Obrázky stránek

By the last clause of the article above referred to, it is provided that " the said consular officer shall have the right to appear personally or by delegate in all proceedings in behalf of the absent heirs or creditors, until they are duly represented.” This does not imply that consular officers have the status of attorneys or are to perform the duties of a public administrator.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wolcott, C. S. S., Feb. 3, 1900, 242 MS. Dom.

Let. 522.


$ 810.

“ In consequence of questions submitted by merchants and others, asking, in consideration of the recent alteration of the British navigation laws, on what footing the commercial relations between the United States and Great Britain will be placed on and after the first day of January next, the day on which the recent act of the British Parliament goes into operation, the Department deems it expedient, at this time, to issue the following general instructions, for the information of the officers of the customs and others interested.

First. In consequence of the alterations of the British navigation laws above referred to, British vessels, from British or other foreign ports, will (under our existing laws), after the first of January next, be allowed to enter in our ports with cargoes of the growth, manufacture, or production of any part of the world.

Second. Such vessels and their cargoes will be admitted, from and after the date before mentioned, on the same terms, as to duties, imposts, and charges as vessels of the United States and their cargoes.

Mr. W. M. Meredith, Sec. of Treas., to collectors of customs, Treasury

Circular, New Series, No. 24, Oct. 15, 1819, MSS. Treasury Depart

ment. This circular was kindly brought to my notice by Joseph Nimmo, jr., esq.

" During the past year a suggestion was received through the British minister that the Canadian government would like to confer as to the possibility of enlarging, upon terms of mutual advantage, the commercial exchanges of Canada and of the United States, and a conference was held at Washington, with Mr. Blaine acting for this government, and the British minister at this capital and three members of the Dominion cabinet acting as commissioners on the part of Great Britain. The conference developed the fact that the Canadian government was only prepared to offer to the United States, in exchange for the concessions asked, the admission of natural products. The statement was frankly made that favored rates could not be given to the United States as against the mother country. This admission, which was foreseen, necessarily terminated the conference upon this question. The benefits of an exchange of natural products would be almost wholly with the people of Canada. Some other topics of interest were considered in the conference, and have resulted in the making of a convention for examining the Alaskan boundary and the waters of Passamaquoddy Bay adjacent to Eastport, Me., and in the initiation of an arrangement for the protection of fish life in the coterminous and neighboring waters of our northern border."

President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 6, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, xi.
As to the adoption of a regulation allowing merchandise in transit be-

tween United States ports through Canadian territory, when not in
sufficient quantity to fill an entire car, to be forwarded, corded, and
sealed, in an unsealed car, see Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Lord
Pauncefote, British ambass., No. 2085, Feb. 19, 1901, MS. Notes to
Brit. Leg. 462.

“ The papers touching the matters before the Anglo-American Commission which met at Quebec in the summer of 1898 and sat at Washington in the following winter) have not been published as its labors have not been concluded, and I am therefore unable to send you any printed document on the subject. The twelve questions under the consideration of the commission are as follows:

“ 1. Questions in respect to the fur seals:

“ 2. The fisheries off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the inland waters of the frontier:

“3. The delimitation and establishment of the Alaskan boundary:

“ 4 and 5. Transit of merchandise to and from either country and across intermediate territory:

“ 6. The question of the alien labor laws:

“ 7. Mining rights of the citizens or subjects of each country within the territory of the other:

“ 8. Commercial reciprocity:

"9. A revision of the agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels on the lakes:

“10. More complete definition and marking of the frontier lines:

“ 11. ('onveyance of prisoners in custody of officers of one country through the territory of the other: “ 12. The question of reciprocity in wrecking and salvage." Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Brown, February 12, 1901, 250 MS.

Dom. Let. 638.
As to the death of Lord Herschell, the chief British commissioner, at

Washington, and the resolution of sympathy adopted by the Senate
March 1, 1899, see For. Rel. 1899, 310–341.

By a treaty signed January 24, 1903, the Alaskan boundary question was submitted to a joint commission of six members, three on each side. The tribunal met in London Sept. 3, 1903, under the presidency of Lord Alverstone, chief justice of England, who was one of the three British members, and on the 20th of October, by a majority consisting of the three American members and Lord Alverstone, rendered a decision confirming to the United States the control of a continuous strip of the mainland shore.

President Roosevelt, annual message, Dec. 7, 1903, For. Rel. 1903, xvii.
See, supra, 8 107.


$ 841. At the Queen's jubilee (on the sixtieth anniversary of the accession of Queen Victoria), in 1897, the United States was represented by His Excellency Whitelaw Reid, as ambassador extraordinary on special mission; by Major-General Nelson A. Miles, representing the War Department, and by Rear-Admiral Joseph N. Miller, representing the Navy. There were also the usual attachés and aides.

For. Rel. 1897, 249–252.
On the death of Queen Victoria Jan. 22, 1901, besides the exchange of

condolences, resolutions were passed by the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the same day. (For. Rel. 1901, 208, 209, 211,


$ 842.

