country in Hayti, representatives of other Governments have also pointedly complained to the same effect."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Preston, Jan. 22, 1879; MSS. Notes Hayti; For Rel., 1879. (See same to same, April 19, 1879, id.; June 13, 1879, id.) "Referring to your note of the 9th of May last, and my acknowledgment thereof on the 13th of the same month, in relation to the Haytian tariff of consular fees under the decree of August 23, 1877, and to the protests of the representatives at Port au Prince of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and France, and the reply of the Haytian Government thereto, I have now the honor to communicate to you, in conformity with the desire expressed by the Marquis of Salisbury the views of this Government in relation to that questien.

"The Government of Hayti, prior to the reply of the 6th of March last to the foreign representatives named, had seen fit on the 4th of February to transfer the discussion of the question to Washington, so far as this Government was concerned, by a very full and argumentative note, addressed to me by Mr. Stephen Preston, the Haytian minister in this country. Although much more extended, the note of Mr. Preston in the main merely repeats and reaffirms the reasoning and conclusions of the communications made to the foreign representatives by M. Ethéart, and, like those, they appeared to this Government, as well as to that of Her Majesty, as appears from your note, to be altogether unsatisfactory, and reply was so made to Mr. Preston on the 13th ultimo. In that reply the Haytian minister was informed, with respect to that portion of his note which related to the authentication by the consular officers of Hayti in this country of the invoices of the cargoes of vessels bound to the ports of that country, that the charge of 1 per cent. on values for that proceeding is, after the most deliberate consideration, believed to be unduly exorbitant, and tantamount to an export tax, which it does not comport with the dignity of this Government to allow to be exacted by any foreign authority within the jurisdiction of the United States. It was asserted that, even if the exaction in the form in which it is imposed were moderate and unobjectionable as to amount, still, if it were once acquiesced in this would be a bar to any objection which this Government might make if the consular fee were afterward to be much aug. mented. The inexpediency of subjecting exports from this country to Hayti to a tax of the kind was further illustrated by the consideration that, owing to the dangers of the sea and other causes, many cargoes do not reach their destination.

"The Government of the United States, being by its Constitution expressly prohibited from levying an export tax, it cannot allow any foreign power to exercise here, in substance or in form, a right of sov ereignty denied to itself. No denial was made of the right of the Hay. tian Government, at its discretion, so far as this may not have been limited by treaty, to impose duties on the cargoes of vessels from this coun

try arriving in Haytian ports, but it was complained most positively that the present grievance of a consular fee of this character exacted in our ports is, in its form, derogatory to the sovereignty of the United States, and that this character was not removed from it by the Haytian citation of the axioms of political economy that all duties are ultimately paid by the consumer. In view of all this, it was hoped that the Hay. tian Government would see the expediency of changing its regulations upon that subject without any unnecessary delay."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Sir E. Thornton, July 14, 1879. MSS. Notes. Gr.
Brit.; For. Rel., 1879.

"In Mr. Blaine's instruction to you of the 23d of November last concerning the long pending and still unsettled claim of the owners of the bark Masonic, some general observations were submitted in regard to the arbitrary and unjust surveillance exercised towards American merchant vessels in Spanish colonial ports. These suggestions of my predecessors were made in the mutual interest of American and Spanish commerce, and in promotion of the friendly relations which have so long subsisted between the two nations. Since that instruction was forwarded three other cases of less pecuniary magnitude, but of scarcely less hardship, have been brought to the attention of the Department. In regard to each of these, instructions have also been forwarded to your legation, but as pertinent to the subject of this instruction it seems proper to advert briefly to the facts upon which they rest.

