No. 29.
Mr. Hall to
Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Legation or
the United States
in Central America,
Guatemala, October 1, 1884. (Received October 27.)
No. 263.]
Sir: With reference to my dispatch No. 241, of the
25th July, relating to the two decrees of the Costa Rican Government of the
22d May, 1883, and 19th of June, 1884, the former making Limon a free port
for ten years and the latter revoking the law, I have now to acknowledge the
receipt of your instruction No. 170, of the 20th August, relating to the
same subject and approving my action in protesting against the apparently
inconsiderate action of the Costa Rican Government. * * *
In his letter of the 1st of August, Mr. Morrell reports having transmitted to
the minister of foreign affairs the protest of Mr. A. K. Brown against the
detention by the custom-house at Limon of goods imported under the decree of
22d May, 1883. The consul reports also that his communication was not
answered, but the goods of the party were released immediately and no duties
charged.
Under date of the 29th August, Minister Castro replies to my note of the 25th
July (of which a copy accompanies my No. 241), wherein I asked that a
reasonable time be granted the interested parties before enforcing the
last-mentioned decree. He alleges the reasons why my suggestions cannot be
acceded to, and claims the right of his Government to revoke it at any time,
that the period of ten years had for its object to fix its maximum duration,
and in no way obligated the Government to maintain a free port at Limon
during a whole decade. I have replied to the minister, under date of the 22d
ultimo, insisting that the parties whose interests have been injured by this
action of the Costa Rican Government have the same right to consider the
period stipulated in the decree of 22d May, 1883, as fixing its minimum
duration, and, in consonance with your instructions above referred to, I
have informed the minister that the right is claimed for our citizens to be
fully indemnified for all losses sustained in consequence of the revocation,
without notice, of the last-mentioned decree.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No.
263.—Translation.]
Señor Castro to Mr.
Hall.
Department of Foreign Relations of the
Republic of
Costa Rica,
San
José, August 29,
1884.
Mr. Minister: I have had the honor to receive
your esteemed communication dated Guatemala, 25th July ultimo.
By it I have taken note that your excellency considers just and expedient
to decree a reasonable term for the enforcement of the decree of 19th
June ultimo, revoking that of the 22d May, 1883, which established the
freedom of the port of Limon, with the view of avoiding the claims which
otherwise will be presented against my Government.
I thank you for the interest you show in all that you consider favorable
to the commerce of Costa Rica and your desire to avoid reclamations
against her; but permit me to state that it is not possible to accede to
your wishes, not only because the opportunity of conceding the
reasonable term referred to is past, but also for the reasons which I
shall set forth.
[Page 44]
The supreme executive power would have adopted the measure you suggest,
not as a right nor as being customary in cases similar to the one in
question, but out of consideration for the interests created under the
franchise and that were going to suffer notably, if the proximity and
rapidity of communications between Limon and the principal foreign ports
from whence merchandise is imported should not have caused fears that
the merchants would take advantage of the term conceded them, with the
sole view of avoiding greater losses, to make large importations to the
prejudice of the public treasury.
In addition, my Government does not believe that the enforcement of the
decree of June 19 referred to can give rise to just claims on the part
of foreigners or of nations, because it injures the rights of no one.
The time of ten years to which you refer had for its object to fix the
maximum duration of the same, and in no way obligated the legislative
power to maintain a free port at Limon for a whole decade, even when the
inexpediency of the decree of 22d May, 1883, was apparent from the first
month. Such interpretation is in accord with the will of the
legislature, and, on the other hand, is authentic.
I entertain the hope that the foregoing considerations will convince you
that there is no cause for the claims to which your communication
refers.
I improve, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 263.]
Mr. Hall to Señor
Castro.
Legation of the United States,
Guatemala, September 22,
1884.
Mr. Minister: I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your excellency’s courteous communication of the 29th
ultimo, expressing dissent as to the suggestions contained in my note of
25th July, relative to the revocation of the decree of the 22d May,
1883, by which Limon was made a free port for the term of ten years.
Your excellency is correct in estimating the motives for my referred to
communication. It was and is my desire to avoid the reclamations which
might arise in consequence of (if I may be permitted to use the
expression) the abrupt revocation of a law under which foreign interests
were created, and, as your excellency admits, would be injured by such
revocation.
Your excellency is pleased to state also that the opportunity has passed
for conceding the reasonable postponement asked for, but that the
supreme executive power would have adopted the measure suggested by
me—not as a right nor as a custom in such cases, but out of
consideration for the interests created under the franchise which would
notably suffer—but for the possibility that the merchants might take
advantage of the opportunity to make heavy importations, to the
prejudice of the public treasury, to whose interests it would seem the
“created interests” referred to are made subservient.
If it is intended to convey the idea that my request for a postponement
was not in time, I beg to say that it was made immediately upon being
advised of the revocation of the decree of the 22d May, 1883.
In regard to the right of remonstrance, your excellency admits that the
interests created under the franchise would suffer notably by its
revocation. As to the custom in such cases, I should be glad to be
informed upon what precedent your excellency’s Government supports its
action in this case. Nor can I concur with your excellency that the
stipulation of the term of ten years had for its sole object to fix the
maximum duration of the decree of the 22d May, 1883. The foreign parties
whose interests have been injured by its revocation had the same right
to consider the stipulated term of ten years to be the “minimum”
duration of the decree as the Government of your excellency has to
consider it the “maximum.”
The Department of State of my Government, to which I have referred the
subject in question, authorizes me to say that it is deemed a proper one
to submit to the sense of equity and fair dealing of the Government of
Costa Rica, and I am further instructed, should your excellency’s
Government deny responsibility, as of right, for the losses thus
sustained, to transmit without delay to the Department, for its
consideration, all claims presented to me on behalf of citizens of the
United States arising under the circumstances referred to, and at the
same time respectfully to make known to the Government of your
excellency that the right is claimed to be fully indemnified for all
losses sustained by citizens of the United States by reason of the
repeal, without reasonable notice, of the law which decreed Limon a free
port for the period of ten years.
I improve, &c.,
