Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Second Session Thirty-eighth Congress, Part II

Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.

Washington, February 15, 1864.

Sir: It is with great regret that I find myself again called upon to remonstrate against restrictions placed upon the trade between New York and places within the Queen’s dominions.

I beg you to give your serious attention to the enclosed extracts from despatches from her Majesty’s consul at New York, and I trust that some measures will be taken without delay to remedy, or at least to mitigate, the grievances which are set forth in them.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

LYONS.

Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.

[Untitled]

Extract from a despatch from Consul Archibald to Lord Lyons, dated New York, February 9, 1864.

I have the honor again to call your lordship’s attention to the restrictions imposed on the exportation of merchandise, more especially of breadstuffs and provisions, from this port to the British provinces and the Bahamas.

Since the 1st of January last bonds have been required from the shippers of merchandise from this port to the British North American provinces, similar to those previously required from shippers to the Bahamas. On the 5th instant a fresh regulation was adopted, by which, in future, bonds are to be required from the master or owner of the vessel in which the shipment is made, instead of from the owners or shippers of the goods, as, in the great majority of cases, the interests of the master and owner of the vessel relate only to the freight, and have no concern with the goods themselves laden on board the vessel. This regulation will operate, practically, as an embargo on not a few vessels now loading or chartered for the purpose of conveying cargoes of provisions and breadstuffs to the British colonies.

I am given to understand that the regulation in question has been made under he powers granted to the collector by the second section of the act of Congress, approved 20th of May, 1862, chapter 81, which runs as follows :

“And be it further enacted, That whenever a permit or clearance is granted for either a foreign or domestic port, it shall be lawful for the collector of the customs granting the same, if he shall deem it necessary under the circumstances of the case, to require a bond to be executed by the master or the owner of the vessel, in a penalty equal to the value of the cargo, and with sureties to the satisfaction of such collector, that the said cargo shall be delivered at the destination for which it is cleared or permitted, and that no part thereof shall be used in affording aid or comfort to any person or parties against the authority of the United States.”

I may remark that to require a shipper of goods, much more the mere carrier of them, to become responsible for the acts of a consignee in a foreign port, is imposing upon them an impossible obligation. In the interests of trade, and under the diversified grounds of title to property specified in a bill of lading, the term “consignee” comprehends a number and variety of persons over whom the carrier has no control, and upon whom he cannot enforce the observance of the prescribed regulation.

[Untitled]

Extract from Mr. Consul Archibald’s despatch, of February 10, 1804.

Referring to my despatch of yesterday’s date, respecting the restrictions ou the shipment of merchandise from this port to the British provinces and Bahamas, I have the honor to transmit herewith the enclosed, for your information, a copy of a note received by me from the collector of customs, in reply to a note addressed by me to him, inquiring whether the regulation requiring bonds from the masters or owners of vessels was to be enforced in respect to shipments to all of the British North American provinces and West India islands, or to some, and which of them, only.

From the terms of the collector’s note, it would appear that the enforcement of the restriction is discretionary with the collector, according to the circumstances of each case; that it may therefore be enforced in respect of clearances for European as well as American or West India ports; but that bonds in all cases of clearances for the ports indicated by me are not absolutely required by any general regulation or order to that effect.

Judging, however, from the number of the remonstrances against the restriction, as well as from the course pursued at the customs, the requirement of bonds appears thus far to have been enforced in respect of all clearances for the Bahamas and the British North American provinces, excepting Newfoundland.