"The American brig George W. Chase was fined $50 in November last by the customs authorities at Sagua, the sole ground for the fine being an omission of certain words in a manifest. The clause of the document being "900 bundles of hoops 40 feet long [40 hoops in each bundle]," the words inclosed in brackets were inadvertently omitted by the Spanish consul at Philadelphia, who transcribed the document; and although the officer in question certified as to the mistake, the imposition of the fine was nevertheless adhered to. The second case [brought to attention by No. 1090 of Vice-Consul General Williams] is that of the steamer Ellie Knight, which entered the port of Havana with a cargo of cattle from Mobile and Key West, on the 27th December last, having on board 60,000 feet of lumber destined for Key West, but which was kept on board as ballast while crossing the Gulf. As a cattle carrying boat the steamer was chargeable, under the Spanish laws and revenue regulations governing the ports of Cuba, to a tonnage duty of 5 cents per ton, which would have made the charge $14.90, but, instead of this, the customs officers, on account of the 60,000 feet of lumber, assessed a duty of $1.30 per ton, making the amount on the vessel's tonnage $387.40, an excess of $372.50.

"Still another and more recent case was that of the steamer Santiago, of New York, a vessel regularly engaged in the trade between New York and the ports of Santiago de Cuba and Cienfuegos, on the south

S. Mis. 162-VOL. I-10

145

side of the island of Cuba. Under circumstances of great apparent hardship, a fine of $1,900 was imposed on the vessel, and the master, Captain Phillips, was obliged to execute a bond, with sureties for the amount, in order to secure clearance for his vessel.

"In each of these cases instructions have been forwarded to you, and they are adverted to here only as being pertinent to the general subject of this instruction.

"They are examples of many similar occurrences to American vessels in the colonial ports of Spain. Hitherto the consul-general of the United States at Havana has been able to secure an adjustment of such cases by prosecuting the complaints to the superior authorities at that port, and efforts looking towards the same end were made by that officer in each of the cases referred to. He was met, however, with the announcement that under an existing ordinance, the strict observance of which has been re-enjoined by a royal order recently promulgated in Cuba, the local authorities can no longer deal with such questions, but that they must be remitted for settlement to the Government at Madrid. The adoption of this course of procedure by Spain has very much aggravated this general grievance to American commerce. Complaints of such instances have of late become so frequent from owners and masters of American vessels that the question demands the most serious attention of this Government. The President therefore directs me to instruct you to bring the question to the attention of His Catholic Majesty's Government, and in doing so you will request that authority shall be given, either to the captain general in Cuba or to His Majesty's minister at this capital, to consider such cases and grant redress when necessary. The arbitrary conduct of subordinate officials in Cuba cannot be submitted to without retaliation on Spanish vessels and commerce, unless there is secured a more speedy remedy than is afforded by resort to Madrid."

66

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hamlin, Feb. 15, 1882. MSS. Inst.,
Spain; For. Rel., 1882.

Mr. James McKay, a citizen of the United States resident in Monroc County, Florida, and who is extensively engaged in feeding and ship ping cattle to Cuban markets, has recently brought to the attention of the Department a practice pursued by the Spanish consul at Key West, in regard to shipments from that port to Havana and other Cuban ports, which results in annoyance, inconvenience, and serious losses to himself and other American citizens engaged in similar business.

"It appears from Mr. McKay's letter of the 224 of June last to the Department, that the Spanish consul at Key West, in pursuance, as that officer alleges, of instructions from his Government, exacts and collects from Mr. McKay and other American cattle shippers 40 cents a head on all cattle shipped by them from the State of Florida to Cuba. This is in addition to the ordinary and usual consular fees charged and

collected for clearing the vessel, certifying papers, and such other charges as may properly be made by the consul in connection with such shipments. On these same cattle, when landed on the island of Cuba, Mr. McKay and the other shippers situated like him have to pay an import duty of $6 per head. Of this import duty paid in Cuba, however onerous it may be, they make no complaint, recognizing the right of the Spanish Government to impose and collect within its own terri torial jurisdiction such duties as it may deem proper under its own mu nicipal laws, provided it does not transcend the limits of treaty stipu lations.

