Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 3, 1889

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Belmont.

Department of State,
Washington, February 20, 1889.

No. 27.]

Sir: I inclose with this dispatch copies of an extended correspondence which has recently taken place with Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York, agents of the New York and Cuba Mail Steam-ship Company, and with the consular officers of the United States at Matanzas and Havana, in relation to the vexatious requirements of the Cuban customs regulations, by which minute and circumstantial declarations of manifested merchandise, which are unusual and unnecessary in the legitimate course of mercantile and shipping transactions, are demanded by the Cuban authorities; and whereby also fines are imposed without apparent recourse of revision or appeal in cases of shortage in the delivery of cargoes under circumstances admitting of the conclusive establishment of good faith in the transaction.

Although the correspondence herewith transmitted relates to two different causes of complaint, it has seemed convenient to embrace them in one instruction, inasmuch as the conclusion reached in both cases involves the same treatment in their presentation and suggests the same remedy.

The files of your legation for the last sixteen or seventeen years contain a mass of correspondence in relation to the general subject of vexatious and obstructive treatment of commerce by the Spanish colonial officials through the imposition of wholly disproportionate penalties for trivial errors in the preparation of the manifests of vessels and for accidental irregularities in the cargo they carry. It would be convenient for you to familiarize yourself with so much of the correspondence in question as may be applicable to the question treated of in the present instructions. You may in particular consult the correspondence which took place in the early part of 1873, when concurrent action was had by the representatives of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden and Norway at Madrid, in the effort to obtain some amelioration of the existing restrictions upon trade; and you will also find the subject referred to in the instructions and correspondence which preceded the negotiation of the original Foster-Ruiz modus vivendi of 1884.

Messrs. Ward & Co. complain in the first instance of the imposition of a fine of $800, at Matanzas, upon the steamer Manhattan, of their line, in July last, because her cargo was found upon discharge to be short four tierces of lard. The facts of the case are very simple and the explanation of the shortage and establishment of complete bona fides in the transaction are conclusive, and yet it appears that the financial authorities of the Island of Cuba raise technical objections to considering the case in the light of the evidence presented and allege their incompetency to revise or reverse the decision of the predecessor of the present general administrator of customs.

It appears that the steamer Manhattan, in the course of her regular trip by way of Havana from New York, arrived at Matanzas on the 28th of July last. When her cargo was unloaded it appeared that the four tierces of lard in question, while borne upon the vessel’s manifest, were not found on board. The maximum fine of $200 for each missing package was thereupon imposed, but was not immediately collected pending inquiry to ascertain whether the missing packages might not have been delivered at the intermediate port of Havana. They were not so delivered. Meanwhile it was ascertained that the four missing tierces had by accident been left upon the wharf at New York, and on the next voyage of the steamer Manhattan they were put on board, carried to Matanzas, and there entered, upon payment of duties, apparently under the original manifest of the voyage of the 28th of July. The agents of Messrs. Ward & Co. at Matanzas seem to have regarded the affair as ended by the production and entry of the missing packages, and took no steps by way of appeal from the fine until the 1st of September following, when they were advised by the collector of customs at Matanzas that the fine in question must be paid. The intervention of the consul of the United States at Matanzas was exerted to procure suspension of the collection of the fine in order to permit the consignees to obtain from New York, under the seal of the Spanish consulate, duly-certified proof that the four tierces of lard had been in fact left on the wharf at New York, which certificate was duly received and communicated by the consul to the collector of customs at Matanzas on the 26th day of September, 1888. The collector, however, persisted in claiming the payment of the fine 5 and on the 14th of December the consignees presented their case anew by way of appeal through the consulate-general at Havana, to which the consulate at Matanzas referred the case. On the 27th of December the consul-general, Mr. Williams, informed the consul at Matanzas that on presenting the case to the intendente-general and the central administrator of customs, he found that the case had already been passed upon and decided two months before by the predecessor of the present intendente, who, it was therefore said, could not reverse the decision.

It is not easy to conjecture the grounds upon which an adverse decision confirming the fine in question was reached, as stated, in October last, when the authorities at Havana must have had before them full explanation of the shortage and conclusive proof of the absence of all bad faith in the transaction, which was furnished by the certificate of the Spanish consul-general at New York, dated September 18, 1888, and when they must have had knowledge that the missing tierces had been subsequently produced and entered in perfect good faith; and the refusal of the financial administrator of authorities at Havana to review the case, upon appeal being made through the authoritative channel of the United States consulate-general at Havana, is equally inexplicable.

The whole proceeding illustrates the constant tendency in the administrative procedure of Cuba to regard the original application of a penalty under a strict and technical, although morally indefensible construction of the letter of the Spanish customs law as a conclusive disposition of the case, and to interpose further technical obstacles to all attempts at explanation, justification, or appeal. In this respect, the Spanish system is in striking contrast with that which is pursued in the United States and the benefits of which are secured to Spanish vessels entering our ports under the existing modus vivendi, as Consul-General Williams well points out in his dispatch No. 912, of January 30 last. While in this country good faith is made the sole test in the case of questioned enforcement of a penalty, and where the law expressly provides that no fine shall be collected or punishment inflicted if satisfactory explanation of the penalized shortcoming can be made, the Spanish procedure appears to follow a directly contrary rule, and to surround with every possible obstacle, any attempt of the parties in interest to explain the case or exculpate themselves from the charge of violation of the law. In brief, while the United States law punishes only the willful infraction thereof, the Spanish law appears to be designed to furnish opportunities for technical exaction of penalties, even though the absence of all wilful intent to do wrong is patent.

It is true that on some occasions in the past, upon representation made through the United States legation at Madrid, conclusively establishing good faith and absence of intent to defraud, fines have been in part remitted although it is to be remarked that even in such instances justice has been but tardily rendered to the injured party, and the redress furnished has been inadequate owing to the alleged incompetency of the Government of Spain to remit the moiety of the fine collected and paid to the informers. The viciousness of this moiety system and its injurious effects upon commercial operations have been heretofore abundantly represented in the instructions sent to your predecessors, and it therefore appears unnecessary in this connection to do more than advert to this point, in the assumption that you will bear it fully in mind in the execution of the present instructions.

But even the fact that tardy and partial reparation may be at times obtained in this round-about way, serves only to emphasize the contrast which it is now sought to point out as existing between the customs administrative procedure in the United States and in Spain and its dependencies. So long as this complete diversity between the two systems of procedure exists, and so long as direct, speedy, and simple resort to administrative relief does not enable those parties who may be injured by the technical application of Spanish law to exonerate themselves from any charge of wilful intent to defraud and to furnish satisfactory explanation of the charges against them, it can not be said that a full and complete reciprocity in this regard exists between the United States and the Spanish Antilles.

