No. 325.
Mr. Bancroft
Davis to Mr. Carter.
Washington, December 30, 1881.
Sir: Your Nos. 36 of the 29th ultimo, and 39 of the 1st instant, have been received. You therein reply to my predecessor’s instruction of November 1, No. 15, in relation to the complaint of Messrs. Boultou, Bliss & Dallett, of New York, touching the additional tax of 30 per cent, to be levied on imports from the United States which may reach Venezuela after transhipment in a West Indian colonial port. From your dispatch, and the text of the Venezuelan decree of May 27, 1881, which you transmit, it is seen that the proposed enactment is as objectionable in its effects on American commerce with Venezuela as the representations of the exporters had led the Department to believe, and further, that, contrary to the impression formed here, the Venezuelan Executive cannot suspend the execution of the law, but that revision or relief must be had by the action of the Congress of the republic. It does not appear, on perusing article 2 of the decree to which you refer, that, as you say in your No. 39, the Executive can allow a rebate on the duties imposed in the case of foreign goods transhipped in a colonial port, inasmuch as that article refers only to goods coming direct from Europe or the United States to Carupano, La Guayra, or Puerto Cabello, and transhipped there to be carried by coast trade to their ultimate destination in Venezuela, in which case a rebate is granted to compensate for delay and cost of such transhipment. The obnoxious provisions seem to stand alone in article 1 without remedy.
The enforcement of this law is fixed to take effect on the termination of the already denounced treaty between Venezuela and Denmark, but the date of such termination is not given. It is desirable to know this.
The seventh article of the Danish treaty, unlike the sixth article of our own of 1860, contains a specific provision equalizing duties on goods imported in Danish vessels into Venezuelan ports (and reciprocally), whether those goods come from the place of production or any other place. The British treaty, without containing so specific a clause, necessarily covers the carrying trade between British colonies and Venezuela. Our own treaty, without embracing either provision, gives to United States vessels the treatment of the vessels of Venezuela bringing goods from any country. While, therefore, we may not rely upon our treaty alone, it is perfectly proper for us to maintain an attitude of friendly remonstrance, in the conviction that the Venezuelan Congress [Page 527] will give due heed to the needs of intercourse between Venezuela and the United States.
The discreet manner in which you have heretofore presented the issue, as reported in your No. 36, leads to the belief that you will be equally felicitous in obeying the present instruction.
I am, &c.,
Acting Secretary.