Mr. Secretary of State: Referring to my note of
the 31st of March last, I have the honor to address to your Excellency a
fresh communication upon the same subject, that is to say, touching the
tonnage dues which at the present time weigh upon navigation between the
United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway and the United States.
His excellency the minister of foreign affairs at Stockholm has recently
sent me instructions on the subject by a dispatch dated the 12th of this
month, directing me at the same time to deliver a copy thereof to your
excellency. I have, consequently, the honor to annex hereto a copy of
that dispatch.
Your excellency will see by the line of argument developed in that
document, and by the tenor of my instructions, that the Royal Government
firmly maintains its position in demanding, in favor of the navigation
between Sweden and Norway and the United States, the same advantages as
are conceded by the Shipping Act of June 26, 1884, to that between the
United States and other territories.
In conformity with the orders given to me, I now renew the demand upon
the Government of the United States already set forth in my notes of the
4th October and 11th November of last year—that, in virtue of article 8
of the treaty of 1827, the navigation between the United Kingdoms of
Sweden and Norway and the United States (whether by Swedish and
Norwegian vessels or American vessels) be admitted to enjoy the benefits
of the reduction which fixes the tonnage dues at 3 to 15 cents.
Convinced that the well-grounded demand of the Royal Government can be no
longer gainsaid, and that it will please your excellency to set me in
the way of informing my Government of the reply it confidently awaits, I
hasten to embrace this opportunity to renew etc.,
[Inclosure.—Translation.]
Copy of note addressed by his excellency the
minister of foreign affairs at Stockholm to the minister of
Sweden and Norway in Washington, under date of June 12,
1886.
I have had the honor to receive, with your dispatch of March 31 last,
a copy of the note which Mr. Bayard addressed to you under date of
the 29th of the same month touching our claim to obtain for the
navigation between the United Kingdoms and the United States the
same advantages as those which have been granted by the shipping act
of June 26, 1884, to the navigation between the United States and
certain areas of territory. You have, at the same time, sent me a
copy of the correspondence on the subject which was printed for the
use of Congress.
The answer of Mr. Bayard is negative, but the terms in which it is
couched lead me to believe that, notwithstanding the clearness with
which you, in the notes you addressed to him under date of October 4
and November 11, 1885, set forth the views and the demands of the
King’s Government, our position has not been well comprehended.
In those notes you asked that the reduction of tonnage dues accorded
by the act of June 26, 1884, to the vessels of any nation arriving
in the United States from certain geographical points, shall be also
granted to vessels arriving from Sweden and Norway. You did not
speak of the nationality of such vessels, but only of their point of
departure, your object being thereby to make it evident that it was
not for the merchant-shipping of Sweden and Norway, as such, that we
claimed the privilege in question, but for the vessels arriving in
the United States from our ports, without distinction of
nationality.
Nevertheless, Mr. Bayard, in the note above referred to, thus defined
our claim:
“The claim appears to be that, by the eighth article of the treaty of
1827, the shipping of Sweden and Norway is entitled to the benefit
of the above-mentioned act, in common with other nations, but
without submission to its geographical conditions and limitations as
exacted from them.”
It is therefore evident that the scope of our claim has not been well
understood, for if, instead of the words “the shipping of Sweden and
Norway,” there had been employed the words the shipping arriving
from Sweden and “Norway”—which would have indicated the precise
point in question—all the latter part of the paragraph which I have
just cited would become absolutely incomprehensible.
Mr. Bayard’s note can not, therefore, be considered as a reply to our
demand, and it becomes necessary to invite anew the attention of the
Government of the United States to the rights which accrue to us
under the express stipulations of our treaties, and the more so as
Mr. Bayard appears to assert, at the end of his note, the opinion
that there is no conflict between the act of 1884 and our treaty of
1827. As this is precisely the point in dispute, I deem it useful to
sum up our arguments afresh.