Another aspect of the general question now under consideration is presented by Messrs. Ward & Co., respecting the requirements of the Spanish customs law that the manifest of cargo while conforming in every respect to the bills of lading signed by the master or agent of the vessel shall yet contain a minute description of the articles shipped, specifying among other things, not only the generic character of the merchandise but the specific character or composition thereof. The ground of the particular complaint they present in the imposition of small fines in June and July, 1888, and January, 1889, upon the master of the steamer Cienfuegos for using the word “drugs” in the manifests presented, it being claimed by the collector who imposed the fines that under paragraph 26, art. 3, of the general orders to be observed by captains of vessels trading between foreign ports and the Island of Cuba, issued by Spanish royal decree on May 1, 1881, the employment of a vague term like the word “drugs” is punishable by a fine as aforesaid. The complainants, however, represent that the phrase in question is habitually used by the whole commercial world to distinguish mixed consignments of assorted drugs and medicines, and that it so appears, customarily, in bills of lading.

The Spanish requirement is open to many objections, not the least of which is, that it seems to contemplate the regulation or modification by municipal law of the mercantile procedure of other communities by constraining them to adopt new and unusual methods of describing merchandise for which usual, legitimate, and sufficient descriptions are already employed in the course of commerce The change, if effected at all, must be in the bills of lading prepared by the exporting merchants and presented to the agents of the steam-ship companies. Common carriers ordinarily possess no other means of knowledge of the contents of packages than the contents of the bills of lading. They are, besides, constrained under heavy penalties by Spanish law to make their manifests an exact copy of the bills of lading presented.

This phase of the question was very fully discussed at Madrid on the occasion above referred to in 1883. The vexatious character of the constantly recurring lines upon masters of vessels upon trivial allegations of error or irregularity in the preparation of the manifest, for which neither the master nor the owners of the vessel could in any way be justly held responsible, was then thoroughly exposed.

It was pointed out on behalf of the complaining governments that where mercantile usage regarded such descriptions as “shooks and heads,” “flour,” “nails,” and the like, as full and sufficient descriptions of the ordinary merchandise carried, it was a needless and onerous requirement to insist that the shooks and heads should be described as of wood; the flour as made from wheat; and the nails as of iron. Moreover, it appeared clear that it was no part of the business of the ship-owner, as a carrier, to verify the contents of packages as stated in the bills of lading; that they were without the knowledge in most cases which would enable them to correct, when they came to make up the manifests of the vessels, any errors of statements in the bills of lading presented to them; and, further, that any correction of or departure however trivial from the language of the bill of lading, when discovered in the manifest, became a separate pretext for a fine.

Recognizing the justice of these representations, the Spanish Government adopted a more equitable rule in apportioning responsibility for so-called errors in the generic and specific description of imported merchandise, by providing that where an error was discovered to have originated in the bill of lading, and to have been reproduced in the manifest, the consignees should be held responsible, and not the owners or the master of the vessel. It does not appear in the particular instance presented by Messrs. Ward & Co., of the fines upon the Cienfuegos, that this rule was applied, or that the errors, so penalized, originated in the preparation of the steamer’s manifest. It is, on the contrary, to be inferred from the letter of Messrs. Ward & Co., of January 25, that the description of the contents of papers or packages of medicines as “drugs” originated in the bills of lading, and it is further stated in the protest of the master of the Cienfuegos, that such method of description has been used for a number of years on the island of Cuba, and as such, had up to the time of imposing the fines referred to, been accepted by the Spanish custom-house authorities as good and sufficient.

Assuming that this statement of the master of the Cienfuegos is correct (and there seems but little reason to doubt its accuracy, as he speaks of a matter constantly within his knowledge, and under his observation in the course of frequent voyages), it would seem that a new and ingenious device for the imposition of a fine has been discovered by the customs authorities of Cuba. Under the obnoxious system which governs the imposition of such fines, the interested motives of the customs authorities at the port of entry to strain the letter of the law to the utmost against the master or the importer is evident, and this powerful incentive necessarily overlooks considerations of equity, and, by disregarding the most ordinary usages of commercial intercourse, an obstacle is placed in the way of legitimate trade. No just principle of responsibility is discernible in these penal proceedings. No fraud is perpetrated. Duties are not paid upon the manifested descriptions or values of goods. The ascertainment of the exact contents of any package for the purpose of assessing customs duties thereon pertains to the revenue officers of the port of entry, who of course are governed by the precise regulations and requirements of the revenue law; and it is not to be expected, nor is it in any way practicable, that the shippers of goods, much less the mere carriers of merchandise can be made a part of the machinery for the enforcement of all the intricate details of the Spanish revenue laws. The question seems to be much larger in its scope than one of mere form and detail. The enlightened policy of the governments of our day is to extend as far as possible all operations of legitimate commerce, to remove the burdens which oppress and the obstacles which hinder a full and fair interchange of the commodities and productions of neighboring communities; and it is to this end that the present representations are addressed through you to the Government of Spain.

The existing modus vivendi in regard to commerce between the United States and the dependencies of Spain was doubtless a great step forward in this direction, in that it recognized a just principle of reciprocity in the commercial treatment of imports and exports and of the vessels carrying the same. It would seem to be the part of wisdom and foresight still further to extend the principle of reciprocity and to emphasize the principle of non-discrimination by incorporating in the present agreement a provision for the treatment of American vessels and their cargoes in the colonial ports of Spain on a footing approximating to the treatment which is extended in the ports of the United States to Spanish vessels and their cargoes, particularly in respect of penalties for alleged violations of customs laws. It is but fair that we should expect and obtain the same prompt opportunity in Cuba and Porto Rico for appeal to a superior authority for the remission of technical, but often enormously disproportionate, penalties for so called errors, themselves merely technical, not conducive to fraud, not involving any intent of wrong doing, and capable of simple and sufficient explanation in good faith.

I have, therefore, to instruct you to present this important matter for the consideration of the Government of Her Majesty the Queen Regent. In doing so you will adopt such method of presentation as may appear to you best adapted to the end in view, fortifying your argument with such citations of examples and cases in point from the present instruction or from those addressed to your predecessors and to be found upon the files of your legation as you may deem expedient. You will bear in mind that your present object is not so much to obtain consideration and redress of the complaints herein presented, as to lay down a rule of action which will do away with the causes of such complaints in the future.

A convenient method of accomplishing this result would be the inclusion of an article or articles in the existing commercial arrangement, following as far as possible the draught articles 9 and 10 of the proposed commercial treaty with Spain which was submitted to me by your predecessor, Mr. John W. Foster, on the 16th of April, 1885, and which is referred to in my instruction to Mr. Curry, No. 27, of January 22, 1886. For your greater convenience of reference, I here quote the text of those draught articles:

Art. 9. The two high contracting parties mutually stipulate by the present treaty that the fines and pecuniary penalties which may be imposed, and the product of the forfeitures which may result from violations of the laws and of the customs ordinances of the United States and of the islands of Cuba and of Porto Rico, when the fines, penalties, and forfeitures proceed from violations of said laws and ordinances committed in the commerce of importation and exportation of said States and islands, shall be paid in full into the public treasury of said States and islands and shall remain absolutely under the control of the respective Governments, without being-received directly and with any preferred or any other kind of right by any informer or by any other individual.

The laws and regulations of each one of the two contracting parties shall establish the manner of recompensing individually the services rendered by public officials in the prosecution of fraud.

