Having had cases involving the same principles, where Spanish consuls in the
United States had exacted ten cents on each and every ton of the cargo of
vessels clearing for Spanish ports, and having presented those cases to the
Spanish Government in a note to the minister of state dated the 7th January
last, as will be seen by referring to my dispatch [Page 483] No. 10, I was in some doubt as to the manner in which
I should submit the case referred to in Mr. Davis’ No. 94. I therefore sent
you a telegram dated the 20th September, of which the following is the
substance:
Have received your Nos. 94 and 95. My No. 10 embraces case exactly similar to
No. 95. The minister of state replying to the same transmitted with No. 52,
in effect refuses to put an end to those taxes. What shall I say in reply to
that note? Is not No. 94 exactly alike in principle, and are not the charges
of Spanish consuls in reality an export duty imposed in our ports as held in
my note to the minister of state, which communication was approved by your
No. 30? Is that principle now to be given up? Please send further orders.
Also observe my Nos. 41 and 75.
To my telegram to you I received a reply of which the following is the
substance:
If the Spanish Government cannot remove the burdensome consular tax, request
them to seek for power from the legislature. Such a duty is particularly
disagreeable here, because this government has no authority to impose an
export duty.
Acting, therefore, upon Mr. Davis’ No. 94, and your telegram, on the 26th
September I fully presented the case to His Catholic Majesty’s Government in
a note to the minister of state of that date, a copy of which is herewith
inclosed for your information.
On the 6th instant, and consequently after I had so presented the case to the
Spanish Government, I had the honor to receive your instruction No. 97,
relating to the same case, and on a careful examination of instructions Nos.
94 and 97, I think my note to the minister of state of September 26 will be
found fully to cover, and complies with, each of said instructions.
It will be seen that I requested prompt action upon the part of the Spanish
Government, but no reply has as yet been received, nor is it possible to say
when it will be.
Being about to retire from the legation, I have deemed it proper to advise
you of my action, and hoping that the same may meet with your approval.
[Inclosure in No. 100.]
Mr. Hamlin to the
Marquis de la Vega de
Armijo
Legation of the United States,
Madrid, September 26,
1882.
Excellency: The attention of the Department of
State at Washington has recently been called by Mr. James McKay, a
citizen of the United States, resident in the State of Florida, and who
is extensively engaged in feeding and shipping cattle to the Cuban
markets, to a practice pursued by the Spanish consul at Key West, in
regard to shipments from that port to Havana and other Cuban ports,
which results in annoyance, inconvenience, and serious loss to Mr.
McKay, and to other American citizens engaged in similar business.
From the statement made to the Department of State by Mr. McKay it
appears that the Spanish consul at the above-mentioned port, in
pursuance, as he alleges, of instructions from His Catholic Majesty’s
Government, exacts and collects from Mr. McKay and other American
shippers the sum of forty cents per head on all cattle shipped by them
from the State of Florida. That charge is in addition to the ordinary
and usual consular fees charged and collected for clearing the vessel,
the certification of papers, and such other charges as may be properly
made by the consul in connection with such shipments. On these same
cattle, when landed in Cuba, the shippers have to pay an import duty of
six dollars per head; but of this import duty paid in Cuba, however
onerous it may be, they make no complaint, recognizing as they do, and
as does my government, the right of His Catholic Majesty’s Government
[Page 484] to impose and collect
within its own territorial jurisdiction such duties as it may deem
proper under its own municipal laws, provided it does not transcend the
limits of treaty stipulations.
In presenting the case to the Department of State, in a letter dated the
22d June last, Mr. McKay submitted thirteen protests made by him before
a notary public in relation to thirteen shipments, giving in each case
the name of the vessels, the number of cattle in each cargo, the date of
shipment, and the gross amount of head-tax on each shipment. For
example, on the 22d of April last Mr. McKay shipped on the steamship
Alabama from Key West to Havana, four hundred and fifty-one head of
cattle, upon which he paid to the Spanish consul $180.40 in addition to
the usual consular fees. The same charge was exacted in all the other
shipments, varying only in the number of cattle and the gross amount
paid.
In a subsequent letter dated the 19th ultimo, Mr. McKay transmitted to
the Department of State ten more protests, making in all twenty-three
protests, and representing as many shipments of cattle made by him from
Key West to Havana between the 22d of April and the 7th of August of the
present year, embracing in all 10,967 head, upon which he (Mr. McKay)
has paid to the Spanish consul at the first above-mentioned port, at the
rate of forty cents per head, the sum of $4,386.80; and when the six
dollars per head paid upon the cattle on their being landed at Havana is
added it will be seen that this one American shipper has been obliged to
pay within the short space of four months to His Catholic Majesty’s
Government $70,188.80 before getting the cattle into the Cuban market.
Surely His Catholic Majesty’s Government cannot regard the extra
$4,386.80 paid by Mr. McKay as legitimate consular fees.
As before stated, Mr. McKay and the other American shippers of cattle at
Key West do not object to the regular consular fees for the clearance of
the vessel, nor to the six dollars per head paid upon the cattle on
arrival at a Cuban port, but they do object very naturally, and very
justly, to the imposition at Key West, a port of the United States, of a
tax over and above all regular charges, of forty cents per head on all
the cattle shipped.
