No. 274.
Mr. Hamlin to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

No. 10.]

Sir: On assuming charge of the legation, General Fairchild invited my special attention to Mr. Blaine’s instructions Nos. 195 and 197, relating to certain fees exacted by Spanish consuls in the United States of American vessels clearing for Spanish ports. After a careful examination of the subject, I addressed a note on the 7th instant to the minister of state, a copy of which I have the honor to inclose for your information.

I have, &c.,

HANNIBAL HAMLIN.
[Page 457]
[Inclosure in No. 10.]

Mr. Hamlin to the Marquis de la Vega de Armijo.

Excellency: The attention of the Department of State has been called (through Messrs. Miller & Houghton, merchants at New York) to a notice issued by the consul-general of Spain in that city, and dated 14th October, 1881. The notice reads as follows:

“By orders received from Madrid, on and after October 31 vessels going to Cuba and Porto Rico will pay in this office the same clearance fees as vessels bound for Spain.”

On learning of this “notice,” Messrs. Miller & Houghton addressed a letter, on the 27th October, to the consul-general, requesting to be informed as to the exact meaning of said “notice.” The consul-general replied on the next day (the 28th October) as follows:

“In answer to your inquiry by letter of the 27th instant, I beg to say that, in conformity with orders received from Madrid, vessels bound for Spain, Cuba, and Porto Rico will pay in this office, from the 31st instant, the following clearance fees: For the manifest, $6; for bill of health, $4; for crew list, $4; and for cargo, 10 cents for every 1,000 kilograms.”

The Department of State having also received communications from merchants of other ports in the United States, complaining of the Spanish consular fees on vessels clearing for ports in Spain, Cuba, and Porto Rico, and particularly of the additional charge of 10 cents on every 1,000 kilograms of the vessel’s cargo, I am instructed to invite your excellency’s attention to the subject, with a view to having the charge last above mentioned abolished.

In inviting your excellency’s attention to this subject, your excellency will permit me to refer to the correspondence which took place on this very subject between this legation and the department under your excellency’s worthy charge in the year 1876. According to the then new Spanish consular tariff, vessels of the United States clearing for Spanish ports were obliged to pay Spanish consuls, besides the regular fee for their clearance papers, the sum of 10 cents on every package, whether large or small, of their cargo. This latter charge was looked upon by my government as an export duty levied by Spain in our ports on merchandise sent to the ports of Spain. Protest against such a charge was therefore made, and the government of His Catholic Madjesty, acknowledging the justness of the protest, issued a royal order, dated the 18th of October, 1876, abolishing the charge on packages.

It would seem from the present complaints that the royal order above referred to has been revoked, or, if not revoked, the charge which it abolished has been restored by the substitution of a charge on the weight of a vessel’s cargo. In complaining against this charge to the Department of State, the merchants give, as an illustration of their position, the following statement of what a vessel carrying 700 tons is obliged to pay to Spanish consuls before obtaining her clearance papers: First, the regular clearance fees, $23; second, on first 50 tons of cargo, $8; third, on remaining 650 tons, at 10 cents per ton, $65; in all, $96.

If the merchants or the shippers do not pay these charges, the consuls refuse to grant the necessary clearance papers, and if the vessel sails without them, she is heavily fined on her arrival in a Spanish port. Consequently the merchants and shippers have no alternative but to pay the excessive charges demanded by the consuls. Again, if the vessel is bound for a Cuban port, she is obliged to pay, on her arrival, an additional tonnage duty of $1.35 per ton. Then again, if the vessel’s manifest does not show the exact weight of her cargo, she is liable, on her arrival, to a fine of from $100 to $300, and in some cases to even a larger sum, and, as it is impossible to calculate the amount of the consul’s fees until the vessel is completely loaded, and in view also of the fines to which a captain of a vessel is liable on arrival at a Spanish port (however innocent he may be of any intention to infringe on the customs regulations of the port of arrival), the merchants complain that it is difficult to find vessels willing to proceed to Spanish ports so long as they can find cargoes for ports of other nations. This fact, I need hardly tell your excellency, is very injurious to the commercial interests, not only of the United States, but to those of Spain as well. I feel sure that Spain does not intend and does not desire to put obstacles in the way of the commercial relations between the two countries. On the contrary, I am confident that she is desirous, as is my own government, to do all that can be done to increase so much as may be possible those relations.

But, putting aside all consideration of the commercial relations between the two countries, the present charge imposed by the Spanish consul-general at New York and by the Spanish consuls in other ports of the United States of 10 cents on every 1,000 kilograms on the cargo of vessels clearing for Spanish ports is considered by my [Page 458] government in the same light as was the package charge above referred to. Indeed, the Government of the United States can look upon such a charge in no other way than as being an export duty levied in its ports by Spain, and as such strongly protests against it.

In presenting this protest for the consideration of your excellency, I may be permitted to make the observation that I am confident that the Government of His Catholic Majesty does not propose to arrogate to itself the right to levy an export duty in the ports of foreign and friendly nations. Such a duty, I need hardly tell your excellency, can only be levied by the government of the port from whence the merchandise may be shipped. This being the case, I am likewise confident that the Government of His Catholic Majesty would be the first among the great commercial nations of the world to protest against such a duty being levied in its own po by foreign consuls on merchandise shipped to foreign ports. This duty, in the opinion of my government, is so clearly an export duty levied by Spain in the ports of the United States as to need no argument, and as such my government deems it inadmissible, and expects that it will be discontinued, as was the “package” duty levied by Spain in 1876. That this expectation will be realized my government entertains no doubt, upon a consideration of the question by that of His Catholic Majesty.

I therefore present the question to your excellency, and in so doing beg that your excellency will give the subject that early and attentive consideration which its importance so justly merits.

I avail, &c.,

HANNIBAL HAMLIN.