No. 293.
Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Hamlin.
Department
of State,
Washington, September 22,
1882.
No. 97.]Sir: 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 evasion 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
[Page 481]
by the
agents of a foreign government of any charges which, in their amount or
character, may be tantamount to an export tax.
A controversy on a similar subject took place a few years since between this
government and that of Hayti. A copy of the two principal instructions in
regard to the subject from Mr. Evarts to the minister of the United States
in that country is transmitted for your information.
The Haytian Government ultimately repealed the obnoxious tax.
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 97.]
Mr. Evarts to Mr.
Bassett.
Department of State,
Washington, October 2,
1877.
No. 316.]Sir: I transmit a copy of two letters to this
Department, one of the 25th and the other of the 28th ultimo, from
Messrs. Wilson and Asmus of New York, complaining of the exorbitant fees
recently authorized by the Haytian Congress to be charged by their
consuls in foreign countries. From the list of those fees which the
writers furnish, their complaint seems to be well founded.
There does not seem to be any stipulation of the treaty between the
United States and Hayti which forbids the parties to exact consular fees
at their discretion; still these may be so high as virtually to
constitute a serious export duty. The Department is not prepared to say
that Messrs. Wilson and Asmus are correct in estimating that tax in this
case at ten per cent. on values shipped. If, however, it should be
anything like that amount, it would be a subject of just complaint by
merchants engaged in the trade. This complaint would in part have for
its basis the consciousness that while the United States Government
itself has no power to levy an export tax, it is virtually allowing a
foreign government to exact such a due within its own jurisdiction. It
may be true that this, like all other taxes, must ultimately be paid by
the consumer, but the form and spirit of the exaction seem objectionable
enough to warrant a remonstrance on your part, which you will
consequently address to that government.
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 97.]
Mr. Evarts to Mr.
Langston.
Department of State,
Washington, April 12,
1878.
No. 24.]Sir: Your dispatch No. 23, of the 24th ultimo,
has been received. It is accompanied by the reply of the Haytian
minister for foreign affairs to your note objecting to the consular tax
of one per cent. on the value of merchandise exported from this country
to Hayti. The reasons assigned by that functionary in defense of the
policy of that tax are by no means deemed satisfactory.
It may be allowed that Hayti has a right to impose such duties upon
importations from abroad, as to her may seem expedient. Friendly nations
which hold intercourse with her, however, also have reason to expect
that this act of sovereignty will be exercised in her own dominions, and
that the invidious character or degree of the charge will not be sought
to be avoided by making her consuls in foreign countries tax-gatherers
there.
You will consequently protest against the tax adverted to as decidedly
offensive, at least in form, to this government, and express a hope that
the proper authority there may see the expediency of such further
legislation as may obviate the objections adverted to.
The British Government has applied to us to join with them in protesting
against the tax. It has not been thought advisable at present to accept
the invitation. You may, however, confer freely upon the subject with
the British representative there. Such conferences may make it more easy
to compass the common object.
I am, &c.,