Article I. of the treaty between the United States and Greece of December 22, 1837, guarantees to the citizens and subjects” of the contracting parties rights of commerce and various rights incidental thereto. The Greek minister for foreign affairs having expressed a doubt whether the stipulation was applicable to joint stock companies and other business associations, a protocol was signed at Athens, January 30-February 10, 1890, by the minister of foreign affairs and the American minister, by which it was mutually declared that corporations were entitled to the benefits of the article. The American minister was authorized to join in the declaration, on the strength of opinion of Attorney-General Miller, of May 10, 1889, to the effect that corporations and business associations, if duly authorized under the laws of Greece, were entitled to pursue lawful rights and remedies in the United States, subject to the appropriate laws of the United States and the several States.

For. Rel. 1889, 480–483; For. Rel. 1890, 509–511.
The opinion of Attorney-General Miller may be found in For. Rel. 1889,

482. See supra, $ 745.


$ 843.

As is elsewhere shown, the independence of Hayti was not formally recognized by the United States till 1862.

Supra, $ 39.
See, in this relation, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4476-4477; act of Feb.

28, 1806, 2 Stat. 351 ; act of Feb. 24, 1807, 2 Stat. 421.
With reference to the correspondence of Commodore Elliot with the

government of Hayti, and the desire of the United States to procure the abolition of the discriminating duties which operated against American commerce, see Mr. Livingston, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wood

bury, Sec. of Navy, Feb. 8, 1832, 25 MS. Dom. Let. 11. As to arbitrations between the United States and Hayti, see Moore, Int.

Arbitrations, II. 1749, 1807, 1859.

By Article III. of a treaty between Hayti and the Dominican Republic, concluded in 1874, the contracting parties agree not to alienate in favor of any third power the whole or any part of their territories por to solicit or accept any foreign annexation or control. These stipulations are declared to be perpetual.

Mr. Léger, Haytian min., to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, March 5, 1904, For.

Rel. 1904, 371.

In 1894 the United States made representations to the Haytian government concerning a discrimination in Haytian ports in favor of sailing vessels by levying duties on their registered tonnage, which was only half or less than half their carrying capacity, while duties were levied on every ton of cargo landed by a steamer. The Haytian government, in reply, gave reasons why the law should not be modified.

For. Rel. 1894, 355; For. Rel. 1895, II. 810.
For an explanation of the practice of detaining sailing vessels till duties

on their cargoes are paid, see For. Rel. 1894, 351-355.

The “rights of residence and business [of citizens of the United States in Hayti] are defined by the treaty of 1867, and they are expressly guaranteed by the sixth article thereof, ‘to enter, sojourn, settle, and reside in all parts of 'Hayti; there to “engage in business, hire and occupy warehouses, provided they submit to the laws, as well general as special, relative to the rights of traveling, residing, or trading.' The fifth and seventh articles of the treaty are also pertinent, and these provisions taken together constitute a solemn guaranty of unmolested residence of our citizens in Hayti, so long as they shall obey the laws.”

Mr. Uhl, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Smythe, min. to Hayti, March 27,

1894, For. Rel. 1894, 345), replying to an inquiry whether, if an American citizen should be expelled without any statement of reasons, a demand would be justified for “ proof of such citizen's connection with treasonable practices, which would justify the virtual confiscation of his property (through the ruin of his business).” The inquiry was prompted by a decree of the Ilaytian government expelling six citizens of France, and reciting as the ground therefor that “international law confers on each independent state the right to expel from its territory foreigners whose actions are dangerous to public tranquillity and order," and that the presence of the persons named was considered “ dangerous to public safety.” The French government demanded that the evidence on which the act was based be submitted to it. The matter seems to have been amicably arranged. (For. Rel. 1894, 313, 314, 345–346.)

By Article V. of the treaty between the United States and Hayti of November 3, 1864, it is provided that the citizens of one of the contracting parties residing in the territory of the other shall not be compelled to pay “any contributions whatever higher or other than those that are or may be paid by native citizens.” Held, that the Haytian Government was bound to make reparation for the seizure and sale of the goods of an American firm doing business in that country in order to enforce the payment by certain American employ ees of license taxes under article 9 of the Haytian law of October 27. 1876, which provided that foreigners who should be permitted to carry on any industry other than commerce should“ pay a tax double the amount exacted of Haytians exercising the same industry.”

Award of the Honorable William R. Day, arbitrator, in the matter of the

claims of John D. Metzger & Co. v. The Republic of Hayti, protocol of

Oct. 18, 1899, For. Rel. 1901, 262, 267–276.
The arbitrator in his award said : " This law [Oct. 24, 1876), so far as it

affects American citizens, is in direct violation of the stipulations of
the treaty. In practice it is shown that these license taxes were
seldom enforced against workmen in Hayti. By direct enactment of
law the solemn obligations of the treaty are ignored and discrimi-
nating burdens imposed upon foreigners without exception. When
this condition of affairs was diplomatically called to the attention of
the authorities of the Republic of Ilayti, it is to the credit of that
government that it promptly conceded that American citizens had
rights under the treaty which deserve protection and which the
government of Hayti undertook to see were duly guarded, leaving
Metzger & Co. to pursue their remedy of the infraction of their
rights already sustained." (For. Rel. 1901, 274275.)

By a law enacted October 1, 1897, the Haytian government was authorized to levy taxes on foreign merchants and clerks måny times greater than those imposed upon natives in similar occupations. The minister of the United States at Port au Prince was instructed that if any attempt should be made to enforce the law against citizens of the United States he should protest against it as a violation of article

« PředchozíPokračovat »