No. 338.
Mr. Baker
to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Caracas, October 31, 1882. (Received November 23.)
Sir: Referring to my No. 552, of 17th ultimo, respecting a contemplated interview with the President, with a view of speaking to him about the matter of the custody of ships’ papers, &c., I have to say that on the 28th ultimo I had an extended interview with him upon that and other matters. Upon the subject being introduced, he asked what was the reason for the desired change in respect to the custody of ships’ papers. I stated, in the first place, that I understood it to be a general practice of the commercial nations of the world to accord the custody of ships’ papers to the consuls of the nations to which the ships belonged, and that my information was to the effect that only a few of the Spanish American states offered exceptions to this practice—as far as the commerce of the United States extends. I understood him to indicate in reply that he had an impression that the general practice was as I had stated, but that he did not regard this as the reason that should be given for a change. I then made a statement to the purport that I thought I had received reports from one or more United States consular officers in Venezuela to the effect that in some cases ships’ papers had been lost by the local port authorities. I understood him to indicate that he thought this must be erroneous, and that, if it was so, it would be an incidental but not a fundamental reason for a change. I then made a statement to the effect that the comity of nations required that their respective consuls in foreign countries should be the custodians of their respective ships’ papers; and that, for a nation to withhold such custody from foreign consuls, whom it had received and recognized as such, carried with it an inappropriate element of suspicion or distrust. [Page 540] To this the President made answer to the effect that the desire to take the custody of such papers from the customs officers of the country imported a like converse suspicion or distrust. To which I responded, in substance, that I did not regard this view as apposite, for the reason that a nation’s consular officers in foreign countries are the natural and appropriate custodians of its ships’ papers; that such custody comes within the scope of the consular function.
The result upon the point was that the President suggested, or requested, that I would obtain from my government a statement of the reason why the change in question is desired, in order that he might present it in his next message to Congress, which meets in February. I told him I could do so, but that I thought no other reasons would be forthcoming but those I had given. * * *
I suspect that this last lies at the bottom of the matter, and is the fundamental source of the general usage of nations in according the custody of ships’ papers to the resident consular officers of the foreign countries to which the ships belong. I presume a nation, in the exercise of its sovereign powers, has a right, if it sees fit, to require that such papers be deposited with its own customs officers; but it appears to me quite clear, as a general principle, that such action must be regarded as a violation of the proprieties which comity enjoins between friendly nations.
The interview above referred to took place at Antimino, some miles from Caracas, where the President was stopping, not having then resumed his functions, as indeed he has not yet done so. Mr. Seijas, the minister of exterior relations, rode out with me, and was present at the interview. On our way back to Caracas I indicated to him that I should examine the consular reports to which I had alluded in conversation with the President, and bring the accurate state of the matter to his attention. I found upon subsequent examination that my recollection had been quite correct. I found that in a communication from Mr. Plumacher he says:
It has occurred several times that parts of papers of American vessels have been lost by the custom-house authorities, and the vessels had to leave without them, the officials declaring that they never received them.
And in a communication from Mr. Lacombe I found the statement:
At this port, the crew list of three of our vessels could not be found on the day of their clearance, and I had to provide them with a new one. I have been informed by the ex-French consul at this port that the same loss of papers had occurred to some French vessels.
On the 27th instant I recalled Mr. Seijas’ attention to the matter, read to him the foregoing extracts from the communications of Messrs. Plumacher and Lacombe, indicated to him that they completely authenticated what I had said to the President on the point (to which he appeared to assent), and requested him to inform the President in the premises. He made a memorandum, and said he would do so.
Now as to the practical point of the business. In pursuance of the suggestion or request of the President, I recommend that you furnish me, as soon as practicable, with a statement of the reasons why it is desired by our government that the custody of our ships’ papers in the ports of Venezuela should be committed to our consular officers, with direction that I communicate a copy of such statement to the minister of exterior relations of this government. I hope that this course may be the means of bringing about the desired change.
I am, &c.,