Exhibit G., July 28, 1856

Exhibit G.

Sir: Under the date of the 13th February last you have addressed the department, on account of an order with which you have been charged by your government at Honolulu, respecting an interpretation given to the seventh (or the eighth) article of the treaty concluded between Denmark and the Sandwich Islands on the 19th of October, 1846, in a decision delivered by the supreme court of the said town in the month of May last year, in a case between the firm of Melchers & Co., as plaintiffs, and the custom office as defendant, concerning the amount of the import duty to be levied on a cargo imported from Hong-Kong into the said port by the said firm in the Danish vessel Asa Thor.

In the said case it was established by the court that no application could be made by the act passed by the Hawaiian legislature on the 24th May, 1853, by which the duty on Chinese goods was fixed at 15 per cent., as being in discordance with the said article of the treaty, whereas in the case in question there could only be claimed a duty of 5 per cent., being that payable on goods which are the produce of the most favored nations; and on this ground the court decided that the said firm should be entitled to recover the sum of $2,141.08 overpaid by them on the said cargo. As, however, the Hawaiian Government could not admit the opinion expressed by the interpretation put on the above-mentioned article by the said decision, pretending that such an interpretation would, when definitely established, be productive of consequences most likely of great prejudice to the Hawaiian exchequer, you have, sir, through this department, requested the opinion of the Danish Government, as the other contracting party, concerning the interpretation to be given to the said article of the treaty.

The right honorable the Rear-Admiral Bille, who, as commander of the Danish ship-of-war Galathea, visited the Sandwich Islands in the year 1846, and then concluded the said treaty with the Royal Hawaiian Government, having now at my request, communicated his views as to the interpretation of the seventh and eight articles of this treaty, and this department having moreover obtained, through the respective consul-generals, copies of the several treaties, partly existing at the time and partly afterwards concluded between the said government and France, as well as England, His Danish Majesty’s department of foreign relations do hereby hand to you the following communication for the purpose in question:

When Denmark, as in the year 1846, concluded a treaty with a State, as the Hawaiian Kingdom, there could be no sufficient motive to induce the government of the former country to extend, by such a treaty, the acquisition of any greater advantage than that of procuring to Danish ships and merchandise on the Sandwich Islands a treatment equal to that granted in the said kingdom to the most favored nations. If, therefore, any doubt should happen to rise with regard to the interpretation of any of the articles contained in the said treaty, the Hawaiian Government might be convinced that the Danish Government would not consider what might be regarded as most profitable to the trade and navigation of this country, but only what must, in the sincere opinion of the same, be regarded as the real intention of the functionaries who, as representatives of their respective governments, had negotiated the said treaty. Such a doubt has now risen, it being, as above remarked, the question in what manner the seventh article of the treaty ought in the future to be interpreted, according to the mutual opinions of the two negotiators, without any regard to the interpretation put on it by others, either on the one or the other side. By the decision delivered by the supreme court at Honolulu, in the action brought on by the said firm against the Hawaiian exchequer, the expressions of the said article have been interpreted in a manner so as to imply that Danish productions or other goods, on board of or imported in Danish vessels, which are allowed to be imported by the ships of other countries, shall not be prohibited nor pay any higher duties than those levied on productions of the most favored nations; whereas the Hawaiian Government averred that the wording of the said article could not receive any other interpretation than this: That goods imported by Danish ships should be subject to the same duties as are paid by the most favored nations. The part of the wording of the said treaty on which the question chiefly depends is then those words of the seventh article, which say that the there mentioned Danish productions or other goods on board of Danish vessels “shall not be prohibited nor pay more than those duties levied on goods of the most favored nation.”

On a mere perusal of these words, without any regard to other matters which might else possibly be worth noticing, His Danish Majesty’s Government should indeed agree in the interpretation thus established by the said court as the only correct one; but, on the other hand, it could not be thought strange that the Hawaiian Government should be of opinion that it had been the intention of the respective representatives of the said contracting powers, in regard to the duty in question, to establish a rule contrary to the interpretation given by the said court, an opinion which might be supported as well by the construction of the said words of the treaty, as especially by the declaration of the minister of foreign relations at Honolulu, who represented the Hawaiian Government in negotiating and concluding the said treaty, that, for his part, he had never thought of such an interpretation as that established by the supreme court as the only correct one.

The second of the negotiators, the Rear-Admiral Bille, has, in his report to this department, declared that he had in every respect shared the same opinion as to the negotiations and the final conclusion of the said treaty as that professed by the Hawaiian minister of foreign relations, in addition to which he has further remarked that it had never been his thought by the said treaty to impose any restriction on the Hawaiian Government in regard to the prerogative of raising or lowering duties at its own discretion, but that, on the contrary, he would indirectly have the said prerogative acknowledged.

Such a declaration of His Danish Majesty’s representative must naturally have great influence on the interpretation of the said article to be followed in the future. But, besides this, there is another circumstance of great moment which still more corroborates the declaration of the two representatives, viz, that while the wording of the seventh article of the English original treaty is so dubious, as above shown, the corresponding words of the Danish translation of the treaty, which, like the Hawaiian translation, is annexed to the English original, are clear and evident, saying, that the oft-mentioned Danish productions or goods in Danish vessels “Ickeheller sküllie betale mere end saadanne Toldafgifter, som i saadant Tilfælde ere paalagte de meest begunstigede Nationer.”

In consideration hereof the Royal Danish Government does not object to the future admission of this interpretation by the Hawaiian Government, as soon as an official notification concerning the same has previously been issued.

But as the original of the above said article is interpreted in the above-mentioned manner by the supreme court of the Hawaiian Kingdom, this interpretation must, in the opinion of the Danish Government, be valid until such a declaration shall have been published by the Government at Honolulu; and, moreover, it must be considered as a matter of course that the firm of Melchers & Co., at Honolulu, either have received or will receive of the Hawaiian Government reimbursement of the said 10 per cent. overpaid by them on Chinese goods imported in the Danish ship Asa Thor into Honolulu.

Finally, I observe that, in consideration of the premises, there will, when a notification as that above-mentioned has taken place, according to the said act of the 24th May, 1853, hereafter be paid on Chinese goods, imported in Danish vessels into the ports of the Sandwich Islands, the higher duty of 15 per cent., instead of the earlier of 5 per cent., as long as this duty is paid in the Hawaiian Kingdom by the vessels of the most favored nations.

Having the honor to return to you the different inclosures which followed your said letter to this department, I avail myself of this opportunity to assure you, sir, of my high esteem,