Art. 10. The two high contracting parties mutually agree that no fines or penalties shall be imposed either in the custom-houses of the United States or in those of the islands of Cuba and of Porto Rico on the vessels of Spain or of the United States, or on the captains thereof engaged in the commerce of importation or exportation between the said States and islands, on account of errors or omissions in the manifests of any part of the cargo of said vessels, if it shall appear that said manifests agree with the bills of lading of said cargo, unless it is proved that there has been complicity on the part of the captains or owners of the vessels in the attempt to defraud the treasury by said omissions or errors.

It is further agreed that the conductors or carriers of merchandise with whose importation the attempt may be made to violate the laws, ordinances, or regulations established by the respective Governments to prevent fraud in the commerce of importation or exportation between said States and islands shall not incur responsibility, fine or imprisonment, unless the complicity of the said carriers in the attempt to commit it is proved. Vessels are also exempt from responsibility and fine if complicity on the part of the captains or owners of the vessels in the commission of the fraud is not proved.

These propositions, which reproduce, with some verbal modification and explanation, the text of the commercial convention signed by my predecessor, Mr. Frelinghuysen, having already received the full assent of the Spanish Government, it is not conceived that any objection can now exist to their incorporation in the existing modus vivendi.

It would, moreover, be advisable to add to them a provision for the prompt and equitable disposition of cases in administrative appeal in the first resort to the superior customs authorities of the locality in the way permitted by our laws, and with opportunity satisfactorily to explain the delinquency which may be caused and to establish good faith in the transaction.

The report of your action upon this instruction will be awaited with interest.

I am, etc.,

T. F. Bayard.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 27.]

Mr. Pierce to Mr. Rives.

United States Consulate,
Matanzas, January 22, 1889.

No. 87.]

Sir: I have the honor to report for the knowledge of the Department the following particulars regarding a fine upon the American steamer Manhattan, imposed by the customs authorities of this port, for alleged non-delivery of 4 tierces of lard, on her trip to Matanzas from New York, touching at Havana and arriving here on the 28th of July last.

At the time stated I was absent from Matanzas on leave in the United States, but returned to my post and resumed charge of my office on the 1st of September. After my return the matter of the fine was for the first time brought to the attention of this office by a letter from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., the consignees of the steamer and agents of the owners, Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York, who transmitted to me two communications received by them from the principal administration of customs; one notifying them that the fine imposed was still pending and the other demanding its immediate payment.

I learned from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. that the short delivery of 4 tierces of lard, for which fault the fine of $800 had been imposed, had occurred by the said tierces having been left on the wharf of New York at the time of shipment of the steamers’ cargo for that trip, as would be satisfactorily proven to the custom-house by a document from the Spanish consul in New York, which was shortly expected, and they for the first time called upon my official services in the interest of the vessel, to request from the collector the delay of a fortnight within which to present the certificate referred to.

I therefore addressed a communication to that effect to the collector of customs, dated the 11th of September, and in their name as consignees of the steamer requested him to suspend the collection of the line until the receipt of the consular document referred to by Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.

In reply to this I received a communication from the administrator principal of customs to the effect that it was impossible to grant my request, and I communicated the same verbally to Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.

Under date of the 25th of September, Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. again addressed me, inclosing for my information an official notification, addressed to them on that same date, from the principal administrator of customs, exacting payment of the fine, and also, for transmission, the certificate referred to, received from the Spanish consul at New York, showing the causes which gave rise to the non-delivery at the proper time of the 4 packages referred to. This certificate, together with a copy of the letter of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. to me, I transmitted to the administrator under date of the 26th of September.

From this latter date I have received no communications whatever from the customs authorities not even the acknowledgement of my official communications to them; nor did I hear anything further in the matter Until the 14th December, when I received a letter from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. I had supposed during this interval that the matter had been passed and disposed of, and I was waiting to receive some intimations to that effect in order to report the case to the Department of State.

In their letter of the 14th December, Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. relate the circumstances which gave rise to the fine, and state that they had been defending the interests of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York, which the custom-house here had tried to injure in the case of the steamer Manhattan, and for the first time call upon me as the representative of American interests in this city to take up the defense of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., the owners of said steamer, as all their efforts had been exhausted and they were being proceeded against for the immediate payment of the said fine imposed upon the Manhattan, and they stated further they consider that pending such action as this consulate might deem it convenient to take his excellency the governor-general should be asked to order these customs authorities to suspend all proceedings against them as consignees.

In consequence of their letter I addressed a letter to the consul-general at Havana, and after the receipt of his reply by letters of the 22d and 26th December I communicated its substance to Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.

I have also sent a full report of this case to the consul-general at Havana.

I accompany herewith copies and translations of the correspondence in the subject.

I am, etc.,

Frank H. Pierce.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 27.—Translation.]

Mr. Osorio to Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.

Matanzas, September 1, 1888.

It being duly established that the 4 tierces of lard, which appeared short upon the discharge of the American steamer Manhattan on her trip of the 28th of July last past have not been discharged neither in Havana, nor in this port, nor in Sagua, which are the only ports at which said steamer touched; and the certificates of those custom-houses, which prove this fact, being added to the proceedings instituted by this administration, the fine of $800 imposed, in accordance with the regulations, still remains in force, and I have to request you to make due payment thereof, that this administration may avoid the necessity of proceeding to collect it by judicial process.

May God keep you many years.

Pedro Osorio.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 27.—Translation.]

Mr. Osorio to Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.

Matanzas, September 10, 1888.

As a reminder of my communication or the 1st instant, I repeat to you for the last time the necessity of making payment on this day to this administration of the $800 fine imposed, in accordance with article 30, paragraph 3, of custom-house regulations, on 4 tierces of lard which appeared short upon the discharge of the American steam-ship Manhattan on her trip of the 28th of July last past, and if payment thereof is not made, you are notified the same will be judicially enforced.

May God keep you many years.

Pedro Osorio.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 27.—Translation.]

Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., to Mr. Pierce.

Matanzas, September 11, 1888.

We have the honor to inclose to you herewith two communications received from the principal administration of customs, referring to a fine imposed on the captain of the American steam-ship Manhattan for non-delivery of packages. As it demands of us payment by judicial procedure, we refer the matter to you, that you may notify the said captain.

Bea, Bellido & Co.

[Inclosure 5 in No. 27.—Translation.]

Mr. Pierce to the Principal Administrator of Customs.

Consulate of the United States,
Matanzas, September 11, 1888.

I have the honor to accompany herewith a communication addressed to me by Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., referring to a fine imposed for 4 tierces of lard, which resulted short, upon the discharge of the American steamer Manhattan, in her trip of the:28th of July last. As I am informed by Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., the certificate of the Spanish consul at New York, proving that the said tierces were left behind in that port, is expected to arrive within a fortnight; and therefore in the name of said firm I beg you will be pleased to order the suspension of the collection of the said fine until the said consular certificate is received.

May God keep you many years.

Frank H. Pierce.

[Inclosure 6 in No. 27 Translation.]

Mr. de Rosales to Mr. Pierce.

Matanzas, September 13, 1888.

In answer to a communication which in the name of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. you addressed me yesterday, requesting the suspension of the payment of the $800 fine imposed on the captain of the American steam-ship Manhattan for deficiency of 4 tierces of lard on discharge of her trip of the 28th of July last past, I must inform you that it is impossible for this office to grant your request. The penalty was imposed in accordance with paragraph 13 of article 121 of the regulations, and this administration has no power to derogate superior orders.

