Evarts , Secretary of State to Evarts, July 12, 1878

Mr. Hawley to Mr. Evarts.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3d instant, relative to the objection of the vice-consul of Brazil, at Richmond, Va., to the retention by the customs officers there of the manifests of cargoes of vessels arriving, which had been taken on board such vessel at another port of the United States. And you suggest to the Department that it might be more satisfactory if the general practice, as regards such manifests at American ports, was ascertained, in order to communicate the facts when presenting the case to the Brazilian minister in this country.

I have to state in reply that the general practice in regard to the clearance of a vessel (foreign) that touches at another domestic port, is to deliver two manifests to the collector at the port of departure, one to be retained by the collector, the other to be verified by the collector and to be held by the master. The collector at the port of departure also issues a clearance (foreign) with the master’s oath attached. The clearance (foreign) specifies the foreign port of destination and the intermediate domestic port at which the vessel is to touch. Upon the vessel’s arrival at the domestic port, the certified copy of the manifest, made out at the port of departure, is taken up and a new manifest is made out, embracing the contents of that which is surrendered. If the clearance granted at the port of departure is attached to the manifest, it would, of course, be taken up by the collector, but it would be retained by the master, if not attached to the manifest.

In the case of the British bark Annie Mark, the consul-general of Brazil at New York had certified to the general clearance; and his certificate, the general clearance, and the manifest were so connected by a seal that the collector at Richmond declined to separate them; and as, in accordance with the usual practice, he felt constrained to retain the manifest, he also retained the clearance and the consul-general’s certificate thereto.

If the manifest had not been attached to the consular certificate, the master could have retained the certificate with the New York clearance, and the collector at Richmond could have retained the manifest.

The obvious remedy for a difficulty of this nature is that the manifest of cargo of a vessel departing for Brazil via Richmond, or any other domestic port, shall not be attached to the consular certificate to the clearance. On the other hand, if it be attached to the consular certificate, the collector at Richmond and at other domestic ports can be instructed to require a second copy of the manifest, and suffer that which, may have been received at the port of departure to remain in the hands of the master. The manifest of the Annie Mark is returned.

Very respectfully,