"In the letter referred to, Mr. McKay transmits thirteen protests made by him, before a notary public, in relation to as many shipments, giving in each case the name of the vessel, the number of cattle in the cargo, the date of shipment, and the gross amount of head-tax charged on each shipment. Thus, on the 22d of April, 1882, on the steamship Alabama, from Key West to Havana, 451 head of cattle, upon which he paid to the consul in question $180.40, and so on through all the others, varying only in the number of cattle in each cargo and the gross amount of tax paid. A subsequent letter from McKay on the 19th ultimo incloses ten similar documents. These twenty-three protests represent as many shipments made by him from Key West to Havana between the 22d of April and the 7th of August of the present year, and embracing 10,967 head of cattle, upon which Mr. McKay has paid to the Spanish consul at Key West, at 40 cents a head, $4,386.80, and when the $6 a head paid upon their being landed at Havana ($65,802) is added, it is seen that this one American shipper has been obliged to pay to the Spanish Government the sum of $70,188.80 before he gets his cattle into the Cuban market.

"It is not conceivable that the Government of Spain, a country whose history and traditions are so intimately and so justly identified with the growth and progress of the world's commerce, could intend this charge of 40 cents a head as a restriction on the commerce of the United States. The long and unbroken friendship existing between the two countries forbid such an interpretation of the policy of His Catholic Majesty's Government.

"The charge, nevertheless, under whatever supposed right or necessity on the part of Spain it may be imposed, is in effect such a restriction, and is a burden so onerous on American citizens engaged in that rapidly increasing branch of American commerce as must in time have the effect of excluding them from the Spanish colonial markets of Cuba. It is a charge, moreover, upon whatever ground it may be placed, that is in itself anomalous. No other Government with which the United States hold commercial relations attempts to make or enforce any similar tax or charge in the ports of the United States, and it is almost superfluous to state that the consular officers of the United States are not authorized to make any similar charges in the ports of Spain or her

transatlantic colonies on any goods, the produce of those countries, destined for ports of the United States. The remedy for this evil is with the Spanish Government. It may in its hands be made simple, adequate, and immediate by putting an end to the practice, and in the present case reimbursing to Mr. McKay the amount he has already paid, which, as shown at present, is $4,386.80.

"The alternative left to this Government in case that of Spain shall fail to give the subject prompt and just consideration, is one that is not contempleted with satisfaction; that is, a similar charge on colonial product of Spain shipped by Spanish subjects from the ports of their own country to the United States. A simple statement of the present status of the commerce between the United States and these colonies is sufficient to show how detrimental such a measure would be to the commercial interests of the colonial subjects of His Catholic Majesty.

"In 1880 the imports of the United States were, from Cuba, $65,423,000; all other Spanish colonial ports, $12,214,000. Exports from United States to these same places in that year-Cuba, $11,000,000; to all other colonial ports, $2,000,000. For 1881, exports from Cuba, $63,000,000; from all other Spanish colonial ports, $12,000,000. Exports from the United States to Cuba, $11,000,000."

Mr. J. Davis, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Hamlin, Sept. 4, 1882. MSS. Inst.,
Spain; For. Rel., 1882.

"Your dispatch No. 52, of the 6th of June last was duly received, though it does not appear to have been hitherto acknowledged. It is accompanied by a copy of the note of the minister for foreign affairs to you of the 29th of May, in which he seeks to justify the tax. The Department concurs in the view of the matter taken in your dispatch. That the application of the tax to vessels clearing to colonial ports was a mere extension of a tax, exacted since 1874, to vessels clearing for ports in the peninsula, seems to be an invasion of the point at issue. Our complaint is that as our commercial intercourse with Spain is mainly with her possessions in this hemisphere, exorbitant consular charges on United States vessels and their cargoes bound to such ports are virtually an export tax, which assuredly no foreign Government can be allowed to exact in our ports, especially as such a power has not been granted to this Government. If, however, as the minister says, it will be necessary for the legislature of Spain to correct the evil of which we complain, it is hoped that the executive Government of that country will exert all proper influence towards having the desired change effected. This is a measure which may be deemed necessary, not only for improving commercial intercourse between the two countries, but also for strengthening the good feeling between them. It can never be expected that the people of this country will acquiesce in the levy here by the agents of a foreign Government of any charges which, in their amount or character, may be tantamount to an export tax.