[Inclosure in No. 21.]
Mr. Langston to Mr.
Carrié.
Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince, December 26,
1877.
Sir: Please accept my grateful acknowledgments
for your reply of the 13th instant, to my dispatch of the 6th instant.
Referring to a conversation had with you this morning, I beg to state,
as you already understand, that your communication just mentioned is not
satisfactory to my government. Whatever may be true in regard to the
general application of the consular imposition and exaction referred to,
it is still the judgment of the American Government that it contravenes
and infracts that commercial reciprocity as between that government and
the Haytian which is enjoined at once by the spirit and letter of the
treaty of 1864, and I am persuaded that under the circumstances, with a
treaty subsisting between the two nations, an imposition which might,
indeed, be equal and general in its application as construed in the
light of recognized principles and usages in the absence of such treaty,
might be anything other than just and reasonable as interpreted in the
light of such treaty, and as applied to either nation being a
contracting party thereto. In view of this fact, and with due
consideration of the object, the terms and the past and accepted
interpretation of the
[Page 428]
treaty
as well as the relations of perfect, firm, and inviolable peace and
sincere friendship “prevailing between our governments,” in all of the
extent of their possessions and territories, and between their people
and citizens, respectively, without distinction of person or places, it
is respectfully submitted that no other position can be justified by law
or reason, than that assumed by my government, especially as the
contracting parties sought, in making the treaty, “to place their
commercial relations upon the most liberal basis.”
With regard to the consular tax as established by the law of 1858, and
subsequently altered and fixed by the law of 1877, it cannot be admitted
that the principle upon which the two laws are based, and the charges
determined, are identical. According to the former a definite and fixed
charge, determined in each case by the value of the invoice of
merchandise, is established, with limit fixed and charge prohibited
above a certain amount; as from $1 to $100, 50 cents; and as from
$20,001 and above, $10. In no case can the consul or commercial agent
collect for authentication of in voice a sum exceeding $10.
Whereas, under the law of 1877, the rule of 1 per centum on the amount of
invoices of merchandise is established, and the consul or commercial
agent may charge according to the value of the invoice whatever amount
is justified by this rule, there being no limit as under the former law.
An invoice of $50,000, according to the latter law, yields, in the form
of consular charges, $500. For like service in making authentication of
invoice, whatever the amount, the consular agent of my own government
receives only $2.50. The consul or commercial agent of your government
receives 15 per cent. of the amount collected for himself. In the case
supposed he gets $75, while the government receives $425.
It will be found quite difficult, it is believed, to justify, upon any
accepted principle of reason or law, such imposition. If certainly
cannot be justified, as you claim, upon the ground that the law of
August 23, 1877, regulates in a more equitable manner consular charges,
and establishes true proportionate duties; nor upon the principle that
it reduces the remuneration due your consular agents. In fact, it
greatly increases their compensation. Nor upon the principle that it
does not reach our commerce, since your own citizens are the consumers
and must pay these charges as well as the original cost of the
merchandise. You will agree with me that in proportion as merchandise
becomes, by reason of government impositions, costly, the number of
persons able to purchase it is decreased, and commerce is
disadvantageously affected accordingly. The people of your government
form no exception to this rule, and American merchants in this case may
very properly enter their complaints, and my government its protest. Nor
can it be justified upon the principle that your government increases
thereby its revenues, and is thus enabled to meet more readily its
liabilities. A nation may very well and justly augment her revenues by
legitimate impositions; it may be her duty to do so, in view of her
obligations and to maintain her credit; but impositions exacted in
violation of treaty engagements cannot be supported in view of any such
consideration. The treaty obligation is binding, and to be observed at
all events; to its maintenance the national good faith is solemnly
pledged.
The abstract right of the Haytian Government to act in such matters, to
make impositions according to her discretion, is not denied. It is only
when charges of the kind herein referred to, contravening treaty
engagements, and being so excessive as virtually to constitute an export
tax, as in this case, that my government remonstrates.
Hence it is, as in my former dispatch with reference to this subject, the
discontinuance of this exaction and provision for refunding amounts
which may have been wrongfully collected, are respectfully but earnestly
urged.
With assurances of high consideration I am your obedient servant,
