Mr. Bayard to Mr.
Belmont.
Department
of State,
Washington, February 20,
1889.
No. 27.]
Sir: I inclose with this dispatch copies of an
extended correspondence which has recently taken place with Messrs. James E.
Ward & Co., of New York, agents of the New York and Cuba Mail Steam-ship
Company, and with the consular officers of the United States at Matanzas and
Havana, in relation to the vexatious requirements of the Cuban customs
regulations, by which minute and circumstantial declarations of manifested
merchandise, which are unusual and unnecessary in the legitimate course of
mercantile and shipping transactions, are demanded by the Cuban authorities;
and whereby also fines are imposed without apparent recourse of revision or
appeal in cases of shortage in the delivery of cargoes under circumstances
admitting of the conclusive establishment of good faith in the
transaction.
Although the correspondence herewith transmitted relates to two different
causes of complaint, it has seemed convenient to embrace them in one
instruction, inasmuch as the conclusion reached in both cases involves the
same treatment in their presentation and suggests the same remedy.
The files of your legation for the last sixteen or seventeen years contain a
mass of correspondence in relation to the general subject of vexatious and
obstructive treatment of commerce by the Spanish colonial officials through
the imposition of wholly disproportionate penalties for trivial errors in
the preparation of the manifests of vessels and for accidental
irregularities in the cargo they carry. It would be convenient for you to
familiarize yourself with so much of the correspondence in question as may
be applicable to the question treated of in the present instructions. You
may in particular consult the correspondence which took place in the early
part of 1873, when concurrent action was had by the representatives of the
United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden and Norway at Madrid, in
the effort to obtain some amelioration of the existing restrictions upon
trade; and you will also find the subject referred to in the instructions
and correspondence which preceded the negotiation of the original
Foster-Ruiz modus vivendi of 1884.
Messrs. Ward & Co. complain in the first instance of the imposition of a
fine of $800, at Matanzas, upon the steamer Manhattan, of their line, in July last, because her cargo was found
upon discharge to be short four tierces of lard. The facts of the case are
very simple and the explanation of the shortage and establishment of
complete bona fides in the transaction are
conclusive, and yet it appears that the financial authorities of the Island
of Cuba raise technical objections to considering the case in the light of
the evidence presented and allege their incompetency to revise or reverse
the decision of the predecessor of the present general administrator of
customs.
It appears that the steamer Manhattan, in the course
of her regular [Page 659] trip by way of
Havana from New York, arrived at Matanzas on the 28th of July last. When her
cargo was unloaded it appeared that the four tierces of lard in question,
while borne upon the vessel’s manifest, were not found on board. The maximum
fine of $200 for each missing package was thereupon imposed, but was not
immediately collected pending inquiry to ascertain whether the missing
packages might not have been delivered at the intermediate port of Havana.
They were not so delivered. Meanwhile it was ascertained that the four
missing tierces had by accident been left upon the wharf at New York, and on
the next voyage of the steamer Manhattan they were
put on board, carried to Matanzas, and there entered, upon payment of
duties, apparently under the original manifest of the voyage of the 28th of
July. The agents of Messrs. Ward & Co. at Matanzas seem to have regarded
the affair as ended by the production and entry of the missing packages, and
took no steps by way of appeal from the fine until the 1st of September
following, when they were advised by the collector of customs at Matanzas
that the fine in question must be paid. The intervention of the consul of
the United States at Matanzas was exerted to procure suspension of the
collection of the fine in order to permit the consignees to obtain from New
York, under the seal of the Spanish consulate, duly-certified proof that the
four tierces of lard had been in fact left on the wharf at New York, which
certificate was duly received and communicated by the consul to the
collector of customs at Matanzas on the 26th day of September, 1888. The
collector, however, persisted in claiming the payment of the fine 5 and on
the 14th of December the consignees presented their case anew by way of
appeal through the consulate-general at Havana, to which the consulate at
Matanzas referred the case. On the 27th of December the consul-general, Mr.
Williams, informed the consul at Matanzas that on presenting the case to the
intendente-general and the central administrator of customs, he found that
the case had already been passed upon and decided two months before by the
predecessor of the present intendente, who, it was therefore said, could not
reverse the decision.
It is not easy to conjecture the grounds upon which an adverse decision
confirming the fine in question was reached, as stated, in October last,
when the authorities at Havana must have had before them full explanation of
the shortage and conclusive proof of the absence of all bad faith in the
transaction, which was furnished by the certificate of the Spanish
consul-general at New York, dated September 18, 1888, and when they must
have had knowledge that the missing tierces had been subsequently produced
and entered in perfect good faith; and the refusal of the financial
administrator of authorities at Havana to review the case, upon appeal being
made through the authoritative channel of the United States
consulate-general at Havana, is equally inexplicable.
The whole proceeding illustrates the constant tendency in the administrative
procedure of Cuba to regard the original application of a penalty under a
strict and technical, although morally indefensible construction of the
letter of the Spanish customs law as a conclusive disposition of the case,
and to interpose further technical obstacles to all attempts at explanation,
justification, or appeal. In this respect, the Spanish system is in striking
contrast with that which is pursued in the United States and the benefits of
which are secured to Spanish vessels entering our ports under the existing
modus vivendi, as Consul-General Williams well
points out in his dispatch No. 912, of January 30 last. While in this
country good faith is made the sole test in the case of questioned
enforcement of a penalty, and where the law expressly provides [Page 660] that no fine shall be collected or
punishment inflicted if satisfactory explanation of the penalized
shortcoming can be made, the Spanish procedure appears to follow a directly
contrary rule, and to surround with every possible obstacle, any attempt of
the parties in interest to explain the case or exculpate themselves from the
charge of violation of the law. In brief, while the United States law
punishes only the willful infraction thereof, the Spanish law appears to be
designed to furnish opportunities for technical exaction of penalties, even
though the absence of all wilful intent to do wrong is patent.
It is true that on some occasions in the past, upon representation made
through the United States legation at Madrid, conclusively establishing good
faith and absence of intent to defraud, fines have been in part remitted
although it is to be remarked that even in such instances justice has been
but tardily rendered to the injured party, and the redress furnished has
been inadequate owing to the alleged incompetency of the Government of Spain
to remit the moiety of the fine collected and paid to the informers. The
viciousness of this moiety system and its injurious effects upon commercial
operations have been heretofore abundantly represented in the instructions
sent to your predecessors, and it therefore appears unnecessary in this
connection to do more than advert to this point, in the assumption that you
will bear it fully in mind in the execution of the present instructions.
But even the fact that tardy and partial reparation may be at times obtained
in this round-about way, serves only to emphasize the contrast which it is
now sought to point out as existing between the customs administrative
procedure in the United States and in Spain and its dependencies. So long as
this complete diversity between the two systems of procedure exists, and so
long as direct, speedy, and simple resort to administrative relief does not
enable those parties who may be injured by the technical application of
Spanish law to exonerate themselves from any charge of wilful intent to
defraud and to furnish satisfactory explanation of the charges against them,
it can not be said that a full and complete reciprocity in this regard
exists between the United States and the Spanish Antilles.
