Page images
PDF
EPUB

the statement that it is in Bolivian territory has been confirmed, the Bolivian Government undertaking in the contrary case to remove it to a suitable place."

Therefore the establishment of the custom-house of Puerto Alonso was not consented to by Brazil in anticipation of the approval of the treaty of 1896, as the minister propounds, but as a natural consequence of the delimitation of the frontier on the river Acre, Bolivia having the right to fix her own custom-house at any point within her frontier.

Brazil pretends that because the treaty of 1896 has been withdrawn from Congress the Federal custom-house of Manaos has the right of charging duties on merchandise imported to Bolivia (which is being done), and that the governor of Amazonas has the right of collecting duty on the rubber exported from Bolivia as if it came from its own territory.

But the treaty of 1896 did not create any rights, because it was never in force, and its withdrawal does not in any way change the situation. The relations between the two countries were fixed by the treaty of 1867, and the commercial conditions established by it have continued to exist without interruption, as the rights acquired under a treaty can not be altered capriciously, nor can two neighboring countries exist without some kind of understanding in their commercial relations, and until a new treaty is signed the normal relations established by the previous one continue to exist. The only rights which Bolivia could not claim were those which she did not previously exercise, such as the navigation of the Brazilian rivers under her own flag.

The position created becomes still more delicate when it affects the rights of third parties. Under the conditions of existing treaties foreign settlers established themselves in Bolivian territory, and during the last forty years have been trading through the Amazon. English companies were formed, such as the Orton Rubber Company. English and other merchants advanced considerable sums of money to the merchants of that territory.

Without any warning, at a moment's notice, Brazil now begins to collect a prohibitory duty on all merchandise going to Bolivia and 224 per cent ad valorem on rubber exported, besides 15 per cent charged by Bolivia, which inflicts a deathblow on all the trade of that region. It is to be remembered that the traffic through the Madera was not subject to the same conditions as that from the Acre. In the former there was never any dispute about boundaries, and free transit has existed ab initio, but now the State of Matto Grosso, seeing that Amazonas is allowed to collect duty on rubber coming from Acre, claims a similar right on all rubber coming from the Bolivian province of Beni.

This conduct of Brazil, being simply an abuse of her topographical position at the mouth of the great waterways of the Amazon, and being contrary to the law of nations, does not only affect the revenue and prosperity of Bolivia, but also and most injuriously all foreign settlers and people interested in the commerce of that part of the world. Bolivia is unable to protect them on account of her disadvantageous geographical position, and they have applied to the foreign offices of England, Germany, and France for protection. Their claim seems to be reasonable and worthy of prompt attention before they are ruined by the wanton action of Brazil.

[Inclosure 3.]

Mr. Seeger to the Brazilian minister for foreign affairs.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Petropolis, January 20, 1903.

MR. MINISTER: Pursuant to instructions from my Government, I have the honor to submit to your excellency's kind consideration the following facts and conditions: Your excellency knows that important commercial relations exist between the United States of America and that portion of the Republic of Bolivia whose only outlet is the Amazon River.

Through the decree of the honorable minister of fazenda of Brazil, of August, 1902, issued without a moment's warning and imposing prohibitory transit duties on all merchandise to and from Bolivia by way of the Amazon River, a great injury is done to the material interests of my country.

The Government of the United States of America has always considered the navigation of the Amazon through Brazil as being free to all nations, and it has consequently regarded the above-mentioned ministerial decree as only temporary and transient in its nature. For this reason it has refrained, until now, from submitting to your excellency the deep grievances of our merchants doing business in the Amazon region.

I beg your excellency to kindly consider that a continuance of the policy as applied in the ministerial decree above mentioned would be a death blow to our vast interests in eastern Bolivia.

I have taken the liberty to call your excellency's attention to these facts and conditions, feeling confident that you will exercise your great influence to bring about such changes in the premises as our important commercial relations with Brazil and the strong ties of close friendship that bind us to your glorious country give us reason to hope for.

I would be particularly grateful to your excellency if you would enable me to transmit your answer to our Department of State before my leave of absence takes effect, on February 1, next.

