Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

country with other powers are thereby necessarily revived. Indeed, the course pursued by Holland and Denmark in the treaty of July 10, 1817, whereby the parties agreed that the stipulations of the treaty of com merce between them of 1701 should remain in force until there should be an arrangement for its renewal, would seem to show that in their joint judgment such was not the public law in 1817.

Happily, however, the unmistakable accord of the United States and Holland respecting the treaty of 1782, renders further discussion of this point unnecessary.

Upon the pacification of Western Europe in 1815, and the creation of the kingdom of the Netherlands, the United States, finding their commercial treaties with the states in Europe which had been at war at an end, provided by legislation to meet the necessities of the case, and for the establishment of reciprocal freedom of commercial intercourse with those states. By an act passed on the 3d day of March, 1815, they abolished all discriminating duties on vessels and on goods, the produce or manufacture of any foreign nation, imported into the United States in the vessels of those foreign nations which might abolish discriminating or countervailing duties to the disadvantage of the United States.

This act subsequently became the subject of some correspondence between the two governments. A negotiation was carried on at the Hague, in which both parties endeavored to agree upon a new treaty, with the old treaty of 1782 as the basis; but it failed from causes which it is not necessary to dwell upon. It is worthy of note in this connection that after the objections to the Dutch contention concerning the treaty of 1782 had been withdrawn in 1820, Mr. Adams, referring to these unsuccessful negotiations, instructed Mr. Everett (August 9, 1823) that "the act of 1815 was an experimental offer, made to all maritime nations. It was in the course of the same year accepted by Great Britain, confirmed in the form of a convention. A similar effort was made with the Netherlands in 1817, but without success; but the principle of equaliza tion was established by corresponding legislative acts."

It is evident from this that the officers of the United States had reason to think that the commercial relations of the two countries at that time were regulated not by treaty, but by reciprocal legislation, and that the United States desired to have the basis of that legislation the principle of equalization. Indeed, as early as the 5th of March, 1818, Mr. Adams informed Mr. Ten Cate that "notwithstanding the termination of the conferences between the plenipotentiaries of the two governments without succeeding in the object of their meeting by the conclusion of a new treaty of commerce between the two nations, the desire of the Government of the United States is not the less earnest that the commercial intercourse between them may be regulated by principles of perfect reciprocity, and tending to promote the most cordial harmony and friendship between them."

Reciprocity and equalization.to be achieved by legislation, were at that time the American solution of perfect commercial relations between the two nations.

I am not aware that any Dutch official took exceptions to this plan, or asserted that the treaty of 1782 was in force with the "most favored nations" plan as its basis. Even Mr. Chevalier Baugeman Huggens, in his note of November 11, 1826, quoted by you, asserts that the provisions of the treaty were "suspended," (Baron de Nazel claimed that the suspension lasted eighteen years,) and the whole tenor of Mr. Huggens's note shows that he felt that there was no mutual act of the two govern

ments by which it could be shown that the suspension was set aside and the treaty revived. Else why does he speak in this note of "the existence or the renewal of the treaty of 1782," and why does he say that "it would certainly be more advantageous to the two nations to leave that precarious legislation and be bound by liberal and reciprocal conventions ?"

In 1839 the parties left "precarious legislation" and became "bound by a liberal and reciprocal convention." In this instrument, which is declared to be made because the parties are anxious to regulate the commerce and navigation carried on between the two countries in their respective vessels, it is provided that goods and merchandise of whatever origin, imported into or exported from the ports of one country from or to the ports of the other, (those of the Netherlands being confined to Europe,) shall pay no higher or other duties than those levied on like goods and merchandise imported or exported in national vessels; that bounties, drawbacks, or other favors in either state on goods exported or imported in national vessels shall be also granted on goods. directly exported or imported in vessels of the other country to and from the ports of the two countries; and that tonnage and harbor dues, and light-house, salvage, pilotage, quarantine, or port charges shall be imposed in each country on the vessels of the other only as imposed in like cases on national vessels.

