No. 927.
Mr. Bayard
to Mr. Lewis.
Department
of State,
Washington, December 7,
1887.
No. 68.]
Sir: I transmit a copy of a letter from F. C.
Butman, of Boston, representing that goods of American manufacture are
imported into Portuguese colonies via Lisbon at less
than the same goods are subjected to [in the way of duties] if sent in
American bottoms direct to said colonies also a further letter on the
subject.
It is desired that you will carefully investigate the subject and report in
full, covering the entire ground. The question of indirect importations into
the colonies of a country is generally casus omissus
in treaties. Under Article IV of the treaty of 1840, it is presumed that no
discrimination of flag exists in the colonies, and that goods indirectly
imported thither, by way of a Portuguese port, in a vessel of the United
States, are entitled to a reduction of 30 per cent, of the tariff duties,
the same as if imported in Portuguese vessels.
It is stated by Messrs. Butman & Co. that the indirect importations into
the colonies from all foreign countries via the
parent country are treated alike. In this relation it is desirable to know
whether the question of discrimination has been raised by any other
government and how it has been met by Portugal.
It is possible that the analogy of the coastwise trade, under the reservation
of Article VII of the treaty, may be argued. This can only properly apply,
it is thought, to importations, which, having been regularly entered and
paid duties in a port of the parent country, are thence conveyed in vessels
of the country to another port thereof. But re-exportation in bond or with
drawback, equal to duties, to another port of the same country is a
different thing; and while it might be said that a rebate on foreign imports
of the nature herein shown, at the port of final destination, is a
discrimination against one home port and in favor of another, still it is
evident that the effect is to discourage direct importations and to favor a
double voyage with transshipment in a port of the mother country. In the
second case the flag under which the voyage after such transshipment is made
becomes important.
As will be seen, the subject is intricate and needs to be carefully
studied.
I am, etc.,
[Page 1382]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 68.]
Mr. Butman to Mr.
Bayard.
Boston, October 11,
1887.
Sir: Annexed please find copy of a letter from
my agent at St. Vincent, Gape Verde Islands, a native of this State,
dated September 10, 1887, which appears to me should receive prompt and
active attention of your Department. As I understand, Portuguese
products in Portuguese vessels are entitled to the same privileges of
entry in our ports as en tailed on the same goods if brought in American
bottoms. Why this? If, through what to me appears a flimsy or sharp
dodge, goods of American manufacture are imported into Portuguese
colonies via Lisbon at less than the same goods
are subjected to if sent in American bottoms direct to such colonies; if
the treaty between the United States and Portugal permits of any such
impositions, it seems to me the quicker it is stopped the better for the
credit and standing of this country.
Again asking for prompt and efficient action in the premises, and an
acknowledgment of this communication, I am etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 68.]
Mr. Holtz to Mr.
Butman.
St.
Vincent, September 10,
1887.
Dear Sir: The influence of the United States
Government ought to be used to protect goods of American manufacture
against the injustice of the present tariff of these islands.
Recent importations of goods of United States manufacture into these
islands from Lisbon define the intention of Portuguese merchants to
avail extensively of important and unjust exceptions in present tariff
in favor of goods from Lisbon brought in Portuguese vessels.
I inclose herewith a copy of the tariff. On page 5, article 1, it
says:
“Merchandise imported from foreign ports into this archipelago will pay
duty as defined in Table A, page 15.” Page 6, article 3: “Merchandise
re-exported from Lisbon to this archipelago will pay 70 per cent, of
duty as defined in Table A.” Table A, page 15, defines duty as follows:
|
|
Reis. |
| On goods of United States manufacture: |
|
|
| Denim blue drills, etc |
per kilogram |
400 |
| Flour |
Do |
15 |
| Unbleached cotton |
do |
150 |
| Box of manufactured tobacco |
do |
200 |
| Sugar |
do |
60 |
| Calicoes or prints |
do |
500 |
The following table will illustrate the practical workings of the tariff,
viz:
| Item. |
Reis. |
Dollars. |
Difference in favor of Lisbon. |
| One bale denim or blue drills, costing in United States 13
cents per yard, weighs 130 kilograms, at 400 reis (700
yards) |
52,000 |
56.52 |
} |
$16.97 per bale. |
| From Lisbon, 70 per cent, of 52,000 reis is |
36,400 |
39.55 |
| One bale unbleached cotton, 750 yards, costing 7 cents per
yard, weighs 115 kilograms, at 150 reis. |
17,250 |
18.74 |
} |
$5.62 per bale. |
| From Lisbon, 70 per cent, of 17,250 reis is |
12,075 |
13.12 |
| One box manufactured tobacco, 120 pounds, costing 17 cents
per pound, weighs 55 kilograms, at 200 reis. |
11,000 |
11.96 |
} |
$3.63 per 120 pounds. |
| From Lisbon, 70 per cent, of 11,000 reis is |
7,700 |
8.33 |
| One hogshead leaf tobacco, costing 12 cents per pound,
weighs 900 kilograms, at 200 reis. |
180,000 |
195.65 |
} |
$58.70 per hogshead. |
| From Lisbon, 70 per cent. of 180,000 reis is |
126,000 |
136.95 |
| One barrel flour, 196 pounds, 85 kilograms, at 15
reis |
1,275 |
1.39 |
} |
43 cents per barrel |
| From Lisbon, 70 per cent. is |
892 |
.96 |
| One case kerosene oil, 10 gallons, weight 30 kilograms, at
20 reis. |
600 |
.62½ |
} |
17½ cents per case. |
| From Lisbon, 70 per cent |
420 |
.45 |
| One barrel sugar, weighing 100 kilograms, at 60
reis |
6,000 |
6.52 |
} |
$1.97 per barrel. |
| From Lisbon, 70 per cent |
4,200 |
4.55 |
| One bale or case calico prints weighing 100 kilograms, at
500 reis. |
50,000 |
54.35 |
} |
$16.31 per bale. |
| From Lisbon, 70 per cent |
35,000 |
38.04 |
[Page 1383]
This tariff is not aimed to injure products of the United States more
than other foreign countries, but from the fact that the United States
has considerable direct trade here and foreign countries no trade of
importance, the tariff applies particularly severely upon United States
goods.