I have, etc.,

EUGENE SEEGER,

Consul-General, in Charge of Legation.

Mr. Hay to Mr. Seeger.

No. 316.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 17, 1903.

SIR: The Department has received your unnumbered dispatch of January 20 in relation to the obstruction to commerce on the Amazon River by the decree of the Brazilian Government, with which you inclose copy of your note to the Brazilian minister for foreign affairs, representing the injury to American commerce; copy of an opinion on the question of transit by Mr. Louis Renault, legal adviser of the minister of foreign affairs, etc.

The Department notes Mr. Renault's opinion that the Brazilian Government has, by its own constitution, established free navigation on the Amazon. There would seem to be foundation for this opinion in the provisions of the Brazilian Federal constitution of 1890, articles 6, 7, and 13, and especially in the first section of article 10, which reads as follows:

Article 10. It is forbidden to the States as well as to the Union

1. To impose duties on the products of the other States, or of foreign countries, in transit through the territory of any State, or from one State to another, as also on the vehicles, whether by land or water, by which they are transported.

In view of your recent report of the signing of the agreement between the Governments of Brazil and Bolivia and the removal of transit restrictions, present discussion of this point is of merely academical interest.

I am, etc.,

Mr. Seeger to Mr. Hay.

JOHN HAY.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Petropolis, February 22, 1903.

SIR: I have the honor to refer to my unnumbered dispatch of January 20 and to transmit herewith a copy and translation of the ministerial decree of February 20, abolishing the transit duties recently levied by Brazil against Bolivian commerce on the Amazon.

While this decree does away with the very obnoxious and unjustifiable measure, it does not satisfy the Bolivian Government. I was informed by Doctor Pinilla, the Bolivian minister here, that he intends to formally protest against the phraseology of the document, especially against the word "tolerance." His contention is that as the

Amazon and the Madeira are free rivers the Bolivians have the same right as any other nation to carry on freely and unimpeded their commerce on those rivers.

Since this question has now found its solution the minister for foreign affairs will probably have no longer any reason to hesitate about answering my protest dated January 20, a copy of which I had the honor to transmit to the Department in the above-mentioned dispatch.

*

I have, etc.,

*

EUGENE SEEGER, Consul-General, in Charge of Legation.

[Inclosure.-Translation.]

Ministerial decree abolishing transit duties on Bolivian commerce by way of the Amazon.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CIRCULAR No. 6,

Rio de Janeiro, February 20, 1903.

I hereby announce to the chiefs of department of finance for their information that this ministry has, by means of telegrams of this date to the collecting agents of the Federal treasury in the States of Para and Amazonas, declared that, although there is no treaty or convention in force relative to commerce and navigation between Brazil and Bolivia, the tolerance of free transit by the Amazon of merchandise destined for Bolivia and of shipments from the river ports of that Republic destined for foreign countries, which formerly prevailed, is reestablished; the prohibition of the importation of war material to Bolivia through Brazilian rivers is, however, continued until further orders.

The circular of this ministry, No. 43, of August 8, 1902, is thus revoked. LEOPOLDO DE BULHOES.

Mr. Seeger to Mr. Hay.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Petropolis, March 3, 1903.

SIR: Referring to my unnumbered dispatch to the Department of February 22 and to my note to the foreign office of January 20, a copy of which was transmitted with my unnumbered dispatch of January 20, I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy and translation of a note from Baron Rio Branco, received yesterday, in reference to the reestablishment of free transit on the Amazon.

I have, etc.,

EUGENE SEEGER, Consul-General, in Charge of the Legation.

[Inclosure-Translation.]

MINISTRY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
Rio de Janeiro, February 20, 1903.

I had the honor to receive the letter which Mr. Eugene Seeger, consul-general in charge of the legation of the United States of America, wrote me on January 20, in reference to the decision the Federal Government took on August 8, 1902, of suspending on the Amazon free transit to Bolivian import and export trade.