Another aspect of the general question now under consideration is presented
by Messrs. Ward & Co., respecting the requirements of the Spanish
customs law that the manifest of cargo while conforming in every respect to
the bills of lading signed by the master or agent of the vessel shall yet
contain a minute description of the articles shipped, specifying among other
things, not only the generic character of the merchandise but the specific
character or composition thereof. The ground of the particular complaint
they present in the imposition of small fines in June and July, 1888, and
January, 1889, upon the master of the steamer Cienfuegos for using the word “drugs” in the manifests presented,
it being claimed by the collector who imposed the fines that under paragraph
26, art. 3, of the general orders to be observed by captains of vessels
trading between foreign ports and the Island of Cuba, issued by Spanish
royal decree on May 1, 1881, the employment of a vague term like the word
“drugs” is punishable by a fine as aforesaid. The complainants, however,
represent that the phrase in question is habitually used by the whole
commercial world to distinguish mixed consignments of assorted drugs and
medicines, and that it so appears, customarily, in bills of lading.
The Spanish requirement is open to many objections, not the least of which
is, that it seems to contemplate the regulation or modification by municipal
law of the mercantile procedure of other communities by [Page 661] constraining them to adopt new and unusual
methods of describing merchandise for which usual, legitimate, and
sufficient descriptions are already employed in the course of commerce The
change, if effected at all, must be in the bills of lading prepared by the
exporting merchants and presented to the agents of the steam-ship companies.
Common carriers ordinarily possess no other means of knowledge of the
contents of packages than the contents of the bills of lading. They are,
besides, constrained under heavy penalties by Spanish law to make their
manifests an exact copy of the bills of lading presented.
This phase of the question was very fully discussed at Madrid on the occasion
above referred to in 1883. The vexatious character of the constantly
recurring lines upon masters of vessels upon trivial allegations of error or
irregularity in the preparation of the manifest, for which neither the
master nor the owners of the vessel could in any way be justly held
responsible, was then thoroughly exposed.
It was pointed out on behalf of the complaining governments that where
mercantile usage regarded such descriptions as “shooks and heads,” “flour,”
“nails,” and the like, as full and sufficient descriptions of the ordinary
merchandise carried, it was a needless and onerous requirement to insist
that the shooks and heads should be described as of wood; the flour as made from wheat; and the
nails as of iron. Moreover, it appeared clear that it
was no part of the business of the ship-owner, as a carrier, to verify the
contents of packages as stated in the bills of lading; that they were
without the knowledge in most cases which would enable them to correct, when
they came to make up the manifests of the vessels, any errors of statements
in the bills of lading presented to them; and, further, that any correction
of or departure however trivial from the language of the bill of lading,
when discovered in the manifest, became a separate pretext for a fine.
Recognizing the justice of these representations, the Spanish Government
adopted a more equitable rule in apportioning responsibility for so-called
errors in the generic and specific description of imported merchandise, by
providing that where an error was discovered to have originated in the bill
of lading, and to have been reproduced in the manifest, the consignees
should be held responsible, and not the owners or the master of the vessel.
It does not appear in the particular instance presented by Messrs. Ward
& Co., of the fines upon the Cienfuegos, that
this rule was applied, or that the errors, so penalized, originated in the
preparation of the steamer’s manifest. It is, on the contrary, to be
inferred from the letter of Messrs. Ward & Co., of January 25, that the
description of the contents of papers or packages of medicines as “drugs”
originated in the bills of lading, and it is further stated in the protest
of the master of the Cienfuegos, that such method of
description has been used for a number of years on the island of Cuba, and
as such, had up to the time of imposing the fines referred to, been accepted
by the Spanish custom-house authorities as good and sufficient.
Assuming that this statement of the master of the Cienfuegos is correct (and there seems but little reason to doubt
its accuracy, as he speaks of a matter constantly within his knowledge, and
under his observation in the course of frequent voyages), it would seem that
a new and ingenious device for the imposition of a fine has been discovered
by the customs authorities of Cuba. Under the obnoxious system which governs
the imposition of such fines, the interested motives of the customs
authorities at the port of entry to strain the letter of the law to the
utmost against the master or the importer is evident, and this powerful
incentive necessarily overlooks considerations of equity, and, by
disregarding [Page 662] the most ordinary
usages of commercial intercourse, an obstacle is placed in the way of
legitimate trade. No just principle of responsibility is discernible in
these penal proceedings. No fraud is perpetrated. Duties are not paid upon
the manifested descriptions or values of goods. The ascertainment of the
exact contents of any package for the purpose of assessing customs duties
thereon pertains to the revenue officers of the port of entry, who of course
are governed by the precise regulations and requirements of the revenue law;
and it is not to be expected, nor is it in any way practicable, that the
shippers of goods, much less the mere carriers of merchandise can be made a
part of the machinery for the enforcement of all the intricate details of
the Spanish revenue laws. The question seems to be much larger in its scope
than one of mere form and detail. The enlightened policy of the governments
of our day is to extend as far as possible all operations of legitimate
commerce, to remove the burdens which oppress and the obstacles which hinder
a full and fair interchange of the commodities and productions of
neighboring communities; and it is to this end that the present
representations are addressed through you to the Government of Spain.
The existing modus vivendi in regard to commerce
between the United States and the dependencies of Spain was doubtless a
great step forward in this direction, in that it recognized a just principle
of reciprocity in the commercial treatment of imports and exports and of the
vessels carrying the same. It would seem to be the part of wisdom and
foresight still further to extend the principle of reciprocity and to
emphasize the principle of non-discrimination by incorporating in the
present agreement a provision for the treatment of American vessels and
their cargoes in the colonial ports of Spain on a footing approximating to
the treatment which is extended in the ports of the United States to Spanish
vessels and their cargoes, particularly in respect of penalties for alleged
violations of customs laws. It is but fair that we should expect and obtain
the same prompt opportunity in Cuba and Porto Rico for appeal to a superior
authority for the remission of technical, but often enormously
disproportionate, penalties for so called errors, themselves merely
technical, not conducive to fraud, not involving any intent of wrong doing,
and capable of simple and sufficient explanation in good faith.
I have, therefore, to instruct you to present this important matter for the
consideration of the Government of Her Majesty the Queen Regent. In doing so
you will adopt such method of presentation as may appear to you best adapted
to the end in view, fortifying your argument with such citations of examples
and cases in point from the present instruction or from those addressed to
your predecessors and to be found upon the files of your legation as you may
deem expedient. You will bear in mind that your present object is not so
much to obtain consideration and redress of the complaints herein presented,
as to lay down a rule of action which will do away with the causes of such
complaints in the future.
A convenient method of accomplishing this result would be the inclusion of an
article or articles in the existing commercial arrangement, following as far
as possible the draught articles 9 and 10 of the proposed commercial treaty
with Spain which was submitted to me by your predecessor, Mr. John W.
Foster, on the 16th of April, 1885, and which is referred to in my
instruction to Mr. Curry, No. 27, of January 22, 1886. For your greater
convenience of reference, I here quote the text of those draught
articles:
Art. 9. The two high contracting parties mutually
stipulate by the present treaty that the fines and pecuniary penalties which
may be imposed, and the product of the [Page 663] forfeitures which may result from violations of the
laws and of the customs ordinances of the United States and of the islands
of Cuba and of Porto Rico, when the fines, penalties, and forfeitures
proceed from violations of said laws and ordinances committed in the
commerce of importation and exportation of said States and islands, shall be
paid in full into the public treasury of said States and islands and shall
remain absolutely under the control of the respective Governments, without
being-received directly and with any preferred or any other kind of right by
any informer or by any other individual.
The laws and regulations of each one of the two contracting parties shall
establish the manner of recompensing individually the services rendered by
public officials in the prosecution of fraud.
