No. 534.
Mr. Bayard
to Mr. Phelps.
Washington, August 2, 1888.
Sir: I have to inclose herewith a copy of a note* addressed to me by the British chargé d’affaires at this capital, on the 26th of June, soliciting the views of this Government in respect to a treaty made by Germany with the present Samoan Government on the 24th of January last, in regard to the municipal administration of Apia and the taxation of German subjects living outside of the limits of the municipality. I inclose also a copy of the treaty† in English.
It provides that German subjects in the municipality shall be amenable to certain of the former municipal regulations converted into Samoan laws by the proclamation of the Samoan Government of the 18th of January last, and shall pay to the Samoan Government the taxes and contributions therein specified.
It provides that German consular jurisdiction in Samoa shall not be in any way restricted by the foregoing provisions. Nevertheless, they are to be enforced in the first instance by a judge appointed by the [Page 744] Samoan Government, from whose decision an appeal is to lie to the German consul at Apia, or his locum tenens. Outside of the municipality of Apia, German subjects and those under German protection are to be required to pay the same poll-tax to the Samoan Government as Sa-moans, provided it does not exceed $5 a year for a person and his family.
This is a substantial outline of the treaty.
As you will perceive by the inclosed note, Her Majesty’s Government are disposed to conclude a similar treaty with Samoa, on condition that the regulations referred to be embodied In a British regulation of Her Majesty’s high commission under the Western Pacific orders in council, 1877–1880, and enforced exclusively by the British consul as deputy commissioner.
There is one clause in the note, the scope of which I do not fully comprehend. It is said that it must be stipulated in the British-Samoan agreement that British subjects shall be under the “exclusive jurisdiction “of the British consul as deputy commissioner. I understand this to have reference only to the enforcement of the regulations.
This being so, I find it necessary to inquire whether Her Majesty’s Government propose to consider the question into whose hands the taxes thus levied and the fines thus imposed shall be paid, and how the moneys so obtained shall be expended.
So far as the adoption of the regulations is concerned, my views coincide with those expressed by the Marquis of Salisbury, that it is expedient to put them in free; and, as I find in the German agreement no conventional guaranty in respect to the Samoan official, who is to enforce them, I do not; perceive, at present, any reason why the United States should yield any part of its existing exclusive consular jurisdiction over Americans in Samoa. But, before expressing further concurrence with the views of Her Majesty’s Government, I should be glad to learn whether it would not be thought advisable in thus converting the late municipal regulations into American or British regulations to make some further provision in any future British or American convention with Samoa, which would afford guaranties in respect to the disposition and application of such revenues.
This is a question of practical administration in respect to which Germany appears to possess at present such influence as render it in her judgment unnecessary to exact nominal guaranties, which may, however, be essential to the United States and Great Britain.
The inclosure referred to in the note of the British charge is a confidential paper printed for the use of the foreign office June, 1888, and entitled “Apia municipal regulations referred to in Article I of German agreement with Samoa.”
I am, etc.,