693.11246 Hoggard-Sigler/3
The Secretary of State to the Minister in China ( Johnson )
Sir: The Department has received your despatches No. 619 of November 26, 1930, No. 644 of December 3, 1930,28 and No. 757 of January 21, 1931, on the subject of the double collection of export dues from the Nichols Superyarn and Carpets, Federal, Incorporated, U. S. A., and from Messrs. Hoggard-Sigler.
The Department has carefully considered your communications of November 26, 1930, and of December 3, 1930, to the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs and the latter’s reply of December 29, 1930, copies of all of which communications29 were enclosed with your despatches under reference. The Department requests that you make further representations to the Chinese Government on this subject,30 basing your request for a refund of the duties collected at Shanghai upon general principles of international law, as well as upon the pertinent provisions of the treaties between China and the United States, as stated in the Department’s telegrams No. 212 of June 26, 1930, 4 p.m.,31 No. 219 of June 28, 1930, 3 p.m.,32 and No. 221 of June 28., 1930, 5 p.m.32 You may call the attention of the Chinese Government to the generally accepted rule or principle of international law that taxes and customs paid to de facto authorities in control of an area (whether they be rebel authorities or authorities of a foreign country) must be considered as if they were paid to the regular authorities of a country. You may state that in taking this position the Government of the United States is not invoking a principle that has not been recognized by itself; that in the celebrated Castine case, which arose out of the occupation by British troops of the port of Castine, in Maine, the Supreme Court of the United States itself held that goods imported into Castine during its occupation by British troops were not subject to payment of customs duties under the laws of the United States after the British withdrew, and the United States resumed the exercise of its sovereignty, which, during British occupation, had been suspended. (See United States versus Rice, 4 Wheaton, page 246).
You may state further that Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, commenting upon the demand by the Mexican authorities for duty on goods imported into Mazatlan while that port was in the occupation of insurgents, stated as to the practice of the United States that “Since the [Page 992] close of the Civil War in this country suits have been brought against importers for duties on merchandise paid to insurgent authorities. Those suits, however, have been discontinued, that proceeding probably having been influenced by the judgment of the Supreme Court adverted to”, that is, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Castine case noted above. (Moore’s Digest, Volume I, page 41 et seq., particularly page 49).
Very truly yours,
- Neither printed.↩
- None printed.↩
- The Minister in China sent a note dated May 8, 1931 (No. 287) to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. ii, p. 256.↩
- Ibid., p. 261.↩
- Ibid., p. 261.↩