Art. 10. The two high contracting parties mutually
agree that no fines or penalties shall be imposed either in the
custom-houses of the United States or in those of the islands of Cuba and of
Porto Rico on the vessels of Spain or of the United States, or on the
captains thereof engaged in the commerce of importation or exportation
between the said States and islands, on account of errors or omissions in
the manifests of any part of the cargo of said vessels, if it shall appear
that said manifests agree with the bills of lading of said cargo, unless it
is proved that there has been complicity on the part of the captains or
owners of the vessels in the attempt to defraud the treasury by said
omissions or errors.
It is further agreed that the conductors or carriers of merchandise with
whose importation the attempt may be made to violate the laws, ordinances,
or regulations established by the respective Governments to prevent fraud in
the commerce of importation or exportation between said States and islands
shall not incur responsibility, fine or imprisonment, unless the complicity
of the said carriers in the attempt to commit it is proved. Vessels are also
exempt from responsibility and fine if complicity on the part of the
captains or owners of the vessels in the commission of the fraud is not
proved.
These propositions, which reproduce, with some verbal modification and
explanation, the text of the commercial convention signed by my predecessor,
Mr. Frelinghuysen, having already received the full assent of the Spanish
Government, it is not conceived that any objection can now exist to their
incorporation in the existing modus vivendi.
It would, moreover, be advisable to add to them a provision for the prompt
and equitable disposition of cases in administrative appeal in the first
resort to the superior customs authorities of the locality in the way
permitted by our laws, and with opportunity satisfactorily to explain the
delinquency which may be caused and to establish good faith in the
transaction.
The report of your action upon this instruction will be awaited with
interest.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 27.]
Mr. Pierce to Mr.
Rives.
United
States Consulate,
Matanzas, January 22,
1889.
No. 87.]
Sir: I have the honor to report for the
knowledge of the Department the following particulars regarding a fine
upon the American steamer Manhattan, imposed by
the customs authorities of this port, for alleged non-delivery of 4
tierces of lard, on her trip to Matanzas from New York, touching at
Havana and arriving here on the 28th of July last.
At the time stated I was absent from Matanzas on leave in the United
States, but returned to my post and resumed charge of my office on the
1st of September. After my return the matter of the fine was for the
first time brought to the attention of this office by a letter from
Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., the consignees of the steamer and agents
of the owners, Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York, who
transmitted to me two communications received by them from the principal
administration of customs; one notifying them that the fine imposed was
still pending and the other demanding its immediate payment.
I learned from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. that the short delivery of
4 tierces of lard, for which fault the fine of $800 had been imposed,
had occurred by the said tierces having been left on the wharf of New
York at the time of shipment of the steamers’ [Page 664] cargo for that trip, as would be satisfactorily
proven to the custom-house by a document from the Spanish consul in New
York, which was shortly expected, and they for the first time called upon my official services in the interest of
the vessel, to request from the collector the delay of a fortnight
within which to present the certificate referred to.
I therefore addressed a communication to that effect to the collector of
customs, dated the 11th of September, and in their name as consignees of
the steamer requested him to suspend the collection of the line until
the receipt of the consular document referred to by Messrs. Bea, Bellido
& Co.
In reply to this I received a communication from the administrator
principal of customs to the effect that it was impossible to grant my
request, and I communicated the same verbally to Messrs. Bea, Bellido
& Co.
Under date of the 25th of September, Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. again
addressed me, inclosing for my information an official notification,
addressed to them on that same date, from the principal administrator of
customs, exacting payment of the fine, and also, for transmission, the
certificate referred to, received from the Spanish consul at New York,
showing the causes which gave rise to the non-delivery at the proper
time of the 4 packages referred to. This certificate, together with a
copy of the letter of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. to me, I
transmitted to the administrator under date of the 26th of
September.
From this latter date I have received no communications whatever from the
customs authorities not even the acknowledgement of my official
communications to them; nor did I hear anything further in the matter
Until the 14th December, when I received a letter from Messrs. Bea,
Bellido & Co. I had supposed during this interval that the matter
had been passed and disposed of, and I was waiting to receive some
intimations to that effect in order to report the case to the Department
of State.
In their letter of the 14th December, Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.
relate the circumstances which gave rise to the fine, and state that
they had been defending the interests of Messrs. James E. Ward &
Co., of New York, which the custom-house here had tried to injure in the
case of the steamer Manhattan, and for the first
time call upon me as the representative of American interests in this
city to take up the defense of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., the
owners of said steamer, as all their efforts had been exhausted and they
were being proceeded against for the immediate payment of the said fine
imposed upon the Manhattan, and they stated
further they consider that pending such action as this consulate might
deem it convenient to take his excellency the governor-general should be
asked to order these customs authorities to suspend all proceedings
against them as consignees.
In consequence of their letter I addressed a letter to the consul-general
at Havana, and after the receipt of his reply by letters of the 22d and
26th December I communicated its substance to Messrs. Bea, Bellido &
Co.
I have also sent a full report of this case to the consul-general at
Havana.
I accompany herewith copies and translations of the correspondence in the
subject.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No.
27.—Translation.]
Mr. Osorio to
Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.
Matanzas, September 1,
1888.
It being duly established that the 4 tierces of lard, which appeared
short upon the discharge of the American steamer Manhattan on her trip of the 28th of July last past have not
been discharged neither in Havana, nor in this port, nor in Sagua, which
are the only ports at which said steamer touched; and the certificates
of those custom-houses, which prove this fact, being added to the
proceedings instituted by this administration, the fine of $800 imposed,
in accordance with the regulations, still remains in force, and I have
to request you to make due payment thereof, that this administration may
avoid the necessity of proceeding to collect it by judicial process.
May God keep you many years.
[Inclosure 3 in No.
27.—Translation.]
Mr. Osorio to
Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.
Matanzas, September 10,
1888.
As a reminder of my communication or the 1st instant, I repeat to you for
the last time the necessity of making payment on this day to this
administration of the $800 fine imposed, in accordance with article 30,
paragraph 3, of custom-house regulations, [Page 665] on 4 tierces of lard which appeared short upon the
discharge of the American steam-ship Manhattan on
her trip of the 28th of July last past, and if payment thereof is not
made, you are notified the same will be judicially enforced.
May God keep you many years.
[Inclosure 4 in No.
27.—Translation.]
Messrs. Bea, Bellido &
Co., to Mr. Pierce.
Matanzas, September 11,
1888.
We have the honor to inclose to you herewith two communications received
from the principal administration of customs, referring to a fine
imposed on the captain of the American steam-ship Manhattan for non-delivery of packages. As it demands of us
payment by judicial procedure, we refer the matter to you, that you may
notify the said captain.
Bea, Bellido & Co.
[Inclosure 5 in No.
27.—Translation.]
Mr. Pierce to the
Principal Administrator of
Customs.
Consulate of the United States,
Matanzas, September 11,
1888.
I have the honor to accompany herewith a communication addressed to me by
Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., referring to a fine imposed for 4
tierces of lard, which resulted short, upon the discharge of the
American steamer Manhattan, in her trip of
the:28th of July last. As I am informed by Messrs. Bea, Bellido &
Co., the certificate of the Spanish consul at New York, proving that the
said tierces were left behind in that port, is expected to arrive within
a fortnight; and therefore in the name of said firm I beg you will be
pleased to order the suspension of the collection of the said fine until
the said consular certificate is received.
May God keep you many years.
[Inclosure 6 in No. 27
Translation.]
Mr. de Rosales to
Mr. Pierce.
Matanzas, September 13,
1888.
In answer to a communication which in the name of Messrs. Bea, Bellido
& Co. you addressed me yesterday, requesting the suspension of the
payment of the $800 fine imposed on the captain of the American
steam-ship Manhattan for deficiency of 4 tierces
of lard on discharge of her trip of the 28th of July last past, I must
inform you that it is impossible for this office to grant your request.
