Mr. Hay to Mr. de Margerie.
Washington, November 2, 1901.
Sir: I have the honor to refer to Ambassador Cambon’s note of January 7 last, in which he transmitted the memorial of Messrs. Marty & d’Abbadie, French citizens, preferring a claim against this Government for $22,471, on account of the detention at Manila for a period of seventeen days in February and March, 1899, of the ship Sullberg.
In this note Mr. Cambon stated that the Sullberg “found it impossible, owing to events then transpiring at Iloilo, to carry to that port merchandise that was booked for it, and for seventeen days the head of the customs service at Manila refused to allow the said vessel to sail for Asia with that merchandise,” and that in the opinion of his Government the pretension of the American authorities seemed contrary to the rules followed in all merchant countries. He asserted that the principle which is constantly followed in all policed States is that the master of a merchant vessel laden with merchandise is permitted to discharge in the port for which it is bound or at which it may put in such part only of the cargo as he may designate for the purpose, either of his own motion or under the orders of his employers; that only the part of the merchandise so designated that is entered for consumption is subject to customs duties, and not such as may be warehoused in bond or manifested for transit. He added: “The pretension to which Messrs. Marty & d’Abbadie object is so clearly contrary to the prevalent usages that it seems to rest on the personal decision of a customs official and not on any formal provision of the new customs regulations of the Philippines to which it seems that General Otis would not have failed to refer in a precise manner if the possibility of such a reference had occurred to him.”
The claimants also complain that they were delayed about twelve [Page 152] days in landing the rice, because of difficulties thrown in the way by American authorities, and that during this time a large quantity of rice (94.74 piculs) was stolen.
The statement of the claimants upon which the statement in Mr. Cambon’s note is evidently based, that a part of the cargo (the salt) was destined to Iloilo, is incorrect. The manifest shows that the entire cargo was consigned to Manila. A copy of that document is inclosed herewith.a
The only entry made at Manila, however, was for the rice. When the vessel had discharged the rice the consignee asked for a clearance to Hongkong without discharging the balance of the cargo, which consisted of 1,099,600 kilos of salt in bulk. Under paragraph 3 of the United States provisional customs tariff and regulations then in force, promulgated in General Orders, No. 10, from the office of the military governor in the Philippines under date of October 26, 1898, clearance of the vessel could not be granted until all her cargo had been landed and accounted for. The request of the consignees was therefore refused. The regulations prohibiting the clearance of a vessel under such circumstances were taken from the existing United States customs regulations, and it is submitted that they were not unreasonable under the conditions existing.
It may be observed, moreover, that the military governor had been advised that the Sullberg was suspected of having arms concealed on board and had instructed the collector to have a careful examination made of all cargo discharged therefrom, and after the cargo had been completely discharged to make a thorough search of the vessel. The character of the cargo—salt in bulk—offered the greatest facilities for the concealment of arms and other contraband.
After the vessel had been detained for a period of seventeen days she was cleared, under a suspension of the operation of the regulation which the military governor had the power to authorize, without having discharged the salt cargo. The authorities in the Philippines state that this suspension was not made because either the military governor or the collector was convinced that the suspected arms were not on board, but for other reasons which seemed satisfactory to the military governor.
In regard to the statement of the claimants relative to the delay in landing the rice and of the theft of a portion thereof, the collector of the port at Manila reports that “the claimants were not delayed in landing their rice cargo by any conditions thrown in the way by the American authorities, and no claim or statement was ever submitted to this office as to the loss of 94.74 piculs of rice (estimated value $236.85) which claimants state were stolen. The examination of this rice was made on board the vessel, and it was released by the customs officials in charge at the ship’s side, hence, if any part of the cargo was stolen, the theft must have occurred after the rice had been released by this department, and was under full control of the consignees or their agent.”
The Department perceives no basis for a claim for an indemnity in behalf of Messrs. Marty & d’Abbadie.
Accept, etc.,
- Not printed.↩