I trust that the foregoing will place the matter of the invitation to
us to participate in the tonnage commission in a clear light, and
will assure the Department that I never have failed, and never shall
fail, to insist that the same privileges and courtesies shall be
shown by the Sublime Porte to the Government of the United States as
may have been, or may be, accorded to that of any other great
power.
Thedoubt expressed by Mr. Goodenow and myself in previous dispatches
as to whether the proposed international commission would ever be
convened, was shared by the representatives of the other foreign
nations at the time our communications were made. It was hoped that
a decision by the Ottoman commission, that was then sitting, would
settle the whole question of the tonnage charges of the Suez Canal
Company and thus dispense with the necessity of convoking an
international commission. The Sublime Porte was, however, intent on
avoiding responsibility for the increased charges which had been
paid under protest, and hence its reluctance to complicate itself
either by justifying or condemning the course of the canal company,
and the last chance for escape from the difficulty which it
endeavored to obtain by the assembling of an international
commission.
The Sublime Porte assumed that proper ground had been laid for
convening the commission by the communication made to the powers by
its foreign ministers under date of January 1, 1873, and that the
notification as to the time of meeting, furnished August 13, 1873,
was a sufficient completion of the ceremony of invitation. If His
Excellency
[Page 1137]
Blacque Bey
did not give to the instruction of January 1, 1873, the form of an
invitation to the Government of the United States to be represented
in the commission, he failed to fulfill the intention of his
government, and also to act in accordance with the course pursued by
the other representatives of the Sublime Porte in foreign countries.
I trust that the Department will be satisfied with the above
explanation, for the suggestion that any form of courtesy could have
been omitted by the Ottoman government in its intercourse with that
of the United States has been a matter of deep chagrin to the
Ottoman minister of foreign affairs, whose whole course in his
official relations with me has been one of exceptional respect and
of unfailing kindness. The objection made by the Department that the
shortness of the notice given for the meeting of the commission was
an insuperable obstacle in the way of appointing delegates on the
part of the United States, is certainly unanswerable. All the
information that I received from the Sublime Porte as to the
determination to convene the commission, and as to the time for its
meeting, was the sudden announcement made in the official note of
August 13; a note written, as I understand, without any previous
consultation with the representatives of the foreign governments,
and which was sent to me some days after it had been communicated to
the other powers by telegraph through the Ottoman diplomatic
representatives, who had already arranged the acceptance of its
terms with the various governments of Europe. If I had received an
intimation that this arrangement was about to be made, I should have
insisted that such a time should have been fixed for the meeting of
the commission as would have been convenient for the sending of
delegates by the Government of the United States. I shall make such
representations to the Sublime Porte as will secure consideration to
our geographical position when hereafter it may be proposed to hold
any international conference at Constantinople. As yet nothing
definite has been accomplished by the tonnage commission. In such
test votes as have been taken, France and Russia have invariably
voted on the side of the pretensions of the Suez Canal Company, and
all the other powers on the side of the commercial interest, the
vote standing two to ten.
I understand that a compromise, the terms of which have not been
agreed upon, is in favor with a majority of the delegates, and that
unless such an arrangement be made, the canal company will probably
endeavor to repudiate the authority of the commission, as a body by
whose decisions the canal company never agreed to abide. I herewith
inclose a copy of the instructions issued by the Sublime Porte to
the Ottoman delegates in the commission, together with a translation
of the same.
[Inclosure.—Translation.]
Instructions for the delegates of the
Ottoman government.
The idea of the imperial government in convoking the
international tonnage commission was set forth in a circular of
the ministry of foreign affairs, dated January 1, 1873, of which
I think it useful to record here the text.