The penalty was imposed in accordance with paragraph 13 of article 121
of the regulations, and this administration has no power to derogate
superior orders.
May God keep you many years.
[Inclosure 7 in No.
27—Translation.]
Messrs. Bea, Bellido &
Co., to Mr. Pierce.
Matanzas, September 25,
1888.
In order that you may remove the fine imposed on the captain of the
American steamer. Manhattan for packages
undelivered to this custom-house, we inclose a consular certificate
stating the causes which prevented the delivery of said packages at
their proper time.
We also inclose a communication from the principal administration of
customs, exacting the payment of said penalty, but as we have definite
orders from the agents [Page 666] of the
company, Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York, not to pay any
amount on this account, we inform you thereof for such action you may
deem convenient to take.
Bea, Bellido & Co.
[Inclosure 8 in No.
27.—Translation.]
Mr. de Rosales to
Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.
Matanzas, September 25,
1888.
By virtue of the answer given by this administration to the communication
forwarded in your name by the consul of the United States in this city
on the 13th instant, I take the liberty of reminding you of the payment
on this day of the $800 fine imposed for the four tierces of lard, which
resulted short on the discharge of the American steam-ship Manhattan on her trip of the 28th July last, in
order to avoid judicial proceedings against you, according to the
regulations of this custom-house, if you persist in refusing payment
thereof.
May God keep you many years.
[Inclosure 9 in No.
27—Translation.]
Certificate of the Spanish Consul-General at New
York.
The undersigned, consul-general of Spain in New York, do hereby certify,
that from the documents exhibited and from statements made by the
members of the firm of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co. it appears that,
due to the confusion of cargo which they had in their wharf, and which
was occasioned by commencing just at that time the double working
service, which they have since then established, and by an error made by
the wharf clerk, four tierces of lard, marked G G, bound for Matanzas
and belonging to the lot contained in bill of lading No. 25 of the
manifest of cargo shipped by the steamer Manhattan for said port on the 21st July, were left behind on
the wharf, and that the said four tierces of lard were shipped on the
same steamer Manhattan on the 1st instant without
being manifested, because they had already been declared on the manifest
of the previous trip.
I further certify that the said firm of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co.
enjoys a good reputation in this city and is worthy of full faith and
credit.
In testimony whereof, given at
New York, this 18th day of September,
1888.
[
seal.]
Miguel Suarez.
[Inclosure 10 in No.
27—Translation.]
Mr. Pierce to
administrator of customs.
Consulate of the United States,
Matanzas, September 26,
1888.
I have the honor to inclose for your consideration the copy of a
communication from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. of this city,
referring to a fine imposed on the American steam-ship Manhattan for packages undelivered to that custom-house, as
also the certificate of the Spanish consul-general at New York, to which
the said communication refers.
May God keep you many years.
[Inclosure 11 in No. 27
Translation.]
Messrs. Bea, Bellido &
Co. to Mr. Pierce.
Matanzas, December 14,
1888.
In the name of the American firm of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of
New York, we have been defending their interests which this
administration of customs has endeavored to injure in the case of the
American steamer Manhattan, as we are ready to
prove.
[Page 667]
On the 28th of July last the American steam-ship, Manhattan entered this port of Matanzas from New York and
Havana, and on finishing her discharge the captain observed that four
tierces of lard declared in the manifest were short.
It was thought at the time, as occurs frequently, that the aforesaid four
tierces had been discharged by mistake in some other port, and
therefore, as it is customary, the administration was officiated
claiming them, but were not remitted, as they were not discharged in the
port of Havana.
In view, therefore, that the four tierces of lard were not received, the
custom-house of Matanzas imposed on the captain of the Manhattan a fine of $800—say $200 for each package
undelivered.
In the course of the proceedings for the collection of the fine, we
received a certificate from the Spanish consul-general residing in New
York, in which it appeared that the four tierces of lard, which were
short in the manifest of Matanzas, had not been shipped at that port,
and would be forwarded by the same vessel on her following trip, and
were received by the custom-house of Matanzas, as appears in the
documents of the case.
It seemed logical, Mr. Consul, that the cause of the non-delivery of the
tierces being explained, and there not being the least indication of an
attempt to commit a fraud; that the proceedings for the collection of an
unreasonable penalty should be suspended. But we find with surprise,
that in the present case, the custom-house of Matanzas, notwithstanding
that tariff duties had been collected on a merchandise received and
acknowledged, persists in the collection of the fine of $800 for the
tierces that were not delivered on the first trip, and the extra penalty
of double duties to the same, which were left unshipped in New York.
In all countries the repression of fraud has two principal objects. The
first is no other than the energetic campaign that is actually
maintained by his excellency the governor-general in defense of the
interests trusted him by his government; the second, the relief of the
public morality.
Now, Mr. Consul, which is in this case the fraud pretended to be
punished, which the offense inferred to the public morality? Are not the
undelivered packages in possession of the administration?
The penalty of $200 for each package is applied to packages which do not
appear, but never to those which are delivered, as they are declared in
the manifest.
What is then the law—the legal principle in which the administration
bases such a collection?
If such principle is adopted hereafter, what would become of captains of
vessels, who, as a general rule, on their discharges report a surplus or
a deficit, because in the ports they touch they sometimes discharge more
or less of their cargoes without a fine being imposed, unless there is
an absolute deficiency of packages?
If the reasons stated are not sufficient to show the groundlessness of
the fine, ought not credit be given to an official of the Spanish
Government, as is the consul of New York, and does not the certificate
stating the facts, added to the documents in the case, answer the
purposes for which it was drawn?
Lastly, is it not ordered that fines imposed on captains remain in
suspense and can only be applied in cases in which a fraud is
proved?
We address you as the representative of American interests in this city,
in order that you may undertake the defense of Messrs. James E. Ward
& Co., as our efforts have been exhausted, and we are judicially
proceeded against to make payment of the fines imposed on the American
steam-ship Manhattan, belonging to Messrs. James
E. Ward & Co., of New York.
In the meantime, while the facts are cleared, before the efforts that
that consulate may establish, we consider convenient to request his
excellency the governor-general to order that all judicial proceedings
against us, as consignees, be suspended by this administration of
customs.
Very respectfully, etc.,
Bea, Bellido & Co.
[Inclosure 12 in No. 27.]
Mr. Pierce to Mr.
Williams.
Consulate of the United States,
Matanzas, December 18,
1888.
Sir: I have the honor to inclose copy of a
communication received from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., of this
city, relating to a fine imposed on the American steamship Manhattan, in which the facts, as I understand,
are correctly stated.
[Page 668]
I am informed by Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., that the certificate
referred to from the Spanish consul at New York, as well as other papers
relating to the case, were forwarded to the administration central de
aduanas in Havana, where they now are.
Respectfully, etc.,
[Inclosure 13 in No. 27.]
Mr. Williams to Mr.
Pierce.
Consulate-General of the United States,
Havana, December 22, 1888.
Sir: I have to acknowledge receipt of your
letter of the 18th instant, inclosing the copy of a communication
addressed to you by Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., of Matanzas,
informing you of the fine of $800 imposed on the American steamer Manhattan for the non-delivery of 4 tierces of
lard, on her voyage to Matanzas, the 28th of last July. I called
yesterday in relation to this matter at the office of the
intendencia-general. Both the intendente-general and administrador
central de aduanas were very attentive in giving me information upon
this subject; but I found that the case had already been passed upon and
decided two months ago, by the predecessor of the present incumbent,
who, you will readily understand, can not now, under the law, revoke the
sentence. I would suggest, for the information of Messrs. Bea, Bellido
& Co., that in cases where consular interference is invoked, it be
done at the proper time and stage of the proceedings.
