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
[Page 1893]
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 denned 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 nowise 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 maybe 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 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 dues 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.
[Page 1894]
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 he admitted to
share in the reduction of tonnage dues to 3 to 15
cents.
It seems to me that a refusal can not rest on any other
assumption than that the act of 1384 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 he 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.,
