,900 kilos, $249,400, and 250,000 kilos, $287,800. They amounted to 133,400 kilos, $352,000, in 1919 and 184,500 kilos, $606,400, in 1920, but dropped off to U 81,000 kilos, $254,000, in 1921 and 67,800 kilos, $69,100, in 1922; and for the last period averaged 114,000 kilos, $188,200. Imports from Mexico bulked were valued at $1,817,000 in 1920 and $469,000 in 1921, but have practically ceased. a Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classification "Other European countries" (exclusive also of Germany) are 17,300 kilos, $55,300. 4 Less than 500 kilos. r 6 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 98,100 kilos, $149,900, TABLE 171.-Twilled cotton fabrics I [Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 15.72 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba ' Per cent of total from United States Year ended- United States Great Britain Spain France Germany All Value Quantity Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Iunity Dec. 31: 1902 ------------ 1903 _ —_.__ --- —------— __ Average... --—..... — June 30: 1904 (6 months) --------- 1905 -0 - - - - - - - - - - 1906 ------------------------ 1907 ---------- 1908- ----- 1909 --- —-- Average -------- June 30: 1910 -- 1911 --- —-- 1912 -1913 - ----- 1914. --- —--- Average ---------------- June 30: 1915 6 --- —--- 19i6. —_ --- —------ 1917 ------ 1918 ------ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) Kilos 145 201 173 124 443 505 408 428 533 Kilos $83 596 $471 123 674 578 _ Kilos 139 $133 147 122 Kilos 41 61 51 $59 70 64 Kilos 22 19 20 $25 20 Kilos 950 1,111 $776 925 --- 103 635 525 143 127 22 1,031 1 850 16.8.1 ---- I __I I...... I I I I --- —-— ___ _ I 97 300 351 326 342 356 446 885 925 735 885 665 405 745 867 782 940 704 58 232 235 136 169 98 58 243 230 112 135 70 30 119 97 116 112 84 40 130 98 107 184 104 11 37 31 25 24 16 16 40 36 32 31 21 673 1,758 1,832 1,461 1,651 1,461 a P0 12.1 4 1= --- —--- 0 621 1,504 1, 622 1,391 1,674 1,326 562 390 967 972 148 120 144. 138 27 31 1,982 1,797 ----- - 651 495 715 910 139 130 103 106 24 26 1,731 1,785 ------ --- 681 524 763 1,078 225 210 142 142 9 10 1,930 2,101 -----. --- 708 534 781 1,129 299 325 164 156 10 17 2,111 2,360 -- 575 518 788 1,098 242 248 152 150 10 11 1,901 2,211 --------— 1 --- — 635 492 803 1,038 210 207 141 138 16 19 1,931 2,051 32.9 24.0 1,098 820 675 807 212 230 29 33 4 7 2,134 2,053 --- —2,009 1,289 742 867 162 168 41 44 -- -. — —. 3,070 2,509 ----- 1,528 1,682 681 1,063 405 493 90 92 ----. -- - 2,817 3, 493 ---- 1,643 2,739 603 1,176 389 515 35 60 ------------- - 2,784 4,702 ---- - 636 1,497 144 387 99 169 12 20 --- — -— 928 2, 170 ---- 1 --------- 1,536 1,784 632 956 282 350 46 55 | --- -- -------- 2,607 3,317 58. 9 53.8 H 3 t4 i Average ---------- Dec. 31: 1 I I 1919 ------- - 2,002 4,501 189 725 122 235 6 15 ( (4) 2,346 5,572 --- —----- --- 1920 -------------- 3, 770 11,249 358 1,356 200 530 48 188 (3) 1 4, 461 13,621 1921 ------------------ --- 858 2,557 278 1,148 152 230 74 134 1 1 1,400 4,177 1922 ------ ----- ---- 910 1,694 181 422 49 64 17 41 1 1 1,166 2,240 Average.. --- —---------- Dec. 31: 1923 - ------------- 1924 --------- ----- 1925 ---------- 1926. --- —---- ----- 1,885 5,000 252 913 131 265 36 94 1 1 2,343 6,402 80.4 78.1 2,237 3,728 444 978 86 108 117 195 56 9 3,071 5,310 1,769 3,220 414 1,057 112 184 201 255 28 87 2,763 5,365 --- 1,606 2,480 223 687 68 106 60 149 21 70 2,182 3,870 ---- 1,559 2,192 177 425 28 43 42 112 40 97 2,003 3,151 Average. - ---- |'~1,793 2,905 314 787 73 1 10 05 178 36 66 2,505 4,424 71.6 65.7 1 See Table 170, note 1. 2 Imports from Ireland were $13,400 in 1908 and $57,900 in 1909, and show a marked development during the last pre-war and the war periods, when they averaged, respectively, 106,400 kilos, $137,500, and 95,800 kilos, $149,600. For the last two periods these imports are quite irregular, declining from an annual average of 26,800 kilos, $99,100, for 1919-1922, r to 20,600 kilos, $49,300, for 1923-1926. Imports from Switzerland, with small and irregular figures to 1922 ($4,000 in 1903, $11,200 in 1908, $11,700 in 1921, and only a few hundred or thousand dollars' worth in intervening years), were $31,400 in 1923 and $22,100 in 1924, but dropped off to $8,700 and $1,000 in 1925 and 1926, respectively. a Less than 500 kilos. 4 Less than $500. 5 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 43,500 kilos, $67,600. 288 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 172.-(See p. 370) TABLE 173.-Cotton ready-made clothing ' Thbrty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 16.08 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba 2 Per cent Total of total United Year ended- -: from States United F~ n Aus- Ger- United domestic States France Spain tria many All States exports Dec. 31: 1902, --- —-----—. 1903 --- —------------- Average. --- —----—. June 30: 1904 (6 months) --------- 1905 ------------- 1906. --- —---------------- 1907 --- —--------- 1908. --- —------—. 1909 — _ _ --- Average. --- —------------ June 30: 1910. --- —--—. --- —--- 1911. --- —------------- 1912 --- —-------—.... -- 1913. --- —-------------- 1914 --- -----—. --- —Average ----------—.June 30: 1915 --- —---------..... - 1916 ------------------ 1917 ------------------- 1918..-.. ---- - ----—. Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ------ Average --- ——. ---.. —.Dec. 31: 1919 -------------—. — 1920 -.. --- —-. --- —---- 1921 ---—. --- —------- 1922 ----------------—. Average --- —-----—. — Dec. 31: 1923 --------------—.1924. —.......-.......... 1925 ----------------- 1926. --- —----------- 41 34 32 (8) 50 54 20 31. 7 130 ------- 2,388 6 178 ----- 2,692 45 44 26 ---- 6 154 29.5 2,540 I, I.,. _i 22 68 99 164 148 122 28 50 65 71 111 92 9 18 19 16 19 17 18 28 71 43 55 16 4 17 36 30 73 76 90 193 306 357 436 395 1,399 3,478 4,339 4,794 3, 219 3, 230 113 76 18 42 43 323 35.0 3, 720 160 90 21 18 88 412 ------ - 4,550 172 78 25 24 78 465 5,538 231 64 20 16 66 499 ----- 7,120 348 62 18 17 77 635 --- — 8,446 414 46 27 24 73 662 --- 8,221 265 68 22 20 76 535 49. 6 6,775 390 28 24 9 19 527 -16,469 603 28 45 (4) - 724 — 13,365 803 33 121 ------— 982. --- —- 13,387 1,474 35 69 ------------- 1,60710891 794 25 15 -------- --—. 842 ------ 5,891 903 33 61 --------- 1,041 86.8 13,334 2,229 45 91 -- - 2,415 ---- 17,399 5,390 64 260 (4) 3 5,837 26,667 2,900 27 117 () 6 3,235 ---- 9, 182 958 18 12 6 1 1,042 -7,654 2,869 39 120 2 2 3,132 91.6 15,225 2,252 39 22 4 2 2,388 --- —-- 9,578 1,966 59 51 2 9 2,301 9,361 1,598 48 47 8 9 1,863 9, 139 1,276 36 19 11 5 1,434 8,300 36.- - -- I -I '! Average | --- —------- 1,773 46 35 6 6 1,997 88.8 9,094 I Single classification for the import statistics; the export figures are reported, from 1902 to 1912, inclusive under the classification cotton-wearing apparel and prior to 1908 include knit goods; beginning with 1913 they combine two or more items, including collars and cuffs, overalls, underwear (not knit), shirts, and other articles for men and boys; and corsets, dresses and skirts, shirt waists aid blouses, underwear (not knit), and other articles for women and children. S Imports from England, for the successive periods, averaged: $7,600, $14,900, $24,300, $11,400, $17,200, and 25,000. Imports from Switzerland were $700 in 1903, and for the succeeding periods averaged: $8,400, 4,500, $11,900, $21,400, and $31,000. Imports from Japan developed during the last two periods, averaging, respectively $26,200 and $52,100, and amounting to $130,700 in 1924. Not separately enumerated. The figure in the classification "Other European countries" (exclusive also of England) is $10,900. 4 Less than $500. * Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $10,800. STATISTICAL TABLES 289 TABLE 174.-Miscellaneous manufactures of cotton I IThirty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 12.52 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omittedl Countries from which imported into Cuba X Per cent ^_____._....................................._____of total Year ended- from United n Great France Germa A United States Britain ermany All States _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.1_ _ _ _ Dec. 31: 1902 ------- 1903... ----------—.. Average --- —---------—.. June 30: 1904 (6 months) --------- 1905-. --- —--------- 1906 --- — ----------- 1907. --- —---------- 1908 --- —----------- 1909 --- —---------- Average --- —----------- June 30: 1910. --- —---- 1911 ----------------- 1912, --- —------------ 1913 -.-. --- — 1914-.......... --- —Average --- —----------- June 30: 1915 5 --- —----------- 1916..-. --- —-- 1917. —. ---------- 1918 --- -. --- —Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- —Average. --- —---- Dec. 31: 1919 —,,. ------------ 1920. — ---- ---------- 1921..... --- — -- 1922....-. --- —Average.. --- —--- Dec. 31: 1923 --- — _ --- —----- 1924.. --- —------—. 1925.. --- —---------- 1926 —. --- —---------- 12 10 265 105 51 85 I 41 14 27 412 — 8 226 -- 11 185 68 27 18 319 3.6 6 28 19 2 3 60 -14 120 101 33 13 288 — 17 114 105 66 16 329 13 90 67 150 18 349 8 46 62 96 32 259 -20 34 54 41 16 172 --- 14 79 74 70 18 265 5.4 29 50 81 92 24 303 — 35 59 81 149 20 378. --- —-- 25 87 117 133 21 407 --- 45 49 106 123 18 370 --- 40 34 92 192 15 404 --- _ ~ ~ _!_ |.............. 35 56 95 138 20 372 9.4 75 53 97 61 6 346 107 100 119 35 ------ 446 — 221 305 145 70 -- 827 --- —-- 312 333 190 77 ------ 968 ---164 82 29 17 ------ 294. --- — 195 194 129 58.5 --- —-- 640 30.5 379 92 60 40 ----- 637. --- 1,192 242 195 209 ------ 2,025 ------- 492 104 185 146 2 977 --- —--- 237 20 59 50 3 427 — 575 114 125 111 1 1,016 56.6 298 46 137 176 57 1,024 --- 343 86 146 387 105 1, 660 ---- 285 35 38 340 76 1,156 --- —--- 3 336 15 15 178 49 943 --- — Average.... ----—..... 316 46 84 270 72 1,196 26.4 I 1 Single classification for the import statistics; not comparably classified in the statistics of United States exports. 2 Imports from Belgium show a striking development, from $16,800 in 1922, for the years 1923-1926, as follows: $87,200, $228,300, $207,900, and $215,200; averaging $184,600. a Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $12,100. 290 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 175.-Cotton knit goods I [Forty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 27.27 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent Total. ______ - __________~ of total United Year ended- from States United Spain Ger- France Great All United domestic States many raeBritain States exports Dec. 31: 1902. --- —------------ 1903 — X --- —---------- Average ------------ June 30: 1904 (6 months) ---------- 1905 —................... 1906 --...-....-....1907 ------------------- 1908 -------—..__ ---1909. --- —------------ Average. --- —------- June 30: 1910..,_ --- —------- 1911 - _ --- —------ 1912 -----------—. ---1913 ----------------- 1914 ----------------- Average. --- —------- June 30: 1915 --- —------ 1916 -.. -------------- 1917 ----------------- 1918 ------------------ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- —-- Average. --- —-------- Dec. 31: 1919 ------------------ 1920 ------------------ 1921 ------------------ 1922 ------------------- Average -------—. --- Dec. 31: 1923 -------- 1924 ---------- 1925 --------- 1926 --- —------ Average --- —--------- 18 20 312 277 111 134 93 166 11 594 -------- 23 585 19 295 102 150 17 590 3.2 --. 22 126 73 112 12 352 ---80 321 213 232 39 913 ----- 107 371 248 282 48 1,089. --- —-------- 120 186 246 343 11 926 ----- 104 301 395 430 22 1,270 --- —-.. 1,483 125 216 161 272 17 799 ------- 1,016 102 277 243 304 27 973 10. 4 1,250 115 364 336 352 29 1,211 ------- 1,175 166 298 373 408 16 1,278 ------- 1,646 157 300 336 466 8 1,299 ------- 1,859 150 230 406 525 13 1,348 ------- 2,614 140 262 495 606 10 1,538 ------- 2,547 146 291 389 471 15 1,335 10. 9 1,968 299 330 228 316 6 1,356 ------ 13,080 608 302 1 263 5 1,182 ------- 20,894 1,219 593 2 422 4 2,282 ------- 17,758 2,163 655 ---- 417 6 3,258 ------- 15,353 1,335 271 ---- 190 1 1,825 ------- 9,932 1,250 478 51 357 5 2,201 56.8 17,115 2,414 853 ---- 627 8 4,020 ------- 36,994 4,858 918 112 577 21 6,616 --- 54,459 1,809 503 325 419 1 3,196 ---10,262 1,473 211 309 365 1 2,396 ------- 15,955 2,639 621 186 497 8 4,057 65. 0 29,418 2,266 1,701 1, 215 1, 417 558 603 315 172 1,062 701 390 315 375 491 686 581 1 4,370 6 3,544 --- —-- 3 2,687 ------ 3 2,692 --- —-- 16,080 13,448 14,999 12,386 14,228 1,650 412 617 533 3 3,323 49.6 1 Single classification for the import statistics, and for the statistics of United States exports from 1908 to 1917, inclusive (not separately enumerated 1902-1907); beginning with 1918, the export figures combine 2 or more items, including gloves, hosiery, underwear, and "other" cotton knit goods. Imports from Japan developed during the last three periods, averaging, respectively, $10,000, $78,200, and $72,400, and amounting to $118,100 in 1919, and $113,100 in 1926. a 2-year average. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $86,400. i i I i I TABLE 176. —Slk fabrics 1 [Forty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 20.75 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba I - _____ ________________-__,_________________ - ____________ - ____________ - ___ Per cent of total from United States Year ended- United States France Great Britain Japan China All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Kilos Dec. 31,1903 2 --- —--------- Average ------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) ----- 1905_ --- —-- 1906__- --------------- 1907 --------- 1908 --- —- _ --- —--- 1909-................ Average June 30: 1910 —... --- —----------- 1911 --- —------ 1912 -------------- 1913 --- —------ 1914 --- -— _ Average — ----- June 30: 1915 --- —1916 --- —- --------- 1917 -----—. —. --- — 1918 --- —---------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) 2 ilos $8 24 $174 Kilos 4 1 ilos $22 (3) $2 1 $5 34 _.________ $228 ---- -------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ --— 5.9 3.3 2 10 12 74 2 14 (3) 4 1 4 22 122 3 8 36 205 3 18 1 5 2 13 57 297 -- -- 6 20 50 280 7 37 8 30 5 14 90 435 -- 7 26 94 311 4 18 6 41 9 28 135 497 7 27 43 279 5 28 12 69 14 39 100 554 -- -- 9 42 37 226.6 26 11 56 7 19 83 457 6 24 50 250 5 26 7 37 7 21 88 429 7.1 5.6 13 39 38 230 5 26 8 37 7 17 84 414 15 53 24 129 4 21 -------- --------- 14 34 64 267 —:: 18 61 15 82 4 19 2 8 6 14 46 191 ----- - 16 56 7 34 4 19 5 14 7 20 40 147 - 16 62 30 180 6 26 5 20 4 9 66 316 -------------- 16 54 23 131 5 22 4 16 7 19 60 267 26.0 20.3 40 139 13 75 7 37 3 11 6 14 75 303 1- ----- 86 287 13 89 7 49 5 25 12 24 128 493 ---- - - 82 311 11 112 7 69 21 109 14 32 140 662 -------- 101 481 3 39 4 35 6 46 3 10 118 620 -----....- - 81 515 4 42 1 14 8 62 2 4 96 639 ---------- Average 86.5 10. I 46 I 5I 8 19 124 604 70. 63. 0 c1 0 4-4 Id 0p H 3 * Average ------- 86 385 10 791 61 46 10 56 8 19 124 1 604 1 70.0 63.8 Dec. 31: 1919 ------- ---- - 125 864 2 27 2 36 24 179 8 26 162 1,143 1920- ----.- 44 506 2 23 2 27 27 293 10 64 89 934 1921 -._._ --- —------- 45 286 5 35 2 17 30 247 22 93 107 711 1922 ----------------- 11 85 2 20 (4) 4 7 55 7 29 28 198 Average -------------- 56 I 435 3 26 2 21 22 194 12 53 97 746 58. 1 58 3 I 1 - P -- -1 -1-~ -~ — _ Id Dec. 31: 1923 ---— 3 --- —----- 38 272 2 24 1 9 11 65 8 35 62 425 -1924 ----------------- 18 109 2 19 2 13 14 63 8 40 49 267 1925 --- —-------- 59 330 12 96 1 7 10 59 11 30 97 548 --------- 1926 --- —- - 5 64 466 22 146 1 6 11 55 10 47 117 787. --- Average -4 --- —------ 45 294 10 71 1 9 11 61 9 38 81 507 55.2 58.1 1 Not separately enumerated among United States domestic exports prior to 1918, in which year" silk dress goods" of domestic manufacture totaling $5,825,000 were exported from the United States; the exports increased to an annual average of $7,446,000 for 1919-1921; beginning with 1922, the classification reads "broad silks" of which an annual average of $3,182,000 worth was exported in 1922-1926, with exports to Cuba for the individual years, respectively, as follows: $70,600, $221,500, $678,400, $592,400, and $657,742. These figures are exclusive of silk velvets, plushes, chenilles, etc., and of rayon fabrics. 2 Imports from Germany developed from $6,600 in 1903 to $83,000 in 1908, averaging $47,600 for the period 1904-1909; after 1910 ($46,100) they fell to $9,500 in 1911 and $1,400 in 1913, H with an average of $13,200 for the years 1910-1914; for the last period, they averaged $5,400. Imports from Spain were $6,300 in 1903 and, for the succeeding periods, averaged as follows: $12,400, $2,400, $9,400, $14,300, and $11,000. 0 3 Not separately enumerated. as 4 Less than 500 kilos. 5 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 2,900 kilos, $25,400. 294 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 177.-Miscellaneous manufactures of silk 1 [Forty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 25.81 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba I Per cent.___..__.... _......._.....-____....__ __- _______ _..__ of total Year ended- from United France er Spain Japan A United States many States Dec. 31: 1902 _...................... 1903 ----------—. ---- Average ------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- 1905............... — - 1906 -. --- —---------- 1907................ 1908 ---................ 1909...................... Average... --- —--—..June 30: 1910.._........... 1911 ---------. —. --- 1912 —..._ -- ---._ 1913. — - - - - - - - - - 1914 — ----- Average -- - June 30: 1915 --- —----- ---- 1916-... --- —--------- 1917 --- —----- ---- 1918............ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)-. Aveage --- —------.. ---Dec. 31: 1919-............. 1920 _.. --- ——. --- —1921............ 1922 --- —-------------- Average --- —---—.... --- Dec. 31: 1923 --- — -... ---- ---- 1924 -—. ---- - - -._1925 - --------------- 1926 --- —.......-.. — Average. -—.. 43 48 349 165 62 50 29 (3) 578 ----- 22 35 368 -- 45 257 56 26 ------ 473 9.6 38 98 25 9 44 236 ------ 123 139 44 26 75 447 ------- 77 152 59 25 64 448 ---—. - 41 140 31 13 34 284 -------- 38 47 95 4 30 242 --—. — 32 63 28 4 8 144 ------- 64 116 51 15 46 327 19.4 34 110 34 7 12 211 ---—.. 41 102 30 10 17 228 ----- 35 48 18 7 20 150 ------- 38 25 7 4 30 114 -—. 36 1 (4) (4) ( 4)- 38 37 57 18 6 16 148 24.9........6 16 148 24_ 14 14 1 6 47 --- 34 4 1 2 1 48 -35 (4)-..... (4) 17 58 ----- 67 21 ---- 1 (4) 11. — 114 (4) 1 3 117 -- 59 9- 2 6 84 69.6 133 2 -3 2 148 414 9 1 16 7 465 - 115 24 2 16 16 203 --- 21 1 3 (4) (4) 29 ---- 171 9 2 9 6 212 80.7 36 (4) 6 (4) -_ --- 50 ----- 48 (4) 1 2 53 -.11 1 (4) 3 4 21 '8 6 4 1 2 25 - 26 1 2 3t 21 2 37 68.6 'Single classification for the import statistics; not comparably classified in the statistics of United States exports for most of the years here included. 2 Imports from China declined from $29,000 in 1903 to annual averages of $19,400 and $7,700 for the periods 1904-19~ and 1910-1914; with small and irregular figures down to 1922, and no shipments recorded for 1923-1926. Not separately enumerated. The figure in the classification "Countries other than American or European" is $45,000. 4 Less than $500. 6 Exclusive of insignificant nonpreferential imports from the United States. STATISTICAL TABLES 295 TABLE 178.-Sugar-plant machinery, accessories, and implements 1 [Twenty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 2.03 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba 2 Per cent Total....~___ ~~__ _________l of total United Year ended- from States United Great Bel- Ger- An United domestic States Britain glum many States exports Dec. 31: 1902 —.......... —.-..-... 409 120 1903 ---------------—.-.. 446 115 (4) 79 22 37 42 6 616 688 Average --- —------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) -.. --- —---- 1905.. --- —------------ 1906 - --------------- 1907 ------------------ 1908 --- —-------------- 1909 ------------------ Average --- —-------------- June 30: 1910. --- —------------ 1911- ------- 1912 ------- 1913 ------------------ 1914 -.. -. --- —------ Average --- —----------- June 30: 1915 ---- ------- -. ------- 1916 -.. --- ---—.- - -- ---- 1917 7 --- —------------ 1918 -- ----- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)-........ Average -- ------------- Dec. 31: 1919 _ --- —------------- 1920 ------------------- 1921 ------ ------------- 1922 ------------------ Average -------------- Dec. 31: 1923.. --- —----------- 1924. ---1925 ---- 1926 ---- ----------- 427 118 - 32 22 652 65.5 ---- 124 6 5 3 (5) 137 ---- 1,072 133 122 125 13 1,465 - - ---- 2,105 577 564 417 75 3, 758 ------------- 1,075 224 125 174 23 1,623 --- —-- ----- 753 525 21 92 1 1,392 -------------- 910 216 62 64 21 1,272 --------------- 1,098 306 164 159 24 1, 754 62.6 --- 1,496 683 222 151 111 2, 663 - 3,102 1,030 629 283 122 5,178 -- 2,591 3,080 743 368 327 514 5,052 ----- 1,783 3,292 749 1,129 788 16 6,010 --- —-- 2,889 2,875 712 877 356 214 5,053 --- —--- 2,548 2,769 783 645 381 195 4, 791 57.8 '2,453 3,031 199 88 118 3 3, 724 ------- 2,092 10,147 419 --- — 1 10 10, 693. --- — 5,987 17, 276 345, ---- ------ ---- 17,754 --- —-. -11,027 16,372 72 - --- 2 16,484 --- ——. 11,760 7,895 60 ---------------- 7,960 -— 5,706 12,160 243 --—. ---- 3 12, 581 96.7 8,127 15,147 155 -.. --- ---- 15,355 ------- 13,806 22, 353 442 2 79 32 22,979 -- --- 22,787 21,872 662 2 245 53 23,296 ------- 15,628 4,467 73 19 44 6 4, 720 --- 3,79 3,799 15,960 333 6 92 23 16, 588 96. 2 14,005 9,263 187 51 120 3 9,798 ------ 6,024 10, 205 131 157 158 39 10,829 ------- 8,304 12,210 171 310 170 133 13,186 - 8,270 t 6,548 106 189 43 22 7,086 —4 ---- 4,042................ Average -------—... 9,556 149 177 122 49 10, 224 93.5 6,660 1 Inclusive of machinery and apparatus for distilling spirits and likewise, in accordance with the special concession making all these articles dutiable at 10 per cent ad valorem (for imports from the United States 7.5 per cent if copper is the constituent of chief value, otherwise, 8 per cent ad valorem), of almost all plantation railway construction and repair material, except rolling stock. 'Imports from Canada amounted in 1923 to $124,200, averaging $43,800 for the period 1923-1926; for the same period, imports from Holland averaged $65,300, with shipments in 1924 and 1925, respectively, of $101,800 and $95,100. ' Not separately enumerated 1902-1910; beginning with 1911, the figures represent exports of "Sugarmill machinery" and are not strictly comparable with the larger classification for Cuban imports. Not separately enumerated. The figure in the classification "Other European countries" is $28,000, Less than $500. 6 4-year average. Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States, amounting to $35,300. 296 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 179.-Miscellaneous machinery 1 [Twenty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 3.85 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total Year ended- from United Great German Staited States Britain States Dec. 31: 1902 2 — ---------- 1903 --- --------------------------- Average -------------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months).. -------- 1905 -------------------—.1906 _ --- —------------ 1907 -----------------------—.. --- —-- 1908 —..... --- —------- - ----- 1909 ------------------------ Average -------------—....June 30: 1910 - -------- ------- 1911 ---- 1912 --- ---........ 1913 ---—. ----—.. 1914... --—..-...... --- —---- Average ------------------- June 30: 1915 -----------... --- —------ 1916. --- —------ --- --------- 1917 --------—. --- —-------- 1918 ----------. — Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ------------- Average --------—...-............. Dec. 31: 1919 _ --- —------—... --- —-. 1920 ----------—... —.. --- — 1921 ----—..... --- --- - - - - - - - 1922 --------------------— _ Average -------------------- Dec. 31: 1923 - -.............. — ---- 1924 ---------------------------- -...1925 — -------------—.-."" ---1926 ------------------—... " "623 I- 62 - -40 36- - -- 776 80.3 398 13 59 11 486 912 62 119 56 1,163 i.... 1, 654 116 124 64 2,003 ---- 1,183 143 140 47 1,541 1,101 154 106 22 1,405 ---- 1,065 53 128 42 1,314 ------- 1,148 98 123 44 1,439 79.8 1,221 48 62 30 1,400 ---- 1,482 156 114 45 1,842 ---- 1,944 196 109 62 2,364 ------ 1,796 312 227 95 2,488 ---- 2,022 57 278 47 2,516 ---- 1, 693 154 158 56 2,122 79.8 2,226 35 86 17 2,456 - 3,018 70 (3) 31 3,175 ------- 5,355 77 -47 5,624 -5,407 20 — 17 5,526 ------ 3,103 12 9 3,137 -4,246 47 -— 27 4,426 95. 9 7,906 59 1 15 8,079 ------ 10,500 184 142 111 11, 122 -- --- 10,575 726 153 111 11,769 ------ 3,918 29 116 20 4,209 ---- 8, 225 249 103 64 8, 795 93.5 5,813 163 168 45 6,289 --- -- 8,560 490 298 40 9,534 ----- 5,905 144 257 6 6,800 - ---- 4 4,638 109 263 4 5, 241 ---- ".... * I ~ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Average ----------- 6,229 227 247 24 6,966 89.4 1 The import figures here shown represent 3 items combined, as follows: Agricultural (dutiable), electrical, and other machinery; but the bulk of the imports is reported under' 'Other machinery." Not comparably enumerated among United States exports. 2 Comparable figures not given. Of the total value of $548,500 reported in the classification "Miscellaneous machines and apparatus," imports from the United States amounted to $404,300 or 73.7 per cent, with $73,800 from France, $32,400 from England, $29,100 from Germany, and much smaller amounts from other countries. The United States supplied $32,800, or 81.1 per cent, of the total value of $40,400 of imports of electrical machinery (with two to three thousand dollars' worth each from England, France, and Germany) and $5,300, or 91.6 per cent, of the total $5,800 of dutiable agricultural machinery. 3 Less than $500. X Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $38,300. STATISTICAL TABLES TABLE 180.-Parts of machines and accessories 1 297 [Twenty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 4.98 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba- Per cent of total Year ended- from United areat B A United States Britain Belgium Germany France All States Dec. 31: 1902 -._ --- —--------- 1903 ---------------- Average ------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months). --- —---- 1905 ----------------- 1906 --------- 1907 -. --- —---------- 1908 --- —------------- 1909 -— _ --- —------- Average - ------------ June 30: 1910 — _ --- —------- 1911 — --------- 1912 ----------------- 1913 ----------------- 1914 ---------------- Average --- —------------- June 30:.1915 -----—. --- —-------- 1916.. --- —--------- 1917 ----------------- 1918 -. --- —---------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). Average --- —----------—. Dec. 31: 1919- _ --- —.-.. --- — 1920 -------------------- 1921. ------—. --- —-- 1922 ----------—. ---Average --- —----------—. Dec. 31: 1923. —. --- —-----—. 1924 -. --- —. --- —-.. 1925 -.. --- —-------. — 1926 --------------------—. 494 28 (2) 23 753 197 119 37 39 6061 -12 1,121 ---- 623 113 ---- 30 25 864 72.2 310 38 7 25 17 400 -- 1,004 64 26 118 23 1,254 ------ 1,703 168 97 120 17 2,115 ------ 1,085 153 34 160 29 1,769 ---—. 1,118 151 25 273 30 * 1,609 ----- 915 37 6 115 33 1,112 - 1, 115 111 36 148 27 1,502 74.3 1,237 40 12 66 36 1,396 ---—. — 1,385 37 10 69 57 1,568 -----... 1,371 25 19 45 55 1,527 ------- 1,988 71 32 130 67 2,296 ---—. - 2,162 128 60 124 32 2,550 ---- - 1,628 60 29 87 50 1,867 87.2 1, 654 52 11 41 18 1,820 ------- 4, 501 28 (3) 4 18 4,605 ---- 4, 547 78 - --------- 32 4,699 ----—. 4, 377 12 - ---------- 4 4 4, 398 ------- 1,869 3 --- —---- 2 1,887 ----- 3,766 39...... ----- - 16 3,869 97.4 6,582 43 - - -- 39 6,689 -- 9,696 22 ------ 38 60 9,880 ------- 7,006 92 1 101 132 7, 445 ---—. - 3,145 30 1 19 67 3,289 -- 6,607 47 ) 1 40. 75 6,826 96.8 3, 232 42 (3) 34 111 3,487 ---- 3,155 168 1 172 353 4,034 ---- 3, 262 135 2 226 201 3,972 --- 4 3,919 75 6 200 227 4,551 -- _.. --- I Average ------—.. 3,392 105 2 158 223 4,010 84.6 1 Single classification for the import statistics; not comparably enumerated among United States exports. 2 Not separately enumerated. The figure in the classification "Other European countries" (exclusive also of Spain) is $16,100. 3 Less than $500. Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $11,900. 298 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 181.-Carriages and accessories 1 [Twenty per cent reduction; equivalent, in 1905, to 6.32 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent Total of total United Year ended-: — from States United domestic te France Germany All States exportst States Dec, 31: 1902 8 -------------- 1903 --- —-------- Average ----------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months). --- —----------- 1905 --- —--------- 1906 --- ---------- 1907 --- —-z. --- —---- ------- 1908 ------------------------ 1909 --- —---------- - ----- ---- Average. --- —---------- June 30: 1910 --------------—. --- —-- 1911 --- —------------------ 1912. --- —-------------------- 1913 --- —----—. --- —1914 --- —--------- Average ---------------- June 30: 1915. --- —----------- 1916 ---- -------- ---- 1917. --- — --------- 1918 --- —--------- - Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ------------- Average -------------- Dec. 31: 1919 --- —--------- 1920 --- ---------------- ----- 1921 --- —------------ ------- 1922. --- —----------- Average -------—. ---. Dec. 31: 1923 --- —--- 1924. --- —-----—....1925. --- —---------------------- 1926 ----------------------- Average --------------------- 116.....i231i I.. - -.-43 ---- 80. 9 62 165 269 285 236 240 11 37 111 90 109 88 1 6 9 27 7 14 74 221 404 425 385 366 229 81 12 341 67.1 ----- 306 404 396 430 569 225 237 249 211 236 13 24 53 117 110 594 746 812 884 1, 141 903 --- —----- 537 421 231 1 63 836 50. 4 720 1,077 73 32 1,304 ------ 173 2,968 117 --- 3,140 ------- 99 2,715 64 ------- 2,791 ------ 135 153 --- -- ---------- ' 153 ---------- 106 6 --------—. --- —--- 83 ---------- 15 1,537 56 -- 1,660 92.6 117 - ' " - - 119 306 176 180 5 -- - - - - - - (6) 124 306 188 181 113 154 74 90 195 _ 2 ------- 200 97.8 108 55.......... 55 69 106 (6) (6) 106 --- —- 49 131 (6) ________ 131 --- (') 36 --- —--- (6) 36 ----..... 82 (5) (6) 82 99.6 4 59 I By assimilation, imports into Cuba of automobiles and accessories were reported under this classification to the end of the calendar year 1916; thereafter they are separately enumerated, with the following average annual values: Per cent United France ngland Canada All from States France England Canada countries UniSted States 1917-18 (2 calendar years)...$4,670,200 1919-1922 -------—. — - 8,114, 200 1923-1926 6 --- —-........- 6, 260, 500 $28, 700 $2,800 $12,700 $4,724,600 128,200 17,600 26,400 8,551,600 295, 000 159,900 81,400 6,986,600 98.8 94.9 89.6 ___... _ I I J _.. _.. I Not separately enumerated prior to 1913, nor for 1925 and 1926; the figures here shown represent exports of "carriages." Not separately enumerated. Of the total value of $170,100 reported under the classification " Miscellaneous vehicles," the United States supplied $155,100, or 91.2 per cent, with $8,800 worth from France, $3,900 from Germany, $1,600fr 'm England. 4 2-year average. * Less than $500. 10038-29 ---20 TABLE 182.-Pianos [Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 15.64 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] 0 Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total Total United States from United States domestic exports a Year ended- United States Germany Spain France All Quantity Value Quantity Value uantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Number Value Quniy~ Dec. 31: Number 1902 -------------— 4- 48 1903. ----_..__.__ —.- 67 Number $7 134 9 240 $15 28 Number 76 61 Number Number $8 35 $6 299 $36 -.. --- —------ 8 68 12 436 58 ---------- Thoum. 2 4 $423 906 Average ------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —----- 1905 ------------------------ 1906 ------------------ 1907 ----------------- 1908 -- ------ 1909 --- —--------- Average --- —---- June 30: 1910 _ --- —--------— _ 1911 ----------------- 1912 ----------------- 1913 ------------------ 1914 ------------------ Average ------------- June 30: 1915 ----------------- 1916 ----------------- 1917 -— l --- —-------- 1918 ----------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)... Average ------------- 58 8 187 22 68 8 52 9 368 47 15.8 16.6 3 664 120 14 197 23 49 6 32 6 399 50 3 573 337 46 332 51 118 15 51 14 841 127 -— 7 1,357 185 31 230 33 128 18 23 8 566 90-6 1,483 160 27, 349 41 93 14 30 5 632 87 --- —---— 7 1,903 140 26 152 21 88 13 12 3 394 64 — 5 1,268 224 35 292 40 107 16 36 9 661 100 33.9 34.8 6 1,455 202 39 228 27 97 16 11 3 539 86 --- —- - — 8 1,902 275 45 285 39 127 19 22 5 774 109 ---------- 9 2,102 401 63 382 45 109 16 22 5 916 131 --- —10 2,186 977 95 451 65 61 11 20 5 1,510 177 - -------- 9 1,952 447 94 1,061 48 90 13 18 4 1,618 160 --- — ----— 8 1,752 460 67 481' 45 97 15 19 4 1,071 132 43.0 50.7 9 1,979 478 99 55 7 64 11 7 1 630 121 -------- 5 1,166 1,088 192 --- - -------- 97 15 8 3 1,193 211 -— ___1,618 --- —---- 10 2,087 1,297 256 - - --— 69 11 6 3 1,372 270 1_ — ---------------- 15 2,731 1,991 442 -____ — ------ 24 5 5 2 2,020 450 -18 3,388 6,270 261 - ----------- 6 2 1 (3) 6,277 263 --- —- --------- 6 1,734 2,472 278 12 2 58 10 61 2,554 2921 96.8. 95.11 12,468...... 1, 1 9 35. Q q t41 P0 1-3 H Dec. 31: |' 11 1919 --------------- 1,677 495 --- —---—.. —.- 1 (3).. 1,678 495 -—. —. ---- 17 4,659 1920-1 --- —----------, 763 672 32 12 -------- 2 1 1, 799 686 251 8,734 1921 -,. --- —-------.- 799 302 76 24.2 (8) 8 3 891 332 8 2,782 1922-;":. -------------—.-.. 483 162 100 18 4 1 5 2 592 183 — 12 3,359 19~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~22, 7259 18 I Average. -----—. --- —---- Dec. 31: 1923 -----------—....... ---1924. --- —------------------ 1925 ------------------------ 1926 ---------------------—. 1,1801 | 408 52 14 2| (3) 4 2 1,240 424 95.22 96.2 161 4,884 1,318 343 126 26 1 (3) 4 1 1,459 372-19 5,165 1,625 328 173 37 4 1 3 1 1,805 367-16 4,704 1,315 313 136 29 4 2 3 1 1,458 346 20 5,718 4 1,941 280 91 18 7 1 6 2 2,055 303 --- —- ---— 23 6,284 ii1iiiiiiii~i~i Average ------------ 1,550 316 132 27 4 1 4 2 1,694 347 91.5 91.1 20 5468 i Beginning with 1911, the classification in the Cuban import statistics reads "Pianos and accessories," but there is no change in designation for the quantity figures. To the extent that pianos and accessories are reported together by count, the statistics are not usable for purposes of comparison, and no explanation is attempted for such striking variations between quantities and values as appear, for example, in the imports from the United States and from Germany for 1913 and 1914. 00 2 The figures here shown represent 2 or more items combined, including pianofortes, pianolas, player pianos, and other pianos, respectively, but excluding exports of "piano players." H I Less than $500. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 10 pianos, $2,000. 00 OQ C)3 0 k-" TABLE 183.-Watches [Forty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 14.27 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omnitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Total United Per cent of total SUnted from United States domestic Year ended- United States France Germany Switzerland All exports Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Value I........... Dec. 31: 1902 --- —------- 1903_ --- —-— _ --- —-_ --- —Average --------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) ------------—, - 1907 _ 1907,,,, --- —------------------------- 1908 -------------------------------- 190I lanD~ I 6 10 18 27 2 2 2 23 41 33 6 3 3 13 24 50 17 8 9 36 55 88 58 31 33 14 31 46 16 18 5 20 56 91 44 49 12 4 14 28 8 6 2 11 4 16 36 17 14 6 42 88 152 44 34 18 84 171 250 125 100 55 Number Number Number Number Number 5 $15 9 $22 17 $31 (") (1) 38 $86 6 13 12 26 19 28 9 $15 46 83 14 1 241 181 30 -— 421 84 13.31 16.6 0 $1,032 W 1,067 P. 1,050 540 Q 1,124 r 1,294 W 1,724 o 1,387 0 1,252 M' 1,331 H 1,229 b 1,561 1,881 1 1,783 k. 1,460 June 30: 1910 — 1011 - - 11 20 221 55 1 24 49 171 691 1431 16.01 14.0 1 3 3 7 4 3 5 4 11 6 16 14 17 9 9 51 31 36 22 21 4 8 (3) 2 3 10 18 1 5 7 3 7 3 1 4 9 10 9 8 8 25 32 24 19 20 73 64 150 45 43 1913 ---------- 1914 ------------------ Average ----------------- June 30: 1915- ------------ 1916 ------------- 1917 ----------- 1918 ---------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ----- -.; 4 6 13 32 3 8 4 9 24 75 15.6 8.0 1,583 I~ I I 1- - - ~ -I- - --- 6 12 7 12 3 7 13 9 20 6 1 4 2 5 1 2 - 6 12 8 12 3. n 1 1 2 1 10 18 15 13 10 1 10 23 22 18 15 22 34 24 34 13 31 49 39 64 25 915 1,524 1,744 1, 945 1,017 I - n In> n O I no I AA I 01 o OftA 1 01 A.VULO.........I __ o _ ---------------------— _...... 0 --------— j --- ---- JtI I I. o.t Ua I Dec. 31: 1919 _ --- —---------------. 1920 _._ --- —----------- ---------- 1921 --------------------------- 1922 --- -- ------------------------ Average ---------------------------- Dec. 31: 1923 --... --- —- - - 1924 -.. ----....-..-...___ 1925. —.. --- — 1926 ---------------------- 22 49 10 I 20 47 8 163 6 13 1 2 (3) 39 26 9 (4) (3) 10 (3) 1 (4) 3 18 11 17 1 25 27 29 2 50 66 39 3 120 221 63 5 ---------- ---------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _- - - - - - - - - -- - _- - - - _ -- - - - -- — _ - 2,273 2,145 819 287 56 41 18 3 12 211 40 102 51.0 55.0 1,381 4 9 1 5 11 8 5 12 20 34 ---- 623 2 5 1 1 13 7 11 9 27 24- -- -— 113 1 3 2 3 13 8 8 14 25 28 - ---------- 1,255 2 5 (3) (4) 16 16 3 7 22 32 -— 1,043 Average ---------------------------- 2 6 1 2 131 10 7 11l 24 29 10.2 19.0 1,008 1 Including parts, 1902-1921. Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classification" Other European countries" (exclusive also of very small amounts from England and Spain) are 7,300, $17.100. * Less than 500. 4 Less than $500. H Co3 CV 804 CUBAN BECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 184.-Copper and its alloys and manufactures thereof I Twenty per cent redvction equivalent, in 1905, to 6.3 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent Total.___.._____............. - _________of total United Year ended- from States United Great Ger- A United domestic States Britain many France Spain States exports. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I_ Dec. 31: 1902 -....... —.. —...- 161 55 25 34 3 279 1903 ------—.... ---.. -- 170 76 40 35 6 330 45,486 43,510 Average. --- —-—. --- —-.. 165 66 32 34 5 305 54. 2 44,498: _ I - 1 --- June 30: 1904 (6 months). --- 1905 ------------ 1906. --- —------------ 1907. --- —--—. 1908 ----------- 1909 ------------ Average --- -- June 30: 1910.- ----- -- 1911 ------------------ 1912..... --- —----------- 1913 ---------—. --- —1914 —. --- —-.. Average. ---. --- —---- June 30: 1915 ------------------ 1916.. --- —---- 1917.. --- —--- 1918.... --- —-------.-, Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ---—. Average. --- —------- Dec. 31: 1919 _.... ---- - -------—. 1920. ---. --- —----- 1921.... --- —--------- 1922..... --- —-------- Average. --- —------—. Dec. 31: 1923. ----. --- ——. --- 1924 ---------—. 1925 -—.1926 ------------ 87 234 505 590 356 365 45 70 100 104 115 68 77 114 99 82 152 120 23 42 51 36 35 23 2 4 7 3 3 2 242 470 767 820 665 583 33,902 86,225 81,282 94, 762 104,064 85, 290 389 91 117 38 4 645 60.3 88,277 524 98 72 30 4 736 — 88,005 540 132 82 39 2 802 --- 103,813 624 100 103 46 1 887 ---- 113,959 829 124 104 31 1 1,102 ------- 140,164 837 99 116 30 2 1,109 ------- 146,223 671 110 96 35 2 927 72. 4 118,433: 611 63 28 12 5 734... 99,559 858 40 1 18 20 952 --- 173,947 1,622 31 -19 50 1,742 ----—. 322, 535 1,614 25 9 44 1,699 ------ - 268,983 802 13 4 21 840 ------- 86,622 1,224 36 6 14 31 1,326 92.3 211,477 1,996 67 (a) 25 43 2,150 ------- 121,302 2,657 146 61 40 80 3,006 ------- 132,850 2,294 100 83 59 55 2,624 --- - 89,188 587 17 57 26 16 707 -- 103, 467 1,884 83 50 38 49 2,122 88. 8 111,702 1,777 75 173 52 29 2,119 ------- 128,673 2,265 74 215 59 32 2,706 - l ---- - 156,071 2,218 52 237 64 52 2, 776 -----... 159,376 4 1, 595 40 198 78 50 2,219 ------- 138, 413 Average... --- —-—... 1,964 60 206 63 41 2,455 80.0 *145, 633 -z-I:.n t....a.i.......for1902.ther.were.2.cassifiaI It 1 In the Cuban import statistics for 1902 there were 2 classifications, "Ingots, bars, and plates" and "Other manufactures"; beginning with 1903 imports of these articles are reported under 4 classifications: Sheets, wire, wire cloth, and other manufactures of copper and its alloys. The figures here shown represent these items combined the bulk of the imports being "Other manufactures." 'The figures combine items under the general classification "Copper," omitting ore, concentratesunrefined and old and scrap copper, and composition metal. a Less than $50. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $57,800. I .iTABLE 185.-Iron and steel bars and rods t tTwenty-flve per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 8.01 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] 0 M> Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total Total United from States domestic Year ended- United States Great Britain Germany Belgium France All United States exports Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity ValueQuantity Value Dec~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 31.{ Dec. 31: 1902 --- —---- 1903. --- —-------- Average ---- ---- June 30: 1904 (6 months) ----- 1905 -- --------- 1906 --- —------ 1907 ---- --- 1908 ------------- 1909 ------------- Average ----------- June 30: 190o -------- 1911 ----- 1912 -------- 1913 --- —------- 1914 --- —------------ Average --- —June 30: 1915 --- —--- 1916 ------------- 1917 ------- 1918 -- ------ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) — i I Kilos Kilos Kilos Kilos 180 $12 1,183 $45 742 $30 () () 504 29 2,797 100 1, 018 32 1,211 37 Kilos 18 $15 Kilos 2,575 5,678 $115 - 227 -- Pounds 125,804 133, 576 $2,309 2,441 1031 18 342 21 1, 990 72 880 31 -61 16 4,126 171 8.3 12.0 129,690 2,375 737 24 1,592 50 801 28 628 18 105 16 3,862 134 81,271 1, 445 1,970 73 4,491 116 1,074 35 1,411 37 249 19 9,227 308 161,791 3,245 7,331 241 4, 142 150 1,353 42 2,493 76 344 16 15, 712 533 160,845 3,433 5,862 225 4,062 159 797 42 2,345 83 211 18 13,278 532 -233,036 4,980 5,910 243 2,941 131 402 16 1,862 91 322 22 11,438 504 -185,310 3,907 5,250 198 1,746 65 122 4 3,539 102 82 11 10,740 380 - 172,499 3,127 4,920 183 3,450 122 827 30 2,232 74 239 19 11,683 435 42.1 42.0 180,864 3,661 7,248 268 2,943 88 529 16 3,815 114 80 3 14,637 493 - -- ---- --- 294,536 4,906 10,308 368 5, 128 173 340 10 5, 066 222 54 4 20,918 779 ------ ------- 355,395 5,708 18,935 762 2,992 112 222 6 3,419 128 112 6 25,747 1,016 ---- --- 469,563 7,390 21,044 729 1,316 78 412 12 3,549 110 89 4 26,414 934 - - 736,674 11,491 21,112 757 4,051 172 260 8 5,857 190 52 2 31,342 1,130 ---------- -------- 483,629 7,894 15,729 577 3,286 124 353 _ 10 4,341 153 78 4 23,812 870 66.1 66.3 467,959 7,478 ___=I 2I. - I -- - I - - II1 _._ _.._.. 3, 66 0 ci z t4) 0 tW4 0 0 H Hd 20,336 24,628 33,741 24,397 11,142 653 995 2, 265 2,221 997 847 82 95 35 9 237 31 9 14 7 4 9 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (3) -------- -------- ------ -------- 78 I --- —----- - - - - - 3 I — -- -- — I - - - I - 3 (4) 1 2 (3) (3) _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ 21, 277 24, 737 33,836 24,865 11,602 689 1,007 2,280 2, 266 1,043 763,975 1,943, 502 2,154, 632 1,903,005. 812, 677 11,276 40,745 69, 343 91,088 36,697 55,366 Average ----------- 25,387 1,585 14 1 --- —----------- --- --------------- (3) 1 25,848 1,619 98.2 87. 4 11, 683,954 _____ ____ ____ ____ I -'*1' --- —~ — 1- - - [- -- _____~ --- —- ~ 1)- -I: __ _I:- - - j- - - __________ ___ Dec. 31: 1919 1....... --- —---—. 1920 --- —------ 1921 ------------------- 1922 ------------------- Average ------------- Dec. 31: 1923 --- —----------- 1924 ------------------- 1925 ------------------- 1926 -------------- 36,141 2,786 42,081 3,451 38,970 3, 600 19,890 1,117 50 95 142 202 11 17 23 16 8 60 8...... 2 --....t --------- -— " 5 365 47 1 (3) 1 22 1 2 (3) 36, 779 43,086 39,612 20,138 2,924 3,573 3,687 1, 136 --- -- -- - ------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - 1,641,401 1,775,097 492,250 505,519 62,307 67,378 26,347 12,268 34,270 2,738 122 17 19 2 97 12 1 (3) 34,904 2,830 98.2 96.8 1, 103,567. 42,075 39,204 2,317 447 46 593 26 1,426 79 61 2 41,756 2,471 --- —------------- 479,355 14,752 28,885 1,558 802 53 2,998 103 12,166 518 474 24 45,769 2,272- -------- 282,447 9,367 24,941 1,186 1,502 77 1,480 56 16,716 614 652 24 45,847 1,979- -------- 316,879 9,815 12,492 580 1,843 67 2,173 71 25,928 923 506 17 45,819 1,764 375,274 11,389 Average --- —------- 26,380 I 1,410 1, 148 61 1,811 64 14,059 534 423 17 44, 798 2,122 58.9 66.5 363, 514 11,331 1 Single classification for the import statistics; the export figures represent items combined as follows: 1902-1921, bar iron, steel wire rods, and all other steel bars and ods; 1922, iron and mild steel bars, steel bars, and wire and other rods; 1923-1926, iron and steel bars, alloy steel bars, and wire rods. 2 Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classification " Other European countries" are 452,000 kilos, $13,500. a Less than $500. 4 Less than 500 kilos. I Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 2,672,300 kilos, $98,000. CA 0 4. TABLE 186.-Iron and steel plates and sheets I [Twenty-five per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 9.04 per cent ad valorem] 00 Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total Total United States from United States domestic exports Year ended- United States Great Britain Germany Belgium All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Dec. 31: Kilos Kilos Kilos IKilos Kilos Pounds 1902 -. ---- - 546 $30 1,742 $91 44 $2 (2) (2) 2,384 $124 - -------—. 40,991 1903 ---------------- 629 30 3,045 150 518 21 320 $11 4,513 212 --— 40,374 $956 932 I Average ----- -- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —---- 1905 ---------------- 1906 ----------------- 1907_ -— _ --- —-------- 1908 ----------- 1909 _ --- —----------- Average ------------—. June 30: 1910_._ --- —------ 1911 --- —-- 1912 ---------- 1913 -------- 1914. --------- Average --- —--------- June 30: 1915 --- —------ 1916 - -------- 1917- ------- 1918 _ --- —----- --- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)-_ Average ------------- 587 30 2,394 121 281 11 - -3,449 168 17.0 17.8 40,682 944 628 24 1,718 97 61 4 59 3 2,478 128 -- — 34,504 698 2,569 106 3,973 211 42 2 120 5 6,734 326 ----- 171,467 3,105 4,482 228 5,787 388 191 8 160 8 10,630 633 ------ - ----- 198,977 4,117 5,720 329 2,856 202 22 2 89 5 8,687 537 ----- - ----- - 286,306 6,580 5,964 322 2,723 188 233 11 85 4 9,010 525 --- -- ------- -.229,671 6,456 5,440 312 1,566 100 17 1 75 3 7,105 417 --- - -308,871 7,752 4,510 240 3,386 216 103 5 107 5 8,117 466 55.6 51.5 223,599 5, 220 8,046 423 2,605 156 52 2 121 5 10,837 591 ---------- --- - 526,516 11,981 9,653 516 2,780 171 43 3 420 19 12,906 710 -------- ---- - 681,859 15,110 10,822 547 1,233 74 8 (3) 175 7 12, 270 631 ------ -- 1,042,311 23,649 9,460 568 1,191 80 6 1 42 3 10,700 652 -.. - --- -- --- 1,216,116 23,982 12,758 695 2,784 188 32 3 73 4 15,655 890 --- —---------- 834,315 17,129 10,148 550 2,119 134 28 2 166 8 12,473 694 81.4 79.1 860, 223 18,370 0 0 0 H '.4 tP3 Wwd 10,413 14, 453 18,150 7,692 5,086 558 1,073 1,805 1,368 788 914 78 32 16.......... 66 9 4 2 1 -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - (a) ---------- 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (3) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11,335 14, 531 18,182 7,708 5,086 625 1,082 1,809 1,370 788 637,193 1,100, 781 1,551,062 1,773,268 1, 005, 287 12,553 25, 020 61, 476 178,975 54,466 12,398 1,242 231 18 ----------- - ------ |12,632 1,261 98.2 98.2 1,348,353 60,553 Dec. 31: 1919 ---—. --- —-- 16, 746 1920 -- ------------- -.... 21,449 1921 -1-,6 --- —------ '15,364 1922 ----------- 5,863 Average ----------------- 14,856 Dec. 31: 1923._.... --- —----— i 17, 254 1924 ------- ----------- 16,105 1925 ---------— _ — - _- 15,936 1926 -11_,. --- —------ 4 11, 692 Average.. --- ——.. 15,247 2,096 3,134 2, 277 628 106 200 1,612 421 19 49 333 31 2,0341 585 108 1 15 1 4 53 1,109 213 319 (3) --—:::::::: 6 1 (3) -------- -— (-3) ---(3) _ __ _ _ __ _ 16, 860 21,649 16, 994 6,290 2,118 3,182 2,616 660 __ --- —._ 1._.___ i2,304,981...........- 2, 756, 832. ---- ---- - 1,339,074... —...- I ---. --- —-.978,692 1 97,978 [114,960 t 51, 351 31,645 2 ------- --- 15,448 2,144 96.2 1 94.8 11,844,895 73,984 1,980 1,741 1, 546 1,230 2,055 934 791 698 208 79 58 50 2 43 8 14 138 683 1,209 1,174 8 47 56 75 19,654 18,965 18,209 14, 284 2, 208 1,918 1,673 1,388. --- —----- 858,985. --- —----- 790,601.. --- —--- 839,822..... --- —- -—.. ---. 1, 146,627 F; 34, 919 31,729 32, 731 42,213 1,6241 1,120 99 424 17 801 46 17,778 1,797 85.8 90.4 909,009 35,398 1 Single classification for the import statistics; the export figures combine items as follows: 1902-1909, plates and sheets of iron and of steel; 1910-1914, of galvanized, and of all other iron and of steel; 1915-1922, sheets of galvanized iron and of steel, sheets and plates of iron and of steel; 1923-1926, boiler plate, other plates not fabricated, galvanized and black iron sheets. 2Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classification "Other European countries" are 52,800 kilos, $1,800. s Less than $500. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 345,100 kilos, $17,600. 0 tO TABLE 187.-Iron and steel in pieces [Twenty-five per cent reduction, equivalent in 1905 to 8.84 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] 0.? Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total from United States Total United States domestic exports Year ended United States Great Britain I Germany Belgium All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Iua ntity Value Dec. 31: 1902 -------- 1903 --------- Average --- —------ June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- — 1905 ------- --------- 1906 ---------- 1907 --------- 1908 ---------------- 1909 ----------- Kilo Kilos 2,084 $182 87 1,650 139 1,360 Kilos $6 (3) (3) 83 102 $4 Kilos Kilos (3) (3) 2,170 $188 163 $10 3,333 240 Tons 54 31 1,867 160 724 44 2,752 214 67.8 75.0 21 ' I - - -- -I I 576 1,834 9,120 3,307 7,224 6,725 44 124 455 262 538 464 223 796 1,433 1,904 1,461 245 13 41 84 108 74 17 84 129 654 102 67 2 2 13 49 7 5 (4) 12 216 266 124 47 56 1 13 18 11 3 4 913 3,050 12,178 5,438 8,830 7,048 62 194 652 387 625 488 20 73 98 125 134 102 0 $2,828 1,789 g 2,308 1,531 3,622 S 5,209 t 6,955 O 7,623 0 5,144 Average --------- --- June 30: 1910 ------ ---------- 1911 --- —-- ----------- 1912 ---------------- 1913 --- —----- 1914 --- —------------ Average --- —---------- June 30: 1915 --- —------------------ 1916 --- —--------------- 1917 --- — ---------- 1918 --- —------------ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- 5,234 343 1,102 61 189 14 131 9 6,810 4381 76.8 78.3 100 5,470 6,735 331 880 50 8 () ---- ---- 7,622 381 --------- 120 5,801 4,241 227 314 17 1 (4) 423 29 5,183 285 -------------- 176 8, 684 4,008 214 254 15 9 1 (5) (4) 4,564 254 --- —--------— 252 11,082 1,895 128 548 31 22 3 32 4 2,496 165. --- — -- - ---- 367 16,055 2,671 198 934 58 ------ ---- 312 23 4,044 287 ------------- 296 12,533 3,910 220 586 34 8 1 153 11 4,782 275 81.8 79.9 242 10,831 1,895 116 28 3 8 1 -------- ------- 1,931 121 --- -— 169 6,289 3,649 240 --- - - - - -- -- -- 1 3,649 240 t- - - 270 12,005 8,908 728 ---- -- -- - - 8,908 728 --- - ------ 339 22,911 4,232 594 --- - --------- - ----- - ----------- 4,232 594 ------------- 240 23,825 2,376 280 ---- ---------------- ---- 2,376 28 --------- 119 10,247 4,680 435 6 1 ------ ---- ----- ----- 4,688 436 99.8 99.8 253 16,728 1-3 H H3 Average-, ----. ----------- Dec. 31: 1919 ----------------------- 1920.._._. --- —------ 1921 ------------------ 1922 ---- ------------ -- Average --- —---------- Dec. 31: 1923 ---- ----------------- 1924 ----------------------- 1925 _ --- —----------- 1926 ---— _ --- —----- 6, 762 841 10, 829 1,588 15, 077 2,338 1,064 168 35 18 5 5 - -------- --— 6,762 841 --- —----- 361 28,957 - ---------------— 10,995 1,639 --------- 494 38,385 - ----------------- 15,095 2,343 ------— 297 26,824 * — ---------- ------------------— 1,110 172 - -------- (6) 9,673 8,433 1,233 13 2 ---------- --------— 8,491 1,248 99.3 98.8 -- 25,960 2,658 308 — ----— (- (5) (3) -___- _____ —___ ---- 2,658 308 -- -- --- 13,584 4,250 532 5 (4) (5) 2 177 75 4,433 609-13,010 3,420 414 29 2 1 (4) ---- --- 3, 450 416 ----------- 11,138 2,984 305 1 ) 1 ) 29 1 3,015 306 --- —--------- 14,993 3 0 5 ~ ~ 1 Average.... --- —- j 3,328 390 9 1 1 1 52 1 191 3,389 410 98.2 95.04 ------- 13,181 1 Classified as structural iron and steel, 1902-1921; beginning with 1922, the figures represent several items combined, including light and heavy structural iron and steel, fabricated and not fabricated; metal lath; and other structural shapes and forms. 2 Classified as iron and steel structural pieces, with imports recorded only from the United States and England. # Not separately enumerated. 4 Less than $500. Less than 500 kilos. 6 Quantity figures not comparably enumerated 1922-1926. -A TABLE 188.-Iron and steel pipes and couplings [Twenty-five per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 7.35 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] fr-s tcO Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total from United Year ended- United States Great Britain Germany All States Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Total United States domestic exports x Quantity Value Dec. 31: 1902 -.. ------------------ Average ----------------—.. --- —June 30: 1904 (6 months) ---------------- —. --- —.-.- —. — 1905 --- —---- ----- 1906. --- —-- --- 1907. --- —------------- -.. —. --- 1908 -----—.-. ----.. —. 1909 -------------------- Average ----—. --- —-. --- —----- June 30: 1910-. ----. ---------—.1911... —.-....... --- —----------—.. 1912. --- — ------------- 1913 ---. ---------—. --- 1914. —. --------—.. ---. Average ----------------—. --- — June 30: 1915 --- —------------------- 1916. -------------------- 1917 --- —- ------------------- 1918- -------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- —---------- Average --- —------------- Kilos 987 828 $81 57 Kilos 767 1,282 $46 79 Kilos 175 453 $9 24 Kilos 2,017 3, 873 $142 178 Pounds (2) $5,107 5,919 908 69 1,024 63 314 17 2, 945 160 30.8 43.2 ---— 5, 513 781 46 457 26 191 11 1,493 86 — 3,274 6,117 235 559 32 96 6 6, 847 278 - -8,148 3, 455 197 323 17 80 5 3,934 224 -330,393 8, 774 3,268 234 436 33 72 4 3, 810 275 ----- ----- 288, 018 8, 331 5,037 357 842 86 35 3 6,022 454 377, 643 11, 273 3, 308 204 253 19 1 (3) 3,564 223 ---------- 289,954 7, 991 3,994 231 522 39 86 5 4,667 280 85. 6 82.6 ---— 8,689 5, 598 321 209 13 3 (3) 5, 815 335 ---------- 366,860 9, 575 6,843 422 263 18 (4) (3) 7,107 440 -404,708 10, 735 7,402 401 65 4 2 (3)7, 469 405 -518,942 13,064 6,905 387 158 10 120 17 7, 212 415 -------------------- 632,195 i6, 762 8,734 460 114 8 27 3 8, 955 478 ------------ 539,246 14,338 7, 096 398 162 11 30 4 7, 312 415 97.1 96.0 492,390 -12, 895 9,142 481 76 5 6 1 9,234 488- 403,391 9,230 11,718 693 10 2 — -------- 11,730 695 ---- ----- 399,250 1,770 17,391 1,470 14 2 --------— 17,406 1,473 ----- 547,381 21,352 11,149 1,535 23 6 — ----- 11,173 1,541 ---------- 404,968 25,238 4,792 698 6 ------------------------------ 4, 798 698152,051 10, 414 12, 043 1,084 29 --------- - 12, 076 1,088 99. 7 99.6 423,786 17,334 0 a K '4 U '.3 '. Dec. 31: 1919 --- —-------------------- 1920 --- —---------------- 1921 -- 1922 - Average --- — Dec. 31: 19 ----------------------- 1924 ------------------------- 1925 1926 -------------------- Average ------- I 11,868 16 747 12,144 7,091 11, 962 1,468 2,122 1,815 698 1,526 12 1,157 3 35 302 5 68 1 3 20 -------— 1 --- —----- ---------- ---- ---- -- - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - 11,880 17,913 12,157 7, 126 12,269 1,474 2,191 1,821 701 617,200 791,142 882,112 435,612 681,516 40, 408 53,527 56,219 18,978 42,283 1,547 97.5 98.6 12,321 1,528 228 28 9 1 12,560 1,558 459,654 24,925 11,231 1,239 130 13 2 1 11,480 1,262 — 511,580 26,571 11,515 1,378 11 1 132 13 11,764 1,404 -577,974 27,761 9,166 953 25 3 58 6 9,653 995 --- —----- 679,787 31,846 11,058 1,274 98 12 50 5 11,364 1,304 97. 3 95.8 557,249 27,776 1 Single classification, iron and steel pipes and fittings, 1902-1914; 2 items, cast and wrought, 1915-1921; beginning with 1922, items combined, reported under the general classification tubular products and fittings, but exclusive of boiler tubes. 