Respectfully, etc.,
[Inclosure 14 in No. 27.]
Mr. Williams to Mr.
Pierce.
Consulate-General of the United States,
Havana, December 26, 1888.
Sir: After writing my letter to you on the 22d
instant in relation to the fine of $800 imposed on the steamer Manhattan for the alleged 4 tierces of lard not
delivered according to manifest, I had a visit from and an interview
upon the subject with Capt. Frank Stevens, the commander of that
steamer, and he tells me that he delivered his cargo all right that
trip, and that the dispute pending originated in a private matter of
Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. As this is a question of a fine imposed
upon an American ship in your consular district, and the information of
it having been communicated by you to this office for the first time
five months after it occurred, and as in the regular course of business
it must be reported to the Department of State, you will please
communicate to me whatever facts are on record at your office tending to
exculpate the steamer
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 15 in No. 27.]
Mr. Pierce to
Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.
Consulate of the United States,
Matanzas, January 9,
1889.
Gentlemen: I have to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 14th ultimo referring to the fine imposed by the
customs authorities at this port upon the American steam-ship Manhattan on her voyage of July 28 last, for the
non-delivery of 4 tierces of lard, and also stating that you had been
defending the interests of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York,
but your efforts proving futile, you now request this consulate to
undertake the defense, and pending such action as it might deem
convenient to take in the matter, to endeavor to have the
governor-general of the island order the suspension of proceedings
against you as consignees of the said steamer.
I beg to inform you that I transmitted a copy of your letter aforesaid,
on the 18th [Page 669] ultimo to the
United States consul-general at Havana, with a statement of the case,
asking his intervention before the superior authorities of the
island.
The consul-general in reply informs me that he has called personally upon
the intendente-general de hacienda and administrador central de aduanas,
and has found that the case had already been passed upon and decided
some two months ago by the predecessor of the present incumbent, who
could not now reverse the decision.
Respectfully, etc.,
[Inclosure 16 in No. 27.]
Messrs. James E. Ward &
Co. to Mr. Bayard.
New
York, January 25,
1889.
Sir: We would respectfully call your attention
to the annoyance and constant small fines to which our ships are
subjected in Cuba by the absurd position taken by the customs
authorities there, whereby they claim, after our manifest has been
certified and accepted by the Spanish consul in New York, that they are
entitled to fine us when such generally accepted terms as “drugs” and
other similar ones are used in the description of contents of packages.
The Spanish laws require that our manifest should be an exact copy of
the bills of lading signed by the master or agent of the vessel, and our
manifests are so made and certified by the Spanish consul in New York,
and it would be absolutely impossible in the time which is allowed for
our preparing these documents to specify on them all the minutiae of the
contents of a case of druggist’s materials, for instance.
We inclose for your information copy of the protest entered in Santiago
de Cuba before the United States consul by Captain Lodge Colton, of the
steam-ship Cienfuegos, and would respectfully
request that instructions be issued by your Department to the
consul-general at Havana that he may endeavor to come to some
arrangement with the authorities at that port whereby we may be relieved
from similar annoyances in the future.
We respectfully submit that the whole commercial world is in the habit of
signing bills of lading as drugs, merchandise, or any similar vague
term, and that it is generally understood that it becomes the duty of
the customs officials, in the various ports, to require of the
consignees of goods, and not of the ship, a detailed account of the
contents of each package. If the Spanish idea is to prevail, it would
seem that our captains and officers are to be employed as custom-house
officials of the Spanish Government. Respectfully urging upon you the
importance of the matter in question and the necessity of prompt action,
in the interest not only of our own ships but of all American vessels
trading with ports in the Island of Cuba,
We remain, etc.,
James E. Ward & Co.
[Inclosure. 17 in No. 27.]
Protest of Captain Colton.
By this public instrument be it known that on this 18th day of January,
before me, Otto E. Reimer, consul of the United States at Santiago de
Cuba and dependencies thereof, duly commissioned and sworn, personally
appeared Lodge Colton, master of the steamer called the Cienfuegos, of the burden of 1,630 tons, now
lying in the port of Santiago de Cuba, and said that his vessel is
trading between this port and New York in regular voyages. On arriving
at this port he has, in conformity with the custom-house regulations of
this port, always duly presented the manifest of his cargo, certified to
by the Spanish consul at New York. Under paragraph 26, article 3 of the
general orders to be observed by captains of vessels trading between
foreign ports and the Island of Cuba, issued by Spanish royal-decree on
May 1, 1881, the collector of customs at this port has imposed on
various dates, to wit, July 13, 1888, $30; June 13, 1888, $10, and
January 18, 1889, $10, fines for using the word “drugs” in the manifest
presented, claiming that such term is a vague term, and as such the
employing of the word “drugs” is punishable by a fine under the latter
part of the paragraph article before quoted. Whereas this paragraph does
not define the word “drugs” as a vague term, and such word is a
commercial term in use among all nations, and has been used to express
the contents of cases or packages of medicine for a number of years on
the Island of Cuba, and as such has, up to the time of imposing of the
above mentioned fine, been accepted by the Spanish custom-house
authorities, he says and [Page 670]
claims that the word “drugs” is riot a vague term, and is consequently
not punishable by a fine under above quoted orders.
Furthermore, in certifying the manifest of the cargo the Spanish consul
in New York accepts the term “drugs” as sufficient to fill the
requirements of Spanish laws and regulations.
Again, he says that the master of a vessel by commercial laws indorses on
the bills of lading he signs “weight and contents unknown,” and it is an
absolute impossibility to minutely describe the contents of a package or
case of drugs. The bills of lading stating the word “drugs,” this word
has been copied on the manifest, and he now enters with me, the said
consul of the United States, this protest against the Government of
Spain for imposing the fines before mentioned, holding said Government
of Spain responsible for all losses and damages that may hereafter
accrue, and for the amount of the fines, with interest, as imposed by
the custom-house authorities of this port.
In testimony whereof the said master has hereunto subscribed his name,
and I, said consul, have to these presents set my hand and affixed seal
of this consulate the day and year next above written.
[
seal.]
Otto
E. Reimer,
Consul.
Lodge
Colton,
Master steam-ship
Cienfuegos.
[Inclosure 18 in No. 27.]
Mr. Williams to Mr.
Rives.
Consulate General of the United States,
Havana, January 30, 1889.
No. 912.]
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith the
copy of a letter dated the 25th instant, received from Messrs. Hidalgo
& Co., leading merchants of this city, and agents here of the “Ward”
line of American steamers trading between New York and several ports of
this island. As will be noticed this letter refers to the fine of $800
imposed by the customs authorities of Matanzas on the steamer Manhattan for the alleged non-delivery of four
tierces of lard on her trip there the 28th of July last, which was
reported to the Department by our consul at that port, Mr. Pierce, in
his dispatch No. 87, of the 22d instant. I also accompany a copy in
Spanish, and a translation in English of the memorial of the said firm
presented on the 31st of October last to the intendant general of
finance, stating the circumstances of the occurrence, and petitioning
him, in case he should not consider himself authorized to rescind the
fine, to order the proceedings of the investigation made here to be
remitted to Madrid for the consideration of the home government.
