From every point of view, so far as citizens of the United States established in business in Haiti are concerned, the proposed act appears to violate the reciprocal equality of treatment stipulated by international treaty, and should be so dealt with by you in the event that it becomes a law and an attempt is made to apply it to citizens of the United States. I am, etc., W. Q. GRESHAM. Mr. Smythe to Mr. Gresham. No. 16.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: Replying to your No. 7, reciting Mr. Durham's 235, I have the honor to report that the bill was not presented to the Chamber of Deputies, and this I learn was in consequence of the same arguments presented in your dispatch. The Government realized that the law could not be enforced in reference to American citizens, and as they have similar conventions with other countries it was deemed impracticable and dropped. I have, etc., CONTRABAND TRADE. HENRY M. SMYTHE. Mr. Smythe to Mr. Gresham. No. 22.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: In an interview to-day with the secretary of state for foreign affairs (at his instance) he stated that certain small whalers and other American vessels had been habitually invading Haitian territory, and in the prosecution of their business frequently putting in at closed ports, and presumably carrying on a contraband trade. He stated further, that he desired to give notice to this legation before proceeding to extreme measures. I answered that the U. S. Government could not be expected to patrol Haitian territory, and that the only course open to the Haitian Government in this behalf was to protect its territory in the usual manner, and in that case the only interest of my Government would be to see that the delinquent parties had a fair and impartial trial, in case they proved to be American vessels. Since returning to the legation I find the same subject came up some years ago, and that this view (practically) seems to have been sustained by the Department. If my reply needs any modification please advise me. I am, et HENRY M. SMYTHE. No. 19. Mr. Uhl to Mr. Smythe. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Your No. 22, of the 10th instant, reporting the intention of the Haitian Government to adopt extreme measures against whaling and other vessels of the United States putting into closed ports of Haiti and presumably carrying on a contraband trade, has been received. A copy thereof has been sent to the Secretary of the Treasury for communication to shipmasters, and the matter has been given publicity through the press. I am, etc., * * The question of the detention of sailing vessels for the payment of customs duties has been raised by the firm of Green, Knaebel & Co., copy of whose communication I inclose.' I inclose also a copy of my reply, in which I inform Messrs. Green, Knaebel & Co. that I have no instructions concerning the suggestion that a test case be made. The records at the Department are so complete on this subject that it does not seem necessary for me to enter into a detailed report of the case. It seems that the custom of detaining sailing vessels was based originally on an executive decree, not confirmed by Congressional legislation. In Mr. Douglass to Mr. Blaine, No. 179, diplomatic, of June 27, 1891, Mr. Douglass quotes from the annual message of the President of Haiti to the National Congress to the effect that the executive department admits that there is no law for the detention of sailing vessels for the payment of duties. The Congress failed to take any action, and I was instructed to exercise my good offices in the matter. * It has seemed to me that with this official statement from the President that no law existed for the discrimination against sailing vessels, two remedies were possible: either a decree from the President annulling the decree under which the vessels are detained, or a decision from a Haitian court that the detention is without warrant at law. The latter seemed to me to be the more practical, and I ventured to make the observation to that effect in my No. 71, of June 10, 1892. Since that time I have had no word from the Department on the subject. 1 have, etc., 'Inclosures not printed. JOHN S. DURHAM. No. 2.] Mr. Gresham to Mr. Smythe. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I desire to call your attention to Mr. Durham's No. 228, of August 2 last, inclosing copy of a letter from Messrs. Green, Knaebel & Co., protesting against the Haitian regulation requiring the defention of sailing vessels in the ports of the Republic until the import duties on their cargoes are paid by the consignees. This subject has been discussed with your predecessors, Messrs. Douglass and Durham. The principal objection to the Haitian rule in this regard is that it is irrational, because visiting the carrier of the goods with delays and virtual penalties with regard to the things carried when they have passed out of the carrier's hands with the fulfillment of his contract, and when the only relation remaining in respect to the goods is between the Government and the importer or consignee. In this latter transaction the goods themselves, being in the hands of the Government, furnish abundant security for the payment of the duties thereon. Were the goods delivered to the consignees by the customs officers in advance of payment of duties, the master of the vessel could not rightly be held responsible for any subsequent default of payment by the consignee. The rule is, moreover, unjust, because applied only to sailing vessels. The instructions on file will enable you to deal with this unnecessary and unjustly discriminatory burden on the carrier under sail. I am, etc., W. Q. GRESHAM. No. 2.] Mr. Smythe to Mr. Gresham. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR Replying to your No. 2, of 23d ultimo, it seems that the ques tion of the detention of sailing vessels treated of in your dispatch was placed in an attitude of easy solution by the declaration of the Chief Executive of Haiti in his annual message promulgated in 1891, in which he says it has been found from an examination of the bureau of commerce that no law imposes the obligation to detain sailing vessels until the duties on their inward cargoes are paid. The message also recites that "the measure is perhaps only supported by the decree of 30th April, 1869, which was not inserted in the Official Moniteur nor in any law bulletin of the Republic, so that it is not known from what source it emanates. In any case, the date (30th April, 1869) recalls a troubled epoch of the Republic, when it was impossible to ren der a 'decree in constitutional form."" In the same document the President says that he "regards the custody of the cargo as an ample safeguard to the fiscal agents." I can not but believe that upon the proper presentation of the subject in this light an executive decree or declaratory order will follow directing the customs officers to expedite the departure of sailing vessels in the way desired. A careful examination of the records here fails to disclose any instruction from the Department for the guidance of this legation, but I will accept your No. 2 as an instruction to proceed in the matter in the way outlined in this dispatch, as soon as my status will permit, and at such time I will not omit to urge the reasons in this behalf suggested in your No. 2. In response to your suggestion that the matter has been discussed with Messrs. Douglass and Durham I beg to refer you to Mr. Durham's No. 228, which suggests alternative remedies, and to which I can find no reply. SIR: I have received your No. 2 of the 2d instant in regard to the practice of the Haitian authorities in detaining sailing vessels in their ports until the duties on their inward cargoes are paid. Following the general tenor of Department's instruction No. 2, you may assume the utterances of the President of Haiti, in his message of 1891, to be authoritative and conclusive, and start from that point in your discussion. Until the question of the legality and equity of the practice has been thus presented, it is not deemed necessary to consider the alternative suggestions advanced by Mr. Durham in his No. 228. I am, etc., W. Q. GRESHAM. No. 9.] Mr. Smythe to Mr. Gresham. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: In answer to your No. 4, relating to the detention of sailing vessels, I have the honor to note your instructions and to suggest that an entirely new phase has been added to the question. I have by diligent inquiry and study of the matter reached the following conclusions: First, by custom the sailing vessels are permitted to discharge their cargoes direct into the warehouses of the consignees, and hence the customs agents have not the "ample security" suggested in your correspondence, having in fact only the "good faith" of the consignees and the " custody of the vessel." It has been suggested that this custom has grown out of the necessities of the situation to some extent, because very often the consignee finds it convenient to realize on his cargo before paying the duties. The disclosure of this state of affairs has prevented me from bringing the matter up in the way suggested, and leaves to this legation now as far as I can see only one course and that is that sailing vessels be placed on the same footing as steamers, which discharge the cargoes direct into the custom-house, and hence are not detained. The object of this dispatch (after replying to your No. 4) is to make it plain to the Department that the customs agents have no custody of the cargoes of sailing vessels, they having been allowed to deliver their goods direct to the consignees. Whether this may be the fault of sailing masters FR 94- -23 in not having proper "agreements" at their ports of clearance seems to be a question. At any rate the facts disclosed place the whole subject in an entirely new light, and I feel that I should report the new status to the Department. Incidentally I may add that a change now, such as I suggest-(i. e.,) to place sailing vessels in the same category as steamers-would work more or less inconvenience to merchants who have been utilizing the time (so irksome to the masters of vessels) in disposing of enough of their cargo to pay off the duties. At the first opportunity I shall endeavor to determine the attitude of the Haitian Government in the matter. I have, etc., HENRY M. SMYTHE. No. 12.] Mr. Gresham to Mr. Smythe. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 16, 1893. SIR: I have received your No. 9 of the 28th ultimo, stating that you have learned that the reason of the detention of sailing vessels in the Haitian ports until the duties on their inward cargoes are paid is based on the practice of permitting them to discharge their cargoes directly into the warehouses of the consignees, instead of into the Government custom-houses, as is done by steamers, and that owing to the uncertainty of its ability to follow the goods, the Haitian Government is compelled to detain the vessel as a security for the payment of the duties. The practice you report is unreasonable, because shifting the usual and rational responsibility from the consignees to the carrier for the convenience of the former and without corresponding advantage to the latter. It would certainly justify shipowners in the United States in looking to some contract with the owners of the goods in order to guard their interests. You may ascertain the views of the American mercantile community in this regard and report further, suspending action meanwhile. I am, etc., W. Q. GRESHAM. No. 49.] Mr. Smythe to Mr. Gresham. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: In my No. 19 I said that I had an assurance from the foreign secretary that reasonable propositions made by my Government in regard to the question of the detention of sailing vessels in Haitian ports would be favorably considered. I have to report that I find now that any change that seems practicable would inure to the injury of the sailing vessels, and in this opinion I am sustained by all the sailing masters who touch at this port. As I before observed (in former dispatches), only the vessel is held and the cargoes are discharged into the warehouses of the consignees, who as a rule endeavor to dispose of a |