By the treaties of 1783 (article 2) and 1827 (article 17) the
treatment of the most favored nation is reciprocally established
between the United Kingdoms and the United States. It is stipulated
in addition by the eighth article of the treaty of 1827, as
follows:
“The two high contracting parties engage not to impose upon the
navigation between their respective territories, in the vessels of
either, any tonnage or other duties, of any kind or denomination,
which shall be higher or other than those which shall be imposed on
every other navigation except that which they have reserved to
themselves, respectively, by the sixth article of the present
treaty.”
I must here point out the importance of the words “the navigation
between their respective territories.” It is in no wise a question
of the privileges of the mercantile marine of Sweden and Norway or
the United States as such, but it concerns in the clearest possible
manner the navigation from the ports of one of the parties to those
of the other, which is expressly benefited on an equality with every
other navigation. The significance of this stipulation is rendered
still more clear by the fact that it was deemed necessary to
declare, by a separate article, that article 8 should not be
applicable to the navigation between the United Kingdoms and
Finland, which is bound to the United Kingdoms by considerations of
proximity and ancient relationship, and therefore enjoys an
exceptional position. But no equivalent reservation was deemed
necessary on the part of the United States, and it remains,
consequently, established by the article in question, that vessels,
whether Swedish or Norwegian, or American, arriving from our ports
in those of the United States, have a right to the benefits of any
reduction of tonnage or other dues which may be granted to vessels
coming from any geographical point whatever.
I have begun by setting forth this argument, since it appears to me
to define the question in a manner so clear and decisive that it
seems to me that after having taken it into consideration the solid
foundation of our claim can no longer be the occasion of a doubt. I
could, therefore, content myself with the support given to us by the
stipulations of article 8, but in order to better elucidate
everything connected with this
[Page 1042]
matter, I deem it due to assert that the
“most favored nation” clause seems to the Government of the King
equally to justify a demand to participate in the reduction of the
tonnage clues to 3 to 15 cents, It is true that this reduction
applies to all vessels, without distinction or nationality, arriving
from certain ports, but, since the Government of the United States
maintains that no favor is accorded to the navigation of the
countries where such ports are situated since other vessels than
those of the country itself share therein, it does not take into
account that this advantage constitutes for the commerce of the
ports in question—and consequently for the nations to which they
belong, a veritable favor, since the traders there residing have
obtained the privilege of employing for their intercourse of
importation or exportation with the United States vessels which, on
arriving in the American ports, are better treated and have lesser
charges to pay than the vessels made use of by their competitors in
other countries. It seems to me difficult not to admit that this is
a favor, and in so far as it has been granted gratuitously to any
party in interest, our right to participate therein clearly flows
from article 2 of the treaty of 1783. In placing ourselves upon this
point of view, it is unnecessary to discuss whether the privilege
created by the shipping act of 1884 in favor of certain ports is to
be called national or geographical as Mr. Bayard maintains in his
note of November 7, 1885, for even if it be agreed to style the
advantage created for the navigation of these ports a geographical
privilege, it remains certain that the advantage granted to their
commerce is a national favor.
I do not find that the considerations I have herein set forth have
been sufficiently discussed in the correspondence which you have
sent me, and I invite you in consequence to renew the demand
heretofore made upon the Government of the United States that, in
virtue of the eighth article of the treaty of 1827, the vessels,
whether Swedish or Norwegian or American, arriving in the United
States from Sweden or Norway, be admitted to share in the reduction
of tonnage dues to 3 to 15 cents.
I seems to me that a refusal can not rest on any other assumption
than that the act of 1884 has made the stipulations of the treaty of
1827 without effect. There is no necessity for my insisting on the
fact that such an assumption would be contrary to the principles of
international law recognized by civilized nations, and I have too
much confidence in the good faith of the Government of the United
States to suppose that it proposes to maintain that the obligations
of a contract as solemn as our treaty can be modified or annulled at
will by one of the contracting parties alone.
Accept, sir, etc.,