2 Quantity figures not reported 1902-1905. t Less than $500. 4 Less than 500 kilos. a Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 35,900 kilos, $4,300. the export.figures here shown reprejent several Cr TABLE 189.-Nails 1 W. I"" ppw [Twenty-five per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 8.29 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba - Per cent of total from United States Year ended- United States Germany Great Britain All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Total United States domestic exports Quantity Value Isttl v. Dec. 31: 1902 3 --- —--- -----—, --- —--- 1903.... ---. --- —-—.. --- —------—.. --- — Average.-.- ----—.. --- —.- --.. ---. — June 30: 1904 (6 months) 1905...,.......... — 1906 - ------------...-. _.-.1907 --------------.1908 ---1-909-.. —.. ---- --- -.-.-. —..-...-.- -.....Average ------ ----------- June 30: 1910...... --- —-----—.- --- -...... 1911 —.. --- —-----—.. --- —-.. 1912 --- —- ---- ---- -- 1913 --- —---- 1914........-.. --- —---------—. Average -------------—.. --- —----- June 30: 1915_ ------------- 1916 — ---------------- 1917 --- --------— _ --- — 1918. --- —----—.... --- —-. Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)- ----------------- Average- ------------------------------ Kilos 1,845 2,021 $122 125 Kilos 321 219 $20 16 Kilos 237 274 $20 24 Kilos 2,446 2,629 $167 174 Pounds 80,689 95,668 $1, 796 2, 123 1, 933 123 270 18 255 22 2, 537 171 76. 2 72.3 88, 178 1, 960 1, 043 58 115 10 201 17 1, 386 86 -46, 789 1, 095 2,691 154 324 27 311 26 3,543 220 ------------ 111, 320 2,595 3, 446 211 287 24 638 52 4,664 307... —...... 124, 975 2,835 2, 500 170 256 24 524 46 3, 608 260 — 123$51 3, 082 3,034 195 199 19 558 49 3,941 274 -107, 063 2,840 2,600 160 165 18 346 28 3, 481 250 ---— 92, 887 2, 184 2,784 172 245 22 469 40 3,750 254 74.3 67.9 110, 361 2,660 4,004 233 254 22 382 33 4, 967 307 ---— 120,018 2, 726 3, 164 170 490 37 952 78 4, 816 298 -.- --- - 162, 156. 3, 537 3, 235 169 217 24 590 47 4,284 253. —. ---.... 196,763 4,150 3,505 200 211 23 272 26 4, 237 263 -142,332 3,172 3,254 204 147 17 504 38 4,100 273-97,579 2,253 3,432 195 264 25 540 44 4,481 279 76.6 70.1 143,770 3,168 2,722 162 -88 9 2,998 185 -142,397 3,267 3,329 220-45 6 3,568 247 -319,776 8, 744 5, 741 553 -54 11 5,840 570 -333,432 14,208 2,104 306 -79 19 2,196 328 -284, 984 16, 433 1,268 197 -25 6 1,303 207 -------------— 103,470 6,978 3,370 319 -- ----— 65 11 3,534 342 95.3 93.5 263, 124 11,029 C) Ci 0 C) a H 1199 --- —------------------------------- 1920 --- —----------- 1921 ------------ I- 19222 Average ----- ---- ------- Dec. 31: fca 1923 _ 19234.._................................ 1925... 1926 i 3, 589 4,087 3,013 2,255 492 670 557 233 40 2 5 8 1 I 47 23 13 28 13 8 4 3 3, 676 4,323 3,039 2,356 523 726 566. 248. I " " ' I 244,012 245, 220 75,924 141, 968 15, 776 15, 522 4,484 5, 715 3,236 488 12 3 28 7 3, 348 516 96. 6 94.6 176,781 10,374 3, 698 431 19 4 122 15 4,126 495 — 122,619 6,049 2, 927 321 59 6 22 4 3, 594 425 --- — 66,193 3,540 2,683 322 206 15 182 23 4,472 482 --- —---- 42,729 2,610 42,861 285 132 12 244 23 3 730 359 -------- 44,056 2,520 42,86< ______ 1321 ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Average --- —--- 3,042 340 104 9 142 16 3,980 440 76.4 77.1 68,899 3, 680 - ------ -- — ~~~~~~~~~II iI....... _.... _ 1 Single classification for the import statistics; the export figures here shown represent three or more items combined, including cut, wire, horseshoe, and and staples; the classification included spikes to 1913. 2 Imports from Belgium amounted to $38,000 in 1909, averaged $12,000 in 1910-1914, and, in the last period, expanded from $3,200 for 1923 to $55,400 and $9 1924 and 1925, dropping off to $23,800 in 1926. 3 Quantity figures, reported in libras, have been converted to kilos. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 118,500 kilos, $10,000. all other nails, tacks, 4,400, respectively, for 316 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 190.-Tin-plate manufactures [Twenty-five per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 3.52 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent ______ ___ - _ -__of total Year ended — from United Germany Great n France All United States Britain Spn __ _ States Dec. 31: 1902...... --- --- 1903 --- —------ AverageJune 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —1905 -1906 -1907 — ----------- 1908 --------------- 1909 -Average --- —----------- June 30: 1910-. --- —----- 1911. --- —------------ 1912. --- —-------- 1913 --- —--------- 1914..-. --- —-----------—. Average. --- —-—. —. ---June 30: 1915 --- —-------- 1916 --- —------- 1917 --- —--------- 1918 ----------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) Average --- —--- Dec. 31: 1919. --- —------ 1920 --- —-------- 1921 --- —------- 1922 --- —------- Average - Dec. 31: 1923 -1924 - -------------- 1925 --- —--------- 1926... --- —------- Average. --- —---------—. I 39 39 11 16 10 12 10 8 4 4 76 82...... 39 13 119 4 79 49.8 28 9 6 4 2 50 --- 84 16 14 13 4 134. 110 15 19 17 6 170 --- - 145 18 15 11 8 200. —....... 162 25 14 12 5 222 --—. - 142 11 11 12 5 186- - 122 17 14 12 6 175 69.7 160 17 12 26 6 225.. —. 162 24 10 31 6 234 226 25 10 28 6 297 222 29 13 17 6 292.. 222 18 8 12 5 272 -198 23 10 23 6 264 75.1 216 12 6 10 3 250 246 (2) 9 7 4 267 275 --— 8 2 3 288 428 --— 4 (2) 3 435 411 --- () 1 417 -350 ---- 4 3 368 95.1 754 1 2 1 1 760 -610 2 5 4 10 631 537 6 4 3 9 559 -- 243 3 1 (2) 1 249 --- 536 3 3 2 5 550 97.5 563 23 14 1 4 608 -522 22 6 4 4 575 - - 383 22 6 4 4 427 ----- 3255 19 6 7 5 30 -30..... 431 22 I 8 3 4 -I 4 I 478 I I Ir I 90.0 Ai. 1 Single classification for the import statistics; not comparably enumerated among United States exports Less than $500. $ Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $4,000. 41 STATISTICAL TABLES 317 TABLE 191.-Fine tools1 [Twenty-five per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 4.70 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total Year ended — from 'United Great Germany rannited States Britain Germany France All Unites Dec. 31: 1902 3 —.. --- —---------- 1903 --- —------------- Average.. --- —--------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) ------------ 1905 -------------------------- -------- 1906. --- —----------------------------- 1907 —.......... --- —-. --- —. — ------- 1908_ ---------------- 1909 ---------------- Average. --- —-------- June 30: 1910 --- ------------- 1911 ---------------- 1912. --- —-------------------- 1913 ----------------- 1914 --- —------------ Average --- -----—. June 30: 1915 1916 --- —------------ 1917- -------------- 1918 --- —------------ Dec. 31: 1918 (6 months)Average ------------------- —.Dec. 31: 1919 - ----------------- 1920 ------------------ 1921 ---------------- 1922. --- —------------ Average -------------- Dec. 31: 1923 ---------------- 1924-. 1925 ----------------------------------- 1926 --------------------------- Average -. --- —---------------- ---- 1i05 "'"i 4 -"- -- - - T "I 4 6 'L - - - -: --- —= --- —. ---: — '- -- ----- 71.6 52 6 6 3 68 --- —126 17 20 21 201- -_... 213 21 27 11 276. 187 21 27 12 250 -- 157 16 28 8 212 115 13 12 7 148 -155 17 22 11 210 73.7 176 13 17 5 214 ---196 18 18 10 250 --- — 204 17 17 5 248 --- —194 14 17 5 234 201 18 14 11 249 194 16 16 7 239 81.3 158 8 3 3 175 236 10 2 249 --- —373 8! --- — 1 3865 447 11 — 1 -— 460 ------ 212 12 1 225 317 11 ---— 2 332 95.4 656 20 1 679 --- —866 21 19 3 913 --- —602 6 50 7 668 144 9 19 2 177 567 14 22 3 609 93.1 497 14 42 6 662 457 11 60 8 54 --- — 461 20 79 10 575 ---- 3 246 9 34 4 308 --- 415 13 54 7 497 83.5 Not separately enumerated in the statistics of United States exports. 2 Not separately enumerated. The figures under the classification "Fine tools and surgical instruments"' are (in thousands of dollars) as follows: United States 20, Germany 13, France 15, England 12, all 60; th e United States supplying 33.4 per cent of the total value. ] Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $6,400. 318 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 192.-Miscellaneous manufacures of cast iron 1 [Twenty-five per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 4.61 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Year ended United States Great Britain Germany Per cent of total from United States I.. -. Austria All Dec. 31: 1902 --- — ------- 1903 --- —--- Average --------------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —------ 1905 ---- ----------- 1906 -----— _ --- ----------- 1907 ------ 1908 --- —---- 1909 --- —--- ----- --------------------- Average -----------------.. --- —-- June 30: 1910 -1911 --- ---------------------- 1912_ --- —-------------------- 1913-, --- — --------------------- 1914-.. ----,. --- —------------ -----—. Average ----------------------—, ---June 30: 1915. --- —------- -- - ---- --- 1916. --- —------- 1917. --- —---------------—.- --.. — 1918. --- —---------- ---- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) -------—..-..-.... Average. ---------. --- — Dec. 31: 1919 -----------------—. --- — 1920... ----.... --- —------------------ 1921..-..... — 1922 -—.. ---......-.. —......... --- Average ------ Dec. 31: 1923 -—...............................1924.....-....................-........ 1925- —.............. ' 1926 —..-.......................... Average-.....-.-............... --- 75 98 26 41 18 16 (2) 5 126 161 86 34 17 ---— 44 60. 1 49 26 5 6 90 81 101 14 17 220 121 113 24 43 308 151 46 17 23 275 176 58 10 11 259 116 54 4 17 194 126 72 13 21 245 51.6 143 81 8 10 245 185 84 8 16 298 208 61 5 13 290 241 72 6 11 331 209 57 7 19 298 197 71 7 14 292 67.5 204 56 2 3 265 312 65 (3) 426 496 115 ---- 612 604 110 --— 718 232 36 -— 267 ------- 411 85 ------ 508 80.8 577 54 -- -- 632 1,093 180 (3) --- -- 1, 276 --- — 1,312 41 2 4 1,362 - 402 40 2 - - 455 846 79 ---— 931 90.9 t ~~7.-. = v# = —..~ __ 91. --- 714 751 640 4 558 666 138 111 87 51 97 14 2 10 3 19 25 27 - 883 889 860 665 824 17 8 80.8 __ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I Single classification fpr the import statistics; not comparably enumerated among United States exports. 2 Not separately enumerated. The figure in the classification "Other European countries" (exclusive also of small amounts from France and Spain) is $6,000. ' Less than $500. Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $10,500. STATISTICAL TABLES 319 TABLE 193.-M iscellaneous manufactures of iron and steel 1 [Twenty-five per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 6.97 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Year ended Per cent of total from United States United Great GerStates Britain many France 52 48 Belgium Total United States domestic exports All Dec. 31: 1902 ---- -- 1903- ----- Average_- -- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- 1905 --------- 1906 — --------- 1907., --- —1.908 --- -------- 1909 --- —----------------- AverageJune 30: 1910 --------- -------- ----- 1911 --- —------------ 1912_ --- —----- ------------- 1913 --- —-------------------- 1914 --- —------------------- Average_ --- —--------------- June 30: 1915_ ---- ----------- --- 1916 --- —------------------- 1917_ --- — -------- 1918 ---- ---------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) Average- --- Dec. 31: 1919_ ---- ---------------- 1920_ --- —--------- 1921_ --- —-------------- 1922 ----------------- Average --- — ----- Dec. 31: 1923 --- — -------- 1924_ --- —1925 ---------------- 1926 ----- Average ------ 687 347 304 230 406 145 (2) 52 1, 515 843 18,999 16, 997 517 267 275 50 --- —- 1, 179 43. 8 17,998 198 126 106 30 54 519 -11,217 692 302 178 68 45 1,300 -— 26,874 1,821 466 171 80 119 2,695 --- 29,591 1,227 342 188 71 102 1,966 30,173 1,164 333 199 69 23 1,810 — 30,335 824 207 121 45 31 1, 244 ------- 26,790 1,078 323 175 66 68 1.733 62.2 28, 178 952 299 205 65 82 1,622 - - 25, 470 1,009 354 183 51 36 1,653 -- 30, 692 1,170 357 220 73 42 1,880 --— 30, 215 1, 176 337 215 65 42 1,851 — 26,380 1, 176 248 139 48 56 1, 732 — 24, 263 1,096 319 192 60 52 1, 748 62. 7 27, 404 880 146 58 18 9 1,151 9, 945 2, 186 191 3 42 ------- 2, 448 -------- 15, 729 3,838 2411 (3) 25 — 4, 128 - 20,436 4,534 173 —.. 26 — 4,748 --- —---- 59,265 2,405 64 4 — 2,476 ---48,763 3, 076 181 ------ 25 --- 3,322 92.6 34,253 5,748 214 7 10 - - 6,007 ------- 74,548 9, 184 472 120 43 4 9 867 ---- 87,187 6,438 222 430 54 17 7, 219 — 50,183 1, 543 46 122 16 7 1,747-24,446 5,728 238 170 31 7 6,210 92.2 59,091....,...._ -- -: - - i I -- 4,328 239 454 51 4 5, 148 ---— 30,731 4,540 195 426 79 52 5,366 -— 33,778 4,520 210 398 54 91 5, 346 -— 53,013 42,738 147 344 64 169 3,612 ------- 41,417 _.. i.....'..t......1i....._ 4,032 198 406 62 79 4, 868 82.8 39, 735 1 Single classification for the import statistics, including steel rails prior to 1910; the export figures combine not a few items variously enumerated from year to year, including builders' hardware, enamel ware, metal furniture, and other manufactures properly assimilable here. 2 Not separately enumerated. The figure in the classification "Other European countries" (exclusive also of Spain) is $55,600. 3 Less than $500. ' Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $82,600. 320 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 194.-Plated ware I [Thirty per cent reduction equivalent in 1905 to 9.78 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into er cent Total Cuba Per cent Total of total United Year ended- - from States Uni~ted C~eman FrnceUnited domestic |States GermanyE France |All States exports _... Dec. 31: 1902 --- —-- 1903 Average ---- June 30: 1904 (6 months) 1905 --- —- --- 1906 -- 1907 --- —------------ 1908 ---- --- ---- 1909..-............. Average. --- — ----- -- -- June 30: 1910- -- 1911. --- —--- 1912 ------------------------- 1913 — --- 1914 --- --------- Average ---------- June 30: 1915 - 1916 - - - 1917 --------------- 1918 ------------ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) — Average. --- ------—,- - Dec. 31: 1919 --- 1920-.. --- —-. ----- 1921 --- —------------- 1922_ --- —---------- Average --------- Dec. 31: 1923 ------ 1924 — ------------- 1925 --- —----------- 1926 ----------------- Average ---.......................-.. 52 70 15 21 16 20 92 120 681 666 61 18 18 106 57.8 674 37 12 11 62 -329 107 32 27 180 -704 110 40 39 206 842 85 38 32 166 837 88 33 29 165 727 63 24 19 115 646 89 32 28 163 54.8 743 54 30 20 113 818 67 38 31 144 956 67 38 26 140 1,038 76 49 30 165 — 1,102 76 45 47 180 - 899 68 40 31 148 46.0 961 89 16 10 130 -624 179 1 20 209 -1,162 291 -27 334 — 2,207 452 (2) 11 473 2, 867 175 6 186 1,381 264 16 296 89. 0 1,831 530 (2) 19 567 -— 5, 157 548 40 15 632 7,338 336 54 20 434 2,709 92 30 18 144 -— 1,174 376 31 18 444 84.8 4,094 174 96 24 315 - - 1,369 131 86 18 248 -1,917 86 93 39 236 --— 1,999 397 93 69 301 — 1,941 * - 1,. 122 92 37 275 44. 3 i Single classification for the import statistics, and for the statistics of United States exports from 1902 to 1916; beginning with 1917 the export figures combine 2 or more items; beginning with 1914, the exports are classified "Plated ware, except cutlery and jewelry." 2 Less than $500. E Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $1,800. *f4 II TABLE 195.-Candles [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 6.20 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Co. to% Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total from United States Year ended- United States Spain Belgium All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Total United State domestic exports Quantity Value Dec. 31: 1902-. --- --------- 1903. --- —-------- -- ------------ Average ---------------. ---, --- —---—..-.-.. June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —------------.. ----...... --- - - 1905_-_ — --------------- ------ ----- 1906 --------------- 1907 ------------------—... --- —------- 1908 -.................... --- —. --- —......... 1909. —. --- —-------------—.. ---..-.-. Average.- -—.- ------— __ - -_ June 30: 1910 —. - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - 1911 — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1912 --- —----------------------------------- 1913.. --- -----...........-..........-..1913 -1914. - ---------- Average --—, --- —-----— _.- ----------- June 30: 19165_. ------------ 1916., ----------- ----—, --- 1917. ----. —... 1918. — - - - - - - - - - - - - — _- — _. - - Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). ------- kz I 7 - Libras 2 301 394 $28 36 Libras 1,365 1, 427 $191 170 Libras (3) 372 (3) $32 Libras 2,268 2,389 $272 257 Pounds 4,292 6,113 $383 504 348.1 32 1,396 180 ------------------- 2,329 264 14.9 12.21 5,202 444 544 49 343 31 102 9 1,031 91 -.. --- -.. ------ 3,697 304 1,100 105 1,220 112 310 24 2,685 246 ---—.. --- —-. 8,794 701 1,073 97 918 78 94 7 2, 120 186 ----- ----- - 7,973 609 1, 552 159 882 86 173 16 2,673 267 ----— 5,204 473 1, 777 191 433 44 113 13 2, 445 261 --------— 3,695 366 1, 425 134 637 65 92 9 2,236 216 ---------- ---- 3, 694 353 1,358 134 806 76 161 14 2,398 231 56.6 57.9 6,010 510 1,205 105 784 85 ----- ---— 2,138 205 ----------- 3,216 295 1,369 123 688 69 ------------------- 2,190 204 - ---— 3,194 291 1,272 114 618 67 ------- ---- 2,103 199 -2,782 255 777 71 714 71 I ----, ------ 1,651 156 -------- 2,596 246 807 72 745 86 ------------— 1,730 174 -— 3, 048 283 1,086 97 710 75-1,962 188 55.3 51.7 2,967 274 986 85 779 105, --- —-—, ---- 1, 939 205 ----— 4, 230 417 962 84 558 75 ---- - --- 1,609 168 --- ------ 6,121 -576 1,516 170 348 45 - ----- ----- 1,926 223 -------- 6, 577 749 1,479 252 6 2 --- —----- 1,492 255 ---- J -------- 5,530 901 371 76 ------------------------— 371 76 -- ---- 3,775 774 1,181 148 376 50 --------- 1,630 206 72.4 7. 9 5, 830 759 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. -_l _~_ =~.~~_:_:_~~ —_~.~: I:-~, _ ci CIn 0;p0 1-4 0 1-3 1-3 c33 H4 Average ------------. — ---— _- ------------ Dec. 31: 1919 --- —---------------- ------- ----- 19210 --- —- ------------------ ------- 1921 --------------------------------------- 1%2 --- —-- ---------------- -------------- Aver e --------------------------------- Dec. 31: 19*28 ---- ------- ----- ------ IA IL ---------------- - - - - ------------- 19 -—. --- —-- -- -- --------. --- —-- ------- ------- 19 4 —26t, --- ---—, ---- --------------- A vera gee --- —--------------------------------- I 713 1,534 393 1,061 139 302 74 90 2 17 50 1 3 10 II 737 1,573 457 1,139 144 309 85 104 I:::: i ~ --- —— r-~ ----I --- — - - 8, 563 7,003 1,796 2, 645 1,737 1,408 340 329 --- -- - - --- ---------- ----- ---— i -- --- 925 151 17 3 --------- ------ 977 161 94.7 94.3 5,002 954 544 64 40 6 ----- ---- 627 77 --------- 1, 895 277 267 28 28 5 --—, --- —- 309 35 ----— j --- —- 1,385 224 210 23 17 4 --------- 236 28 1,384 252 104 10 40 8 -- ------- 157 21 ---— 1,253 255 281 31 31 6 ---- --------- 332 40 84. 7 78. 1 1,479 252 1 After 1909, shipments from Belgium practically ceased. 2 The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. 8 Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classifiection "Other European countries" (exclusive also of England, France, and Germany) are 194,700 ' Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to libras. libras, $15,400. TABLE 196.-Glycerin, olein, and stearin (crude) 1 [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 1.65 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] I' -- - - - - Year ended i I I. I United States Countries from which imported into Cuba Germany I Quantity II Value Quantity Value I Quantity I Belgium Great Britain All i Per cent of total from United States Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value =1 Doe. 31: 1902 k-... ----.. --- —------—.. —. --- —-- 1903 -- ----- Average. —. — -----------. June 30: 1904 (6 months). --- —----------- 1905. --- —-------------- ---- 1906-. --- —-- ------------- 1907...-...........-............................. 1908. -------- -------- 1909.............................................. Average -. --- ——.-. —,- -------—, June30: 1910. ------ —.............. 1911. —. ---- ----- 1912-......- --- —........... -—.....- -----—...... 1913 --------—. — 1914. --- —----------------- Average. --- —--------------------- June 30: 19-15-..- ----- ---------- -19186. --- —- -------------- I917. ---------—. --- —--------------—. 1918_ —. --- —----------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). --- ——. ---- -------- Libras 2 194 Libras 54 Libras I " "i Libras 23 $20O Libras 310 iI $6 (4) $2 "" $3o " ' "' - I ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- ------- - - - - ------- 62.5 64.5 71 7 28 3 -, ---,_ --- -- 20 2 131 13 244 19 78 7 25 $2 29 3 392 33 246 21 56 5 13 1 58 5 387 34 265 32 60 6 10 1 65 6 410 46 ----— f — --- -- 278 31 54 6 69 8 30 3 454 51 180 17 98 10 70 8 19 2 433 43 283 23 68 7 34 4 40 4 401 40 58.1 57.9 228 21 106 11 49 4 31 4 449 46 396 45 135 16 83 8 24 3 648 73 505 52 58 7 165 15 17 2 800 81 666 73 20 2 189 19 1 (4) 907 98 767 81 31 3 166 17 1 (4) 1,005 116 512 54 70 8{ 130 13 15 2 762 83 67.3 65.8 1,309 138 11 1 20 2 (5) (4) 1,346 142 --------- 2,067 232 --- ----- ------ - 2,073 232 2,550 354 ---------------—....... 2,550 354 2,843 577 ----- 8 --- —--------— 2846 577 582 138 -582 138..- I ----. — 4 2,078 320 ------------------------- - 2, 088 321 99.5 99. 7 0 ci CI w 0 '.4 '. 4 H B N Hp '.1 Average ---------------- E Dec. 31: 1919 _ 1920 —, --- —-... ---..-...-............. 1922..................... 19221. - --- - - - -_ - - - -- - ---- - - ------- - ---------- Dec. 31:: 13ee~b3It^ - --,~ —^- -- - -- 1923.......... 1924 1925.-.-. --- ---- -.-..-.-..-........1 -_- ----- -....... -—.... - Average,-___. --- —.. - ----- 1,820 1,587 1,367 1,704 424 ------- 355 ------ 230 1 183 -- 11 - - - - - - r - 8 ---i — --- 1 8 (4) 1,820 1, 595 1,386 1,706 424 356 231 183 -- - -- - 1,620 298 - -,,627 299 99.6 99.7 2, 138 238 -- -- ---— 39 6 2,465 271 3, 350 338 (6) (4) 106 6 65 8 3,526 352 2,892 348 18 2 528 27 72 10 3, 642 403 2,395 275 5 1 412 68 119 25 3, 148 396 __.._......__................................._.._.._........... _- --.- -—.-.... —. —. _. -..-.-..-... 2,694 300 6 1 262 25 74 12 3,196 356 84.3 84.3.- -- - I -- - - t I --- I I I I I I I Not comparably enumerated among United States domestic exports. 2 The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. 3 Not separately enumerated. Less than $500. a Less than 500 libras. 6 Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to libras. 0-;N9 -s. 0 ~-al 9 bo Ca TABLE 197.-Colors of metallic base 1 fThirty per cent reduction, equivalent in 1905 to 8.73 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Year ended- United States Great Britain France Germany Belgium All Quantity Value Quantity Value quantity Value QuQuantity Vlue Quantity Value Quantity Value __________________________________________ Per cent of total from United States Quantity Value K489os 489 Kilos 731 Dee. 31, 1903 ------- Average.. --- —------------ June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —1905 --- —------ 1906 — ------- 1907 -. ----. --- 1908.. --- ----- 1909-. --- —-- Average --- —-- June 30: 1910. ---- --- 191 — 11 1912........................ 1913- -......... 1914-......-.-.-.. Average.-... -. —.-.... — tune 30: 1916 --- —----- 1917 --- —------ 1918 -------------- Dee. 31.1918 (6 months) $92 s98 Kilos 263 Kilos 48 $19 $7 Kilos 47 $4 Kilos 1,645 $229 I --- -_ -------------------------- — I- --- -- 29..7 40.4 184 38 527 70 77 6 24 4 43 3 871 122- -. 674 113 764 100 178 13 79 10 63 5 1,791 246. --- —---- 967 172 996 140 168 13 118 14 110 9 2,390 353 1,056 187 1,033 156 189 16 118 20 99 9 2,513 391 - ------- 901 168 862 127 217 18 122 16 113 12 2,234 344. 955 181 903 132 226 18 106 18 81 8 2,295 359 -.-...-. 861 156 925 132 192 15 103 15 92 9 2, 199 330 39.2 47. 3 1,364 255 1, 099 148 190 15 106 13 203 16 2,996 450.......... 1,645 314 905 156 114 12 135 20 267 20 3,108 526.................... 1,858 299 I, 139 196 99 9 69 11 262 18 8,254 538 --- —------------ 2, 100 387 1,176 213 117 10 71 11 256 17 3, 766 645 6. — --- ----- 2,199 378 985 178 85 10 80 11 478 &7 3, 883 622 ---........-.....1, 793 327 1,061 178 121 11 92 13 293 22 3,401 556 52. 7 58.7 2,215 384 773 141 22 3 17 50 5 3,144 547..... 3,717 708 452 l1l 20 4 ------------------------ 4,287 837 3,984 905 411 113 3 1 4,507 1,042 ---- ------ 4, 985 1,303 114 42 1 (3) ---------------- 5,132 1,352 -2, 819 755 9 3 3 ()4) () -....-......- ---- - 2, 835 760.... 2,819 755 _|991 102 --- —---- ------------ --- ------ -----— 89. 89. 3,938 9011 391 91 10 4,423 100 89. 89.4 '4 42 3 1,00 8 89. 0 89 4_______ a w 104 t Q4 Average-.- --------- -STATSTICAL TABLES 327 TABLE 198.-Ordinary salt [T'hirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905 to 45.10 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total from United Year ended- United States Spain Great Britain Germany All States Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value _ _,,,......... — ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~Vlu Total United States domestic exports Quantity Value Dec. 31: 1902 ------------ 1903 --- —------- Average --- —---- June 30: 1904 (6 months)1905 - 1906 -1907 --- —-------- 1908 --- —------- 1909 --- —-------- Average ------- June 30: 1910 --- —------ 1911 --- —------ 1912 --- —------ 1913 --- —---- 914 --- —-------- Average --- —------------ June 30: 1915 ------------ 1916 -1917 --- —------- 1918- _ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) I* 1 Libras 3 163 475 $1 1 Libras 37,152 28,718 $59 54 Libras 1, 182 4,278 $4 11 Libras 1, 730 3,061 $12 9 Libras 40,468 37,602 $76 86 Pounds 10, 189 25,500 $55 96 319 1 32,935 57 2,730 7 2,396 10 39,035 81 o. 8 1.1 17,844 76 836 3 8,118 16 1, 295 4 177 1 10,434 23 ----- ---- 12, 046 50 15, 207 53 12, 850 22 1,620 7 421 2 31,557 86 -50,886 190 31, 350 100 4,800 10 786 3 560 2 37,499 115 -72,059 281 39,310 93 3,099 4 529 3 () () 42, 939 100 -64, 053 236 35, 972 124 916 2 588 3 243 1 37, 908 130 -52,107 200 36,707 138 727 1 632 3 1 (5) 38, 650 143 ---------- 66,474 238 28,979 93 5,547 10 991 4 255 1 36,179 109 80.1 85.3 57,750 217 39,345 154 9, 153 12 509 3 () (5) 49,224 169 - -83, 817 286 35, 554 161 4, 940 6 515 4 23 (5) 42,680 175 — 102, 033 329 43,156 201 3, 782 7 670 4 66 (5) 47,758 212 ----- -11, 009 383 39,656 175 3,372 6 1,670 7 33 (5) 46, 034 190 ----- --------- 128,036 442 39,000 177 1,424 2 572 6 100 1 45,439 194 ----- - -I149, 123 543 39,342 174 4, 534 6 787 5 44 (5) 46,227 188 85.1 92.2 114,804 397 44, 158 202 25 (5)526 4 33 (5) 46, 285 210 ------ -165, 619 616 51, 407 236 12 (5) 335 5 - - - 52, 294 241 ----- ---— _ 165,638 601 41, 031 230 ---— 55 2 -------- 42,369 235 -— 194,151 727 59,100 472 -- -------- 423 4 ----- --- 63,138 491 --------- 267,046 1,417 30, 586 342 -- --- — 6, 807 109 ----- -- — 43,578 485 --------- - 130, 817 829 50,285 329 8 (5) 1,810 28 ---------------- 55, 037 370 91.4 89.1 205,171 931 0 ci z t4 0 tI '1 -P-1 Average ----------- Dec. 31: 1919 --- —--------- 1920 ---- --- 1921 --- —--- 1922 Average --- —------------ Dec. 31: 1923 --------------------- 1924 ------------------ 1925 -------------------- 1926 68... —. —. —. —.. Average --------- 46,441 59, 783 36, 065 41,388 473 640 372 330 807 2,047 229 --- — I 2 12 1 102 79 28 238 5 3 2 3 1, 334 9,355 5,639 117 58 32 49,844 74, 108 49, 528 50, 504 509 670 449 379 l - - - - - - I — - - - 238,832 278,544 219, 126 269,978 1, 397 1,902 1, 415 1, 429 45,920 454 771 4 112 3 6,582 52 55,996 502 82.0 90.4 251,620 1,536 37,743 285 62 2 110 2 13,062 O4 52,504 351 ---- -- --- 251,057 1,211 46,284 294 204 2 68 2 2,166 13 53, 057 329 -- ---------- 289, 889 1, 288 59,748 314 4 () 62 2 1,496 4 61,686 322 --------- 310,159 1,220 63,429 356 25 1 35 2 86 2 64,839 365 - ------ --- 317,816 1,278...,. __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _._ __ _.__ _ ____ _ _.._ __ _ ___.. __ __ _._ __ _.__ _ I___ _.. __ __ _ _.__ _. __ _.__ _ _.__ ___ __ _.__ _ _.._ __ _ _.__ _ __ __ _.. __ __ _._ __ _... _ __ __ __ _ ____i 51,801 312 74 1I 69 2 4, 202 18 58,022 342 89.3 91.4 292, 230 1,249 1 Cuban imports classified in 1902 as common salt; thereafter, under 2 items, as salt in grain and ground. 2 Imports from Holland in 1903 were 494,500 libras, $9,200 (compare figures for the United States), after which the largest figure is $5,200 for the second semest< 3 The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. 4 Less than 500 libras. 5 Less than $500. 6 Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to libras. er of 1918. w CD H i3 m H 0 H M3 _w J t-I t — m1 oD 330 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 199.-Miscellaneous salts I [Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 6.45 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba s Per cent __.__._ -' ---—.- -'-''-'-'- ___,_,_,_ of total Year ended- from United Great United States Britain Gemany Belgium taly A States * | Ii - jzzSt.a..s Dee. 31: 1902 --- —------- 1903 --- —Average ------ June 30: 1904 (6 months), --- —--- 1906 ---- 1906 ------------ 1907_ --- __ ---1909- --------- AverageJune 30: 1910 --- —------ 191 1 — _ -- 1912 - ---- 1913 --- — ------- 1914 --- —Average.. --- —June 30: 1915 - 1916. --- —-- ----- 1917 --- — --- 1918_ ---- - Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) Average Dec. 31: 1919. 1920 -1921 1922 -Average. ---- Dec. 31: 1923 ----- 1924 1925 --- —-- 1926 --- — I v I.1 I - - - - - - -I 1 16 - - - - - -I- - - - - - - -i22-1 ------- 2i-i --- 13 1 --- —--- 4-i -------- Wl ---------- I I f ----— I --- — ------ —.-I ---. ----. 28. 14 15 8 2 2 42 - 22 24 11 4 6 72 - 27 38 14 3 7 96 41 37 21 2 11 122 -- 54 70 29 7 9 175 53 54 12 4 4 129 --- 38 43 17 4 7 116 33.1 87 55 25 4 13 190 76 49 49 16 18 215 216 172 16 6 22 438 287 298 14 19 22 646 - 420 406 22 73 21 952 217 196 25 24 19 488 44.5 910 584 16 51 26 1,719 -2,355 528 -- — 25 2, 920 3, 061 257 -29 3, 632 3, 768 8 -45 4, 348 444 2 — 14 1,095 2,342 306 -31 3,048 76. 3, 829 9 ------------- 5, 129 5,762 267 -- 29 6, 281 2,862 19 7 (4) 54 2,992 357 14 2 (4) 3 532 3,202 77 2 ( 22 3,733 85.8 1, 727 22 108 56 7 2, 005 2, 205 18 413 45 6 2,856. 1 0069 807 264 6 2,232 1704 17 48 6 9 804 - 1....,. 11 I Average — --- 1,411 J 17 344 93 7 l 1,974 71.5 I I I 1 Single classification for the import statistics; apparently, nitrates, phosphates, and the like were reported under 'Miscellaneous chemicals" until 1909, after that, under the new item "Chemical fertilizers." Not comparably classified among United States exports. 2 Without any earlier figures recorded, imports from Chile in 1915 were $123,000, dropped to $2,500 in 1916, and loomed up large for several years, averaging $349,400 for the 4A years, 1915-1918, and amounting to $1,210,600 in 1919. But no imports are shown for 1920 and 1921; in 1922 they were$150,400; 1924, $148,400; and in 10926; $5,400. sNot separately enumerated. See the 1902 figures for "Miscellaneous chemicals," Table 202, and consult footnote 2 of that table. Less than $500. Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $9,900. 00O8-29 ---22 TABLE 200.-Acids1 (Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 3.23 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per ce, from Year ended- United States Germany I Great Britain France Italy All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quanti nat of total Total United United tates States domestic au --- — exports, ty Value value Dec. 31: 1902 --- —---------- 1903 --- —---------- Average ----------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —--- - 105 --- —---------- 19065 — --------- 1907 ------------ 1908 - ----------- 1909 --- —----------- AverageJune 30: 1910 -- ------ ----- 1911 --- —-------- 1912 --- —-------- 1913 -------------- 1914 --- —--------- Average ----------- June 30: 1915 ------------ 1916 --- —-------- 1917 --- ------- -- 1918 -Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)Average Kilos 1,331 1,645 $50 60 Kilos 42 58 $10 14 Kilos 26 28 $6 7 Kilos 9 13 - $1 4 Kilos (2) 7 (2) $2 Kilos 1,421 1,757 $71 88 $242 230 CO CO (c td W,. 144 1,488 55 50 12 27 7 11 2 ------—, 1,589 80 93. 7. 236 1,089 40 26 153 15 2 1 2 l 1,4 46 ----122 2,1631 70 37 5 23 6 15 5 4 (3) 2,246 85 325 2,330 74 51 7 36 5 31 7 12 2 2,481 97 314 1,526 78 065 10 27 7 19 4 7 2 1, 678 104 ------ 368 2,027 74 84 15 51 11 37 6 3 1 2,233 110 --— 328 2,294 83 91 14 34 8 22 8 36 4 2,510 118 ------- -382 2,078 76 64 10 34 7 23 5 11 2 2,233 102 93.0 74.7 334 3,143 116 84 13 51 11 16 4 36 4 3,395 155 ----------— 466 1,807 80 109 13 41 11 18s 5 27 4 2,074 119 --- —- ---- 381 2,278 94 165 15 67 17 16 5 34 4 2,671 152 ----- 436 3,134 126 54 10 53 12 15 6 34 5 3,454 173 — _______ -454 4,063 167 113 14 44 13 2 1 13 2 4,385 214 --- —483 2,885 116 105 13 51 13 13 4 29 4 3,196 162 90.3 71.7 444 4,334 195 60 7 20 5 5 1 2 2 4,448 214 ------ -3,128 5,198 311 --- —---— 17 6 4 1 --- ------ 5,252 321 ------- 24,708 4,765 300 --- —------ 32 6 16 14 --- —-- ---,836 308 ------ -- 55,687 547 398 ------- 3 2 4 6 4 5 4,559 44 4 --- —--— 45034 1,581 157 ------- -2 1 ----- --— 13 5 1,588 163 -------- 11, 1 4, 539 302 ------ ------— 1 17 5 7 2 2 3 4, 596 316 98.8 95.9 31,056 Dec. 31: 1919 ------------ ------- 4,6 531 6510 | --! 4 2 1 i (a) 2 3 4, 542 517 Io --.....-....... ----- 45 77 531 ( 63 20 1 () 10 6 4,652 559 -1921s --- -4, 260 409 6 4 21 5 3 1 13 2 312 427 1922 ----- --— 4,765 234 24 1 27 3 ---— 2 6 4 822 246 I --- —--- 246 (a) xo ~~52 546 5, 543. ---- 6,743 -.-..- 1, 553 - ----.1, 470 _. Average ------ Dec. 31: 1923_ --------- 1924. ---------— _1925 --- —--------- 1926 ----------- I4,533 421 8 1 29 8 I 7 4 44,582 437 98.9 96.3| 3,827 4, 902 264 44 12 10 2 -------- 32 5 4,998 285 ------— 070 5,210 263 23 7 8 2 2 (3) 18 7 5,331 288 -— 967 5,449 279 38 10 8 3 9 1 24 3 5,586 308 -- ------ 981 5,10 294 39 8 9 2 -------- -46 18 5,659 328 ------------------ 1,005 Average -5 --- —— 268 27 36 9 9 2 3 (3) 30 8 5, 394 302 97 1 Single classification for the import statistics; but it is evident, especially from the figures for pre-war years, that the imports from the United States European countries in kind or in quality and in unit value. Single classification for the statistics of United States exports, 1902-1908, beginning with 1909 or more items, including acetic, boric, carbolic, nitric, picric, sulphuric, and all other acids; quantity figures not available or not comparable prior to 1922. J Not separately enumerated. a Less than $500. Less than 500 kios. \ 7 91.0 1,006 differ from those from the figures combine 2 H C3 H ia Ct3 334 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 201.-Miscellaneous simple drugs 1 [Thirty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 4.74 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent - ___________........ I o rof to tal Year ended- from United United States Spain Germany France Italy All Unitated * __ _ -- - ----- - -- - - — V I. - I....... 1*1 z --- _ Dec. 31: 1902 --- —-- 1903_ Average - June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- 1905 ------------ 1906 --- —--- 1907 ----- 1908 - 1909 - Averat,June 30: 1910 - 1911 --- —------ 1912 - 1913 --- —-------- 1914 Average --- —-------- June 30: 1915 —. --- —---------- 1Q16 --- —---- 117 I1 17 -- --------------- 1918 -------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). AverageDec. 31: 191q. 1920 ------------------------ 1920. 1921 --- —-------- 1922 - Average ---- Dec. 31: 1923 ------------- 1924 --- —------ 1925 --------------- 1926 -- ---------- Average 19 35 18 48 7 23 3 3 (5) 2 59 124 - - --- - 27 33 154 — 92 29.3 28 23 16 2 4 77 58 38 34 9 9 158 108 37 38 10 10 219 97 56 32 11 10 314 88 61 27 13 10 219 84 44 25 9 11 182 -84 47 31 10 10 212 39.7 84 51 50 14 14 228 92 55 20 17 10 230 117 70 78 6 33 328 -67 77 157 6 15 345 69 67 40 5 14 227 86 64 69 10 17 272 31.6 88 79 2 4 15 225 -100 41 (4) (4) 3 157 79 55 --- —- 1 144 --- — 148 17 --- (4) ) 178 - - 87 5 --- —--- (4) i --- — 96. --- 111 44 --- —- 1 4 178 62 7 290 35 -- ---— (4) 349 ----- 746 91 (4) (4) 1 911 161 29 () --— 1 2 207 ---- 128 19I (4) 1 --- — 172 --- -- 331 44 (4) J --- _. 1 410 80.9 186 41 11 ()2 297 --------- 201 35 8 3 307 --- —-- 87 34 5 2 178 --- —246 35 7 6 3 421 180 36 8 3 21 301 59.8 1 Single classification for the import statistics; not comparably classified among United States exports. 2 Imports from Argentina developed during the last two periods, averaging respectively $12,200 and $51,300, and amounting to $75,200 in 1926. 8 Not separately enumerated. The figure in the classification "Other European countries" (exclusive also of England) is $6,800. 4 Less than $500. ' Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $11,200. STATISTICAL TABLES 335 TABLE 202.-Miscellaneous chemicals I IThirty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 5.24 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Year ended United States France Germany Great Britain 83 11 All Per cent of total from United States Italy Dec. 31: 1902 2 ---------—... --- —-- - 1903 —.. --- —------------- Average --- —------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) —.-_- -- 1905 --- —-------:1906 - --------- _ 1907 --- —---------------- 1908..~...... ---- ------—.1909_1 Average --- —----------- June 30: 1910-... --- —-------- 1911 —__.-.. --- —-—..-. 1912-....... --- —--—.-.. — 1913- -— _-__ _ - - -- -- 1914 --- -- ---- - ------ Average --- —------— _ - June 30: 1915 1916 ----- --- --- ------ -- - 1917 --- —------------- 1918 --- —-------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months)..... Average. --- —------ Dec. 31: 1919 --- —----- -- -- 1920_ --- —--- ---------- 1921 -, — --—, --- — 1922_ -- ----------- - Average... --- —---------- Dec. 31: 1923 --- —------------ 1924 ---.. —...-........ —.1925_ --- —----------------- 1926_ ------------------ 1S5 32 53 27 34 27 (3) 5 378 107 ( -) -------- ---------- --------- ---- --- 30.2 (2)-p 30. 2 112 214 6 2 48 -------- 68 25 23 10 5 132 75 32 28 12 10 158 95 33 29 11 13 184 ------- 146 20 25 12 17 222 ---- 123 25 349 9 201 95 27 28 11 10 172 55.1 94 25 25 10 14 172 83 31 28 11 14 170 ---- 105 29 24 8 12 185 127 32 19 12 12 211 ------- 143 23 23 7 6 212 -------- 110 28 24 10 12 190 58.1 160 20 12 9 S- 221 204 22 (5 9 243 --------- 264 6 --— 0 286 526 10 --- —-— 5 8 554 --------- 220 13 ---- 5 244 305 16 ------— 6 9 344 88.8 742 20 (4) 9 12 788 629 24 20 3 9 697 - ----- 376 12 20 14 18 449 203 10 20 6 5 246 --------- 487 16 15 8 11 545 89. 4 F i - 407 376 445 5 537 12 23 29 15 20 68 45 43 10 17 16 12 6 15 490 504 556 656 551 80. 0 Average --- —--------- 441 39 11 8 1 Single classification for the import statistics; apparently, nitrates, phosphates, and the like were reported under this item until 1909, after that, under the new classification "Chemical fertilizers." Not comparably classified among United States exports. 2 There were fewer separate classifications in the chemical schedule in 1902, making the figures in this basket item larger (see, for example, the table for "Miscellaneous salts" with no figures enumerated for 1902), but not strictly comparable wit h the figures for 1903. For this reason, no average values are shown for the prereciprocity period, and the percentage indicated for the United States has been calculated on the figures of 1903 only. Of the larger total value for 1902, the United States supplied 48.8 per cent. Not separately enumerated. The figure in the classification" Other European countries" (exclusive also.of small amounts from Spain) is $14,000. 4Less than $500. 5 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $1,200. 336 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 203.-Patent medicines [Thirty per cent reduction equivalent in 1905 to 3.90 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent Total __of total United Year ended- from States United Fra Great [ United Frnce Great Italy Ger- All United domestic States ane Britain ay many Al States exports Stte - - anc Bian Dec. 31: 1902. 1903. --- —--------- Average ---June 30: 1904 (6 months) ---1905 --- —------- 1906 --- —--------- 1907.. -------- 1908 - 1909 ------------ Average --- —----- June 30: 1910 — 1911 ----------- 1912_ 1913........... 1914 -Average --- —---- June 30: 1915 — --------- 1916 --- —------- 1917 ---------- 1918 --- -------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) Average ---Dec. 31: 1919 --- —---------- 1920 --- 1921 ---- 1922.... --- —-------- Average ----- Dec. 31: 1923 -..~ — ---. — 1924 -- ----- 1925-...... 1926 ----- Average — ------------ 62 201 8 4 1 284 ----- 3, 168 3, 555 --- ---—.i ---- ---- ------- --— 21. 8 3,362 44 155 8 1 1 209 --- — 2,113 108 138 7 1 8 264 - - 4,911 93 203 15 () 318 -- 5,059 78 50 15 1 4 155 --- 5,835 109 62 12 5 4 202 — 6,476 162 110 16 7 (3) 296 ---- 5, 834 108 130 13 3 3 | 263 41. 0 5, 496 180 30 2 (3) 1 223 --- —- 5,848 146 89 2 3 6 252 ---- 6,783 '146 194 1 2 5 352 --- — 7, 542 105 13 1 4 12 242 —. 7, 11 303 175 28 6 3 548 --—, 6722 176 100 7 3 5 323 54.4 6,801 146 144 8 3 10 322- -- --- 140 174 7 4 2 337 —.... 233 153 10 4 — 416 — -- 269 211 1 5 ---- 501 — - 159 77 2 1 — 242 --- - 210 168 6 4 3 404 52.1 ------- 347 268 9 7 -- 6671 --- - --- 547 324 7 7 2 910 — - 348 138 1 5 4 515 --- - ------ 281 71 1 1 5 371 — ---------- 381 200 5 3 616 61.8 - 398 130 7 2 1 12 574.........- 509 107 12 8 12 669 --- ----- 554 17 6 8 6 14 787 --- —- -- 4 381 194 11 5 22 660- - -- 460 152 9 6 15 673 68.4 i Not separately enumerated after 1914. See Table 204. Not separately enumerated. See the 1902 figures for "Miscellaneous pharmaceuticals," Table 204, and consult footnote 2 of that table. Less than $500. Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $3,600. STATISTICAL TABLES 337 TABLE 204.-Miscellaneous pharmaceuticals I w [Thirty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 6.27 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent Total ~___________________________ of total United Year ended- from States United France Spain Great Ger- All United domestic States I Britain many A States exports Dec. 31: 19022....... 1903 ----------- Average. ------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- — 1905 ----------- 1906. — ----- ---- 1907 --- —---- -------- 1908- -- --- ------ - 1909 — ------- Average --- —-------- June 30: 1910 ---------- 1911 — -------- 1912 — -- - ------ 1913-... ---..... ----...1914.. --- —---- Average-.. ---- ----- June 30: 1915.- ------- 1916 ----. --- —--- 1917 ---------—. 1918. — -------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) Average -- —.. --- —----- Dec. 31: 1919. ---.. --- —--- 1920 --------—.. ----.1921 ------—. --- —----- 1922 ---------—. --- —Average_- - Dec. 31: 1923 ------—. — 1924 --- —------- 1925 --- —-------- 1926. --- —---.. 178 199 222., 35 14 19 8 10 7 411... --- 12 313 -------- ---------- ---------- 200 117 16 9 10 362 55.1 ----- - 140 14 9 1 2 168 -------- 268 183 22 8 3495 --- —- ---—. - 3838 206 30 5 6 596 413 300 23 10 7 771 ----- ---- 311 347 26 8 14 720 ----- ----- 323 344 24 8 12 717 --- —- -. --- 326 254 24 7 S 630 51. --- — 341 505 3022 17937 --- — ------ 456 447 38 23 12 994 ----- ---- 534 538 47 30 171,189 ---------- 633 760 47 27 9 1,499 --- — ----- 470 639 50 17 171,215 --------- 487 578 42 24 141,167 41.7 ------ 889 489 48 15 4 1,464 --- - 7,130 826 736 75 28 (3) 1,696 --- - 8,398 1,240 667 126 40 --- — 2,128 --- —- 8,613 1,785 982 120 21 ---- 2,935 --- —- 10,190 917 349 64 10 — 1,355 --- —- 5,898 1,257 716 96 25 --- 2,128 59.1 8,940 2,372 1, 166 281 19 63,887 ----- 18,986 3,013 1,920 302 107 115,415 --- —- 21,215 1,754 754 192 34 322,841 ---- 12,724 1,042 579 61 30 6 1,762 --- - 13,559 2,045 1,105 209 47 143,476 58.8 16,621 1,751 595 132 55 15 2,607 ---- 15,591 1,982 668 114 67 24 2,937 --- — 15,601 2,034 960 136 78 24 3,294 --- —- 17,637 ~1991 768 94 68 423,086 --- —---- 17,509 Average --- —- ---- -- 1,939 1 748 119 67 26 2,981I 65.1 16,584 1 Single classification for the import statistics and for the export figures here shown, which are reported 1915-1921, under "medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations"; and, 1922-1926, under "other medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations," excluding coal-tar products, quinine preparations, antitoxins, etc., and medicated plasters. 2 Classified as "Pharmaceutical products" and inclusive of "Patent medicines. Less than $500. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $10,600. TABLE 205.-Ordinary soap in bars [Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 8.20 per cent ad valoremi; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] C3 00 Year ended Dee. 31: 1902 --------------------— 7-.. 0- --------- ---------------------------- Average --------------------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months)......-.......................... 1905......................... 1906 --- —---------- 1907___ 19087-.... —..........- ------—..1909 ----. ----------—... — Average - ----—.-. --- —------—. June 30: 1910. --- —------------------—.. ---—. --- 1911 --- 1912-_- --------- - ---- 1913 -1914_ --- —-------------------- Average_ ---------------- June 30: 1915 ----------------------- 1916. --- — ------------------- 1917 -, --- —----- --—. — --------------- 1918 -------------- -------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- —--, I Countries from which imported into Cuba United States I Spain France Per cent of total I from United States All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Libras 2 284 448 $14 20 Libras 9,867 10, 682 1 Quantity Total United States domestic exports I Value Quantity $400 416 Libras 53 283 $5 10 Libras 10, 233 11, 436 $421 447 Value Pounds 37,141 49, 612 $1, 508 1,991 366 17 10, 275 408 168 8 10,835 434 3.4 3.9 42,876 1,750 371 18 4,206 147 118 4 4,698 169 ---------- 21, 448 839 855 59 7,802 255 214 8 8,880 323 — 45,321 1, 781 1,217 57 7,397 250 186 6 8,827 314 ---------- 42, 411 1,698 1, 052 56 6,149 212 140 5 7, 399 275 - -65,183 2,661 1,210 69 5, 782 211 223 9 7,241 290 51,108 2, 165 1,608 85 5,398 206 206 8 7, 231 300 --- —- ----- 53,150 2342 1,1 48 62 6,679 233 198 8 8, 050 304 14.3 20.5 50,658 2, 088 1, 478 90 5,102 191 202 8 6, 836 292 --------— 45,716 2,141 1,686 101 6, 453 265 282 13 8,522 382 ---- ----- 47,581 2,305 2,155 123 5, 748 294 402 18 8,396 440 ---------- 57,855 2,696 2, 270 130 5, 118 213 392 17 7,957 370 ----- ----- 51,293 2,497 2,751 150 4, 369 204 425 21 7, 567 376 --- - ----- 58,547 2,797 2,068 119 5, 358 233 341 16 7,856 372 26.3 31.9 52,198 2,487 3,040 182 3, 546 174 397 23 7,054 382 ----- ------- 63,368 3,081 4, 150 245 3,480 162 563 37 8,270 449- 75,549 3, 709 7, 201 414 2, 688 141 403 39 10,368 597 - -73, 049 4, 169 10,998 783 824 62 278 36 12, 120 883 82, 727 6,894 3,896 307 178 18 11 2 4,090 328 ------ ----- 69, 470 6,750 6,508 429 2,381 f 123 367 31 9,312 586 69.9 73.2 80,925 5, 467 ---- ~:._ -......~::~.":,. ~ —.'-,..:.. __- --- -- t: 0,4 1-3 H t>I 1 - Average- ----------— _ --- — I Dec. 31: 1919-.. - ----- 1920.. --- — 1921_ Av Dec. 31: ---------- ---- - -------- ------ - ----- 1926...... -......Average............. 15, 284 13,193 9,916 11,949 1,298 1, 258 776 736 563 I, 075 456 1,125 62 122 35 68 55 269 224 552 8 48 20 43 15, 929 14,545 10,698 13, 708 1,372 1,428 840 857 157,750 123, 821 73, 952 91,254 15,267 13,316 6, 214 6,044 12,585 1,017 805 71 275 30 13, 720 1,124 91.7 90.5 111,694 10,210 9,399 582 932 39 716 36 11,087 661 - ----- 84,954 6,284 8,807 529 805 50 918 50 10,615 646- 72,000 5,332 9,227 560 530 31 1,416 99 11,201 693,- ---- -68, 904 5,231 o10,286 612 540 34 1,786 122 12,942 786 -— _ 74, 392 5365 9,430 571 702 38 1,209 77 11,461 697 82.3 82.0 75, 062 5i553 x Classified, 1902-1921, as soap other than fancy or toilet and, 1922-1926, as two items, laundry soap, and other soap not fancy or toilet. The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to libras. Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 179,100 libras, $9,300. r i> t<' e32~ TABLE 206.-Perfumes and essences i [Forty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 105, to 23.58 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] 0 Countries from which imported into Cuba __Per cen from Uit Year ended- United States France Germany Great Britain All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantityt Value Quantity.......anit tl nit ua tt............................. ~... it of total Total Ited States United States domestic. exports, Vu value r Value - Ii Dec. 31: 1902 ----------------------------------- 1903 ---------------- Average --- —------ June 30: 1904 (6 months)...... ------- - 1905 --- —------------- 1906_ --- —---- ------- 1907_- ---------------- 1908-.. --- —-—. --- —---------- 1909 ----------- Average ---- ---------- June 30: 1910 --- —--------- 1911 ------------------------- 1912 ------------------ 1913 --- —------------ 1914 ---------------------- Average --------- ---—. --- June 30: 1915 —. --- —------------------- 1916. --- —-------------------- 1917 ---------------------------- 1918 --- —-- ------------------ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --------- Average --- — Kilos 33 40 $20 31 Kilos 153 189 $176 225 Kilos 9 10 $11 9 Kilos 3 4 $3 4 Kilos 202 251 i $214 278.I I $351 459 -I 26 26 171 200 10 10 3 4 226 246 16.0 10.4 405 24 14 88 108 4 4 2 2 121 131 --- —------ 43 34 218 258 8 9 3 6 276 312 -490 58 46 299 332 15 16 5 5 387 407 -534 63 49 323 389 10 11 6 7 410 465 605 59 43 291 403 13 19 5 7 378 484 -620 59 49 329 350 15 16 6 8 415 428 ---------- 683 56 43 281 334 12 14 5 6 361 405 15. 4 10.6 335 71 56 377 372 25 24 7 8 489 470 ----- ----— 824 72 59 379 413 75 34 7 9 549 518- ---------- 1,009 93 85 442 466 25 24 9 12 581 601 -1,148 106 80 447 478 40 34 11 14 683 626 ----------— 1, 442 177 82 419 454 36 34 11 16 665 606 -1,621 104 72 413 437 40 30 9 12 - 594 564 17.5 12.8 1,209 126 98 344 406 10 13 10 14 519 561 -, ---- ---— 1,715 143 128 501 608 (2) (3) 13 18 700 799 ---— 2, -----— 903 168 146 416 598 ---- --- 12 19 631 806 -3,619 303 308 467 912 ---- - -7 12 810 1,288 -3, 965 231 227 134 250 --- --— 4 6 380 497 ---— I- -- - 1, 951 216 202 414 617 --- —---- ---- 10 15 676 878 32.0 23.0 3,145 _ _ _ _ _ 4 1 4 i I_ _ ___ _ 0 ciE 0 td N NH4 H1 Ni Dec. 31: 1919 --- — ---------------- 1920 — - -.- - - - - - 1921 _ ------ Average --- —---—, ----,, --- —-—, Dec. 31: 1923 --- --- 1924 --- 1l95 --- ------— 5 ---1926 --- --- --------- I, 487 820 405 329 579 832 482 335 502 575 697 829 1,063 1,086 1,153 871 (2) 15 15 27 () 23 29 26 12 12 30 5 22 24 18 9 1,043 1,482 1, 195 1,217 1, 734 2,068 1,754 1,275 ---------- -- - - - - - - - - - - --------— i ---------- r --------— r 7,324 8, 740 4, 737 1, 543 510 557 651 1,043 14 20 15 18 1,234 1 1,708 41.4 32.6 5,586 444 508 954 1,168 38 40 8 12 1,490 1,791 ---— 1,674 410 389 96 1,229 20 23 7 12 1,434 1,696 -- ---- -, 1, 584 463 489 1, 164 1, 430 16 22 13 13 1, 717 2036 ----— 1,659 4 404 431 1,070 1,404 20 19 16 15 1,574 1,961 ---- --- -, —1,671 - I _. I. W ~~~~~~~~~~~ — - --- -! ---!- -,- -,,- -- -- i — -- - ---— I -- 'I --- —— e Average --- —-------------------- 430 455 1,037 1, 308 24 26 11 13 1,554 1,871 27.7 24.3 1,647 1 Single classification for the import statistics and 1902-1921, for United States domestic exports as perfumeries, cosmetics, and all other toilet prepa the export figures combine two items, viz, perfumery and toilet waters, and other toilet preparations-the figures for talcum and other toilet powder other cosmetics not being used; quantities not comparably reported. 2 Less than 500 kilos. I Less than $500. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 15,500 kilos, $19,900. x crations; beginning with 1922' s and for creams, rouges, and CD '-3 > Hr '3~ e -4 C r H^ CD r, SI )Ir 342 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 207.-Hides, skins, and leather ' [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 4.32 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars' that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent Total......_______..........of total United Year ended- from States United Spain France Great All United domestic States Britain States exports Dec. 31: 1902 ---------—. --- —------ 1903 --- —-------- Average. --- —----------- June 30: 1904 (6 months). --- —------- 1905 --- —------- 1906 -—.-. --- —. — 1907. --- —------—. --- —---- 1908 ------—. --- —--------- 1909. --- —---—. --- —-- AverageJune 30: 1910 --------- 1911 --- —----- 1912 --------- 1913 ---------- 1914 --- -------—.. --- Average. June 30: 1915. --- —-------- 1916 ------------- 1917 -- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). Average ------------- Dec. 31: 1919 --- —-------- 1920 --- —--------- 1921-........-.......... 1922. ----. --- —------- Average. --- —----- Dec. 31: 1923.. --- —- - --- 1924 --- —-------- 1925 --- —--------- 1926 ------------ Average........ 55 166 70 115 13 26 1 2 141 ----- 311 ------ 23,845 25, 776 111 92 19 1 226 49.0 24, 810 117 47 10 1 176 ---- —. --- 14, 930 288 146 27 5 469 --------- 29,110 324 136 27 2 491 ---— 30,540 379 105 24 4 516- --- 33, 819 285 71 15 6 379 ---------- 28,505 358 67 11 3 442 ----- 31,685 318 104 21 4 450 70.8 30, 653 423 78 12 5 532 --- - 37, 414 485 61 13 5 577 - - 42,004 511 719 18 4 618 —44, 857 586 78 16 6 704 - - 42, 539 629 142 16 5 817 - - 36,310 527 88 15 5 650 81. 1 40,625 658 71 8 4 757 --- 69,666 988 92 6 5 1,114 ---— 83,444 1, 132 86 11 6 1, 268 --— 109,171 2,288 51 13 1 2,423 ----- 62,054 1, 150 282 — 1, 182 -30, 485 1,381 73 9 4 1, 498 92. 2 78, 849 2, 998 61 10 10 3, 083 ---— 226, 461 3, 215 26 8 17 3, 304 ------ 110,495 1, 187 43 4 18 1, 269 --- — 33,957 1, 344 7 4 7 1,372 --- - 45,742 2, 186 34 7 13 2, 257 96.8 104, 164 2, 085 18 6 7 2,120 -- - 47,729 2, 028 17 16 12 2,077 ---- 61,987 1, 688 14 25 14 1,752 ---- 54, 043 1, 713 9 28 7 1, 767 ---- 51, 553 1,879 14 19 10 1,929 97.4 53, 828 1 For 1902 there was only 1 classification in the import statistics, "Unmanufactured hides and skins"; beginning with 1903, imports of these articles are reported under 5 classifications: Tanned and dry hides and skins, fine skins, enameled or patent leather, and cut leather. The figures here shown represent these items combined, the bulk of the imports being tanned hides and skins and enameled or patent leather. The export figures combine 3 or more items, variously enumerated from year to year, so as to give comparable totals., lExclusive of insignificant nonpreferential imports from the United States. 0 r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TABLE 208.-Men's boots and shoes [Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 7.43 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is 000 omittedl Countries from which imported into Cuba ___Ca_____________ __r_________td___ _ Per cent of total from 1 United States Year ended- United States Spain All Quantity luntity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value 'otal United States domestic exports 1 uantity Value Dec. 31: Pairs 1902a 2,,____-_- --------------------— I --- —--- ------- 190223 ---- -- 1 1903..............10......j l5 Pairs 440 Pairs 545 $596 $162 $434 Average —.... --- —------------------ ---- I I I Pairs (a) 19.2 27.2 1 -- June 30: 1904 (6 months) ------- ------------------- 1905 —. ---- --------------- 1906 ----------------------------- 1907 --- —-------- 1908 -------------- ----------- 1909 ----------------------- Average — - ------------ June 30: 1910 _ --- —----------- 1911 — ----------------------- 1912 ------------------------ 1913 --- —------------------ 1914 --- —----- ------- Average.. --- —----------- June 30: 1915 --- ----------------- - 1916 --- —-------------------- 1917 — ------------ 1918 --------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) Average --- —------------ t;._.-.. i 0 $6,470 d 7, 245 b 6,858 4 3, 627 8,058 9,143 hf 10,667 w 11,470 O 10,306 0 88 234 311 537 480 487 135 389 620 1,055 987 1,046 336 642 453 321 285 209 337 758 584 431 402 292 424 878 765 866 766 696 472 1,148 1,205 1,491 1,390 1, 339 I ------------ ----------— r ------------ - - - - - - - - - - 5,316 5,672 5,834 6,552 6, 177 I - 388 769 408 510 799 1,281 48,6 60.1 1 --- —-— 9,686 579 1, 201 235 379 815 1, 580 --- 7, 257 12,409 619 1, 278 240 451 862 1, 731 8, 061 13,747 604 1,242 269 512 875 1, 755- 9,040 16,009 742 1,54 315 610 1, 058 2,159 -5, 261 11, 256 641 1,289 284 571 927 1,861 --- --- 4, 453 10,118 637 1,312 269 505 907 1,818 70.2 72.2 ----- 717 1,555 205 402 923 1,957 - 6,972 17,680 1,151 2, 202 225 426 1,378 2, 632 - - 12,800 36,960 1,100 2,674 234 479 1,334 3,154 — 6,373 17,357 1,218 3,616 121 284 1,340 3,901 ------ 6,893 22,624 604 1,920 26 56 630 1,976 --------- ----- 2,189 7,585 - 1,0641 2,659 180 366 1,246 3,027 85.4 87.9 7,828 22, 712 = - - -. —.- i i ~I - - I -_ _ _; 12.3 i;3 1<4 Dec. 31: 1919...-.... 192 —...........................0 ---1921................... — ----- Average. --- —,-~-. ---...... — -.. — - Dec. 31: 1923 -. —. ---.