“The wish of the imperial government to assure an equal
treatment to all vessels, without distinction of the flag,
which frequent the ports of the empire, and the difficulties
which arose in consequence of the recent modification
introduced into the gathering of the navigation-taxes paid
by the vessels crossing the Suez Canal, gives us the
assurance that a step aiming to lead to the adoption of a
uniform tonnage will he received with favor by the maritime
powers. Thanks to the development of the ways
[Page 1138]
of
communication, the relations of the people among themselves
have been greatly extended. From this has resulted a
solidarity of interests which, considered from the point of
view of maritime commerce, tends to the extinction of the
measures of protection established in favor of the national
flag. On the other hand, the progress of science is such in
our days that we may determine with precision the dimensions
of a vessel and its capacity employable for the transport of
goods.
“Nordoes the imperial governmentdoubt that a commission of
learned and experienced persons will succeed in finding a
uniform mode of measuring vessels and fixing a standard
tonnage, serving at the same time as a base for commercial
transactions and for the levying of the tolls to which
navigation is subject. The imperial government instructs, in
consequence, you to ascertain how the government to which
you are accredited will view the institution of such a
commission at London, the center of maritime commerce, or at
Constantinople.”
This was then the idea of the imperial government, and the event
which succeeded only confirmed the consideration on which it had
relied for requesting the co-operation of instructed persons of
the principal maritime states in order to regulate this
question, which is of so general an interest. The promptness
which these powers showed in responding to the invitation which
has been addressed to them would alone suffice to show the
justness of the ideas which induced such a step. Yet Ido not
find it inopportune to insist here with some detail on the
particular circumstances which justify the initiative taken-by
the Ottoman government, and which explains the perseverance
shown by it in demanding this re-union.
On the 2d Zilhidjé, 1282, (19th March, 1866,) the Ottoman
government accepted and approved with an imperial firman the
contract concluded the 22d February, 1866, between his highness
the Khedive on one side, and Mr. de Lesseps on the other side,
in regard to the construction of the Suez Canal. This contract
confirmed among others the act of concession accorded previously
to Mr. de Lesseps on the 5th January, 1856, and the seventeenth
article of which contains, textually, what follows:
“In order to indemnify the company for the expenses of
construction, of keeping in repair, of operating, which are
at its charge, by these presents we authorize it from this
day and during the continuance of its privileges, as
determined by the first and third paragraphs of the
preceding article, to establish and to collect charges for
the passage of the canal and the dependent ports, the rights
of navigation, pilotage, towage, moorage, or stationing,
according to tariff, which it may modify at any period,
under the express condition—
- “1st. To collect these tolls, without any
exception or favor, on all ships in identical
conditions.
- “2d. To publish tariffs, three months before their
enforcement, in the capitals and principal
commercial ports of the countries interested.
- “3d. Not to exceed for the special toll of
navigation the maximum rate of 10 francs per ton of
capacity for the vessels and per head of the
passengers.”
In execution of the above-cited article the company published
on the 17th day of August, 1869, the first regulation of
navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal, of which article 11
is as follows:
“The payments are calculated on the real tonnage of the
vessels, as to the duties of transit and the expenses of
towing and of moorage. This tonnage is to be determined,
until further notice, according, to the official papers of
the vessels. The transit duty from one sea to the other is
10 francs per measured ton and 10 francs per passenger,
payable at the entry at Port Said or at Suez. The tonnage
expenses are fixed at 2 francs per ton.”
In consequence, the duties of navigation collected by the company
since the inauguration of the canal have been calculated on the
tonnage as shown by the papers of the vessels. But on the 4th of
March, 1872, the company published a new act of navigation, of
which the twelfth article established the manner in which these
duties would be collected from the 1st day-of July, 1872.
The article is as follows:
“From the 1st day of July, 1872, the universal company of the
Suez Maritime Canal will collect the special toll on
navigation of 10 francs per ton on the real capacity of
vessels.
- “2d.
- The gross tonnage inscribed on the papers of the
ships, measured according to the English method now in
use, will serve as basis for this collection.
- “3d.
- The vessels of any nation whose papersdo not exhibit
this tonnage according to the aforesaid method will be
measured by the means of the method annexed to the
present regulation.
- “4th.