My first knowledge of this case was communicated to me by Mr. Pierce in
his letter of the 28th of December last. I called as soon after as
possible upon the intendant-general and central collector of customs,
and found that it had already been adjudged two months before by the
previous intendant. The present incumbent of the intendancy informed me
that he had no authority to annul or revoke the sentence of his
predecessor; and that it only could be clone by the minister of the
colonies. But, in the mean time, the sentence must hold good, and that
no stay of proceedings could be allowed to delay the collection of the
fine. I communicated the substance of this interview to Mr. Pierce in my
letter to him dated on the 22d of that month. I wrote to him again on
the 26th of December, informing him of the substance of an interview
held in the consulate with Captain Stevens, the commander of the
steamer; and in addition, asked him to communicate to me whatever facts
there were on record in his office tending to exculpate the steamer.
Copy of his reply is attached hereto. I acknowledged the receipt of the
latter on the 9th instant, recommending him, inasmuch as the case had
occurred in his consular district, and he being familiar with all the
facts to report it to the Department.
In view of the fines imposed from time to time upon American vessels for
trivial and pardonable clerical mistakes resulting in the manifests
presented by their masters on arrival in the foreign ports of this
island, I deem the present a fitting occasion to beg most respectfully
to be allowed to suggest to the Department that some provision be made
for such cases by an amendment to the modus
vivendi existing at present between the United States and
Spain, with the view of favoring American vessels in the ports of the
Spanish dominions and in the same sense and to the same extent to which
Spanish vessels are favored in similar bona fide
cases by the Revised Statutes of the United States, on discharging their
cargoes in the United States from the ports of the Spanish dominions or
from other foreign countries.
Under sect ion 2810 of the said statutes, had the case of the American
schooner Arthur [Page 671] U. S. Woodruff, reported in my dispatch
No. 907 of the 19th instant, occurred to a Spanish vessel in the United
States, the vessel would not have been subjected to detention nor its
owners suffered loss thereby, because of its manifest having become
incorrect by mistake. Indeed, the mistake in that case was purely
clerical; the cargo turned out correct both in number of feet and in
weight, the error having consisted solely in misstatement of the number
of the pieces of lumber.
Also in the present case of the Manhattan, had
it,mutatis mutandis, occurred to a Spanish
vessel in a port of the United States, the master of such Spanish vessel
would have had the right, under section 2887, to have gone before the
collector, naval officer, and surveyor, or in case of trial for the
penalty by any court, to have explained the cause or causes of the
error, and having once satisfactorily proved that the disagreement was
by accident or mistake, the penalty would not have been inflicted upon
the vessel by the customs officers of the United States. Parallel with
this, had a Spanish vessel failed to have delivered 4 bags, 4 boxes, or
4 hogsheads of sugar in a pore of the United States, that had been
manifested by mistake, or which might have been subtracted from the
cargo by the bad faith of a lighterman, stevedore, or of a warehouse
clerk, either separately or acting collectively in a port of Cuba, the
Spanish master under the said section, No. 2887, would have had the
right by explanation and averment to have cleared his vessel of the
responsibility towards the customs authorities of the United States.
Likewise, in the case of the American steam-ship Cienfuegos, reported in my dispatches 721, 727, 732, and 736,
dated respectively November 10 and 26, and December 3 and 10, 1887,
every attending circumstance, and all the evidence adduced, showed
conclusively that the master and owners of this steamer were in no
manner, whatever, consenting or privy parties to the fraud attempted
against the customs revenue of the Island of Cuba in the clandestine
shipment of the eight boxes of opium on board that steamer by parties in
New York in collusion with others on board and in Havana. The smugglers
were justly punished, by the confiscation of the opium; but the owners,
whom the evidence proves had neither part nor art in the affair, were
fined to the extent of $8,412, gold. Now, had this occurred to a Spanish
vessel in a port of the United States, the Spanish owners, under the law
quoted in my dispatch No. 736, from Wynkoop’s work on the clearance and
entrance of vessels in the United States, would not have suffered for an
illegal act committed by others, and to which they were neither
consenting nor privy parties.
Again, it will be seen in my dispatch No. 888, of December 6, 1888, that
tonnage loading dues amounting to $896.94 were charged for the second
time on the cargo of sugar belonging to Messrs. F. O. Mathieson &
Weichers, of New York, landed from the disabled bark Proteus, by the collector of Caibarien, upon its reshipment in
the American schooner John R. Bergen for New
York, and that, too, right in the face of article 10 of the treaty of
1795, which fully covers the case.
I beg also to present to the attention of the Department in connection
with the consideration of this subject the fiscal moiety system ruling
in this island as an exciting cause in bringing about, to some extent,
the imposition of fines upon American vessels for such innocent mistakes
in manifests as are condoned by the Revised Statutes of the United
States, especially as the intent and spirit of the present modus vivendi between the United States and Spain
manifestly require that American vessels in Spanish ports shall be
treated in the same measure of justice that is accorded to Spanish
vessels in the ports of the United States.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 19 in No. 27.]
Messrs. Hidalgo & Co.
to Mr. Williams.
Havana, January 25,
1889.
Sir: On July 31, 1888, Messrs. Bea, Bellido
& Co., agents for the New York and Cuba Mail Steam-ship Company at
Matanzas, communicated to us that the steam-ship Manhattan, of the said line, arrived on June 28, had failed to
deliver besides of other packages, 4 tierces of lard which belonged to
her manifested cargo, and differently from the said other packages had
not appeared among the Havana cargo. On September 27, 1888, we received
further notice from them that the Matanzas customs had imposed a fine of
$200 each, or say of $800 in Spanish gold for the four packages, which
resulted short-landed.
Investigation of the case proved that 4 tierces of lard had been found
afterwards on the New York pier, whence they were reshipped, with a
certificate of the Spanish consul there, and in due course discharged
and delivered unto the custom-house authorities at Matanzas.
[Page 672]
Under our instructions and to obtain condonation of the fine, Messrs.
Bea, Bellido & Co. presented a petition to the custom-house, at the
same time we ourselves visited the intendant and administrator central
on various occasions, besides presenting a supplementary address in
writing, of which we have the honor to submit you the copy.
Having heard that his excellency the intendant had decided unfavorably
and that the custom-house has notified the intention of proceeding
towards collection of the $800 fine, we beg to lay the facts before you,
that if you should deem it expedient, the case should be submitted
through your Government to his excellency the ministro de ultramar, as
being the only authority in power to condone the fine aforesaid.
We beg, etc.,
Hidalgo & Co.
[Inclosure 20 in No.
27.—Translation.]
Messrs. Hidalgo & Co.
to the Intendente General of
Finance.
Havana, October 31,
1888.
The undersigned, Hidalgo & Co., merchants and agents in this city for
the line of steamers owned by Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New
York, at the request of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., merchants and
agents in Matanzas for the said owners, have the honor to memorialize
your excellency herewith as follows:
That whereas the steamer Manhattan having on one
of her trips to the aforesaid port of Matanzas delivered 4 tierces of
lard short of her manifest, they having, owing to the great accumulation
of cargo on the New York pier been left behind; and which, upon
discovery of the mistake, were brought to Matanzas, but not manifested
because accompanied with the certificate of the Spanish consul-general
in New York; and whereas the custom-house of Matanzas, having opened an
investigation of the case, proceedings of which being now in possession
of the central collector of customs, and it appearing therefrom that the
second chief officer reported, in view of the certificate of the said
Spanish consul-general, in favor of the condonation of the fine imposed
on the steamer; but notwithstanding which the central collector of
customs still insists upon the collection; wherefore, we are compelled
to present the case to the consideration of your excellency with the
petition that if your excellency should not deem yourself authorized to
decree the rescindment of the fine, that the said proceedings of
investigation be remitted for revision to the Government of His Majesty,
a grant which we are confident to obtain from the known correct judgment
which characterizes your excellency.
