Mr. Foster to Mr. Bayard.
Madrid, August 10, 1885. (Received August 24.)
Sir: I am in receipt of your No. 377, of the 2oth ultimo, referring to the moiety of the line imposed upon the Ocean Pearl at Matanzas, Cuba, and I have taken note of your instruction respecting the consideration of the question in the pending treaty negotiations.
It may be proper to recall the fact that during my residence here I have had occasion frequently to bring this subject to the attention of the Spanish ministers of state and of ultramar. With my No. 49, of July 30, 1883, I inclosed to the Department a copy of a note of the 26th of the said month which I sent to the minister of state, presenting at considerable length the complaints of American shipping on account of Cuban custom-house regulations, and especially referring to the injustice and hardship of the moiety system of fines.
The Spanish customs moiety system is somewhat similar to that which existed a few years ago in the United States custom-houses, and which, on account of its unsatisfactory results, was modified by the law of Congress now in force. In conferences which I have held with the minister of ultramar, he states the operations of the Cuban regulations to be as follows:
When a fine is imposed on a vessel or cargo for a breach of the tariff laws or regulations, one half the fine becomes the property of the informer. The legality of the fine may be contested by judicial or administrative proceedings in the way proscribed by the regulations, and if by this method the fine is declared to have been illegally imposed, the whole of it is remitted; but when this method is not adopted, and resort is had to the supreme Government for a condonation of the fine, the remission only relates to that part of the fine which pertains to the Government. In such cases a technical violation of the law is usually admitted, and an appeal is made to the executive on the ground of an absence of intent to defraud the revenues. The action of the Government in condoning the fine does not affect the question of the legality of its imposition, and hence the right of the informer to his moiety is not taken away by the executive pardon.
[Page 749]In the treaty of commerce, signed at Madrid, November 18 last, Article XVII was inserted with the object of placing these fines entirely under the control of the Government, adopting substantially the system now in force in the United States. The project of treaty which I submitted to the minister of state on the 21st ultimo embraced this article.
I am, &c.,