Again, in 1852, the two powers "being desirous of placing the commerce of the two countries on a footing of greater mutual equality," agreed to extend the provisions of the treaty of 1839, so that its provisions should include also goods and merchandise of whatever origin, imported or exported from or to any other country than the United States or Netherlands, respectively, with a similar extension as to bounties, drawbacks, &c.; so that now, by treaty as well as by legisla tion, the commerce and trade of each of the two countries are placed upon that footing of equality with those of the other, and upon that basis of complete reciprocity, which both parties have ever professed to desire, and which the United States sought to attain by reciprocal and equalizing legislation. It is worthy of remark that the negotiators of the treaty of 1782 declare that it is concluded with the object of "establishing the most perfect equality and reciprocity for the basis of their agreement," while the negotiators of the treaty of 1852 declare that the two powers were then desirous of placing the two countries on a footing of greater mutual equality. If the treaty of 1782, creating "the most perfect equality," was in force in 1852, why should the parties have thought it necessary to provide for an equality greater than the most perfect one already existing? To ask such a question is to suggest the

answer.

It was because the treaty of 1782 had long ceased to be operative, and because the mutual commercial relations of the two powers which each desired to increase, and to remove from the influence of fluctuating legislation, demanded further protection, that the parties concluded the successive treaties of 1839 and 1852. And in these instruments, influenced by the liberal views which now prevail, the parties agreed to measure the equality and the reciprocity which they desired to give each to the other, not by the favors which they might grant to any other, even the most favored nation, but by the impositions to which the national vessels of each were subjected in its own ports. It seems to me that an agreement which goes beyond this just measure and which aims to give to the vessel under the foreign flag a preference over a vessel which carries the national ensign, is founded in injustice, and when en

forced can only tend to decrease the friendliness and cordiality which commercial treaties should aim to foster. Happily no such engagement exists between the United States and the Netherlands.

The laws of the United States impose a tonnage tax of thirty cents per tou on the first entry or clearance, according to priority of a vessel from or to the West India Islands, the British provinces of North America, Mexico, or any port or place south of Mexico, down to and including Aspinwall and Panama, or any port or place in the Sandwich Islands, or the Society Islands, provided that no tonnage tax has been paid on such vessels within one year. They also impose a tax of the same amount on vessels engaged in commerce between the United States and foreign ports or places other than those specified above, to be levied on the first entry, and thereafter on each entry made after the expiration of a year from any previous payment of the dues.

All vessels of the commercial marine of the United States are subject to and pay this tax. The commercial marine of Holland, being placed by treaty on the same footing with the commercial marine of the United States, is 'subject to no other or higher duties than these, but is subject to these tonnage dues so long as they shall continue to be imposed by law upon the vessels of the United States.

If, as I flatter myself has been shown, the treaty of 1782 is no longer binding on the parties, their commercial relations are now regulated by the treaties of 1839 and 1852, only. Neither of these instruments, however, promises to place the vessels of Holland in the ports of the United States on the same footing as those of the most favored nation. When they were concluded, Holland probably supposed that she had a sufficient security against any discrimination in the stipulation that her vessels were to have the same treatment in our ports as our own. At that time no tonnage duties were levied in the ports of the United States. Events have since occurred, however, which, in the judgment of Congress, made such a change necessary.

I take, &c.,

No. 317.

HAMILTON FISH.

Original handed to Secretary of State by the minister from the Netherlands April 10, 1873.

[Translation.]

Report of a conference between Baron Gericke d'Herwijuen, minister of foreign affairs, and the Japanese embassadors Iwakura and Ito, held at the foreign office, at the Hague, March 4, 1873.

Mr. Van der Hoeven, formerly minister resident in Japan, and Mr. Von Weekherlin, recently appointed to the same post, were present at this conference.

After the customary compliments, the minister of foreign affairs opened the conference by informing his excellency Iwakura that he had hastened to accede to the desire manifested by him to have an interview, and that he was prepared to listen to any communications which he might have to make.

His excellency Iwakura replied that he did not doubt that the government of the Netherlands had been apprised by its representative in Japan of the important political changes which had taken place there within a comparatively recent period; that the government of the Tenno had, therefore, deemed it necessary to send an embassy to America and Europe for the purpose of strengthening the friendly relations which exist between Japan and the governments with which that country had concluded treaties; that this was the principal object of the mission which had been confided to him, but that he had desired to avail himself of that occasion to learn the opinions of the different cabinets in regard to a revision of their treaties with Japan, so that he might, on his return, inform his government in relation thereto.