-... —. —....... 1924............ 1925.............. 1 -926 --—,-................... Averagea.-g -e.. --- ——.. --- —... —...-..... 1,295 1,388 849 476 5, 557 7,611 4, 546 1, 606 63 45 75 21 149 178 228 63 1, 365 1,433 927 498 5, 709 7,790 4, 777 1, 670 ------------ ----------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11,928 7, 711 5, 174 1,878 50, 710 39,176 16,319 5,923 1, 002 4,830 51 155 1,056 4,986 94.9 96.9 6, 673 28, 032 1, 512 4, 946 42 110 1, 556 5,058 -— 3,188 10,030 1,222 4,120 77 210 1,302 4,337- 2,587 8,363 1, 069 3,494 55 184 1, 126 3,680 2,703 8,567 4 985 2,849 20 71 1, 006 2,924 -- - - ------- 2,590 7, 295 1,1974 3,852 49 144 i, 248 4,000 95.9 96.3 2, 767 8,564 _ __~~~~~~~I I I I i I_____ _ _ _ I The figures for 1902-1912 represent total United States exports of boots and shoes (including slippers) of domestic manufacture; beginning with 19 dren's boots and shoes are reported separately, the classification for men's including also boy's boots and shoes beginning with 1922. 'Not separately enumerated. See Table 209, footnote 1, where the 1902 figures for imports of all boots and shoes are given. Quantities not reported 1902-1904. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 488 pairs, $1,200. 13, men's, women's, and chilw EL3 La CO H I-4 w H I-4 0 ttrH TABLE 209.-Women's boots and shoes [thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 7.69 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of total from Year ended- United States Spain France All United States Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Total United States domestic exports I Quantity Value Dec. 31, 1903 ws ---. --- --------------- - - - - - Average —,-..-....-.....-........-........, June 30: 1904 (6 months).... —... --- ——,...-.... 1905....... 1906....................... 1907l,... ----—..-......... --- — 1908............................ 1909........................ Average_. --- —---------- June 30: 1910,.- -- 1911........................................ 1912....._ --- —-------- 1913...........................-.-.-......... 1914, --- — —. --- —-- Average_, —. —, ----- --—, ----- June 30: 15..... --- —....-............................ 1916 -- --.......................... 91-7..-...-...-.............-................ 191-8.- -.. - --...........-.-.-........-.-........ Dee. 31, 1918 (6 mouths). -1 I Pairs 536 $530 Pairs 787 Pairs 1,323 $566 (3) (4) $i, 097 Pairs ---..........-..-.-..-. -..-.-..- -...-.- ---—..........-.......-....-..-. 405 48.3 -.......-. -..-,,., _:,' C L_ _ - _ _ _ I _ _ _ ~ - m -.., - -- I _. 312 316 489 356 (s) () 801 673 ----- ----- 737 802 625 474 (3) (4) 1,363 1, 276 1,154 1, 208 446 322 1 $1 1,601 1,530. 1,258 1,387 291 224 6 3 1,556 1,614 ---- 1, 223 1, 312 220 177 2 1 1,446 1,491- - 1, 269 1,208 191 143 1 2 1,464 1, 356 ---- 1,082 1,133 411 308 2 1 1,496 1,444 72.4 78.5 1,414 1,373 186 139 3 6 1,606 1,525 1, 556 1, 575 219 138 6 6 1,783 1, 724 1,380 1,349 198 166 5 7 1,584 1,525 - -- -- 1, 885 1, 906 254 222 3 5 2, 143 2, 136-, 3,218 $5,494 1, 645, 612 246 187 4 8 1,899 1,812 3,454 6,112 1,576 1,563 221 171 4 6 1,803 1,745 87.4 89.6. —....-... 1, 640 1, 727 185 193 1 2 1, 833 1,932 - -3, 047 5,235 2, 114 2, 212 221 220 ()1 2, 337 2,435 -4,836 8, 040 1,999 2,508 251 232 (3) () 2,250 2,740 -- - --- - 6,121 12, 491 2,266 3,569 133 182 ()2 2, 400 3,753 4, 318 9,405 924 1, 796 32 37 --- - ----- 956 1,833 -- - -- 2,132 4,983 1,987 2,625 183 192 () 1 2,173 2, 821 91.5 93.0 4,545 8, 923 Av~erCta ge-.-,..-........-.- -..-...-.... I i -1 Dec. 31: 1919 - 1920 -.- ------- 1921...- ----------------------- ~. 1922... ----------- -------- Ave ge --- —--- -------------------------- Dec. 31: C l -.,... ----------------- 1924 — ------------- 1925.... ---. ---192B_ A ver age --- —---- ----------- o A verage -------- ----- 1,976 1,661 883 868 i 4,142 4, 710 2, 625 1,503 71 51 92 26 96 122 169 37 1 2 2,047 1,717 976 898 4,238 4,834 2, 796 1,546 ----------- ----— r ----- - -- - 5,892 5,064 1,768 2,280 18,196 20, 99 5,016 5,006 1,347 3,245 60 106 ) (') 1,410 3,354 95.5 96.8 3,751 12,079, 227 2,396 52 55- -- — 1, 282 2, 455 23 5303 1,274 2 509 56 782 6 1, 2,595 2, -— 192 4,9 0 1,177 2,158 28 57 3 21 1,209 2, 242 - -2, 407 5 060 948 1, 647 15 28 1 4 967 1,694 -2, 014 4, 39 _. w......I..... 1,156 2,177 38 55 1 8 1,19t 2,246 96.6 96.9 2.226 4,918 1 Not separately enumerated, 1902-1912. See Table 208. 2 Not separately enumerated. The figures in the single classification "Boots and shoes" are as follows: From all countries, 2,232,400 pairs, $1,7 638,100 pairs, $596,300; from Spain, 1,590,800 pairs, $1,191,700; and from France, 600 pairs, $1,300; so that the Unihad States, supplied 28.6 and 33.3 pe quantity and value. a Less than 500 pairs. Less than $500. Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States, amounting to 1,300 pairs, $2,400. r91,800; from the United States, r cent, respectively, of the total Cgo... TABLE 210. —Children's boots and shoes [Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 7.53 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba _ ___________________ _______Per cent of total from 1 United States Year ended- United States Spain All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Q Total United States domestic exports ' uantity Value Pairs 311 Pairs 496 $230 Pairs 807 Dec. 31, 1903 2 --- —------------- Average --- —------------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --------------- 1905 --- —------------------ 1906 1907 1908. --- —------------------------------ 1909 --- —-------------------- Average -------------------- June 30: 1910.1911 ---------------------- 1912-.1913 ------------------------ 1914 ---------------------- Average. ----------------------- June 30: 1915. 1916 - ------------------------- 1917 --- —---------------------- 1918 ------------------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- —---------- Average --- —----- -------------- $159 $389 Pairs ------------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ------- ----— 38.6 40.8 ------ ------ 204 109 287 140 491 249 — ----------—. --- —-- 423 228 417 205 841 433 --- — ----- ------------ 725 364 475 182 1, 201 547 --- —----------------- 604 344 314 125 920 470 --- —------------------ 801 444 336 111 1,138 554. ----------—. --- —-- 659 377 296 74 955 451 --- —- ----- ------- ----- 621 339 387 152 1,008 492 61.6 69.0 --- —------- 805 438 319 71 1, 124 510 -905 487 282 61 1,187 548 875 427 216 60, 1091 487 --- —------------------ 1, 235 610 244 75 1, 479 685 1, 827 $1,447 973 498 211 78 1,185 576 1, 996 1, 637 959 492 254 69 1, 213 561 79. 0 87.7 ------------ 1,315 740 1656 48 1, 480 788 - - 2, 383 1, 782 1, 811 855 175 55 1,987 910 --- —---- ---- 2, 722 2,225 1, 619 1, 040 189 51 1, 808 1, 091 ------- ---- 3, 401 3, 463 1, 846 1,659 56 25 1,9 902 1,684 -- --------- 3, 802 4, 522 614 596 15 5 629 601 --------— 1, --- —------ 394 1, 829 1, 601 1, 086 134 41 1,735 1,128 92.3 96.4 3,045 3,071 1919 —..... —................ --- —--------------- 1920 ----------------------------- 1921 --- —----------------------- 1922_ 1922 — _ _ _ —_ --- —----------------- Average. --- —1923 --- --- ------ --------------------- 1923 ------... — ---—.. — 1924__ 1925 _ --- —-----—. --- —1926 -- I 1,246 1,346 636 646 1,433 2,007 912 679 140 3 29 16 8 4 23 14 1,262 1,350 665 663 1, 441 2,011 937 693 ----- ----- ------------ _ — - - - - -- -- ----— i _- - - - - _ _ --- -- _ _ — - - - 3, 535 4,066 2,016 1,246 5,930 7, 869 3,343 1,444 969 258 16 f 12 985 1, 270 98.4 99.0 2,716 4,646 1,221 1,098 43 19 1, 266 1, 118 -1, 861 2, 184 1,198 1,137 28 16 1,232 1,156 1, 520 1,778 853 876 42 21 896 899 - -- 1,494 1,692 3740 697 11 4 752 702 ---------- ---— 1, 103 1, 179 Average -----—..... 1,003 952 31 15 1, 037 969 96.8 98. 3 1,494 1,708 I Not separately enumerated, 1902-1912. See Table 208. 2Not separately enumerated. See Table 209, footnote 1, where the 1902 figures for imports of all boots and shoes are given. a Exclusive of insignificant nonpreferential imports from the United States. CO eh 350 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 211.-Miscellaneous manufactures of leather 1 [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 5.63 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported Per cent Total of total United Year ended- from States United Ger- Great Fa Sain All United domestic States many Britin States exports Dec. 31: 1902 ------------------------- 1903 ------------------ Average -------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) ---------- 1905 ---------—. 1906 --- —------- 1907 -. --- —-. --- —-—. 1908.w ------------- 1909. --- —------------ Average --------- June 30: 1910 --- —-------- 1911 ----L --- —--------- 1912 --- —--------- 1913 --- —------- 1914 --- —-------- Average -------- June 30: 1915 --- —------- 1916 --- —-------- 1917 ------------- 1918. --- —------ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). Average -------- Dec. 31: 1919 ------------ 1920 ------------ 1921 --- —-------- 1922 ------------ Average --- ------ Dec. 31: 1923 --- —------- 1924 ------------------ 1925 --- —-------- 1926 ----------— 8 --- — 53 71 21 51 14 17 15 14 19 129 11 172 920 1, 247 62 36 15 14 15 150 41.2 1, 084 39 14 10 8 7 82 685 84 39 33 28 25 227 ----- 1, 318 124 72 56 36 22 325 ------- 1,492 132 56 40 34 20 292 -— 1984 107 I7 46 26 20 274. — 1,640 89 31 18 22 13 186- - 1,605 104 49 37 28 20 252 41.4 1,586 129 47 30 26 16 257 ---—, 982 203 67 38 26 18 357 ----- 1, 970 228 63 31 22 16 376 ---- 2,161 250 43 40 25 14 381 --— 2,175 235 45 32 19 17 357 1, 881 209 53 34 24 16 346 60.4 2,034 193 10 18 8 15 249 ------ 13, 103 431 ----91 9 6 15 464 ----- 11,645 455 15 18 26 518 -7, 459 447 ---- - 18 8 25 503 -3,647 278 --- 12 5 24 322 -— 1.566 401 2 16 10 24 457 87.8 8,316 650 ---- 12 8 40 716 ---— 7,254 1, 145 6 33 11 57 1,262 10, 934 747 9 30 8 62 870 3,255 141. 9 6 9 171 -3667 671 6 20 8 42 755 88.9 6,278 337 16 10 8 4 379 ------ 3,455 284 16 15 6 13 341 ----- 3,455 274 34 26 16 11 370 -4,076 203 16 26 16 8 283 - 4,534 _,__ _ _ __f__!__.....__- I- ] --- —-----— u ''- ''-''- ' '- --— ' Average ------— 274 21 19 12 9 343 80.0 3,880 1 Articles covered with leather are likewise reported under this classification in the import statistics, and in the statistics of United States exports from 1902 to 1919; beginning with 1920, the export figures combine two or more items, including leather belting, bags and suit cases, pocketbooks and purses, and the basket item "All other manufactures of leather." s Exclusive of insignificant nonpreferential imports from the United States. $ a TABLE 212.-Cement [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1906, to 8.16 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba I Per cent of total from United Year ended- United States France Belgium Germany All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Total United States domestic exports Quantity Value Dec. 31: 1902 --- —--------- 1903 --- —-------- Average-._ --------- June 30: 1904 (6 months)_ --- —- --- 1905-. --- ——,- — 6 — --- 1906 --------------------- 1907. --- —--— _ 1908 -----— i 1909 -Average. --- —-—. --- ——, June 30: 1910 1911. --- 1912......- - 1913 -- ------- 1914 --- —------- Average -------... - June 30: 1915. --- -------- 1916. —. --- —---- 1917_ ---—,- ----- 1918 ------ - Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). Barrels 2 142 89 $141 95 Barrels 7 23 $7 22 Barrels (3) 40 (3) Barrels 10 31 $9 29 Barrels 188 204 $189 ---- 199 ----- Barrels 341 285 $526 434 115 118 15 14 -— 20 19 196 194 58.9 60.9 313 480 36 36 19 18 22 17 10 9 92 84 ---- --— 186 267 226 206 24 21 19 15 8 8 288 260 --- -----— 1, 067 1,485 368 349 36 35 41 33 21 22 475 446 ----- --- 810 1, 165 457 472 61 64 72 71 32 33 641 656 ----- - 709 1,180 650 674 44 49 72 76 13 14 782 814 - -945 1, 470 575 534 30 33 39 39 4 4 652 613 - -828 1, 144 421 413 39 40 48 46 16 16 533 522 79.0 79.0 826 1, 220 576 548 18 26 43 34 2 2 650 616 ----- -1,715 2,292 757 714 34 49 53 37 9 6 855 809 ----------------- 2, 971 4, 349 953 899 49 56 24 17 1 1 1,029 973 — 3,424 5,083 1, 226 1,186 51 69 30 20 3 3 1,312 1,281 ----- ---- 4,000 5,822 1, 416 1,262 57 84 14 12 1 1 1,493 1,364- - ---— 2, 391 3, 382 986 922 42 57 33 24 3 3 1, 068 1, 009 92.3 91.4 2,900 4,186 1,020 1,023 17 27 3 3 () 1 1, 043 1,056 ----- --— 2, 361 3, 242 1, 457 1, 606 21 38 --- ---- - ---- 1, 478 1,644 -2, 741 3, 777 1, 068 1, 371 15 34 - - - - -, --- —------— 084 1,407 ---- ----- 2,346 4,112 1,457 2,033 3 10 ------------------ --------- - 1,460 2,043 ----— 2, 575 5, 897 401 689 -------------------------— 401 689 -------— 1,008 2,948 1, 201 1, 494j 12 24 ----- -—.. ---- ----- 1, 215 1,520 98.9 98.3 2,451 4, 439 ~,~; — % ~ --------—.. —..0 CI cic w 4~0 H N Average -----— _ Dec. 31: 1919 - 1920 ----- 1921. 1922 - Average. — Dec. 31: 1923 -—.... —.... — 1924-. — 1925. -- 1926 s ------ Average --- —--- 1,062 1,275 910 790 1, 829 2,440 1, 902 1,200 2 9 20 63 14 37 2 39 9 7 95 45 1 19 4 1,077 1,322 1,024 847 1,854 2, 567 2, 174 1, 331 2,464 2,986 1, 181 1, 128 7,513 10, 045 4, 277 3, 206 1,009 1,843 9 27 13 37 6 13 1,068 1, 982 94.5 93.0 1,935 6,260 830 1, 240 35 52 2 4 82 62 1, 037 1, 453 - -- -1,002 2, 944 643 1, 020 37 71 11 45 52 68 1, 001 1, 556 879 2, 615 679 1,077 50 95 17 30 66 68 1,008 1, 525' 1, 020 3, 003 6 273 440 36 68 35 78 98 108 590 887 --— 974 2,996 606 944 33 72 16 39 74 76 909 1, 355 66.7 69.7 969 2,890 I Imports from England amounted to $11,900 in 1903, $25,000 in 1921, and $11,300 in 1926, with smaller figures or no shipments in other years. Shipme recorded for 1921 and 1922 and developed in the last period, averaging 88,100 barrels, $96,600. 2 From calculations involving several duty liquidations (1902-1925) it appears that, for the purposes of the Cuban customhouse statistics, 1 barrel of c In the trade generally, 1 barrel equals 396 pounds avoirdupois or 180 kilos and this is the equivalent of the barrel used as unit of quantity for United States e 3 Not separately enumerated. The figures in the classification "Other European countries" (exclusive also of small amounts from Spain) are 17,800 barr 4 Less than 500 barrels. 6 Quantity figures, reported in kilos, have been converted to barrels; see footnote 2. e Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 12,013 barrels, $17,200. nts from Denmark are ement equals 100 kilos. 3xports. els, $15,700. Cot CO 354 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 213.-Glass bottles and containers 1 [Twenty-five per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 6.96 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba 2 Per cent Total Y.- ea_ r.-end d_._ of total United Year ended — from States United S Great Fr Ger- All United domestic States Spain Britain many States exports 3 Dec. 31: 1902 --- —--- 1903 ----------- Average -----------—. June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —----- 1905 --- —------- 1906 —. --- —----------- 1907 --- —------- 1908 --- —-—.. ---1909 ------------------ Average-.. --- —-------- June 30: 1910 4 -.. --- —1911 --- —1912 ------------------ 1913 ------------ 1914 --- —-- Average -----—. --- —June 30: 1915 6 --- —------------- 1916 --- —--- 1917 ------------------- 1918 --- —---—. — Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months).... Average —... — ---- --- Dec. 31: 1919 ---------—, 1920 --- —------- 1921 ------------------ 1922 ------------- Average............ Dec. 31: 1923 -----------------—.-.. --- 1924 ------------------------- 1925 ---------. --- —--- 1926 --------- Average. —............ 28 18 40 51 35 33 19 22 15 19 140 153 23 46 34 20 17 147 15.7 ---- 20 22 14 7 6 75 ---- 55 68 32 26 22 208 ---- ---...... 65 93 37 34 82 327 --- —- -.. 73 79 32 37 24 256 --- 52 84 34 35 24 234 --- 39 79 22 36 20 204 --- — ----- 56 77 31 32 32 237 23.4. 97 84 25 44 93 399 -73 86 22 66 234 51 --- —- 76 95 32 79 242 589 --- — -- ----—. 143 122 45 72 370 846 ------- 808 132 115 50 91 224 717 -- 711 104 100 35 70 2321 6201 15.9 760 147 384 472 844 808 117 214 253 192 77 31 36 37 21 2 47 53 65 43 16 24 1 395 716 868 1,109 910 772 2,168 2,436 2,672 1,397 590 -190 28 50 -— 889 66.4 2,099 1,642 250 43 44 2 2,056 --— 5,284 990 270 84 77 26 1,601 — 9,576 1,153 275 64 62 51 1,699 — 4, 550 248 203 36 56 34 631 1,437 1,008 250 57 60 28 1,496 67.4 5,212 1,165 263 46 78 121 1,738 ---— 3,504 654 311 55 125 160 1,498 — 2,875 651 256 44 121 130 1,287 — 2,937 ^535 214 46 67 98 1, 000 — 3, 104 751 261 48 981 127 1,381 54.4 3,105......_.,.......... U....,. l., _...,,, ' I I, I I., I To alarge extent imports of these articles as receptacles for wines, beer, liquors, mineral waters, chemicals, and the like, reflect the trade in these commodities; but, being capable of further use, they are dutiable separately, according to their own tariff numbers. i Imports from Belgium were: 1903, $4,000; 1904-1909, $5,400; 1910-1914, $64,000; 1919-1922, $26,600; and 1923-1926, $42,600. 8 Not separately enumerated, 1902-1912; the figures here shown for 1913-1926 are reported under the classification "Bottles, vials, demijohns, carboys, and jars,"chemical glassware being listed separately, beginning with 1918. 4 Beginning with 1910, imports of these articles are reported under 3 classifications: Glass containers, plain bottles, and labeled bottles; the figures here shown combine the 3 items. 6 2 year average. 6 Exclusive of insignificant nonpreferential imports from the United States. STATISTICAL TABLES 355 TABLE 214.-Miscellaneous glassware [Twenty-five per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 8.56 per cent ad valorem; values In thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent Total -, - _ -of total United Year ended- from States United Ger- Bel- r in United domestic Unated Gr ll France Spain A states exports States many gium a tates exports I I I I.s. I Dec. 31: 1902 -... —. ---. --- 1903. --- —----- Average —. --- —-- --- June 30: 1904(6 months).. --- —------ 1905. --- —-------- 1906 -------------—.. --- 1907. —. ---.. --- —-—. 1908 — --------------- 1909 ------------- Average --------- June 30: 1910 -—. --- ——. —. --- 1911 ------------ 1912 ------ -... --- —-- 1913 -----------—. --- — 1914 ------------ -—...Average -- -------- June 30: 1915 --- —------- 1916 ------------ 1917 --- —-------- 1918 —. --- —--—.. Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- Average. -- Dec. 31: 1919 -------- 1920 ----------- 1921. --- —1922 --- —--------- Average.... --- —------ Dec. 31: 1923 --- —------- 1924. --- —-------- 1925 — ---- 1926 ----------- ------- 133 86 (3) 127 108 43 52 55 59 39 391 394 2,047 1,993 130 97 --— 54 49 392 33.1 2,020 64 107 26 41 17 269 -928 144 278 61 108 40 666 -2,187 176 348 126 105 38 841 ---— I 2, 366 200 358 121 77 29 829 -2, 509 207 692 154 95 36 1, 2388 2,374 150 420 140 54 35 830 ---— 2, 096 171 400 114 87 35 850 20.1 2,266 137 127 106 77 34 6519 ----- 2,722 151 127 81 58 20 4853, 095 160 151 137 47 22 572 ----- 3,329 218 151 183 57 26 689 ------ 2,892 173 145 152 48 25 587 2, 671 168 140 132 58 26 6571 29.5 2,942 256 45 22 24 27 414 ----- 2,511 484 2 --- 45 53 615 -........ 5, 461 601 (4) ----- 28 719 -— 5,412 874 - ------- 26 53 959 ----5,488 723 --- 5 24 755 — 2,934 653 ---- ---- 28 3 769 84.9 4,846 1,650 1 39 111 1,829 ---— 8,799 3,014 109 82 91 113 3,448 — 13,560 1,758 215 83 71 44 2,213-.. 8,098 634 76 108 40 18 897 --— 5,197 1,764 100 68 60 72 2, 097 84.1 8, 914 1,020 239 197 56 39 1, 584 -6,669 764 366 404 64 28 1,711 ----- 6,211 643 458 325 102 31 1, 613 -5, 046 5553 324 370 88 21 1,432 7,004 Average - --------- 745 347 324 78 30 1, 581 47.0 6,232 1 Single classification for the import statistics and for the statistics of United States exports from 1902 to 1917, inclusive; beginning with 1918, the export figures combine 3 or more items, including chemical, cut or engraved, table, and electrical (except for lihting), glassware; lamp and lantern supplies; optical goods; and the basket item "All other glassware.' 2 Imports frpm England, for the succesisve periods, averaged $10,000, $23,600, $32,200, $8,100, $6,100, and $10,400. 3 Not separately enumerated. The figure in the classification " Other European countries"' (exclusive also of England) is $51,800. ' Less than $500. a Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $33,400. 356 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 215.-Barrels and hogsheads 1 [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 3.03 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent Total....._______-_ o - ___of total United Year ended- from States United Great United domestic States pain Britain States exports 2...... - Dec. 31: 1902 ----------------------- 1903...-. --- —------ Average --- —----- June 30: 1904 (6 months). --- —------ 1905 --- —------ 1906 --- —------ 1907.- ---—. —. 1908. --- —---------- 1909 —. --- —--- Average ------------ June 30: 1910-.- --------- 1911 ----------------- 1912 ---------------- 1913 ---------------- 1914. --- —------------ Average ------------- June 30: 19165 ---------------- 1916 ------------ 1917. --- —------------ 1918 — ---------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months).. Average. --- —-------- Dec. 31: 1919. --- —------------- 1920-. --- —----------- 1921..... --- —------—. 1922. --- —------- Average. --- —-------- Dec. 31: 1923. --- —----------- 1924. --- —------------ 1925. --- —----—. ---1926..-.... --- —------- Average ------------ 191 205 237 225 34 39 (3) 3 482 ---—. ---488 -—. — 5,620 4,714 198 231 37 ---— 485 40.8 5,167 102 129 19 7 268 ----- 2, 949 240 234 29 20 545 --------- 5, 230 256 239 34 20 573-6, 670 294 230 30 19 605 ----7, 042 259 226 27 18 564 -- - 8,176 252 216 18 28 537 7, 924 255 232 29 20 562 45.4 6, 907 280 208 27 17 561 ---------- 7,116 290 196 46 15 570 --- — 7, 717 326 197 24 14 580 ----8, 276 358 179 26 15 597 ---------- 11,093 382 163 22 18 606 --— 8, 641 327 189 29 16 583 656.1 8,569 381 154 23 13 580-4,880 594 161 23 16 820 ----— 6 --- 5, 528 562 169 28 21 790 --— 7, 319 480 114 23 46 673 ---— 8,708 184 88 9 17 300 --— 6 --- — 5, 188 489 153 24 25 703 69.6 7,027 439 135 21 25 630-22,786 472 195 19 23 719 --- —23,511 343 110 24 16 0 —6 --- — - 5, 995 347 94 14 14 477 --- - 7, 297 400 134 20 20 583 68.7 14, 897 561 130 30 15 764 --------- 9, 282 314 120 21 4 500 ---------- 9, 797 272 106 22 4 443 --— 10, 520 4 272 106 9 4 426 ---- 10,203 355 116 20 7 534 66. 5 9,950 U Imported, in part as receptacles of other articles; but, being capable of further use, they ate dutiable separately according to their own tariff numbers. It is likely that shooks, hoops, and headings and wood cut for making hogsheads or casks for sugar or molasses are reported under this classification rather than under "Miscellaneous manufactures of wood." * The figures here shown combine four or more items, including shooks (all other, except for boxes); staves; headings; cooperage; and empty barrels, casks, and hogsheads (for 1911, however, the last item was included under "All other manufactures of wood"). INot separately enumerated. The figure in the classification "Other American countries" is less than $500. 4 Exclusive of insignificant nonpreferential imports from the United States. STATISTICAL TABLES 357 TABLE 216.-Wooden boxes and cases 1 [Twenty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 2.25 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted]' Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent Total...___...__..-I. of total United Year ended- from States United Spa Great Ger Fan A United domestic States Span Britain many States exports a Y~i,~ ' B~~,, r.-..-~.sy..... I I I I Dec. 31: 1902 ------- 1903 --- —--------- Average ---------- June 30: 1904 (6 months) ------ 1905. 1906 --- —-------- 1907 --- 1908 — 1909 Average-.. --- —---- June 30: 1910 ------------- 1911 ----------- 1912 ------------ 1913 --- —------- 1914 ------ Average -—. ---June 30: 1915 - 1916 ------ -------------- 1917. --- — 1918 - ------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- — Average- ------ Dec. 31: 1919 --- —-- 1920 -------------- 1921 - 1922 ------ Average - Dec. 31: 1923 ------ 1924 -------------- 1925 -------------- 1926 -------------- 63 69 38 42 24 14 32 23 15 168 -- 18 199 731 864 66 40 28 19 16 183 36.0 798 57 26 20 24 14 152 -- - 402 141 60 48 48 31 353 — 825 243 72 54 50 34 488 — 954 288 53 43 40 39 497 -940 234 55 46 38 33 446 - 958 205 38 37 20 26 361 958 212 55 45 40 32 418 50.8 916 250 47 46 27 28 439 1, 122 502 46 73 36 41 742 1, 110 468 52 73 65 36 759 --- — 1, 070 593 66 66 99 49 954 ----- 1, 367 707 82 49 98 115 1,162 — 1, 270 504 59 61 65 54 811 62.2 1, 188 853 108 38 28 36 1, 145 --- 1, 303 1,004 106 41 1 40 1,256 --- - 1,909 734 105 34 ----- 46 987 — 2,030 940 85 20 --- 33 1,127 2, 511 425 36 4 --— 4 7 491 ------ 1,258 879 98 30 1 6 36 1,112 79.0 2,002 852 86 22 () 39 1,033 — 2, 821 1,418 112 54 15 42 1, 702 ------ 4, 249 904 96 33 26 35 1,152 2, 535 639 78 23 18 27 816 1, 963 953 93 33 15 36 1, 176 81.0 2,892 919 100 29 41 40 1, 188 -— 3, 595 664 107 42 60 56 1, 010 -- - 3, 273 714 93 33 54 50 1,019 - -3, 739 4 367 82 30 44 47 631 ---- 4, 426 —._.,............... __..... ~..... Average ------------- 666 96 34 50 481 962 69. 2 3, 758 1 Imported, in part, as receptacles of other articles, but, being capable of further use, they are dutiable separately, according to their own tariff numbers. It is likely that box shooks and boxes in a knockeddown condition are reported under this classification rather than under "Miscellaneous manufactures of wood." 3 The classification reads 'Box shooks." 8 Less than $500. 4 Exclusive of insignificant nonpreferential imports from the United States. 358 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 217.-Manufactures of reed, willow, rush, and grass I ( Twenty pe cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 5.06 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent of Year ended — total from United United Great States Britain Dec. 31: 1902'................. -........ — 1903..... --- —.... --- —-- Average..... --- —------—.. --- June 30: 1904 (6 months) --- —------ 10..05.............-............ 1906-.............. 1907 —....................... 1908 --- -------------- 1909. Average. --- —---- lune 30: 1910.....-.......... ---. 1911. --- -- 1912............................... 1913.-...... ------- 1914..3- - ----------- Average... --- —-—..June 30: 1915-........ --- —---—. --- —-. —. 1916-.....~..................... 1917..... ----......... ---..1918-............. Dee. 31, 1918 (6 months). —..-........ Average.-..... Dec. 31: 1919-................................ 1920 —... —..... ---............. 1921 -..................-... — 1922-.. --- —-....... — - Average. --- --- Dec. 31: 1923... ----------------- 1924 -.- ---- 1925 — ----- - --- 1926-.......................... --- Average -...-........ -.. ----,.0 --- —--—.. -----------—....- ---- -... --—.. --------. --- —----- -----.. --- — 77.2 37 1 5 47 ----. 89 2 9 122 131 22 11 192. ---106 30 19 196.. 81 19 12 149... 17 26 10 83a.. 84 18 12 144 58.4 37 29 14 115 ----------- 24 15 8 72 ------ 24 72 9 132.... --- —--- 22 65 10 138. 12 8 6 51 24 38 9 102 23.4 26 38 3 90..... --- —.40 237 6 305 --- —126 230 44 451. --- —295 163 2 495 -... --- —--- 275 131 8 422. --- —------ 169 177 14 392 43.3 404 224 (3) 668 --—.-.802 352 5 1, 286 ---. —. — 271 171 1 505 ---118 109 1 253 -... --- —--- 399 214 2 678 58.8 268 407 6 703.. ---176 286 4 539.....-..... - 156 326 3 542..... '106 263 4 468..- - 177 320 4 563 31.4 t Single classification for the import statistics; not comparably enumerated among United States exports. *Net separately enumerated. Of the total $82,300 worth of imports of manufactured'and unmanufaotured reed, willow, etc., the United States supplied $46,600, or 56.6 per cent. ' Less than $500. Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $21,800. 1,1 TABLE 218.-Wrapping paper, bags, etc.'1 fTwenty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1905, to 9.97 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] 0 Countries from which imported into Cuba ' Year ended- United States Germany Spain All Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Q I~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... I.....I 'er cent of total from United States uantity Value Dec. 31, 1903 I --- —--------------- Average -----------—... -.,...,. June 30: 1904 (6 months) ---------------------- 1905. --- —-.... —...... ---. --- —--- 1906_ --- —-------------- - 1907-.......................................-....... 1908-........... 1909-.......... Average --- —.. ---......... June 30: 1910............ --- —-------- 1911 —.._ --- —-------- ---------- -- - -- - -- 1912_ --- —--------------------------- 1913..-...-..-....... —. 1914 --------—.... ---.. —..... ---Average -...-.. —......-. June 30: 1915 ---- ---------- -- 1916_ --- —---------------- 1917 — --------------------- 1918 ---------------------—.. Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) ---- --------- Average --------------- i Kilos 449 $27 Kilos 1,116 Kilos 56 $53 $3 Kilos 1,760 i $92 1 --- —------- - I ttI-.- - - -. -.-...- - ~ -..-. -......-................... ^................................25.5 29.1 246 17 58 3 60 1 395 27 708 45 226 16 78 3 1,060 66... 996 50 137 11 110 8 1,277 70 1,330 87 53 4 19 1 1,449 95 -- ------- 2,352 183 323 21 -- -2,711 207 ------ ---- 1, 620 117 323 20 --------- -2,-141 150 - 1,318 91 204 14 49 2 1, 642 112 80.3 81.1 1, 314 99 416 22 2 (4) 1, 972 137 668 55 278 17 11 1 1, 195 87 299 26 305 25 29 3 732 60 --- ------ 820 59 98 6 9 1 979 71 1,266 88 163 8 22 4 1, 524 104....... 873 65 252 16 -----—.... --- —----------—....... 1, 280 92 682 71.1 1,310 84 61 3 10 1 1,453 92 2,299 156 - 1 ) 2, 318 157 1, 798 202 --- 1 3 1 1,826 205 3,344 408 17 4 3, 656 440 1,012 135 ----— 1,019 136.-...................... 2.169 219- - -2,282 229 95.0 95. 7 0 I 0 0 h1 0 K( ~Irt H H N H H* Dec. 31: 1919...... --- —.. --- —----—.. 1920. --- —-------- 0-. --- —----- 1921 --- —----------------- 1922 —.. —.-..- ----—. Average —. --- —- ------------------------ Dec. 31: 1923S. 9 ----.-. —.- ------- 1924. 199 2 5._ 192 — -------------------------------------- Average ----------- ------------------ 3,373 2,301 1, 580 1,748 457 406 433 212 (1) _ (4) 1 I 78 112 13 13 4 (4) n"7)" 3,401 2,409 Z 033 1,993 460 --- 433 -------- 477 ------------- 244 --- ---------- 2,251 377 47 6 2, --- —----- 2459 404 91.5 93.4; _~~~~~~~~~ - _I-. ---1- -— r --- —-—;-" 1,637 593 2, 146 63,230 1,902 213 80 286 378 239 631 650 963 1,336 895 69 59 90 125 86 5 25 - --— " —4 - 3,149 1,790 3,988 6, 554 3, 870 379 210 471 682 436 ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------— I 54.9 49.1 Single classification for the Cuban imports; not separately or comparably enumerated in the statistics of United States exports for most of the years he 2For the last period imports from Norway averaged 390,400 kilos, $40,300, and from Sweden, 190,600 kilos, $21,800; imports from Holland in 1923 were 70,80 1,022,500 kilos, $78,200; averaging for the 4 years 1923-1926, 317,200 kilos, $27,100. 3 Not separately enumerated. Less than $500. 6Less than 500 kilos. 6 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 115,900 kilos, $9,600. wre included. 0 kilos, $8,300; in 1926; M 3 H H 03:> -4 - H 103 I C, CO p TABLE 219.-Paper sheets I [Thirty per cent reduction, equivalent, in 1906, to 16.66 per cent ad valorem; quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] Co AA&k. o Countries from which imported into Cuba Year ended- United States Spain Germany France All Quantity Va Value Quantit Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Per cent of total from United States Quantity. Value........ I Dec. 31: 1902. --- —---------------- 1903 --- —------------------ Average -----------—. --- —----—. ---June 30: 1904 (6 months)-..... --- —---------------- 1905. --- —----------------------—. --- 1906 --------------------- 1907 ------ ------------------ 1908.... --- —------------------- 1909. ----. --- —--—. --- —-- Average............ June 30: 1910. ----. --- —---—. --- —------------- 1911. --- —-----------------—.. --- —-- 1912. ---...-. — --—......... 1914 -. --- —---------—. --- —. Average. --- —------------------------ June 30: 1915. --- —--------------------------—. 1916 ------------------------- ------- 1917-.... --- —--------------—... --- —.. 1918 --- ------------------------------ Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --- ---------- Average... --- —------------------- Kilos 923 672 $88 97 Kilos 610 555 $166 90 Kilos 260 229 $32 36 Kilos 344 217 $36 30 Kilos 2,283 1, 701 $335 257 797 92 583 128 244 34 281 33 1, 992 296 40.0 31.2 356 61 89 17 184 26 89 12 732 118. --- —---- 914 126 353 66 303 651 366 52 2,008 304 ---------- 1,188 149 271 68 382 53 351 47 2,234 324 -1 337 191 174 356 448 42 369 44 2,356 318 --- —--- 212 167 32 195 41 441 68 2,287 355 ----------,20 191 186 37 247 39 275 39 2,058 326 -1,177 1689 226 46 320 46 344 46 2,123 317 55.4 53.3 957 192 186 38 201 33 257 43 1, 736 329 ----- ----- 848 121 179 36 169 24 202 28 1,479 220 --- —------ 8m 164 107 23 118 16 657 9 1,255 231 ---------- 759 116 60 12 116 16 82 8, 177 171 -1,718 200 67 15 93 12 146 19 2,117 257. ---- -- 1, 028 158 120 25 139 20 149 22 1, 553 242 66.2 65. 6 2,194 2, 708 4,651 3,429 2,06 262 367 778 821 511 73 128 117 60 26 18 31 34 19 12 50 (3) 7 (3) --------— I ---------- 38 66 10 5 1 9 11 4 3 (3) 2,462 3, 008 4,826 3,498 2,095 311 423 828 845 524 ----------.......-.-....-... 3, 344 609 90 25 ---—. --- —--------- 27 6 3,531 651 94. 7 93.4 ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ --— o - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... Dee. 31: 1919 —. —............................ 1920............................... 1922.-..-.......-..... ----....................._. Average...-. ---.......-................... Dec. 31: 19 --- —............................9-..1921 --- —-- -- -- --------------------- 1925.-.. —...-.....-...... ---..-........ 1926...-.....-...........-....Average-...- - -.................. 4,823 4,830 2,69 2,271 1,305 I, 768 1,200 522 55 13 49 11 28 11 21 4 29 321652 216 1! 105 31 (2) 5 32 4 (8) 2 9 2 4,887 4,893 3,185 2,527 1,338 1, 798 1,352 571 m-.m.....i. -- - - - - 3,654 1,199 32 16 149 37 10 3 3,873 1,2656 94.4 94.8 3572 824 45 14 1,023 150 23 5 5,203 1, 077 -.-.-......... 2,293 601 71 19 1, 682 221 8 4 4,480 916.-.. --- —--—. --- —2,753 818 24 8 1, 501 195 13 6 4, 808 1, 118. '2,579 662 48 15 1, 323 167 14 6 4,650 966 -----—. 2,799 726 47 14 1, 382 183 14 5 4, 785 1, 019 58. 5 71.3 - -- — ~~~~-I III I 1 Not comparably enumerated among United States domestic exports prior to 1922. Less than 500 kilos. Less than $500. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to 103,000 kilos, $15,900. I*,% %OW CO.CA3 364 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY TABLE 220.-Miscellaneous paper 1 [Thirty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 13.22 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] Year ended -1 Countries from which imported into Cuba I United States I Spain I I Gmer France many 1 Norway Dec. 31: 1902 2-...................... 1903 --. ----------—. Average.. --- —------ June 30: 1904 (6 months).-. --- —1905 ------------- 1906 ------------ 1907 --- —------- 1908 -------------------------- 1909 --- —-------- Average. --- —-- June 30: 1910 --- —------- 1911 ------------- 1912 --- —------- 1913 --- —------- 1914 ------------ Average --- —--- June 30: 1915 ------------ 1916 ----------- 1917 ------------- 1918. --- —------------- Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months) --------- Average --- —---- Dec. 31: 1919 ------------ 1920 -------------- 1921 --- —-------- 1922 --- —---------- Average --- —--- Dec. 31: 1923 --- —-------- 1924 ------------ 1925 ------------- 1926 ------------- Average --- —---- B m - I _I j I All mi Per cent of total from United States Total United States domestic exports...232 " 10 ii. 73 I'..... l '49i::':: r~~~~isrr- -- --- -- -- - 232 I rrr~r ~ --- ---- --------— r 3, 359 3, 662 -L I -L I -f ---- --- ---- ----- 11.8 3, 51 35 104 56 27 ---- 244 — 1,708 83 218 126 77 ----- 523 ------ 3, 674 126 255 231 41 — 681 — 4, 324 94 195 139 57 -- 514 ------- 4, 660 111 136 224 71 2 565 ------- 4,377 106 143 195 94 22 576 — 3,953 101 191 176 67 4 564 17.9 4, 127 144 182 219 85 41 66 -4, 412 376 170 274 100 3 940 — 4, 802 287 162 232 88 6 818 -4, 990 464 200 246 119 24 1,142 ----- 3,907 510 232 247 73 25 1,181 — 3,857 356 189 244 93 20 953 37.4 4,394 467 203 72 14 56 855 ---- - 3, 000 1, 086 228 6 10 118 1,477. —, — 5, 090 1, 734 273 10 111 2,148 ---— 6,091 1, 866 192 (3) 12 17 2, 105 7, 050 1,022 114 —..3 --- 1,147 -..... 4,785 1, 372 224 --- —-- 11 67 1, 718 79.8 5,781 2, 833 335 12 ---- 3, 205 -— 12, 687 3, 318 343 22 14 90 3, 807 15, 810 2, 450 182 194 19 56 2, 995 -— 8, 021 1, 384 118 147 30 22 1,800 — 16, 993 2,496 245 91 19 42 2, 952 84.6. 13,378 1, 083 165 409 23 190 2, 000 16, 899 1,006 135 432 28 67 1,762 -— 17,250 1, 066 155 312 22 25 1,671 ------ - 17,484 4830 136 193 32 15 1,319 ----- - 11, 052 I 996 i 148 i 336 26 I 74 I 1,688 i 59.0 I 15, 671 I I ~~~~................,..I....... 1 Single classification for the import statistics, and for the statistics of United States exports from 1902 to 1912, including playing cards prior to July 1, 1903, but excluding this and other items as segregated from year to year; beginning with 1913 the export figures combine 2 or more items, variously enumerated, so as to give a comparable total. a Not separately enumerated. The figures under the classification "Miscellaneous paper and cardboard"' are (in thousands of dollars) as follows: United States 94, Spain 191, Germany 154, France 127, other European 20; all 689, so that the United States supplied 15.9 per cent of the total value. * Less than $500. 4 Exclusive of nonpreferential imports from the United States amounting to $24,700. STATISTICAL TABLES 365 TABLE 221.-Manufactured rubber and waterproof fabrics 1 fTwenty per cent reduction equivalent, in 1905, to 6.17 per cent ad valorem; values in thousands of dollars that is, 000 omitted] Countries from which imported into Cuba Per cent Total ___ - ___ - ________ ___of total United Year ended- from States United Great n rman AaUnited domestic States Britain Sermany States exports _......_._~~~~~~~- -- I I.......... Dec. 31: 1902 --- —------- 1903 --- —------ Average —. --- —------ June 30: 1904 (6 months).. --- —--- 1905. --- —--------- 1906 ---------------- 1907 --- —------- 1908 --- —--- - 1909 --- —------ Average --------- —.June 30: 1910. --- —-—. --- 1911 ------------ 1912 --- —1913. --- —------------------ 1914 -------- Average ----- June 30: 1915 1916 -. ------ 1917 --- —--------- 1918 -Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months). Average ---- -... Dec. 31: 1919 ----------- 1920 ----------------- 1921 ----------------- 1922. --- —------------ Average --- —... Dec. 31: 1923 -.. --- —------ 1924 --- —------ 1925 ------------ 1926 --- —Average ------------ 69 71 22 34 21 12 15 11 137 ------- 140 -- 2, 750 3,370 70 28 16 13 138 50.8 3, 060 39 16 13 6 80 ---.- 1, 634 110 51 37 12 227 ----- 3,566 154 56 64 14 303 — 4,187 192 64 33 20 324 4, 983 169 31 23 24 269 --- —5, 091 183 31 8 20 262 -5, 322 154 45 32 17 266 57.9 4, 506 198 81 13 24 344 — 7,076 255 75 12 21 394 6, 050 261 84 10 28 423 -— 6, 459 243 69 12 23 392 6, 519 265 92 10 24 435 — 5, 826 244 80 12 24 398 61.5 6,386 264 48 8 10 373 5, 333 402 49 7 (2) 496 10, 277 514 98 18 675 — 11,798 791 84 1 ------ 899 ---- 11,657 521 94 4 -.. --- 628 ------- 3,057 554 83 8. --- —- 682 881.2 9, 360 1,452 145 4 ----- 1, 636 — 16, 469 1, 726 169 9 (2) 1,940 -19, 011 1,114 116 8 9 1,294 -9,986 661 32 7 708 — 8, 367 1, 238 116 6 4 1, 394 88.8 13, 458 1,015 28 6 37 1,106 ------ 14,462 1, 044 132 5 49 1,295 ------ 11, 345 1,018 82 9 71 1, 259 ------ 12, 653 3915 33 5 54 1,092 — 13,651 998 69 6 53 1,188 84.0 13, 028 1 The import figures include rubber hose but exclude boots and shoes. The export figures combine 2 or more items including belting, hose, and packing; druggists' rubber sundries; waterproof and rubberized cloth and clothing; hard rubber goods; and "other rubber manufactures." ' Less than $500. 8 Exclusive of insignificant nonpreferential imports from the United States. TABLE 154.-United States exports of rice, domestic and foreign, to Cuba; and Cuban imports of rice from the I with averages for selected periods [Quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] 7nited States, 1901-1926, United States exports of foreign rice I United States United States do- total exports, mestic exports I Total cleaned and to Cuba domesYear ended — Cleaned rice Uncleaned rice unland tic and foreign Quantity Valuue Quantity Value Quantity VaVue Quantity Value Cuban imports from the United States 2 Quantity Value -1~~~~........ June 30-1901__ --- —------------------- 190234 -Average -----------------—. ----.-... 1904 —... --- —-----—... ---.. --- 1905-.... ---------- 1906. —. --- —-—.. ---1907 --- —_ --- — 19098-. --- —----.... --- —... Average --—.-............... --- —--- 1910... ----. --- —---—..-........ 1911. --- —------ 1912. --------- 1913...... —..-.-.-....-....-................ 1914.. —. —... --- —-- Average —. —. ---. —.1915...............-............... 1916.. ----. --- —-------—.... --- — 1917. --- —--------—. —. ----. --- — 1918 ------—.... ----. Dec. 31-1918 (6 months) -.......,... ----.. —.. — Average ---—... --- —----—. — Pounds 31 7 1 $1 Pounds Pounds ---------- (4) (4) Pounds 31 3 34 (4) $1 1 Pounds 62 11 35 (4) $2 1 Libras s 162 13 4 $4 (4) (4) 'c13 ()... ---—... -...._23 (4). 36 _. 1 60 1.. 699 20 ---- ----- 97 2 796 22 656 12 37, 906 1, 054- -- — 99 2 38, 005 1,056 37, 523 738 166 4- ------ —... ---— 15(4) 181 4 611 12 C( ) ----I --- —- ----------- 9( 9 () 387 8 45 2 ---— 1, 125 24 1,169 25 777 26 13 1 —, --- -— 14 ( 27 1 1, 024 23 6, 472 180 -------------- ---- - 226 5 6,698 185 6,813 136 3, 881 96 -—........ --- 8 (4) 3, 889 97 3, 828 83 2,278 53 -----........ --- — ---— 4 (4) 2, 282 53 2,216 52 9,140 246 ----------- -70 2 9,210 248 9, 234 255 669 29 36 $1. --- —- -..36 1 706 30 5,394 178 11,378 415 1 --------— 1 () 11, 379 415 13, 375 373 5,469 168 ----- ----- -- - 24 1 5,493 168 6, 809 188 25,340 1,000 2,650 64 ----- ---- - 2,650 64 27,991 1, 064 34,908 1,284 49,127 1,897 18, 650 406 30 $1 18, 681 406 67,808 2, 304 60,817 2,190 21,907 891 1,308 248 ----- -- --- 11, 308 248 33,215 1,139 49, 930 1, 915 19,340 1,231 37, 472 1, 881 3,022 226 40,493 2,107 59,834 3, 339 116, 876 6,723 1,096 61 68,968 4, 910 305 18 69,272 4, 929 70, 368 4, 990 73, 258 5,122 26,958 1,129 30,900 1,669 746 54 31,645 1,723 57,604 2,852 74,620 3,830 C z U 0 I-t;P11) 1-3 H H H N 19190....^ -...-..- ^ ^ ^ - - 1920 1921. --- —---------------- 1922 --- —---------------- Average -- -..- ---— _1923. —. --- —--—.1924 -. --- —------------ 192-5.......... --- —--- 1926_ 77, 788 7, 386 63, 732 5, 38 574 68 64,306., 52 142, 9 1, 2838 126, 923 11,132 64, 192 7, 331 33, 555 3,556 472 57 34,027 3,613 98, 218 10,944 132, 526 14,851 36,670 1,481 20,206 916 -- ---- 20,206 916 56,876 2,396 59,122 3, 467 18,130 567 11,060 373 341 12 11,401 384 29,530 951 41, 626 1, 396 49, 195 4, 191 32, 138 2, 557 347 34 32,485 2, 591 81,680 6,782 90,049 7,712 8,609 230 1,805 57 34 1 1 840 58 10,449 288 33,198 793 1,142 33 795 32 194 8 989 40 2, 131 73 33 371 1, 076 1,193 32 146 7 1 (4)147 7 1,340 38 32,585 1,118 5,228 142 98 4 - - -98 4 5, 327 146 15,767 7555 14_ 5 6 5 Average --- - - --- ---- 4, 043 109 711 25 57 2 768 27 4,812 136 I These domestic export figures may be taken to represent Cuban imports from the United States entered with preferential treatment, the exports of fore to nonpreferential imports. The export statistics have been resorted to for this differentiation because Cuban statistics, prior to 1926, do not distinguish bet' United States that are entitled to reductions of duty and those that are not. 2 Beginning with 1913 and for every following year except 1916 and 1919, the Cuban statistics credit the United States with imports of rice strikingly in exports of domestic and foreign rice combined. In a few instances (see, for example, 1916 and 1917) the difference may be due to shipments made near the no such explanation can account for the consistent and cumulative discrepancies which are indicated by the two sets of average annual quantities for 1910-191 and 1923-1926; the figures for the 12~ years 1915-1926 aggregate 823,000,000 pounds (converted from libras) of imports and 605,000,000 pounds of exports, or 21L improperly recorded as imports from the United States; of the exports, 329,000,000 pounds were domestic rice entitled to preferential treatment. (See footn 3 The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. 4 Less than $500. 6 The calendar year 1904 witnessed "an extraordinary production" of 928,000,000 pounds of rice in the United States, followed by a second record crop o 1905. (Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture, 1905, p. 11.) 6 Less than 500 pounds. 7 Preferential and nonpreferential combined. (See Table 153, note 8.) 28,730 886 sign rice corresponding. ween imports from the excess of United States turn of the year. But 4, 1915-1918, 1919-1922, 7,000,000 pounds of rice [ote 1.) f 637,000,000 pounds in TABLE 167.-United States exports to Cuba of domestic green and roasted coffee and of foreign coffee, and Cuban imports United States, including Porto Rico, 1901-1926, with averages for selected periods of coffee from the C0 [Quantities and values in thousands; that is, 000 omitted] United States domestic exports I United States ex- United States total ports of foreign exports to Cuba, Year ended Green coffee 3 Roasted coffee 3 reea cff eic and orQuantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Cuban imports from United States and Porto Rico 2 Quantity Value June 30-1901 --- —-- --- 1902 --- —--------------- 1903 --- —------ Average --- —-- -------- 1904 --- —-- ------------ 1905. --- —- -. --- —. 1906 ---- ----------- 1907 --- —------- 1908 --- ---------- ----- 1909 --- —------- Average -------- 1910 --- — ----- 1911 ---- ----—. — 1912 ----------- 1913 —. --- —--------- 1914 --- —------ Average --- —---------- 1915_ --- —- --------------- 1916 --- —---------------- 1917 --- — -------- 1918 ----------- Dec. 31-1918 (6 mos.) ------ Average-, ---,-.-. —.-,,,- --—.. Pounds 2,679 3,534 $293 345 Pounds 1 (5) (6) (1) Pounds 2, 680 3, 534 $293 346 Pounds 15,278 13,995 15,896 $1,276 936 951 Pounds 15,278 16, 675 19,431 $1,276 1,229 1,296 Libras 19, 979 17, 311 19,924 $1,977 1,297 1,332 3,107 319 (5) (6) 3, 107 319 15,057 1, 054 17,128 1,267 19,071 1 1,535 4,060 412 2 (6) 4,062 412 11,920 800 15, 983 1, 212 16,137 1, 216 6, 253 761 197 $26 6, 450 787 14, 423 1,164 20, 873 1,951 14,803 1, 504 11,739 1,376 467 54 12, 206 1,430 6,627 607 18, 833 2,037 15, 925 1,774 16,318 1, 888 1,806 215 18, 123 2103 4, 558 453 22,681 2, 556 18, 922 2,198 13,074 1, 468 3, 242 321 16,317 1,789 2,200 189 18,517 1,978 16,972 1846 11, 342 1, 427 72 8 11,414 1,435 8,541 707 19,955 2,142 19,185 2,162 10,464 1,222 964 104 11, 429 1, 326 8,045 653 19, 474 1,980 16, 991 1,783 20,636 2,456 56 8 20,691 2, 464 3,300 286 23,991 2, 749 20,034 2,344 20, 243 2,978 196 38 20, 439 3,017 \ 232 27 20,671 3, 044 20,018 2,743 22,378 3,629 36 6 22,415 3,634 6 1 22, 420 3, 635 23,269 3,961 23, 019 3, 781 31 6 23,051 3,787 32 3 23, 083 3, 790 22,426 3,871 19,633 3,077 52 12 19,685 3,089 16 2 19,701 3,091 20,600 3,290 21,182 3,184 74 14 21,256 3,198 717 64 21,973 3, 262 21,269 3,242 21, 426 2771 13 3 21, 439 2,774 177 18 21,616 2, 792 20,247 2,639 20, 178 2, 978 45 8 20,223 2, 986 137 12 20, 360 2, 998 18,215 2,626 25,156 3, 509 10 2 25, 166 3, 511 62 7 25, 228 3,518 23,434 3,502 26,484 3,690 5 1 26,489 3, 691 9 1 26,497 3,692 27, 830 3,789 7,879 1,309 (5) (6) 7,879 1, 309 - ------ 7, 879 1,309 9, 164 1, 375 22,472 3, 168 16 3 22,488 3,172 86 8 22,573 3,180 21,975 3, 096 ___,"! ". Fv= r. --- -,.= -^^,.. --- - - -. -.. -- _- - - e, -- 1919- — 16,206 4,293 122 29 16,328 4,322 2, 799 579 19,128 4,901 17, 036 1920- — 27,064 7,128 81 16 27,145 7, 145 6,319 1,192 33,465 8,337 30, 772 1921 -- -- - -----------------— 1 21,775 3,585 21 5 21,797 3, 590 2,831 339 24,628 3,929 23,861 1922 ------ --— 13,547 2,491 23 5 13,570 2,497 2,754 365 16,324 2,862 12,48(; 4,453 2 7,181 I 4, 079 2, 219 Average --- —-—. --- —---..... 1923...-.- ---—.. --- ----... 1924 ---------------- 1925 -- ------ --- -- - 1926 --------------- 19, 648 4,375 62 14 19, 710 4, 389 3,676 618 23,386 5,007 21,039 4,483 15,687 2,963 111 18 15,799 2, 981 9,391 1,339 25, 190 4, 320 17, 193 3,273 11, 790 2, 782 24 7 11,813 2, 789 10, 425 1, 909 22,239 4,697 16, 622 3, 682 10,623 3, 024 47 14 10,669 3,038 7, 229 1,640 17, 899 4,678 12,949 3, 469 9,295 2, 525 21 8 9,317 2, 533 1,648 380 10, 965 2, 913 7 10, 378 7 2,826 Average -------- - 11,849 2,824 51 12 11,900 2,835 7,173 1,317 19,073 1 These domestic export figures may be taken to represent Cuban imports from the United States entered with preferential treatment, the exports to nonpreferential imports. The export statistics have been resorted to for this differentiation because Cuban statistics prior to 1926 do not distingu United States that are entitled to reduction of duty and those that are not. 2 Beginning with 1905 (except 1912, 1914, and July 1, 1917, to Dec. 31, 1918) the Cuban statistics credit the United States and Porto Rico with im than United States exports of domestic (i. e., Porto Rican) and foreign coffee combined. The figures for the 23~ years 1904-1926 aggregate 498,000,000 pc pounds (converted from libras) of imports, or 43,000,000 pounds of coffee not accounted for; of the exports, 402,000,000 pounds were domestic coffee eni (See footnote 1.) 3 The statistics in "Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States," 1901-1926, for exports of domestic merchandise by customs dist of domestic green coffee were shipped to foreign countries almost entirely from Porto Rico prior to 1916; beginning with that year, increasing amounts averaging 9,428,000 pounds for 1923-1926. No exports of roasted coffee from Porto Rico are recorded before 1915, and only insignificant amounts afte have accounted for between one-fourth and five-sixths, in more recent years for about one-fifth, of the total quantity exported from the United State countries from Porto Rico and from Hawaii are included in United States exports.) 4 The Cuban libra is only slightly heavier than the pound avoirdupois. ' Less than 500 pounds. * Less than $500. 7 Preferential and nonpreferential combined. (See Table 166, note 7.) 4, 152 14,286 3,313 of foreign coffee corresponding ish between imports from the ports of coffee considerably less )unds of exports and 455,000,000 m titled to preferential treatment. H ricts indicate that total exports 3 were exported from New York, C r that; exports from New York H s. (Exports of coffee to foreign Q C)03 TABLE 172.-United States exports of domestic cotton cloths, including duck, to Cuba and to other markets, 1902-1926, with at periods [Values in thousands of dollars; that is, 000 omitted] weroaes for selected CO 0 Exports of uncolored cotton cloths I to- Exports of colored cotton clc Year ended-. Other Central South Other Central South Cuba Wo C est Ameri- meri- Mexico Canada Cuba West Ame- Amerie ca a Indies ca c dies ca ca -- w -- I --- - - ---.4.l | | M. ____ )ths a toMexico Canada _. Dec. 31: 1902_ --- —------ -- 1903 --- —----------------- Average —.. --- —---------.. --- June 30: 1904 (8 months) -------- 1905 --- —---------------------------- 1906 ---------— _._ --- —----- 1907 --- —-------------- 1908 --- —--------------------- 1909 --- —- ------------------ Average 7 -_____ --- —---- June 30: 1910 ------------------ 1911.-. -----------—. 1912 -1913_ 1914 ---------- Average -....... June 30: 1915 _....... 1916 ----- 1917 --- —----- 1918........... Dec. 31, 1918 (6 months).. ---- - Average. 208 272 1,516 1,499 949 943 3,325 3,329 219 201 751 904 ---- --- ----------- --------— 240 1,508 948 3,327 210 828 265 591 682 1,572 101 433 507 330 653 1,481 122 302 409 1, 101 794 2, 091 148 328 640 277 432 1,519 128 346 409 1,458 1,069 1,727 137 465 511 366 654 1,605 158 305 480 1,604 1,019 1,827 110 408 596 335 582 1,195 96 195 449 1,420 858 1,149 92 264 534 440 648 1,099 82 274 740 2,092 943 1,407 87 403 558 350 594 1,380 117 284 500 1,503 975 1, 777 123 418 329 433 353 1,182 100 386 602 2,066 1, 009 1,541 86 477 512 514 628 1,793 177 419 835 2,576 1,553 1,460 66 590 675 766 1, 146 1,819 185 865 1,261 2, 808 1,407 1,418 99 857 527 634 921 1,954 190 1,218 1,005 2,468 1,178 1,415 160, 290 693 780 1,009 1,875 192 722 898 2,643 1,135 918 214 1,251 547 625 811 1,725 169 722 902 2,512 1, 256 1, 350 125 893 948 749 881 1,408 179 635 1,724 1, 948 888 801 343 1,612 1, 311 1, 122 1,198 3, 162 1, 060 1,120 2,952 3, 28 1, 496 3,520 1, 813 4,635 2,092 1, 689 2, 280 5,925 2, 365 2, 210 3, 46 4, 728 3, 036 10, 779 5, 505 7866 3,106 2,359 2,038 8, 395 4,286 4, 439 7, 655 5, 818 2,684 16, 713 10,213 7,056 1,373 1,538 2,123 6, 238 756 1, 248 3,563 3, 330 2, 102 12, 567 2, 583 3,882 1,962 1, 57 1,893 5,584 1,921 2,145 4,342 4,247 2,268 9,862 2,324 5,567 -........ -_|.. --,'.'- ~:.................-J._._..... —= — __..........,.i- _,i 0 Ci Ca w 0 Hv N B H N 1919., - - -............... 1921 _ _ _ Dee. 31: 1923.................... 19244 _.......... 1925 --—. --- —---—.. ---...... Average -. ------—. —. --- 4,590 17,022 1, 243 1,557 4, 120 6, 185 2,010 2, 255 4,488 5, 177 3,017 2, 945 11,267 19, 443 5,464 8,753 1,482 1,619 2, 476 1,245 5, 182 6,161 1,801 2, 749 9,028 32,291 2,224 5,148 9, 577 15,056 3, 776 4,981 4,758 8,852 3 700 4,794 20, 491 44,322 6,258 13,235 i 5,388 5, 657 6,809 2,781 11,980 12,519 6,051 5,892 6,103 3 642 3,907 11, 232 1,706 3,973 12,173 8,348 5,526 21,076 5,159 9,110 3,445 2, 361 3,152 6, 754 935 2,703 10,808 5,713 6, 389 11,161 2,786 4, 648 4,123 2,398 3, 350 8, 238 861 2, 657 9, 477 5,964 5, 382 11,937 3,039 3,449 3,395 2,960 3,027 8,046 935 3,281 6,647 7,226 5,560 12,969 j 3,559 3,592 3,332 1,928 2,678 6,798 662 3,053 6,432 4,482 3,997 10,366 2,129 4,194 3,574 2,412 3,052 7, 459 848 2, 924 8,341 5,846 5,332 11,608.1= 2, 878 3,971 1 Not separately enumerated, 1902-1904; single classification, 1905 and 1906. Beginning with 1907, these exports are separated into unbleached and ble with 1917 into unbleached and bleached duck, and other cotton cloths, unbleached and bleached; the figures here shown represent these items combined. 2 The figures for 1902-1904 represent exports of uncolored and colored cotton cloths. Beginning with 1905, colored cloths are separately enumerated and IE or 4 classes as follows: In 1907-1909, dyed, colored, and printed; in 1915 and 1916, printed, piece dyed, and yam dyed; and beginning with 1917, as colored < cloths, printed, piece dyed, and yam dyed; figures here shown represent these items combined. 3 The figures here shown represent combined exports to British (including Bermuda, 1902-1904), Danish (later Virgin Islands of the United States), Dut Indies; the Dominican Republc; and Haiti. 4 The figures here shown represent combined exports to Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama (after 1904), and Salvador (including a] 1902-1904). s The figures here shown represent combined exports to Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador; British, Dutch, and French Guiana; Paran and Venezuela. * Figures for 1902-1904 reported for British North America. 7 5-year average for uncolored cotton cloths. Bached and beginning iter divided into three duck and other cotton;ch, and French West Iso British Honduras guay, Peru, Uruguay, C0 -L I +r 9 APPENDIX V THE MOVEMENT FOR RECIPROCITY WITH CUBA UP TO THE NEGOTIATION OF THE TREATY Page The Cuban revolution and reconstruction -----. --- —-— 37 —3 —. --- —- 373 The Cuban sugar industry in 1899 --- —------ ----------------- 3374 Attitude of the administration toward Cuba —,- ------ -—. --- —---- 3376 The Cuban Constitutional Convention. —.. --- ——. --- —-----—. 378 The issue of tariff concessions for Cuba -------------------------- 385 The position of President Roosevelt -... - ---- ----------—.. 