May God keep you many years.

Augusto de Rosales.

[Inclosure 7 in No. 27—Translation.]

Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., to Mr. Pierce.

Matanzas, September 25, 1888.

In order that you may remove the fine imposed on the captain of the American steamer. Manhattan for packages undelivered to this custom-house, we inclose a consular certificate stating the causes which prevented the delivery of said packages at their proper time.

We also inclose a communication from the principal administration of customs, exacting the payment of said penalty, but as we have definite orders from the agents of the company, Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York, not to pay any amount on this account, we inform you thereof for such action you may deem convenient to take.

Bea, Bellido & Co.

[Inclosure 8 in No. 27.—Translation.]

Mr. de Rosales to Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.

Matanzas, September 25, 1888.

By virtue of the answer given by this administration to the communication forwarded in your name by the consul of the United States in this city on the 13th instant, I take the liberty of reminding you of the payment on this day of the $800 fine imposed for the four tierces of lard, which resulted short on the discharge of the American steam-ship Manhattan on her trip of the 28th July last, in order to avoid judicial proceedings against you, according to the regulations of this custom-house, if you persist in refusing payment thereof.

May God keep you many years.

Augusto de Rosales.

[Inclosure 9 in No. 27—Translation.]

Certificate of the Spanish Consul-General at New York.

The undersigned, consul-general of Spain in New York, do hereby certify, that from the documents exhibited and from statements made by the members of the firm of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co. it appears that, due to the confusion of cargo which they had in their wharf, and which was occasioned by commencing just at that time the double working service, which they have since then established, and by an error made by the wharf clerk, four tierces of lard, marked G G, bound for Matanzas and belonging to the lot contained in bill of lading No. 25 of the manifest of cargo shipped by the steamer Manhattan for said port on the 21st July, were left behind on the wharf, and that the said four tierces of lard were shipped on the same steamer Manhattan on the 1st instant without being manifested, because they had already been declared on the manifest of the previous trip.

I further certify that the said firm of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co. enjoys a good reputation in this city and is worthy of full faith and credit.

In testimony whereof, given at New York, this 18th day of September, 1888.

[seal.]

Miguel Suarez.

[Inclosure 10 in No. 27—Translation.]

Mr. Pierce to administrator of customs.

Consulate of the United States,
Matanzas, September 26, 1888.

I have the honor to inclose for your consideration the copy of a communication from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. of this city, referring to a fine imposed on the American steam-ship Manhattan for packages undelivered to that custom-house, as also the certificate of the Spanish consul-general at New York, to which the said communication refers.

May God keep you many years.

Frank H. Pierce.

[Inclosure 11 in No. 27 Translation.]

Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. to Mr. Pierce.

Matanzas, December 14, 1888.

In the name of the American firm of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York, we have been defending their interests which this administration of customs has endeavored to injure in the case of the American steamer Manhattan, as we are ready to prove.

On the 28th of July last the American steam-ship, Manhattan entered this port of Matanzas from New York and Havana, and on finishing her discharge the captain observed that four tierces of lard declared in the manifest were short.

It was thought at the time, as occurs frequently, that the aforesaid four tierces had been discharged by mistake in some other port, and therefore, as it is customary, the administration was officiated claiming them, but were not remitted, as they were not discharged in the port of Havana.

In view, therefore, that the four tierces of lard were not received, the custom-house of Matanzas imposed on the captain of the Manhattan a fine of $800—say $200 for each package undelivered.

In the course of the proceedings for the collection of the fine, we received a certificate from the Spanish consul-general residing in New York, in which it appeared that the four tierces of lard, which were short in the manifest of Matanzas, had not been shipped at that port, and would be forwarded by the same vessel on her following trip, and were received by the custom-house of Matanzas, as appears in the documents of the case.

It seemed logical, Mr. Consul, that the cause of the non-delivery of the tierces being explained, and there not being the least indication of an attempt to commit a fraud; that the proceedings for the collection of an unreasonable penalty should be suspended. But we find with surprise, that in the present case, the custom-house of Matanzas, notwithstanding that tariff duties had been collected on a merchandise received and acknowledged, persists in the collection of the fine of $800 for the tierces that were not delivered on the first trip, and the extra penalty of double duties to the same, which were left unshipped in New York.

In all countries the repression of fraud has two principal objects. The first is no other than the energetic campaign that is actually maintained by his excellency the governor-general in defense of the interests trusted him by his government; the second, the relief of the public morality.

Now, Mr. Consul, which is in this case the fraud pretended to be punished, which the offense inferred to the public morality? Are not the undelivered packages in possession of the administration?

The penalty of $200 for each package is applied to packages which do not appear, but never to those which are delivered, as they are declared in the manifest.

What is then the law—the legal principle in which the administration bases such a collection?

If such principle is adopted hereafter, what would become of captains of vessels, who, as a general rule, on their discharges report a surplus or a deficit, because in the ports they touch they sometimes discharge more or less of their cargoes without a fine being imposed, unless there is an absolute deficiency of packages?

If the reasons stated are not sufficient to show the groundlessness of the fine, ought not credit be given to an official of the Spanish Government, as is the consul of New York, and does not the certificate stating the facts, added to the documents in the case, answer the purposes for which it was drawn?

Lastly, is it not ordered that fines imposed on captains remain in suspense and can only be applied in cases in which a fraud is proved?

We address you as the representative of American interests in this city, in order that you may undertake the defense of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., as our efforts have been exhausted, and we are judicially proceeded against to make payment of the fines imposed on the American steam-ship Manhattan, belonging to Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York.

In the meantime, while the facts are cleared, before the efforts that that consulate may establish, we consider convenient to request his excellency the governor-general to order that all judicial proceedings against us, as consignees, be suspended by this administration of customs.

Very respectfully, etc.,

Bea, Bellido & Co.

[Inclosure 12 in No. 27.]

Mr. Pierce to Mr. Williams.

Consulate of the United States,
Matanzas, December 18, 1888.

Sir: I have the honor to inclose copy of a communication received from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., of this city, relating to a fine imposed on the American steamship Manhattan, in which the facts, as I understand, are correctly stated.

I am informed by Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., that the certificate referred to from the Spanish consul at New York, as well as other papers relating to the case, were forwarded to the administration central de aduanas in Havana, where they now are.

Respectfully, etc.,

Frank H. Pierce.

[Inclosure 13 in No. 27.]

Mr. Williams to Mr. Pierce.

Consulate-General of the United States,
Havana, December 22, 1888.

Sir: I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, inclosing the copy of a communication addressed to you by Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., of Matanzas, informing you of the fine of $800 imposed on the American steamer Manhattan for the non-delivery of 4 tierces of lard, on her voyage to Matanzas, the 28th of last July. I called yesterday in relation to this matter at the office of the intendencia-general. Both the intendente-general and administrador central de aduanas were very attentive in giving me information upon this subject; but I found that the case had already been passed upon and decided two months ago, by the predecessor of the present incumbent, who, you will readily understand, can not now, under the law, revoke the sentence. I would suggest, for the information of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., that in cases where consular interference is invoked, it be done at the proper time and stage of the proceedings.

Respectfully, etc.,

Ramon O. Williams.

