De Lano to G. F. Seward, June 3, 1880

Mr. De Lano to Mr. Seward.

Sir: I have to inform you of another effort put forward (although it has not yet as sumed official form) to impose restrictions upon foreign-owned cargo-boats, and to bring them so completely within the control of the customs as to hamper their movements, give undue annoyance to their owners, and greatly obstruct the trade of the port.

On the 28th ultimo the commissioner sent to the senior consul, Mr. Sinclair, a semi-official note covering a series, of rules, a copy of which I inclose herewith, which he proposed to submit to the inspector-general for approval; with the view to putting them in force, and he asked Mr. Sinclair to solicit for them the approval of his colleagues of the consular body. Mr. Sinclair called upon me and handed me a copy of the proposed rules, when we decided to elicit from the boat-owners and the Chamber of Commerce an expression of opinion as to the effect they might have upon the movement of cargo and the general interests of foreign merchants at the port.

After a consultation of the consular body with a committee of the Chamber of Commerce, the conclusion reached was that the rules were impracticable and could not be enforced without serious detriment to foreign interests and danger of much obstruction to trade.

On the 1st instant the commissioner was invited to meet the consuls and Chamber of Commerce committee, with a view to offering him an opportunity to explain the general object and intent of the rules, and why the change from the practice of many years was proposed.

The main and almost only reason given for the proposed change was that native boat-owners had been suspected of violating existing regulations and defrauding the revenue.

The commissioner stated that if the new rules were adopted they would be available to prevent unlawful practices of Chinese or unscrupulous foreigners who might hereafter engage in the carrying-trade of the port, but the practice as to present owners of boats would remain essentially the same as it now is and has been for years. His explanation was not deemed satisfactory, as it was thought to be injudicious to vest such authority in the hands of commissioners, some of whom might be found to avail of it to the serious damage of trade.

On yesterday the commissioner notified the consuls that he would not take further action in the matter until after communicating with the inspector-general.

It may be pertinent for me to state that, in the interests of American citizens who are the largest owners of cargo-boats here, I should object to the adoption of any rules which would place foreign-owned boats any more within the control of the customs authorities than they are at present.

Looking to Article XIV of the British treaty, and Regulation X, framed in pursuance of the treaty of 1843, it appears to me that foreign merchants may employ any lighters or cargo-boats they please when they have cargo to load or discharge, and that if smuggling is done or attempted the customs have their remedy in seizure.

I have, &c.,