387 Committee hearings on reciprocity with Cuba ------------- ----- 388 Introduction of a reciprocity bill in the House _ --- —----------—. --- 400 Reports of the Committee on Ways and Means ------------ --------- 401 The bill before the House — 403 The Morris amendment to repeal the "differential" on refined sugar ---.; 409 The bill in the Senate committee ----------------------------------- 411 Committee hearings on Cuban sugar sales --- —----------------------- 413 Adjournment of Congress without further action ---— _ --- —------- - 416 The Cuban revolution and reconstruction. —Cuba, the most important of the islands of the Caribbean, became independent of Spain and passed temporarily under control of the United States in 1898. In accordance with the treaty of peace concluded between the United States and Spain, December 10, 1898, American officials assumed the task of administering the affairs of the island. Almost four years of revolution and of war had impoverished Cuba, and its economic, political, and social conditions demanded immediate attention.' Months prior to the treaty of peace, when theprotocol of August 12, 1898, terminated hostilities, the authorities in Washington had begun that series of measures which culminated, less than four years later, in the establishment of a Cuban government. President McKinley appointed Robert P. Porter special commissioner for the United States to Cuba and Porto Rico with instructions to investigate conditions of industry, trade, foreign commerce, currency and banking systems, and to make a report thereon. The commissioner's report 2 was submitted, November 15, 1898. In his annual message of December 5, 1898, the President enunciated the following policies: As soon as we are in possession of Cuba and have pacified the island it will be necessary to give aid and direction to its people to form a government for 1 "It may be said in general, on a conservative estimate, that the population of the island decreased 12 per cent and its wealth two-thirds." (U. War Dept., Rept. on the Census of Cuba 1899, p. 41.) ' Report on the Commercial and Industrial Condition of the Island of Cuba, by Robert P. Porter, Washington, 1898. The report dealt largely with recommendations relating to the revenue and customs of Cuba that were the basis for the customs tariff and regulations prescribed by proclamation of the President, Dee. 17, 1898, to take effect on Jan. 1 1899. The appendix to the report, published June 15, 1899, gives the testimony taken in Cuban cities, the letters and statements of persons in the United States trading with Cuba, and in Cuba doing business with the tnited States. The commissioner made no recommendations for the customs treatment of Cuban products in the United States and only a few of the statements carried suggestions on this point. It is of interest to note that Louis V. Plac4, writing from New York, Aug. 29, 1898, recommended (p. 125) a modus vivendi between the United States and Cuba, on a reciprocity basis, providing 50 per cent reduction (from what he terms the full tariff" of 1897) of the Cuban rates in favor of American products, with free entry for American coal and crude petroleum, 25 per cent reduction of the Dingley rates for Cuban sugars and leaf tobacco, and 0 per cent for all other Cuban products entering the United States. 373 374 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY themselves. This should be undertaken at the earliest moment consistent with safety and assured success. It is important that our relations with this people shall be of the most friendly character and our commercial relations close and reciprocal. It should be our duty to assist in every proper way to build up the waste places of the island, encourage the industry of the people, and assist them to form a government which shall be free and independent, thus realizing the best aspirations of the Cuban people. Spanish rule;.Aist be replaced by a just, benevolent, and humane government, created by the people of Cuba, capable of performing all international obligations, and which shall encourage thrift, industry, and prosperity and promote peace and good will among all of the inhabitants, whatever may have been their relations in the past. Neither revenge nor passion should have a place in the new government. Until there is complete tranquility in the island and a stable government inaugurated military occupation will be continued. On January 1, 1899, the Spanish officials formally transferred Cuba to the control of the United States, and Gen. John R. Brooke entered upon his duties as military governor. The governor issued a proclamation3 setting forth the objectives of the administration as follows: Coming among you as the representative of the President, in furtherance and in continuation of the humane purpose with which my country interfered to put an end to the distressing condition in this island, I deem it proper to say that the object of the present Government is to give protection to the people, security to person and property, to restore confidence, to encourage the people to resume the pursuits of peace, to build up waste plantations, to resume commercial traffic, and to afford full protection in the exercise of all civil and religious rights. To this end, the protection of the United States Government will be directed, and every possible provision made to carry out these objects through the channels of civil administration, although under military control, in the interest and for the benefit of all the people of Cuba, and those possessed of rights and property in the island. In the work of reconstruction, the new administration set about establishing schools, improving sanitation, constructing highways, placing the currency upon a sound basis, and promoting as rapidly as possible the general welfare of the Cuban people. These efforts to improve the common lot were not immediately effective; agriculture, the mainstay of Cuba, revived but slowly, and poverty among the masses threatened to become acute.4 Seeking definite information upon which to base economic and political reforms of a more permanent nature, President McKinley directed that a census of Cuba be taken.5 He appealed to the Cubans for cooperation, laying stress on the importance of this preliminary measure in the following words: The disorganized condition of your island resulting from the war and the absence of any generally recognized authority aside from the temporary military control of the United States have made it necessary that the United States should follow the restoration of order and peaceful industry by giving its assistance and supervision to the successive steps by which you will proceed to the establishment of an effective system of self-government. The Cuban sugar industry in 1899.-Not the least among the causes of Cuban discontent and uprisings, which upon the declaration 3 Civil report of Maj. Gen. John R. Brooke, military governor, island of Cuba, p. 7. Prominent among the measures for immediate relief were: Distribution through officers of the American Army of about five and one-half million Cuban rations; supply of medicines; distribution of approximately $3,000,000 to discharged Cuban soldiers; employment with weekly pay; remission of all taxes due and remaining unpaid on Jan. 1, 1899; one or two year extension for collection of debts and enforcement of obligations; abolition of municipal taxes on prime necessities; free entry of cattle for breeding purposes; importation and sale at cost of cattle and of agricultural implements. I Proclamation of Aug. 17, 1899, Report on the Census of Cuba, p. 10. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 375 of martial law in February, 1895,6 broke out into revolution, was the inability or unwillingness of the Spanish Government to improve the condition of the Cuban sugar industry upon which, directly and indirectly, depended the prosperity of the island. After the revolution and the war between Spain and the United States the situation of the sugar planters, by reason of the prevailing distress and ruin,7 was much worse than before, except that the closer relations of Cuba with the United States pointed to some hope of betterment in the future. Disorganized and ruined, the sugar industry of Cuba, in common with that of other cane-sugar producing countries, was still facing the unrelenting advance of the European beet-sugar producers.8 Late in 1897 a British royal commission submitted a report showing that the excessive fall in the price of sugar was due mainly to the extraordinary progress made since 1872 by the European beet-sugar industry in its two branches, agriculture and manufacturing, through the application of modern sciences and the expenditure of large amounts of capital. The commission recommended (sec. 548, Summary of conclusions) as an immediate remedy that the continental nations of Europe abandon the bounty system, adding however: Looking, however, to what appears to be the policy of the United States of America, to the great cheapening of the cost of production of beet sugar, and to the fact that many countries appear to have singled out the sugar industry as one which ought to be artificially stimulated in various ways, it is not clear that, even if the bounties were abolished, another crisis of a similar character might not arise in the West Indies at a future day. Cuban agriculture was confronted with special difficulties arising out of the war, such as an accumulation of losses and debts,9 a re6 It is significant that only a few weeks earlier the Cuban planters had sent to the Cortes in Madrid a memorandum in which it was stated "that the uneasiness and discontent prevailing in Cuba proceeded mainly, if not exclusively, from economic causes." (Appendix to Commissioner Porter's report, p. 225.) A report which accompanied the proposed constitution of Cuba, submitted to the Queen Regent on Nov. 25, 1897, stated that complaints had arisen from the lack of reciprocity and that the Antilles were prevented from securing the markets which they needed for their rich and abundant productions. Concerning treaties of commerce affecting the island, the constitution given to Cuba on the above date provided that delegates duly authorized by Cuba were to participate in the negotiations. On Mar. 17, 1898, within a month of the opening of hostilities between the United States and Spain, the Spanish Minister in Washington addressed a note to the Secretary of State advising him of his appointment, together with representatives from the insular government, to enter upon negotiations for a treaty of reciprocity between the United States and Cuba. (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st. sess., p. 4011.) 7 Commissioner Porter in a letter prepared for the President in September, 1898, stated: "I have passed through 200 miles of cane land to which the torch has been applied, and sugar factories and cane alike destroyed. The cattle, which should be grazing in the rich meadows, have all been swept away. There are no cattle to do the plowing." (Appendix to Commissioner Porter's report, p. 143.) His special report on the sugar industry contains the following: "Recurring to the effect of the rebellion of 1895-1898 on the sugar industry, it is appalling to contemplate the dreadful decrease in a country's chief source of wealth and income to the Government, as well as to the individual. In 1894 the output was 1,054,214 tons, and the following year, under the first touch of war and its alarms, the crop dropped off 50,000 tons, though it remained still above the million. This was the second year in Cuban sugar history that the million mark was passed. In 1896 the war was raging all over the island, and, with the Spaniards on one side taking men and cattle and the insurgents on the other burning cane and buildings and stealing stock, the sugar planter was utterly obliterated in some sections and so badly crippled in others that the output reached only 225,221 tons-the lowest figure known in 50 years. Nor was this astounding decrease a matter of gradual accomplishment, permitting the country, the business and the people to accommodate themselves to the changed conditions, but it happened almost in a night, and an income from sugar of $80,000,000 a year dwindled on the instant to $16,000,000, a loss of $64,000,000 at once as the result of Spanish mismanagement." (Ibid., pp. 248-249.) 8 4The competition of the bounty-fed beet-sugar product of Europe has already reduced the price which can be realized for cane sugar to a point so near the cost of production that the cane producer can not pay expenses by the old method of production." (Report of the Secretary of War for 1899, p. 33. See the testimony of Doctor Wiley, infra, p. 414, note 28.) The Secretary of War pointed out in his report for 1899 that two additional "dangers" confronted the Cuban sugar producers at this time-the prospects that the sugar of Porto Rico, and possibly of the Philippines, might be admitted into the United States free of duty and that the sugar of the British West Indies would, under reciprocityitreaties already negotiated, be admitted into the United States with a 20 per cent reduction of duties, while Cuban sugar would continue to pay the full duty (p. 33). [The treaties referred to provided a reduction of 12~ per cent.] The report gives a table which shows that on the basis of 4~j cents per pound for 96~ centrifugal sugar, New York price as of July 1, 1899 (with allowances for freights, duties, and insurance) the Cuban producer would realize but 2.69 cents per pound as against 2.71, 3.02 4.14, and 4.28 for the German, British West Indian, Hawaiian, and Porto Rican producer, respectively. (See his recommendation in footnote 16, infra, p. 377.) 376 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY duction in the number of plantation hands, and an increase in the cost of agricultural labor caused by the stabilization of the currency. An advantageous position for their products in the American market with an assured remunerative price thus appeared to the Cubans to be their only means of salvation, and they saw but one obstacle: The burden of the American tariff on sugar. Thus began the movement for some sort of commercial union with the United States, with or without political annexation.~0 Attitude of the administration toward Cuba. —The American administrators in Cuba and the executive officials in Washington recognized the vital importance of the sugar industry to Cuba, and the imperative need for settling both the political and the economic problems of Cuba.1" As early as June, 1899, at least one of those high in authority in Cuba, General Wilson,l2 advocated the extension of the full measure of economic relief necessary for the complete rehabilitation of the island and for the maintenance of a stable government. The striking feature of his official reports of June 20 and of September 7, 1899, is his urgency upon this point. Stating his conviction that nothing was to be gained for the United States or for Cuba by further delay in the consideration of this subject, he expressed the belief thatthe establishment and maintenance of a pacific and stable government, and the negotiation of a treaty which would permit the free entrance of sugar and other natural and manufactured products of Cuba into the United States and establish close and reciprocal relations between the two countries, would instantly restore confidence, cause an inflow of capital, and bring about such a state of prosperity as would inevitably make this island, at no distant day, one of the richest and most prosperous countries in the Western Hemisphere, if not in the world. He recommended the free exchange of natural and manufactured products between Cuba and the United States with a common tariff against all other nations. But "if for any reason it should be found impracticable to adopt this provision in full, then there should be the greatest allowable reduction of duty on sugar, which is the principal crop of the island, and the one which requires the greatest possible concession." 13 These were the proposals of one mindful of the terms of the Teller amendment 14 to the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, but of one who 10 The cause of the annexationists apparently received support from the uncertainty of the period of military intervention and the inability of Cuba, by force of circumstances, to negotiate a reciprocity treaty within the purview of sec. 4 of the United States tariff act of 1897. Brig. Gen. James H. Wilson, commanding the Department of Matanzas and Santa Clara, wrote in 1899: "No particular idea has been sufficiently developed or discussed to commit the Cuban people, as a whole, to any special policy for the future. So far as I can judge, if the issue were presented between annexation and absolute independence, the majority would probably favor the latter; but if the issue were presented between annexation and the establishment of such intimate commercial relations, by treaty, as would give the Cuban people assurances of a peaceful government and free entrance into the United States for their natural and manufactured products, my judgment is that for the present they would be largely in favor of the latter." (Civil report of Maj. Gen. John R. Brooke, p. 338.) 11 General Wilson emphasized the importance of the solution of the sugar question, and of the other questions of trade affecting Cuba as the first step toward the successful solution of every other question. "Unless there is a substantial revival of agriculture and industry the people who have for the last year been sustained by the promise of the speedy recovery of prosperity may become discouraged and reckless, and thus be impelled to give way to a spirit of disorder and violence." He stated that the establishment of proper economic conditions and proper trade relations with the United States was of even greater importance than the establishment of proper political institutions. (Ibid., pp. 329-342, especially pp. 337, 339.) 12 "Feeling assured that the successful solution of the questions pertaining to the reestablishment of agriculture, especially to the production of cane sugar in this island and its competition with beet sugar in our own markets, would solve nearly all the difficult problems which confront the Cuban people, I have given the most unremitting study and attention to local conditions, and to the course we should pursue under the law as it now esixts." (Ibid., p. 341.) 13 Ibid., pp. 341-342. (See Appendix VI, p. 421, for General Wilson's recommendations.) 14 That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island (of Cuba) except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people." (U. S. Stat. L., vol. 30, p. 739.) HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 377 nevertheless held that "annexation under the Constitution of the United States, whether Cuba becomes a Territory or a State, would settle all economic questions, because it would entitle the Cubans to the free and unrestricted exchange of their natural and manufactured products with the United States."'15 President McKinley in his annual message of December 5, 1899, once more clearly laid down his program for setting up an independent government under such conditions as promised success. He emphasized the seriousness of the Cuban situation, but made only one specific recommendation for relief, that Cuban products should receive favorable treatment in the American market even prior to the formation of the new government.16 Gen. Leonard Wood succeeded General Brooke as military governor on December 20, 1899. He had been familiar with conditions in Cuba since the conclusion of hostilities. His first annual report 17 stated: The great desire of Cuba to-day is to obtain a reduction on the import duties of Cuban products into the United States, and strong efforts are being made in this direction. All far-seeing business men realize that Cuba's prosperity and advancement depend absolutely upon her commercial relations with the United States, where her two main products have their principal market. High duties against Cuban products mean that the development of Cuba will be slow, if at all. The importation of United States products into Cuba, while it is increasing, is yet considerably below the total importation from other countries. The establishment of reciprocity in commercial relations between Cuba and the United States means everything to Cuba, for if she can obtain favorable duties on her tobacco, and especially on her sugar, her development will be immediate * * *. Cuba must now market her principal products in the United States. New conditions have changed her old commercial relations, and if she is to live and prosper she must have lower duties on her sugar and tobacco, especially the former. With such reduction the development of the island will be rapid and immediate. One of the Cuban officials who formed General Wood's cabinet or council, Sr. Perfecto Lacoste, Secretary of Agriculture, Commerce, and Industries of Cuba, stated in his report 18 of December 31, 1900, that up to that time, "nothing had been done toward the improvement of the agricultural situation, and that "no action had been taken regarding any matters mentioned in the petition" which the planters' association on December 30, 1899, requested the military governor to forward to the President of the United States. Suggesting the best means to improve the sugar and agricultural industries from the condition in which the war had left them, the petition had stated thatThe planters and farmers desire to have free trade with the United States, and if this be not possible at present, then to establish a similar tariff to that which is stipulated in the treaty of reciprocity, known as the McKinley bill, and in the meantime to urgently establish the tariff reforms requested from the Government at Washington by the merchants' and manufacturers' association of the island in September, 1899. i5 Report of General Brooke, p. 339. 16 See Appendix VI, p. 421. This course was urged upon the President by the Secretary of War (report for 1899, p. 34) in the following words: "It does not seem that, so long as we retain the control of Cuba and preclude her people from making trade agreements or treaties on their own account, we ought to treat her sugar producers less favorably than we do their competitors in the West India Islands which are subject to other powers, and I recommend that during the period of our occupation of the island the duties imposed upon the importation into the United States from Cuba of the products of that island be reduced to the same rates which will be imposed upon the goods imported from Jamaica in case the Senate shall ratify the pending reciprocity treaties." 17 Report of the military governor of Cuba on civil affairs for 1900, Vol. I, pt. 1, p. 77. 18 Ibid., pt. 4, pp. 6-9. 378 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY It also requested that the Government adopt certain measures to bring about the population of our vast and deserted fields by facilitating the immigration of desirable laborers. And, lastly, it recommended the propriety of adopting all those measures tending to establish institutions of credit that would aid agriculture and its annexed industries, thereby aiding in the reconstruction of the country. Seflor Lacoste added that* * * in fact, he knows that the petition made by the planters' and farmers' association of the island for a reduction of import duties of our sugar into the United States has not been granted, on the grounds that Cuba being a foreign country Congress could make no exception in its favor, as the clause of "the most favored nation" in the treaties in force would be violated, and that the only thing that could be done under the circumstances was to make a treaty of reciprocity when Cuba had a government duly authorized to make such treaty. The condition of affairs in Cuba was not a matter of unconcern to the people of the United States. At an early date Congress began to discuss the question of improving the economic well-being of the island by aiding its exports; but there were indications that any bill contemplating reductions in the American tariff on Cuban products would meet with serious opposition. On February 19, 1900, a joint resolution 19 was introduced in the House to admit free of duty sugar and molasses from Porto Rico and Cuba. On May 26, 1900, Mr. Grosvenor submitted the adverse report2~ of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the resolution was laid on the table. Not so much the fact of the adverse report as the tenor of its statments struck the keynote of hopelessness in a situation which was to remain deadlocked for nearly four years. The arguments which later were hurled against reciprocity, blocking the program of the administration so long, were given initial and terse expression in this report of the all-important committee which held that "No conceivable good could come of this scheme": The tariff of 1897, so far as relates to sugar and molasses, was intended to be both a revenue producer and a matter of protection to the beet-sugar industry of the United States. To now remove that protection would be a fatal blow to that valuable and growing industry, and would strip the Treasury at once of one of its most reliable sources of revenue, and the, sole effect, so far as immediate and great gains to anyone, would be to hand over to a great corporation, now enjoying enormous prosperity, a degree of aid and assistance in accumulating larger wealth that would shock the conscience of the American people. No other bill on this subject was introduced during the first session of the Fifty-sixth Congress but on March 9 Senator Platt, of Connecticut, submitted a resolutioni,2 agreed to on the following day, authorizing the Committee on Relations with Cuba or any subcommittee thereof to visit Cuba to investigate conditions bearing upon the relations of the United States with Cuba. Other resolutions 22 directed attention to the fear of the Cubans lest military occupation be continued indefinitely, and urged that the administration of the government and control of the island be turned over to the people of Cuba as early as July 1, 1900. The Cuban constitutional convention.-Opportunist proposals, visionary plans, and temporizing policies were not lacking in the 19 H...Res. 181, 56th Cong., 1st sess., Cong. Rec., p. 1963. 20 56th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. No. 1766. 21 6th Cong., 1st sess., Cong. Rec., pp. 2694 and 2728. 2 8. J. Res. 119 and H. R 2, ong. Roec., pp. 469 and 6255. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 379 days of reconstruction in Cuba. But gradual progress was made toward the accomplishment of the object of American intervention in Cuba, as declared by President McKinley in his historic message of April 11, 1898, when he asked of Congress authority "to take measures to secure a full and final termination of hostilities between the Government of Spain and the people of Cuba, and to secure in the island the establishment of a stable government, capable of maintaining order and observing its international obligations, insuring peace and tranquility and the security of its citizens as well as our own * * *." In July, 1900, General Wood came to Washington and detailed the facts of the situation in Cuba to the President and to the Secretary of War. It was agreed that the people of Cuba were ready for the establishment of a general government which should assume jurisdiction and exercise sovereignty over the island.23 Accordingly, on July 25, an order 24 was issued for a general election to be held September 15, 1900, for the purpose of electing delegates to a convention "to frame and adopt a constitution for the people of Cuba, and, as a part thereof, to provide for and agree with the Government of the United States on the relations" that were to exist between Cuba and the United States. The constitutional convention assembled in Habana November 5, 1900. It was opened with an address 25 by the military governor, who said, in part: It will be your duty, first, to frame and adopt a constitution for Cuba, and when that has been done, to formulate what, in your opinion, ought to be the relations between Cuba and the United States. The constitution must be adequate to secure a stable, orderly, and free government. When you have formulated the relations which, in your opinion, ought to exist between Cuba and the United States, the Government of the United States will doubtless take such action on its part as shall lead to a final and authoritative agreement between the people of the two countries to the promotion of their common interests. The primary work of the convention terminated with the publication of the constitution proper on February 11, 1901, and with the affixing of the delegates' signatures on February 21. In the interval between these dates the convention considered the question of what ought to be the relations between Cuba and the United States. This problem continued to hold its place in the foreground of interest for at least six months. In Washington the authorities had pondered the provision of the treaty of Paris requiring that, upon the termination of occupancy of Cuba by the United States, the latter should advise any government established in the island to assume the same obligations for the pro tection of life and property which, under international law, had devolved upon the United States. Carefully prepared instructions,26 dated February 9, 1901, were therefore sent by Elihu Root, then Secretary of War, to General Wood informing him "in a more official form" of the views of the President on that subject and reciting terms substantially the same as five of the eight articles which later became 23 Rept. of the Mil. Gov. for 1900, Vol. I, pt. 1, p. 53. 24 Order No. 301, Id. 25 Ibid., p. 62. 26 Report of the Secretary of War for 1901, pp. 43-47. 10038-28 --- —25 380 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY known as the Platt amendment.27 Upon receipt of these instructions in Habana on February 15, their terms were informally made known to the committee on relations of the constitutional convention, to whom on February 21, General Wood formally communicated 28 the provisions referred to "as indicating what, in the opinion of the executive department of the United States Government, the people of Cuba should desire to have established and agreed upon as the relations to exist between Cuba and the United States." General Wood commended the provisions as wise and prudent and as being to the best interests of both peoples, but, following instructions, he pointed out that they might not prove to be in accord with the conclusions which Congress might ultimately reach and that his communication, therefore, could not be construed as in any way committing the United States. The reception by the convention of this communication; the details of the committee report 29 adopted by the convention February 27 and holding that some of the stipulations were not acceptable inasmuch as they modified the independence and sovereignty of Cuba; the points of similarity and dissimilarity between the American proposals and the Cuban counterproposals; the controversy which marked the limited debates on the Platt amendment in the American Congress and the dispatch with which this was enacted into law (as a "rider" of the Army appropriation bill for 1902), during the closing hours of the Fifty-sixth Congress; the attitude of the press and of the people in both countries concerned-these are not matters to be detailed here. Germane to our discussion, however, is one of the counterproposals which, pursuant to the resolution of the convention of February 27, were officially communicated 30 to the military governor on February 28: 27 In a collection of Mr. Root's addresses and state papers entitled "The Military and Colonial Policy of the United States," the editors, Robert Bacon and James Brown Scott, made an extended comment on the extracts from his reports as Secretary of War, 1899-1903, concerning Cuba. The following statements are in point: "These provisions [i. e., the provisions known as the Platt amendment] were presented to the Cuban Constitutional Convention pursuant to Mr. Root's instructions to the military governor of Cuba dated February 9, 1901. They had previously been approved by President McKinley and his Cabinet. "It appearing desirable to incorporate the above provisions in the statutes of the United States, Mr. Root's instructions to the military governor of Cuba were later introduced in the Senate by Senator Orville H. Platt at the request of President McKinley and Mr. Root, and were adopted as an amendment to the Army appropriation bill of March 2, 1901, thus becoming known as the Platt amendment. The Platt amendment was subsequently incorporated in identical terms in the Cuban constitution and in the treaty of July 1, 1904, between Cuba and the United States. "With unimportant changes of phraseology, articles 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Mr. Root's instructions became articles 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Platt amendment. "The provision relating to sanitation, suggested by Major General Wood in his letter of February 19, 1901, became article 5 of the Platt amendment. "Article 5 of Mr. Root's instructions became article 7 of the amendment, and article 6 of the amendment, concerning the Isle of Pines, and article 8 of the amendment requiring further assurance by treaty, were inserted by the Senate Committee on Cuban Relations, of which Senator Platt was chairman." 28 The text of the letter is given in civil report of Brig. Gen. Leonard Wood, Military Governor of Cuba, for 1901, Vol. I, pp. 10-11. 29 Extracts from this report are given, in translation, in Cuba and the Intervention, by Albert G. Robinson, p. 238. The report, in Spanish, is Document E (No. 63, pp. 413-422) in part 7, Relations Between the United States and Cuba of the valuable source-book entitled "Memoria-de los trabajos realizados durante las cuatro legislaturas y sesi6n extraordinaria del primer perlodo congresional 1902-1904, precedida de una menci6n documentada sobre los hechos historicos que dieron, como resultado definitivo, la independencia de Cuba y su establecimiento en Repfiblica," published in 1918 as a Senate document of the Republic of Cuba. The collection includes memoranda by individual delegates, some of which were considered by the convention in executive session (the records of the secret sessions from Feb. 26 to June 12, 1901, are given in Memoria, pp. 523-593, and form an interesting account of what transpired in the convention prior to its adoption of the Platt amendment), with divergent solutions of the whole problem of "relations." But without exception, perhaps, some provision was made for reciprocal trade relations between the United States and Cuba, one proposal recommending most-favored-nation treatment (ibid., p. 402; this proposal was later withdrawn by its author-ibid., p. 523); another, free trade (p. 400); and another, such duty exemptions and preferences as might be compatible with the protection required for each country's own policy (p. 411). so For the text of this document, in translation, see civil report, 1901, pp. 13-16. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 381 The Governments of the United States and of the Republic of Cuba should regulate their commerical relations by means of an agreement based upon reciprocity, and which, with tendency toward the free exchange of their natural and manufactured products, may insure them mutually ample and special advantages in their respective markets. Meanwhile, however, the views of the administration on the relations with Cuba had been submitted to the Senate, which, also on February 27, accepted the terms of the Platt amendment. This became a law on March 2, 1901. The same day, the president and several members of the constitutional convention having been informed of the basis of the amendment, the military governor officially transmitted its provisions to the convention "for consideration and action," advising that body that the President of the United States awaited its action thereon. Amid a welter of contradictory opinions concerning the Platt amendment in the United States and in Cuba, President McKinley in his second inaugural address on March 4, 1901, commended the action of Congress. Giving assurance once more that the famous declaration of the purposes of the United States Government in regard to Cuba would be made good, he affirmed: The transfer of American control to the new government is of such great importance, involving an obligation resulting from our intervention and the treaty of peace, that I am glad to be advised by the recent act of Congress of the policy which the legislative branch of the Government deems essential to the best interests of Cuba and the United States. The principles which led to our intervention require that the fundamental law upon which the new government rests should be adapted to secure a government capable of performing the duties and discharging the functions of a separate nation, of observing its international obligations of protecting life and property, insuring order, safety, and liberty, and conforming to the established and historical policy of the United States in its relation to Cuba. The peace which we are pledged to leave to the Cuban people must carry with it the guaranties of permanence. We become sponsors for the pacification of the island, and we must remain accountable to the Cubans, no less than to our own country and people, for the reconstruction of Cuba as a free commonwealth on abiding foundations of right, justice, liberty, and assured order. In the constitutional convention there ensued prolonged discussions of the amendment with indications, at first, of noncompliance with the terms of the provisions the acceptance of which, as the Secretary of War put it,31 Congress had made a condition precedent to the President's leaving the government and control of the island of Cuba to its people. But its rejection was understood to be equivalent to an indefinite postponement of establishing under the constitution a government, without which there could be no hope of negotiating a reciprocity agreement. Two compromise measures proposed acceptance of the Platt amendment in return for tariff consessions.32 The convention rejected both, but only because it preferred the resolution of April 9,33 directing that further action concerning the amendment 31 Report of the Secretary of War for 1901, p. 49. 32 See, for example, Memoria, p. 449; Document I, No. 67, pp. 441-450. 38 Adopted Apr. 13; for its terms see Memoria, p. 562. But the sending of a committee to Washington was first recommended in a proposal (Document J, No. 68, pp. 451-454) submitted Apr. 1 by five delegates who declared that Cuba's entire future hinged on the action to be taken with regard to the Platt amendment by the convention. The latter should, therefore, conscientiously endeavor to acquaint itself not only with the bases of the amendment but also with any interpretation or extension that might be put upon it. For this reason, the committee's principal mission should be to obtain in the best possible form from the President of the United States an express, clear, and definitive declaration concerning certain points, among them whether the President is disposed to enter upon a treaty with the Government of Cuba and "effectlvely " to recommend it to the Congress in its next ession, which would set up reciprocity for the products and manufactures of both countries, giving an important reduction to Cuban tobacco, and to sugar, at least. 50 per cent from the rates then being paid. (Ibid., p. 453.) 382 CUBAN,RECIPROCITY TREATY be suspended while a committee of five members should be sent to Washington to make known the desires of the Cuban people and to find a basis for the establishment of satisfactory political and commercial relations. The committee arrived in Washington on April 24, 1901, and remained four days. On April 25 the Cuban delegates made their first call at the War Department and were presented by General Wood to the Secretary of War, Mr. Elihu Root. Upon the latter's invitation, the chairman of the committee explained the object of its mission, setting forth at considerable length the Cuban objections to the Platt amendment and indicating that the "judgment" of the convention was opposed to it. Of special interest here is the fact that the speaker did not fail to refer to trade relations between the United States and Cuba, explaining that the economic aspect of the future relations, so vital to Cuba, had been entirely neglected in the Platt amendment. The Cubans, however, had understood that the time for negotiating with regard to the political relations would be the opportune occasion to agree likewise on the economic relations.34 There followed a formal visit to the White House, where Mr. Root had preceded the committee in order to consult with the President. The Cubans were received "most cordially" by President McKinley, who told them that he wished to confer at length with the Secretary of War, who was to receive instructions and be charged to treat with the committee. The Cuban delegates had two 3-hour conferences with the Secretary of War, the details of which were not made public. But their request to take notes was granted, on the basis of which the committee drafted its report to the constitutional convention.35 From this report it appears that the terms of the Platt amendment were examined at great length, Mr. Root being particularly anxious to allay the fears concerning intervention and to demonstrate that the paramount object and intent of the amendment was to guarantee the independence of Cuba. The detailed interpretations and the discussions they evoked are not, however, of immediate interest in this study. But it is of importance to note that the question of trade relations was twice brought within the purview of the deliberations on the initiative of the Cuban committee. The chairman and several delegates detailed the considerations which, in the opinion of the committee, necessitated the making of a trade agreement on the basis of reciprocal advantages for the natural and manufactured products of both countries. According to the committee's report, the Secretary of War explained that Cuba, not being a juridical entity, could not enter upon a bilateral contract such as a reciprocity treaty with the United States; whereupon the chairman of the committee indicated the desirability of obtaining the formal promise of the Executive with respect to securing economic measures (legislation) favorable to Cuban products. He inquired also about the state of public opinion on this matter. The Secretary explained that, speaking 34 See below and footnote 35. 35 This confidential report is Document M, No. 72, in Memoria, pp. 465-482, published in 1918. It is not known whether any notes (in English) were taken by or in behalf of the Secretary of War. It should be kept in mind that the statements accredited to the Secretary of War and to the President are most likely based on an interpreter's version in Spanish of what was said in English. For further details, see Appendis VI, p. 427. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 383 only for himself and in the name of the President, he could give the assurance that once the government of Cuba was established, representatives would immediately be appointed to study and propose a treaty of commerce which should be based on mutual benefits and friendly relations.36 These declarations were later confirmed by the Secretary of War, the President in the meantime having called a meeting of his Cabinet for the purpose, it was understood, of considering Cuban matters at hand. During the second conference a member of the committee asked if there were any possibility of temporarily applying the reciprocity provisions of the Dingley law. The Cuban document indicates that Mr. Root replied in the negative, calling attention to the mostfavored-nation requirements in treaties with other countries. Thereupon, members of the committee set forth the losses suffered in Cuba owing to the delay in obtaining for its products tariff advantages in the United States, which were a question of life or death for Cuba. And they raised the point whether the United States could not during the intervention attend to this urgent need and put into effect some of the advantages which would probably be conceded by the same powers in virtue of which the "Government of the United States " was then controlling the Cuban tariff, so favorable to American products. The Secretary of War said that, speaking for himself, he believed this was possible; he referred to his recommendations in his annual report for 1899 and to his other efforts in this same regard; he was prepared to do everything possible, and gave instructions accordingly to General Wood, who was present. But Mr. Root did not fail to point out that the military government of intervention could modify the Cuban tariff, whereas the tariff of the United States could be changed only by an act of Congress.37 Before departure from Washington on April 27 the committee, accompanied by Mr. Root, took formal leave of the President of the United States. And once again the Cuban delegates raised the issue of the "economic aspect" of their problem. And, as they reported to the convention, the President met it by confirming the statements and the promises made in his name by the Secretary of War. The latter joined the President in promising to do everything possible on their part in order that Cuban production could enjoy definite benefits even before it was time to negotiate the treaty which was to regulate the trade relations of the United States and Cuba.38 The committee, on its return to Cuba, submitted its report to the convention,39 which spent almost a month discussing the terms of the amendment in the light of the information the delegates brought back from Washington. Finally, on May 28, 1901, the constitutional convention, by a vote of 15 to 14, adopted a resolution accepting substantially the provisions of the Platt amendment as an addition to the constitution of Cuba but "with the meaning and scope explained in the preceding paragraphs (to the effect that the Platt amendment 38 Memoria, p. 474. Judging by an English version quoted on the floor of the House of Representatives (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 4011), a very close transcript of at least a portion of these explanations, evidently based either on the committee's report or on the original notes, was reported by the Ilabana newspaper. La Patria, under date of May 25, 1901. (See Appendix VI, P. 429.) 37 Memoria, pp. 478-479. Each delegate (31 in all) received a copy in confidence and the sessions of the convention continued to be secret, not without protest, however, on the part of some members, who declared that the Cuban People, from whom they had received their mandate, were entitled to be kept informed of the proceedings. 384 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY was acceptable as set forth and explained by the statements and assurances made by Mr. Root to the Cuban committee,40 which were to be considered as official declarations, duly and expressly authorized by the President of the United States and made to the authorized representatives of the constitutional convention of Cuba) and statements made in the following explanations."41 On the same day the convention informed General Wood of the action taken.42 The "explanations" concerned chiefly the provisions in regard to intervention, the Isle of Pines, and the naval stations. An addition to the eighth clause providing that the terms of the amendment were to be embodied in a permanent treaty stated that the Government of the Republic of Cuba would at the same time conclude with the United States a treaty of commerce, based upon reciprocity, which was to assure mutual and special advantages for the natural and manufactured products of both countries.43 Further research must yet determine the real significance of this last proposition of the convention to link the question of reciprocal tariff concessions with that of political relations between the United States and Cuba.44 Adoption with such modifications, however, was not acceptable to the authorities in Washington. In sending formal instructions to General Wood, the Secretary of War commented as follows on the wording of the Platt amendment: This seems to require that the convention shall not merely declare its assent to the act of Congress, but that the convention itself shall expressly enact the provisions called for by the act of Congress, so that they shall constitute not provisions of the act of Congress assented to by the convention, but shall become the act of the convention formally and solemnly ordained by that body, and forming a part of the constitution of Cuba, either by incorporation into the body of the constitution or in the form of an ordinance appended thereto. The resolution adopted by the convention should, therefore, properly be followed by formal and final action through which the convention does the thing which it expresses a willingness to do in the resolution of acceptance. The Secretary of War took occasion, furthermore, to "recall the relation which the President bears to the so-called Platt amendment" in the following words: *:* * * That statute having been enacted by the law-making power of the United States, the President is bound to execute it, and to execute it as it is. He can not change or modify, add to or subtract from it. The executive action called for by the statute is the withdrawal of the army from Cuba, and the statute authorizes that action when, and only when, a government shall have been established under a constitution which contains, either in the body thereof or in 40 Reference was made likewise to Mr. Root's letter to General Wood of Mar. 29, 1901. 41 The committee report making these recommendations was submitted May 25 (see Memoria, Doc. Q, No. 77, pp. 499-505) after the same committee had recalled an earlier report (submitted May 20, Doe. N, No. 73, ibid., pp. 483-487), but which likewise, with some differences in details, recommended adoption of a modified Platt amendment with a preamble referring to Mr. Root's declarations to the Cuban delegates in Washington and an addition to Article VIII providing a reciprocity treaty. See also the minority and other reports (Docs. S, No. 74; 0, No. 75; and P, No. 76; ibid., pp. 488-498) by members of the same comr mittee, each of which recommended a commercial treaty based on reciprocity, and one specifying "with tendencies to the free exchange" of natural and manufactured products. 42 T he text of the letter of May 28, setting forth the convention's resolution, was evidently intended to be inserted on p. 13, Vol. I, of General Wood's report for 1901 in place of the document dated Feb. 28. One sentence only, "the operative part of the resolution," is quoted in the instructions, dated May 31, 1901, which Ge neral Wood received from the Secretary of War, and on June 8 transmitted to the chairman of the Committee on Relations of the convention. For the text of this important document, see ibid., pp. 16-18. 43 The proposal for ultimate free trade was added in the veiled expression: "Without thereby limiting the authority to promote and to agree upon greater advantages in the future." 4 The project of a resolution (Memoria, Doc. U, No. 81, pp. 515-517) for accepting the Platt amendment, dated June 11, stated that the con vention's action of May 28 was inspired by the intelligence that in adopting substantially this amendment the immediate (sic) establishment of an independent Cuban government as promptly as could be hoped for in Cuba would be assured. It is noteworthy that on the eve of accepting the Platt amendment the convention, by vote, rejected a proposition concerning the necessity of revising the resolution of May 28. (Ibid., p. 590.) HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 385 an ordinance annexed thereto, certain definite provisions specified in the statute. He is not authorized to act at all under the statute, until a Cuban government is established under a constitution. When that is done, it will be his duty to examine the constitution and see whether there are enacted therein in substance the same provisions which are specified in the act of Congress. If he then finds those provisions in the constitution, he will be authorized to withdraw the army; if he does not find them there he will not be authorized to withdraw the army. It is quite clear that if a government should now be organized in Cuba under the constitution adopted by the present convention, without further or other action by that convention defining the relations between Cuba and the United States, the President would be unable to find either in the Constitution or in the ordinance annexed thereto, the provisions specified in the act of Congress called the Platt amendment, for the reason that the explanations which follow the acceptance of the Platt amendment in the resolution of the convention so change the provisions as accepted that they are no longer the same either in form or in Eubstance. This letter, as General Wood reported, led to a reconsideration of the amendment by the convention which, after considerable discussion, on June 12, 1901, by a vote of 16 to 11 (with 4 members absent), adopted a motion for unqualified acceptance and added the terms of the Platt amendment as an appendix to the constitution of Cuba. The constitution thus perfected and adopted was accepted by the military authorities as a suitable basis for the formation of the new government.4 The issue of tariff concessions for Cuba.-It was the aim of the administration in Washington and of the military authorities in Cuba to inaugurate the new Cuban Government under conditions that would inspire confidence in the future. The solution of this problem, however, largely hinged on the establishment of economic well-being in Cuba, which in turn depended upon profitable sales of her sugar and tobacco in the United States. The situation presenteft a dilemma: Cuba, a foreign country, could not be given customs treatment similar to that enjoyed by Hawaii and Porto Rico, nor could a reciprocity convention be negotiated so long as the island remained under American military control. Accordng to expectations in Cuba, the situation was to be met by making provision for reciprocal tariff concessions to be effective almost simultaneously with the establishment of the new government. In Washington, this need had been realized and even expressed when, in 1899,46 the Secretary of War was anticipating the surrender of military control of the island, and in the light of two years' observation and direction of Cuban affairs he confirmed his earlier conclusion47 that the first measure of selfpreservation for the new Cuban Government to consider would be to undertake to secure from the United States some favorable tariff arrangement. In November, 1901, when an independent govern45 The Secretary of War, in his report for 1901, p. 49. The convention continued in session until Oct. 3, 1901, framing the electoral law which was published Oct. 14 in Civil Order No. 218. This directed, further, that an election be held Dec. 31, 1901, for presidential and senatorial electors; members of the house of Representatives; and governors of Provinces and members of provinical councils; the election for President, Vice President, and Senators was ordered for Feb. 24, 1902. On May 5, 1902, the members of the elected Cuban Congress assembled at the call of....:t ~Z.......-...r.At;rf i and olnnttMd and rectified the vote of the electoral col the military governor, examineu ^ dsthe effected the organization of the lege for President and Vice President. During the succeeding days they effected the organization of the Senate and House of Representatives, which bodies transacted such routine business as fell within the scope of their then existing powers. Thus was completed the first popularly elected government of Cuba eady to assume, on May 20, 1902, the control of the island as a going concern. (See General WBood's report for 1901, p. 18, et seq.) The constitution with the appendix was promulgated Apr. 14, 1902, as General Order No. 100. (For this text see Civil Report of the Military Governor of Cuba, Pt. II, pp. 225-249.) 46 Report of the Secretary of War for 1899, p. 34. 47 Report of the Secretary of War for 1901, p. 50. 