The minister of foreign affairs replied that he had been made aware by the dispatches of the minister resident in Japan, of the recent changes in that empire; that he appreciated the feeling which had prompted the sending of the embassy; that he was happy to see it in the Netherlands, and was ready for an interchange of views in regard to the revision of the treaties with the Japanese embassadors, although he regretted that they were not invested with more ample powers. He reminded them that the proposition to revise these treaties emanated from the Japanese government; that the Netherlands were not, in the main, dissatisfied with the existing treaty, but that in order to comply with the desire of the embassadors, he would refer to some points which, in his opinion, needed improvement.

He felt obliged, however, to begin by remarking that he could not enter into details since that would be of no practical utility, the embassadors having stated that they were not invested with the full powers necessary to conclude a new treaty. The present conference must therefore be limited to general considerations.

The minister especially desired to remark that any arrangements which might in future be made should bear that character of stability which is so desirable in commercial matters, and that the necessary precautions must therefore be taken against anything like arbitrariness or instability.

The Japanese embassadors said that they accepted that principle. The minister then remarked that it was desirable to have Japan more fully opened to foreign commerce.

He thought, especially, that relations between foreigners and Japanese should be favored. This end might be attained by granting permission to foreigners to travel in the interior and to transact commercial business with the inhabitants. These foreigners should, of course, be under the control of their consuls. The government of the Netherlands would even prefer this system to the opening of new ports. If, however, in addition to granting such facilities for trade in the interior of the country, the Japanese government should also open new ports to commerce, the government of the Netherlands would, of course, be very much gratified, and would regard the adoption of such a measure as a new proof of the friendly sentiments of Japan toward foreigners.

Mr. Iwakura promised that he would, on his return, inform his government of the desire expressed by the government of the Netherlands.

The minister of foreign affairs then referred to a subject to which he felt obliged to call the attention of the Japanese government.

This point had also, if he was not mistaken, been treated of by the other governments with which the embassadors had been in communication; he referred to the position of the Christian inhabitants of Japan.

News concerning persecutions to which these Christians are exposed had recently reached Europe, and had everywhere produced a painful impression.

The Netherlands, where religious liberty had existed for centuries, naturally attached great value to a more tolerant course of conduct. toward these Christians.

The minister took the liberty of commending this subject to the particular attention of the Japanese government.

He thought that he might do this with the more freedom, inasmuch as the Netherlands occupy an independent position in relation to this question, owing to the fact of their having no missionaries in Japan, and therefore not being obliged to interpose in their favor.

The embassadors promised that they would commend this matter to the attention of their government on their return, and gave information of an encouraging character.

The minister of foreign affairs then spoke of the clause contained in the fifth article of our treaty with Japan, according to which Japanese courts are to be opened to Netherlanders for the purpose of enabling them to enforce their just claims against Japanese subjects. In the opinion. of the minister, corroborated by that of Mr. Van der Hoeven, there are; properly speaking, no courts in Japan. When a subject of the Neth erlands has a claim against a Japanese, diplomatic or consular interference usually becomes necessary. The matter is then settled executively. Justice must naturally suffer under this system, and this is especially the case when complaints are made against the communal administrations or against the Japanese government itself. The minister therefore thought that he might recommend to the Japanese government the separation of the executive from the judicial power.

Mr. Iwakura replied that the Japanese government was aware that its judicial system was defective, but said that it was difficult to effect in a short time so radical a re-organization as that of the separation of the executive from the judicial power; that, nevertheless, a kind of independent court had been established some months previously, and that this was a proof of the desire of the Japanese government to reform its judicial system. He promised that he would likewise recommend this point to the attention of his government on his return to Japan.

The minister of foreign affairs then stated that so far as the Netherlands were concerned, there were no more points of a general nature with regard to which an interchange of views with the embassadors seem to him necessary.

After having deliberated with each other for some time, the embassadors said that, for their part, they desired to speak of the question of the Simonoseki indemnity.

The minister of foreign affairs replied that he could not refrain from expressing his astonishment at hearing a question alluded to which, properly speaking, was, or at least ought to be, a question no longer. An extension of the time allowed for this payment had repeatedly been granted to the Japanese government. That government had promised three years ago that the debt should be paid on the 15th of May last, and that no further delay should be asked for. The government of the Netherlands had seen with surprise that, only eight days before the time appointed, the Japanese government had sent a communication stating that the embassy was instructed to take measures in Europe for the procurement of a further extension. It was to be expected that the engagement contracted by the Japanese government would be more punctually fulfilled, and that for its own interest it would have desired to

« AnteriorContinuar »