- Vessels which have no official papers, or those which
have but incomplete ones, will be measured by the agents
of the company according to the rule now in use in
England to measure loaded vessels.
- “5th.
- All spaces covered permanently or temporarily, which
are not included in the
[Page 1139]
official tonnage of the vessels,
will be-measured by the agents of the company according
to the rule now in use in England. The tonnage obtained
will be liable to taxation.
- “6th.
- National vessels will be treated for the collection of
dues to the company conformably to the rules applied to
commercial vessels. The dues of 10 francs for each
passenger, as well as the dues for transit, will be
payable in advance, on entrance at Port Said or at
Suez.
“The dues for moorage or anchorage at Port Said or at
Ismailia and before the terreplain of Suez are fixed at 02
centimes per ton for each day, after a stoppage of
twenty-four hours at the position assigned by the
harbor-master, and whatever the length of the stoppage may
be. These expenses are payable every ten days.
“Errors in the declaration of tonnage or in collecting the
dues shall be rectified during the month which follows the
passage of the vessel. After this delay rectifications will
not be allowed. No erroneous application of the tariff shall
be invoked as a precedent against the company.
“N. B.—Although adopting as a basis for the collection of the
tonnage-dues the mode of measurement according to the method
indicated, the Suez Canal Companydo not renounce for the
future the application of any new mode of measurement which
may be presented with advantages of precision superior to
those of the present method.”
In order to justify the abandonment of the previous system of
collections the company alleges, first, the insufficiency of the
valuations shown in the official papers; second, the inequality
of treatment which certainly could not fail to result from it to
the express stipulations of the act of concession.
As to the correctness of the mode of measurement adopted by the
company, it was backed by the advice of a commission of
competent men, which the company took care to consult before its
new publication. This measure of the company, which charged
vessels with a taxation higher than that which they had paid
until then, provoked certain claims. The different marines
interested asserted that the tolls collected in that way
surpassed the maximum limits indicated in the act of the
concession. The company on its side, in numerous communications
which it forwarded to the Sublime Porte by means of Mr. de
Lesseps, did not cease to invoke the act of concession in order
to prove the legitimacy of its proceedings. Soon after, and
without stopping for an examination of the process of
measurement adopted by the company, several powers addressed
themselves to the Sublime Porte in order to obtain from it at
first the official interpretation of the words of the act of
concession which served as basis to the tolls collected by the
company. As author of the concession, the Sublime Porte did not
think it advisable to refuse the interpretation which was asked
with urgency from it, and this interpretation has been set forth
in the vizieral letter addressed on the 17th Djemaziul-Ewel,
1290, to his highness the Khedive, and the tenor of which is as
follows:
“As your highness knows, since the opening of the Suez Canal
up to the 1st of July, 1872, the company collected as
passage-dues from the vessels traversing the canal 10 francs
for each ton inscribed on the official papers, without that
collection being confirmed by the imperial government. But
since the 1st of July the company proceeded, always without
previous authorization of the government, to the collection
of the same tolls according to the new system adopted by it
for the measurement of vessels. This proceeding did not fail
to induce reclamations on the part of certain powers. The
latter as well as the company addressed themselves to the
imperial government for the interpretation of the clause of
the act of concession accorded on the 2d Rebbi-ul-Ewel, 1292
(1282) by the Egyptian administration to the Suez company,
and confirmed by the imperial firman of the 2d Zilcadé,
1282, stating that they will not exceed in the tolls for
navigation the maximum rate of 10 francs per ton of
capacity. In consequence, and seeing the necessity of
removing the existing claims by fixing the interpretation of
that clause, the council of ministers deliberated on that
question, and submitted it to an attentive and profound
examination. Now, in ratifying, as heretofore is said, the
act of concession before mentioned, the imperial government
did not mean really the expression of ton of capacity, which
occurs in a passage of that act, in any but an absolute
sense; it had not in any way in view the tonnage inscribed
on the official papers of the ships of such and such powers.
