« ÎnapoiContinuă »
tion of mutual advantage was most scrupulously and fairly weighed, detail being offset against detail, and arrangements devised for their realization for a term of years, after which their continuance was optional with either party. Some of the most important of these terminable engagements remain unabrogated, others, though abrogated as a matter of formal record, continue in great part as a matter of convenience and interest by concurrent sufferance. If Canada continues in practice certain phases of the abrogated provisions of Article 30, it must be assumed that she finds it to her advantage to do so, for it could hardly be expected that she would voluntarily sacrifice her rightful interests for any abstract theory of neighborliness. I should be very sorry to expose my Government to the charge of want of international comity, but when it is remembered that the maintenance of the provisions of Article 30 by the Dominion government enables its railroads to reap a large and profitable harvest from a portion of the American carrying trade, in successful competition with our own railroads on account of the interstate commerce law, the action of the Canadian goyernment in this respect does not seem to call for a relaxation of the attitude of the United States on the canal tolls.
As to the minister's controversion of the mention, made in President Harrison's message of June 20, 1892, of the understanding reached in the conference of February, 1892, with regard to the canal tolls, I can only say that the considerations advanced by Mr. Haggart do not in any wise make necessary a revision of Mr. Blaine's report of the February conference, as explained by the undersigned in his report of the June conference. The citation made from the letter of Mr. Blaine to Mr. Blanchard certainly does not sustain the minister's contention. On the very day the conference adjourned and while the animated discussion as to the discriminating tolls was fresh in his mind, Mr. Blaine wrote that "an assurance had been given by them (the Canadian commissioners) that the complaint we have preferred shall have careful and prompt consideration, with a view to a faithful observance of the treaty stipulations." The commissioners who were present at that conference certainly have not forgotten the vehemence with which Mr. Blaine characterized the discriminating tolls as a plain and unjustifiable violation of Article 27 of the treaty; and it is a trifling with words to contend that he did not understand the assurance given was in effect to result in a removal of the objectionable discrimination. Assuredly he did not expect the abrupt reimposition, without notice or intimation of any kind to this Government, of all the objectionable and violative provisions of the order of the preceding year and even with additional discriminations. I cheerfully bear witness to the good disposition and friendly assurances of the Canadian commissioners in the February conference, as in gratifying contrast with the subsequent action of the Dominion government.
It only remains for me to notice the proposal which is renewed in the memorandum transmitted with your note of the 10th instant, as a basis of settlement of the existing controversy, to wit; "Not to reëstablish, after the close of the present season, the system of rebates and transshipment regulations heretofore in force, in consideration of continued immunity from tolls on the Sault Ste. Marie Canal, and the restoration to Canada of the right of transit for domestic products under Article 30 of the treaty of Washington, which was abrogated by the United States in 1885." It would seem sufficient to say in reply that this proposal, as contained in the note of your legation of June 24th last, was transmitted to the Congress of the United States by the President, and was
before that body when it passed the act of July 26, 1892, authorizing and directing the President to impose tolls on the Sault Ste. Marie Canal. This action of Congress, taken with such unanimity, must be accepted by the Executive as expressive of the judgment of the legisla tive department of the Government that the proposal now renewed is inadequate and inadmissible, and I am directed by the President to say that in this judgment he fully concurs.
The question at issue respecting the canal tolls is a plain one. Article 27 secures to citizens of the United States the use of the Welland Canal * on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion. The Canadian government claims the right to charge products passing through the Welland Canal destined for export by way of Montreal 18 cents per ton less tolls than products destined for export via an American lake or river port and over an American railroad to the seaboard. The Government of the United States claims that this is a discrimination against American ports and lines of transportation, and hence against American citizens, and that, therefore, it is a violation of the treaty. It does not settle this issue on its merits to grant to Canadian vessels the right (not now possessed by them) to navigate the Hudson River, or to grant Canadian products a right of transit, which has been formally withdrawn from them. The Government of the United States is fully convinced of the justice of its claims, and it can neither in equity nor in honor consent to purchase a compliance with a solemn treaty stipulation, by a further concession not required or contemplated by the treaty.
