eight hundred dollars, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years." I have the honor to inclose herewith for the further information of your excellency a copy of the act of June 19, 1886, as well as of the act of June 26, 1884, which is amended by the one of 1886. In pursuance of the provisions of section 12 of the act of 1886, above quoted, I am instructed by my Government to invite the co-operation of His Majesty's Government with the Government of the United States in abolishing all light-house dues, tonnage taxes, or other equivalent tax or taxes on, and also all other fees for official services to, the vessels of the respective nations employed in the trade between the ports of Belgium and the ports of the United States. It will be seen that the provisions of the sections above set forth are broad enough to cover either a reduction or a complete abolition by reciprocal action of tonnage and equivalent charges on navigation, and it is open to any foreign country in all or any of whose ports a less charge is made than that now imposed in the ports of the United States to obtain forthwith a reduction of the charge in the United States on vessels coming from such port or ports to an equality with that levied in the port or ports designated. As an evidence of this I have the honor to inclose a copy of the proclamation of the President of April 22, 1887, following the arrangement entered into between the Government of the United States and that of the Netherlands, whereby complete exemption from tonnage dues is secured to all vessels of whatever nationality entering ports of the United States from the ports of the Netherlands in Europe or from certain named ports of the Dutch East Indies. It is to be observed that the invitation made to foreign countries under the provisions of section 12 of the act is equally extended to all countries, both those having ports within the geographical zone to which under the shipping acts 1884 and 1886 the rate of 3-15 cents per ton applies, and those which have no ports within that zone and to which the rate of 6-30 cents per ton now applies. The rate of 3-15 cents per ton was geographical and involved no test of flag. The object and intent of the present invitation is to deal on the basis of reciprocity with countries as nationalities, whether situated within or without the geographical limits referred to. In communicating the invitation herein contained I am instructed by my Government to convey to your excellency the fullest assurance of its entire friendliness, and of the desire of the United States to treat the commerce and flag of Belgium on the footing of the most complete reciprocity in those matters to which the invitation relates. I avail, etc., LAMBERT TREE. No. 139.] BRAZIL. Mr. Jarvis to Mr. Bayard. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Rio de Janeiro, August 6, 1888. (Received September 1.) SIR: On receiving your No. of July 9, 1887, in reference to a proposed reduction or total abolition of the port charges on vessels of the United States or of Brazil entering each other's ports, I addressed a formal note to the minister for foreign affairs on the subject, and in addition thereto had an interview with the director-general of that department. In the interview the director intimated that, as Brazil has no vessels engaged in foreign trade, it was not likely the Government would find any reason for entering into the proposed arrangement, so I was prepared for the final reply of the minister, which he made on the 31st of July, 1888, giving the reasons of the Imperial Government for not accepting the proposal of the United States. I herein inclose a translation of the reply, from which it will be seen the Imperial Government assigns the following reasons for its action: First. Brazil has no merchant-marine, and consequently there could be no reciprocity in the proposed reduction or abolition of port charges on such vessels. Second. The light-house tax in Brazil corresponds to the tonnage tax in the United States, and that it is not only not excessive in comparison with it, but that it is sometimes much less and especially so when the vessel is one of large tonnage. Third. The ships of the United States, as well as ships of other nationalities, enjoy the privilege of engaging in the coastwise trade of Brazil between its ports without any extra burdens or conditions therefor, and that this constitutes an immunity from port charges not given by many other nations. It is a well known fact that much of the coastwise trade of Brazil is done by foreign vessels, and I think I may say a fair proportion of it by vessels carrying the flag of the United States. There is no discrimination against vessels of the United States in the port charges in Brazil known to me, and I think I may safely report there is none. I have the honor, etc., [Inclosure in No. 139.-Translation.] THOS. J. JARVIS. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, In addition to the note from this Department of September 17 of the year last past I have to communicate to Mr. T. J. Jarvis, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America, that the Imperial Government sees no reason of advantage by which Brazil may accept the proposal of the Government of the referred to States in adopting the reduction of the tonnage tax established by Congress in favor of vessels which may enter the ports of that Republic. Mr. Jarvis will, without doubt, find this act justified by giving attention to the following considerations: Brazil has no merchant marine whose ships seek the ports of the United States, not being able for this reason to realize the reciprocity of intercourse between the two countries. The light-honse tax, which in Brazil corresponds to the tonnage tax of the United States, maintains with it a sufficient proportion, and the cases are not rare in which the second very much exceeds the first, which has its limit in favor of the larger class of vessels. And, finally, the ships of the United States, as well as those of other nationalities, enjoy without condition the free privilege of doing the coastwise trade, which constitute an immunity which many nations do not concede to foreign vessels. I have the honor to renew, etc., CHINA. RODRIGO A. DA SILVA. No. 450.] No. 45. Mr. Denby to Mr. Bayard. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, September 8, 1887. (Received November 2.) SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular of date July 9, 1887, relating to the act of Congress, approved July 19, 1886, entitled "An act to abolish certain fees for official services to American vessels, etc.," and directing me to notify the Chinese Government of the passage of this act, and to invite that Government to cooperate with the United States in abolishing all light-house dues, ton nage taxes or other equivalent tax or taxes on, and also all other fees for official services to, the vessels of the respective nations employed in the trade between the ports of China and the United States. I have prepared a dispatch to the Tsung-li Yamên complying with these directions, which is now being translated. When an answer is received, I will inform you of the contents thereof. In compliance with your instructions I have also taken measures to ascertain whether in the ports of China or any dependency thereof any discrimination exists against vessels of the United States as compared with the vessels of China (other than those engaged in the coasting or colonial trade), or the vessels of any third country. I will report thereon at the earliest possible moment. No. 46. CHARLES DENBY. No. 453.] Mr. Denby to Mr. Bayard. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, September 15, 1887. (Received November 2.) SIR: As a further acknowledgment of your circular of date July 9, directing me to report whether there is any discrimination against the vessels of the United States in Chinese waters, I have the honor to state that no such discrimination exists. By Article XVI of the Tientsin treaty of June 18, 1858, the tonnage duties are fixed at the rate of 4 mace per ton of 40 cubic feet for vessels over 150 tons burden and 1 mace per ton of 40 feet for vessels of 150 tons burden or under. By the immigration and commercial treaty of November 17, 1880, it is provided: ART. III. His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of China hereby promises and agrees that no other kind or higher rate of tonnage dues or duties for imports or exports on coastwise trade shall be imposed or levied in the open ports of China upon vesse's wholly belonging to citizens of the United States, or upon the produce, manufactures, or merchandise imported in the same from the United States, or any foreign country, or transported in the same from any open port of China to another, than are imposed or levied on vessels or cargoes of any other nation or on those of Chinese subjects. The United States, by the last clause of the same article, enter into the same agreement. Discrimination, therefore, is impossible. Prior to the adoption of the treaty, China, through Prince Kung. assured Mr. Angell that there was no discrimination against vessels of the United States. During my term of office there has been no complaint of any discrimination. It seems that there has been but one Chinese steamer, the Ho Chung. that has ever entered a port of the United States. I have transmitted to the Tsung-li Yamên a translation of the act of Congress set out in the circular, and of the most material parts of the circular itself. I have, etc., CHARLES DENBY. No. 458.] No. 47. Mr. Denby to Mr. Bayard. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, September 21, 1887. (Received November 11.) SIR: Adverting to my dispatch No. 453, of date the 15th instant, I have now the honor to inclose copy of reply which I received from the foreign office, wherein you will observe that the Chinese Government find it difficult to accept the invitation of the Government of the United States, for the reasons set forth therein, to co-operate with it in carrying out, upon a reciprocal basis, the act of Congress approved June 19, 1886, having relation to the abolition of tonnage dues and other charges on navigation. I have, etc., CHARLES DENBY. No. 15, 1887.] [[Inclosure in No. 458.