[Inclosure 14 in No. 27.]

Mr. Williams to Mr. Pierce.

Consulate-General of the United States,
Havana, December 26, 1888.

Sir: After writing my letter to you on the 22d instant in relation to the fine of $800 imposed on the steamer Manhattan for the alleged 4 tierces of lard not delivered according to manifest, I had a visit from and an interview upon the subject with Capt. Frank Stevens, the commander of that steamer, and he tells me that he delivered his cargo all right that trip, and that the dispute pending originated in a private matter of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. As this is a question of a fine imposed upon an American ship in your consular district, and the information of it having been communicated by you to this office for the first time five months after it occurred, and as in the regular course of business it must be reported to the Department of State, you will please communicate to me whatever facts are on record at your office tending to exculpate the steamer

I am, etc.,

Ramon O. Williams.

[Inclosure 15 in No. 27.]

Mr. Pierce to Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.

Consulate of the United States,
Matanzas, January 9, 1889.

Gentlemen: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th ultimo referring to the fine imposed by the customs authorities at this port upon the American steam-ship Manhattan on her voyage of July 28 last, for the non-delivery of 4 tierces of lard, and also stating that you had been defending the interests of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York, but your efforts proving futile, you now request this consulate to undertake the defense, and pending such action as it might deem convenient to take in the matter, to endeavor to have the governor-general of the island order the suspension of proceedings against you as consignees of the said steamer.

I beg to inform you that I transmitted a copy of your letter aforesaid, on the 18th ultimo to the United States consul-general at Havana, with a statement of the case, asking his intervention before the superior authorities of the island.

The consul-general in reply informs me that he has called personally upon the intendente-general de hacienda and administrador central de aduanas, and has found that the case had already been passed upon and decided some two months ago by the predecessor of the present incumbent, who could not now reverse the decision.

Respectfully, etc.,

Frank H. Pierce.

[Inclosure 16 in No. 27.]

Messrs. James E. Ward & Co. to Mr. Bayard.

New York, January 25, 1889.

Sir: We would respectfully call your attention to the annoyance and constant small fines to which our ships are subjected in Cuba by the absurd position taken by the customs authorities there, whereby they claim, after our manifest has been certified and accepted by the Spanish consul in New York, that they are entitled to fine us when such generally accepted terms as “drugs” and other similar ones are used in the description of contents of packages. The Spanish laws require that our manifest should be an exact copy of the bills of lading signed by the master or agent of the vessel, and our manifests are so made and certified by the Spanish consul in New York, and it would be absolutely impossible in the time which is allowed for our preparing these documents to specify on them all the minutiae of the contents of a case of druggist’s materials, for instance.

We inclose for your information copy of the protest entered in Santiago de Cuba before the United States consul by Captain Lodge Colton, of the steam-ship Cienfuegos, and would respectfully request that instructions be issued by your Department to the consul-general at Havana that he may endeavor to come to some arrangement with the authorities at that port whereby we may be relieved from similar annoyances in the future.

We respectfully submit that the whole commercial world is in the habit of signing bills of lading as drugs, merchandise, or any similar vague term, and that it is generally understood that it becomes the duty of the customs officials, in the various ports, to require of the consignees of goods, and not of the ship, a detailed account of the contents of each package. If the Spanish idea is to prevail, it would seem that our captains and officers are to be employed as custom-house officials of the Spanish Government. Respectfully urging upon you the importance of the matter in question and the necessity of prompt action, in the interest not only of our own ships but of all American vessels trading with ports in the Island of Cuba,

We remain, etc.,

James E. Ward & Co.

[Inclosure. 17 in No. 27.]

Protest of Captain Colton.

By this public instrument be it known that on this 18th day of January, before me, Otto E. Reimer, consul of the United States at Santiago de Cuba and dependencies thereof, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Lodge Colton, master of the steamer called the Cienfuegos, of the burden of 1,630 tons, now lying in the port of Santiago de Cuba, and said that his vessel is trading between this port and New York in regular voyages. On arriving at this port he has, in conformity with the custom-house regulations of this port, always duly presented the manifest of his cargo, certified to by the Spanish consul at New York. Under paragraph 26, article 3 of the general orders to be observed by captains of vessels trading between foreign ports and the Island of Cuba, issued by Spanish royal-decree on May 1, 1881, the collector of customs at this port has imposed on various dates, to wit, July 13, 1888, $30; June 13, 1888, $10, and January 18, 1889, $10, fines for using the word “drugs” in the manifest presented, claiming that such term is a vague term, and as such the employing of the word “drugs” is punishable by a fine under the latter part of the paragraph article before quoted. Whereas this paragraph does not define the word “drugs” as a vague term, and such word is a commercial term in use among all nations, and has been used to express the contents of cases or packages of medicine for a number of years on the Island of Cuba, and as such has, up to the time of imposing of the above mentioned fine, been accepted by the Spanish custom-house authorities, he says and claims that the word “drugs” is riot a vague term, and is consequently not punishable by a fine under above quoted orders.

Furthermore, in certifying the manifest of the cargo the Spanish consul in New York accepts the term “drugs” as sufficient to fill the requirements of Spanish laws and regulations.

Again, he says that the master of a vessel by commercial laws indorses on the bills of lading he signs “weight and contents unknown,” and it is an absolute impossibility to minutely describe the contents of a package or case of drugs. The bills of lading stating the word “drugs,” this word has been copied on the manifest, and he now enters with me, the said consul of the United States, this protest against the Government of Spain for imposing the fines before mentioned, holding said Government of Spain responsible for all losses and damages that may hereafter accrue, and for the amount of the fines, with interest, as imposed by the custom-house authorities of this port.

In testimony whereof the said master has hereunto subscribed his name, and I, said consul, have to these presents set my hand and affixed seal of this consulate the day and year next above written.

[seal.]

Otto E. Reimer,
Consul.

Lodge Colton,
Master steam-ship Cienfuegos.

[Inclosure 18 in No. 27.]

Mr. Williams to Mr. Rives.

Consulate General of the United States,
Havana, January 30, 1889.

No. 912.]

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith the copy of a letter dated the 25th instant, received from Messrs. Hidalgo & Co., leading merchants of this city, and agents here of the “Ward” line of American steamers trading between New York and several ports of this island. As will be noticed this letter refers to the fine of $800 imposed by the customs authorities of Matanzas on the steamer Manhattan for the alleged non-delivery of four tierces of lard on her trip there the 28th of July last, which was reported to the Department by our consul at that port, Mr. Pierce, in his dispatch No. 87, of the 22d instant. I also accompany a copy in Spanish, and a translation in English of the memorial of the said firm presented on the 31st of October last to the intendant general of finance, stating the circumstances of the occurrence, and petitioning him, in case he should not consider himself authorized to rescind the fine, to order the proceedings of the investigation made here to be remitted to Madrid for the consideration of the home government.

