Herewith inclosed I beg to transmit the reply of this Government, with a
translation, to my dispatch fulfilling such instructions.
[Inclosure.—Translation.]
Mr. St. Victor
to Mr. Battisie.
Department of State for Foreign Relations,
Republic
of Haiti,
Port au
Prince, October 6,
1900.
Mr. Chargé d’Affaires: By your dispatch of
the 27th of the month of September last you request me to inform you
whether, in consequence of the new commercial agreement made between
Haiti and France, the Government of the Republic has the intention
of imposing on American vessels transporting to our ports
merchandise of French origin higher tonnage dues than those paid by
French vessels loaded with merchandise from the same province.
In reply to this communication I have the honor to announce to you
that the minister plenipotentiary of Haiti at Washington will soon
be charged to discuss the matter with the Department of State.
You kindly, in concluding, called my attention to Article X of the
treaty of November 3, 1864, which provides that there shall not be
collected on the tonnage or the cargo of vessels of the United
States higher or other dues than those imposed on vessels of the
most favored nation.
[Page 278]
In the first place, I would beg you to observe that the clearly
determined reciprocity character of the new Haitian-French agreement
withdraws it from the influence of the “most-favored-nation clause.”
Then, to the provisions of Article X of the treaty of 1864, that you
invoke, I would ask of you permission to oppose the very precise
stipulations of Article II of the same diplomatic document, reading
thus: “The Republic of Haiti and the United States of America
desiring, etc., * * * have agreed that any favor, exemption,
privilege, and immunity whatever, in matters of commerce or of
navigation, which either of them has granted or may hereafter grant,
to the citizens or subjects of any other government, nation, or
state, shall extend, in identity of cases and circumstances, to the
citizens of the other contracting party; gratuitously, if the
concession in favor of that other government, nation, or state shall
have been gratuitous, or in return for an equivalent compensation,
if the concession shall have been conditional.”
Now, you are certainly not ignorant that if certain tariff
concessions have been agreed in favor of French merchandise it was
on the express condition that our principal products would profit of
the lowest duties on their entrance in French ports.
Besides, do you think, Mr. Chargé d’Affaires, that notwithstanding
all its kindly dispositions toward the Republic of Haiti, the
Federal Government could agree to waive the restrictive clause set
forth in the second paragraph of Article II and ever agree, without
compensation, not to levy “on the importation into the United States
of any article the growth, production, or manufacture of Haiti or
her fisheries; and no higher or other duties shall be imposed on the
importation into Haiti of any article the growth, produce, or
manufacture of the United States or her fisheries than are or shall
be payable on the like articles the growth, produce, or manufacture
of any other foreign country or its fisheries,” with which the
United States would be bound by a reciprocity treaty. (Article XIII
of the treaty of 1864.)
I think it superfluous, in giving these considerations to the
equitable appreciation of your legation, to insist on the provisions
so clearly explicative, and take the occasion to renew to you, Mr.
Chargé d’Affaires, the assurances of my very distinguished
consideration.
B. St. Victor,
Secretary of State for Foreign
Relations.
