Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Second Session of the Fortieth Congress
Mr. Otterbourg to Mr. F. W. Seward
Sir: Enclosed herewith I have the honor to transmit copies, No. 1, of a reply to the foreign representatives by the minister of foreign affairs of this government upon their protest against the contribution of one per cent.
No. 2 is the answer of the representatives thereto.
No. 3, the reply of the minister of foreign affairs, that completes, for the time, a correspondence which, though it may not be of any immediate importance, I have thought might, in the possession of the department, prove highly interesting, in connection with the history of the French intervention, and be referred to with advantage in the future.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Hon. F. W. Seward, Assistant Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[Translation.]
To his excellency the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of her Catholic Majesty; to his excellency the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of his Majesty the Emperor of the French; to his excellency the minister resident of Prussia; to the chargé d’affaires of Italy; to the chargé d’affaires of Austria: to the chargé d’affaires of Belgium; to the chargé d’ affaires of England:
The undersigned, acting minister of foreign affairs of his majesty the emperor of Mexico, has the honor to reply to the joint note of the representatives of the friendly powers resident at this court remonstrating and protesting against the application to their countrymen of the decree of the 1st instant, in relation to the contribution of one per cent. on all capital above $1,000.
[Page 370]The protest is thus founded, 1st, on the declaration of the minister of finance, in the preamble of the decree, where he states that it is substituted for the forced loan decreed some days previously but not executed; 2d, on the fact that foreigners in Mexico are exempt, by the laws of nations and treaties, from forced loans and extreme taxations.
As to the declaration of the minister of finance, the joint signers of the note assert that there is no doubt but the phrase forced loan, from which foreigners would have been exempt, is changed to contribution extraordinaire, so as to include everybody, and the question is the same though differently expressed.
Now the undersigned will say to the authors of the assertion that it is not true that words and phrases have been changed so as to include persons who would be exempt under the expression forced loan.
To the second objection of the representatives, the undersigned will call their attention to the following circumstances: Most of the treaties between Mexico and foreign powers contain this clause: “Forced loans bearing especially upon them (that is, citizens of the other contracting power) shall not be imposed;” and if it was in one treaty it had to be extended to all, to put each in the rank of “the most favored nation.” This is the reason why foreigners in Mexico are exempt from forced loans, and not from any principle of the law of nations, as the signers of the joint note assert. But if foreigners are exempt from forced loans for the reasons stated, they are not exempt from extraordinary contributions any more than from taxes enforced by the law of nations or by the text of treaties. The representatives say in their joint note that the minister of finance has substituted the phrase “extraordinary contribution of one per cent, on capital” for “forced loan,” with the intention of including foreigners. How could the minister do this if foreigners were exempt, as the representatives affirm, from a general extraordinary contribution?
The income tax was first established in England as an extraordinary contribution for a single year, to make up the deficit in the budget of that fiscal year. It was afterwards raised and made a permanent tax; yet, in neither case were foreigners exempted.
The undersigned therefore informs the representatives that, as their countrymen are not exempt by the law of nations nor by treaties from such contributions, comprising all the inhabitants of the empire, they remain subject to the same charges, requisitions, and imposts as the Mexicans, and the government of his Majesty considers foreigners residing in the country to be subject to the contribution.
In their joint note the representatives allude to a want of justice in the system of patent rights. It is scarcely necessary to inform them that the right of enforcing taxes and the manner of collecting them are exclusive attributes of sovereignty, and, when it does not violate international law nor treaties, it cannot be a cause of remonstrance on the part of representatives of foreign powers, and their joint note does not touch it. The case applies also to owners of real estate in districts held by the rebels; foreigners and natives are on an equal.
Before closing, the undersigned must say that the imperial government was somewhat surprised that, in a remonstrance of no political importance, the representatives of friendly powers near this court thought necessary to use a joint form instead of addressing the minister separately, as they can always do when they think proper.
The undersigned embraces the occasion, &c, &c, &c.
[Untitled]
The undersigned, representatives of the friendly powers residing in Mexico, received, day before yesterday, the communication of the 28th February, which the acting minister of foreign affairs addressed to them in answer to their joint note of the 9th of the same month.
They regret that the observations which they have thought proper to present in relation to the contribution of one per cent. on capital were not more favorably received by the government of the Emperor Maximilian, and they do not hesitate to make it known to your excellency.
The objections made to their communication cannot affect their opinions, and, without discussing the principles of the subject, they persist in maintaining the conclusions of their note.
The contribution of one per cent. on capital is an extraordinary decree, in their opinion, made under peculiar circumstances to aid particular enterprises, which gives it the nature of a war tax, and the undersigned still insist that their countrymen should be exempted from it.
In relation to what they said about patents, the undersigned are surprised that the minister of foreign affairs has misunderstood them. They know that the right to impose taxes and distribute them is an attribute of national sovereignty. They acknowledge and respect the right. In alluding to the system adopted for fixing the patents that are to serve as a basis for the contribution of one per cent., they merely wish to draw attention to the unequal effect it would have upon their countrymen. In many cases houses of small capital would be more severely taxed than others of considerable means. They meant nothing more, and did not digress from the question, as your excellency supposes.
Almost all the foreigners engaged in commerce or manufactures are suffering from the [Page 371] crisis, and as their means are mostly invested in practical operations, their contributions to public taxes are very unequal. Most of them operate on credit, and contributions of one per cent, on capital would break them, or force them to suspend business, to the great injury to the resources of the imperial treasury.
The undersigned had hoped the government of the emperor Maximilian would understand them. If it does not, all they can do is to protest, with all reserves in favor of the rights of their countrymen.
The undersigned must add that, so far from being unusual, the joint form of note at which Mr. Murphy is surprised conforms to all the usages and diplomatic antecedents found in this country. To use that form, it is not necessary for the business to be of political importance. In using it the undersigned only intend to show the unanimity of their views in relation to the one per cent. contribution on capital.
Although the question is not political it is very important, and the undersigned regret that your excellency has delayed so long in answering their note, as it has prevented them from advising their countrymen in the matter. They would be sorry to think it a want of respect that should be communicated to their governments.
The undersigned embrace this occasion, &c, &c, &c.
His Excellency Mr. Murphy, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
[Untitled]
The undersigned, minister of foreign affairs of his majesty the emperor of Mexico, has the honor to acknowledge the reception of the second joint note, dated the 4th instant, which the representatives of the friendly powers residing in Mexico addressed to him in reply to his note of the 28th of last month.
The undersigned now answers the demand at the end of the joint note—regretting that the representatives have thought it necessary to make the demand—by assuring them that his delay in answering their note of the 9th of last month has not proceeded from want of respect, but from exceptional circumstances impeding the progress of government.
The imperial government is pleased to see the explanations which the representatives wish to make in relation to what they say of treaty rights in their note of the 9th of February; but, under all circumstances, the undersigned is compelled to sustain the sovereign rights of the nation on this point.
In regard to the joint form of the note of the representatives, it did not astonish the undersigned very much; but to a certain extent he thought it singular, and said as much. As to the assertion made by the representatives in their last-note, that the form was usual and in conformity with all diplomatic antecedents in this country, the undersigned will observe, that though the foreign diplomatic corps, during several republican administrations, often addressed the minister of foreign relations in joint notes, it does not prove a rule for usage in diplomatic antecedents in this country. It would be an innovation upon established customs of all nations, as the representatives must know, where the joint form is only used in special cases of the greatest political importance.
Therefore, if the diplomatic corps judge proper in future to use that form, the undersigned will reply separately to each member who signs the joint note.
The undersigned embraces the opportunity, &c.