its clauses, it has been fulfilled by the United States, is willing to overlook the departure from the strict letter of the instrument involved in the premature notice given in Mr. Chaves' note, and to receive said notice as if given in accordance with the terms of the treaty at the expiration of the twelve years.'" Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776–1887), 1250. For the correspondence in the negotiation of the treaty, see House Ex. As to commercial discriminations formerly practised in Brazil, see Mr. By the commercial arrangement between the United States and Brazil of January 31, 1891, it was provided that no increased export tax should be levied in Brazil on any article admitted free into the United States. On the strength of this provision the United States protested against the imposition by the State of Bahia, January 11, 1892, of a duty of 19 per cent on skins exported to the United States; and by the State of Pernambuco, February 1, 1892, of an additional export tax on sugars sent to the United States. The government of Bahia decided that the tax on skins could not be levied, and the refund of the moneys already collected was promised. The governor of Pernambuco engaged to recommend to the State legislature similar action. For. Rel. 1893, 26-31. The United States also protested against the collection in Brazilian custom-houses of an expediente tax on wheat flour imported from the United States, on the ground that the tax constituted a violation of the stipulated free entry of the article in question under the reci procity arrangement of January 31, 1891. The tax was ultimately refunded. For. Rel. 1893, 36-38; For. Rel. 1894, 73-76. As to the refund of expediente charges, referred to in Foreign Relations 1894, 73–76, Mr. Thompson, minister to Brazil, inclosed to Mr. Gresham, Secretary of State, January 15, 1895, a circular of the Treasury Department of Brazil, dated January 2, 1895, reviewing the origin of the claims and explaining how the expediente duties came to be levied in the face of the express provisions of the commercial agreement. The circular revoked the circular of May 21, 1894, and directed the custom-houses to forward the claims to the Treasury Department, in order that the necessary credit might be provided for their payment, owing to the fact that, as the duties had been paid in the last fiscal years, it was impossible to return them without an appropriation. (For. Rel. 1895, I. 43-47. At page 47 there is a copy of a resolution of the National Congress authorizing the refund of the duties.) "The Empire of Brazil, in abolishing the last vestige of slavery among Christian nations, called forth the earnest congratulations of this government in expression of the cordial sympathies of our people." President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 3, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, xv. "The recent political disturbances in the Republic of Brazil have excited regret and solicitude. The information we possessed was too meager to enable us to form a satisfactory judgment of the causes leading to the temporary assumption of supreme power by President Fonseca; but this government did not fail to express to him its anxious solicitude for the peace of Brazil and for the maintenance of the free political institutions which had recently been established there, nor to offer our advice that great moderation should be observed in the clash of parties and the contest for leadership. These counsels were received in the most friendly spirit, and the latest information is that constitutional government has been reestablished without bloodshed." President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 9, 1891, For. Rel. 1891, v. "The termination of the civil war in Brazil has been followed by the general prevalence of peace and order. It appearing at an early stage of the insurrection that its course would call for unusual watchfulness on the part of this government, our naval force in the harbor of Rio de Janeiro was strengthened. This precaution, I am satisfied, tended to restrict the issue to a simple trial of strength between the Brazilian government and the insurgents, and to avert complications which at times seemed imminent. Our firm attitude of neutrality was maintained to the end. The insurgents received no encouragement of eventual asylum from our commanders, and such opposition as they encountered was for the protection of our commerce and was clearly justified by public law." President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 3, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, vii. As to the visit of the South Atlantic Squadron of the United States to By a decreee of Sept. 5, 1895, regulations were adopted with regard to foreign life insurance companies operating in Brazil. For. Rel. 1895, I. 59–63. By a Brazilian law of Nov. 14, 1899, the use of trade-marks written wholly or partly in a foreign language was forbidden to national factories, and it was also forbidden to import goods made abroad bearing labels wholly or partly in Portuguese, except when imported from Portugal or when made for factories. Remonstrances were made by various governments, including the United States, against the injurious effects of this law, and the law was amended so as to allow the importation of manufactured articles with labels in Portuguese, it being required, however, that the country of origin should be indicated. For. Rel. 1900, 54, 62, 64–65. VII. CENTRAL AMERICA. An historical sketch of the relations of the United States with the Federation of Central America is given in instructions of Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hise, June 3, 1848, and Mr. Clayton, Sec. of State, to Mr. Squier, May 1, 1849, MS. Inst. Am. States. XV. 51; H. Ex. Doc. 75, 31 Cong. 1 sess. 92–96. The following matters may also be noticed: A general treaty between the five Central American States, signed Feb. 16, 1887. (For. Rel. 1888, I. 165.) The Central American Exhibition, at Guatemala City, March 15-July 15, 1897. (For. Rel. 1897, 333-336.) A treaty of non-intervention and arbitration between Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Salvador, signed Nov. 2, 1903. (For. Rel. 1904, 351.) The treaty between the United States and the Federation of the Centre of America of Dec. 5, 1825, expired by its own limitation in 1837. In 1849, and at subsequent periods, treaties were negotiated with Nicaragua for the revival of its commercial articles, but they did not become operative. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treasury, Dec. 2, 1863, 62 MS. Dom. The treaty of Dec. 5, 1825, is given in Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 269. 1. COSTA RICA. § 791. By Article VI. of the treaty between the United States and Costa Rica of 1851, it is provided that the same duties shall be paid on the importation into the one country of any article being the growth, produce, or manufacture of the other country, whether the importation be made in vessels of the former country or of the latter. It was maintained by the United States that the allowance by Costa Rica of a rebate of 5 per cent on all goods imported into the coun try by a Spanish line of steamers, under a special agreement between the Costa Rican government and the line, was an infraction of Article VI., which justified the imposition on goods imported into the United States on Costa Rican vessels of discriminating duties under section 2502 of the Revised Statutes. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fairchild, Sec. of Treasury, Feb. 6, By Article VIII. of the treaty between the United States and Costa Rica of July 10, 1851, the consul of the United States at San José has the right to nominate a curator to take charge of the property of a deceased American citizen in Costa Rica, and it would be the duty of the local authorities to appoint the curator thus nominated, unless prohibited by the local law from so doing. The curator thus nominated has the right to take charge of the property in pursuance of the treaty, but not to determine the respective rights of the estate and its creditors. The decision of such questions belongs to the courts. Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Merry, No. 357, Aug. 18, 1900, MS. Under the twelfth section of the act of 1861 (12 Stat. 147), to carry into effect the convention with Costa Rica of 1860, certified copies or duplicates of papers filed in the State Department, and not translations, must be substituted by the commissioner of Costa Rica for the originals withdrawn by him. Bates, At. Gen., 1863, 10 Op. 450. As to the proceedings under the convention here referred to, see Moore, In November, 1884, the Costa Rican minister for foreign affairs notified Minister Hall that the concessions made by the province of Chiriqui had been annulled by the courts of Costa Rica, and further that a contract made by the government of Costa Rica with Mr. A. W. Thompson, July 24, 1860, had not been approved by the Legislature and had become null and void." Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Armstrong, January 10, 1901, 250 MS. "The long-pending boundary dispute between Costa Rica and Nicaragua was referred to my arbitration; and by an award made on the 22d of March last, the question has been finally settled to the expressed satisfaction of both of the parties in interest." President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 3, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. xv. For the proceedings in the Costa Rican-Nicaraguan boundary arbitration As to the proceedings under a convention between Costa Rica and Nicaragua of April 8, 1896, to carry the award into effect, by means of another arbitral proceeding, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1968; V. 5074. See, also, For. Rel. 1894, 439–441. As to the abolition of trial by jury in Costa Rica, see For. Rel. 1903, 688. 2. HONDURAS. § 792. December 9, 1898, Mr. Allison, United States consul at Tegucigalpa, reported that President Bonilla had informed him that the treaty of July 4, 1864, "was denounced in 1878-79, but that al. clauses of the treaty had been recognized as if it was really in exist The Department of State, however, found in its archive: no record of any notification made either by the United States or by Honduras of an intention to terminate the treaty. Subsequently, Mr. Allison reported that he found in the records of his consulate the following entry: "By decree of provisional government of Dr. Marco Aurelio Soto, dated in La Paz, April 25, 1877, were denounced several existing treaties, including the general convention with United States signed May 28, 1849, and the one signed May 10, 1863. This act was approved by Congress in decree of March 20, 1879." The Department of State instructed Mr. Hunter, United States minister in Honduras, that it was unable to find in its archives that any treaties bearing date May 28, 1849, and May 10, 1863, were ever concluded with the government of Honduras, or that any notification of the termination of the treaty of July 4, 1864, had ever reached the Department. Mr. Hunter was directed further to investigate the matter. For. Rel. 1899, 362–364. In reply to your dispateh No. 681 of the 7th instant, I have to say that the Department is not aware that any notice of the termination of the treaty between the United States and Honduras of July 4, 1864, or any of its articles, has ever been given." (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hall, No. 485, July 30, 1887, MS. Inst. Cent. Am. XIX. |