386 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY ment for Cuba was soon to be. an accomplished fact, Mr. Root wrote: 4 The chief apparent obstacle to the future prosperity of the island is to be found in its commercial relations with the United States, and the necessity of securing some reciprocal arrangement under which a concession shall be made from the tariff duties now imposed by the United States upon the principal Cuban products. The prosperity of Cuba depends upon finding a market for her principal products, sugar and tobacco, at a reasonable profit. Under existing conditions, or any conditions which are to be anticipated, she can find such a market for her sugar, and to a great degree for her tobacco, only in the United States. Under the existing provisions of the United States tariff law the prices which can be realized for Cuban sugar and a large part of Cuban tobacco in this market are not sufficient to pay the duties, cost of transportation and production, and yield a living profit to the producer. With the approval and support of the military authorities, therefore, the movement for reciprocity developed during the summer and autumn of 1901, manifesting its best strength, perhaps, just in time for the opening of the Fifty-seventh Congress in December. After an extended campaign on the part of Cuban sugar and tobacco interests, and after dissemination of propaganda supported by disbursements from the Cuban treasury,49 the need for reductions in the American tariff as a measure of economic relief was insistently stressed by public demonstrations in Cuba, by memorials, and by telegraphic petitions. Another delegation of prominent Cubans came to Washington. Having pressed upon the attention of President Roosevelt the petition of the united business interests of Cuba for concessions in the American tariff, the nine delegates, on December 3, addressed a further petition 5 to the President of the Senate. Directing attention to the need of Cuba for favorable access to the markets of the United States and to the decreasing sales of American products in Cuba, they submitted for consideration of the Senate a plan for the establishment of reciprocal trade relations between the two countries which, in their opinion, would be of equal mutual advantage. They proposed that Congress should pass a law under which Cuban raw sugar would enter the United States free of duty and other Cuban products at a 50 per cent reduction when the military governor of Cuba had certified that the people of Cuba had consented to the entry of American products into Cuba at one-half the rates applicable to products of any other country. The presence of General Wood added weight to his official recommendations 51 for reductions of 50 per cent upon the United States import duties on Cuban sugar and tobacco. Referring to the overproduction in the world's sugar crop for 1900-1901 as being so great that prices of sugar had reached the lowest point known, he stated that with an average cost of production in Cuba of 2 cents a pound nearly all planters had been turning out sugar at a loss. There was every indication, he added, that unless Congress acted to grant the tariff concessions, the sugar industry would receive a great setback; and he warned that many failures would take place and that there would be a general disturbance of business confidence with falling 48 Report of the Secretary of War for 1901, p. 50. Further remarks are quoted on p. 387. 9 In response to a resolution, General Wood reported a sum of $15,626 expended for the cause of reciprocity. The disbursements were chiefly to F. B. Thurber, president of the United States Export Association, for distribution of reciprocity literature, and to meet the expenses of the special commission of Cuban planters sent to Washington in January, 1902. (57th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. No. 679. See infra, p. 416.) 60 57th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. No. 73. Text given in Appendix VI, p. 423. 5' Civil report of Brig. Gen. Leonard Wood for 1901, pp. 31-34. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 387 off in the insular revenues which would seriously embarrass the government about to be established. He urged, moreover, that the reduction was almost as important to the United States as to Cuba, concluding that "reciprocity with Cuba will result in the United States building up an immense trade with the island and the establishment of great interests in common. Cuban agricultural industries will be encouraged and we will have given the new government a chance to live, and no American industry capable of development under reasonable protection will be injured." The Secretary of War did more than merely indorse this policy of extending tariff concessions to Cuba. Since, as already indicated,52 the accepted adjustment of the more strictly political relations between the United States and Cuba was very largely based on the studied policy of the Secretary of War, special importance attaches to his utterances on commercial relations between the two countries. In his annual report for 1901,51 made public for the opening of Congress, the Secretary strongly urged the necessity of a prompt reciprocal arrangement on three distinct grounds-namely, as a duty to Cuba, as an advantage to American exports, and for reasons of public policy: Cuba has acquiesced in our right to say that she shall not put herself in the hands of any other power, whatever her necessities, and in our right to insist upon the maintenance of free and orderly government throughout her limits, however impoverished and desperate may be her people. Correlative to this right is a duty of the highest obligation to treat her not as an enemy, not at arm's length as an aggressive commercial rival, but with a generosity which toward her will be but justice; to shape our laws so that they shall contribute to her welfare as well as our own. Our present duty to Cuba can be performed by the making of such a reciprocal tariff arrangement with her as President McKinley urged in his last words to his countrymen at Buffalo on the 5th of September.54 A reasonable reduction in our duties upon Cuban sugar and tobacco in exchange for fairly compensatory reductions of Cuban duties upon American products will answer the purpose, and I strongly urge that such an arrangement be promptly made. It would involve no sacrifice, but would be as advantageous to us as it would be to Cuba. The market for American products in a country with such a population, such wealth and purchasing power as Cuba with prosperity would speedily acquire, made certain by the advantage of preferential duties, would contribute far more to our prosperity than the portion of our present duties which we would be required to concede. Aside from the moral obligation to which we committed ourselves when we drove Spain out of Cuba, and aside from the ordinary considerations of commercial advantage involved in a reciprocity treaty, there are the weightiest reasons of American public policy pointing in the same direction; for the peace of Cuba is necessary to the peace of the United States; the health of Cuba is necessary to the health of the United States; the independence of Cuba is necessary to the safety rnf +-ca TTni+arl Sqnt+.a. The same considerations which led to the war with Spain now require uthat a commercial arrangement be made under which iuba can oive. The condition of the sugar and tobacco industries in Cuba is already such that the earliest possible action by Congress upon this subject is desirable. The position of President Roosevelt.-The recommendations of the Secretary of War were taken whole-heartedly by President Roosevelt who, sworn into office less than three months before under tragic cir52 See supra, p. 379 et seq. 58 See also the quotations on p. 386. 84 The Presihdent in thislast pub uerance had forcibly expressed himself in favor of the general policy of reciprocity, but subject to limitations. 388 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY cumstances, was understood to be committed to a continuance of the policies of his predecessor, including reciprocity.55 At the same time, however, he could not but heed the significance of the fact that a convention, assembled in Washington for a few days in November to discuss the practicability of reciprocity as a means of expanding foreign markets for American goods, had spoken strongly in favor of protection in the home market. This may explain why, in reservedly declaring himself for the general policy of reciprocity in his first annual message to Congress, December 3, 1901, President Roosevelt expressed his reservations 66 in language which was later used against him by those seeking to detract from the strength of his unqualified commitment in support of reciprocity with Cuba. The latter cause he put before Congress as a special issue in the following words: In Cuba such progress has been made toward putting the independent government of the island upon a firm footing that before the present session of the Congress closes this will be an accomplished fact. Cuba will then start as her own mistress; and to the beautiful Queen of the Antilles, as she unfolds this new page of her destiny, we extend our heartiest greetings and good wishes. Elsewhere I have discussed the question of reciprocity. In the case of Cuba, however, there are weighty reasons of morality and of national interest why the policy should be held to have a peculiar application, and I most earnestly ask your attention to the wisdom, indeed to the vital need, of providing for a substantial reduction in the tariff duties on Cuban imports into the United States. Cuba has in her constitution affirmed what we desired, that she should stand, in international matters, in closer and more friendly relations with us than with any other power; and we are bound by every consideration of honor and expediency to pass commercial measures in the interest of her material well-being. Committee hearings on reciprocity with Cuba.-Congress was not immediately responsive to the President's suggestions, and it was not until it had reconvened on January 6, 1902, that the struggle for and against tariff reductions in favor of Cuba got under way.57 The House had referred that portion of the President's message wherein he recommended reciprocity with Cuba to the Committee on Ways and Means. Chairman Payne opened hearings upon the subject January 15, and the committee sat to January 29, taking testimony amounting to 545 pages.58 In all, 54 persons were heard, 16 in favor of, and 38 against reciprocity with Cuba. In addition, 55 Announcing his intention to take the constitutional oath of President, as requested by Mr. Root on behalf of the Cabinet, the Vice President added, * * * and in this hour of deep and terrible national bereavement I wish to state that it shall be my aim to continue absolutely unbroken the policy of President McKinley for the peace and prosperity and honor of our beloved country." 56 See extracts from this message in Appendix VI, p. 422. 57 Senator Mason, Republican, Illinois, on Jan. 13, introduced and urged the immediate passage of a bill (S. 2753) providing that the products of Cuba, imported directly into the United States, might be placed in bonded warehouses and that the duty paid upon such warehoused merchandise should be at the rates fixed by law when the merchandise was entered for consumption. Meanwhile the Cubans could obtain advances upon their products in the United States and thereby gain relief from immediate distress. "And of course," said the Senator, who had introduced his remarks with a lengthy defense of protection, "it is contemplated that there shall be some differential or some reciprocal agreement." In discussing reciprocity with Cuba he approached the subject from the point of view of its being an imperative duty, and expressed the conviction that nothing could excuse the United States from honorable and fair trade with Cuba. In fact, considering as he did, that the Platt amendment practically barred Cuba from making "effective" commercial treaties with other countries, he held that common honesty and plain duty would demand of the United States, in the event that it refused reciprocity, to relieve Cuba of her constitutional embarrassment and to permit her to trade advantageously with the other nations of the world. Senator Mason's bill was referred to the Committee on Relations with Cuba, where it died. At the same time Senator Mason submitted a resolution that the United States should give Cuba "broad commercial reciprocal trade which would be of advantage to the commerce of this country and the discharge of our duty toward the people of Cuba." Two other bills (S. 5353 and 6052) on reciprocal trade arrangements with Cuba died in this Senate committee during this session; on the House side, four bills (H. R. 10994, 11001, 11004, and 11401), and one joint resolution (No. 142) had a similar fate in the Committee on Ways and Means. 58 This material, together with 200 pages of exhibits, was published as H. Doc. No. 535, 57th Cong., 1st sess. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 389 several letters and telegrams 59 reached the committee, and the testifiers for both sides came ably supported with briefs, memorials, and resolutions from trade associations and similar organizations,60 showing that much preparatory work had been done. The case for Cuban reciprocity was opened by the chairman of the Associated American Interests of Cuba, himself an American sugar merchant and a Cuban sugar planter. Ten other Americans joined him in presenting arguments for reduction or removal of tariff duties on imports of Cuban products-chiefly sugar-into the United States, namely, the president of the United States Export Association, a representative of the Merchants' Association of New York, a committee of three from the New York Produce Exchange, the president of the National Sugar Refining Co., two sugar planters with interests in Cuba, and two officials of the military government in Cuba, General Wood (by letter of January 27), and Colonel Bliss, collector of the port of Habana. The detailed statements of Colonel Bliss showed what reductions in the Cuban tariff he considered necessary in order that the United States might supply articles which Cuba would otherwise obtain elsewhere. 59 The president of two beet-sugar companies in California and a representative of the industry in San Francisco mailed statements detailing their position against the removal or reduction of the duty on Cuban sugar and stressing the benefits of extending the domestic beet-sugar industry. The president of the American Beet Sugar Association submitted two letters, addressed to him, giving costs of production of raw sugar in Cuba as low as 1.12 to 1.31 cents per pound under favorable conditions. The secretary of the Michigan Beet-Sugar Manufacturers' Association submitted a telegram giving the unanimous resolution of the Michigan State Grange in support of the efforts to continue the existing duty on raw sugar and earnestly requesting the votes of the Michigan delegation in Congress against the bill to reduce such duty. A letter from the Empire State Sugar Co. stated that "the trust and not the consumer will be the sole beneficiary if the duty on raw sugar is abolished or reduced," that the beet-sugar industry of the United States needed all the protection possible, and that, if any were withdrawn, it would " be only a question of a short time when the trust will force them out of business, and, when that is done, make the price to the consumer on its own terms." The president of the Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of New York submitted a letter from a dealer and importer, as well as grower, of tobacco, according to whom a 50 per cent reduction in duty on the product of the Cuban tobacco farmer would be putting "a premium on his improvidence and ignorance," resulting in an increased importation of Cuban tobacco and cigars, " necessarily at the expense of an American farmer and of the American manufacturer," "the only benefit" from such a reduction going "to those two cigar-manufacturing corporations that now ship 90 per cent of the Cuban cigars" imported into the United States. The writer preferred to have the United States establish an agricultural college in Cuba or to have Cuba become a part of the United States, so that "more modern methods of agriculture"' could be extended in the island and have "northern enterprise and thrift" develop it. The New Orleans Cotton Exchange, by telegram from its president, protested "against decrease in the tariff on Cuban products, and especially the admission free of Cuban sugar. Free sugar means the practical donation to Cuba of many millionsof dollars annually * * *";anditurgedthe committee not to render a foreign country assistance which it did not imperatively need, but to save Louisiana, with a population nearly equal to that of Cuba, from improverishment, and the important infant industry of the West from serious crippling, if not annihilation. A cablegram to the Merchants Association, New York, from the American Club of Elabana, stated that "American interests in Cuba, aggregating about $8000,000," urged the association to "exert every effort possible s* * to have Congress grant tariff concessions asked for by Cuban Commission in order to save their interests from financial ruin." The statement was made, likewise, that 'with reciprocity, trade from the United States in manufactured articles will increase thirty millions in a year." A letter from the American agents of the largest sugar producers in the Provinces of Santiago and Puerto Principe, Cuba, stated that a 25 per cent reduction in duty on Cuban sugar "would only suffice to bring the best equipped and situated Cuban sugar producers out without manufacturing loss at present prices, leaving them without the means to provide for the continuance of their fields and factories." The absence from the hearings of a larger number of Cuban planters was explained by their relquired presence as managers in the factories during the most active month of the year. 60 What follows is an outline of such of this material as was printed. William R. (orwine?, represoenting the Merchants' Association of Neow York, submitted a resolution of Dec. 5, 1901, by the directors of that body, requesting Congress to give immediate consideration to conditions in Cuba and "'to pass as sgeedily as possible such legislation, in the way of lowering the duties upon the Cuban products coining to the United Statesi as woulld insure a market for those products, conditioned, of course, upon the establish A.l ~ rlfllnhfRwt11~rRCd nroduct~S which might naturally seek nent of reciprocal arralngements in lavor o I1 se1X1UL *LULLrCw sA a market in Cuba, but which, owing to Cuba's present tariff schedules and curtailed purchasirg power, are now debarred therefrom." This resolution was circulatized to the 1,200 members (merchants and men of collateral business interests) in New York City and also to about 35.000 nonresident members, merchants throughout the country. Only one reply, as reported, was received from the local membership criticizing the position taken by the directors, and none from the others. It was not brought out how many replies were received. Similarly, the committee from the New York Produce Exchange submitted the latter's resolution of Jan. 10, 1902, which officially represented the views of 3,000 business men, many of them directly or indirectly trading with Cuba, to the effect that Congress should give immediate relief to the strained situation in Cuba by a substantial reduction in the tariff duties on Cuban imports to the United States, this being demanded by every consideration of generosity and fair dealing, the welfare of Cuba, which the United States had pledged, and the great better ment of commerce. On the other side as well, several of the spokesmen represented associations with large memberships and submitted resolutions adopted by these bodies, protesting or expressing opposition to any proposed reduc 390 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY Seven native Cubans submitted pleas for reciprocal trade relations between the United States and their country, then on the threshold of independent government: Two delegates of the Commission on Economic Affairs of Cuba, a representative of the Planters and Agriculturists' Association and of the Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturers' Association of Cuba, three sugar planters who spoke on behalf of a delegation of five representing the Planters' Association of Cuba, and the Civil Governor of Habana (by letter). The case against reduction in the American tariff rates on Cuban tobaccos was presented by 11 representatives of local, State, or national tobacco associations, including the National Cigar Leaf Tobacco Association, the National Association of Tobacco Growers, the New England Tobacco Growers' Association, the Tobacco Growers' Association of the State of New York, the Cigar Manufacturers' Association of America, the League of Domestic Producers,61 and the International Union of Cigar Makers. The committee gave one day to beet sugar, reminding those who came to present their case that pertinent facts, not general arguments for protection, were desired. Seventeen persons spoke in behalf of the beet-sugar industry in the United States, which, they contended, had been brought into existence by congressional legislation and was still dependent upon the maintenance of the established tariff rate. The testimony of 12 representatives of beettion of the import duties on Cuban products. The president of the National Association of Tobacco Growers submitted a brief (Ibid., pp. 551-554) in support of his view that the lowering of the duties on tobacco from Cuba "would prove disastrous to the entire cigar-leaf growing industry of the United States." The resolution and memorial of the Ohio Leaf Tobacco Packers' Association (Ibid., pp. 554-557) stated that they were" opposed to any change in the present tariff on leaf tobacco, and that a material reduction would be a serious blow to the tobacco industry of Ohio" and "would at no distant day practically result in a paralyzation and almost total discontinuance of the tobacco industry" in that State. The brief presented on behalf of the Chicago Leaf Tobacco Merchants' Association (Ibid., pp. 557-560) set forth their belief "that a reduction of duties on Cuban tobacco and Cuban cigars would be a most unfortunate thing to the cigar-leaf tobacco trade of the United States, including each and every branch of the same-namely, the grower, the packer, the jobber, the cigar manufacturer, and the cigar maker." The joint resolutions of the Cincinnati Cigar Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade and Cincinnati Cigar Manufacturers' Association (Ibid., pp. 560-561) unanimously and earnestly protested against any reduction whatever of the duties on Cuban tobacco and cigars, holding that 'the cigar-leaf tobacco interests of the United States are by right entitled to the protection and fostering care of our Government as against any and all demands of concessions in favor of any foreign nation." The Elmira (N. Y.) Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade by resolution (Ibid., p. 562) made "its strongest possible appeal that there be no reduction of the present rates of tariff on Cubangrown tobacco." Local Union No. 32, of Louisville, Ky., of the Cigar Makers' International Union of America, protested (Ibid., pp. 562-563) against a reduction of the duties on Habana tobacco and cigars because it "would necessarily bring about a cut in wages besides throwing a great many men out of employment and work a great hardship on our families'. The resolution of the Cigar Manufacturers of Louisville, Ky. (Ibid., p. 563), stated that "the proposed reduction of the tariff duty on tobacco and cigars imported from the island of Cuba would be most hurtful to the interests of the manufacturers of cigars, not alone of this city but of the entire country, and a sweeping change in the tariff, such as is advocated by the representatives of Cuba, would not only destroy the business of making cigars in this country of Habana tobacco, which business has grown to such vast proportions under the present tariff that the greater part of the tobacco grown on the island is now manufactured into cigars in the United States, but would prove very injurious also to the manufacturers of cigars from domestic leaf as well." The Governor of Connecticut telegraphed that "New England tobacco growers [were] deeply interested in maintaining duty on imported wrappers: any material reduction will greatly injure this important industry in Connecticut." (Ibid., p. 564). The joint brief of the Cigar Manufacturers' Association of America, of western Pennsylvania, and of the Habana Cigar Manufacturers' Association of the United States (Ibid., pp. 565-568) recognized in the proposal to reduce the duty on cigars imported from Cuba an "attack" which would, "without really benefiting the Cubans, destroy the great American cigar industry, and solely aid in the aggrandizement and benefit of the two corporations now operating and practically dominating the cigar output in Cuba"; the 'successful accomplishment" of this "scheme" would mean"the transfer of manufacture of the better grades of cigars from the United States to Cuba and the consequent destruction of that most important part of the American cigar industry." The tobacco growers of Lancaster County, Pa., and its surroundings, by resolution, entered "their solemn protest against the reduction of the tariff on tobacco imported from Cuba." 61 Affiliated with several agricultural and labor organizations, but "specifically a coalition of the Citrus Growers' Tariff Association, representing the combined horticultural interests of the Southwest and Pacific coast; the New England and other tobacco growers' associations; the Texas and other wool growers' associations; the American Beet Sugar Association; the Savannah River Rice Planters' Association, with which the Louisiana rice interest is now cooperating; Nebraska Sugar Beet Growers' Association; Florida Agricultural Society, a combination of the tobacco, orange, lemon, pineapple, and sugar interests of Florida; the American Cane Growers' Association; Michigan Beet Sugar Association; National Cigar Leaf Tobacco Association; New York State Tobacco Growers' Association; Indiana Wool Growers' Association, etc." HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 391 sugar producers supported the statement of Henry T. Oxnard, president of the American Beet Sugar Association; the case of the growers of sugar beets was voiced by the chairman of the League of Domestic Producers (who had already testified in the interest of American tobacco growers); by the director of the Michigan Experiment Station, who appeared in response to a request from the governor of his State; by the president of the National Grange of Farmers, representing thousands of farmers and sugar-beet producers; by Dr. H. W. Wiley, chief of the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture, and by a special agent from that department.62 American cane-sugar interests, domestic and territorial, were likewise opposed to reducing the duty on Cuban sugar. Four witnesses gave testimony on behalf of Louisiana planters and were seconded by an official of the Louisiana Sugar Exchange and Cane Growers' Association, by a representative of the board of trade, and of the associated banks of New Orleans. Also the resident commissioner for Porto Rico, a representative of the Hawaiian Sugar Producers' Association, and an American planter of Santo Domingo supported the position of the sugar producers of continental United States. It should be noted, however, that the above-named interests were resisting specifically the proposal to remove or to reduce 63 the import duties on Cuban products, especially sugar, fearing that such action would ruin their industries. They did not oppose other forms of aid to the sugar and tobacco producers of Cuba, several of their spokesmen expressing themselves in favor of some help for Cuba but not at the expense of one or two American industries.64 But, having exerted their influence against a reduction in the duty on Cuban sugar, and not having stated what amount of reduction, if any, they considered safe for the respective branches of the American industry,6 these sugar producers were assumed to oppose any reciprocity with Cuba and any reduction in the duty on Cuban sugar to relieve the Cuban sugar industry. Many of their statements and claims, moreover, were later employed in the hope of defeating the grant of 20 per cent reduction. This implication of a need for discounting the assertions of witnesses could be extended as well to persons favoring reciprocity who evidently overstated their case on the assumption that eventually their 62 These two officials were authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture to appear on the invitation of the committee, but they did not for that reason voice the sentiments of that Cabinet member. Questioned on this point, Doctor Wiley testified that, so far as he knew, the Secretary of Agriculture had given out no statement on the matter of Cuban reciprocity. (Hearings, pp. 514-515.) 63 The chief advocate of the beet-sugar interests considered a reduction of 10 to 20 per cent as small; indeed the burden of his testimony was directed against the Cuban demand for "free sugar," a " most vicious propositfon '" that would paralyze the industry he represented and probably ruin it for all time. (Ibid., pp. 171 and 179.) Another beet-sugar representative, however, insisted that a reduction of 10 per cent or any reduction would prove ruinous. (Ibid., p. 219.) 4 At an early stage during the hearings a member of the Cuban delegation was approached by one of the beet-sugar witnesses with the following proposal: "That Congress should thoroughly investigate this subject, and if, on full investigation, they found out that Cuba was making sugar at a loss and they wanted to be generous, the proper way to do it was to give a rebate and take it out of the whole people instead of one or two industries, and if Congress decided to do that there would be no objection from the beet-sugar No details were given to show how this grant would operate to benefit the Cuban producers, but it was indicated that the five groups of sugar interests opposing lower duties on Cuban sugar were, near the end of the hearings "unanimous in their entertaning no reluctance to have the Cuban sugar interests assisted" along the ]ine indicated. (ibid., p. 543.) 66 The representative of the Hawaiian sugar industry admitted that its condition readily permitted of at east a 10 per cent reduction in favor of Cuban sugar. Ibid., p. 328.) 392 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY request for duty exemption would be met by some percentage reduction.66 An attempt to evaluate the testimony, so largely conflicting and contradictory, of the parties for and against tariff reductions on imports from Cuba is futile, involving many difficulties and requiring lengthy extracts from the witnesses' statements and from their meager, sometimes evasive, replies under cross-examination. Among the difficulties would be that of estimating the effect on a man's interests of a problematical change of 10 to 100 per cent duty concession for Cuban products. A summary of this material, however, indicates that the pleas for the adoption or rejection of reciprocity with Cuba were based on a number of arguments and statements. The proponents endeavored to establish, in substance, the following points: 67 1. That the United States, having assumed responsibility for the political stability of Cuba, should properly secure it; and that this stability was dependent primarily upon economic well-being. 2. That the sugar industry and, to some extent, the.tobacco industry were the bases of the whole economic system of the island. 3. That the Cuban sugar industry, struggling to recover from the ravages of revolution and war, was heavily in debt and unable to pay the accumulated interest due on mortgages; that, in addition, it was facing a world overproduction, depression of prices, and dumping of bounty-fed European beet sugars. 4. That through annexation of sugar-producing territories and by stimulating the home industry the United States had contributed to the overproduction of sugar in the world, which brought prices down to a point where Cuban sugar, paying duties, could not compete. 5. That the Cuban sugar industry was dependent upon the United States as its natural and logical market and could be put on a paying basis only if its product were given free access to that market, necessitating complete exemption or very substantial reduction of import duties. 6. That the reestablishment of the Cuban sugar industry after the war had been undertaken with the general anticipation of closer relations between the United States and Cuba. 66 One or the other of the proponents qualified the request for free importation of Cuban products by limiting it to sugar or by offering a substitute of "at least 50 per cent reduction." The chief Cuban delegate on economic affairs endeavored to impress the committee with the necessity of free trade between the United States and Cuba but, under cross-examination, was frank to admit that "by asking for all he expected to get as much as possible, if not all." He had evidently, within two months, undergone somewhat of a change of opinion in this respect; in a letter of Nov. 15, 1901 (see Appendix to hearings, pp. 643-645), addressed to the president of the Association of Merchants and Industrialists of Cuba, he made his acceptance of the appointment as a member of the delegation to be sent to Washington conditional upon the adoption of a proposal for a reciprocal 40 per cent reduction of the duties established by the American and Cuban tariff acts of 1897 (with three special stipulations). Hle at that time regarded the petition of the association for free sugar "as very prejudicial to the sugar interests of the United States, created at great cost and stimulated under tariff protection, which we should respect. Furthermore, if our sugars are granted free admission into the United States there would be demanded in return that the greater part of American products be admitted free of duties into the island of Cuba, which would so seriously affect our customs receipts that we would have to employ other forms of taxation, which, due to the prevent condition of our producers, can not be considered." (For the text of a letter supporting this proposal, written by an ex-member of the Cuban Constitutional Convention, see Appendix to Hearings, pp. 646-647.) In an interview given Feb. 5, 1902, to a correspondent of the Journal of Commerce, Sr. Plac6 expressed the opinion that a "fair bargain" would be 50 per cent reduction in Cuban duties on United States products and 40 per cent reduction in the rates of the United States tariff on Cuban products, the concessions to be limited to goods shipped in Cuban or American bottoms; the agreement, operative for five years, was to stipulate also certain extensions of both countries' free lists and a revision of the Cuban tariff made to the entire satisfaction of the United States. B7 This summarizing of the pros and cons fails to indicate the relative weight and emphasis with which they were presented, either positively or negatively, by the different parties. Thus, the opposition stressed a few points at great length, chiefly, that two-American industries, sugar and tobacco, would have to bear the burden of reciprocity and suffer injury; and that, after all, the Cubans would not get the benefit of the concessions. These arguments were supplemented by much information as to the condition of the industries represented. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 393 7. That the current crop in Cuba was being ground at a loss of about five-eighths of a cent per pound, amounting to more than $12,000,000 for the total production. In consequence, mills would have to stop grinding, cane growers would receive no returns, laborers would lose employment, those who advanced money or credit to the planters would be bankrupt, and all business would be paralyzed. 8. That the market price of sugar would have to be much higher to encourage such large increases in the development of Cuban sugar lands and sugar production as were feared by the industry of the United States. 9. That, even under favorable price conditions, the production of sugar in Cuba would not in the near future increase very rapidly because the supply of labor was limited, because existing sugar mills lacked the facilities for grinding much larger crops and there was no capital for new factories, and because there was not the vast amount of good sugar land available for production as was supposed. 10. That, even though labor in Cuba was then fully employed at good wages, distress in the island was imminent because the planters were producing sugar at a loss and their credit was, as a rule, absolutely exhausted; if disaster should strike the sugar producers, three-fourths of the Cuban people would, directly or indirectly, be affected. 11. That, compared with products of other countries, Cuban sugar and tobacco were subject, under the Dingley Tariff Act, to particularly heavy duties, and that such treatment at the hands of the prosperous and powerful guardian nation was ill-deserved by the struggling ward. 12. That when Cuba accepted the Platt amendment as a part of her constitution, she had the assurance of President McKinley that all of his influence would be used to secure tariff concessions for Cuban products. 13. That the Platt amendment was generally understood in Cuba as imposing upon her duties and obligations which prevented the making of advantageous treaties with any other country but the United States. 14. That Cuba, having become "essentially a part of the American system" in the interest of the United States, was entitled to have her interests considered "from that point of view alone." 15. That one of two things must be conceded, either to release Cuba from the special obligations and let her help herself, or to continue the close relations and grant the needed assistance. 16. That the failure to obtain duty reductions in the United States would lead to disastrous industrial conditions in Cuba, which, with the consequent discontent among the laboring classes, would strengthen the annexation movement. That the failure of Spain to grant assistance to Cuba's industries had been the principal cause of the Cuban revolutions. 17. That it would in the end prove better for the sugar industry of the United States to support a moderate duty reduction on Cuban sugar than to take the almost certain risk of annexation and the possibility of unlimited competition. 18. That the Cuban sugar industry should be regarded "not as an enemy but as an ally of the domestic industry" that would save both from complete destruction at the hands of European competitors. 394 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY For the removal of a part of the duty on Cuban sugar would eliminate the Eurdpean product "from the whole proposition." 19. That in view of the limited development of the domestic industry, the future supply of sugar for the United States should be secured by encouraging the development of the Cuban industry. 20. That the contemplated exemption or reduction for Cuban sugar would not interfere with the prosperity of the American sugar industry because the price of sugar in the American market would not be influenced by the reduction of duty affecting only a portion of total imports, both the American and the Cuban industries had ample room for expansion, and the American sugar industry would continue to have the support of the full tariff rate upon imports from the principal competing country. 21. That the benefit of the reduction, judging from the experience of Hawaii and Porto Rico, would go to the Cuban planters and not to the Sugar Trust. That the Cuban request for free raw sugar had not at all been influenced by the refiners of the United States but was made because Cuba produced only raw sugar. 22. That the growers of sugar-cane in Cuba would benefit from the duty reduction because they were paid according to the price of sugar at the time the cane was delivered. The product, the labor, and the land of the small Cuban farmer would be given an added value. 23. That the Cuban producers would get the benefit from the duty reduction on sugar as long as they did not produce enough sugar to supply the import requirements of the United States market. But that as Cuban production increased from year to year the consumers of the United States would get the benefit of part of the concession, especially in the season when practically the entire Cuban crop was put on the market. 24. That temporarily, perhaps, Cuban producers would lose the benefit of the reduction if a large amount of sugar were held back in Cuba until the legislation were passed and then thrown on the market. 25. That the refiners undertook to maintain a margin of about 1 cent a pound for refining regardless of the price they paid for raw sugar and of the duty, if any, which was paid by the seller before withdrawal from customs warehouse. 26. That the beet-sugar factories of the United States, producing granulated sugar, had the support of the tariff rates on raw and of the differential on refined sugar. 27. That the United States could without harm to its own industry consume the limited output of Cuban tobacco. 28. That one-half of the previous tobacco crop of Cuba had not yet been sold, because the high rates of duty of the United States tariff allowed importation "only at ruinous prices." 29. That duty reductions should be granted to all products of Cuba, encouraging the small farmers to raise fruits and vegetables for the winter markets of the United States. Such diversification would reduce the island's dependence on sugar. 30. That the reductions to Cuba would not have to be generalized under the most-favored-nation clause in the treaties of the United States. 31. That, owing to the difficulties of its sugar industry, Cuba could not purchase American products on a large scale, and exporters of the United States were alarmed over the loss of the Cuban market. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 395 32. That the impending financial and economic disaster in the island would further injure the United States export trade to Cuba, resulting in a corresponding loss of freight to ship owners. 33. That, however, a prosperous sugar industry in Cuba would mean greatly increased exports of sugar plantation and factory equipment and supplies. 34. That the support of United States manufacturers and exporters for tariff concessions in favor of Cuba was conditioned on the establishment of "absolutely reciprocal" commercial relations and based on the prospects of securing Cuban markets for American goods. 35. That the United States, given the proper preferential reductions in Cuba, would find there an attractive outlet for American products and would obtain practically the entire Cuban trade in many lines still controlled by Europe, especially as the reductions would necessarily be accompanied by an upward revision of the Cuban tariff. Those who opposed the removal or reduction of import duties on sugar and other products of Cuba based their case on the following grounds: 65 1. That some $130,000,000 had been invested in the domestic sugar industry of the United States on the strength of encouragement from the Government and of party pledges, and that this investment should be safeguarded by maintaining the policy of protection. 2. That the beet-sugar industry of the United States was still at the very inception of its development. It was, however, on a sound basis, as shown by the progress made during the 10 years preceding, in spite of adverse conditions. 3. That this industry had reached a point where its importance was recognized and that, if the established tariff rates were left unchanged for not less than 8 or 10 years, production of beet sugar in the United States would so develop that the industry could "stand alone without protection." 4. That it was desirable to reduce the importation of sugar into the United States and to foster the home production of this necessary article of consumption. 5. That, to do so, the American farmer needed "continued protection against tropical competition," this being the first instance of a direct benefit for agriculture derived from the tariff. 6. That sugar-beet raising, particularly adaptable to the Western States, was a profitable money crop for farmers and of value for crop diversification and rotation. 7. That the development of the sugar-beet and beet-sugar industry would give employment to many people and would bring about a corresponding increase in sales of agricultural implements, machinery, and factory supplies. 8. That the beet-sugar producers of the United States were suffering from low world prices just as much as the Cubans, and in addition, had been facing ruinous price cuttings on the part of the "refining trust" in the Missouri River territory. 9. That the sugar producers of the world were passing through a temporary crisis, relief from which should be left to the operation of economic laws and not be attempted by upsetting the established economic policy of the United States. 5 See footnote 67 on p. 392. 10038-28 ---26 396 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY 10. That the low world price of sugar was due largely to overproduction resulting from the application of the direct and indirect bounty systems of Europe and that, as long as these bounties continued, no reduction in duty would be able to establish a legitimate price for raw sugar. 11. That it would not be possible to make a reduction in duty on Cuban sugar that would benefit the Cuban people and still not injure United States producers of beet and cane sugar. 12. That any reduction in the duty on Cuban sugar would be an interference with the existing protection of the sugar industry of the United States, would deprive investors of the incentive for its further development, driving capital to the Cuban industry. This undue favor would artificially stimulate the production of sugar in Cuba to the point of supplying what the United States would use, bringing down costs of production to where beet sugar could not compete. 13. That this undue stimulus to its sugar industry would hinder Cuba from seeking new fields of enterprise and development. 14. That public sentiment in the United States had been distorted by the "trust's" propaganda of misrepresenting conditions in Cuba; that the reports of distress in Cuba had been grossly exaggerated and were in many respects actually fraudulent, the demand for labor at good wages exceeding the supply. 15. That the distress in Cuba was at most "theoretical," based upon the fear of marketing the current crop at a loss or without profit, which would discourage capital for the next crop and make it difficult for labor to find employment. 16. That the United States was the principal market for Cuba's sugar, but under no moral obligations to guarantee her planters remunerative prices not warranted by world price conditions and at the expense of the home industry. 17. That the Platt amendment, instead of imposing an obligation upon the United States, placed Cuba under additional obligations to the United States, which had already done enough for the island. 18. That Cuba could produce all the sugar the United States required and more cheaply than any other part of the world. 19. That the Cuban sugar industry had recuperated remarkably from the ravages of war and was already more profitable than the domestic industry, the production costs for Cuban sugar averaging about 2 cents per pound compared with an average of 312 or 4 cents a pound for producing beet or cane sugar in the United States. 20. That Congress should thoroughly investigate conditions in Cuba and, if found necessary, grant relief out of the National Treasury (in the form of rebates to be distributed by the Government of Cuba) instead of saddling the sacrifice on the domestic producers of sugar and tobacco. 21. That, if any industries were to be taxed to give aid to Cuba, it should be those which were expected to benefit under reciprocity, the producers of goods exported to Cuba and the speculators and capitalists with investments in Cuba. 22. That, in any event, the benefit of a reduction in duty on Cuban sugar would accrue to the "refining trust," the large buyer practically in control of the raw-sugar market, with power to depress prices and to refuse the product of Cuban producers, or play one against another, until its demands would be acceded to. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 397 23. That, similarly, the "trust" had secured a benefit from the operation of the countervailing duties (imposed by the United States on imports of beet sugar to offset European export bounties) which should have enabled the Cuban producers to obtain a higher price for their cane sugar. 24. That the "trust," by importing Cuban raw sugar with duty reduction, would secure greater profits on its refined product and thus be enabled to extend its price cuttings against beet-sugar factories, ultimately "wiping out" every factory in the United States. Any losses incurred by the "trust" would be recouped when its competitors were killed off. 25. That the price of refined sugar to the consumer of the United States would not be lowered by the admission of Cuban sugar free or by a reduction in duty, but would be maintained by the "trust" at the Hamburg level, plus the full duty, except when and where it would suit the refiners to put down the price in order to inflict losses on the beet-sugar producers. 26. That under the proposed reciprocity Cuba would be placed in the same relative position to the markets of the United States as Hawaii without restrictions as to immigrant labor. 27. That importation of Cuban sugar free of duty would be in violation of the tariff act of 1897, and that the reciprocity provision of that act had already expired. (Sec. 4 limited the negotiation of reciprocity treaties under it to a period of two years, and their operation to not exceeding five years, after the passage of the act and, by excluding "natural products of the United States," eliminated sugar as a reciprocity commodity.) 28. That the removal of the differential duty on all imports of refined sugar would help Cuba more than any moderate reduction in duty on Cuban raw sugar. ("Such a measure," it was stated but not explained, "would be of no benefit, though of no injury, to the Sugar Trust, and be of the least possible harm to the producers of American sugar." It was emphasized, however, that the differential duty, "designed as much to aid the beet-sugar producers as the refiners of imported raw sugar," had enabled the "trust" to sell refined sugar at cut prices in beet-sugar markets. The contest in the House of Representatives over the differential, which culminated in the Morris amendment, is discussed on p. 409 and following.) 29. That Hawaii was paying more for the things it consumed by buying in the protected market of the mainland and therefore expected full protection on its sugar crop. 30. That Porto Rico, because its tobacco and coffee were practically shut out from Cuba, would have to develop its sugar industry, which, however, would be greatly injured by a duty reduction on Cuban sugar imported into the United States. 31. That any change in the existing tariff rates on Cuban tobacco and cigars would disorganize the tobacco industry of the United States, prove very injurious to the growers of domestic cigar-leaf tobacco and to the cigar manufacturers. 32. That any horizontal percentage reduction in the rates of the tobacco schedule would be a discrimination against and practically wipe out the cigar industry of the United States because it would effect a twelve times greater reduction on cigars as against leaf tobacco from Cuba. 398 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY 33. That it would be inequitable and against real reciprocity to grant Cuban tobacco a duty reduction in the United States, the largest tobacco-growing country in the world, unless the rates of Cuban import duties on tobacco from the United States were precisely the same as the rates of United States duties on tobacco from Cuba. 34. That the tobacco industry of Cuba was not in a state of depression and was capable of expansion at great profit without tariff concessions from the United States. 35. That the reduction in duty on Cuban cigars would benefit chiefly the tobacco trust, which practically dominated Cuban production and which would control the American market. Supplementing the oral testimony, the committee received a great mass of material from American and Cuban sources showing that the progress of the hearings was being followed. The documents were, for the most part, originally addressed to General Wood by mayors of Cuban towns, by boards of trade, and by sugar or tobacco groups, some of them bearing numerous signatures. In turn, these were forwarded to Washington by General Wood in support of his own letter of January 27, already referred to, wherein he directed the attention of the committee to "the very serious economic condition existing in Cuba" and earnestly requested that body to give its support to a reciprocity arrangement with a reduction for Cuban products of not less than 33%5 per cent. He reported that the situation in Cuba could not last much longer; that planters had exhausted their resources; that "a crisis, bringing with it financial ruin to the agricultural industries of the island, and through them to its commerce, was imminent"; and that "relief must be granted, and granted quickly, or a condition will arise in the island which will render the establishment and maintenance of a stable government highly improbable. 68 At the same time, however, even though the sentiment in American newspapers largely favored concessions, clippings were being sent in to show that in some quarters a decided stand against tariff reductions for Cuba was being taken. Significant reports on new investments and promotions by American capital in Cuban sugar, tobacco, and other enterprises, and on high wages for Cuban labor were current. An attempt was even made to correlate fluctuations in sale prices on the exchange of stocks of companies allied with the sugar trust with the varying rumors concerning congressional action on concessions for Cuba.69 68 Appendix to hearings, p. 649. 