In fact, the vessels of every flag cross the canal; they
ought, according to the disposition of the act of
concession, to submit to an equal taxation. But as the
different governments have not yet adopted an identical
system of tonnage, it was necessary to use the expression of
ton of capacity in general, in such manner as that
expression could be applied to the tonnage which might later
be adopted by all governments and by the imperial government
for its commerce. In this order of ideas it would be natural
to adopt the tonnage which affords nearest to the truth the
employable capacity. Now, as among all official systems now
in usage the Moorsons system is evidently that which most
approaches it, the Subline Porte is of the opinion that the
net tonnage fixed according to this system should be chosen.
But, in case the powers or Mr. de Lesseps should not wish to
continue maintaining this
[Page 1140]
system, it would be necessary to
convene an international commission in order to determine
the employable capacity. It is evident that the imperial
government cannot fix a definitive mode of measuring which
has not yet been fixed and adopted by other governments.
This was the result of the deliberations of the council of
ministers; and His Majesty, to whom the affair was
submitted, having ordered me to act conformably, I give your
highness notice of the preceding decision, in order that you
may consequently take the necessary measures.”
Soon after, new explanations having been demanded, his highness
the grand vizier sent, under the date of 6 Djemazi-ul-Akhir,
1290, to his highness the Khedive the following letter:
“I had the honor to receive the letter which your highness
was so kind as to send me, under date of the 22
Djemazi-ul-Ewel, demanding explanations in regard to the
decision of the Sublime Porte mentioned in my letter of the
17th of the same month on the system of tonnage which is to
serve as the base for the collection of taxes on vessels
which pass the Suez Canal. As your highness knows, the
company has referred the solution of this affair to the
decision of the imperial government. The opinion and
decision expressed in my above-mentioned letter being in
conformity with equity and justice, we may hope that the
company will regulate itself accordingly. I beg your
highness kindly to notify the contents of the same letter to
the company of the maritime canal, informing it at the same
time that it will take upon itself all responsibility for
the consequences resulting from its conduct if it were
opposed to the just and legal decision and opinion of the
Sublime Porte.”
Solicited to interpret the words ton of
capacity of the act of January 5, 1856, the Sublime
Porte has therefore hastened to ascertain that its idea has
been one of justice and equality. Considering as a starting
point the incontestible tenth that the tolls of the canal
must be kept at a point in proportion to the utility which
results from it to those who make use of it, that this
utility itself is in a direct proportion to the importance
of the vessel considered as a machine of transport and to
its commercial abilities, which are represented by its trute
capacity, the Sublime Porte asserted, as it still asserts
to-day—1st. That, under whatever flag they may sail, two
vessels having the same capacity must be taxed equally, as
the first principle; 2d. That two vessels of an unequal
capacity must contribute in the exact proportion of their
employable capacity, as the second principle. Every more or
less arbitrary convention was in this way removed, in order
to adhere to the reality of facts: and it was this that the
two vizieral letters endeavored to establish, giving as the
base of the tolls the true capacity, and nothing but the
true capacity, of the vessels. As to the enterprise of
examining technically the proceedings of the company, and to
appreciate their merits in order to confirm or to reject
them, as to stating precisely the scientific forms by which
the employable capacity might be obtained, the Sublime Porte
would not have hesitated todo it if it could have found
rules, the exactitude of which are universally acknowledged.
Unfortunately this was not the case, and amid the animated
discussions to which the different formula employee! in the
measurement of vessels furnished the object, the only thing
it coulddo was to leave to the company the responsibility
for its measurement, and to recommend the adoption of the
Moorsons system, the one which among all seemed to unite
until now the most voices, and the exactness of which the
parties in conflict agreed to acknowledge in principle. The
Sublime Porte had the satisfaction to see its intentions
duly appreciated by the interested powers; and the letter of
Mr. de Lesseps, a copy of which is inclosed here, and which
we have received lately, shows to what point the views of
the Sublime Porte have been partaken by the company. The
discussion raised by the navigation act of March 4 consisted
in stating precisely, and in a scientifically exact manner,
the means by which the really employed capacity of a vessel
may be obtained. The official question submitted to the
judgment of the Sublime Porte was then reduced to the
general question of the rectification of the method of
estimating tonnage. But it did not depend on the Ottoman
government to have it otherwise, and the work of
administrative interpretation was necessarily obliged to
stop at a limit beyond which positive data failed.
