L. Ethéart to Langston, December 7, 1878

Mr. Ethéart to Mr. Langston.

Mr. Minister: Among the different questions actually pending between the legation of the United States of America and my department, with regard to which I shall have the honor to write you in succession, in order to arrive as soon as possible at a definite solution, I shall approach with you to-day that which concerns the law upon the new consular taxes.

It appears from the dispatches that you have written to this department the 6th and 26th of December, 1877, and the 3d of May of the present year, that considering the new imposition created by this law as a distinct duty of importation upon the commerce of the United States; as an indirect contravention of the spirit and letter of the treaty in force between the United States and Hayti; as a non-observance of the reciprocity which, in view of this convention, the two countries ought to maintain in their commercial relations; as a measure which, in its application, is prejudicial to American commerce, you protest, in the name of your government, against the law above mentioned, and ask my government to suspend its execution and make reimbursement to American citizens who have unjustly paid these taxes since the law was put in force.

To these considerations which you have presented, one of my predecessors, Mr. F. Carrié, replied on the 13th December, 1877, and on the 10th of January last, giving you to understand the opinion of the government on this question, and did not fail to expose at length, on his side, arguments with regard to the purpose of the law.

“The new consular tax,” he said, “does not only affect American merchandise, but also that of all foreign countries, and in a general and equal manner. It establishes no privileges, and therefore cannot constitute a contravention to the spirit and the letter of the treaty between the two countries, which provides that the United States must always be treated on the basis of the most favored nation.”

While giving you the assurance of the profound respect of the government for the treaty concluded between the two countries to their reciprocal advantage, the chief of this department shows/by incontestable facts, that there does not exist in the law of the 23d of August any absence of the sentiment of reciprocity, of which the two governments ought to give proof, one toward the other, with regard to the commercial relations of the two republics; and, that American interests are in no wise injured by this legislative provision.

The principle of the consular tax has existed twenty years; has never provoked any protest, not even on the part of the United States in 1872, when, under the empire of our treaty, a law increased our duties on importations 25 per cent.; the law of August 23 has merely established duties which are truly proportional, more equitable than any created since 1858; at the same time that new taxes are levied by reason of the financial necessities of the country; the duty of 1 per cent. upon invoices of merchandise does not affect American commerce any more than that of other countries which are in communication with us, since the Haytien markets, far from regulating foreign markets are regulated by them; so far as it concerns the United States this assertion is justified by the fact that since the enforcement of this law, American merchandise sent here has not been reduced in price in the markets of the United States; the American producer is not affected by the tax; the internal consumption of Hayti alone hears all the charges ordinarily imposed upon invoices of merchandise, and it is that exclusively which bears also the burden of the new consular tax; it is acknowledged that there exists in all countries consular charges (des frais de chancelleries de consulat) which are collected according to the usages and wants of each nation; an excessive duty only can cause the diminution of consumption in a country, but the new tax with us of 1 per cent. on invoices is in no wise excessive, only affecting our importation to the extent of about $100,000 upon a total value of $2,000,000 received; it is, then, an annual impost of 10 cents more that our population, if estimated at 1,000,000 souls, will have to pay, which cannot limit its consumption.

Mr. Carrié adds to this last consideration that if against the conviction of the government, the internal consumption of Hayti would diminish from the effect of this law, the maintenance of the resources of the state being a matter of the highest importance to it, it will be for the government in its own interest, as it may be advised, to propose to the chambers the abrogation of a legislative provision contrary to the Interest of the public treasury. But to that point, the executive has not the power to suspend the execution of a law of his own initiative, a law that the chambers have voted, and he has promulgated.

I have nothing to add, Mr. Minister, to the arguments above mentioned, with which my predecessor has combated the objections contained in your dispatches of the 6th and 28th of December past. They elucidate perfectly the question in debate, and establish the right and the duty of the government to create, as it has done, the new consular imposition, which, it has been demonstrated above, is not in any wise prejudicial to commerce, foreign and American. Then, again, you did not enter further upon these considerations in your last dispatch, which proves that they meet your entire approbation.

There is only left to me to discuss with you the argument according to which, “if it be granted,” you remark, “that Hayti in the exercise of her sovereignty has the right to impose taxes upon importations as she may judge convenient; friendly nations, having intercourse with her, have a right to expect that such acts of sovereignty will be exercised on her own territory, and that she will not seek to avoid the condition or obvious character of the tax, by making her consuls in foreign countries collectors of imposts in those countries.”

It appears to me that the argument is not entirely free from reproach.

The receipts accruing under the law of August 23 on consular visas are collected in the United States by our various consulates, and paid over to the Haytian legation, whose residence (l’hôtel), if it may be permitted to invoke, in aid in this case, the privilege of exterritoriality, forms part of the territory of our republic. They are then levied upon our territory as taxes levied in Hayti by foreign legations are upon foreign territories. Then, again, if the figures, which have been forwarded by our legation at Washington, are correct, the Federal government, by its consular taxes, receives in the neighborhood of $1,700,000 annually, from which sum there is to be deducted the expenses incurred by the diplomatic and consular corps, estimated at $1,000,000, about, which leaves a surplus of $700,000.

Why, then, should the Haytian Government be hindered from using the same procedure, and draw an income which is much smaller, barely covering the expenses and the salaries of our several legations? Have we not, also, treaties with other powers, and why do they not continue, as the United States, after the reasons which we have given, to persist in their manner of viewing this question?

So far as it concerns the duties collected by the Haytian Government on the territory of the United States, one might adduce the other consideration, which you will recognize as of great value in the question. Do governments, which have recourse to their credit and to the loans, which are the consequence thereof, not tax their bonds (litres de rente) or their personal effects (valeurs mobiliéres), and has any one ever thought of contesting their right of being benefited by a tax levied upon foreign capital, when the loan is not national, and upon a territory which is not theirs?

The question which occupies us, already dates far back, Mr. Minister; it will soon be one year that it has been under discussion, without ability to bring about a solution, and, I believe, that it is necessary, in its present condition, that it be placed directly before the cabinet at Washington. My government has decided, therefore, to instruct our minister in the United States, in order that on his part he may take such action as will result in a definite solution; this does not hinder us from continuing to discuss the question, if you believe that it has not reached the point which necessitates the action we propose.

It is in these sentiments that I have the honor, Mr. Minister, to present you the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

The secretary of state for foreign affairs: