No. 168.] ECUADOR. REGISTRY AND EDUCATIONAL LAWS. Mr. Hay to Mr. Sampson. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I inclose copy of a letter from Rev. John Lee, of Chicago, who asks certain specified questions concerning the passage in Ecuador of a civil registry law and one relating to education. The Department will be pleased to have you give it the information necessary to answer the inquiry made. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. [Inclosure.] Mr. Lee to Mr. Hay. 57 WASHINGTON STREET, CHICAGO, ILL., April 5, 1901 DEAR SIR: Will you kindly answer the following questions: 1. Did the Ecuadorean Congress pass the civil registry of marriages, births, and deaths law? Has it received the approval of the Executive; and if so, when? 2. Did the Ecuadorean Congress pass a law providing that no priest or monk can teach in any school under Government control, and that no school conducted as a private affair by priests can hereafter confer any degrees, except in an ecclesiastical line? Has this law received the approval of the Executive; and if so, when? If the State Department is in possession of any recent intelligence concerning "more liberal laws relating to marriages and public worship" in either Ecuador or Bolivia, I shall thank you most sincerely for such intelligence. Yours, most respectfully, JOHN LEE. No. 249.] Mr. Sampson to Mr. Hay. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Quito, May 10, 1901. SIR: You can say to Rev. John Lee, in answer to his questions, copies of which you inclose me in your No. 168 of April 10, 1901, as follows: First. The Ecuadorean Congress did pass the civil registry bill for the registry of marriages, births, and deaths. It was approved by the President October 25, 1900. Second. The same Congress did pass a law forbidding priests or monks to teach in any school under Government control, except as appointed to teach religion; said law also prohibits any school under the control of the priests or monks from conferring any degree except ecclesiastical. This law was approved by the President October 18, 1900. Third. Information desired as to "more liberal laws," etc., October 5, 1900, the President approved a law passed by Congress to buy (compulsory sale of church required) the cemeteries of the country, so anyone could be buried in them. A representative of the Pope has just left Ecuador. While here he and the minister of foreign affairs negotiated a treaty between church and state granting civil marriage for non-Catholics, and a division of all cemeteries, so that in one part may be buried nonCatholics and in the other Catholics. This is to save the Government the expense of buying the cemeteries. This treaty must be approved by Congress of Ecuador and the Pope before it becomes operative. I have, etc., ARCHIBALD J. SAMPSON. INTERNATIONAL POLICY OF ECUADOR. Mr. Carbo to Mr. Hay. LEGATION OF ECUADOR, Buffalo, September 12, 1901. Mr. SECRETARY: I have the honor to communicate to you the following cablegram that I have just received from the President of Ecuador: Minister Ecuador, Buffalo: QUITO, September 12, 1901. International policy of present Government, strict neutrality. Frontiers mutually and perfectly respected; complete peace within and without Republic. Deny all news to the contrary. PLAZA. With sentiments, etc., Mr. Hay to Señor Carbo. L. F. CARBO. No. 31.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 20, 1901. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 12th instant embodying the text of a telegram received by you from the President of Ecuador, translation of which reads as follows: International policy of present Government, strict neutrality. Frontiers mutually and perfectly respected; complete peace within and without Republic. Deny all news to the contrary. This information has been received with much pleasure by the Government of the United States, which naturally feels a lively solicitude that good will and harmony shall prevail among American States. Accept, etc., JOHN HAY. CONDOLENCES ON ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT M'KINLEY. President Plaza to the Vice-President of the United States. [Telegram.] QUITO, ECUADOR, September 15, 1901. The Ecuadorian people and Government join in the legitimate sorrow of the Great Republic for the demise of its illustrious President. PLAZA, President. Mr. Hay to Mr. Sampson. [Telegram.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 17, 1901. Express grateful thanks for sympathy cabled by President Plaza and Ecuadorian Congress. HAY. FRANCE. CLAIM OF MARTY & D'ABBADIE ON ACCOUNT OF DETENTION OF STEAMSHIP “SULLBERG" AT MANILA. M. Cambon to Mr. Hay. [Translation.] EMBASSY FRENCH REPUBLIC TO UNITED STATES, Washington, January 7, 1901. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: By order of my Government I have the honor to send you herewith a copy of a memorial by which Messrs. Marty & D'Abbadie, French citizens and shipowners at Haiphong (Tonkin), represent how they have been injured by certain decisions made concerning them by the American authorities in the Philippines. This claim, as you will see, arises from the fact that the Federal authorities at Manila believe themselves authorized to compel vessels that touch at ports in the Philippines to leave the whole of their cargoes there, even though it may be impossible to sell them. Specifically, the steamer Sullberg, chartered by Messrs. Marty & D'Abbadie, found it impossible owing to events then transpiring at Iloilo to carry to that port merchandise that were booked for it, and for seventeen days the head of the customs service at Manila refused to allow the said vessel to sail for Asia with that merchandise. For all the losses sustained in consequence of the detention of