The President has seen with regret that the Dominion government, under the circumstances indicated, has thought proper to renew the proposal of June last, after it had been found inadmissible. He had earnestly hoped that an assurance would be seasonably given that the objectionable discriminating order against American commerce would not be renewed for the coming year. He still cherishes the hope that the Canadian government may conclude that the course which it has followed in this matter does not tend to promote the good relations which should exist between two neighboring countries, and, in his name, I appeal to you, Mr. Minister, to exert your good offices to bring about a better understanding upon the basis of a faithful observance of treaty stipulations.
I have, etc.,
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA..
JOHN W. FOSTER.
Whereas, by an act of Congress approved July 26, 1892, entitled "An act to enforce reciprocal commercial relations between the United States and Canada, and for other purposes," it is provided "That, with a view of securing reciprocal advantages for the citizens, ports, and vessels of the United States, on and after the first day of August, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, whenever and so often as the President shall be satisfied that the passage through any canal or lock connected with the navigation of the Saint Lawrence River, the Great Lakes, or the water ways connecting the same, of any vessels of the United States, or of cargoes or passengers in transit to any port of the United States, is prohibited or is made difficult or burdensome by the imposition of tolls or otherwise which, in view of the free passage through the St. Marys Falls Canal, now permitted to vessels of all nations, he shall deem to be reciprocally unjust and unreasonable, he shall have the power, and it
shall be his duty, to suspend, by proclamation to that effect, for such time and to such extent (including absolute prohibition) as he shall deem just, the right of free passage through the Saint Marys Falls Canal, so far as it relates to vessels owned by the subjects of the governments so discriminating against the citizens, ports, or vessels of the United States, or to any cargoes, portions of cargoes, or passengers in transit to the ports of the government making such discrimination, whether carried in vessels of the United States or of other nations.
"In such case and during such suspension tolls shall be levied, collected, and paid as follows, to wit: Upon freight of whatever kind or description, not to exceed two dollars per ton; upon passengers, not to exceed five dollars each, as shall be from time to time determined by the President: Provided, That no tolls shall be charged or collected upon freight or passengers carried to and landed at Ogdensburg, or any port west of Ogdensburg, and south of a line drawn from the northern boundary of the State of New York through the Saint Lawrence River, the Great Lakes, and their connecting channels to the northern boundary of the State of Minnesota.
"SEC. 2. All tolls so charged shall be collected under such regulations as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, who may require the master of each vessel to furnish a sworn statement of the amount and kind of cargo and the number of passengers carried and the destination of the same, and such proof of the actual delivery of such cargo or passengers at some port or place within the limits above named as he shall deem satisfactory; and until such proof is furnished such freight and passengers may be considered to have been landed at some port or place outside of those limits, and the amount of tolls which would have accrued if they had been so delivered shall constitute a lien, which may be enforced against the vessel in default wherever and whenever found in the waters of the United States;" and
Whereas the government of the Dominion of Canada imposes a toll amounting to about 20 cents per ton on all freight passing through the Welland Canal in transit to a port of the United States, and also a further toll on all vessels of the United States and on all passengers in transit to a port of the United States, all of which tolls are without rebate; and
Whereas the government of the Dominion of Canada in accordance with an order in council of April 4, 1892, refunds 18 cents per ton of the 20-cent toll at the Welland Canal on wheat, Indian corn, pease, barley, rye, oats, flaxseed, and buckwheat, upon condition that they are originally shipped for and carried to Montreal or some port east of Montreal for export, and that, if transhipped at an intermediate point, such transhipment is made within the Dominion of Canada, but allows no such nor any other rebate on said products when shipped to a port of the United States or when carried to Montreal for export if transhipped within the United States; and
Whereas the government of the Dominion of Canada by said system of rebate and otherwise discriminates against the citizens of the United States in the use of said Welland Canal in violation of the provisions of Article 27 of the treaty of Washington, concluded May 8, 1871; and
Whereas said Welland Canal is connected with the navigation of the Great Lakes, and I am satisfied that the passage through it of cargoes in transit to ports of the United States is made difficult and burdensome by said discriminating system of rebate and otherwise, and is reciprocally unjust and unreasonable;
Now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the power to that end conferred upon me by said act of Congress approved July 26, 1892, do hereby direct that from and after September 1, 1892, until further notice, a toll of 20 cents per ton be levied, collected, and paid on all freight of whatever kind or description passing through the St. Mary's Falls Canal in transit to any port of the Dominion of Canada, whether carried in vessels of the United States or of other nations; and to that extent I do hereby suspend from and after said date the right of free passage through said St. Mary's Falls Canal of any and all cargoes or portions of cargoes in transit to Canadian ports.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the scal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and seventeenth.
