Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, For the Year 1887, Transmitted to Congress, With a Message of the President, June 26, 1888
No. 479.
Mr. Manning to Mr. Bayard.
Mexico, June 29, 1887. (Received July 7.)
Sir: Referring to your No. 100, of May 6, touching the complaint of Messrs. Pomares & Cushman, of New York, of vexatious and obstructive fines imposed upon them by Mexican customs officers for trifling and [Page 738] unimportant omissions in their invoices, and to my note to Mr. Mariscal, of May19, I have now the honor to inclose translation of his reply, and copy of my rejoinder of yesterday’s date.
I am, etc.,
Mr. Mariscal to Mr. Manning.
Mexico, June 25, 1887.
Mr. Minister: Referring to your excellency’s note of date May 19 last, concerning a complaint by Messrs. Pomares & Cushman, of New York, a copy of which your excellency was pleased to forward to me, I have the honor to inclose copy of the reply sent me by the secretary of the treasury giving the decision of the Mexican Government upon the matter.
In his reply the secretary of the treasury calls attention to the fact that Messrs. Pomares & Cushman showed at least bad taste in the selection of instances upon which to predicate their criticisms touching the fiscal procedures and acts of the customs employe’s in Mexico. In the case of the two shipments they specify, the fine in one was even less than they supposed, and its imposition was discountenanced and reproved by the treasury department, and ere this probably repaid to the complainants; while in the other case the heavy damages lamented were limited to $1.
I avail, etc.,
Department of the Treasury to the Department of Foreign Affairs.
[Department of state and of the treasury and public credit, Mexico. First section. No. 24777.]
The President of the Republic has been pleased to approve the following measures:
With the accompanying note the department of foreign affairs sends translation of a note which the United States minister at this capital has addressed him, under date of the 19th ultimo, relative to certain practices in the custom-houses at our ports, complained of by some American business houses, among them the firm of Pomares & Cushman, of New York, vide the translated statement of said firm herewith also inclosed, a statement transmitted by them to the Department of State at Washington. The documents are furnished to the end that this department may minister a statement of the facts referred to.
This section does not enter into a consideration of the various ideas set forth alike by the United States minister as well as the merchants alluded to in their respective statements, copies of which are sent by the department of foreign affairs, for said department advises that in its reply it will answer those points of inquiry of the functionary above referred to. The section confines itself, in the report which it is called on to render in obedience to superior instructions, to the presentation merely of the legal causes or bias of the facts complained of by the parties in interest, as well the proceedings followed throughout.
The firm of Pomares & Cushman state that by the steamer City of Fuebla they shipped to Progreso on February 3 last 5 tierces of lard, and that on the arrival of the goods a fine was imposed of $1.25, because the invoice was not accompanied by the customary oath. The firm state that they sent by the steamer City of Washington to the same port on March 17 last two bales of wick for the business of making candles, and that these were fined with double duties because it was not specified that said wicks were of cotton, which it was not necessary to specify.
Paragraph 3d of article 44 of the ordinance in force requires that consignees shall certify a protest of the truth of their declarations, and that in case this provision is not complied with, under the one hundred and sixteenth article a fine may be imposed up to $20, under the further conditions of the second paragraph, fraction 9 of article 408 of the ordinance in case no rectification is made by the consignees within a given time.
The consignees in question must have been aware of the law above referred to for their invoice contains other requisites set down in article 44, and which they duly complied with. The custom-house authorities therefore fined the responsible parties, who, under the fifty-ninth article of the ordinance, are the consignees themselves.
[Page 739]According to the Progreso custom-house document No. 1155, on file in this department, and which is subjoined, the fine imposed was not $1.25, as the claimants said, but $1, which charge was approved by the department, in view of the fact that a similar fine is always imposed upon the other merchants in similar circumstances. It is not true that the consignees invoiced the wicks as “mechas” wicks, or that double duties were imposed upon them. In the accompanying invoice, attached to custom-house paper No. 1447, the articles were simply specified as “pabilo” (wick for candle). The consignees neglecting to specify that the wicks were of cotton, the custom-house authorities applied a fine of 15 per cent., and not double duties, considering the case to come under the provisions of article 114 of the ordinance amended by the degree of August 1, 1885, referring to cases in which the class or material of merchandise is specified. Yet as the proceedings of customs officials in matters touching changes from the regular tariff are subject to the immediate revision of this department, which always endeavors to secure an exact compliance with the law by subordinate employés who may err in the interpretation of the law, this same case was referred to the department. The latter found the proceeding unjust, for the tariff does not classify “pubilo” as of any material save cotton; therefore it is evident that this article was the one referred to in the consular invoice. Therefore in its communication No. 12085, dated April 11 last, the department informed the Progreso custom-house that it did not approve of its procedure. The amount of the fine has probably been refunded. The parties interested have not, therefore, suffered a penalty more severe than a fine of $1, as a fine for the lack of the protest in one of the invoices. The damages so bitterly complained of by the consignees above named have not exceeded, in their totality, the single sum of $1 of fine, which could not be remitted because of the reasons given.
All of which I transmit to you for your information and its requisite effects, in reply to your esteemed note relative thereto, dated the 2d instant, at the same time reminding you that every case in which fines are imposed for infractions of fiscal regulations before being finally decided or executed are revised by this department.
Liberty and constitution.
Mexico, June 8, 1887.
In the absence of the secretary.
First Chief Clerk.
To the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs,
Present.
Revised.
First Clerk.
Mr. Manning to Mr. Mariscal.
Mexico, June 28, 1887.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s note of 25th instant, touching the complaint of Messrs. Pomares & Cushman, of New York. It seems to have escaped attention that I did not mention the moneyed demand of those gentlemen, partly because it was too insignificant in amount, but chiefly because I did not wish to dwarf the greater subject of a reform of customs regulations, with the consideration of which my note was chiefly employed.
I am so thoroughly penetrated by a desire to foster and augment the trade relations of our countries, that in the zeal of my argument I put the action of the subcustoms officers of Mexico in a less suave manner than I might have done. But, in truth, their mode of action is so serious an obstruction to trade and such effective discouragement and hinderance of it, that I should be doing a great service to the Government of Mexico and my own if I could make my argument so convincing as to effect the abrogation of regulations which do not increase revenue, but do increase the difficulties that attend the importation of goods from my country into Mexico and, although I must consider the case of the present complainants at an end, I hope the deleterious results of continuing to employ the methods of action before pointed out will become so apparent, that your excellency’s Government will gradually but certainly dispense with them.
Allow me to renew, etc.,