God preserve, etc.,
Hidalgo & Co.
[Inclosure 21 in No. 27.]
Mr. Pierce to Mr.
Williams.
Matanzas, January 7,
1889.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letters of the 22d and 24th ultimo, in answer to mine of
the 18th of the same month, in reference to the fine imposed by the
customs of Matanzas upon the American steamer Manhattan on her trip to this port in the latter part of last
July.
I note from your letter of the 22d that you had called upon the
intendente-general de hacienda, and the administrator central de aduanas
and had been informed that the case had already been passed upon and
decided two months ago, by the predecessor of the present incumbent and
you suggest, for the information of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.,
that, in cases where consular interference is invoked, it be done at the
proper time and stage of the proceedings.
From your second letter it appears that Captain Stevens, of the Manhattan, had informed you that he delivered his
cargo all right upon the trip in question, and qualified the dispute
pending regarding the fine as having originated in a private matter of
Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. You further instruct me to furnish
whatever facts there may be on record in this
consulate tending to exculpate the steamer.
The alleged defect in the manifest of the steamer Manhattan, being 4 tierces of lard short and not delivered,
for which a fine of $800 was imposed upon the captain of the steamer Manhattan, occurred in this port on her trip from
New York, touching at Havana and arriving here July 28 last.
[Page 673]
At this time I was absent in the United States on leave, but returned to
my post and resumed charge of my consulate on the 1st of September.
The Manhattan, since the date of the imposition of
the fine for alleged non-delivery of cargo, had already made one regular
round trip, and her second arrival at Matanzas was on August IB. I then
learned from conversation and common report the fact of the steamer
having been fined, but was informed, in the same manner, that the
consignees, Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., had taken steps to arrange
the difficulty with the custom-house and expected to obtain the
cancellation of the fine.
Notwithstanding this, I received from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. on
the 11th September a letter informing me for the first time of the
imposition of the fine, and inclosing two communications from the
custom-house authorities to them, dated respectively 1st and 10th
September, notifying them that the fine was still pending and demanding
its immediate payment.
I learned from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. that the short delivery of
four tierces of lard for which fault the fine had been imposed, had
occurred by the said four tierces having been left behind on the wharf
in New York at the time of shipment of her cargo for that trip, as would
be satisfactorily proved to the custom-house by a document from the
Spanish consul at New York, which was shortly expected; and they for the
first time called upon my official services
in the interest of the vessel to request from the collector the delay of
a fortnight within which to present the certificate referred to.
I therefore addressed a communication to that effect to the collector of
customs dated the 11th September, and in their name as consignees of the
steamer requested him to suspend the collection of the fine until the
receipt of the consular document referred to by Messrs. Bea, Bellido
& Co.
In reply to this I received a communication from the administrador
principal de hacienda to the effect that it was impossible to grant my
request, and I communicated the same verbally to Messrs. Bea, Bellido
& Co.
Under date of the 25th September, Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., again
addressed me, inclosing for my information an official notification to
them of that date from the administrador principal de hacienda, exacting
payment of the fine; and also, for transmission, the certificate
received from Spanish consul at New York, showing the causes which gave
rise to the non-delivery at the proper time of the four packages
referred to. This certificate, together with a copy of the letter of
Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., to me, I transmitted to the
administrador under date of the 26th September.
From this latter date I have received no communication whatever from the
customs authorities, not even the acknowledgment of my official
communication to them, nor did I hear anything further in the matter
until the 14th December, when I received a letter from Messrs. Bea,
Bellido & Co. I had supposed during this interval that the matter
was settled and I was waiting to receive some intimations to that effect
in order to report the case to the Department of State.
Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., in their letter of 14th December, relate
the circumstances which gave rise to the fine, and state that they had
been defending the interests of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New
York, which the custom-house here had fined in the case of the steamer
Manhattan, and for the first time call upon
me as the representative of American interests in this city to take up
the defense of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., the owners of said
steamer, as all their efforts had been exhausted, and they were being
proceeded against for the immediate payment of the said fine imposed
upon the Manhattan, and they stated further, they
consider that, pending such action as this consulate might deem
convenient to take, his excellency the governor-general, should be asked
to order this customs authority to suspend all proceedings against them
as consignees.
In consequence of this letter, I addressed you on the 18th ultimo,
transmitting a copy of the letter and begging your intervention in the
matter before the superior authorities of the island.
I will add that with respect to Captain Stevens’ statement that he
delivered the cargo all right, and that the difficulty was one of a
private nature of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., I have no
knowledge.
It would appear that Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. trusted to their own
efforts to settle the matter of the fine, and presumably considered it
disposed of by the presentation of the certificate procured from the
Spanish consul in New York, and therefore did not ask for the
intervention of this consulate until they found their representations
were useless and their efforts in vain.
I inclose herewith copies of such correspondence with this office as has
not already been forwarded to you.
I am, etc.,
[Page 674]
[Inclosure 22 in No. 27.]
Mr. Rives to
Messrs. James E. Ward & Co.
Department of State,
Washington, January 31,
1889.
Gentlemen: I have to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 25th instant, with its inclosure, relative to the
annoyance to which American vessels are subjected by Cuban customs
officials by the imposition of fines for the use of general terms in
their manifests in giving the contents of packages.
In reply, I have to say that the matter has been referred to the
consul-general at Havana, with instructions to bring it as soon as
possible to the attention of the proper Cuban authorities with a view of
obtaining if practable, some arrangement whereby American vessels may be
relieved from the petty and vexations annoyance of the kind
described.
The Department is very sensible of the constant difficulties to which
American vessels are subjected by reason of the minute requirements of
the customs laws of Cuba and Porto Rico, and the frequently arbitrary
and capricious modes of enforcing them. Instructions have been repeatly
addressed to the United States consuls in in those islands directing
them to protest in such cases, and to render every possible assistance
to masters of vessels, and it is believed the efforts of our
representatives have resulted beneficially to American commerce.
As soon as a report is received from the consul-general, on this subject,
you will be further informed. I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 23 in No. 27.]
Mr. Rives to Mr.
Williams.
Department of State,
Washington, January 31,
1889.
No. 427.]
Sir: I send you inclosed a copy of a letter
from Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., agents of the New York and Cuba
Mail Steamship Company, dated the 25th instant, in which they complain
of the annoyance caused American vessels by the customs authorities in
Cuba, in the shape of fines imposed upon such vessels for the use of
such general terms as “drugs” in their manifests, in describing the
contents of packages, instead of giving a detailed statement of the kind
of “drugs” in said packages. Messrs. Ward & Co. claim that the use
of such terms as “drugs” and “merchandise” in bills of lading and
manifests is general throughout the whole commercial world, and that it
is impossible for them to give a less vague description in their
manifests. They ask that an effort be made through you to obtain relief
from such annoyance.
You are instructed to bring the matter as soon as possible to the
attention of the proper Cuban authorities with a view to obtaining, if
practicable, some arrangement whereby American vessels may be relieved
from the petty and vexatious annoyances of the kind described by Messrs.
Ward & Co., and to report fully the result of your efforts.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 24 in No. 27.]
Mr. Rives to Mr.
Williams.
Department of State,
Washington, February 5,
1889.
No. 431.]
