be afforded in respect of the claim of Sweden and Norway, under the strict letter of the act of 1886. But it may be expedient to suggest that the act of July 5, 1884, in relation to the Bureau of Navigation, might properly be so amended as to give the Secretary of State a voice in the decision of treaty and cognate international questions. The undersigned, in view of what has been above stated, has the honor to suggest that a recommendation be made to Congress to amend the act of 1886, so as to give to Sweden and Norway at once the benefit of the 3-15 cent rate; and that all tonnage dues charged in excess of that rate on Swedish and Norwegian vessels entering the ports of the United States from ports of the United Kingdom since the date at which the 3-15 cent rate went into effect under the act of 1884 be refunded. RECIPROCAL ABOLITION OF TONNAGE DUES UNDER THE ACT OF 1886. Up to the present point, the discussion has related exclusively to the 14th section of the act of June 24, 1884, and the amendatory section of the act of June 19, 1886. But section 12 of the latter act contained the following provisions: That the President be, and hereby is, directed to cause the governments of foreign countries which at any of their ports impose on American vessels a tonnage tax or light-house dues, or other equivalent tax or taxes, or any other fees, charges, or dues, to be informed of the provisions of the preceding section, and invited to co-operate with the Government of the United States in abolishing all light-house dues, tonnage taxes, or other equivalent tax or taxes on, and also all other fees for official services to the vessels of the respective nations employed in the trade between the ports of such foreign country and the ports of the United States. Correspondence between the United States and the claimant Governments in respect to the acts of 1884 and 1886 having reached a point where the positions of the parties were fully defined, the undersigned, in July, 1887, addressed to our proper representatives in foreign coun tries a circular of instructions to extend to foreign Governments a gen eral invitation for the reciprocal abolition of tonnage and equivalent dues. (Inclosure No. 41.) Prior to that step, and on the 8th of November, 1886, the minister of the Netherlands at this capital had given the requisite assurances as to the absence of any tonnage, light, or equivalent charges on vessels of the United States in the ports of the Netherlands in Europe and in certain named ports of the Dutch East Indies, and had requested the suspension of the collection of such dues, under section 11 of the act of 1886, on vessels entering the United States from the ports in question. This request having been duly considered, the President, on the 22d of April, 1887, issued his proclamation for the suspension of dues accordingly. (Inclosure 70.) The invitation under the twelfth section of the act of 1886 was extended to the Netherlands as well as to other countries, but the scope of the proclamation of April 22, 1887, has not since been enlarged. On the 24th of January, 1888, the German minister at this capital, referring to the invitation above mentioned, gave the necessary assur ances as to the absence in the ports of Germany of any charges of ton nage or light-house dues, or any equivalent tax or taxes whatever, as referred to in the act of 1886, on American vessels entering those ports. Accordingly the President, on the 26th of January, 1888, issued his proclamation to suspend the collection of such dues on vessels entered in the ports of the United States from any of the ports of the German Empire. (Inclosure 54.) In the note in which the German minister gave the assurance referred to, he stated that the same absence of the charges in question had been declared in his note of the 15th of February, 1886, in which, prior to the passage of the act of 1886, he had presented the demand of his Government for the 3-15 cent rate under the act of 1884; and he expressed the hope that, in view of this fact, the Government would deem it proper to refund the dues charged on German ships entering American ports from ports of the German Empire since the date of the approval of the act of 1886. To this suggestion the undersigned was unable to respond, the matter being one for the consideration of Congress. But the request assuredly deserves equitable consideration. In this regard it is to be observed that the government of the Netherlands stands in the same position as that of Germany, since it appears by the note of the Dutch minister of the 8th of November, 1886, that the Netherlands legislation. abolishing dues on vessels entering the ports thereof bears date June 3, 1875. (Inclosure 69.) The proclamatious respecting Germany and the Netherlands are the only ones so far issued for the abolition of dues under the act of 1886. It thus appears that in no case has that act been the means of securing the abolition of dues on American vessels in foreign ports. In respect of all countries in which such dues were charged when the act of 1886 was approved, an unfavorable response on one ground or another, has been made to our invitation; and Germany is the only country in respect of which the amendatory features of the act of 1886 have resulted in relief from future treaty claims. But a question of a different description has arisen in the administration of the German and Dutch proclamations. Those proclamations provide, in accordance with the law, for the abolition of dues on vessels entering the ports of the United States from ports of Germany or of the Netherlands, as the case may be. If, however, a vessel clears from a port in Germany, or in the Netherlands for a port in the United States, and on her way to the latter calls at an intermediate port, the question has arisen whether she is under the law entitled to exemption from dues when entering in the United States. This question has arisen in a number of cases, of which that of the steamers of the North German Lloyds Line is an example. (Inclosure 54.) These steamers run regularly from Bremen to New York by way of Southampton, touching at the port last named, while such passengers, mails, and merchandise as there may be are transferred from a connecting vessel. The voyage of the steamer is denoted on the manifests from Bremen as being from that port to New York via Southampton. It has been claimed that these steamers should be exempt from dues in the United States as coming from a German port, it being argued that their described and principal voyage is from Bremen to New York, and that the stoppage off Southampton is not such as to deprive the run of its character of a voyage from a German port to a port in the United States, within