In conversation with President Canal a few days ago on this subject, he
intimated to me that any difference had between his government and my own
with regard thereto might be settled, if need be, by arbitration. I replied
that it seemed to me quite apparent that the imposition and exaction were
plain violations of the treaty of 1864 and international reciprocity and
good neighborhood, and so I believe.
I have been advised that the English minister has been instructed to enter
the protest of his government against this imposition, and has already done
so.
There are other infractions of the treaty which I am now investigating, and
with respect to which I hope to be able to write you at an early day.
I await such further instructions on this subject as you may be pleased to
give.
[Inclosure 1 in No.
23.—Translation.]
Mr. Carrié to Mr.
Langston.
Port au
Prince, January 10,
1878.
Mr. Minister: In the dispatch which I had the
honor to address to you under date of December 13 last, in relation to
consular charges established by the law of the 23d of August, 1877, I
demonstrated—
- 1st.
- That taxes extending in a general and equal way on all
invoices from foreign countries cannot constitute any infraction
of our treaty with the United States, which confers upon them,
as upon us, the rule or the treatment of the most favored
nation.
- 2d.
- That they exist with us for the past twenty years or
thereabouts, that they have never provoked any protest, and that
the law of the 23d of August has only regulated them in a more
equitable manner.
- 3d.
- That my government had the indisputable right to make of them
a source of receipt.
- 4th.
- That they do not reach in any way foreign commerce, but that,
on the contrary, they are supported by our interior
consumption.
- 5th.
- Finally, that the executive power of my country did not have
the authority to suspend the execution of a law which is,
besides, of his own initiation, and which he had hastened to
promulgate.
Your dispatch of the 26th of December, notwithstanding it recognizes the
real basis (bien fondé) of a part of my
arguments, presents to me new objections. I have, therefore, thought it
would be proper to determine, as I have done hereabove, the various
points about which we differ, in order that they might be made
definitively clear by the debate.
It is incontestable that duties which are collected in a general and
equal manner on all invoices of goods of foreign countries cannot
constitute any infraction, either in letter or in spirit, of a treaty
which places a country under the rule of the most favored nation.
As regards this there cannot be any doubt, and whatsoever the
interpretation which one may give to the treaty which exists between us,
one will never be able to derive from it, in its application, that the
United States are less favored than the other countries with which we
cultivate commercial relations.
It is not possible to believe that the commercial reciprocity extends to
such a degree as to require that the same duties be collected equally in
two countries bound by a treaty, and as long as the exchanges are
carried on freely and without difficulty, that no hinderance occurs to
slacken the course of operations, that no overtax be imposed to a flag,
&c., one remains within bounds of the treaty.
In the customs legislation of the United States, as in our own, the
stipulations differ between each other, owing to various reasons.
The number of the population, the productive force, the
riches—commercial, agricultural, or industrial—the morals of the
inhabitants of each of the states, are generally that which imposes such
economical legislation rather than another. Thus complete [Page 430] equality, absolute
reciprocity, in matters of custom duties, are objects impossible to
attain.
In admitting with me that the legislation to which we refer exists with
us since twenty years, that it has never provoked any protest, you
discuss that which I have set forth, that the principle of the charges
which it establishes is identical to that of the charges of the law of
the 23d of August, which does nothing other than regulate them in a more
equitable manner.
The question of the principle appears to me not debatable (indiscutable), and I would add that, in my
opinion, as well as in that of my government, real proportionate duties
are always more equitable than fixed duties, or those which are
established on figures, the error (Vécart) of
which is too considerable.
In our old law of 1858, an invoice of $1 was paid as one of $100, and one
of $10,001 as one of $20,000. To-day it is the amount of the invoice
which determines that of the visa; it is the amount of business which
determines that of the duty. Does this not seem more equitable to you,
Mr. Minister?
As to that which concerns fixed duties, do you believe that it is just to
levy a like charge of $2.50 on an invoice of $10 or $50,000?
You will allow me to take the high sum of $50,000, which you have chosen,
notwithstanding that in the application one does not find an invoice of
this amount expedited from the United States to Hayti. If I should take
the reverse of this sum, I would be able to show that an invoice of $10,
according to our law, would pay 10 cents for visa, and that our agent
would legally only derive from it but 1½ cents for his pains arid care.
The American commercial agent for the same service would receive $2.50,
nearly two hundred times more than the compensation received by
ours.
I do not believe that I said in my preceding dispatch that the just
remuneration due our agents had been diminished. On the contrary, the
law, in granting to them 15 per cent. of their charge of visa, has only
sought to reimburse them to an equal amount to the one they formerly
collected, and my government had thus created for itself a source of
receipt of all over and above of these duties. This is what refers to
the third point of the discussion, and one cannot contest such a right
to a government when its source of receipt does not in any way affect
the interests of other nations.
To the support of this fourth point, I have endeavored to make it appear
that this tax of 1 per cent. was supported by our interior consumption,
because, 1st. The importer of the goods necessarily adds this duty to
his cost price. 2d. Hayti does not regulate the foreign markets, but
that these last rule ours. 3d. If the contrary of this assertion were
true, this duty of 1 per cent. would lessen in price American
merchandise to that extent, which is not and which will not be.
To these arguments, which you do not refute, you object only that, in
view of this duty, the merchandise increasing in proportion, the
consumption of American provisions will decrease in Hayti, to which the
merchants as well as the Government of the United States might
object.
The principle that excessive duties will diminish
the consumption in a country is an undeniable fact; nevertheless, it
cannot be appealed, to under the circumstances, for the duty of 1 per
cent. which we have added to our importation does not affect it but to
the extent of about $100,000 on a total value of $2,000,000 collected,
and if one estimates our population at a million of souls, it is easy to
perceive that an annual tax of 10 cents more, weighing on every
inhabitant, is not excessive, and is not of the
nature to work a decrease of consumption.
In 1872, under the empire of our treaty with the United States, a law
increased our import duties 25 per cent. The consumption of American
products did not decrease with us, and the United States did not in any
way protest against this law.
But in supposing this decrease in the consumption, which can only be
proved by comparative statistics, can the obligation imposing on a
nation to take from another, a fixed value of merchandise, which it
would not have the power to diminish if its interests should require it
to do so, be allowed?
Moreover, if this duty, purely fiscal, admits as consequence a decrease
in the consumption, our import duties would suffer by it, and it seems
to me that the first interested in the question would be the Haytian
Government. One can then, as far as regards this, leave to it the care
it will take not thus to exhaust its principal source of income.
I will not conclude, Mr. Minister, without dwelling once more on the last
part of your dispatch, where you re-express the hope that I will issue
orders to suspend the execution of the law, and order at the same time
the restitution of sums already collected in execution of this law.
Such a manner of proceeding on the part of the executive would have very
serious consequences, which it is not necessary to point out. Moreover,
my government is firmly convinced that it has, in the question which
occupies us, right and justice on its side, arid it hopes that that of
the United States will recognize it likewise.
Be pleased to receive, Mr. Minister, the assurance of my very high
consideration.
The secretary of state of foreign affairs,