69 Much of this press comment was compiled by Truman G. Palmer, beet-sugar advocate in Washington, under the title "War of the Sugar Trust Against American Beet-Sugar Producers," and published, together with his digest of the hearings (The Deadly Parallel on Cuban Tariff Reduction and The Story of Cuban Distress) tending to discredit the testimony of the witnesses favoring reciprocity, as S. Doc. No. 439, 57th Cong., 1st sess., 186 pages. Near the end of February, advance copies of some of Mr. Palmer's material were placed in the hands of each member of the Committee on Ways and Means, together with a plan providing for an appropriation (to be distributed, perhaps, over a number of years) payable by the United States to the Cuban treasury, in consideration for the acquisition by lease or purchase (according to Art. VII of the Platt amendment) of coaling and naval stations in Cuba. This proposition, it was suggested, would meet the "so-called Cuban exigency," leaving the Cuban government, upon its inception, free to provide for the distressed interests as it saw fit; and had further advantages, such as estopping "any meddling or tariff tinkering," and satisfying public sentiment. (Ibid., p. 55.) HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 399 Further support for the opposition came in the form of petitions,70 open letters, and resolutions of protest from public officials and civic organizations in States interested in the beet-sugar industry. In addition, the Senate on February 3 received a joint resolution7 of the Legislative Assembly of Porto Rico, petitioning Congress that no action be taken "which would affect the right of the Porto Rican planters to enjoy the full measure of protection due to them as American sugar and tobacco growers," and declaring that any modification or reduction of import duties or the payment of bounties which would give to sugar or tobacco grown in any independent or foreign land privileges enabling it to compete with the products of Porto Rico would be prejudicial to the agricultural interests of the island. About the same time, the Industrial Commission (counting among its members four Senators and four Representatives) submitted its final report to Congress.72 It opposed the removal of the duty on sugar, and recommended the maintenance of "adequate protection," but without indicating what rate should be deemed adequate. The commission said:73 That whatever changes may be made in the tariff by reciprocity or otherwise, adequate protection to the beet-sugar industry be maintained. The growing of beets and the production of sugar therefrom have made rapid and successful progress during the past three years. The direct benefits thus accruing to agriculture, and to labor in the way of additional employment, are only partly appreciated or understood, while the economic advantage to the nation of producing its own sugar supply, aggregating in value more than $100,000,000 annually, would be very great. It is freely predicted by students of the question that the United States will eventually make its own sugar, mainly from beets, and that the cost of production will ultimately be as low as in Europe. To destroy or to seriously check the growth of this industry by removing the tariff on sugar would be not only unfortunate, but unjust to capital already invested therein. On March 7 there was presented to the Senate a memorial of the Legislature of Colorado,74 asking Congress to maintain the existing tariff rates on sugar. On the considerations that the beet-sugar industry had been established in reliance upon the protection afforded by the existing tariff and that its further development depended upon "the perpetuation of the conditions created by that tariff," it was declared desirable to continue "the legally established protection against the unfair fiscal arrangements of Europe and against unjust competition in labor on the part of Cuba and other tropical countries." "Any reduction" of existing duties in favor of foreign cane sugar would be likely to "destroy" the beet-sugar industry of the Western States with the market already narrowed by the free admisO' Mr. S. W. Smith, Michigan, during the debate in the House on the reciprocity bill referred to a joint petition sent in February, 1901, by the American Beet Sugar Association and the American Cane Growers' Association to the Committee on Ways and Means. The petition asked for the appointment of a special rAni-^, ontf en visiti C11th tno examine and ascertain the real facts of the situation there. The petitioners challenged General Wood's statement that the average cost of production of sugar in Cuba was not less than 2 cents per pound and they contended that it had been proved beyond controversy that this cost was not over 12 cents per pound, arguing from this that Cuba was raising and selling sugar at a profit and that the proposed tariff reduction had no possible justification. Mr. Smith added this comment of his own: " It would have been no more than just to have granted this petition, and any such investigation as proposed therein would no doubt have proved the contention of the petitioners." (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 4187.) 71 Printed as S. Doc. No. 159, 57th Cong., 1st sess. 72 Considerable importance was attached to the work 6f the commission, which had extended over several years and had covered all economic phases of the United States. The entire report of the commission is in 19 large volumes. '3 Final report of the Industrial Commission, Vol. XIX, p. 199. 4 Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 2476. 400 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY sion of sugar from the Territories.75 The memorial, moreover, contained a declaration which was already being used in Washington as a rallying cry by those Republicans who, opposing lower duties on Cuban sugar, were yet desirous to stave off a split in the party ranks and a contest, as later developed, on sectional lines. It was a plea for the maintenance of the established protection on the grounds that it was the first time that western farmers and producers had been directly interested and that the policy should be continued until its benefits had been enjoyed by the West equally with the East. Weeks passed without a report from the Committee on Ways and Means, whose members were charged by the administration press with abandoning Cuba. The cause of Cuba apparently had received a setback when the committee decided to repeal the remainder of the war-revenue tax; the assumption was that there would be no further recommendation involving a decrease of revenues. The committee, however, was evidently much concerned over the Cuban question which was causing not only embarrassment but distinctly strained relations between the administration and Congress.7 Efforts toward conciliation were made in committee conferences, party caucuses, and through consultations at the White House, but these, for the time being at least, seemed only to provoke increased resistance. Introduction of a reciprocity bill in the House.77-Sugar prices were declining, reports from Cuba were disconcerting, and the President was urging action. On March 18 Chairman Payne succeeded in having a bill providing reciprocal trade relations accepted by the Committee on Ways and Means, and a conference of House Republicans voted to present the measure for action by the House. The next day, therefore, Chairman Payne introduced in the House of Representatives a bill (H. R. 12765),78 which was immediately referred back to the Committee on Ways and Means, proposing to authorize the President, as soon as might be after the establishment of an independent government in Cuba and after the enactment of immigration and exclusion laws as fully restrictive as those of the 75 Hawaiian sugar had been admitted free of duty since 1875. Porto Rican sugar benefited by a reduction of 85 per cent of the duty and, under the Foraker Act of Apr. 12, 1900, was admitted free on and after July 25, 1901. 78 In a published letter (quoted in Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 4185-4186) of Mar. 12, Mr. Henderson, Speaker of the House, stated that he had stood side by side with the President and the Committee on Ways and Means trying to devise some plan to aid Cuba without injuring American farmers. The delegations from California, Colorado, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Michigan, he said, had "their faces set vigorously, firmly, and most determinedly against any reduction " and the most intense feeling existed. He was doubtful whether the opponents' views could be dislodged or changed sufficiently to carry the House, but was anxious to harmonize matters, hoping to hit upon some other plan. 77 Some effort had earlier been made to open debate in the House on Cuban reciprocity. Thus, on Mar. 11, while the House was sitting in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consid eration "of the post office appropriation bill, Mr. Brantley, of Georgia, spoke for an hour in favor of reciprocity, declaring that "whatever the American Congress is going to do on this important subject should be speedily done. If we are going to grant relief, it should be granted now, for it is needed now. If we are not going to grant it, then it is due to Cuba to let her know that fact, so that she may cease feeding upon an unfounded hope. It is also due to our own sugar producers and the commercial interests connected therewith to have the question of relief or no relief to Cuba speedily determined. The atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty, into which the agitation for a reduction plunges the sugar trade, does and will do more harm than can possibly be done by any reduction of the tariff on Cuban sugar that is at all likely to be made." (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 2645.) Just before the committee rose, Mr. Meyer, of Louisiana, spoke against Cuban reciprocity, condemning it as a sacrifice of the American sugar industries and as a betrayal of protection, and criticized all reciprocity treaties as a usurpation of the functions of the House of Representatives by the Senate and the Executive toenlarge their own powers. (Ibid., pp. 2659-2662.) 78 For the text of the bill, see Appendix VI, p. 424. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 401 United States, to negotiate a commercial arrangement conceding a reduction in duties of 20 per cent,79 effective to December 1, 1903. Reports of the Committee on Ways and Means.-The Payne bill thereupon entered a period of formal and lengthy deliberation, and for a time its emergence from the committee seemed doubtful. New groups of opponents, as the four minority reports later submitted indicate, were developing against the compromise features of this particular arrangement for Cuban reciprocity. Those very compromises, however, had been devised for the purpose of obtaining wider support for the bill, and without them congressional defeat seemed certain. On March 31 Chairman Payne submitted to the House of Representatives the report of the majority of the committee which recommended passage of the bill substantially as it had been received,80 on the grounds chiefly that the President and the Secretary of War had directed the attention of Congress to the necessity of doing something for the relief of Cuba; that, because of world-wide overproduction and low prices, grave disorder threatened the sugar industry of the island, and that under the close relations existing between the United States and Cuba, the former could not afford to take the risk of the failure of the new Cuban Government which was about to be set up in business on its own account. The committee, mindful of the objects of the American tariff, considered the effects of the proposed reductions, concluding that the United States could safely 70 The terms of the bill provided that Cuba should grant concessions for products of the United States "by rates of duty which shall be less by an amount equivalent to at least 20 per cent ad valorem" than the rates upon like articles from the most favored of other countries, whereas Cuban products entering the United States were to be dutiable at 80 per cent of existing rates. The words "ad valorem" may, however, have been inserted inadvertently. Several witnesses had stated that the Cuban tariff was very low, and the collector of customs of Cuba had given the average ad valorem rate of duty on total importations as about 21.5 per cent. A reduction of "at least 20 per cent ad valorem" would take an important fraction of Cuba's revenue. The committee's majority report makes no specific mention of this reduction, but three of the minority reports refer to a 20 per cent reduction in Cuban duties without the words "ad valorem." Two significant statements read as follows:. "The present Cuban tariff is so low that it is doubtful if the 20 per cent reduction provided in the bill will be sufficient to give us the control of her markets. It will either be necessary for her to greatly increase her tariff or to give us a reduction of 33~ per cent or 40 per cent. (H. Rept. No. 1276, 57th Cong., 1st sess., pt. 2.) "The bill proposed by the majority authorizes the President to enter into a reciprocal treaty with Cuba, making reductions of 20 per cent in the duties upon Cuban products in consideration of a similar reduction to be made in the Cuban tariff upon our own products." (Ibid., pt. 3.) But Mr. Payne, at any rate, seems to have been deliberate in the use of the words "ad valorem," as is indicated by his statements made in January, 1905, during committee hearings concerning duties on Philippine products. Mr. Truman G. Palmer, secretary of the American Beet Sugar Association, pointed out that in the first year of reciprocity Cuba did not purchase from the United States extra goods corresponding to the more than $42,000,000 worth of increased exportation of Cuban products to the United States compared with 1902. Chairman Payne interrupted the witness with the query: " I suppose you are aware that the bill introduced in the House, which the sugar interests of the United States defeated, gave a much more favorable tarif on goods exported from the United States to Cuba than was finally put into the treaty?" He continued: " I want to state to you now that the provision of the bill that reduced the duty, giving the United States preference over the other countries, was a reduction equal to 20 per cent ad valorem upon the value of the goods, while [what] the treaty finally made was a reduction sometimes of 20 per cent, or 10 per cent of the duty, and you can see, of course, that 20 per cent ad valorem on the value of the goods exported from the United States to Cuba would be a much greater reduction than was contained in the c,,,r — * * * OQ T harllvr think that you gentlemen ought to throw that into the face of this com t y - -y *L -- 17 - -as a- the bil5 to amd mittee." (Hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means on the bill (H. R. 17752), to amend tle Philippine revenue act of March 8, 1902-58th Cong., 3d sess., pp. 48 and 49.) Mr. Payne repeated his explanation on this point when the president of the National Cigar Leaf Tobacco Association stated as a witness that United States exports to Cuba in 1904 showed a gain compared with 1900 of 1 per cent, the gain for Cuban exports to the United States being 150 per cent. Mr. Payne interrupted with the question: "And you succeeded in defeating the House bill which would have been much better than the treaty?" declaring that "the House bill made no more reduction on the tobacco than did thetreaty. You succeeded in defeating that bill, which would have been much more favorable to our exporters to Cuba than was the treaty, as the reduction in the duty was much larger in the House bill than in the treaty. So it is hardly fair to quote against this committee the result of Cuban reciprocity." (Ibid., p. 8,5.) so H. Rept. No. 1276, 57th Cong., 1st sess. The amendments suggested the insertion of the words "conso H. Rept. No. 1276, 57th Co.g.:.... The amen igration and exclusion laws. tract labor " after each reference in the bill to the adoption by Cuba of immigration and exclusion laws. The vote of the committee to report the bill to the House was 12 to, of the 11 Republican members being joined by 3 Democrats. Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3993. 402 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY stand more than the seven or eight million dollar loss of revenue involved,8' and that the enactment of this bill would not affect the protection of the sugar producers of the United States nor injure any other American industry. The report stated that the reduction for Cuban sugar, by adding 0.34 cent per pound to the price received by the Cuban planters and affording a clear margin of profit of 0.15 cent per pound on the then current crop, would save them from bankruptcy. The provisions of the bill were limited to two crops because the Brussels Sugar Convention would bring to an end the European sugar-bounty systems effective September 1, 1903. Sugar would then return to a normal price and give the Cuban planter a profit of more than 50 per cent upon the cost of his crop. In that event, the committee declared, tariff concessions from the United States would no longer be needed-a significant statement in view of the fact that, on account of delays, it was not until after the proposed expiration of this bill that Cuban sugar was first admitted with a reduction in duty. The time limit and the requirement that Cuba adopt immigration and exclusion laws as restrictive as those of the United States 82 were inserted as safeguards for the American sugar industry. These measures were to calm the fears of those who believed that in the course of two years the reduction in duty would so stimulate the production of sugar in Cuba that Cuba would be supplying all the sugar that the United States imported from foreign countries. The committee saw no danger that the sugar refineries would get the benefit of the reduction and thus deprive the Cuban planter of the relief that was to be extended to him. On the other hand, the report stated that in return for such a concession, Cuba offere and was willing to concede a good trade. "Under the provisions of the bill, we should be able to double the amount of our export trade with Cuba * * *." 81 The condition of the Treasury was discussed with some detail when, in February, 1902, the bill to repeal war-revenue taxation and the bill to change the tax on oleomargarine were under debate in Congress, and the sacrifice of revenue coincident upon the grant of reciprocity to Cuba was anticipated by the legislators. Thus, Mr. H. S. Boutell, Feb. 5, spoke at great length in favor of repealing the remaining Spanish warrevenue taxes, stating that all the expenses of the war with Spain so far ascertained and payable, estimated at $500,000,000, had been paid and that the United States had a surplus of $175,000,000 in the Treasury. During the first half of the then current fiscal year, from July 1, 1901, to Jan. 1, 1902, the total surplus of receipts over expenditures was $42,600,000, and the war taxes amounted to $37,980,000, still leaving an ordinary surplus of $4,600,000. He concluded that the repeal of the war taxes would "in no way embarrass " the United States "in making just concessions to Cuba." (Cong. Rec. 57th Cong., 1st sess., Appendix, pp. 69-70.) Mr. H. W. Palmer introduced his remarks of Feb. 17 as follows: " The charge has been freely made that one purpose of this bill is to so reduce the revenues of the Government that no aid can be given to suffering Cuba. "An answer to this charge is unnecessary, as the surplus revenues remaining after the war taxes have been repealed will amount to far more than any probable reduction of duty on Cuban sugar and tobacco. "The financial statements from the Treasury exhibit the encouraging fact that the interest-bearing public debt immediately before the Spanish War and before any expenditures had been made on that account was, less the cash on hand, $623,494,624, and that the net debt Jan. 1, 1902, less available cash, was $614,297,684. So the cost of the Spanish War and all its expenses have been paid and the United States is over $9,000,000 better off than before the war; and, furthermore, during that period the annual interest charge has been reduced more than $6,000,000. " Under this state of facts it is useless to continue this unnecessary taxation a single day. If hereafter the benevolent impulses of the people of the United States impel them to benevolent deeds toward Cuba, there will be no lack of means in the hands of charity." (Ibid., p. 79.) 82 On May 15, 1902, the military governor of Cuba, under Civil Order No. 155, directed the publication of, and thereby "reenacted in such form as to enable their continued enforcement pending such action as the Congress of Cuba may take thereon, the provisions of law relating to immigration, which have been in force in Cuba since Apr. 14, 1899, by authority of the President's order adopting and making effective in Cuba the provisions of the immigration laws of the United States." Under Sec. VII of this order the immigration of Chinese was prohibited, and during such prohibition it was declared unlawful for any Chinese laborer to come from any foreign port or place to Cuba. (Civil Report of the Military Governor of Cuba, 1902, vol. 2, pp. 571-579.) By Circular No. 13, Division of Customs and Insular Affairs, Washington, Apr. 14, 1899, the laws and regulations governing immigration in the United States had been declared to be in effect in the territory under government by the military forces of the Ufnited States. Shortly after this it was ruled that the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act would not apply to Cuba until specific instructions therefor should be given. (Annual report of the collector of customs for Cuba, fiscal year ending June 30, 1899; in Civil Report of Maj. Gen. John R. Brooke, p. 386.) HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 403 Within a few days four minority reports were submitted by Democratic members of the committee, three of them repeating with different degrees of emphasis many of the leading arguments against reciprocity. Mr. McClellan, of New York, declared his intention of urging Congress to amend the bill by increasing the rate of reduction and, failing in that, to vote for its passage; in his view, the bill did not afford sufficient relief to Cuba, but it did minimize the loss on the then current crop;83 moreover, it did not appear certain to him that 20 per cent reduction of the Cuban tariff would result in giving the United States "a monopoly of the Cuban market." Mr. Newlands, of Nevada, indicated that he would vote against the majority bill unless it included an invitation to Cuba to become a part of the Republic of the United States under its Constitution and laws; he was willing to extend "this sentimental legislation" to Cuba for a reasonable period, giving her full opportunity to deliberate on the proposed annexation, and relieving her necessities so that the deliberation should not be disturbed by acute economic distress. Mr. Robertson, of Louisiana, expressed emphatic dissent from the policy adopted in the bill on the grounds chiefly that it violated the pledges of the Republican Partv and carried no principle of the Democratic Party; that it was highly in the interest of the Sugar Trust and granted no relief to Cuba nor to the people of the United States. It seemed to him unjust that the American sugar industry, suffering from the same world overproduction that caused the depression in the price of Cuban sugars, "should be made to bear the burden of a condition in the world over which they have no control, and for the benefit of the subjects of a foreign country." He considered, moreover, that the requirement for immigration and exclusion laws would interfere grievously with the international relations of a "weak and dependent republic" and lead, perhaps, to serious international complications for the United States. Mr. Cooper, of Texas, opposed the bill principally because 20 per cent reduction upon the sugar schedule would be of no practical benefit to the Cubans but, more likely, would be "pocketed by the Sugar Trust," who would use it, besides, "as a club to compel the producers of sugar in the United States to sell their raw sugar to the trust at an equivalent reduction without any concession whatever for the consumer." He would gladly have supported the bill had provision been made to remove the differential in favor of refined sugar and for some relief to the consumer. The bill before the House.-On April 8 the House voted to take up for discussion the bill on Cuban reciprocity as reported by the majority of the Committee on Ways and Means. From the first the measure encountered severe opposition. Three striking points of the lengthy and heated debates are, first, that the same arguments which had been heard during the committee hearings in opposition to free entry or to reduction by 50 per cent of the duties upon Cuban products were repeated, without corresponding modifications, in opposition to the proposed reduction of duties by only 20 per cent; second, that reciprocity with Cuba was discussed as a "sugar proposition," 83 This report contains a table constructed on the basis of a Cuban-crop of 850,000 tons, or 1,904,000,000 pounds, of 960 centrifugal cane sugar, costing at Habana f. o. b., 2 cents per pound, or $38,080,000, and showing the amounts of loss or profit to Cuba with New York prices ranging from 339 to 4 cents per pound, with the full American duty of 1.685 cents per pound, and with reductions of 20, 25, 33/1, and 40 per cent of the duty. 404 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY very little consideration being given to the assistance it would render to the producers of Cuban tobacco and of minor Cuban products and to the effects of this assistance upon American industries; 84 and third, that ignoring the economic merits or demerits of the instant proposal for reciprocity with Cuba, the struggle was shifted to the question whether reciprocity treaties constituted a breach in the principle of protection to domestic industries-such protection for instance as that "pledged" to sugar in the Tariff act of 1897. Mr. Payne, sponsor of the bill, opened the discussion.85 He urged passage of the measure not only as a duty of the United States toward Cuba but also as a part of the administration's program in preparing the island for self-government. He argued at great length that the proposed reciprocity, conceding for two years 20 per cent of the duty on Cuban sugar, would not harm the American sugar industry. He spoke reassuringly to his party colleagues, including the beetsugar advocates, reminding them that he had had something to do with framing the sugar schedule of the Dingley bill with its "more than ample protection" for American sugar. Anticipating a repeated criticism of the opposition, he refuted the argument that the American refineries, the Sugar Trust, would reap the benefit of the concession. Other so-called administration Republicans came forward in support of the committee chairman, with remarks that corroborated and supplemented the main contentions in favor of Cuban reciprocity.86 84 Mr. Payne, for example, made only this reference: "Now, as to tobacco. No one pretends to claim that tobacco will not be amply protected, even if the 20 per cent should go off." (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3851.) Mr. Long quoted some figures and said: "Surely, with the duties on manufactured tobacco amounting to 110 per cent [ad valorem], a reduction of 20 per cent can be made without harm to the tobacco industry." (Ibid., p. 3995.) Mr. Meyer stated that "the tobacco grower and manufacturer both protest against any reduction of duty, and the politician who endangers their livelihood may have an account to settle for the act. I think that Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Virginia, and Maryland may all be heard from on this question of the tobacco duty." He thought that "incautious gentlemen" ought to be admonished "that in throwing down the bars they may develop in Cuba rivals in all the brands and forms of tobacco; and here, leaving them entirely without excuse, comes in the indisputable fact that the Cuban tobacco industry is prosperous and has suffered nothing, as sugar has, from general overproduction or from European legislation." (Ibid., pp. 4195-4196.) And he put the question, "Well, if you do owe anything to Cuba, why not give it from your full Treasury, * * * why not let everybody contribute to this bounty instead of making two American industries bear the whole burden-sugar and tobacco?" (Ibid., p. 4199.) 85 Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 3849-3856. 86 Several of the proponents (the Republicans-Douglas, New York, and Lacey, Iowa; and the Democrats-Brantley, Georgia; De Armond, Missouri; Henry, Mississippi; Kitchin, North Carolina; McClellan, New York; Miers, Indiana; Patterson, Tennessee; and Thayer, Massachusetts) indicated that the pending bill was not entirely satisfactory to them because it provided too small a concession to Cuba and because of the conditions it imposed upon her; that they would endeavor to amend the bill, but that, failing to do so, they would vote for it on the ground that it offered some relief to Cuba. Three or four of the opponents likewise considered the 20 per cent reduction in favor of Cuban sugar inadequate, particularly since it would definitely apply to only one crop. Mr. Morris, Republican, Minnesota, said: "If the evidence before the committee on behalf of those favoring tariff reduction is worth anything, the amount of the reduction proposed is entirely insufficient * * *." (Ibid. p. 3905.) Mr. Gardner, Republican, Michigan, stated that the 20 per cent reduction was a "poor privilege" to give Cuba in return for the same favor and the additional requirements as to immigration and labor laws. (Ibid. p. 4331.) Mr. Jones, Republican, Washington, condemned the Payne bill, in part, as "a useless measure, a makeshift," which would "bring no relief to the Cubans at all." "All the testimony taken upon this point sustains this contention * * *that a 20 per cent reduction will not furnish relief." (Ibid. p. 4336.) Each Member of the House (and the Senate) received a copy of a resolution adopted, April 10, at a special meeting by the New York Chamber of Commerce, which considered the 20 per cent reduction "entirely insufficient" and "the delay in adopting some prompt and effective form of economic relief for Cuba discouraging" to its people and urged that "a reduction of not less than 50 per cent" in the rates on sugar and tobacco be conceded to Cuba and that "such relief should be granted promptly." (Journal of Commerce, Apr. 11, 1902, p. 1.) Some resolution like this had been offered by F. B. Thurber at the chamber's regular monthly meeting of Apr. 3, when it was referred to the Committee on Foreign Commerce and the Revenue Laws. At this same meeting President-elect Palma addressed the chamber, enlisting "its help and earnest support in order to obtain from the ongress of the United States a substantial reduction of the duties on sugar and tobacco, a reduction larger than that recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means in the House, which will in no way afford any relief to the present distress of the Cuban producers." (Ibid. Apr. 4, pp. and 11.) About this time Sr. Palma came to Washington preparatory to his departure for Cuba and the inauguration of the new Cuban government; it is known that he gave interviews, one of which was probably sent to every Member of the House. He used these words: "It is impossible to improve the bad condition of our principal staple-sugar-by reducing the American duty only one-third. In that way the problem will not be solved at all. The clamor for further reduction will continue. * * * Therefore it is abso HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 405 A half dozen or more speakers touched upon the commercial advantages, especially to the United States, expected from the arrangement,87 some referring to the growth of American exports to Cuba, under reciprocity, in 1891-1894. Mr. Long, of Kansas, went further than this. Speaking 88 for more than two hours to demonstrate the benefits of reciprocal relations between the United States and Cuba, he took the position that the House should legislate to give Cuba not charity but an opportunity to live, to make an exchange of products with the United States. The latter country, he endeavored to show, would get an adequate return for the concessions on sugar and tobacco. This phase of the question, he considered, demanded more attention than it had received from the House. Mr. McCall, of Massachusetts, likewise spoke with great emphasis on the trade advantages of the bill which, viewed as a purely business proposition, he regarded of considerable importance; 89 as such, however, according to him, it hardly deserved the great place it had taken in the public mind and in the deliberations of Congress, given to it because of "those weightier considerations of a high political and moral character." Two leaders, Mr. Grosvdnor, of Ohio, and Mr. Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, attempted chiefly to allay the fears of those interested in the production of sugar, vouching for the "regularity" of the bill and bringing the weight of the administration's influence to bear upon Republican Members.90 "We find ourselves," said Mr. Grosvenor, "acting in perfect harmony with the President of the United States and his Cabinet, who are acting as a unit in advocating this measure or some measure of much greater liberality to the people of the island of Cuba." And he made a plea that the President be spared the rebuke of having this bill meet with defeat, which would, moreover, "react back to the administration of McKinley and be aclutely necessary that the concessions should reach 50 per cent of the actual duties, so as to give the producer a reasonable gain." (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3905.) On another occasion, referring to the provisions of the Payne bill, he said: "It will be very disappointing to the Cuban people. I do not wish to criticize the action of Congress, but that is the only reply I can make to the question. We asked for a reduction that would be sufficient not only to permit the sugar planters to meet the actual expenses of operating the mills, but to give them some profit, some benefit. We have said from the beginning that a reduction of 50 per cent, or possibly 40 per cent, was necessary for Cuba's relief, and I have said before, as I ani compelled to say now, that 20 per cent reduction will not be of any benefit. As for the proposal to limit the reduction to December of next year, I can only comment on it by saying that the whole resolution appears to be not satisfactory." (Ibid., p. 4336.) In his first message to the Cuban Congress, President Palima, on May 26, 1902, spoke of the immediate need of obtaining for Cuban sugar and other products a "satisfactory reduction" in the tariff of the United States. (The text of the message is given in Memoria, etc., pp. 814-821.) 87 For example, Mr. Mondell, Republican, Wyoming, expressed the opinion that under the proposed reciprocal agreement the United States would eventually be large gainers in the matter of trade. "Cuba," he explained, "even in her present undeveloped condition, just emerging from a long-continued and devastating war, with but a small proportion of her land under cultivation, has a trade of $38,000,000 per annum which now goes to other countries than ours. We can not hope or expect to get all of this trade under the reciprocity agreement proposed, but I believe we are assured of securing a large portion of it, and as Cuba increases in population and the purchasing power of her citizens increases, as it will rapidly, there can be no doubt but what our trade with her will very largely increase in consequence of the trade advantages we are to gain under the provisions of this measure." (Ibid., pp. 3913-3914.) 88 Ibid., pp. 3993-4014. Mr. Long argued at great length, moreover, to show that the reduction of 20 per cent on Cuban products would not injure the sugar and tobacco interests of the United States, that the beetsugar producers could successfully compete with cane sugar from Cuba, and especially that the proposed reduction would not lower sugar prices in the United States. To establish the latter point, he submitted an analysis based on records obtained from nine different commission merchants of New York and Boston nf n,,neaint. oly.< nf I1 wdiftfernt lots of Porto Rican. and 12 of Cuban sugars. The sales covered three periods, VS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C~. W -s. '{A*.S ~sI' the figures showing that when sugars from both sources had paid full duty they obtained the same price for 100 pounds of saccharin content; but that, when Porto Rican sugar paid 15 per cent of the duty and later was admitted free of duty, it received the full benefit of the tariff reductions. 89 Ibid., pp. 4116-4120. The argument that the bill was not good trade policy for the United States was met by Mr. Lacey, of Iowa, with a reference to a memorial presented, Mar. 11, 1902, by delegates from a number of British chambers of commerce to the Foreign Secretary, Lord Lansdowne. It was represented that such a reciprocity treaty between the United States and Cuba as they anticipated '"would undoubtedly put an end to European trade with the island." "And," said Mr. Lacey, "the British merchants are very keen and quick to scent any advantage that we may have over them." (Ibid., p. 4345.) See Appendix VI, p. 425, for the text of the Associated Press dispatch upon the memorial. 0o Ibid., pp. 3948-3954 and pp. 4399-4405. 406 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY cepted everywhere as a repudiation of the diplomacy of our Government under the administration of the dead leader." Once again the Platt amendment was hotly debated on the floor of the House, statements being made and denied that because of it the United States owed Cuba reciprocity.9' The customary congressional procedure to take up and promptly to pass, by a party vote if necessary, a piece of legislation reported as satisfactory by a majority of the Committee on Ways and Means and presented on the floor by House leaders, did not operate in favor of the Payne reciprocity bill. On the contrary, the Republican opponents of tariff concessions to Cuba seemed to welcome the opportunity to have the struggle brought on the floor of the House, declaring themselves "willing and anxious to have their attitude fully published and made known." 92 With that end in view, they had prepared a "statement of principles," which was submitted, on the eve of the congressional debates, in the Republican conference as a declaration against the majority views, and upon which the opposition went to their constituents, confident that no flaw could be found in their armor.93 Based on this document, the rejection of the pending measure was demanded on the floor of the House by several Republicans on five more or less distinct grounds, in that it constituted, "in essence, an abandonment of the protective principle * * * in the most conspicuous instance in which specific and manifest protection" had been given to the farmer and involving an infant industry which had grown fivefold in the last four years and which exhibited "in the most perfect form * * * the most approved principles of protection"; because to undertake to insure commercial and industrial prosperity in Cuba, a foreign country in which the distress "is only apparent in the admitted fact that every man on the island has all the work he can do at higher wages than ever before received," was "a startling proposition entirely outside of our governmental functions and our constitutional power"; because the United States was not obligated morally or otherwise, to obtain prosperity for Cuba, at the sacrifice of its own interests and largely at the expense of a single industry, without reducing the cost of sugar to the American consumer; because it was "essentially a denial of that great policy" of Republican reciprocity which "does not seek to give * * commercial advantage to any foreign product which comes into competition with our own products"; and because it would deter wise business men from investing money in the beet-sugar industry, and further development of which would be smothered. These points were set forth in great detail during debate, supplemented with extracts from the Republican platform of 1896, from the tariff debates of 1897, from the Republican campaign textbook of 1900, and from speeches of Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt. Much evidence was quoted to show that Cuba was not in such a condition of distress "as to call for this sacrifice of domestic indus 01 See pp. 379-385 and Appendix VI, pp. 427-430. 9a Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3958. 08 Ibid., p. 3958. The text of the statement of principles is given in Appendix VI, pp. 425-427. It was credited to Mr. Tayler, Republican, Ohio. (Ibid., p. 4324.) HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 407 try." 94 From the very beginning of the debates, however, the opponents of the measure were anxious to dispel the impression that they "were animated by any hostility or unfriendliness toward the island of Cuba." 95 Mr. William Smith, Republican, of Michigan, who opened the opposition on April 9,96 said that he thought "too much of Cuba to consign her to the permanent fate of cane-sugar production, which makes her labor semislave and will keep the standard of her citizenship very low." He longed to see Cuba rich and prosperous, and, if he had his way, "would proppse to the first Congress of Cuba that she follow the wisdom of the early fathers of the American Republic and put about her rich possessions a protective tariff which would develop the multiplied resources of the territory and stimulate the people into the diversified avenues of commerce and industry." He and his associates considered the contest over Cuban reciprocity as "a struggle for supremacy" between the American farmer and sugar manufacturer on the one hand, and, on the other, the American sugar refiners, the "Sugar Trust," whom they represented as the principal beneficiary of the policy they opposed.97 They believed, too, 94 Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3901. Mr. Stevens, Republican, Minnesota, on Apr. 14, 1902, denied the existence of general distress in Cuba, recalling how a year before he had been shown in Cienfuegos, Cuba, a statement of the bank deposits for Apr. 1, 1901; it indicated that there was on deposit in the banks of that city of 59,000 people over $12,000,000 in Spanish gold. "And that," he said, "is a larger amount per capita than can be found in any city of the United States." lie referred, further, to a letter by Mr. Charles AM. Pepper, sent from Cuba (Washington Star, Apr. 12, 1902), with the significant statement that notwithstanding all the ravages and losses of the war no financial panic had occurred in Cuba. (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 4126.) 95 Ibid., p. 3898. 96 Ibid., pp. 3898-3904. 97 In support of this criticism it had been claimed in the conferences of House Republicans that the bulk of the 1901-2 crop of Cuban sugar, or options on it, had already been sold to the American Sugar Refining Co., which would, therefore, receive the benefit of any reduction in duty. But at the request of Mr. Payne, on March 25, General Wood cabled from Washington to the acting governor-general in Habana, stating that the solution of Cuban reciprocity was being threatened by allegations about the ownership of the sugar crop and giving instructions for definite reports to be made. General Wood's cablegrams of April 2 and 7 to the War Department indicated that inquiries had been sent to 194 centrals and to 36 Cuban banking firms and that replies were had from 136 of the former and from all of the latter. The output for the year (to Mar. 25, 1902) was reported at 609,000 long tons, with 3,000 and 2,000 tons, respectively, held at the option of the American Sugar Refining Co. and of other American purchasers, and 28,000 tons exported to the United States. Approximately 200,000 tons was left in the hands of the planters, 200,000 tons was sold and delivered to island firms, and the same amount pledged as security for loans in the island under conditions of deposit that the planters would get the advantage of any rise in price. Later it was explained that among the 58 centrals that failed to report were many of the largest in Cuba. (The three cablegrams are printed in Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 4005. See below concerning General Wood's letter of Apr. 9, 1902). These figures were cited by Messrs. Payne, McClellan, Long, and others "to show that the Cuban sugar producer thoroughly understands the situation and is endeavoring to hold his crop" (ibid.) until reciprocity became effective, Mr. Payne stating that " there is no reason why it should not be a law before the 20th day of May, when this Cuban Government goes into operation." (Ibid., p. 3852.) The opponents of reciprocity, however, did not drop the " trust argument" but insisted that the refiners had refrained from purchasing Cuban sugar for the very reason that they were awaiting the result of the pending legislation. (No reference was made by either side to a letter from General Wood, addressed to the Secretary of War, and referred on April 18 to the Committee on Ways and Means, in which it was pointed out that " the delay of action pending the investigation of the status of sugar in Cuba is playing directly into the hands of the Sugar Trust, who are making little or no effort to buy, realizing that the market is bound to go to pieces when this enormous amount of sugar, now being held-almost entirely by the planters and the Cuban dealers in sugar-pending decision of the tariff question, is thrown upon the market.-(57th Cong., 1st sess., I. Doc. No. 563.) Cuban sugar, they argued, had but one market-the American market-and in that one market there was practically one buyer-the Sugar Trust, which would be in a position to drive a bargain and take to itself the whole or a part of the reduction. (Mr. William Smith, Republican, Aichigan, ibid., p. 3906.) But his colleague, Mr. Samuel Smith, quoted from what he considered an able article by MIr. Crumpacker, Indiana, in the Chicago Tribune, who " hit the nail on the head when lie characterized by Mr. Crumpacker, Indiana, in the Chicago Tribu eker wrote, in part, as follows:.i, the pending proposition as 'crazy-quilt reciprocity.' " Mr. Crumpacker wrote,in part as follows: It iv invic.fol in mrnnvi nlmnrttr that we should make substantial reductions of the tariff in favor of Cuban sugar out of considerations of benevolence as well as of business. Let us see what the result would be: suppose we produce one-sixth of the sugar we consume and Cuba could produce three-sixths. If we should reduce the tariff on the Cuban importation, say, 25 per cent, it would take $10,000.000 a year out of the Federal Treasury, and who would get it? The Cuban sugar grower. The Cuban importation and our own production would supply only two-thirds of the demand, and the price of all would be fxed by the cost of the other third, which would have to pay full tariff. It is an incontestable law of economics that the price of a commodity is fixed by that part of it which is necessary to supply the demand and which is produced at the greatest cost." (Ibid., p. 4186.) It is significant, furthermore, that on March 11, a proponent of Cuban reciprocity, Mr. Thayer, Democrat, Massachusetts, had urged congressional investigation of these claims and of the charge that the " Sugar Trust" had activelybeen engaged in creating public sentiment in favor of Cuba. He had obtained the floor on the question of privilege and succeeded in reading a considerable part of his resolution before he was cut off on a point of order. (Ibid., p. 2639.) 408 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY that the people of Cuba would receive no benefit from the measure, and therefore they condemned it, recommending in its place a rebate plan which had in it "no threat to American industries"; a proposition which, if carried to its conclusion, would give a "wider and better and more far-reaching relief to the Cuban people than the proposition of the Committee on Ways and Means." 98 Under this plan, the United States would continue to collect the full rates of duty on imports of Cuban products, and for a period of three years pay to the Cuban Government a sum of money equivalent to 20 per cent of the duties collected, in return for which Cuba would grant such reciprocal concessions as would be satisfactory to the President. This substitute plan was one method by which the beet-sugar representatives wished to give evidence that their opposition to the Payne bill was based very largely on the belief that it would fail of its object. In their estimation the proposed reduction in favor of Cuban sugar would not enure to the benefit of the Cuban planters, but would in all reasonable probability be absorbed in whole or in part by the American sugar refiners.' The latter's enormous profits, it was pointed out, would be increased by several millions of dollars, which would be "adding strength to the arm and placing an additional weapon in the hand of the trust with which to strike and cripple and crush the beet-sugar factory." 2 If this advantage must be given to the refiners, these opponents insisted, then the "differential" duty 3 on refined sugar should likewise be reduced or abolished. Such a measure, it was asserted, would bring the refiners that much nearer to foreign competition, curtail their power to control prices and to make war upon their competitors, and would diminish the cost of refined sugar to the American consumer. This method of making the Payne bill acceptable to its beet sugar and Democratic opponents4 98 Ibid., p. 3899. This method was proposed by the opponents of the Payne bill as a resolution in the Republican conference, together with a statement setting forth 14 reasons in its favor. Mr. Tawney, Republican, Minnesota, was the first to include the complete resolution (given in Appendix VI, pp. 427) in his remarks, Apr. 18 (Ibid., p. 4385), stating that it had been presented in the conference by Mr. Dick, Ohio. Another advocate of this proposition, Mr. Samuel Smith, Michigan, anticipating the criticism that it had been rejected by the Committee on Ways and Means as unconstitutional, quoted the Chicago Record-Herald as crediting Senator Spooner, of Wisconsin, a constitutional lawyer, with "a solution of the vexing problem" of Cuban reciprocity, which, however, provided a refund of 40 per cent of the duties collected on Cuban sugar and tobacco, to be paid to the Government of Cuba which might distribute it to the producers as an export bounty. (Ibid., p. 4182.) Mr. Morris, Minnesota, Mr. Prince, Illinois, and Mr. Cushman, Washington, all Republicans, had indicated their support of the rebate plan without, however, specifying the percentage of refund and the period of operation; these were to be determined according to the island's well-being, and the concessions in favor of American products were to be such as Cuba would be able to make. t Ibid. p. 3905. 2 Mr. Morris, ibid., p. 3910. 3 Refined sugar was subject to a duty of 12~4 cents per 100 pounds in addition to the rate assessed according to the polariscopic test. 4 It is convenient at this point to mention several arguments used by one or another of the 10 Democrats who spoke in opposition to the Payne bill. Criticisms were made that this measure would be unfriendly legislation to the cane growers of Louisiana and Texas and a discrimination against the raw materials sugar and tobacco-produced by the farmers of the South (ibid., p. 3968); that it would destroy the value of Louisiana sugar plantations (p. 3914); that it was not'a tariff-reform measure, reducing neither the duties on manufactured articles nor the price of refined sugar for the American farmer and consumer; that it would not even cheapen the necessaries of life for the Cuban people; that it would force Cuba to abandon her system of tariff for revenue only and adopt a protective-tariff system-not for her own interests but for the industries of the United States seeking a market in Cuba; that, to maintain the revenues for the support of the Governmen t (the Cubans being disinclined to resort to other forms of taxation) and to give the United States the 20 per cent preferential, Cuba would have to raise the rates of duties upon importations from other foreign markets, thereby increasing the cost of these goods to Cuban consumers; that the United States already controlled all of the export trade of Cuba and a "proper share" of the import trade, increase of which was not so much a question of tariff rates as it was dependent upon the efforts of the American producers to adapt themselves to the natural conditions and habits of the Cuban people; that it was a " scheme " devised to escape the clamor for general tariff revision and to maintain protection in the East and North; that it was a false method of reducing the surplus in the Treasury; that, leading Cuba into tariff discrimination against the countries of Europe, the United States would be inconsistent to ask them to join in maintaining the open-door policy in the markets of the Orient; and that, before pouring out charity in the shape of millions of dollars a year to the Cubans, the United States ought to answer the demands of justice in giving liberty and constitutional government, humane and wise laws to the Filipinos. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 409 but distasteful to its original proponents had been anticipated on April 9 by Mr. Underwood, of Alabama. All through the debates that followed threats to form this opposition bloc, with a probable majority, were not wanting. The action of the Democratic caucus, on the night of April 17, determined the matter, evoking on the last day of debate, April 18, a prolonged controversy over the germaneness of amendments to the pending bill and over the rules of the House.6 The Morris amendment to repeal the "differential" on refined sugar.-On the ninth congressional day of debate in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, with 61 speeches pro or con already delivered, the administration leader, Mr. Dalzell, closed the case for Cuban reciprocity. His final plea was that the pending bill was "a measure both of honor and of profit, a measure deserving of support in the domain of morals and in the domain of business. * * * We have shown Cuba the way in which she ought to walk, and we must not desert her now. Our task is not yet fully accomplished. Without even the suspicion of harm to ourselves we can give her, I will not say generous, but just aid, and gloriously fulfill the mission on which unselfishly we entered in a war for humanity by adding her star to the constellation of the nations."7 But his speech was perfunctory; he did not believe that anything he could say, or that any one could say, would influence a vot3 for or against the pending measure, whose fate, he declared, had already been decided irrespective of further debate. In concluding his remarks, however, he made one strong effort to ward off the final attack on the bill in the form of the Morris amendment to repeal the differential on refined sugar during the existence of the reciprocity agreement provided for in the bill. This proposition he llcondemned as "an appeal to unreasonable prejudice" against the trust, and he warned Mr. Morris that it would bring into competition with the product of the beet-sugar faories "the be refined sugars of the underpaid wageearners of foreign countries." The minor amendments of the Committee on Ways and Means having been agreed to in gross, Mr. Morris obtained the floor and offered the following amendment: Insert after "countries, line 22, page 2, the following: " and pon the makin of said agreement, andon the issuance of said promulgation, and while said agreement shall remain in force, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in lieu of the duty thereon now provided by law on all sugars above 6 The following resolution was adopted: " Resolved, That we favor the removal of the differential duty on refined sugar, both from Cuba and elsewhere, and believe that such amendments are properly in order, and we insist that it is the duty of all Democrats to vote whenever an opportunity is given to have these amendments added to the pending bill providing for Cuban reciprocity. We are opposed to the adoption of the previous question when the bill is reported to the House unless it shall have been properly amended in Committee of the Whole, as this will prevent an opportunity for just and proper amendments, with recorded votes on the same. "Resolved, That the action of this caucus is binding." (Ibid. p. 4411.) 6 On Apr. 17 Mr. Cushman, Republican, Washington, had fired the first gun of the "insurgent Republicans" against the little machine which, he declared, dominated the proceedings and the deliberation,; of the House and against a set of rules which he considered "an absolute disgrace to the legislative body of any republic." The Payne bill could never have been reported in the House, he said, in the shape in which it was then, "had it not been for the immense power which the peculiar rules of this House vest in a few men." (Ibid., pp. 4320 and 4321.) 7 Ibid., p. 4405. 8 Ibid., p. 4399. Not only were the Democrats opposing with a united front, but the forces of the beetsugar Republicans had rallied; at a meeting on this last dnv of debate, attended by 32 of them, they decided "to take the bit in their teeth and overrule the Chair." 9 See p. 401, footnote 80. 410 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY No. 16 Dutch standard in color, and on all sugar which has gone through a process of refining imported into the United States, 1 cent and eight hundred and twentyfive one-thousandths of 1 cent per pound." 