the meaning of the act of 1886 and the procla mation. But it has been held by the Commissioner of Navigation that the voyage can not be so regarded, and that the vessels must pay dues as coming from Southampton, a British port. Similar rulings have been made in respect to other vessels of different nationality. Another instance of complication is that of a vessel starting from, we will say, a 6-30 cent port, and calling, on her way to the United States, at a 3-15 cent port and a free port. Other combinations will readily suggest themselves and need not be stated. But in each case the vessel is required in effect to pay the highest rate, without reference to the amount of cargo obtained at the various ports from which she comes. Thus a penalty may practically be imposed in many cases on indirect voyages. It is conceived that in many instances the main purpose of the act may be defeated by these rulings, but it must be admitted that the law contains no provision to meet such cases, and that there would be great difficulty in the executive branch of the Government undertaking to decide that any particular measure of deflection from a direct voyage should or should not determine its character. This appears to be a proper subject for the consideration of Congress. But the undersigned has the honor to submit whether it would not at least be practicable in the case of vessels coming from two or more ports as to which different rates of tonnage dues are imposed in the United States, to apportion such dues on the basis of the relative portions of cargo brought from such ports. In regard to the questions raised by the claims of various governments, under their treaties with the United States, for the 3-15 cent rate of tonnage duty, the undersigned begs to suggest that the present condition of matters would be greatly simplified, if not by the abolition, at least by the equalization of tonnage duties on the basis of a uniform charge of 3-15 cents; and this without reference to any question of treaty construction, except in the case of Sweden and Norway, in respect to which a specific recommendation, for reasons stated, has already been made. Such an equalization of duties would extend the same relief to commerce with all parts of the world as has already, by the acts of 1884 and 1886, been offered to commercial intercourse within certain geographical areas. This change in the law having been effected, the invitation for the reciprocal abolition of dues would still remain as an offer of yet more liberal treatment on the most advantageous basis to this country. In this way the interests of our commerce would be subserved, and the Government would enjoy the additional advantage of having so adjusted its laws as to be free from future demands based upon its conventional agreements, and from the necessity of claiming for them a less liberal construction than the other high contracting parties are willing to admit. Respectfully submitted. May 21, 1885. August 5, 1887. No. 101. November 7, 1887. November 28, 1887. December 14, 1887. No. 13. Mr. Alvensleben to Mr. Bayard. February 16, 1886. 1888. November 7, 1885. March 29, 1886. No. 34. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Reuterskiöld. December 20, 1886. March 9, 1887. PART II. No. 41. Mr. Bayard to United States ministers. July 9, 1887. No. 47. Same to same. No. 458. September 21, 1887. No. 48. Mr. Anderson to Mr. Bayard. No. 203. February 24, 1888. No. 49. Same to same. No. 209. February 25, 1888. February 25, 1888. July 18, 1887. No. 383. September 24, 1887. December 28, 1887. No. 186. February 4, 1888. No. 452. March 20, 1888. No. 210. May 2, 1888. No. 204. No. 50. Mr. Vignaud to Mr. Bayard. No. 471. August 29, 1887. August 31, 1887. September 1, 1887. PART I.-TREATY CLAIMS RELATIVE TO TONNAGE DUES. No. 26.] BELGIUM. No. 1. Mr. Tree to Mr. Bayard. Brussels, December 13, 1885. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, (Received December 29.) SIR: Referring to previous correspondence on the subject of your No. 3, I have the honor to inform you that yesterday, in the course of conversation with Baron Lambermont, of the foreign office, I called his attention to the favored-nation clause of a treaty, and asked him what interpretation his Government had placed upon such clause in cases where there had been or might be contention as to reserved priv ileges. He replied that the clause not always being the same, but differing in language in different treaties, it was difficult to answer the general question; and I then called his attention more specifically to a clause of that character containing language similar to that used in the treaty of 1875, between the United States and Belgium, and after say ing that he was not sufficiently familiar with the matter to be able to answer the inquiry then, he promised to look into it and report to me at an early date the result of his investigation. Of course I did not in any way discuss with the baron the question involved in the inquiry. I have not been as yet, able, from any other quarter, I regret to say, to obtain any information on the construction heretofore placed on the clause in question in other foreign treaties of Belguim, and it is somewhat difficult to find the starting-point, but I am pursuing the subject, and hope yet to get knowledge of some cases in which a similar point has been raised and an interpretation given thereof by the Government here. At the same time I venture to observe that I have examined, in the volume of the United States Statutes at Large, which has just come to hand, section 14 of the act of June 26, 1884, to which you have specially called my attention in your No. 3, and confess that it is not very appar ent to me that "any favor, privilege, or immunity to any other state' has been granted under that section which is not common alike to the subjects of Belgium. If I understand its language, it certainly does not withhold from Belgium any right which is therein granted to vessels of any other nation coming from any of the ports named therein. The concession would seem to be made, not to a state, but to ports within given boundaries; and any vessel, under whatever flag, entering a port of the United States from any of those ports is entitled to the benefits of the act-a Belgian vessel equally with one of the United States or of any other nation. If this view is correct, it is difficult to perceive how, under this section, Belgium can justly claim any rights under the favored-nation clause for vessels coming from Belgian ports. I venture to give the impression made on my mind by reading the section, in order that I may know if I have properly understood the language and intent of the act. I have, etc., LAMBERT TREE. |