No. 297.
Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Reed.
Washington, November 10, 1882.
Sir: Mr. Hamlin’s No. 100, of the 12th ultimo, has been received. His course in presenting our complaint against the consular fee of forty cents per head on cattle shipped from our ports to the Antilles (as set forth in Mr. Davis’ No. 94) as resting on the same basis as the previous complaint concerning the exaction of a consular fee of ten cents per ton on invoiced cargo, conforms to the intention of the department; and his note of 26th of September to the Marquis de la Vega is approved as a forcible, and, it is hoped, conclusive exposition of our case.
The two classes of charge are of the same nature, and are opposed by us as being a revenue charge levied in our ports, not for services rendered by the consul or proportionate to such services, but as in effect an export tax. It cannot adequately be met by saying (as has been said in past discussion) that our consular fees for authenticating invoices may, when these are numerous, amount to a heavy charge, exceeding that in the case of a single moderate cargo when comprised in one invoice and assessed at ten cents a ton. The service performed by the consul is one required by law for the protection of the revenue [Page 487] at the port of entry, and involves ascertainment of the bona fides and responsibility of the exporter, and the substantial accuracy of the statements contained in the invoice and sworn declaration therewith. This service is uniform in all cases, and neither the consul’s labor nor his responsibility are measurable by the weight of the merchandise invoiced or the number of pieces of which it is composed. It would apparently be as tenable for Spanish legislation to assess an ad valorem tax for the verification of an invoice. No basis of consular fees which depends on the weight, size, amount, or value of the merchandise, and disregards the specific clerical or administrative act done, can be in principle anything short of an export tax levied in the jurisdiction of another State.
With regard to the head tax of forty cents on cattle, a point remains on which you may find it appropriate to seek information. That tax first appears in the consular tariff of July 15, 1874, article 51. By a royal order of October 18, 1876, that article (with articles 48, 49, and 50) was suppressed, and substituted by a uniform consular fee on verifying invoices of five cents in Europe and ten cents in America per ton or fraction of a ton. And a further circular royal order of October 7, 1881, directed that the fees on invoices for Cuba and Porto Rico should follow the modification of articles 48 to 51, inclusive, contained in the said royal order of October 18, 1876. In the absence of knowledge of any later order, it is not perceived why the head tax of forty cents is levied, instead of the uniform tax of ten cents per ton weight. While both charges are alike objectionable in principle, a tonnage tax on cattle would be the lesser in amount, and you may use this circumstance as argument in showing, not only the identity of our complaints in the case of tonnage and head tax, but also as evidencing a disposition to make the charge effectively an export charge for revenue by so assessing it as to yield in any given case the largest return.
It is noticed that Mr. Hamlin speaks, in his note to the minister, of the charge of forty cents per head being collected in addition to all other consular charges. This may be somewhat inaccurate if it should appear that the charge is the only one levied on verifying an invoice. It is understood to be distinct from and additional to all other charges on manifests, clearances, and other ship’s papers.
I am, &c.,