10 Mr. Payne immediately made and supported the point of order that this amendment was not germane to the bill. Discussions followed, supported by interpretations of House rules 1' and by comments on precedents. Mr. Morris made the closing statement, pointing out that the Cuban reciprocity bill was "a sugar proposition from start to finish."l2 He maintained that the proposed reduction in duty on raw sugar from Cuba would disturb "the relations fixed by our tariff laws between the duty on raw sugar and the duty on refined sugar, on all the sugar we import" and that any motion which had, the object to correct this disturbance and tended to readjust the sugar schedule of the tariff was a motion relating to the subject under consideration. The Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Sherman, Republican, of New York), however, took the view that this amendment, relating to the duties upon sugar from the entire world, was not germane to a bill providing for reciprocal trade relations with Cuba and was not in order as an amendment to the bill, and therefore he sustained the point of order. Mr. Tawney appealed from the decision of the chair, which was overruled 171 to 130. Mr. Payne thereupon addressed a last appeal to his Republican colleagues, asking them to consider that the bill without amendment would not reduce the price of sugar in the United States "a single farthing," but that the amendment would reduce it 12 2 cents a hundred pounds, because it was a reduction upon the sugar of the world. But the manager's appeal came "a little late in the closing hour of this contest." Two amendments to the amendment having been rejected,13 the question on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr. Morris was taken; and on the division there were 164 ayes and 111 noes. After the rejection of further amendments," on the motion of Mr. Payne, the committee rose, and the bill as amended was reported to the House with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Payne moved the previous question on the bill and amendments to its final passage and demanded a separate vote on the Morris amendment, which was adopted by an increased majority, 199 to 105 (answering "present" 7, not voting 44). The House then passed the amended bill by 246 to 10 Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 4405. 11 The closing portion of sec. 7 of Rule XVI, in reference to an amendment being germane,is as follows: "And no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." i2 "' What single article have we confined our discussion to? Nothing on the face of the earth but sugar. * * * The word 'sugar' is not [in this bill] but 'sugar' is in it and all over it." (Ibid., p. 4413.) 13 One by Mr. McClellan, not only to do away with the differential but to reduce generally, by 20 per cent, the rates of duty of the sugar schedule; the other by Mr. De Armond, to take off the differential effective from the passage of the bill, without limitation as to the making and continuance of a reciprocity agreement. (Ibid., pp. 4414 and 4415.) 14 Several attempts were made by tariff revisionists to follow up this advantage but all further amendments were rejected. Mr. Roberts, Republican, Massachusetts, proposed to repeal the duty on raw hides, at least upon imports from Cuba. Mr. McClellan's amendment to increase the reciprocal concession in the Payne bill from 20 to 40 per cent was defeated, 162 to 102. The decision of the Chair ruled out the amendment of Mr. Corliss, Republican, Michigan, providing for reciprocal trade relations between the United States and Canada, and that of Mr. Newlands, Democrat, Nevada, to establish free trade between the United States and Cuba and extending to the latter an invitation to enter the United States as a Territory, with a view to ultimate statehood. (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 4415-4417.) HISTORY, OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 411 54 (answering "present" 7, not voting 48).15 A motion to reconsider the last vote was laid on the table. On the following day, April 19, a colloquy between Mr. Grosvenor and Mr. Weeks, of Michigan, summed up the discouraging outlook for Cuban reciprocity. Mr. Grosvenor took occasion to say that "the memorable never-to-be-forgotten" Morris amendment, in the construction of it that he insisted was correct,16 repealed not only the differential on refined sugar but also the countervailing duty on bounty-fed sugar, "making it cheaper by $8.83 per ton 17 for foreign refined sugar to come into this country." In his opinion, the beetsugar representatives had overreached themselvcs, and he could see the beet-sugar business going "to the wall." He recalled that the differential was placed upon sugar "at the earnest request of the Sugar Trust and at the request of the beet-sugar industry. They came together to the House of Representatives in its committee and went to the Senate and followed it to the committee of conference and pointed out that without that differential upon refined sugars there was no possibility of the production of beet sugar in the United States." Mr. Weeks replied that the "beet-sugar men," especially those from Michigan, were very happy and were feeling "perfectly secure and perfectly well satisfied" with their votes on the sugar question, as telegrams were coming in from their State-" from the governor and from other men very high in the Republican Party "-congratulating them "upon the gallant stand" they had taken. He and his associates did not propose to have the "riot act" read to them. Conceding the possible construction that their vote was not exactly in accordance with the interests of the industry which they were endeavoring to protect, he declared that their constituents at home knew "whether it is in their interests or not and that our motive was to kill that bill. That is the plain English of it, and I believe it did kill the bill. I believe that bill will never come back to this House, or if it does come back it will come in such shape that its author will never recognize it, and I believe that the Senate of the United States will in good time kill that bill and that it will never be resurrected. We intended also to 'swipe' the Sugar Trust, which we held responsible for this legislation. * * * If the gentleman from Ohio desires to pronounce a funeral oration over the remains of his deceased friend the Cuban reciprocity bill, we shall raise no objection 'because Bili is dead.'" 18 The bill in the Senate committee.-On April 19 the Senate received the Cuban reciprocity bill, and on motion of Senator Platt, of Connecticut, referred it to the Committee on Relations with Cuba. t5 An analysis of the two votes shows that 64 Republicans voted with 130 Democrats, 4 Populists, and I Silverite for the Morris amendment with but 1 Democrat among the 105 adverse votes; and that the amended bill was supported by 124 Republicans, 119 Democrats, and 3 Populists, with 43 Republicans, 9 Democrats, 1 Populist, and 1 Silverite voting against it. it is to be noted that Mr. Grosvenor, who had spoken at length in defense of the Payne bill, voted against the amended bill. The 54 votes opposing the bill were made up as follows: By entire State delegations from California, 7; Illinois; and by a single vote each from Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, and West \irguinis. 18 That in lieu of the " duties" provided by the act of 1897 on refined sugar, 1.95 plus 0.353 countervailingon sugar from Germany, the principal source of imports-altogether 2.333 centsperpound, theamendment provided merely 1.825 cents per pound, or a reduction of one-half cent per pound. (See his different calu Differential $2.o0 plus countervailing $6.03 on German sugar. (Ibid., pp. 4454-4465.) u Ibid., pp. 4455-4456. 10038-28 —27 412 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY There was already prospect of delay in the action of the Senate.19 The provision of the Morris amendment for repeal of the differential duty upon refined sugar and the circumstances under which this had been adopted created a feeling that the Senate would necessarily make a careful examination of the Sugar Trust argument and this feeling found early expression in the following resolution 20 of Senator Teller, a silver Republican of Colorado and a member of the Committee on Relations with Cuba: Whereas it has been currently reported that nearly the entire crop of Cuban sugar has been purc:hased and is now held by what is generally known as the Sugar Trust, which is the principal consumer of raw sugar in the United States, and that any concessions given to the raisers of cane sugar in the island of Cuba or any measures intended for their relief by admitting their sugar at reduced rates of duty into the United States will only benefit the said Sugar Trust, and that the Cubans will receive no real benefit from such concessions; and Whereas it is alleged that a large number of citizens of the United States have acquired large holdings of cane-producing lands in Cuba and are now especially urging the reduction of duty on sugar under the claim that such reduction will benefit the people of Cuba: Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Committee on Relations with Cuba be, and is hereby directed to make an investigation as to the truth of such charges and to report to the Senate [and to report in addition thereto what is the normal cost of making sugar in the island of Cuba, and also, if any concessions shall be made in the way of a reduction of the duty on sugar coming from Cuba into the United States what concessions should be made by the government of Cuba, about to be established, on articles produced in the United States and exported into said island of Cuba, in order to make a reciprocal and equitable arrangement as to exports to Cuba and imports therefrom to the United States]. On April 25 Senator Platt reported the resolution from the committee, which had omitted the portion shown above in brackets. After reference to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, on April 26 the Senate unanimously agreed to the resolution and to the preamble. Pending the outcome of this investigation, the Payne reciprocity bill was held in committee and repeated much of its experience on the House side. The initial contests over the issue took place in committee meetings and party conferences, and temporizing tactics were employed as long as it seemed doubtful that a measure satisfactory to the administration could secure a majority on the floor of the Senate. Democratic Senators early expressed their determination to vote against the bill should the differential clause be dropped, but the Republican leaders were just as determined to put through the bill without modification of the general sugar schedule. The beet-sugar Republicans used the tactics of their friends in the House, resisting the concessions to Cuba, but if Cuba were to be given aid, 19 There had been indications earlier that the Senate was ready not only to act promptly on Cuban reciprocity, but also to increase the reduction in favor of Cuban products. Senator Aldrich made the statement that Congress would not be allowed to adjourn until it had made substantial provision for Cuba, and Senator Lodge gave assurance in these words: " There are three kinds of bills-those which must pass, those which certainly will not pass, and those which may or may not pass. The Cuban reciprocity bill is one of the class first mentioned." But likewise the press had reported irritation on the part of Members of the House at what they considered the unreasonable claims of the Senate in dictating legislation. The opinion expressed by some Senators that reciprocity treaties could be negotiated and made effective without the concurrence o the House caused the House to direct the Committee on Ways and Means to investigate and report upon its prerogative in the matter of revenue legislation. The Morris amendment, however, effected a considerable change in the Senate situation as was indicated, Apr. 21, by a canvass made by Mr. Tawney, after which he exrprsged the belief that the bill could not get out of the Senate committee because of the opposition there would be to reporting it either with or without the sugar differential clause. (Journal of Commerce, Apr. 12, 22 and 23, 1902.) 20 S. Res. 195, Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 4423. The resolution was offered shortly before the Cuban bill arrived from the House but, though its immediate consideration was asked, was referred to the Committee on Relations with Cuba. The terms and provisions of this resolution are in many respects similar to the one which, on Mar. 11, Mr. Thayer had attempted to introduce in the House. (See pp. 407-408, footnote 97.) HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 413 urging a substitute "rebate proposal"; 21 and, failing in this, insisting upon the Morris amendment.22 Committee hearings on Cuban sugar sales.-The Committee on Relations with Cuba appointed Senators Platt (Connecticut), Burnham (New Hampshire), and Teller (Colorado) to conduct hearings upon the amended Teller resolution.23 Senator Platt opened the hearings May 1, and the subcommittee sat on 19 days, to June 16, taking testimony, amounting to about 470 pages,24 from 22 witnesses; additional information was received, largely from General Wood, in response to requests by letter or by cable. In spite of Senator Platt's repeated efforts to confine the inquiry to the subject matter of the Senate's resolution,25 not a few of the witnesses spoke at great length on points not strictly pertinent, and 21 On Apr. 21, Senator Dietrich, Republican, Nebraska, introduced a bill (S. 5353) to authorize the President to enter into a reciprocal agreement with the permanent government of Cuba (whenever this would be established) respecting trade between the United States and Cuba. It provided that the United States Government might bind itself for 5 years to pay quarterly to the government of Cuba sums of money equal to certain percentages (for the fiscal year 1903, 40 per cent; 1904, 30 per cent; 1905, 25 per cent; 1906, 20 per cent; 1907, 15 per cent) of the amount of import duties collected on articles the growth and product of Cuba coming directly to the United States in American or Cuban bottoms; but if any bounty were paid by the Cuban Government for the production of any article imported into the United States fromn Cuba, an amount equal to such bounty should be deducted from the amount otherwise to be paid as a rebate. The Cuban Government was to obligate itself to devote the sums of money thus obtained to the construction of permanent harbor, sanitary, and other public improvements, and to the maintenance of a system of public schools. Cuba was to admit all articles imported from the United States subject to the payment of certain percentages (for the fiscal year 1903, 75 per cent; 1904, 80 per cent; 1905, 85 per cent; 1906, 90 per cent; 1907, 90 per cent) of the import duties and other charges imposed upon like articles imported into Cuba from any other country. The bill was referred to the Committee on Relations with Cuba, where it remained. Another bill (S. 6052), which likewise died in the committee, was introduced June 3 by Senator Dietrich. It provided that the basic rate of duty on raw sugars testing by the polariscope not above 75~ be raised from 0.95 to 1.75 cents per pound, and that imports of sugars and molasses from Cuba be dutiable at 75 per cent of the general rates so established. (Cuban sugar, on a 96~ basis, dutiable under the act of 1897 at 1.685 cents per pound, would have received under the amended rates a preference of 0.646 cent, paying a rate of 1.939 cents per pound instead of the full rate of 2.585 cents per pound.) Cuba was to put into force immigration, exclusion, and contract-labor laws as fully restrictive as those of the United States, and to agree to reciprocal and equivalent concessions effective to Dec. 1, 1903, in favor of the products and manufactures of the United States by rates of duty which should be less by at least 25 per cent ad valorem than the rates imposed upon the like articles imported into Cuba from the most-favored countries and which should not be greater than the rates imposed by the United States upon the like articles imported from Cuba. (See the statement of Senator Dietrich, 57th Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Dec. No. 388.) 22 The attitude of the sugar refiners on this part of the House bill may have been indicated in an interview given Apr. 23 by "a gentleman in very close touch with refining interests" to a representative of the Journal of Commerce. The anonymous spokesmnan said that "removal of the differential duty on refined sugar would not be so highly prejudicial to the interests of refiners as seems to be generally supposed. The American Sugar Refining Co. is financially and physically able to stand any fair legislation that may be enacted. Removal of the differential on refined sugar can be withstood by the company, but can the beet-sugar interests stand free refined sugar and free raw sugar? The trust can. The profit per pound on sugar would not be so great, but the consumption of refined sugars would be enormously increased. * * Free raw sugar and, free refined sugar would increase the per capita consumption to fully that of England; the fruit nd canning and the general preserving industry would receive a great impetus. Of course, the beet interests in this country would suffer. They would have shown wisdom in accepting the 20 per cent reduction in duties first proposed by the House bill. If the Sugar Trust can stand free refined, as well as free raw sugar, there is certainly slight ground for the beet people asking any National Government protection, especially in view of the beet bounties paid in some of the States. Of course, some protection would be necessary for refiners, in the form of a countervailing duty to offset the export and other bounties paid by foreign governments. If I had my way, the fight in the Senate would be to have absolutely free sugarraw as well as refined; to have the sugar company relieved of all claim that it is receiving any Government protection whatever; and to have a free breakfast table in fact for the American people, including sugar as well as tea and coffee * * * *." As the struggle over reciprocity for Cuba grew more hopeless, the press had rumors and reports of further threats (to abolish the duties on products of interest to the beet-sugar States for example, on lumber, iron ore, and salt-Michigan and Wisconsin; on fruits and vegetables-California), as well as of inducements (such as pledges of patronage) that were being used to secure the votes necessary to pass the bill. Leaders of the contending forces gave out statements affecting entire assurance of victory for their respective sides, but press reports stated that no such connaence reau.y e haiiu. 23 The proponents of Cuban reciprocity as well as its adversaries entertained hopes that their respective causes would be strengthened by the results of the inquiry and that the chief point of contention, that concerning the trust, would be deter ined on a basis of incontrovertible facts. On the eve of the hearings, however, Senator Teller was disposed to think that the inquiry would prove to be a farce. It appeared that soe facts in support s otsos the had made could be ascertained only in Cuba, and his comnittee that some factss in shdDaOrit of send chargs C a colleagues were of the opinion that the Senate of the United States had no authority to send to Cuba, a foreign country, for persons and papers nor power to compel their production. (Journal of Comnnerce, Apr. 30, 1902.) 2 Published (without a document number) under the title "Cuban Sugar Sales," Fifty-seventh Congress, first session. 25A few days prior to the opening of the hearings he had expressed the hope that the investigation would.A few days prior to the openit not take more than two weeks and that in any event it would not be allowed to interfere with legislation for Cuban relief if in the meantime it became possible for his committee to report a bill. (Journal of Commerce, Apr. 28, 1902.) 414 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY much of the evidence was contradictory and inconclusive. No undisputed answer was given to the question whether a reduction in the duty would enure to the Cuban producers or to the buyers in the United States. Nine witnesses, sugar merchants and brokers and representatives of American refineries and of Cuban sugar plantations,26 testified that, just as in the case of Hawaiian and Porto Rican sugars, the New York price of Cuban sugar, duty paid, would be on a parity with that of full-duty sugars, the price to the Cuban sellers being automatically augmented by approximately the amount of any preferential reduction in the duty.27 Some of these witnesses stated that the duty-paid price received in New York for Cuban and other cane sugar was practically the same as the price for German beet sugars, which were subject to a countervailing duty (to offset the German export bounty) of about 27 cents a hundred pounds; 28 thus the countervailing duty enabled the seller of the cane sugar to obtain a higher price. This testimony and evidence, however, was contradicted by one of the half dozen witnesses who represented interests opposed to the reduction in duty on sugar from Cuba. Mr. H. Leavitt, president of the Standard Beet Sugar Co., was emphatic in asserting that the Sugar Trust would get the benefit of the proposed reduction 29 no matter who owned the stocks of sugar then held in Cuba. He testified at great length in support of his argument that, just as the refiners of the United States had for a whole year previous absorbed the countervailing duty and practically all of the freight advantage existing in favor of Cuban sugar in the New York market, they would absorb largely if not wholly the additional advantage of the reciprocity reduction. He explained that it was only because of special conditions that Porto Rican sugar producers had for a time been able to obtain the greater part of the duty advantage in the New York market, but that the benefit of the countervailing duty was likewise taken by the refiners. Representative Broussard, a Louisiana sugar planter, was likewise of the opinion that the American refiners would 28 Messrs. H. Havemeyer, A. Donner, and H. Mott, president, treasurer, and buyer, respectively, of the American Sugar Refining Co.; M. Rionda, broker of the firm Czarnikow, MacDougall & Co.; H. Kelly, stockholder and director of two Cuban sugar companies and of the United Fruit Co.; G. Mosle, of the firm Mosle Bros., commission merchants (selling agents) and bankers for Cuban sugar factories; J. Farr, sugar merchant and director in three Cuban sugar companies; A. Preston, president of the United Fruit Co. and stockholder in the Nipe (Cuba) Land Syndicate; and W. Willett of the firm Willett & Gray, sugar brokers and statisticians. 27 See pp. 68-73 for an analysis of the actual results after the concession was made to Cuba. Mr. Havemeyer admitted that, given a congested market in Cuba and a necessity of selling and shipping, a small part, not exceeding one-sixteenth of a cent a pound or 6 cents a hundred pounds, of the total proposed concession of 33 cents a hundred pounds would be lost to Cuba. Mr. Rionda stated that he had known of very exceptional cases-so-called "cargoes of distress," already in port-when Cuban sugars were threesixteenths lower than the parity of beet sugars in New York. It was recognized, furthermore, that Cuban sugars would sell on a full-duty basis only as long as Cuban production available for export did not approximate total import requirements of the United States. 28 This countervailing duty on German bounty-fed sugars was stated to constitute an effective advantage sufficient to attract British West Indian sugars to New York, although Canada allowed a preferential reduction in their favor of about 20 cents a hundred pounds. A prominent sugar merchant testified that he had not sold any West Indian sugar to Canada for two years previously. The testimony of Dr. H. Wiley, chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, Department of Agriculture, was largely an exposition of the European bounties. He suggested the insufficiency of the existing countervailing duties on imports of beet sugar to offset the bounties paid by European governments; further countervailing duties should be levied to offset the bounties paid by the German beet-sugar cartel, amounting to approximately 1.15 cents a pound. His view was that the fall in the price of raw sugar-a fall of 1.12 cents a pound, or 42 per cent, between June 1, 1900, and June 5, 1902-was due solely to the operations of the cartel; he declared that no measure of relief could prove of any permanent value as long as the artificial system of depressing prices continued to exist. The effect of the additional countervailing duty that he recommended would be to raise the price of raw sugar by about 1.1 cents a pound, which would allow a normal profit to American and West Indian producers. 29 He admitted that if the reduction were large the Cuban planters would get a benefit therefrom; also that if there were even only 8 or 10 refiners in the United States competing for the purchase of Cuban raw sugar, the Cubans would get the greater part, if not all, of a moderate reduction of the duty. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 415 be able to pocket practically the entire reduction in duty on Cuban sugar. Mr. Broussard further testified that, based on an investigation he himself had undertaken very shortly before in three Cuban Provinces, he was convinced that only a small proportion of the then current sugar crop of Cuba belonged to the American Sugar Refining Co., a smaller proportion to the independent refiners, and that the balance was in the control of the banks and money lenders in the island. The crop, he said, was being held in Cuban warehouses pending the outcome of the reciprocity struggle, and all probably mortgaged to the full extent of its value; the loans he declared to be secured in the United States, conceivably only by those who would be interested in controlling the shipments-the American refiners who, in his judgment, would get almost all of the reduction intended for the Cuban planter. It is impossible to reconcile not only the various calculations concerning the New York sugar price situation but also the different figures on the size of the Cuban crop and the amounts that had been exported or were being held in Cuba. Information from the military governor, however, was to the effect that the amount of sugar actually ground to May 7, 1902, was 650,000 tons, of which 160,000 tons had been exported, leaving 490,000 tons still in Cuba. The same telegram 30 contained the statements that 50 per cent of the crop was believed to be still actually held by the producers, but that it was impossible to say how much was held by the refining companies.3' The committee inquired into American investments in Cuban sugar plantations and mills, but the chairman found it necessary repeatedly to object that witnesses were giving hearsay information, impressions, and estimates. Serious difficulties, moreover, were encountered in determining what constituted nationality and what constituted ownership for the purposes of this investigation. On the one hand, there was a considerable number of so-called "Cuban-Americans,' Cubans by birth who, prior to the revolution and war, had become naturalized American citizens and many of whom were claimants before the Spanish Claims Commission.32 On the other hand, not a few 30 Text given in Cuban Sugar Sales, p. 172. Concerning his earlier dispatches on this matter, see p. 407, note 97. The reports of General Wood concerning the sugar crop were said to be substantiated by economic bodies of Cuba, according to an "open letter" to Senator Platt by L. V. de Abad, special commissioner at Washington of the Cuban delegation on economic affairs. Sr. de Abad reported having made a trip of investigation, finding that the greater part of the crop was pledged by the planters to commercial houses in Cuba, who were to sell at the order, and for the account of the planters; another part was in the hands of planters who had either capital or credit sufficient to avoid mortgaging their sugar; and another part, stored at commercial centers, had been sold to bankers, commission men, and local speculators; a much smaller proportion, compared with former years. was being held for the account of American refiners-this and the 31 The chief buyer of the American Sugar Refining Co. submitted detailed statements indicating Cuban sugar transactions of his company for the period Jan. 1-Apr. 30, 1902, summarized as follows: Purchased and shipped from Cuba, 25,170 tons; bought in New York, duty paid, 20,986 tons; purchased in Cuba, not yet shipped, but paid for, 46,970 tons; total, 93,126 tons, which was the smallest amount of Cuban sugars acquired by the company in the same period for the preceding 12 years, excepting only 1896 and 1897. This fact, variously presented, was referred to by spokesmen of the contending parties to support the conflicting..,. U.Y P~,,_ 1_.....6.- nm ca;,. llinir and that the American refiners were holding back claims that the Cubans were nolulin uMICK,LU,, -..%A - from purchasing, Cuban sugars, each side in anticipation of obtaining the benefit of the duty reduction. 32 The chairman indicated that in his opinion it would be fairer to class such persons as Cubans and not as A hericans doing business in Cuba. According to adlittedly incomplete compilations submitted as evidence by Mr. Truman a. Palmer, there were in Cuba 99 sugar centrals (no distinction made between operating centrals and those out of operation, the steviently includin mills destroyed during the war, which had not been reconstructed) and 73 cane-producing estates owned by "American citizens," who presented claims for damages aggregating over $41,000,000. Of these so-called American holdings, 27 centrals were shown to be the properties of companies incorporated in the United States; of the remaining 72 centrals, 41 were owned by "American citizens" residing in the United States or in Europe, and 31 were owned by American citizens" residing in Cuba, in both classes the owners being very largely Cubans (or Spaniards) by birth. (Cuban Sugar Sales, pp. 370-397.) 416 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY sugar estates and factories had, to all intents and purposes, changed ownership but without such a change becoming a matter of record.33 In consequence of these difficulties, the committee received conflicting testimony on individual estates and lists of Cuban sugar properties classified by nationality of owners, which differed materially.34 Two further observations concerning the evidence submitted during these hearings may be made. Firstthe testimony of Mr. Havemeyer, president of the American Sugar Refining Co., that his company was interested in the largest beet-sugar establishment and that personally he had interests in others,35 pointed to a possible abatement of the conflict between beet-sugar producers and the Sugar Trust, and to a future solidarity of action by their respective Representatives in both Houses of Congress on the question of reciprocity with Cuba.36 In the second place, however, the significance of Mr. Havemeyer's statements was for the time being, at least, overshadowed by the admission, June 11, of another witness, Mr. F. B. Thurber, president of the United States Export Association, that he had solicited and received from Mr. Havemeyer $2,500 toward meeting the expenses of the association for publishing and distributing literature favorable to reciprocity with Cuba.37 Adjournment of Congress without further action.-Several events combined to keep the Cuban reciprocity controversy in the forefront 33 Not a few sugar properties, for instance, that had been mortgaged by their Cuban owners passed into the hands of the mortgagees by compromise, either while the "stay law" prevented the enforcement of mortgage claims or later to save the heavy legal expenses of foreclosure; but the former Cuban owner continued to live on the estate as its resident manager under a salary, the absentee mortgage holder, however, being the real owner. 34 One witness, with 7 years' experience in Cuba, testified that he knew of not even one "Cuban central" in Cuba. Another submitted lists indicating that of the total of 223 centrals working the then current crop, 52 were owned by Cubans; 98 by Spaniards; 54 by American syndicates, firms, and individuals, including "Cuban-Americans"; and 19 by either English, French, Germans, or Portuguese. ' (See the lists, ibid., pp. 336-341.) General Wood's list named a total of 187 sugar planters or companies actually producing sugar, of which 8 were indicated as being American and 4 English, the remaining 175 being Cuban. (See the list, ibid., pp. 173 and 174.) 35 See Appendix VI, p. 435, for the interests of the sugar refiners in the beet-sugar industry. 36 In November, 1903, during the debates on the bill (H. R. 1921) to carry into effect the reciprocity convention signed Dec. 11, 1902, the vote upon the roll call bringing the measure before the House showed that the Michigan delegation, which had unanimously opposed the Payne bill in April, 1902, was divided, the majority being in favor of the bill. Mr. De Armond (Missouri) called attention to this change, and Mr. Gardner (Michigan) explained it as follows: "* * * While we were in this arena in the last Congress, wrestling with this question in sincerity and in all good faith and to the best of our ability, men were sitting in the galleries applauding the sentiments of the advocates of nonreduction upon beet-sugar revenue taxes, and at the same time, as we learned afterwards, they were making terms with the beetsugar trust (sic) themselves. Sold out. * * * That is not an argument, but simply a statement of fact." (Cong. Ree., 58th Cong., 1st seas., pp. 257 and 341.) The Journal of Commerce of June 5, 1902, reported that an idea had gained currency that the Sugar Trust had in some way reached an understanding with the considerable group of beet-sugar refiners, resting the belief for this "upon the distinctly new tone" adopted by certain beet-sugar manufacturers in speaking of the trust. A Washington dispatch, published on June 7 but later denied, asserted that H. 0. Havemeyer, John D. Rockefeller, and financiers closely identified with these two had purchased control of the American beet-sugar industry. (Ibid., June 7, 1902.) Years later, when the Hardwick committee (see Appendix VI, p. 435) was investigating the American Sugar Refining Co., another member of that Michigan delegation in the Fifty-seventh Congress (1902) declared that the principal cause for the purchase at that time by American refining interests of stock in beet-sugar factories had been to withdraw the strong opposition of beet-sugar manufacturers to Cuban reciprocity. He recalled that "some of those men were living at the hotel where I lived at that time and they received a telegram one day to come home, that the American Sugar Refining Co. had made them a proposition to purchase an interest in their factories if they would withdraw their opposition to Cuban reciprocity. The purchases were made at that time, and those Michigan men apologized to me for dropping out of the fight at that time, because I had started with them and other men with me, and they were obliged to withdraw their support and now asked for the adoption of Cuban reciprocity." (Hearings held before the Special Committee on the Investigation of the American Sugar Refining Co. and Others, p. 289.) 37 The press in general made much of this "revelation" as the long-sought evidence of the Sugar Trust's stake in the reciprocity controversy. With this was linked the payment of about $8,600 out of Cuban insular government funds to the export association. From one of the vouchers (Cuban Sugar Sales, p. 422) it appeared that "under the verbal directions and authority of the military governor," the association circulated three lots of letters and accompanying publications to some 80,000 "leaders of thought" in the United States advocating reciprocal tariff relations between the United States and Cuba. In response to a resolution introduced by Mr. Bartlett (Georgia) and adopted by the House on June 23, 1902, General Wood,'in a letter dated July 1, 1902, reported four issues of the circulars at a total expense of $11.520, and showed an item of $740 as "salary of F. B. Thurber, together with certain expenses for travel and clerk hire." (See 57th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. No. 679.) HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 417 of interest during the closing days of the first session of the Fiftyseventh Congress. The inauguration of the Republic of Cuba on May 20 excited not a little comment from the press of the United States concerning the failure of Congress to provide for the economic stability of the island; but neither this indication of public sentiment in favor of Cuba nor the significant indorsements of Cuban reciprocity given at this time by the Republican State conventions of Ohio, Kansas, and Pennsylvania,38 nor the formidable array of arguments in the special message39 of President Roosevelt of June 13, nor the cabled appeal from President Palma were sufficient to break the deadlock in the Senate. If anything, the hopeless situation was accentuated by President Roosevelt's rejection of the rebate plan.40 This proposal had been offered as a compromise, but was actually more in the nature of an ultimatum from a conference of Republican Senators representing beet-sugar interests. The administration Senators, however, had likewise taken their last stand on the basis of a straight 20 per cent reduction 41 for five years and the dropping from the House measure of the provisions concerning immigration and labor laws and the sugar differential amendment. This constituted the so-called Platt bill, for which Senator Spooner offered an amendment that the President should have authority to terminate the concession and collect the full duties whenever he was satisfied that the duty reductions were benefiting purchasers in the United States of Cuban products rather than the producers in Cuba. The bill thus amended was, on June 17, unanimously agreed upon by the Republican members of the Senate Committee on Relations with Cuba as the proper bill for the Senate to adopt; it was decided to submit it to the Republican caucus. This information received, the beet-sugar "insurgents" conferred, and delivered to the administration Senators an ultimatum to the effect that 19 Republican Senators would vote to the last against the adoption of this bill.42 Conciliation committees, harmony conferences, party caucuses suggesting an agreement with reference to a lack of precedent for defection, a "reciprocity dinner" at the White House, and repeated official announcements that the President was firm and steadfast in his determination that Cuba should be given a substantial reduction and that he would continue unremitting in his endeavos until it would be accomplished-all these influences proved less potent than the cohesion of the 19 Republican Senators who resisted the 38 See Appendix VI, p. 431. for extracts from State platforms. 30 Text given in Appendix VI, p. 433. 40 The rebate plan proposed in the Senate differed from that brought forward on the House side in one material respect-namely, that the allotted amounts of United tes import duties should be used by the Government of Cuba for public expenditures instead of being distributed to the growers of cane and the producers of sugar. (Compare p. 407 et seq. and Appendix VI, p. 427.) At one conference however, it was determined that the rebate was to be turned over to the Cuban treasury to be disposed of as the Cuban Government thought desirable. According to press reports, President Palma, through diplomatic channels indicated that the rebate proposition would be objectionable in itself and expensive and almost impossible to carry out. (Journal of Commerce, June a, 1tu, p. ent. 41 For a while efforts had been made to put the reduction at 25 per cent. 42 Senators Bard and Perkins, California; Teller, Colorado; Mason, Illinois; Burton, Kansas; Burrows, Michigan; Clapp and Nelson, Minnesota; Dietrich and Millard, Nebraska; Jones, Nevada; Mitchell, Oregon; Gamble and Kittredge, South Dakota; Kearns, Utah; Foster, Washington; Pritchard, Wisconsin; and Elkins and Scott, West Virginia. In an earlier conference, however, these members of the opposition had considered that the reduction measure might be acceptable to them only on the condition that a stipulation like the Spooner amendment be added. The deadlock resulting from their rejection of June 17 was regarded so fast that practically all hope f success for the reciprocit bill was abandoned. But, for political purposes, t was planned to compromise on the adoption of a resolution authorizing the President to negotiate a reciprocity treaty with Cuba and submit it to the Senate in December, 1902. (Journal of Commerce, June 12 and 18, 1902). 418 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY duty reduction on Cuban sugar. This bloc expressed indifference to prospects of a long-delayed adjournment of Congress or of an extra session, professing to welcome the opportunity for a lengthy consideration of the Cuban reciprocity question; they were insistent, moreover, that there was no more reason to reduce the Dingley rates on sugar and tobacco than upon other commodities, but that-if any tariff changes were to be made the whole tariff should be revised. They counted on a full Democratic support of 33 votes, added to their 19, to pass the House bill including the Morris amendment, without which the bill would again have to face the opposition coalition in the House. The adjournment of Congress on July 1, with the death of the Payne bill in Senate committee,43 signified the failure of the first attempt to establish reciprocal trade relations between the United States and the newly established Republic of Cuba. But the issue was not thereby eliminated from the administration's program. President Roosevelt, determined to achieve results, immediately set about in the exercise of his constitutional power of initiating and negotiating treaties.44 Further, to insure favorable action on the treaty by the Senate and approval by Congress, he prepared to make his appeal directly to the people.45 Public interest concerning Cuba was kept alive by other circumstances.46 Annexation of Cuba, advocated by Senator Elkins 47 in the closing hours of the session, 4 On June 27 Senator Teller charged that the whole reciprocity movement had been started in the interest of the refiners' trust. In reply Senator Platt referred to the Beet Sugar Trust, but emphasized Cuban reciprocity as a question of political policy, one of the most important presented to Congress in many years; by reciprocity the United States would be protecting itself in one of the vital points of its national defenses and securing a friendly power, an outpost for time of trouble-but, failing in this, annexation would be the great menace of the future. This was derided by Senator Teller as a "baby cry," and he taunted Senator Platt for not reporting the House bill which the beet-sugar men were prepared to take even then. (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 7507-14.) That same day a caucus of the Democratic members of the House of Representatives unanimously adopted resolutions (reported drawn by Mr. Jackson, Kansas, and presented by Mr. Griggs, of Georgia, chairman of the Democratic congressional committee), reading in part as follows: "First. That we condemn the Republican majority in Congress for their failure to pass a measure providing reciprocity with Cuba. The bill which passed the House of Representatives was heartily supported by the Democratic minority, after the protection to the Sugar Trust had been removed by the solid Democratic vote, aided by a small minority of the Republican Members. As it passed the Htouse the bill carried relief to Cuba, reduced the price of sugar to American consumers, and struck a heavy blow at the notorious and obnoxious Sugar Trust. The refusal of the Republican Senators to consider this measure unless the protection to the Sugar Trust should be restored gives evidence that the President and Republican Party in Congress are willing to refuse relief to Cuba and totally ignore American consumers rather than abandon their alliance with the trusts. The failure of all reciprocity legislation with Cuba rests upon the Republican administration, which is willing to reduce the duty on the raw sugar of our producers but unwilling to destroy the sugar monopoly. * * * * * * * "Fourth. We oppose the adjournment of Congress until the measures mentioned above have been enacted into law." 44 According to press reports of July 5, the President was having drafted the permanent treaty contemplated by the Platt amendment, with a moderate reciprocity provision added as a "rider." He was represented as considering that the justice of making some concession to Cuba in return for the large authority granted to the United States would be self-evident, that his appeal to the country could safely be made on such a basis, and that the Senate could not well reject such a treaty simply because it contained a clause providing mutual trade concessions. 46 In an address of Aug. 22, 1902, at Hartford, Conn., for example, the President discussed relations with Cuba, declaring in part as follows: "Cuba must always be peculiarly related to us in international politics. She must in international affairs be to a degree a part of our political system. In return she must have peculiar relations with us economically. She must be in a sense part of our economic system. We expect er to accept a political attitude toward us which we think wisest both for her and us. In return we must be prepared to put her in an economic position as regards our tariff system which will give her some measure of the prosperity which we enjoy." (Journal of Commerce, Aug. 23, 1902.) 46 Senator Platt's article, entitled "Cuba's Claim Upon the United States," appeared in the North American Review for August, 1902 (of. Appendix VI, p. 429); about the same time a letter of his seeking information relative to Cuban reciprocity and its effects on the American tobacco industry (suggesting, perhaps, that the Senator had heard from his constituents in Connecticut) brought about a controversy with the National Cigar Leaf Tobacco Association that evoked considerable public attention. (Journal of Commerce, July 10 and 28 and Aug. 1, 1902.) 47 His lengthy discussion of June 30 in favor of annexation related to a joint resolution (S. J. Res. 115) he had introduced on June 14, which set forth the conditions and guarantees under which the territory of the Republic of Cuba was to be erected into a new State of Cuba and admitted into the Union of the United States upon equal footing with existing States. HISTORY OF RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT 419 became a distinct movement, supported by literature carefully disseminated. Reports of depressed conditions in Cuba were variously substantiated; Habana bankers, requested by the Secretary of Finance to present projects for raising a loan of $4,000,000 to aid the sugar-cane cultivators of Cuba, declined with the statement that the loan could not be raised. Their action was understood to be in accord with the general feeling of uncertainty regarding the business situation in Cuba; the latter was seen to have its reflection in New York in the failure of a large mercantile firm with connections in Habana and in a general decline in the steamship trade with Cuba. To the failure of Congress to enact reciprocity with Cuba was also attributed the unprecedented low average monthly price of 1.66 cents per pound, cost and freight New York, for Cuban sugar in July, 1902, from which there was but slight recovery in August. On the one hand, it was explained that the Cubans through sheer financial weakness had been compelled to force upon the market the sugars so long held by them with the hope of deriving the benefit of the expected duty reduction; on the other hand, the American refiners were charged 48 with depressing raw sugar prices in order to force action on the looked-for reciprocity treaty. 48 German sugar interests, pointing to lower world prices for sugar, joined in this charge. (Journal of Commerce, Aug. 30, 1902, p. 1,) r F *;* X1 I - t t 4 t 4 i i r i f \ t, A, v l I.. I t n 4 - i }e 4 1 f l g - APPENDIX VI DOCUMENTS AND NOTES RELATING TO THE HISTORY OF THE RECIPROCITY MOVEMENT Page Recommendations of Brig. Gen. James H. Wilson, commanding the Department of Matanzas and Santa Clara, 1899 421 President McKinley on relations with Cuba, annual message, December 5, 1899 -—.. — 422 President Roosevelt on the general policy of reciprocity, first annual message, December 3, 1901 -.^...-....-................. ---.... 422 Petition addressed to the Senate by Sefior Don F. Gamba and others urging the enactment of a law for commercial reciprocity between the United States and Cuba, December 3, 1901 —..... --- —....... 423 The Payne'reciprocity bill of 1902,............, 424 News itefn concerning attitude of British chambers of commerce.425 Statement of reasons for opposing the Payne reciprocity bill, presented by the minority in a conference of House Republicans, April, 1902....- 425 Resolution proposing a "rebate plan" for the relief of Cuba, presented by the minority in a conference of House Republicans, April, 1902... 427 Quotations concerning President McKinley's alleged pledge of Cuban reciprocity —......-...-....-...- 427 Extracts from Republican and Democratic State platforms of 1902.-..- 481 Special^. esa from President Roosevelt concerning reciprocity with Cuba, June 13 1902..-...... --- —------------—, — 433 Interests of the sugar refiners in the beet-sugar industry ----- -—... - 435 RECOMMENDATIONS OF BRIG. GEN. JAMES H. WILSON, COMMANDING THE DEPARTMENT OF MATANZAS AND SANTA CLARA [From the Civil Report of Maj. Gen. John R. Brooke, 1899, pp. 341, 3421 In accordance with all American precedents, a representative convention of the Cuban people should be assembled, to frame a constitution and form of goovwment, and as soon as the same should have received the approval of the President and Congress, the government organized thereunder should be elected and inaugurated with as little delay as may be necessary for its orderly and decent establishment. Obviously the next step would be to negotiate a treaty of alliance and commerce-a treaty of reciprocity, if you please, with the new government, which should provide — (1) For the guaranty to the people of Cuba of a republican government, and that It should be both peaceable and stable. (2) For the free entry into each country of the natural and manufactured preadtes of the other, under the protectian of a common and uniform tarff as against all other nations. (If for any reason it should be found impracticable to adopt this provisio n n full, then there should be the greatest allowable reduc tion of duty on sugar, which is the principal crop of the island, and the one which reqfires the greatest possible concession.) () For the administration of the customs of the island under the supervision of the United States, in such a manner as would render it certain that the smuggling lf articles in which there may be free trade between the two counties, should be reduced to a minimum, and that no advantage should be had by introducing them through one country rather than the other. (4) For the ces on of one or more naval stations, for the better protection of the American ports in the Gulf of Mexico and of such interoceanie canal as might hereafter be constructed under American auspices at Nicaragua or Panama. () The establihment of a postal nion and of uniform quarantine and sait laIRs hith,; or obvious reasons, should also be under the supervision of a Ulntd Stt es omaIissioner. 41.,, I ' 421 422 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY (6) For the regulation of such other important matters of mutual concern as might be agreed upon. It is a noteworthy fact that if free trade in natural and manufactured ptoducts, subject only to internal revenue laws, could be allowed to this island with the United States, every essential condition of the reestablishment of agriculture and commerce would be fulfilled. Anything less than this would give only partial relief. If it should happen that other nations having West Indian possessions should also claim the benefits of free trade with the United States under the "emostfavored-nation" clause, or that the United States could not spare the revenue which it would lose on Cuban products, and especially on Cuban sugar, this would perhaps be an argument in favor of the early admission of both Cuba and the other West Indian islands into the Union, or at least for much closer relations with the United States than they have hitherto enjoyed. PRESIDENT MCKINLEY ON RELATIONS WITH CUBA [Annual message, December 5, 1899] This Nation has assumed before the world a grave responsibility for the future good government of Cuba. We have accepted a trust the fulfillment of which calls for the sternest integrity of purpose and the exercise of the highest wisdom. The new Cuba yet to arise from the ashes of the past must needs be bound to us by ties of singular intimacy and strength if its enduring welfare is to be assured. Whether those ties shall be organic or conventional, the destinies of Cuba are in some rightful form and manner irrevocably linked with our own, but how and how far is for the future to determine in the ripeness of events. Whatever be the outcome, we must see to it that free Cuba be a reality, not a name, a perfect entity, not a hasty experiment bearing within itself the elements of failure. Our mission, to accomplish which we took up the wager of battle, is not to be fulfilled by turning adrift any loosely framed commonwealth to face the vicissitudes which too often attend weaker States whose natural wealth and abundant resources are offset by the incongruities of their political organization and the recurring occasions for internal rivalries to sap their strength and dissipate their energies. The greatest blessing which can come to Cuba is the restoration of her agricultural and industrial prosperity, which will give employment to idle men and reestablish the pursuits of peace. This is her chief and immediate need. * * * In the meantime [i. e., pending the establishment of an independent government] and so long as we exercise control over the island the products of Cuba should have a market in the United States on as good terms and with as favorable rates of duty as are given to the West India Islands under treaties of reciprocity which shall be made. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT ON THE GENERAL POLICY OF RECIPROCITY [First annual message, December 3, 1901] There is general acquiescence in our present tariff system as a national policy. The first requisite to our prosperity is the continuity and stability of this economic policy. Nothing could be more unwise than to disturb the business interests of the country by any general tariff change at this time. Doubt, apprehension, uncertainty are exactly what we most wish to avoid in the interest of our commercial and material well-being. (ur experience in the past has. shown that sweeping revisions of the tariff are apt to produce condition s closely approaching panic in the business world. Yet it is not only possible, but eminently desirable, to combine with the stability of our economic system a supplementary system of reciprocal benefit and obligation with other nations. Such reciprocity is an incident and result of the firm establishment and preservation of our present economic policy. It was specially provided for in the present tariff law. Reciprocity must be treated as the handmaiden of protection. Our first duty is to see that the protection granted by the tariff in every case where it is needed is maintained, and that reciprocity be sought for so far as it can safely be done without injury to our home industries. Just how far this is must be determined according to the individual case, remembering always that every application of our tariff policy to meet our shifting national needs must be conditioned upon the cardinal fact that the duties must never be reduced below the point that will cover the difference between the labor cost here and abroad. DOCUMENTS AND NOTES 423 The well-being of the wageworker is a prime consideration of our entire policy of economic legislation. Subject to this proviso of the proper protection necessary to our industrial well-being at home, the principle of reciprocity must command our hearty support. The phenomenal growth of our export trade emphasizes the urgency of the need for wider markets and for a liberal policy in dealing with foreign nations. Whatever is merely petty and vexatious in the way of trade restrictions should be avoided. The customers to whom we dispose of our surplus products in the long run, directly or indirectly, purchase those surplus products by giving us something in return. Their ability to purchase our products should as far as possible be secured by so arranging our tariffs as to enable us to take from them those products which we can use without harm to our own industries and labor, or the use of which will be of marked benefit to us. It is most important that we should maintain the high level of our present prosperity. We have now reached the point in the development of our interests where we are not only able to supply our own markets but to produce a constantly growing surplus for which we must find markets abroad. To secure these markets we can utilize existing duties in any case where they are no longer needed for the purpose of protection, or in any case where the article is not produced here and the duty is no longer necessary for revenue, as giving us something to offer in exchange for what we ask. The cordial relations with other nations which are so desirable will naturally be promoted by the course thus required by our own interests. The natural line of development for a policy of reciprocity will be in connection with those of our productions which no longer require all of the support once needed to establish them upon a sound basis, and with those others where either because of natural or of economic causes we are beyond the reach of successful competition. I ask the attention of the Senate to the reciprocity treaties laid before it by my predecessor. PETITION ADDRESSED TO THE SENATE BY SEiROR DON F. GAMBA AND OTHERS URGING THE ENACTMENT OF A LAW FOR COMMERCIAL RECIPROCITY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CUBA, DECEMBER 3, 1901 [57th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. No. 73] NEW YORK, December 3, 1901. SIR: We have the honor to address you in behalf of Cuba. We came to the United States to press upon the attention of the President the petition of the united business interests of the island for concessions in the American tariff in favor of Cuba. That duty has been performed. We deem it our further duty to propose to Congress some definite plan for the establishment of trade between the United States and Cuba upon a basis which will be of equal mutual advantage. We submit herewith such a plan in the form of a proposed law. We know the needs and wishes of the Cuban people. They need access to the markets of the United States for the sale of their products. It is essential to their prosperity. Thev wish the sale of American products extended in Cuba. Under present conditions that is impossible. American sales in Cuba are decreasing. The reason is simple. Under a uniform tariff European products can be sold in Cuba for less than American products. Unless the United States secures a preferential tariff rate in Cuba in favor of American products American merchants will be driven from the field. The plan we submit will promote the prosperity of Cuba and extend the market for American products. We respectfully request that this letter and plan be submitted for consideration to the distinguished body over which you preside. We have the honor to be vour obedient servants, A. GAMBA. MIGUEL MENDOZA. GUSTAVO BOCK. F. S. DuMOIS. DIONISIO VELASCO. Lms V. FRANCKE. ALFONSO PESAUT. OCTAVIO E. DAVIS, Sect. JUAN PEDRO. THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. 424 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY PROPOSED LAW AN ACT TO PROMOTE THE PROSPERITY OF CUBA AND EXTEND THE MARKET FOR AMERICAN PRODUCTS SECTION 1. From and after the Ist day of January, 1902, Cuban molasses and raw sugar, up to No. 16 of the Dutch standard, shall be admitted into the United States free, and all other Cuban products upon the payment of one-half the rates of duties levied and collected under the tariff laws of the United States upon similar products of the most-favored nation, provided the people of Cuba comply with the following condition: SECTION 2. The people of Cuba shall consent that from and after the 1st day of January, 1902, all products of the United States shall be admitted into Cuba upon the payment of one-half the rates of duty levied and collected under the tariff laws of Cuba upon similar products of the most-favored nation. Whenever the military governor of Cuba shall report to the President of the United States that the people of Cuba have given such consent, the President shall by proclamation declare that the rates of duties provided for in this act shall take effect in the United States and in Cuba from and after the 1st day of January, 1902. SECTION 3. This act shall take effect immediately. THE PAYNE RECIPROCITY BILL OF 1902 1 [H. R. 12765] AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR RECIPROCAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CUBA Be it enacted, etc., That for the purpose of securing reciprocal trade relations with Cuba, the President is hereby authorized, as soon as may be after the establishment of an independent government in Cuba and the enactment by said government of immigration, exclusion, and contract-labor laws as fully restrictive of immigration as the laws of the United States, to enter into negotiations with said Government with.a view to the arrangement of a commercial agreement in which reciprocal and equivalent concessions may be secured in favor of the products and manufactures of the United States by rates of duty which shall be less by an amount equivalent to at least twenty per centum ad valorem 2 upon such products and manufactures than the rates imposed upon the like articles when imported into Cuba from the most favored of other countries, and which shall not be greater than the rates imposed by the United States upon the like articles imported from Cuba; and whenever the Government of Cuba shall enact such immigration, exclusion, and contract-labor laws, and shall enter into such commercial agreement with the United States, and shall make such concessions in favor of the products and manufactures thereof as aforesaid, and which agreement, in the judgment of the President, shall be reciprocal and equivalent, he shall be authorized to proclaim suoh:facts both as to the enactment'of such immigration, exclusion, and contract-labor laws and the making of such agreement; and thereafter, until the first day of December, nineteen hundred and three, the imposition of the duties now imposed by law on all articles imported from Cuba, the products thereof, into the United States shall be suspended, and in lieu thereof there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all such articles imported from Cuba eighty per centum of the rate of duty now levied upon like articles imported from foreign countries. And upon the making of said agreement and the issuance of said proclamation, and while said agreement shall remain in force, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in lieu of the duties thereon now provided by law, on all sugars above number sixteen Dutch standard in color, and on all sugar which has gone through a process of refining, imported into the United States, one cent and eight hundred and twenty-five one-thousandths of one cent per pound. The President shall have power, and it shall be his duty, whenever he shall be satisfied that either such immigration, exclusion, or contract-labor laws or such agreement mentioned in this act are not being fully executed by the Government of Cuba, to notify such government thereof, and thereafter there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all articles imported from Cuba the full rate of duty provided by law upon articles imported from foreign countries. The text herewith given is the bill as it was passed by the House of Representatives. The Morris amendment is the second paragraph. See Appendix V, p. 401, note 79. DOCUMENTS AND NOTES 425 NEWS ITEM CONCERNING ATTITUDE OF BRITISH CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE IFrom the Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, New York, Thursday, March 13, 1902, p. 1] FEAR CUBAN RECIPROCITY BRITISH MERCHANTS URGE LORD LANDSDOWNE TO PROTEST LONDON, March 11.-Delegates from a number of the British chambers of commerce visited the Foreign Secretary, Lord Lansdowne, at the Foreign Office to-day, and presented a memorial relative to British trade with Cuba, pointing out that it was feared that when the administration of the island was handed over to the Cubans a reciprocity treaty would be negotiated admitting Cuban products into the United States at reduced duties, and granting corresponding preferential terms to American produce and manufactures by Cuba. "The United States," says the memorial, "when declaring war on Spain, expressly stated that their action would be limited to freeing Cuba from Spanish rule. It was, therefore, understood by those in Europe engaged in trade with Cuba that no measures would be adopted, at the conclusion of the war, which would restrict or destroy their trade with that island. Such a reciprocity treaty as that anticipated would undoubtedly put an end to European trade with the island. The Chambers, therefore, most earnestly request that the utmost effort be made by His Majesty's Minister at Washington to prevent the signing of any such treaty, or, at least, to secure that the most-favored treatment be continued by Cuba to this country. It is represented that French and German interests would suffer by a reciprocity treaty, and it issuggested that a joint protest might be effectual in preventing a change adverse to the interests of Europe in trade with Cuba." The interview was brief, but the Associated Press understands that, while promising to look into the matter, Lord Lansdowne gave but faint encouragement to the delegation. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR OPPOSING THE PAYNE RECIPROCITY BILL, PRESENTED BY THE MINORITY IN A CONFERENCE OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS APRIL, 1902 [Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 4324] We oppose the proposition to reduce the tariff on Cuban products coming into this country because it involves a relaxation of the protective principle. The Republican platform of 1896 condemned the Democratic Party for not keeping faith with the American sugar growers; we seek not to merit for ourselves the same condemnation. The proposition to reduce the sugar tariff is unwise and unjust, because1. It constitutes, in essence, an abandonment of the protective principle, even thoughitrf emoves only one-fifth of the duty imposed by the Dingley law. And this abandonment is most unhappy because applied to the pursuit of agriculture in the most conspicuous instance in which specific and manifest protection is given to the farmer, and at the moment when the beet industry is not only in its infancy, but in an infancy so lusty and promising as to demonstrate the certainty of a rapid and prodigious growth. The beet-sugar industry exhibits in the most perfect form we have yet known the most approved principles of protection. Heretofore the farmer has been compelled to find his justification of protection, from the standpoint of personal interest, in the prosperity reflected from the industrial artisan, and in the main he has, through good report and evil, been bravely loyal. Since our platform of 1896 gave a party's guaranty of performance the people took us at our word, and we have demonstrated that in the beet-sugar industry we could more vividly than in any other enterprise illustrate to the American farmer on his own broad acres the beneficence of the American system of protec tion. The American market for over $100,000,000 worth of sugar annually is rightfully his. We shall encourage no policy which delays the time when he shall come into his own. 2. As to the fancied duty to Cuba because of a distress which is only apparent in the admitted fact that every man on the island has all the work he can do at higher wages than he ever before received, we have only to say that the low price of sugar is a mere business condition of temporary character, and that to compromise with it on the terms proposed is, in its interference with the policy of 426 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY protection, to pay too high a price for all the good that can possibly come to those whom it is intended to benefit. The proposition is to undertake to insure commercial and industrial prosperity in Cuba, a foreign country and a foreign government. If we undertake it, when and where are we to stop? It is a startling proposition entirely outside of our governmental functions and our constitutional power. Whenever we have undertaken to insure commercial and industrial prosperity in the United States, our own country, by means of a protective tariff, we have been bitterly assailed on the ground of paternalism. Now, at the expense of our own labor, our own capital, and our own industry, and largely at the expense of a single industry, without reducing the cost of sugar to the American consumer, we are asked to extend the paternal hand to a foreign people on the ground that, having given them liberty, we are morally obligated to secure them commercial and industrial prosperity, even at the sacrifice of our own interests. We emphatically deny that we are under any such obligation, morally or otherwise. We insist that such an undertaking subjects the Congress of the United States to the charge of being false to its constitutional obligations, untrue to the people it represents, and, from a political standpoint, false to the pledges made by the party to the people when it asked and received their support. 3. Entirely independent of its effect on the beet-sugar industry as a present fact in established concerns, it would smother the further development of the industry through the scores of plants now in various stages of active advancement. An industry which has grown fivefold in the last four years and doubled since 1900 has in it the certainty of a future development so stupendous as to beggar prophecy and appeal with cogent force to our national pride. 4. In so far as the proposition professes to be in the line of Republican reciprocity, we assert that it is essentially a denial of that great policy. We deny that reciprocity is desirable except as a corollary to the greater policy of protection. Republican reciprocity, wise reciprocity, does not seek an exchange of products at the expense of any American industry; it does not seek to give-it does not give-commercial advantage to any foreign product which comes into competition with our own products; it does not seek an exchange ot products which deprives any American artisan of his work or any American farmer of an onportunity to profitably till the soil. This was explicitly declared by McKinley in his Buffalo speech in the following words: By sensible trade arrangements which will not interrupt our home production we shall extend the outlets for our increasing surplus." And by President Roosevelt in his annual message in these words: "And that reciprocity be sought for so far as it can safely be done without injury to our home industries." 5. To say that the duty on sugar is to be lowered on the plea that it helps Cuba is to say that it must always be lowered when Cuba needs help; and a reduction of one-fifth by the House of Representatives means that elsewhere, both in and out of Congress, the extent of that reduction shall be measured by the varying views of those who consider it. It must therefore follow that the protective principle is to be subordinated to the question as to what amount of help Cuba may need. With such a policy declared by a Republican majority, what wise business man can be induced to invest his money in the beet-sugar industry? What promise will there be of its future development? And if that Republican majority is once constrained to such a policy, what license have we to believe that the citadel of protection will not be further assaulted in the house of its friends? When that time comes the days of Republican supremacy will be numbered. Never more earnestly than at this hour have we been summoned to our duty; never has the cause of protection-to which we owe our party success and our national prosperity-more needed our undivided and unflinching support. We pledged our faith in 1896 to the sugar growers of the country and they took us at our word; in 1897 we kept the faith and passed the Dingley law, and the people, relying on that law and our party pride and tradition, proceeded to develop in amazing proportions the industry which we specifically encouraged them to enter. DOCUMENTS AND NOTES 427 We are told that the pending proposition will not hurt the beet-sugar producers; but surely no one anywhere has asserted that it would help them. A tariff measure which has the unanimous indorsement of free traders is not above suspicion, and a search warrant will not be needed to find all the protection that is hidden away in it. RESOLUTION PROPOSING A "REBATE PLAN" FOR THE RELIEF OF CUBA, PRESENTED BY THE MINORITY IN A CONFERENCE OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS, APRIL, 1902 [Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 43851 Resolved, That it is the sense of this conference that the Committee on Ways and Means be directed to report to the House a bill for the relief of Clba substantially embodying the following: That the President be authorized to enter into a commercial agreement with the Government of Cuba, when the same shall have been organized and established, whereby on account of the relations which have existed between the United States and Cuba since 1898, and in consideration of such reduction of duties as shall be satisfactory to the President on goods, wares, and merchandise the growth or product of the United States imported into Cuba, he shall agree to pay each year, for three years, to the Government of Cuba a sum of money equivalent to 20 per cent of the duties collected and paid into the Treasury of the United States on goods, wares, and merchandise the growth or product of the island of Cuba imported into this country. Adhering to the statement we have heretofore made to this conference expressing our reasons for opposing a reduction of the duties on the products of Cuba and in the interest of harmony, and for the purpose of affording relief to Cuba, if such relief is needed, and mindful of the fact recently developed that during the last fiscal year there was a deficit in the public treasury of the island of Cuba of nearly $500,000, we submit the following additional statement of our reasons therefor: 1. It will afford relief both to the Government and the people of Cuba. 2. It makes certain that Cuba and her people and no one else will be the beneficiaries of our action. 3. By its adoption we keep faith with the people of this country and the people of Cuba. 4. It does not violate our national party platforms of 1896 and 1900. 5. It does not disturb existing conditions in this country. 6. It does not alter or modify any schedule of the present tariff law. 7. It does not injure or discourage any domestic industry or prevent its further development. 8. It avoids an inopportune agitation of questions affecting industrial conditions of unparalleled prosperity. 9. It would secure reciprocal trade concessions from Cuba and give time to ascertain the value of such trade relations between the two Republics under existing conditions. 10. Its reciprocal feature furnishes a consideration which makes the proposed measure of undoubted constitutionality. It is as competent for Congress to purchase trade concessions from foreign countries as to purchase naval or coaling stations. 11. It is sustained by precedent since the establishment of our Government, and particularly by the legislation refunding duties collected on the products of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands. 12. It affords the means and opportunity for successfully inaugurating and permanently establishing the new Government of Cuba during a time which the experience of all nations has shown will be its most critical period. 13. It affords relief until the present adverse trade conditions affecting the price of sugar shall have been improved by the abolishment of European sugar bounties. 14. It discharges every obligation assumed by us under the provisions of the treaty of Paris, the Platt amendment, and by our intervention to secure the independence of Cuba. QUOTATIONS CONCERNING PRESIDENT MCKINLEY'S ALLEGED PLEDGE OF CUBAN RECIPROCITY NOTE.-Information pertaining to the moot question of a pledge of reciprocity by President McKinley to the Cuban delegates sent to Washington, was not readily available when Cuban reciprocity was an issue. If notes were taken by 10038-28 ---28 428 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY or for the Secretary of War during the conferences at the War Department, no mention of them has been found, but they may be among the private papers of Mr. Root. Furthermore, the report of the Cuban committee to the constitutional convention concerning the conferences may have been included in the English translation of the proceedings of the convention, transmitted to the United States Senate, in response to a resolution, by the Secretary of War. But, because of the very large number of documents accompanying the communications these were not printed. (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3538.) The state of contemporary official opinion in Washington concerning this question may be inferred from the following: 1. On March 10, 1902, during a conference at the White House with "congressional visitors" regarding Cuban reciprocity, President Roosevelt, according to a report in the Journal of Commerce (March 12, p. 1), said thatThere was difficulty in determining just what promises or representations were made to the Cuban delegates when they visited Washington last summer previous to the adoption of the Platt amendment as a part of the Cuban constitution. There was no record of any promise, but the understanding seemed to be that reciprocity arrangements were to be made with Cuba of a nature which would give the island's products an advantage in the markets of the United States. 2. Statements made in the House of Representatives. Mr. GROSVENOR. I know that after a full conference with the President, with the Secretary of War, and with the Secretary of State and other distinguished gentlemen, both in the legislative and the executive branches of the Government, that delegation [from the constitutional convention] went back from their conference with the President to Habana and told the people of Cuba officially and publicly that in the event they would adopt as a part of their constitution the Platt amendment concessions in the form of reciprocity should be guaranteed to Cuba. This is a part of the written history of those days. That is what they stated. I am not here to say whether it was true or false, but as a lawyer and as a man of some intelligence, and in view of the fact that that declaration was made-possibly not made while Congress was in session, but made publicly, in the full light of day, and no dissent made to it by the President or by anybody speaking for him-I say that it is fair to presume that that promise was made. In addition to that our representatives in Cuba have undoubtedly given assurance to the same effect. (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3952.) Mr. DALZELL. It was in conformity with our original purpose that we insisted that the Platt amendment should become part of the Cuban constitution, and as a matter of history it can be said beyond all reasonable doubt or question that it was accepted by the Cubans with the plain understanding upon their part that at some future time we would enter into reciprocal trade relations with them. The acceptance of the Platt amendment established new and closer and more intimate relations between Cuba and ourselves. (Ibid., p. 4400.) The argument of the opposition to rebut this point was put by Mr. Weeks, of Michigan, as follows: * * * These impecunious Cubans who came with outstretched hand of beggary, nothing else, caught the idea because the President was so gracious and kind that they had obtained his promise [to give Cuba six or eight million dollars by way of reduction of the tariff]. They went back and they exaggerated and misrepresented the matter and told the Cuban people that President McKin ley had promised them that he would do so and so. * * * President McKinley could make no promise. He could not arrogate to himself the powers of this Congress and say to those Cuban emissaries, "I will do so and so, or I will see it done for you." He had no authority to make such a promise, and if those Cubans had known anything about the structure of our Government and the powers of the different departments-the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government-they would have known that President McKinley not only did not but could not make any such promise to them. Now, upon such a light foundation as that this whole structure of moral and legal obligation is built up and advocated by dignified, learned, and great statesmen on the floor of this House. (Ibid., p. 3957.) DOCUMENTS AND NOTES 429 Mr. Long quoted from an account of the committee's interview with the Secretary of War as reported by the Habana newspaper, La Patria, under date of May 25, 1901, as follows: The chairman of the commission spoke of the steps taken to obtain a formal promise from the Executive for the purpose of securing favorable legislation for Cuban products, and the efforts made to learn the state of American opinion on the subject. The Secretary (of War) stated that while only speaking for himself and on behalf of the President, he could assure the commission that if the Cuban Government were once established there would immediately be appointed a commission to take up the question and propose a commercial treaty between the two countries; that the President would immediately appoint a representative for the purpose of conferring with a Cuban representative as soon as possible with reference to the treaty, which should be based on mutual advantages. (Ibid., p. 4011.) 3. Statements by Senators. Senator Elkins, on June 30, 1902, quoted President McKinley as saying to the Cuban commissioners: "If you only were a member of the family, how easy it would all be." (Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 7639.) This led Senator Hanna to say: We all are familiar with the visit of a commission from Cuba to the United States in the interest of the new-born Republic whose government was about to be established, and we know how President McKinley inet that commission with kindness and with an expressed desire for the establishment and growth of a liberal republican government there. He might have expressed the thought quoted by the Senator that if Cuba was a member of our sisterhood of States the question would be different, but it so happend that Cuba was not a member of that sisterhood. But what he did say-and it came from an earnest desire to help to benefit that country —was that he would do everything within the limit of his power and influence to place Cuba in a position as regards her relationship with the United States which would give an impetus to her prosperity, and to that end that that influence should be exerted to establish a trade relationship which would be to her advantage. (Ibid., p. 7642.) A quotation from an article by Senator Platt (Cuba's Claim upon the United States, North American Review, August, 1902, pp. 145 -151) may well be considered as the quasi-official opinion of one who had been the administration's sponsor and spokesman for the provisions which bear his name. He wrote at a time when President Roosevelt, on the eve of congressional elections, was appealing to the people for support in favor of reciprocity with Cuba, having already begun negotiations for a treaty. The Senator's comments are as follows: * * * While we did not ask of Cuba in form that she should not enter into commercial arrangements with other countries to our advantage, the natural currents of trade made it a practical impossibility for her to do so, and a commission sent to us from her constitutional convention returned home with the just expectation that a compliance with our desires as to her constitutional guaranties would be followed by the establishment of mutual trade relations which would prove to be of great economic advantage to her. The constitutional convention of Cuba asked, as a return for their acceptance of the provisions which we had requested, that there should be some promise given by the United States of the establishment of advantageous relations with us. In the nature of things such a promise was impossible. but the convention was asked to act ini the premises and to trust the United States. It did incorporate into its constitution provisions whicn we thought essential for us, and it did trust us to provide by legislation, or treaty, commercial advantages which she could not obtain from other countries. * * * Its merchants, its planters and laborers, waited in trustful confidence that the United States, through its Congress, would provide for the industrial as it had already provided for the political independence of Cuba. Not only was this anticipated in Cuba, but here as well. No one could have foreseen that the United States would deliberately refuse to discharge its obligation. The United States had never been a faith breaker; its worst enemy could not have predicted that it would become one. * * 430 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY Compare also the following: Albert G. Robinson, who had personally followed the work of the convention and had reported on its deliberations for a newspaper syndicate, stated in a book (Cuba and the Intervention, p. 268), published in 1905, that the Cuban delegates were known to urge, as an equivalent for Cuba's acceptance of the Platt amendment, the "much-needed concessions" in the American tariff on Cuban products. "It is certain," he further reportsthat no encouragement whatever was given them that the terms of the Platt amendment were or could be modified in any way. They were told that changes in the tariff could only be made by Congress, and that reciprocity treaties required the ratification of the Senate, not then in session, and that such a treaty could not be negotiated with Cuba until after the establishment of a Cuban government. They were also told, in very positive terms, that the establishment of such a government must be preceded by Cuba's acceptance of the Platt amendment. Elsewhere this observer refers to the report which the comn ittee made to the constitutional convention on the results of their mission, stating (pp. 271-272) that the delegates announced to their associates the President's assurance that due consideration would be given their plea for advantageous commercial relations with the United States. But he adds: No unquestionable report has ever been published concerning the assurances of either Mr. McKinley, or of Mr. Root as the representative of Mr. McKinley, upon this matter of commercial advantages. There is no question that the commissioners, whether justified or not, were impressed with the belief that they were practically assured, in Washington, that concessions would be granted them in the American tariff on Cuban products. In Reciprocity, by J. Laurence Laughlin and H. Parker Willis, published March, 1903, the authors make no mention in the chapter The Struggle for Reciprocity with Cuba, of the committee's trip to Washington. In their investigation of the claim which was later made concerning the duty or obligation of the United States to look after the economic welfare of Cuba they say (p. 366) thatIn general, it has been rested upon an alleged promise made by President McKinley to the effect that if the constitutional convention would adopt the Platt amendment he would use his utmost efforts to secure for Cuba suitable trade concessions from the United States. In any view of the promise it must be conceded that in whatever form it was made by President McKinley it could have been no more than a personal obligation undertaken by him and without warrant from Congress. This obligation his untimely death, of course, prevented him from fulfilling. President Roosevelt, when he came into office, accepted the pledge thus said to have been made by President McKinley and therewith inherited the obligation of his predecessor. Another reference to this point (p. 422) reads: * * * it should be understood that the moral issue at stake in the Cuban problem is either nil or so small that it may be neglected. It is possible that we have already done for Cuba as much as that country has any right to ask. The pledge given to Cuba, if made at all, was made only on the personal faith of President McKinley, without authority from Congress. A later historian (Charles E. Chapman, A History of the Cuban Republic, 1927, pp. 142 and 155) makes the statements that "some intimations were offered to them [the members of the committee the convention had sent to Washington] that Cuba might get a favorable commercial treaty after the Platt amendment should have been accepted, though the bill would have to pass Congress" and that tariff concessions to Cuba "had virtually been promised by President McKinley." DOCUMENTS AND NOTES 431 EXTRACTS FROM REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC STATE PLATFORMS OF 1902 RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY STATE CONVENTIONS DEFINING THEIR POSITION ON RECIPROCITY WITH CUBA 3 Republican 4 Ohio: We believe it is due alike to Cuba and to ourselves that in accordance with the Republican principle of reciprocity, proper and reasonable trade concessions' shall be made by our Government to Cuba in return for her concessions upon American products, so as to benefit the trade of both countries and fully and generously to carry out every obligation of our national honor, whether expressed or implied. Kansas: We indorse the recommendations of President Roosevelt that the United States should enter into just and liberal reciprocal trade relations with the Republic of Cuba, and we look to a Republican Congress to establish these relations on such terms that the benefits arising therefrom will go to the people of Cuba and the people of the United States. Pennsylvania: We indorse the recommendation of President Roosevelt that the United States should enter into reciprocal trade relations with the Republic of Cuba, that shall be mutually advantageous to it and to the United States, and all efforts to that end of our representatives in both houses of Congress we cordially indorse. The Republican convention of Nebraska, meeting June 18, received from Senators Dietrich and Millard a communication explaining their opposition to Cuban reciprocity. The convention placed the communication on file without action and adopted a platform containing this paragraph: We heartily indorse the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt. We especially commend the justice and wisdom of his reciprocity policy with Cuba, as embodied in his message to Congress. The platform of the Republican convention of Missouri, meeting June 25, declared: We indorse the legislation so wisely enacted by Congress which made Cuba a free and independent republic. We approve the policy of President Roosevelt respecting our trade relations with Cuba. The Michigan Republican convention, meeting June 26, thanked the Senators and Representatives of their State for the services rendered and recorded its appreciation "of their zealous and able work in behalf of Michigan's important industries;" but no mention was made in their platform of sugar or Cuba or reciprocity. Special interest surrounds the adoption by the Minnesota Republican convention, meeting just prior to the close of Congress, of the following declaration: We congratulate the new Republic of Cuba upon its entrance among the nations of the earth. We wish for it peace, prosperity, and a long and successful national career, and we favor reciprocity with Cuba as urged by President Roosevelt. Two opponents of Cuban reciprocity had left Washington to attend the convention, Senator Nelson, who served as temporary chairman, and Mr. Stevens, who was made chairman of the committee on platform. Efforts were made to have the convention adopt a plank which in effect would have commended the rebate plan, and Mr. Stevens prematurely telegraphed to the members of the Minne 3 See the compilation Patty Platforms on National Issues in 1902 in the World Almanac and Encyclopedia, 1903, pp. 97-98. Other State conventions were held, but they confined their platforms to local issues. referring to national questions perhaps in general terms. 4 Arranged chronologically as far as could be ascertained from newspaper accounts. 432 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY sota delegation remaining in Washington what purported to be the reciprocity plank adopted by the convention, reading as follows: We favor reciprocity with Cuba urged by President Roosevelt, by a plan which shall insure the profitable interchange of commodities, inure to the advantage of both nations, help the Cuban people needing assistance, but the chief benefits of which shall not enrich trusts, monopolies, or foreign speculators, or interrupt our home production. In the platform adopted by Wisconsin Republicans, who were reported deeply involved in a controversy over local politics, Cuban reciprocity was not touched on, but the President, and Senator Spooner in his position on national questions, were heartily commended. Another specific approval of Cuban reciprocity was given near the end of July in the platform of the Republican convention of Iowa, declaring as follows: We indorse his [the Presidents] recommendation as to reciprocity with Cuba, and believe that this policy is necessary to preserve and complete the beneficent work we have done in that island and that it will be mutually beneficial to the people of Cuba and the United States. Connecticut: We believe, with William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, in the policy of trade reciprocity as the natural supplement of tariff protection, and the key with which to unlock the world's markets for the surplus products of American fields and American mills. Especially we commend the President's efforts to perform a plain duty and obtain for this country a lucrative commerce by arranging a judicious reciprocity treaty with Cuba. Indiana: We favor just and liberal reciprocal relations between the United States and the Republic of Cuba, which, by the valor of American arms and the wisdom of American statesmanship, is added to the family of nations. Massachusetts: Reciprocity with Cuba is demanded alike by honor and by interest. We have assumed a responsibility in regard to Cuba which we can not abandon. Relying on our promises, the Cuban Republic has placed in its constitution provisions required by us, and intended to guard both their interests and our own. These obligations we are, as a nation, bound in honor to fulfill. President Roosevelt has, in his policy of reciprocity with Cuba, the entire and hearty support of the Republicans of Massachusetts. New York: We favor the reciprocity with that new republic proposed by the Republicans in Congress, giving effective relief to Cuba and substantial benefits to our own people without harm to any American industry. Vermont: We hereby approve reciprocity as recommended by President Roosevelt. By the conditions upon which we impose independence we make her in no small sense our ward, and are therefore bound in honor to give her opportunity to develop her natural resources, by which alone she can maintain her separate independence. Democratic Connecticut: We favor an immediate and substantial reduction of the tariff on Cuban imports, by reciprocity treaty or otherwise, in order that the tariff relations between the United States and Cuba may be made mutually profitable, and that our obligations to assist the young republic to a permanent place among the sisterhood of nations may be fully recognized and promptly met. Massachusetts: The refusal of the present Republican Congress under the dictation of selfish, special interests, to give Cuba, through proper tariff concessions, a living chance of establishing a stable and efficient government, under her own flag, was a shameful betrayal of our national honor. While she is entitled, whenever it is her own desire, to enjoy the advantages of a full political union with this country, and consequently of freedom of trade with us, such a union should never be forced upon her by bankruptcy deliberately created by our actions. We denounce the small measure of relief which some Republicans were willing to grant as utterly inadequate to meet the situation in which their representatives left Cuba. We favor any honest policy of reciprocity with other nations, and we particularly demand the passage of a liberal measure of reciprocity with Canada. DOCUMENTS AND NOTES 433 Minnesota: We would correct the imbecile and unbusinesslike policy that throttles our trade with Canada and Cuba at the behest of special interest. New Hampshire: We demand an immediate and substantial reduction of the tariff on Cuban imports, byi reciprocity treaty or otherwise, to the end that our moral obligations to Cuba may be fully and promptly met. New York: Democrats demand justice for Cuba in the reduction of tariff upon her principal products, not a mere paltry reduction of 20 per cent of existing ddties which a Republican President professed a willingness to grant, and to which even his own party in Congress does not assent, but the full measure of justice involved in the reduction of the tariff to a strictly revenue basis. The refusal of the present Republican Congress, under the dictation of special selfish interests, to give Cuba, through proper tariff concessions, a living chance of establishing a stable and efficient government under her flag, was a shameful betrayal of national honor. We call the attention of the people to the equivocal character of the Republican platform in this State, which only favors that relief to.Cuba "proposed by the Republicans in Congress," while some of the Republicans in Congress proposed one thing and some another, and nothing whatever was accomplished. South Carolina: The Democratic party of South Carolina, in convention assembled, felicitates the patriots of Cuba upon the happy conclusion of their long and heroic struggle for independence, and, greeting the Republic with hearty wishes for its prosperity, declares the gratification with which this State would welcome Cuba should she hereafter of her own free will seek membership in the American Union. Until that time shall come we hold that the Government of the United States,, moved by considerations of duty, honor, and expediency, should maintain with the Republic of Cuba a policy of liberal commercial reciprocity. SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT CONCENING RECIPROCITY WITH CUBA, JUNE 13, 1902 [57th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doe. 405] JUNE 13, 1902.-Read, referred to the Committee on Relations with Cuba, and ordered to be printed To the Senate and House of Representatives: I deem it important before the adjournment of the present session of Congress to call attention to the following expressions in the message which, in the discharge of the duty imposed upon me by the Constitution, I sent to Congress on the first Tuesday of December last: "Elsewhere I have discussed the question of reciprocity. In the case of Cuba, however, there are weighty reasons of morality and of national interest whv the policy should be held to have a peculiar application, and I most earnestly ask vour attention to the wisdom, indeed to the vital need, of providing for a substantial reduction in the tariff duties on Cuban imports into the United States. Cuba has in her constitution affirmed what we desired, that she should stand in international matters in closer and more friendly relations with us than with any other power, and we are bound by every consideration of honor and expediency to pass commercial measures in the interest of her material well-being." This recommendation was merely giving practical effect to President MeKinley's words, when, in his messages of December 5, 1898, and December 5, 1899, he wrote: "It is important that our relations with this people (of Cuba) shall be of the most friendly character and our commercial relations close and reciprocal. * * * We have accepted a trust, the fulfillment of which calls for the sternest integrity of purpose and the exercise of the highest wisdom. The new Cuba, yet to arise from the ashes of the past, must needs be bound to us by ties of singular intimacy on atrnat+.h if its enduring welfare is to be assured. * * * The greatest blessing which can come to Cuba is the restoration of her agricultural and inanstrial prosperity." Yesterday, June 12, I received by cable from the American minister in Cuba a most earnest appeal from President Palma for "legislative relief before it is too late and [his] country financially ruined." The granting of reciprocity with Cuba is a proposition which stands entirely alone. The reasons forit far outweigh those for granting reciprocity with any other nation, and are entirely consistent with preserving intact the protective system 434 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY under which this country has thriven so marvelously. "The present tariff law was designed to promote the adoption of such a reciprocity treaty, and expressly provided for a reduction not to exceed 20 per cent upon goods coming from a particular country, leaving the tariff rates on the same articles unchanged as regards all other countries. Objection has been made to the granting of the reduction on the ground that the substantial benefit would not go to the agricultural producer of sugar, but would inure to the American sugar refiners. In my judgment provision can and should be made which will guarantee us against this possibility, without having recourse to a measure of doubtful policy, such as a bounty in the form of a rebate. The question as to which, if any, of the different schedules of the tariff ought most properly to be revised does not enter into this matter in any way or shape. We are concerned with getting a friendly reciprocal arrangement with Cuba. This arrangement applies to all the articles that Cuba grows or produces. It is not in our power to determine what these articles shall be; and any discussion of the tariff as it affects special schedules, or countries other than Cuba, is wholly aside from the subject matter to which I call your attention. Some of our citizens oppose the lowering of the tariff on Cuban products, just as three years ago they opposed the admission of the Hawaiian Islands, lest free trade with them might ruin certain of our interests here. In the actual event their fears proved baseless as regards Hawaii, and their apprehensions as to the damage to any industry of our own because of the proposed measure of reciprocity with Cuba seem to me equally baseless. In my judgment no American industry will be hurt, and many American industries will be benefited by the proposed action. It is to our advantage as a nation that the growing Cuban market should be controlled by American producers; The events following the war with Spain and the prospective building of the Isthmian Canal render it certain that we must take in the future a far greater interest than hitherto in what happens throughout the West Indies, Central America, and the adjacent coasts and waters. We expect Cuba to treat us on an exceptional footing politically, and we should put her in the same exceptional position economically. The proposed action is in line with the course we have pursued as regards all the islands with which we have been brought into relations of varying intimacy by the Spanish war. Porto Rico and Hawaii have been included within our tariff lines, to their great benefit as well as ours, and without any of the feared detriment to our own industries. The Philippines, which stand in a different relation, have been given substantial tariff concessions. Cuba is an independent Republic but a Republic which has assumed certain special obligations as regards her*international position in compliance with our request. I ask for her certain special economic concessions in return, these economic concessions to benefit us as well as her. There are few brighter pages in American history than the page which tells of our dealings with Cuba during the past four years. On her behalf we waged a war, of which the mainspring was generous indignation against oppression, and we have kept faith absolutely. It is earnestly to be hoped that we will complete in the same spirit the record so well begun, and show in our dealings with Cuba that steady continuity of policy which it is essential for our Nation to establish in foreign affairs if we desire to play well our part as a world power. We are a wealthy and powerful Nation; Cuba is a young Republic, still weak, who owes to us her birth, whose whole future, whose very life, must depend on our attitude toward her. I ask that we help her as she struggles upward along the painful and difficult road of self-governing independence. I ask this aid for her because she is weak, because she needs it, because we have already aided her. I ask that open-handed help, of a kind which a self-respecting people can accept, be given to Cuba, for the very reason that we have given her such help in the past. Our soldiers fought to give her freedom; and for three years our representatives, civil and military, have toiled unceasingly, facing disease of a peculiarly sinister and fatal type with patient and uncomplaining fortitude, to teach her how to use aright her new freedom. Never in history has any alien country been thus administered with such high integrity of purpose, such wise judgment, and such single-minded devotion to the country's interests. Now, I ask that the Cubans be~ given all possible chance to use to the best advantage the freedom of which Americans have such right to be proud and for which so many American lives have been sacrificed. THEODORE ROOSEVELT. WHITE HOUSE, June 13, 1902. DOCUMENTS AND NOTES 435 INTERESTS OF THE SUGAR REFINERS IN THE BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY By the provisions of a House resolution adopted May 9, 1911, a special committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Hardwick, was appointed to investigate the organization and operations of the American Sugar Refining Company and others in connection with violations of the Sherman antitrust law. From the mass of evidence taken during the extensive investigation, the committee specified certain transactions, among them the following beet-sugar operations: The trade war waged in September, 1901, by the American Co. and its allies upon the beet-sugar companies in order to obtain control of them and destroy competition. The appointment, in December, 1901, by the directors of the American Co. of a committee of four, consisting of Messrs. Havemeyer, Thomas, Palmer, and Donner, for the express purpose of acquiring a large interest and influence in the beet-sugar interests of the United States, the beet-sugar factories having by that time become serious competitors of the cane-sugar refiners. The purchase by the American Sugar Refining Co., in December, 1902, of $7,500,000 of the capital stock of the American Beet Sugar Co. * * * The contract of December, 1902, between the American Sugar Refining Co. and the American Beet Sugar Co. by which the latter company constituted the former its factor or agent for the disposal of its product, agreeing to "avoid the markets of the refining company." This agreement has not been in force since 1905. The agreement in August, 1894, between the Western Beet Sugar Co. and the Western Sugar Refining Co. (American), by which the beet-sugar company agreed to cease to manufacture and sell refined sugar and to manufacture raw sugar only, which the refining company agreed to buy. The purchase in 1897 by the American Sugar Refining Co. of one-half of the capital stock of the Spreckels Sugar (Beet) Co. of California. The purchase of large blocks of stock from 1902 to 1906, by the American Sugar Refining Co., in the Michigan Sugar Co. The acquisition by the American Sugar Refining Co., between 1902 and 1906, of large interests in the Great Western Sugar Co., a corporation under the laws of New Jersey, which is influenced by the American Co. through its stock ownership therein. The acquisition by the American Sugar Refining Co., in 1901, 1902, and 1903, of-one-half interest in " The Utah-Idaho Sugar Co." The purchase by the American Sugar Refining Co. in 1902, of one-half of the capital stock of the Amalgamated Sugar Co. The acquisition, in 1903, by the American Sugar Refining Co. of a large interest in the Lewiston (Utah) Sugar Co., a projected competitor. The purchase, in February, 1903, by the American Co. of a large interest in its competitor, the Alameda (Calif.) Sugar Co. An unlawful agreement of February 19, 1903, between the Alameda Sugar Co. and the American Sugar Refining Co., by which the former company constituted the latter company its factor or agent for the disposal of its product, agreeing to "avoid the markets of the refining company." 5 These disclosures were based largely on extracts from the minutes of meetings (1891-1911) of the board of directors, the executive committee, and the stockholders of the American Sugar Refining CompanVy obtained by a subcommittee for record purposes and published as part of the testimony.6 It may be noted that at the meeting of the board of directors of the American Sugar Refining Company, held April 8, 1902, " the president reported progress in the negotiations for an interest in the beetsugar properties at Lansing City, Saginaw, McCoombs, and at Car5 (62d Cong., 2d sess., H. Rept. No. 331, pt. 1, pp. 5 and 6). See also the Supplementary Report of Mr. Malby, who was unale to agree with a portion o the findings nd conclusions of law. (Id., pt. 2 6 HIearings held before the Special Committee on the Investigation of the American Sugar Refining Co, andOthers, pp. 2904-3062. 436 CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY rolton in Michigan; and that "the matter of purchasing an interest in the American Beet Sugar Co. for the American Sugar Refining Co. was referred to Messrs. Havemeyer, Thomas, and Palmer, with power." At the meeting of June 3, purchases of one-half interest of the plants above referred to were reported, and resolutions were adopted to extend the investment of funds in the development of the beet industry but only in participation with persons entirely independent of the company; and the president was authorized to purchase one-half of the capital stock of the Great Western Beet Sugar Company of Colorado.7 ' Hearings, etc., pp. 2951 and 2952. See also Appendix V, p. 416, note 36. 4 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 60 CENTS PER COPY V I~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t.~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ r ~ ~,,.,, j,,,,.,.~,:i,,,~~,,........I;ix...~~ ~~zz ~ ~Pr...... I:~ ~~~~~~~~~, i ~~~ f -il~r I t C ';B~ii B:_' "" —: ~ i:: ~- I ~a. ri~:i~.1~:~:~::::~: ~ 'CYIA;,i..,.i :.....; i_: ~;~r:~::l:r":R*`-~:-~;;;;;l"p~ ~-. R.?; ~i:;:1 t-i~: ISI~-i giC*l' IR i al~;.. ~;i:~ ii-t::~ it,:II r:::: 9~~-i- ~:i 2:'~l-~cl~i:$EY':(;-:?. ~ '' "~ ~:B i~;~; THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN I DATE DUE SFP a 1 1994 a ^'. i-jith|;*kE '^''/,'S:0-.1 *: j -:; OF UNICHGANTY Of MHAN '-a'S 'S, ^ ti 1 3 9015 02806 8115 -. NIng.O ' H / i' 'i X A }..4 i. )A i i. 1~ 4 ~;: I ,, 7 <7 )'i,6.Sa.;. ti:::::'5:';; I ~:f '~:-:i~ a!,-.i r i!:::: 5::; * *;4f ',i i, ': *!, H ' i i j 0; '. f l s7 jI75~)I - I 'I~ 'k. i i 1::i ir' cr -i_:;af:t' D-l-iS~ a: -s:g:r:Fe:-~ts srfr