[Inclosure in No. 282.]
Mr. Christiancy to
Mr. Kauffman.
Legation of the United States,
Lima, Peru
,
April 11,
1881.
Dear Sir: I have just received your letter of
the 10th January last, with that of April 6, explaining the oversight in
not sooner sending the former letter, informing me of the occupation of
that province by the Chilian forces; that they have made requisitions
upon the municipal authorities for sustenance, and that in the
distribution of the quotas the authorities (Peruvian, as I understand
it) have made no distinction between foreign neutral property and that
of Peruvians, and asking my opinion whether neutrals are obliged to pay
contributions thus imposed.
In reply, I have to say that if the contribution is imposed upon the real estate of American or other neutral citizens
by the Peruvian authorities, such neutral citizens, so far as relates to
such real estate and any taxes or burdens
imposed thereon, are to be treated exactly as if they were Peruvians,
such real estate and its immediate products, such as crops, partaking of
the Peruvian national character. But if the forced contribution in
question be imposed upon the person instead of the property of an
American citizen, then it is safe for you to take the ground as against
such forced or extraordinary contribution, that American citizens are
exempt therefrom under the second article of the treaty of September 6,
1870, which, among other things, provides that American citizens “shall
not be called upon for any forced loan or extraordinary contribution for
any military expedition or for any public purpose whatever.”
There might, it is true, be a possible doubt whether this exemption would
apply in behalf of an American citizen domiciled
in Peru (that is, residing and having his house in Peru, especially with
a family, and without any present intention of removing therefrom).
But whatever doubt there may be upon this last point, it is the safest
course for you and for me to insist that the exemption applies as well
to American citizens domiciled in Peru as to
those who are here for a mere temporary purpose. I advised one American
citizen, domiciled in Lima, and upon whom just such a forced
contribution was proposed to be levied by the present provisional
government here, to take the ground that he was exempt under the treaty.
He called upon Mr. Calderon, the head of the provisional government, and
took this ground, whereupon Mr. Calderon frankly admitted that he was
exempt.
But Chili, having no treaty with the United States, is not bound by the
law of nations to treat American citizens, domiciled in Peru,
differently from native Peruvians, and may treat them in the same
manner, and in some cases (such as the bombardment of a town or a battle
in the country) they would not be bound, and in fact, could not make any
distinction, though the American citizen might be there for a mere
temporary purpose.
But in what is called the “Lynch raid” in September and October last, the
Chilian Government had given orders to protect neutral property so far
as possible, applying this even to real estate, and, I presume, they
have such orders still, and they have quite generally sought to spare it
here, further than they were bound to by the law of nations, except at
Chorillos, Barranco, and Miraflores.
Finally, I would advise that if any American citizen shall be driven or
induced, either by the Peruvian or Chilian authorities, to pay any such
contributions, he should pay it under protest made through you, so as to
save whatever rights of reclamation he may have.
I will ask you to do me the favor to make a copy of this letter and send
it to Mr. Alfred Lapoint, our vice-consul at Chiclayo, and ask him to
send a copy to each of our consular agents in his district, viz: Henry
C. Smith, at Tumbez; Charles Stalpe, at Lobos de Afuero, and James H.
Hayball, at Chimbote.
I am, &c.,