In reply, I have the honor to enclose herewith the copy of a letter of
the 19th instant, addressed to this department by the Secretary of the
Treasury, to whom the matter was referred, and to be, with high
consideration, your lordship’s obedient servant.
Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Chase to Mr. Seward.
Treasury
Department,
January 19, 1864.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of January 18, enclosing and calling attention to a
communication addressed you by Lord Lyons on the 15th instant, with
enclosures from the governor general of Canada, containing reports
from officers of that province, relative to a recent seizure of live
stock by the customs authorities at suspension bridge.
I understand it to be the object of these letters not merely to
present the particular case complained of, for such redress as may
be proper and practicable, but to make inquiry as to the scope and
purpose of the orders forbidding the exportation of live stock. To
this question there can, of course, be but one answer. The circular
of the Treasury Department declaratory of the prohibition, which
bears date May 19, 1863, was issued in pursuance of the construction
placed by the War Department on the existing executive order,
forbidding the exportation of munitions of war. It is general in its
character, admits of no limitation or exception by this department,
and is, therefore, fully applicable to attempted exportation to
Canada.
I cannot but add that I have examined with much surprise and regret
the tabular statement contained in the report of the commissioner of
customs of Canada; a statement which seems to prove conclusively
that the order of May 19 has had little or no effect in diminishing
the exportation of live stock to Canada. This fact, while it
explains and justifies the doubts of the Canadian authorities, makes
manifest a degree of negligence or misapprehension on the part of
the customs officers on the northern frontier, which I shall
immediately endeavor to correct.
If it be true that Messrs. Nash and Davies, the parties interested in
the case presented, have acted in ignorance of the prohibitory
order, and have but pursued a course which has been followed out
with success in many other instances, I certainly regret the
inconvenience to which they have been subjected; but, as I have
already remarked, this department cannot, with propriety, make an
exception in their favor.
With great respect.
S. P. CHASE, Secretary of the
Treasury.
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State
