I have the honor to state that I have obtained a copy in the Dutch language
of the last answer of the minister of foreign affairs to questions
[Page 806]
propounded by such a committee. As
some of them relate to subjects which have given occasion for correspondence
with this legation, and in which you have manifested much interest, I
herewith inclose the copy, together with a substantial translation of the
more important points.
When the minister speaks of the non-resumption of diplomatic relations
between the Governments of Venezuela and the Netherlands, because of the
assertion of a condition unacceptable to the latter, I know not to what he
refers, unless it may be the bill of damages presented by the former,
founded upon alleged toleration of conspirators who resorted to Curaçao to
concoct revolution in Venezuela. This government declined to consider the
claim while the ports of Maracaibo and Coro were closed.
[Inclosure 1 in No.
134.—Translation.]
His excellency Mr. Van Lynden Van Sandenburg, in replying to
interrogatories propounded by a committee of the Second Chambers of the
Staats General of the Netherlands, used in his report language of which
the following is, in part, a substantial translation:
Paragraph § 3. There is no change in our relations with Venezuela; its
government has expressed the desire to resume diplomatic intercourse
with us, but made it depend upon a condition unacceptable to the
Netherlands.
The prohibition against the exportation of munitions of war from Curaçao
is severely maintained. At the same time, however, it is the duty of the
government at Caracas, to guard against smuggling along the Venezuelan
coast; if there is smuggling it is of course attributable to the neglect
of its officials. Besides, in the letter referred to in your report, it
is not claimed that the munitions to be forwarded by Mr. Jesurun were to
be exported from Curacao. The fact mentioned in the Dagblad, of no
exequatur having been delivered, is not in consequence of our present
relations with Venezuela; such relations would make no difference with
regard to consular exequaturs.
Although this government is aware of the rumors referred to in the
report, it is absolutely without any official intimation in relation to
any intention of the Venezuelan Government to close the harbors of Vera
Coro and Maracaibo.
Paragraph § 4 (latter part). In regard to the extradition treaty with the
United States of North America, I can state, that in March 1878, after a
laborious negotiation, a draft treaty was sent by our minister resident
at Washington, which draft, although it was not yet approved in all its
particulars, was considered, as was understood by our minister, to be
generally acceptable to Mr. Evarts. This draft contained, with other
objectionable points of minor interest, an article stipulating that the
expenses of seizure, &c., should be borne by the government
requesting the exradition. When it became quite sure that the American
Government was resolved to insist on this point, this government decided
in April, 1879, to yield to the American Government.
When, however, our minister at Washington wished to pursue the
negotiations on the basis of said draft treaty of the State Department,
he was told that Mr. Evarts was ready to negotiate a treaty provided
“that the same shall not materially differ from the treaties of like
character which the United States have with other powers.”
This reply was the occasion of the declaration of our former minister of
justice that the negotiation had taken a new shape, and was of quite
uncertain aspect. Meanwhile, however, the negotiation is progressing,
and the undersigned expects that if will be crowned with success.
Paragraph § 6. Differential duties, in the United
States of North America, upon indirect importations of our colonial
productions.
The undersigned is fully aware how important it is for the Dutch trade to
have these duties abolished; and he will do what may be possible to
obtain the withdrawal. Thus far it has been a matter of surprise to him
that his predecessor appealed in vain not only to the stipulations
contained in article 5 of the additional treaty with the United States
of August 26, 1852. but also to the equity of the abolition of such
duties.
Be this as it may, the great difficulty, however, resides in the fact
that the abolition requires the approval of Congress, which Congress, as
was seen last year by the rejection of the Wood tariff bill, is not
disposed to withdraw the surtax of 10 per cent. on coffee from our East
Indies imported viâ Holland.