-Translation.] The Foreign Office to Mr. Denby. Peking, September 19, 1887. YOUR EXCELLENCY: The Prince and ministers had the honor to receive on the 15th instant a communication from your excellency, by which you informed them that, under a new act of Congress, a reduction or complete abolition by reciprocal action of tonnage and all other charges on navigation could be made between the United States and foreign countries. Your excellency transmitted a translation of four clauses of said act, and on behalf of your Government invited China's co-operation with it in making the reductions specified by said act, etc. It appears to the Yamên that in western countries the carrying trade is conducted by vessels of those countries, and hence, the question of a reduction of tonnage dues, or the entire abolition of such charges on navigation, could be reciprocally discussed; but as a very few merchant vessels under the Chinese flag ever go to foreign countries the circumstances are different, and for that reason China finds it difficult to accept the invitation extended by the United States. As in duty bound, the Prince and ministers send this communication in reply, with the request that your excellency will communicate their decision upon this question to the Government of the United States. A necessary communication addressed to his excellency Charles Denby, SIR: I have the honor to report that, acting upon the instructions contained in your printed circular dated July 9, 1887, I embodied a request for the desired information in a note to the royal Danish minister of foreign affairs, under date of August 11, 1887. Having just received a reply from his excellency, I have herewith the honor of transmitting to you copies of both notes, together with a translation of the latter. I have, etc., R. B. ANDERSON. [Inclosure 1 to No. 208.1 Mr. Anderson to Count Rosenörn-Lehn. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, EXCELLENCY: In obedience to instructions from my Government, I have the honor to ask your excellency to have the goodness to inform me whether, in the ports of Denmark, or in any dependency, thereof, any discrimination exists against vessels of the United States as compared with the vessels of Denmark (other than those engaged in the coasting or colonial trade), or the vessels of any third country. Should any such discrimination exist I will be obliged to you if you will inform me in regard to its precise nature and extent. I avail myself, etc., R. B. ANDERSON. (Inclosure 2, in No. 208.-Translation.] Count Rosenörn-Lehn to Mr. Anderson. COPENHAGEN, February 22, 1888. Mr. MINISTER: In a note dated August 11 of last year, you desire to ascertain whether in the ports of Denmark, or any dependency thereof, any discrimination exists against vessels of the United States as compared with the vessels of Denmark (other than those engaged in the coasting or colonial trade), or the vessels of any third country. In reply I have the honor to make the following statement: According to Article 3 of the treaty of April 26, 1826, between Denmark and the United States, United States vessels engaged in the Danish foreign carrying trade are, in the ports of Denmark, to be treated in every respect the same as Danish vessels. Ship dues, which in Denmark have replaced the former tonnage, light-house, and clearance dues, and are the only ones collected, are therefore exacted of United States vessels according to the same rules as of Danish vessels, and in the royal and munieipal harbors they pay the same harbor and wharf dues as the Danish ships (at least in case the 'Danish vessel does not belong in the harbor concerned, as in some munici pal harbors, Copenhagen excepted, the harbor dues are lower for such vessels than for other Danish vessels). In the above-mentioned note you did not include vessels engaged in the coasting trade. I would, however, state for your information upon this point, that His Majesty's Government is willing, in case of reciprocal action on the part of the United States, to grant United States vessels the right of free coast trade between the harbors of the kingdom upon an equal footing with Danish vessels. According to article 6 of the treaty of 1826, the provisions of that treaty are not to apply to Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, or the Danish West Indies. By independent legislation in Iceland, no restrictions or discriminations in the treatment of United States vessels are provided for, save those in regard to the coasting trade and the trade between Iceland and this kingdom, and His Majesty's Government is willing, in case of reciprocity on the part of the United States, to remove the discrimination against United States vessels. The laws governing the Faroe Islands require of United States vessels visiting these islands for purposes of trade, besides the usual tonnage dues, the supplementary charge of 2 kroner per ton of the vessel's tonnage, and in addition thereto the abovementioned restriction in regard to the coasting trade and the trade between the isl ands and the Kingdom is in force. But inasmuch as this supplementary charge has by treaty already been removed in regard to vessels of various other nations, His Majesty's Government is willing to extend this favor to those of the United States, and also in case of reciprocity to extend to them the privileges of the coasting trade among these islands, as well as of the trade between these islands and the Kingdom. In the Danish West Indies, United States vessels are, upon the whole, treated in all respects the same as Danish vessels. Finally, I may call your attention to the fact that the trade of Greenland is no more open to Danish vessels than to foreign vessels, that trade being reserved exclu sively for the crown. I seize this opportunity of renewing to you, etc. O. D. ROSENÖRN-LEHN. |