Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, For the Year 1887, Transmitted to Congress, With a Message of the President, June 26, 1888

No. 463.
Mr. Bayard to Mr. Manning.

Department of State,
Washington, May 6, 1887.

No. 100.]

Sir: I inclose for your information a copy of a letter from Messrs. Pomares & Cushman, shipping and commission merchants, dated New York, the 1st instant, touching the Mexican customs administration, and desire you to bring to the attention of the, Mexican Government the matter of the vexatious and obstructive fines upon shipping for unimportant and technical variations in the invoice and manifests of vessels.

Messrs. Pomares & Cushman request that the amounts recently exacted from them in this way, and which they specify, may be returned to them.

It is not deemed necessary to instruct you in detail as to the manner of presentation of these cases. You will find ample precedent for the views of the Department upon the general subject, and for the argument to be employed in the special cases now brought to notice, in published volumes of the diplomatic correspondence of the United States (Foreign Relations, from 1873 down), wherein is contained the voluminous and protracted correspondence with the Spanish Government in respect of a system of treatment as irrational and annoying as that now followed by Mexico and other Spanish-American countries. You may profitably consult in particular the papers printed on pages 989–999, Foreign Relations, 1873, in which the discussion was initiated.

The two instances cited by the complainants to show the harsh treatment of American imports in Mexico deserve, however, a passing remark.

The first case cited is the shipment of “5 tierces of lard” by the City of Puebla, February 3, 1887, at Progreso. Although the invoice was correctly made out and certified by the Mexican consul at New York, a fine of $1.25 was imposed on the arrival of the goods “because we did not take an oath before the consul on the invoice, that the weight of the lard was in American pounds, and that we were acting in good faiths.”

Here the omission is clearly due to the consul, who must be presumed to have known that the oath in question was a necessary part of the formality of authentication. In the published Spanish correspondence reference will be found to cases where the Spanish consul omitted some formality, e. g., his signature or his seal, and the vessel was fined therefor. The arguments in those cases are equally pertinent now.

The second case concerns the shipment of “2 bales wick” by the City of Washington, and the exaction of a double duty. The weight of the wick was, including the covers, 513 pounds gross, or a little over 232 kilograms, and the cost in United States money $110. The duty exacted was $74.34, or 32 cents per kilogram (it should have been 16 cents, or $37.17). According to the letter of Messrs. Pomares & Cushman “the administrator of the customs” orders this fine because the New York “shippers wrote on their invoice ‘2 bales of wick.’ a criminal laconism, as they should have written 2 bales cotton-wick.”

The imposition of double duties was because the invoice was described as “2 bales wick” instead of “2 bales cotton-wick.” This find its parallel in the Spanish cases mentioned on page 997, Foreign Relations, 1873, where fines were imposed because hoops were not described as “wooden “and, nails not specified as “iron.”

The broad distinction between the Spanish-American system of irritating and unnecessary fines for trivial irregularities and the more generous mode of treating like informalities in the United States and -inmost commercial countries lies in the weight respectively given to the bona fides or mala fides of the transaction. With us, penalties properly apply to a dishonest intent, manifested by some misrepresentation of facts or perversive act, whereby, if undetected, the revenue might be defrauded. In Mexico (as in Spain) penalties seem to be applied as rewards for the ingenuity of the customs officers in discovering even the most trivial misnomer or descriptive omission in the invoice or manifest, which can in no way affect the revenue, for the customs duties are imposed on the goods and not on the invoiced description thereof. Take the instance of the wicks described in Messrs. Pomares & Cushman’s letter. Wicks are necessarily “cotton;” no other fiber is suitable, and the fact that they are “cotton” is instantly ascertainable on the simplest inspection. There is no possible chance for fraudulent intent in omitting to describe the wicks as cotton. The imposition of double duties in such a case is an injury to commerce carried on in good faith. It is in the interest of both countries to favor and develop such commerce, and in that interest the present protest is made, irrespective of the insignificance of the amounts involved. The principle involved is of such importance as to warrant our expectation that the matter will be dealt with by the Mexican Government in the broad and rational spirit in which it is presented by us.

With these remarks the representation of the facts and the line of argument to be followed are confidently left to your sagacity.

I am, etc.,

T. F. Bayard.

[Inclosure in No. 100.]

Messrs. Pomares & Cushman to Mr. Bayard.

New York, May 1, 1887.

Sir: It is with some reluctance that we appear before you with a matter of apparently trilling intrinsic significance. But the evil that we are about to denounce is of such importance for the trade between this country and Mexico at large that it seems to us to merit the immediate attention of the Department.

Moreover, we have no other resource but to your aid.

The custom-house, or rather the fiscal system in Mexico, has for many years been a great drawback to the development of advantageous relations.

The consignee of the goods we ship to Mexican territory is fined or duties increased, and the custom-house officials advise him that the punishment is for omission or error in the invoice.

The victim, being powerless to prevent the extortion, naturally reports the same to us, charging us with the blame, and insisting, rather logically, that, as we have made the errors, we must bear the penalties and pay him the amounts taken.

The Mexican consul in New York collects $4.20 for the invoice-blanks and the certification of each invoice. It would seem to us fair that we should not be made to pay more for such consular certificate than the American consul in Mexico collects for the similar service.

We have a correspondent in Merida (Progreso is the landing port), and by the steamer City of Puebla on February 3d sent him 5 tierces lard. We made the invoice correctly, and it was certified by the Mexican consul. Our correspondent informed us that, on arrival of the goods, he was fined $1.25 because we did not take an oath before the consul on the invoice “that the weight of the lard was in American pounds, and that we were acting in good faith.”

Our next shipment to the same correspondent was on the steamer City of Washington, March 17, 1887, when we shipped him 2 bales wicks (for use in his business of making candles). This time he advises that he is again punished by the exaction of a double duty. The weight of the wick was, including the cover, 513 pounds gross, or a little over 232 kilograms, and the cost, in our money, $110. The duty exacted was $74.34, or 32 cents per kilogram (it should have been 16 cents, or $37.17). The administrator of the customs “orders this fine because the New York shipper wrote in their invoice ‘2 bales wick,’ a criminal laconism, as they should have written ‘2 bales cotton wick.’”

Our man’s protest is useless, as with his very limited business and means he is not in a position to force attention, and is thus defenseless. We have within twelve years made three attempts to start some business there, but have each time been forced to withdraw, through similar experience.

We are, both of us, American citizens and ask that the amounts before named, of which we have been recently defrauded, be caused to be promptly repaid.

Respectfully,

Pomares & Cushman,