My first knowledge of this case was communicated to me by Mr. Pierce in his letter of the 28th of December last. I called as soon after as possible upon the intendant-general and central collector of customs, and found that it had already been adjudged two months before by the previous intendant. The present incumbent of the intendancy informed me that he had no authority to annul or revoke the sentence of his predecessor; and that it only could be clone by the minister of the colonies. But, in the mean time, the sentence must hold good, and that no stay of proceedings could be allowed to delay the collection of the fine. I communicated the substance of this interview to Mr. Pierce in my letter to him dated on the 22d of that month. I wrote to him again on the 26th of December, informing him of the substance of an interview held in the consulate with Captain Stevens, the commander of the steamer; and in addition, asked him to communicate to me whatever facts there were on record in his office tending to exculpate the steamer. Copy of his reply is attached hereto. I acknowledged the receipt of the latter on the 9th instant, recommending him, inasmuch as the case had occurred in his consular district, and he being familiar with all the facts to report it to the Department.

In view of the fines imposed from time to time upon American vessels for trivial and pardonable clerical mistakes resulting in the manifests presented by their masters on arrival in the foreign ports of this island, I deem the present a fitting occasion to beg most respectfully to be allowed to suggest to the Department that some provision be made for such cases by an amendment to the modus vivendi existing at present between the United States and Spain, with the view of favoring American vessels in the ports of the Spanish dominions and in the same sense and to the same extent to which Spanish vessels are favored in similar bona fide cases by the Revised Statutes of the United States, on discharging their cargoes in the United States from the ports of the Spanish dominions or from other foreign countries.

Under sect ion 2810 of the said statutes, had the case of the American schooner Arthur U. S. Woodruff, reported in my dispatch No. 907 of the 19th instant, occurred to a Spanish vessel in the United States, the vessel would not have been subjected to detention nor its owners suffered loss thereby, because of its manifest having become incorrect by mistake. Indeed, the mistake in that case was purely clerical; the cargo turned out correct both in number of feet and in weight, the error having consisted solely in misstatement of the number of the pieces of lumber.

Also in the present case of the Manhattan, had it,mutatis mutandis, occurred to a Spanish vessel in a port of the United States, the master of such Spanish vessel would have had the right, under section 2887, to have gone before the collector, naval officer, and surveyor, or in case of trial for the penalty by any court, to have explained the cause or causes of the error, and having once satisfactorily proved that the disagreement was by accident or mistake, the penalty would not have been inflicted upon the vessel by the customs officers of the United States. Parallel with this, had a Spanish vessel failed to have delivered 4 bags, 4 boxes, or 4 hogsheads of sugar in a pore of the United States, that had been manifested by mistake, or which might have been subtracted from the cargo by the bad faith of a lighterman, stevedore, or of a warehouse clerk, either separately or acting collectively in a port of Cuba, the Spanish master under the said section, No. 2887, would have had the right by explanation and averment to have cleared his vessel of the responsibility towards the customs authorities of the United States.

Likewise, in the case of the American steam-ship Cienfuegos, reported in my dispatches 721, 727, 732, and 736, dated respectively November 10 and 26, and December 3 and 10, 1887, every attending circumstance, and all the evidence adduced, showed conclusively that the master and owners of this steamer were in no manner, whatever, consenting or privy parties to the fraud attempted against the customs revenue of the Island of Cuba in the clandestine shipment of the eight boxes of opium on board that steamer by parties in New York in collusion with others on board and in Havana. The smugglers were justly punished, by the confiscation of the opium; but the owners, whom the evidence proves had neither part nor art in the affair, were fined to the extent of $8,412, gold. Now, had this occurred to a Spanish vessel in a port of the United States, the Spanish owners, under the law quoted in my dispatch No. 736, from Wynkoop’s work on the clearance and entrance of vessels in the United States, would not have suffered for an illegal act committed by others, and to which they were neither consenting nor privy parties.

Again, it will be seen in my dispatch No. 888, of December 6, 1888, that tonnage loading dues amounting to $896.94 were charged for the second time on the cargo of sugar belonging to Messrs. F. O. Mathieson & Weichers, of New York, landed from the disabled bark Proteus, by the collector of Caibarien, upon its reshipment in the American schooner John R. Bergen for New York, and that, too, right in the face of article 10 of the treaty of 1795, which fully covers the case.

I beg also to present to the attention of the Department in connection with the consideration of this subject the fiscal moiety system ruling in this island as an exciting cause in bringing about, to some extent, the imposition of fines upon American vessels for such innocent mistakes in manifests as are condoned by the Revised Statutes of the United States, especially as the intent and spirit of the present modus vivendi between the United States and Spain manifestly require that American vessels in Spanish ports shall be treated in the same measure of justice that is accorded to Spanish vessels in the ports of the United States.

I am, etc.,

Ramon O. Williams.

[Inclosure 19 in No. 27.]

Messrs. Hidalgo & Co. to Mr. Williams.

Havana, January 25, 1889.

Sir: On July 31, 1888, Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., agents for the New York and Cuba Mail Steam-ship Company at Matanzas, communicated to us that the steam-ship Manhattan, of the said line, arrived on June 28, had failed to deliver besides of other packages, 4 tierces of lard which belonged to her manifested cargo, and differently from the said other packages had not appeared among the Havana cargo. On September 27, 1888, we received further notice from them that the Matanzas customs had imposed a fine of $200 each, or say of $800 in Spanish gold for the four packages, which resulted short-landed.

Investigation of the case proved that 4 tierces of lard had been found afterwards on the New York pier, whence they were reshipped, with a certificate of the Spanish consul there, and in due course discharged and delivered unto the custom-house authorities at Matanzas.

Under our instructions and to obtain condonation of the fine, Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. presented a petition to the custom-house, at the same time we ourselves visited the intendant and administrator central on various occasions, besides presenting a supplementary address in writing, of which we have the honor to submit you the copy.

Having heard that his excellency the intendant had decided unfavorably and that the custom-house has notified the intention of proceeding towards collection of the $800 fine, we beg to lay the facts before you, that if you should deem it expedient, the case should be submitted through your Government to his excellency the ministro de ultramar, as being the only authority in power to condone the fine aforesaid.

We beg, etc.,

Hidalgo & Co.

[Inclosure 20 in No. 27.—Translation.]

Messrs. Hidalgo & Co. to the Intendente General of Finance.

Havana, October 31, 1888.

The undersigned, Hidalgo & Co., merchants and agents in this city for the line of steamers owned by Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York, at the request of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., merchants and agents in Matanzas for the said owners, have the honor to memorialize your excellency herewith as follows:

That whereas the steamer Manhattan having on one of her trips to the aforesaid port of Matanzas delivered 4 tierces of lard short of her manifest, they having, owing to the great accumulation of cargo on the New York pier been left behind; and which, upon discovery of the mistake, were brought to Matanzas, but not manifested because accompanied with the certificate of the Spanish consul-general in New York; and whereas the custom-house of Matanzas, having opened an investigation of the case, proceedings of which being now in possession of the central collector of customs, and it appearing therefrom that the second chief officer reported, in view of the certificate of the said Spanish consul-general, in favor of the condonation of the fine imposed on the steamer; but notwithstanding which the central collector of customs still insists upon the collection; wherefore, we are compelled to present the case to the consideration of your excellency with the petition that if your excellency should not deem yourself authorized to decree the rescindment of the fine, that the said proceedings of investigation be remitted for revision to the Government of His Majesty, a grant which we are confident to obtain from the known correct judgment which characterizes your excellency.

