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.,