This tax, I need not tell your excellency, call it by what name you may,
is no more nor no less than an export tax or duty levied by His Catholic
Majesty’s Government in a port of the United States, and does the
Government of His Catholic Majesty claim to itself the right to levy
taxes and collect revenue in the ports of a foreign country?
Your excellency will remember that on the 7th of January last I had the
honor to invite your attention to an extra charge of ten cents per ton
exacted in ports of the United States by Spanish consuls on the cargoes
of vessels clearing for Spanish ports. My government claimed and
maintained in that note that the charge in question was an export duty
levied in its ports by His Catholic Majesty’s Government, and as such
was inadmissible.
Your excellency was good enough to reply to that note, on the 29th of May
last, stating why such a charge was levied and collected. I transmitted
a copy of that note to Washington for the information of my government,
and I am now informed that the reasons of your excellency as therein set
forth are not satisfactory, and that the charges are inadmissible.
It is hardly necessary to point out to your excellency that the charge of
forty cents per head on cattle is precisely the same in principle as
that of ten cents per ton on the cargoes of vessels; in other and
perhaps plainer words, it is an export duty or tax levied by His
Catholic Majesty’s Government in the ports of the United States, and
therefore my government takes the same stand in regard to it that it
took in regard to the first above-mentioned tax or charge.
In view of the fact that the two charges in question are substantially
the same, and of the further fact that the question was fully presented
and the objections of my government thereto plainly expressed in my note
of the 7th January last, little or nothing now remains to be said in
regard to the matter further than that the case of Mr. McKay and of the
other American shippers of cattle at Key West aggravates the questions,
and beside the principle involved, the tax referred to is extremely
obnoxious not only to merchants in the United States engaged in
commercial pursuits with Spanish ports, but also to the Government of
the United States, and therefore my government expects that that of His
Catholic Majesty will take immediate steps to do away with these
objectionable, offensive, and inadmissible charges, and in the present
case to return to Mr. McKay the amount ($4,386.80) paid by him to the
Spanish consul at Key West, as head-tax on the several shipments of
cattle already made.
My government is unable to believe that the Government of His Catholic
Majesty, whose history and traditions are so intimately and so justly
identified with the growth and progress of the world’s commerce, will
insist in the continuance of a system (before unheard of in the world’s
history) which has for an object the collection of revenue in the ports
of a foreign government, and it therefore has no doubt that upon a
reconsideration of the subject, its request in the matter will be
willingly and speedily complied with. Such charges are imposed by the
consuls of no other nation.
If, as intimated in the note of your excellency of the 29th May last, it
is necessary [Page 485] to obtain the
authorization of the Cortes to enable the Government of His Catholic
Majesty to comply with the request of that of the United States, I am
instructed to ask, through your excellency, that such authorization may
be obtained from that body.
I am also instructed to state to your excellency that if such
authorization is necessary, and if the Cortes decline to grant it, that
there will then remain to the United States but one course to pursue.
That course will be the levying of a similar charge on colonial products
of Spain, shipped by Spanish subjects from the ports of their own
country to the United States. This would be the exercise of a power not
claimed by my government except in retaliation of the same power
wrongfully exercised by the Government of His Catholic Majesty, and I
need hardly tell your excellency that such a course is not contemplated
with satisfaction by the Government of the United States; and the
following simple statement of the present status of the commerce between
the United States and the Spanish colonies will be sufficient to show
how detrimental such a course would be to the colonial subjects of His
Catholic Majesty.
In the year 1880 the exports of Cuba to the United States amounted to
$65,423,000 and from all other Spanish colonial ports $12,214,000,
making in all $77,637,000. The exports of the United States for the same
year to Cuba amounted to $11,000,000, and to all other colonial ports
$2,000,000, making in all $13,000,000, and showing a difference in favor
of His Catholic Majesty’s subjects of $64,637,000.
In the year 1881 the exports from Cuba to the United States amounted to
$63,000,000 and from all other Spanish colonial ports $12,000,000,
making in all $75,000,000. The exports from the United States to Cuba
for the same year amounted to $11,000,000, and to all the other Spanish
colonial ports $2,000,000, making in all $13,000,000, and showing a
difference in favor of His Catholic Majesty’s subjects of
$62,000,000.
As before stated, the above simple statement will show to your excellency
how very detrimental it would be to the interests of His Catholic
Majesty’s subjects in Cuba and in other Spanish colonial possessions,
should the Government of the United States find itself obliged to
retaliate by imposing upon the products exported from those possessions,
a tax or charge similar to that now imposed and collected by Spain in
the ports of the United States on merchandise shipped to Spanish ports.
But the President earnestly and sincerely hopes that the United States
will not be called upon to take this step of retaliation, and he
entertains the firm belief, in view of the long and unbroken friendship
which has existed between the two countries, as well as of the great
commercial interests involved, that His Catholic Majesty’s Government
will not insist upon the continuance of these objectionable and
offensive charges, but will readily and willingly take such steps as
will do away with them at an early day.
In presenting this subject again to the attention of your excellency I am
also instructed to ask that it may receive that prompt and just
consideration which its importance demands; and I am likewise instructed
to transmit at once to Washington the reply of His Catholic Majesty’s
Government thereto, for the information and action of the President.
I gladly avail myself, &c.,