It was in 1866 that the Brazilian Government opened the Amazon to the merchant ships of all friendly nations; but of the affluents of that river which have their source in Bolivian territory or pass through it the only one to which it extended this liberty, and in fact the only one in Brazil which can serve Bolivian foreign commerce, was the Madeira from its confluence to the port of Santo Antonio. The Purus, and therefore its tributary, the Aquiry, or Acre, never were open to international navigation. Brazil has always maintained that when a river passes through the territory of two or more States the freedom of navigation or of transit through the country of the main river depends on a prior agreement thereto with the country of the tributary river, an agreement which in its nature implies reciprocity.

There has not been and there is not in force any treaty of commerce and_navigation between Brazil and Bolivia, and free transit by Brazilian rivers for Bolivian foreign commerce was only a matter of tolerance on the part of Brazil. But since the Bolivian Government has thought to be able to transfer rights of a quasi-sovereign nature to a syndicate of foreigners of different nationalities, Americans and Europeans, a syndicate without international capacity, and which, by the way it is constituted and by the means it undertook to employ in Europe, clearly showed that it was conspiring against the so-called Monroe doctrine, and inasmuch as the same Government has besides this conferred upon that syndicate the power of disposing at will of the navigation of the river Acre and its affluents, Brazil concluded it was her duty to make reprisals, and for that reason, in the absence of conventional law between the two parties, suspended the tolerance which has existed for some years. The situation which obligated the adoption of that expedient has now changed, and, therefore, since the Federal Government is desirous of attending as promptly as possible to the interests of commerce, it has by a decision of this date reestablished free transit on the Amazon for merchandise between Bolivia and the foreign countries; it has continued, however, to prohibit the importation to that country of war material by Brazilian rivers.

In thus informing Mr. Seeger that the resolution has now been taken, which I announced to him verbally was near, I thank him for the terms in which he asked for it in the name of the American Government, and the earnestness with which he referred to the strong bonds of tried friendship which unite our two countries. It will ever be the endeavor of Brazil to do her full share to strengthen and stimulate on every occasion the time-honored relations of mutual good will which bind her to her great and glorious sister of the north, and for this reason I take particular pleasure in announcing an act which will be agreeable to his Government.

I avail, etc.,

RIO BRANCO.

CHINA.

CITIZENSHIP OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE WOMEN MARRIED TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

Mr. Conger to Mr. Hay.

No. 1169.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Peking, December 11, 1902.

SIR: I have the honor to enclose copies of a letter from Vice-Consul Cameron, of Hankow, referred to me by Consul General Goodnow, and of my reply thereto, concerning the status of Chinese and Japanese women married to citizens of the United States.

This seems to be a question not as yet specially ruled upon by our courts, but it is one of growing importance, as a great many American sailors and some other citizens of the United States have already married women of the Mongolian race.

I therefore respectfully request the opinion of the Department thereon. E. H. CONGER.

I have, etc.,

[Inclosure 1.]

Mr. Cameron to Mr. Goodnow.

CONSULATE OF the United STATES,
Hankow, November 3, 1902.

SIR: I would like to ask your opinion as to the status of Chinese and Japanese women married to citizens of the United States.

There is one name on the register now of a man who has a Japanese wife, and another has applied for registration who is shortly to marry a Chinese woman. These both had children before their marriage, and I take it that the children are of course debarred from registration, being illegitimate; but am I required to register these Chinese and Japanese women (or other Malays, vide C. R., sec. 140) as naturalized American citizens, the wife following the husband's nationality; and are their future children to be registered as native-born citizens, or not? I certainly hope not! Thanking you in anticipation, I have, etc.,

[Inclosure 2.]

Mr. Conger to Mr. Cameron.

ALLEN N. CAMERON,
Vice-Consul in Charge.

Con., No. 1668.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Peking, December 11, 1902.

SIR: Consul-General Goodnow has referred to me your letter of November 3 last, in which you inquire as to the status of Chinese and Japanese women married to citizens of the United States.

Section 1994 of the Revised Statutes provides that “Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the United States, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen."

The act of Congress of May 6, 1882, prohibits any naturalization of Chinese. Hence the privilege of acquiring citizenship by marriage granted by section 1994 would not

« PreviousContinue »