[Inclosure 1 in No. 31.]
Mr. Reimer to Mr.
Rives.
United
States Consulate,
Santiago de
Cuba, February 8,
1889.
No. 209.]
Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your
dispatch No. Ill, dated January 18, contents of which I have duly noted.
Inclosed I have the honor to hand you a protest made on January 18 by
Capt. Lodge Colton, of the steamer Cienfuegos, of
New York. This protest I did not send you before this, only giving a
copy to Captain Colton, as that genteman desired, before instructing me
to send it through its proper channel, to consult with his owners,
Messrs. James E. Ward & Co. This firm, I understand, has already
sent you a copy.
The fine in question is a nominal one, and relates to the use of the word
“drugs” in the manifests of the cargo of the steamer. This term the
custom-house authorities here judged a “vague “term, and consequently
liable to a fine under article 26, paragraph 3, of general orders to
captains of vessels trading between foreign ports and the Island of
Cuba. The grounds for this protest I based principally on title 3,
section 2, article 26 of the “Ordenanzas generates de la Renta de
Aduanas de la Isla de Cuba,” and it would here be well to state to you
the exact text of said “ordenanza.”
“El manifesto servirá de base para todas las operaciones ulteriores y
deberá necesariamente expresar.” (Translation:) The manifest shall serve
as a base for all subsequent operations, and must necessarily
express—then giving general instructions as to the making out of the
manifest.
- Article 3 states: Número, clase, marcas, numeración y peso bruto
de todos los bultos que trae á board, etc., no se admitirá nunca la
expresiòn de mercancias ú otra de la misma vaguedad. (Translation:)
Number, class, or kind—marks, numerals, and gross weight of all the
packages brought on board, etc. Never will the expression
merchandise or terms of the same vagueness be admitted.
- Article 9 states: Los Consules cuídaran bajo su responsabilidad de
no visar los manifestos en que falta alguno de los requisites antes
expresados, salvaran por nota antorizada [Page 678] y sellada, cuantas alteraciones, etc., dando
aviso á la Dirección-General de Hacienda de haberlo visado el mismo
dia en que efectuen, (Translation:) The consuls will take care under
their responsibility not to visé the manifest in which are wanting
any of the beforementioned requirements, calling attention by
authorized and stamped memorandum to any alterations, etc., giving
notice to the Dirección-General de Hacienda of having viséed the
same day on which such act was performed.
As you will see this clearly places the responsibility on the shoulders
of the Spanish consul in New York with whose visé the manifest was
provided, and the customhouse authorities here have performed an illegal
act in fining the vessel. Besides this, the word “drugs” can not be
considered a vague term according to commercial usage.
The question of fining vessels, very often for a mere orthographical or
careless mistake in the manifests is becoming a very serious one, which
is damaging our commerce with the Island of Cuba to an extent which can
not be over estimated, and steps should be taken to force Spain to
abolish this, I might almost say ridiculous sytem, and place the
question of imposing fines and the discretionary powers of the officials
on a sound common sense basis. The case which forms the object of this
protest is only one of the many I have to deal with. I have fortunately
been able so far to avoid the payments of fines and have always been met
with courtesy and respect by the officials when contesting the payments
of fines imposed. The whole fault lies with the Spanish law, which, if
not speedily, will, and at present does, severely injure our commerce
with this island.
The schooner H. J. Cottrell arrived here on
January 26 from Mobile and brought a manifest of lumber for the making
out of which the captain paid $5 to the Spanish consul at Mobile, and on
presenting his manifest here, the custom-house authorities attempted to
fine him for not having his manifest properly made out; to this,
however, I most strenuously objected and no fine was imposed. Where
there is no intention to defraud or intentional disregard of the law no
fine should be imposed.
I have, etc.,