God preserve, etc.,

Hidalgo & Co.

[Inclosure 21 in No. 27.]

Mr. Pierce to Mr. Williams.

Matanzas, January 7, 1889.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of the 22d and 24th ultimo, in answer to mine of the 18th of the same month, in reference to the fine imposed by the customs of Matanzas upon the American steamer Manhattan on her trip to this port in the latter part of last July.

I note from your letter of the 22d that you had called upon the intendente-general de hacienda, and the administrator central de aduanas and had been informed that the case had already been passed upon and decided two months ago, by the predecessor of the present incumbent and you suggest, for the information of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., that, in cases where consular interference is invoked, it be done at the proper time and stage of the proceedings.

From your second letter it appears that Captain Stevens, of the Manhattan, had informed you that he delivered his cargo all right upon the trip in question, and qualified the dispute pending regarding the fine as having originated in a private matter of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. You further instruct me to furnish whatever facts there may be on record in this consulate tending to exculpate the steamer.

The alleged defect in the manifest of the steamer Manhattan, being 4 tierces of lard short and not delivered, for which a fine of $800 was imposed upon the captain of the steamer Manhattan, occurred in this port on her trip from New York, touching at Havana and arriving here July 28 last.

At this time I was absent in the United States on leave, but returned to my post and resumed charge of my consulate on the 1st of September.

The Manhattan, since the date of the imposition of the fine for alleged non-delivery of cargo, had already made one regular round trip, and her second arrival at Matanzas was on August IB. I then learned from conversation and common report the fact of the steamer having been fined, but was informed, in the same manner, that the consignees, Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., had taken steps to arrange the difficulty with the custom-house and expected to obtain the cancellation of the fine.

Notwithstanding this, I received from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. on the 11th September a letter informing me for the first time of the imposition of the fine, and inclosing two communications from the custom-house authorities to them, dated respectively 1st and 10th September, notifying them that the fine was still pending and demanding its immediate payment.

I learned from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. that the short delivery of four tierces of lard for which fault the fine had been imposed, had occurred by the said four tierces having been left behind on the wharf in New York at the time of shipment of her cargo for that trip, as would be satisfactorily proved to the custom-house by a document from the Spanish consul at New York, which was shortly expected; and they for the first time called upon my official services in the interest of the vessel to request from the collector the delay of a fortnight within which to present the certificate referred to.

I therefore addressed a communication to that effect to the collector of customs dated the 11th September, and in their name as consignees of the steamer requested him to suspend the collection of the fine until the receipt of the consular document referred to by Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.

In reply to this I received a communication from the administrador principal de hacienda to the effect that it was impossible to grant my request, and I communicated the same verbally to Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co.

Under date of the 25th September, Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., again addressed me, inclosing for my information an official notification to them of that date from the administrador principal de hacienda, exacting payment of the fine; and also, for transmission, the certificate received from Spanish consul at New York, showing the causes which gave rise to the non-delivery at the proper time of the four packages referred to. This certificate, together with a copy of the letter of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., to me, I transmitted to the administrador under date of the 26th September.

From this latter date I have received no communication whatever from the customs authorities, not even the acknowledgment of my official communication to them, nor did I hear anything further in the matter until the 14th December, when I received a letter from Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. I had supposed during this interval that the matter was settled and I was waiting to receive some intimations to that effect in order to report the case to the Department of State.

Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., in their letter of 14th December, relate the circumstances which gave rise to the fine, and state that they had been defending the interests of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York, which the custom-house here had fined in the case of the steamer Manhattan, and for the first time call upon me as the representative of American interests in this city to take up the defense of Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., the owners of said steamer, as all their efforts had been exhausted, and they were being proceeded against for the immediate payment of the said fine imposed upon the Manhattan, and they stated further, they consider that, pending such action as this consulate might deem convenient to take, his excellency the governor-general, should be asked to order this customs authority to suspend all proceedings against them as consignees.

In consequence of this letter, I addressed you on the 18th ultimo, transmitting a copy of the letter and begging your intervention in the matter before the superior authorities of the island.

I will add that with respect to Captain Stevens’ statement that he delivered the cargo all right, and that the difficulty was one of a private nature of Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co., I have no knowledge.

It would appear that Messrs. Bea, Bellido & Co. trusted to their own efforts to settle the matter of the fine, and presumably considered it disposed of by the presentation of the certificate procured from the Spanish consul in New York, and therefore did not ask for the intervention of this consulate until they found their representations were useless and their efforts in vain.

I inclose herewith copies of such correspondence with this office as has not already been forwarded to you.

I am, etc.,

Frank H. Pierce.

[Inclosure 22 in No. 27.]

Mr. Rives to Messrs. James E. Ward & Co.

Department of State,
Washington, January 31, 1889.

Gentlemen: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th instant, with its inclosure, relative to the annoyance to which American vessels are subjected by Cuban customs officials by the imposition of fines for the use of general terms in their manifests in giving the contents of packages.

In reply, I have to say that the matter has been referred to the consul-general at Havana, with instructions to bring it as soon as possible to the attention of the proper Cuban authorities with a view of obtaining if practable, some arrangement whereby American vessels may be relieved from the petty and vexations annoyance of the kind described.

The Department is very sensible of the constant difficulties to which American vessels are subjected by reason of the minute requirements of the customs laws of Cuba and Porto Rico, and the frequently arbitrary and capricious modes of enforcing them. Instructions have been repeatly addressed to the United States consuls in in those islands directing them to protest in such cases, and to render every possible assistance to masters of vessels, and it is believed the efforts of our representatives have resulted beneficially to American commerce.

As soon as a report is received from the consul-general, on this subject, you will be further informed. I am, etc.,

G. L. Rives.

[Inclosure 23 in No. 27.]

Mr. Rives to Mr. Williams.

Department of State,
Washington, January 31, 1889.

No. 427.]

Sir: I send you inclosed a copy of a letter from Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., agents of the New York and Cuba Mail Steamship Company, dated the 25th instant, in which they complain of the annoyance caused American vessels by the customs authorities in Cuba, in the shape of fines imposed upon such vessels for the use of such general terms as “drugs” in their manifests, in describing the contents of packages, instead of giving a detailed statement of the kind of “drugs” in said packages. Messrs. Ward & Co. claim that the use of such terms as “drugs” and “merchandise” in bills of lading and manifests is general throughout the whole commercial world, and that it is impossible for them to give a less vague description in their manifests. They ask that an effort be made through you to obtain relief from such annoyance.

You are instructed to bring the matter as soon as possible to the attention of the proper Cuban authorities with a view to obtaining, if practicable, some arrangement whereby American vessels may be relieved from the petty and vexatious annoyances of the kind described by Messrs. Ward & Co., and to report fully the result of your efforts.

I am, etc.,

G. L. Rives.

[Inclosure 24 in No. 27.]

Mr. Rives to Mr. Williams.

Department of State,
Washington, February 5, 1889.

No. 431.]

Sir: The consul at Matanzas has reported in his No. 87 of the 22d ultimo the circumstances of the imposition of a fine of $800 by the customs officers of that port on the steamer Manhattan, owned by Messrs. James E. Ward & Co., of New York. He also stated that he has reported the facts to you and incloses a copy of your letter of the 22d of December, 1888, wherein you take the position that, as the case was disposed of by the predecessor of the present intendant general of finance, the latter can not under the law reopen it.