It is to-day the task of the international commission to
furnish the elements which may enable the Sublime Porte to
give to its interpretation the completion necessary for its
practice. It is chiefly in anticipation of this result that
the Sublime Porte thought it useful to take the initiative
of convoking the commission by the above-cited ministerial
circular. A more recent ministerial circular, of the 13th
August, 1873, explained that idea as follows:
“The decision of the imperial government concerning the Suez
Canal tolls, which I communicated to you by my dispatch of
July 19, foresees the case where, on account of want of
agreement, in regard to the application of the principles
set forth by the Sublime Porte, it would be necessary to
recur for a definitive solution to the intelligence of an
international commission. From this point of view this
question is now naturally added to the attributes of the
commission in the convocation of which the imperial
government took the initiative by its circular of the 1st
January, 1873.”
[Page 1141]
The work which united the Mediterranean to the Red Sea,
opening a new way to maritime navigation, will have, among
other results, that of placing upon practical ground a
question which, though it is not quite new, had remained
until now in the region of speculation. This explains, also,
the initiative of the Ottoman government in regard to the
realization of an idea the priority of which it could not
claim. This idea is not a new one, indeed. The ratification
of the method of measurement and the determination of a
tonnage corresponding to the reality of facts has already
been for years in the West the object of continual research.
Apart from the theoretical importance connected with the
exact measure of vessels and of the scientifically true
solution of the cubature of those bodies which, almost
always ending in curved surfaces, are infinitely diversified
by the exigencies of navigation—apart from this scientific
problem, we say, an interest of justice and of equity arises
which is easily understood. Among all nations there are to
be found charges established upon vessels and calculated
according to their relative sizes.
The first idea was to proportion the tax to the ton-weight,
and the progress of ideas on that point consisted evidently
in abandoning more and more the system of weight-taxation in
order to adopt a system of bulk—of volume taxation. In that
way, considering the extreme difference between the weight
and the burden which the same vessel may contain, it was
tried to establish an average unity of weight, to which was
to correspond the unity of volume, the ton of capacity,
which was almost exclusively adopted without any regard to
the idea of the weight. The diversity of weights, the
difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of establishing in
a logical manner the average unity of weights, to which the
unity of bulk was to correspond, the imperfection of the
methods of measuring were more than sufficient to complicate
the problem. But this is not all. We only ascertain a truth,
established by competent authorities, in saying that, in
order to favor the national flag, the administration of
different states often perverted the calculations of science
(which otherwise were imperfect enough) to the desire to
diminish, by means of insufficient statements of tonnage,
the tolls which the vessels are to pay for their entry and
moorage in foreign ports. From all this resulted a
deplorable confusion in ships’ papers which, usually
rendering impossible the reduction to a common standard of
the official tonnage of the different countries, ended with
a consequence just as vexatious, as it infallibly led to an
overburdening of vessels, the measurement of which
approached most nearly to the truth. This injustice was
never more felt than at the day when great public works were
undertaken in order to favor navigation, and the revenues of
which were to be calculated exactly on the dues payable by
every vessel in proportion to its capacity. We closed our
eyes to the inequalities which we just pointed out as long
as the navigation-tolls presented a purely fiscal character,
but it became quite impossible to continue in this way, when
in regard to the artificial bridges docks, light-houses, and
channels, created by the hands of men, and with the capital
of private individuals, the necessity was felt to determine
as exactly as possible the dues to be paid in proportion to
the service rendered, which is calculated itself in direct
proportion to the true capacity of vessels. Thence comes the
necessity, universally felt in these latter times, to make
use of the progress realized in thedominion of science, in
order to rectify the ancient systems of measurement, and at
the same time the valuation of tonnage; thence results,
moreover, the idea of the, at least theoretical, unification
of tonnage, which this commission is called to provide with