The question is often asked, Why do citizens of the United States not
avail of the advantages of re-exportation via
Lisbon for their goods? Why should citizens of the United States be
forced to send their goods double voyages; pay freight to Lisbon and
from Lisbon here in Portuguese vessels, which are enabled to charge high
rates of freight by the monopoly sustained by the tariff, compelling the
goods to be brought in Portuguese vessels, instead of employing their
own vessels to carry their own produce when prepared to do so?
Communication between the United States and Portugal by sail or steam
vessels is infrequent and inadequate to keep merchants regularly
supplied.
Lisbon merchants now import goods of United States manufacture because,
by efforts of those engaged in direct trade with the United States to
introduce and sell their goods, which are superior in quality to those
of European manufacture, a good demand is established and the poor
people prefer them to others. Permit direct trade with the United States
to he killed by this difference in duty, and soon the Lisbon merchants
will abandon importations of United States goods with their impediment
of infrequent communication and higher freights than between Europe and
Portugal, and give preference to the flimsy textures of European
manufacture, on which more profit can be made, and which are more
readily obtainable from Europe owing to frequent and cheaper
communication with Portugal.
The closing of the mail will not permit writing more to-day.
I remain, very truly, yours,
[Inclosure 3 in No. 68.]
Mr. Butman to Mr.
Bayard.
Boston, October 17,
1887.
Sir: Referring to my respects of the 11th
instant, yet unacknowledged, I beg to add further from my agent, Mr.
Joseph H. Holtz, at St. Vincent, Cape Verde Islands, on the same
subject, viz:
“Something must be done about the difference in duty between direct and
indirect importations. If this difference in duty applied only to goods
of Portuguese manufacture, there would be some merit in it, but as now
it only favors a few exporters from Lisbon to the loss of duties at this
archipelago, and it is surprising that the Government at Lisbon do not
see the injury it will do the islands by driving away direct
importations to give place to those who pay 30 per cent, less duty into
the revenue of the archipelago.
“There is said to be a new tariff for the islands now under consideration
by the Government at Lisbon, in which duties on domestics and tobacco
are considerably reduced, and the preference on United States goods via
Lisbon is reduced from 30 to 20 per cent. A reduction on general duties
will lessen the total difference between direct and indirect
importations, but what is needed is equal duties for all. It is
questionable if there exists any treaty of commerce between the United
States and Portugal. An ancient treaty of 1844, sometimes referred to
between islands government and consuls, says that the United States is
to be treated the same as the most favored nations, but as they treat
all nations equally unjustly in this duty on goods from Lisbon,
something more definite than the treaty of 1844 is needed, to the effect
that the United States and its commerce will be treated with equal
justice that the commerce of Portugal is treated by the United
States.
“With a new tariff under consideration at Lisbon, it appears a proper
time to urge our Government to protect goods of its manufacture. There
will be a strong opposition at Lisbon to reform in this direction, but
the case is so clearly for the benefit of the Portuguese Government as
regards revenue, aside from treating our commerce as we treat theirs,
that good results will follow if our Government uses its influence.”
I do not wish to use too strong language, but I respectfully submit, if
the Portuguese Government, while receiving, as I understand they do, the
same privileges in our ports as our own commerce receives, shall be
permitted to destroy United States commerce and vessels as they are
virtually attempting to do and drive us out of the direct trade which we
have been doing for years, it does appear to me that the case is one
warranting prompt and energetic measures, and that no time should be
lost in taking the necessary steps to secure justice and equity.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Respectfully, etc.,