The Department thinks your acquiescence in the decision of the Havana officials that they can not reverse the decision of a predecessor was rather hasty.

The facts are very simple: On the 28th of July, 1888, the steam-ship Manhattan delivered her cargo at Matanzas, hut was four tierces of lard short. She was thereupon fined $800. This, although probably quite indefensible, morally or equitably, was technically within the competence of the officials. They did not, however, collect the fine, but delayed enforcing it. In the mean time the owners procured and sent to Havanaa certificate showing that the four tierces had been accidentally left behind in New York, and hence there was no intention to defraud. This evidence was not before the predecessors of the present officials when they decided to fine the ship. Therefore there appears to be no reason why they should not now remit this uncollected money.

The case, as stated, is one of that numerous class of provoking technical punishments which appear to be so congenial to the customs authorities of Cuba and Porto Rico, and are so exasperating to American merchants and so injurious to commerce. The singular impolicy of these practices should be apparent to the insular authorities, and should be strongly represented to them by our consuls on every suitable occasion.

Your letter of the 26th December to the consul at Matanzas contains statements by the captain of the Manhattan which seem at variance with the documentary evidence. An explanation of this discrepancy is desired.

I am, etc.,

G. L. Rives.

[Inclosure 25 in No. 27.]

Mr. Rives to Mr. Pierce.

Department of State,
Washington, February 5, 1889.

No. 39.]

Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 87 of the 22d ultimo, with its inclosures, relative to the fine imposed by customs authorities of the port of Matanzas on Messrs. James E. Ward & Co.’s steam-ship Manhattan.

As a reply thereto I send you inclosed a copy of the Department’s instruction No. 431 of this date to the consul-general at Havana on the subject. From this you will see that the Department does not regard the case as having been disposed of by the predecessors of the present customs authorities.

I am, etc.,

G. L. Rives.

[Inclosure 26 in No. 27.]

Messrs. James E. Ward & Co. to Mr. Rives.

New York, February 6, 1889.

Dear Sir: We beg to acknowledge receipt of your much valued favor of the 31st ultimo and to thank you for your prompt attention to our request, and also for the fact that the matter has been referred to the consul-general at Havana, with instructions to bring it as soon as possible to the attention of the Cuban authorities in order that our vessels shall be relieved from the annoyances of the case described.

We appreciate fully the action taken by your Department and trust shortly to realize material benefit from the efforts made. In connection with the case reported to you under date of ours of the 25th ultimo, we now beg to hand you original and translation of a protest made in Santiago de Cuba by our agent there, which is duly certified and which more thoroughly describes the case than does our previous correspondence, as also the captain’s certificate to the same effect duly certified, which we forwarded in ours of the 25th ultimo.

Asking for these documents the same prompt consideration which you extended to our previous communication, we are,

Very truly, yours,

James E. Ward & Co.

[Inclosure 27 in No. 27.—Translation.]

Protest of the Hon. Josê Bueno y Blanco.

In the city of Santiago de Cuba, on the 19th of January, 1889, before me, a notary public of the jurisdiction of Puerto Principe, residing and officiating in aforesaid city, personally appeared the Hon. José Bueno y Blanco, a citizen and merchant reliant of this city, married, of legal age, and landowner, and having certificate of third grade granted on the 23d of November, 1887, by the officer of the district under number 741, and who, as managing partner of the firm of J. Bueno & Co., deposes that he is agent for the American steam-ship Cienfuegos, of New York, Captain L. Colton, belonging to the house of James E. Ward & Co., of New York, and that, being in the exercise of sound mind and under his legal rights, says that the custom-house of this port, under dates of the 8th and 12th instant, has sent his house communications announcing that the captain of said steam-ship Cienfuegos has infringed the regulations of the revenue, and has therefore been fined in the sum of $55, with the 10 per cent, additional in consequence of having manifested in the present voyage, and also others in previous voyages, contrary to the rules established by section 3 of article 26 of the custom-house regulations; that in using the word “drugs” to designate contents of packages manifested which has given cause for the aforesaid fines, the master has simply copied from the bill of lading presented by the shipper, it being the custom for him to sign such bills of lading in the same way that masters sign manifests, i. e., with the reservation of weight and contents unknown, said manifest made out in that form being presented to and accepted and certified by the Spanish consul at New York, from which time all further responsibility of the matter should cease in conformity with the ninth section of said article 26, which says: “Consuls will see, under their responsibility, that no manifest is certified in which any of the conditions previously expressed may be wanting; will save by notes over their signatures any alterations or changes made in said document; will fill up the spaces left in blank, and will number and seal every page, notifying the Treasury Department on the same day that they so certify.” Therefore, once the responsibility is assumed by the consul against any errors that it may contain by negligence or mistakes of the shippers, he can not admit that the captain can be held; should this be clone the fine or punishment should be inflicted on the consul, or, in the last resort, on the shippers and never on the master, because of his positive clause of ignoring contents and because he can only take data for the manifests from his bills of lading, and this is done based on the present law; if any different law has been established, such alterations should have been properly announced in foreign lands through the respective consuls for general knowledge, so that no faults might be committed. That in said manifests the words “notions,” “hardware,” “stationery,” and other similar ones could be objected to same as in “drugs,” for which the master of the Cienfuegos is now fined, and yet these manifests with such words are generally accepted by our custom-house, and when the master in this case used the word “drugs” he simply followed closely the bill of lading and the manifest duly signed and certified by the consul in New York; and that inasmuch as the regulations prescribe that in case of a refusal to pay from the master, the Treasury proceed against the consignees and shippers. The exponent believes that there is no just reason to fine the master, who has not omitted any published rule, and desires to protect the owners of the ship, giving them time and opportunity to claim against such rulings, and therefore he protests before me, in accordance with the law and usage, and requests that the general administration be notified, and that I grant him the necessary document, etc., which I accede.

So said in the presence of witnesses, José Lasso and José Elias Silva, both being present and residents of this city.

I hereby testify that I am acquainted with the aforesaid José Bueno and the witnesses who in my presence have signed.

J. Bueno & Co.

José Lasso

,

José Elias de Silva.

Rafael Ramirez,
Notary Public.

Note.—On same date and at the request of the complainant I notified Mr. José Trujillo, collector of the port, leaving in his hand a copy of the foregoing protest, he signing receipt José Trujillo.

A copy of the original, which remains on file in this office, granted at the request of Messrs. J. Bueno & Co., and written in stamped paper of twelfth order on the date aforesaid.

Rafael Ramirez.

United States Consulate,
Santiago de Cuba, January 24, 1889.

I, Otto E. Reimer, consul of the United States at Santiago de Cuba, do hereby certify that the signature of Rafael Ramirez, notary public, at the foot of the paper hereunto annexed, is his true and genuine signature, and that the said Rafael Ramirez is personally known to me as notary public for the city and province of Santiago de Cuba.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the consulate at Santiago de Cuba, this day and year next above written, and of the independence of the United States the one hundred and thirteenth.

[seal.]

Otto E. Reimer.