By the President: T. F. Bayard to Ricardo Becerra, June 1, 1885

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Becerra.

Sir: I have the honor to call your attention to the inclosed copy of a decree of the President of the United States of Colombia, which I am informed by our consul at Barranquilla, under date of the 24th April, was published in the Official Gazette of the 12th February last, and is dated the 10th of the same month.

By Article I of this decree the payment of custom-house dues in any place incidentally occupied by rebel forces, not only does not exempt the respective importers of the goods which have already paid duties to the insurgents from their obligations to the national treasury, but will be a reason for adding to such obligations 50 per cent, of the amount of duties illegally paid, if immediate payment is refused, and the collectors are further instructed to proceed immediately to a collection of such dues, as also of the extra 50 per cent, in case of delay, and are required to make a report to the treasurer of all such importers as have paid duties to the rebels.

Our consul at Barranquilla informs me that on the 17th April the foreign consuls in Barranquilla protested collectively to the military commander of the city against the decree in question. The reply of the general is herewith inclosed. It does not appear from the consul’s dispatch whether this decree has been enforced and the duty been actually collected, but it is probable that now that the rebellion is partially overcome all means of raising revenue have been adopted, and I desire, in anticipation of the protests of our merchants, to express the views of his Government on the subject.

The question as to how far a government is responsible to its citizens and foreigners within its borders for losses occasioned by insurgents may perhaps be open to argument, but there can be no question that no Government has the right to inflict a punishment (for this double tax, with superadded penalty, amounts to a punishment) on neutral and peaceful merchants who have been compelled by military force to contribute against their will to the revolutionary funds or supplies, as if such merchants were voluntarily aiding and abetting the rebellion.

A Government is bound to use all proper measures to protect the denizens within its borders from revolutionary acts, and in case it fails to insure such protection, it cannot with any justice hold the citizens of foreign nations responsible for its own weakness and failure to protect them, by imposing on them a penalty or fine for the very occurrences which the Government itself was bound to avert. Such a course of action as is authorized by the decree of the 10th February would be especially objectionable as being a retroactive revenue measure at ports admitted to have been beyond the control of the Government at the time the rebel dues were paid. Should an attempt be made to justify it on the ground of being in effect a fine for illicit trading with ports assumed to be embargoed, as mentioned in the President of Colombia’s decree of the 9th April, I must again use the arguments in my note of the 24th ultimo to those decrees, and contend that a blockade must be efficient to be recognized, and that executive measures relative to ports over which the Government has no control can only be considered as nugatory.

Hoping that your Government will view this question in an equitable light and reconsider this decree, which must prove so harassing to our merchants,

I have, &c.,