Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince, February 15,
1895. (Received May 7.)
No. 119.][Inclosure in No.
119—Translation.]
Mr. Faine to Mr.
Smythe.
Port au Prince, January 26, 1895.
No. 651.]Mr. Minister: Following my dispatch of
November 29, 1894, I have the honor to remit to you, herewith
inclosed, the answer which my colleague of finances has made to me
in view of the considerations with which you entertained me in your
communication of the 24th of the same month, relative to the tariff
of tonnage of steamers put in force since the 1st of January of last
year.
Please accept, etc.,
P. Faine,
Secretary of State for Foreign Relations.
[Subinclosure in No.
119—Translation.]
The Secretary of State of the
Department of Finances and of Commerce to the Secretary of State for Foreign
Relations.
Republic of Haiti,
Port au
Prince, December 6,
1894.
My Dear Colleague: I have to acknowledge
the receipt of your dispatch of the 29th ultimo, by which you
communicate that of the minister of the United States relative to
the tariff on tonnage of steamers put in force since the 1st of
January of this year (1894).
To give you the detailed information I will reply in the order in
which the arguments are presented by the consul-general of Her
Britannic Majesty in the month of April last:
- First. The law raising the tonnage on steamers from 50
cents to $1 did not contemplate solely the equality of
treatment between them and sailing vessels. It was specially
inspired by the idea of the revenue which would be produced,
which, with other things equal, was double that of 1893–94,
for example.
- Second. The tonnage mentioned in the papers of sailing
vessels is always, or nearly, their real tonnage, and their
cargoes correspond perfectly therewith. That if any doubt
may arise on that subject its truth can be manifested by
taking the Veritas for a guide, by having the vessels gauged
by collectors of our ports, or calculating carefully the
number of tons of merchandise discharged and levying tonnage
dues on that amount instead of taking as a basis the ship’s
papers.
- Third. It can be maintained that the owners of steamers
can increase the rate of freight in proportion with the new
tax, and thus avoid all pecuniary losses; and if to this it
may be objected that importers will address themselves in
preference to the sailing vessels, which carry at a cheaper
rate, it may be answered with much sound sense and logic
that the rapidity of transportation, notably with regard to
European merchandise, will always cause the steamers to be
preferred. There is, in fact, a manifest economy in having
merchandise quickly transported, thus making quick sales—the
profit diminished, perhaps, by the higher rate of freight,
but augmented, on the other hand, by recurring sales—rather
than to use a means less rapid and offering no other
compensation than cheaper rates. Furthermore, the greater
security offered by steamships would always be a point in
their favor. But it is not even necessary to raise the rate
of freight; the augmentation of the freight, the increase of
traffic in prosperous years, will more than compensate the
tonnage dues.
It is, perhaps, these three causes—rapidity of transportation,
security afforded to merchandise, and the increase of traffic—which
explains why since the promulgation of that law the number of
steamers which visit our ports has not decreased, but on the
contrary.
And permit me to add, in conclusion, that supposing really the
possibility of competition between sailing vessels and steamers, I
do not think it would be our duty to combat it, because all
competition tends to benefit the consumer, and in this particular
case the national commerce.
Herewith documents communicated.
My best respects,
[l. s.]
Ch. Duchatellier, Chief of Bureau.