its sanctiop. The duty, then, of the commission is to show
the mode for the valuation of tonnage, which, in the present
state of mathematical science and of nautical experience,
approaches most nearly the truth, and in a subsidiary
manner, and as a natural consequence, to establish the
relation existing between the tonnage rectified in this way
and the different official tonnages which are actually in
use. Now, without any intention of prejudicing the
deliberations of the commission, I think that I may remark
that, as to the scientific part of the methods of
measurement, there exists a solution as satisfactory as
possible. To judge by the favorable acceptance of it by most
of the states the rule of measurement known in England under
the name of Moorsons seems to unite in principle all the
conditions of a good scheme. It is accordingly by this rule
that the total capacity of a vessel may be obtained. But
this abstract formula is not sufficient, and it is maritime
experience which must provide it with modifications without
which it could not fulfill what is demanded of it, which is
nothing but the truly employable capacity of the vessel. It
is on that point that the controversy is most animated. To
take the example of England, for instance, are all the
exceptions and the deductions applied to the formula of
Moorson, in order to get the net registered tonnage, equally
correct; are they founded on any principle, or are they but
a mode of calculation more or less conventional? That, at
all events, is what was maintained, what is still maintained
principally in regard to ships moved by steam, and it will
be especially on this point that the commission will have to
throw the light of its knowledge, of its experience, and of
its authority.
There evidently exist some points difficult of estimation,
but at the same time essential for the correction of the
rules of measurement which it will be necessary to
prescribe. Ido notdoubt that the commission will show in
this delicate part of its functions
[Page 1142]
that largeness of views which is so
necessary to comprehend as a whole the complex mechanism of
modern commerce. As the question is to impose taxes on
vessels, an appeal is often made to the interest of
navigation. There is nodoubt that this interest has a claim
to every respect. But the objection which is intended to be
made is true only so far as arbitrary taxes are in question,
taxes which, as I said above, have a purely fiscal
character. It is not the same with taxes having a
remunerative character, and which are imposed only in
consideration of the work executed in the interest of
navigation itself.
The great works undertaken with the intention to facilitate
and to secure maritime circulation really augment the
utility, and consequently the value, of vessels. The
interests of shipping and of enterprises facilitating
navigation are identical, and it is not possible to
prejudice the one without’ at the same time prejudicing the
other. In order to decide between each of these two
interests it is essential to hold an impartial balance to be
just; and it is sufficient for this purpose to be exact and
truthful. Just as it would be unjust to tax those parts of a
vessel which form its dead weight or rather its unproductive
and useless volume, we think it would not be just to exempt
from taxation any portion of the active parts of a ship
constituting its truly productive and employable capacity.
It naturally follows from this that the commission will have
also to examine whether the mode actually employed in the
collection of the Suez Canal tolls is in harmony with the
conditions of the act of concession and of the imperial
firman, according to the interpretation given to them in the
two vizirial letters addressed to His Highness the
Khedive.
So much as to the substance of the question. As to the form,
I have nodoubt that the commission will consider it its duty
to avail itself of all the light within its reach, and that,
if necessary, it will not refuse to hear the testimony of
men who are able to furnish it with the most correct and the
most precise information. I close-by adding that the
deliberation of the commission in which your excellency is
invited to participate will have a weight the importance of
which cannot be exaggerated. The interests depending upon
the estimation of tonnage are so numerous and so important,
that we cannot foresee the practical extension which the
divers powers will sooner or later deem it expedient to give
to the conclusions of the commission. But so far as we are
concerned, and considering the urgent nature which the canal
question presents, I deem it my duty to declare at the
present time that the imperial government, which has founded
hopes so legitimate upon the result of these conferences,
reserves to itself the right to appropriate those
conclusions of the commission which may be of a nature to be
immediately executed, and to regulate the mode of their,
application.
Constantinople, October, 1873.