Sir: The consul at Matanzas has reported in his
No. 87 of the 22d ultimo the circumstances of the imposition of a fine
of $800 by the customs officers of that port on the steamer Manhattan, owned by Messrs. James E. Ward &
Co., of New York. He also stated that he has reported the facts to you
and incloses a copy of your letter of the 22d of December, 1888, wherein
you take the position that, as the case was disposed of by the
predecessor of the present intendant general of finance, the latter can
not under the law reopen it.
The Department thinks your acquiescence in the decision of the Havana
officials that they can not reverse the decision of a predecessor was
rather hasty.
[Page 675]
The facts are very simple: On the 28th of July, 1888, the steam-ship Manhattan delivered her cargo at Matanzas, hut
was four tierces of lard short. She was thereupon fined $800. This,
although probably quite indefensible, morally or equitably, was
technically within the competence of the officials. They did not,
however, collect the fine, but delayed enforcing it. In the mean time
the owners procured and sent to Havanaa certificate showing that the
four tierces had been accidentally left behind in New York, and hence
there was no intention to defraud. This evidence was not before the
predecessors of the present officials when they decided to fine the
ship. Therefore there appears to be no reason why they should not now
remit this uncollected money.
The case, as stated, is one of that numerous class of provoking technical
punishments which appear to be so congenial to the customs authorities
of Cuba and Porto Rico, and are so exasperating to American merchants
and so injurious to commerce. The singular impolicy of these practices
should be apparent to the insular authorities, and should be strongly
represented to them by our consuls on every suitable occasion.
Your letter of the 26th December to the consul at Matanzas contains
statements by the captain of the Manhattan which
seem at variance with the documentary evidence. An explanation of this
discrepancy is desired.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 25 in No. 27.]
Mr. Rives to Mr.
Pierce.
Department of State,
Washington, February 5,
1889.
No. 39.]
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your
dispatch No. 87 of the 22d ultimo, with its inclosures, relative to the
fine imposed by customs authorities of the port of Matanzas on Messrs.
James E. Ward & Co.’s steam-ship Manhattan.
As a reply thereto I send you inclosed a copy of the Department’s
instruction No. 431 of this date to the consul-general at Havana on the
subject. From this you will see that the Department does not regard the
case as having been disposed of by the predecessors of the present
customs authorities.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 26 in No. 27.]
Messrs. James E. Ward &
Co. to Mr. Rives.
New
York, February 6,
1889.
Dear Sir: We beg to acknowledge receipt of your
much valued favor of the 31st ultimo and to thank you for your prompt
attention to our request, and also for the fact that the matter has been
referred to the consul-general at Havana, with instructions to bring it
as soon as possible to the attention of the Cuban authorities in order
that our vessels shall be relieved from the annoyances of the case
described.
We appreciate fully the action taken by your Department and trust shortly
to realize material benefit from the efforts made. In connection with
the case reported to you under date of ours of the 25th ultimo, we now
beg to hand you original and translation of a protest made in Santiago
de Cuba by our agent there, which is duly certified and which more
thoroughly describes the case than does our previous correspondence, as
also the captain’s certificate to the same effect duly certified, which
we forwarded in ours of the 25th ultimo.
Asking for these documents the same prompt consideration which you
extended to our previous communication, we are,
Very truly, yours,
James E. Ward & Co.
[Inclosure 27 in No.
27.—Translation.]
Protest of the Hon. Josê Bueno y Blanco.
In the city of Santiago de Cuba, on the 19th of January, 1889, before me,
a notary public of the jurisdiction of Puerto Principe, residing and
officiating in aforesaid city, personally appeared the Hon. José Bueno y
Blanco, a citizen and merchant reliant of this city, [Page 676] married, of legal age, and landowner, and
having certificate of third grade granted on the 23d of November, 1887,
by the officer of the district under number 741, and who, as managing
partner of the firm of J. Bueno & Co., deposes that he is agent for
the American steam-ship Cienfuegos, of New York,
Captain L. Colton, belonging to the house of James E. Ward & Co., of
New York, and that, being in the exercise of sound mind and under his
legal rights, says that the custom-house of this port, under dates of
the 8th and 12th instant, has sent his house communications announcing
that the captain of said steam-ship Cienfuegos
has infringed the regulations of the revenue, and has therefore been
fined in the sum of $55, with the 10 per cent, additional in consequence
of having manifested in the present voyage, and also others in previous
voyages, contrary to the rules established by section 3 of article 26 of
the custom-house regulations; that in using the word “drugs” to
designate contents of packages manifested which has given cause for the
aforesaid fines, the master has simply copied from the bill of lading
presented by the shipper, it being the custom for him to sign such bills
of lading in the same way that masters sign manifests, i. e., with the reservation of weight and contents unknown,
said manifest made out in that form being presented to and accepted and
certified by the Spanish consul at New York, from which time all further
responsibility of the matter should cease in conformity with the ninth
section of said article 26, which says: “Consuls will see, under their
responsibility, that no manifest is certified in which any of the
conditions previously expressed may be wanting; will save by notes over
their signatures any alterations or changes made in said document; will
fill up the spaces left in blank, and will number and seal every page,
notifying the Treasury Department on the same day that they so certify.”
Therefore, once the responsibility is assumed by the consul against any
errors that it may contain by negligence or mistakes of the shippers, he
can not admit that the captain can be held; should this be clone the
fine or punishment should be inflicted on the consul, or, in the last
resort, on the shippers and never on the master, because of his positive
clause of ignoring contents and because he can only take data for the
manifests from his bills of lading, and this is done based on the
present law; if any different law has been established, such alterations
should have been properly announced in foreign lands through the
respective consuls for general knowledge, so that no faults might be
committed. That in said manifests the words “notions,” “hardware,”
“stationery,” and other similar ones could be objected to same as in
“drugs,” for which the master of the Cienfuegos
is now fined, and yet these manifests with such words are generally
accepted by our custom-house, and when the master in this case used the
word “drugs” he simply followed closely the bill of lading and the
manifest duly signed and certified by the consul in New York; and that
inasmuch as the regulations prescribe that in case of a refusal to pay
from the master, the Treasury proceed against the consignees and
shippers. The exponent believes that there is no just reason to fine the
master, who has not omitted any published rule, and desires to protect
the owners of the ship, giving them time and opportunity to claim
against such rulings, and therefore he protests before me, in accordance
with the law and usage, and requests that the general administration be
notified, and that I grant him the necessary document, etc., which I
accede.
So said in the presence of witnesses, José Lasso and José Elias Silva,
both being present and residents of this city.
I hereby testify that I am acquainted with the aforesaid José Bueno and
the witnesses who in my presence have signed.
J. Bueno & Co.
José Lasso
,
José Elias de
Silva.
Rafael
Ramirez,
Notary
Public.
Note.—On same date and at the request of
the complainant I notified Mr. José Trujillo, collector of the port,
leaving in his hand a copy of the foregoing protest, he signing
receipt José Trujillo.
A copy of the original, which remains on file in this office, granted
at the request of Messrs. J. Bueno & Co., and written in stamped
paper of twelfth order on the date aforesaid.
United
States Consulate,
Santiago de
Cuba, January 24,
1889.
I, Otto E. Reimer, consul of the United States at Santiago de Cuba, do
hereby certify that the signature of Rafael Ramirez, notary public, at
the foot of the paper hereunto annexed, is his true and genuine
signature, and that the said Rafael Ramirez [Page 677] is personally known to me as notary public for the
city and province of Santiago de Cuba.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
the consulate at Santiago de Cuba, this day and year next above written,
and of the independence of the United States the one hundred and
thirteenth.
