Mr. Olney to Sir
Julian Pauncefote.
Department of State,
Washington
,
June 5,
1896
.
No. 410.]
Excellency: Referring to your note of the 16th
ultimo, relative to the application of the master of the British
steamship Cuban for the remission of a fine of
$300 imposed upon him for a violation of the immigration laws of the
United States, I have the honor to inclose for your information a copy
of a letter of the 3d instant from the Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, in which he sets forth the grounds upon which he feels
constrained to decline to remit the fine complained of.
You will observe that Mr. Curtis states that the collector of customs at
New Orleans has been instructed to refrain from proceedings for the
enforcement of an additional fine of $300 incurred in the case.
I have, etc.,
[Page 302]
[Inclosure to No. 410.]
Mr. Curtis to
Mr. Olney.
Treasury Department,
Office of the
Secretary,
Washington, D.
C.
,
June 3,
1896
.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter dated the 22d ultimo, transmitting, for the
information and consideration of this Department, a note from the
British ambassador at Washington relative to the case of the master
of the British steamship Cuban.
The ambassador remarks that as the proceeding in the matter appears
to be contrary to the ruling of the United States courts, and to the
Treasury instructions, he trusts that orders may be issued for the
remission of the fine.
The case has heretofore been considered by this Department, and on
the 21st ultimo the collector of customs at New Orleans was advised
that the Department would not remit the fine of $300 imposed, but
would authorize him to refrain from proceedings for the enforcement
of an additional fine of $300 incurred in the case.
The collector reported, under date of the 12th instant, that two
persons of the objectionable classes enumerated in the acts of March
3, 1891, and March 3, 1893, paupers and criminals, desiring to
emigrate to the United States, attempted to procure employment in
the crew of the steamship Cuban, with the
presumable purpose of deserting after arrival of the vessel in the
United States; that being refused employment in the crew of the said
vessel, they concealed themselves on board as stowaways, and being
discovered after the vessel was at sea, were permitted to sign the
ship’s articles, and were enrolled as members of the crew; and that
on their arrival at New Orleans, and the facts becoming known to the
Government officers, the men were ordered to be detained on board
the vessel and to be deported by the Cuban,
but that they escaped and are now at large.
Masters of vessels at New Orleans seem to be of opinion that the
placing of a stowaway on the crew list is one of their prerogatives,
and that such action will prevent future trouble in connection with
the immigration laws. The case has been the same at other ports, at
each of which it became necessary to enforce the penalties
prescribed by the act.
Apparently the captain has deliberately violated the law of his own
Government, with a view also of violating ours, and this Department,
therefore, can not see its way to order a further reduction of the
penalties imposed by the collector than that above specified.
A copy of the Department’s instructions to the collector is inclosed
herewith for your further information.
Respectfully, yours,
W. E. Curtis,
Assistant Secretary.
[Subinclosure in No.
410.]
Mr. Hamlin to
the Collector of Customs at New
Orleans.
Treasury Department,
Office of the
Secretary,
Washington, D.
C.
,
May 21,
1896
.
Sir: This Department is in receipt of your
report, dated the 12th instant, on an application of James L.
Bertie, master of the British steamship Cuban, for relief in the matter of a penalty of $300, stated
to have been incurred through a violation of section 10 of the act
of March 3, 1891, and of section 5 of the act of March 3, 1893.
The facts are understood to be substantially as follows:
[Page 303]
The steamship Cuban left Liverpool for New
Orleans April 15, 1896; on the second day out two stowaways were
found aboard the vessel—Patrick Downey and Michael Cavanagh—both of
whom had applied before the departure of the Cuban to ship as members of the crew, but had been refused
by the chief officer; the master, some time during the voyage,
placed the names of these men on the crew list, and permitted them
to sign the ship’s articles for the voyage to New Orleans and return
to Liverpool. Upon arrival of the vessel at New Orleans, these facts
came to the knowledge of the immigrant inspector, and at a meeting
of the board it was ordered as follows:
“After hearing the statements of Inspector Montgomery, Customs
Inspector W. E. Kirk, Capt. James Bertie, and the defendants
themselves, it is the judgment of this board, based on the law and
the evidence submitted, that the two above-named defendants are
stowaway paupers and persons likely to become public charges. As
such it is ordered that they be remanded to the custody of Captain
Bertie, of the steamship Cuban, to be
deported on that vessel upon her next sailing to the country from
whence they came.”
It was contended by Captain Bertie, as well as by the British consul,
that the persons named were not immigrants, but duly enrolled
members of the crew of the vessel, and for such reason not subject
to the provisions of the immigration laws of the United States. But,
as from appearance both stowaways were under age; as upon their own
admission both had been recently arrested before leaving Liverpool;
as both had admitted that, they intended to remain in the United
States if possible; and as both had been apprehended in an attempt
to leave the vessel, the board felt justified in issuing the order
above cited. As shown in the application, the two men have since
escaped from the vessel and are now at large.
Your report shows that the applicant does not claim ignorance of the
immigration laws; that he understood or had opportunity to
ascertain, before enrolling these men as members of his crew, their
character, condition, and purpose in concealing themselves on board
of his vessel after having been refused employment by his chief
officer; and that it had come to be believed by the masters of
vessels trading to New Orleans that the placing of stowaways on the
crew list “is one of their prerogatives,” and will prevent trouble
in connection with the immigration laws.
It is apparent that an effort was made to violate the immigration
laws of the United States, and also, as the Department understands,
the laws of Great Britain governing such cases. Two fines of $300
each were incurred.
The Department declines to intervene further than to authorize you to
refrain from proceedings for the enforcement of the additional fine
of $300.
The Commissioner of Immigration suggests that you invite the
attention of the British consul to the British shipping laws, which
he thinks provide that the crew must be enrolled before the vessel
sails, and that no addition can be made at sea unless by death,
accident, or other disability a seamen is unable to perform his
duty. He states that in the present case he has no doubt that it was
by the order of the British consul that the master was not permitted
to confine the men.
You may take action according to the Commissioner’s suggestion.
Respectfully, yours,
C. S. Hamlin,
Assistant Secretary.
