Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 9, 1891

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Douglass.

Department of State,
Washington, March 11, 1891.

No. 105.]

Sir: I inclose herewith for your information a copy of a letter of the 11th ultimo from Messrs. G. A. Brett, Son & Co., shipping and commission merchants, of 41 South street, New York city, in relation to the detention of American vessels lately at Port-au-Prince from various causes.

The letter details one case as an example. The vessel arrived at Port-au-Prince on the 6th of December last. By reason of the lack of facilities at the custom-house for receiving cargo she was compelled to lie at anchor until the 16th of that month, a period of ten days, when she was hauled alongside of the wharf to discharge; but a permit for that purpose was not obtained until the 22d, when the vessel had been sixteen days in port. The permit to discharge having been obtained, other delays supervened, chiefly due to the closing of the custom-house about two-thirds of the time for holidays and other purposes, and even with the employment of double gangs of laborers the work of discharging cargo was not completed until the 5th of January, a month after the arrival of the vessel. Thirteen days more then elapsed before the bills for customs duties were made out for payment, so that the vessel was in all forty-five days in port.

It is stated that much testimony as to other cases of a similar character can be adduced. The writers of the letter say that they themselves have been compelled to pay $700 demurrage for the detention of chartered vessels, but that in most instances the vessels have had to bear the loss, amounting in all to some thousands of dollars. It is also stated that a frequent cause of detention is the enforcement of what appears to be a very unreasonable law permitting the holding of sailing vessels as security for the payment of duties on cargo that has been landed. This law appears to operate to make the period of detention proportionate to the number of consignees named in the manifest.

The effect of these grievous and unnecessary burdens upon commerce will be that the intercourse upon which they bear will be very materially diminished, and that some of those who are engaged in it will be compelled to desist altogether, unless the Haitian Government shall hasten to correct the abuses which have been described and adopt a more reasonable and considerate treatment. It is assumed that Haiti desires to cultivate commerce, and not to destroy it. It is upon this assumption that the provisions of the treaty of 1864 touching reciprocal liberty of commerce are based, and in this sense you are instructed to urge the complaints of our merchants, as above described, upon the attention of the Government. The subject is one of immediate importance and should receive instant and considerate attention.

I am, etc.,

James G. Blaine.

[Inclosure in No. 105.]

G. A. Brett, Son & Co. to Mr. Blaine.

41 South Street, New York, February 11, 1891. (Received February 12.)

Honorable Sir: We had the pleasure on the 7th ultimo to write to you in regard to the unlawful detention of vessels the property of American citizens at Port-au-Prince for duties due the Government by its own subjects. Since then we are in receipt of numerous complaints from our captains on the same subject. Some of them are as follows:

“All vessels of Brett’s line are having a hard time of it at Port-au-Prince for the last three months; and, gentlemen, I wish to say, this line of commercial industry must stop. The detention is too great. I arrived at Port-au-Prince December 6, 1890. By reason of lack of facilities on part of the custom-house to receive cargo, I lay at anchor until December 16, when we hauled alongside wharf to discharge. But not until December 22 did the Government give us permit to discharge. Sixteen days in port. Next came Christmas and New Year weeks, four holidays in each week, not including Sundays. Then the custom-house was closed (owing to the death of the wife of one of the directors) for two days. However, by using a double gang to discharge, we finished on January 5, 1891, but after that it was thirteen days before the customs made out the duty bills for payment so I could clear. Forty-five days in port. I, with a few other captains, have made written complaint to the United States minister. The primary cause for all this trouble is the law holding sailing vessels as security for duties on cargo landed. The delay is in proportion to the number of consignees the manifest contains. Now, gentlemen, I would suggest that you make a memorial in relation to this matter and send it to Mr. Blaine and ask him to use his official influence to do away with or have modified this unjust law relating to American sailing vessels.”

We could furnish much more testimony of the same kind if desired. We have ourselves had to pay some $700 demurrage for the detention of chartered vessels; but most of the vessels have had to stand the loss themselves, amounting in all to some thousands of dollars.

Will a memorial on this subject do any good? Has any Government a right to make and enforce such a law? Would not vessels have a good legal claim against the Haitian Government for such detention provided the facts are as we state them? By answering the above questions and doing all in your power to help American commerce you will greatly oblige,

Yours, respectfully,

G. A. Brett, Son & Co.