By the President,
JOHN W. FOSTER,
Secretary of State.
Mr. Beale to Mr. Foster.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Athens, November 17, 1892. (Received December 6.)
SIR: I think it will be of interest to the Government to know that the cholera here and in the East, as an epidemic, is over; and that it will be a matter of satisfaction to the Department to hear that in the country where the ravages of this epidemic were the greatest (in Persia) our representative and the American missionaries did credit to the American name. Our representative remained at his post. It has been reported to me since I left Persia that when the cholera was at its height and the people in Teheran were dying in the streets it occurred to Mr. Fox, our representative, to open the American Hospital to people of all religions. After a conference with the missionaries of that station it was found that they had not funds sufficient to carry out Mr. Fox's plan.
Mr. Fox at once applied to the ministers of other countries, who warmly seconded his plan and gave it substantial aid. This at once brought our representative to the front as one of the leaders of the foreigners in Persia. All news that the foreigners received in relation to the epidemic came through and from him. The English officials placed their system of government telegraphs at his disposal. The hospital was filled with Europeans, Persians, and Americans.
The indirect effect of this work was very great. It came at a time when most needed. When I left that country, but a few months ago, western enterprises were in disfavor. The tobacco monopoly had been abolished; the export privileges of that company had been taken from it; the managers of other western enterprises feared they would not have the aid and good will of the Persians. Many of the leading Persians were objecting to all attempts to develop Persia by means of western capital; the people of western nations had reached the very zero of their unpopularity. The hospital work arrested the feeling of distrust that was rapidly spreading in Persia. It remained for Mr. Fox and the missionaries who coöperated with him to restore the faith and confidence in foreigners that seemed, for a time, to be lost. The conception of this plan and the vigor with which our representative and the missionaries executed it have done more for American prestige in Persia than anything that has been done since our legation there has been established.
I have, etc.,
Mr. Blaine to Mr. Stevens.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, November 27, 1891.
SIR: On the 1st instant the Department received the sad tidings of the death of Mr. H. A. P. Carter, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary accredited by Her Hawaiian Majesty near the Government of the United States.
The President was immediately acquainted with this melancholy event, and directed me to express to his son, Mr. George R. Carter, and through him to the family of the deceased, his sincere sorrow for the loss of one who, as the representative of a friendly nation, had long and acceptably fulfilled the duties of his high office and done so much to consolidate the friendship of the two countries; and who, in his personal relations with the officers of this Government, had so deservedly won the esteem and confidence of all with whom he was brought into association.
For myself I gave expression to the feeling of personal loss that comes from the death of one with whom my intercourse had ever been especially intimate, and whom I had always been delighted to call a friend.
I also directed Mr. Sevellon A. Brown, the chief clerk of this Department, to repair to New York and attend the funeral of the deceased as my representative. Instructions had also been given by the Secretaries of War and of the Navy.to the commanders of the military post at Governors Island and of the Brooklyn Navy-yard to detail an escort of soldiers and marines under their respective commands to attend the funeral, but in deference to the wishes of the family of the deceased, who desired the services to be as simple as possible, such instructions were revoked.
You will make suitable communication of these instructions to the minister of foreign affairs.
I am, etc.,
JAMES G. BLAINE.
Mr. Stevens to Mr. Blaine.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Honolulu, January 25, 1892. (Received February 15.)
SIR: The customs authorities here have been in the practice of exacting from American merchant captains a fee or fine of $25 for each Chinaman coming here as a seaman in the service of the ship, claiming that this was for watching him while he was here. This being