You will observe that Mr. Mariscal repeats the arguments contained in his
former notes and concludes by expressing regret and surprise that the United
States Government, in place of rejecting “an unfounded claim,” as be terms
it, continues to foster it.
[Inclosure in No.
270.—Translation.]
Mr. Mariscal to Mr.
Connery.
Department of Foreign Affairs,
Mexico, November 7,
1887.
Mr. Chargé d’affaires: Your legation, in a note
dated June 17, of the current year, was pleased to state that the
Honorable Mr. Bayard did not regard as satisfactory the explanations of
the department of public works regarding the matter of the complaint of
Messrs. Alexandre & Sons, concerning the rebate of 2 per cent, from
import duties granted to the Spanish Trans-Atlantic Steam-ship
Company.
The explanations above referred to had been furnished to your legation on
the 11th of last May. It was then said that when the concession in
question was made several complaints arose, though informally, from
nations which had in their respective treaties with Mexico the most
favored nation clause, and that the explanation then sufficed that the
exemption was granted to a private company in lieu of subvention, and
not to the flag of Spain, thus quieting said complaints.
To the above was added that, as the legation well knows, Mexico is not
held by express conditions to treat the United States as a most favored
nation—for there is no general treaty, in fact, between the two
countries—and that though Mexico yields that treatment to the United
States de facto, and per force of peculiarly
friendly relations, under international usage Messrs. Alexandre &
Sons have even less ground for complaint than English or German
companies would have in like circumstances.
That note concluded calling attention to the justice of the statement
made by the department of public works to the effect that Messrs.
Alexandre & Sons themselves, who for fifteen years were subventioned
by the Government of Mexico, should be the last to ignore Mexico’s right
to concede to others the advantages and franchises it may deem necessary
to the progress and promotion of its maritime commerce.
To this the said note from your legation, of June 17, replied that the
Government of the United States had not desired most-favored-nation
treatment for American vessels in Mexican ports because no stipulation
for such treatment is embraced in the treaties binding the two
countries; that neither had objection been made to the grant of a
subvention to that Spanish line in lieu of special services it had
engaged to perform, and that the complaint of Messrs. Alexandre &
Sons is based upon the fact that the rebate of 2 per cent. of the
customs is, in fact, granted to those who ship goods by the vessels of
the said Spanish line.
In view of those allegations it was clearly evident that Mr. Bayard had
not been able to consider the matter with due calmness and reflection.
This department trusted that after re-examining the complaint presented
he would recognize therein an attempt to obtain from the Government of
Mexico by the via diplomatica what could not in
any wise have been required.
Mr. Chargé d’Affaires, I believe that no one can call in question the
right of the Government of this Republic to grant to private companies
for special services they engage to perform subventions of any character
the same may judge to be favorable to its interests, provided always
that they do not infringe upon the stipulations of treaties now in
force.
By virtue of its contract, the Spanish Transatlantic Company realizes a
cash subvention by a rebate of 2 per cent. from customs duties upon
goods imported by its steamers in the ports of Mexico. If the said
company yields this discount of 2 per cent. to its shippers, it does so
undoubtedly for the purpose of encouraging traffic, and no one may
censure the company for doing so. If other companies suffer through the
competition thus created, let circumstances be blamed and not the
Government of Mexico, which is not bound to give heed to private
enterprises and can not assume responsibility for losses such companies
may sustain when, as in the present case, no compromise trammels its
freedom of action. None in effect, for even under the hypothesis that
the privilege granted by Mexico is granted, not to the Spanish
Steam-ship Company, but to shippers by that line, as your Government
sustains in its said note, no stipulation could be urged as between
Mexico and the United States of America, by virtue of which Messrs.
Alexandre & Sons could have reason for complaint concerning aught of
detriment occasioned.
Upon the receipt of the note of August 29th last from that legation,
relative to this matter, it pained me to see that the United States
Government, in place of rejecting the unfounded claim of those
gentlemen, which it should have without question done, in view of the
impartial explanations rendered, insisted, on the contrary, in fostering
that claim, giving as a reason that the interests of the parties had
suffered and continued to suffer. This, while probably true, does not
prove the violation of any right appertaining to them nor to any one
else.
I would therefore beg of you, Mr. Chargé de Affaires, to be pleased to
transmit to your Government the contents of this note, adding that the
Government of Mexico hopes that the Department of State in Washington
will restudy this matter, and will then become convinced that the claim
to which I refer is really unsustainable.
I renew, etc.,