their vessel our fellow-countrymen claim an indemnity of 22,471 Mexican dollars. In the opinion of my Government the pretension of the American authorities at Manila seems contrary to the rules followed in all merchant countries. Indeed, the principle which is constantly observed in all policed States is that the master of a merchant vessel laden with merchandise is permitted to discharge in the port for which it is bound, or at which it may put in, such part only of the cargo as he may designate for the purpose either of his own motion or under the orders of his employers. Moreover, only that part of the merchandise so designated that is entered for consumption is subject to customs duties, and not such as may be warehoused in bond or manifested for transit. The pretension to which Messrs. Marty & D'Abbadie object is so clearly contrary to the prevalent usages that it seems to rest on the personal decision of a customs official and not on any formal provision of the new customs regulations of the Philippines to which it seems that General Otis would not have failed to refer in a precise manner if the possibility of such a reference had occurred to him. I can but commend this claim to your kindly attention and embrace this opportunity to renew, etc. JULES CAMBON. [Inclosure.] M. Auguste Rafael Marty, a native of Porta (Eastern Pyrenees), France, born August 16, 1844, and M. Jules Edouard d'Abbadie, born at Tonnay, Charente (Charente-Inférieure), France, June 18, 1853, partners, doing business under the name of Marty & D'Abbadie, the said partnership having been entered into in pursuance of an instrument under private seal dated September 11, 1886, and extended by an instrument, likewise under private seal, January 1, 1897, until December 31, 1906, shipowners, residing at Haiphong, Tonkin, have the honor to address to the United States Government the present reclamation, the object of which is to secure an indemnity of 22,471 piasters, by way of redress for the injury done them by the arbitrary detention of the steamer Sullberg with a cargo of salt and rice on board in the waters of Manila, from February 13 to March 2, 1899. a This indemnity would be payable to the firm of Marty & D'Abbadie, charterers of the Sullberg, by way of redress for the losses occasioned to them by paying for the use of the vessel during her detention and by the expenses caused by the acts of the American authorities, and also for the losses experienced on the cargo and on the freight that would have been earned by the vessel during the time of her detention. The owner of the vessel, Mr. H. N. Struve, Hauptstrasse C. 63, Blankenese, Germany, agent at Hongkong for Messrs. Siemssen & Co., is not interested in the present claim, the amount of the freight agreed upon in his favor having been duly paid. No claim has been, and none can be, brought by any person whatever on the ground of the acts that have given rise to the present claim for indemnity. There is no reason for paying any attention to the insurers of the goods, since the present petition has reference only to the damage caused by the detention of the vessel during a period of seventeen days. In support of this claim the claimants have the honor to furnish the following detailed information: The steamer Sullberg, carrying the German flag, Mr. H. N. Struve, of Hauptstrasse C. 63, Blankenese, Germany, being the owner, and Messrs. Siemssen & Co. being the agents at Hongkong, and the vessel having been chartered by Messrs. Marty & D'Abbadie, French shipowners, residing at Haiphong, Tonkin, left Quinhone, Anam, on the 9th of February last, with a cargo of rice and salt belonging to the charterers. The rice was to go to Manila, while the salt was to be taken to Iloilo. At the time of its departure from Quinhone there was nothing that could cause the charterers to suppose that the vessel could not make the proposed voyage and land successively at Manila and at Iloilo the goods which were intended for those ports. The steamer arrived at Manila on the 14th day of February, and effected the discharge of its cargo of rice with great difficulty. The difficulties were such that the grain could not be warehoused before the 28th of February. Consequently the rice remained in the lighters for thirteen days, and during its stay the quantity of 94 piculs and was removed (i. e., stolen). As soon as the vessel arrived the captain of the Sullbery learned that, in consequence of the hostilities between the United States Government and the Philippine insurgents, the city of Iloilo had, in a great measure, been burned, and that any commercial transaction there was impossible. He was therefore compelled to renounce entering that port. The captain then decided that he would leave Manila after discharging the rice (evidently thinking that the discharge would be effected within the normal period of from twelve to eighteen hours), in order to go to Hongkong, where he hoped to be able to negotiate, in due time, the sale of the 18,000 piculs of salt remaining on board of his vessel. Contrary to all expectation, however, not only did the American authorities create all possible difficulties in order to prevent the landing of the rice, but they objected to the departure of the Sullberg, and, furthermore, claimed that the captain must be compelled to discharge his salt at Manila. Feeling confident that the right was on his side, the captain refused to do this. Notwithstanding his energetic protest and the intervention of the General Tobacco Company (which was the consignee of the vessel) and of the consul of France, the American authorities maintained their opposition. This state of things continued until the 2d of March, when the American authorities decided to remove the interdiction and to authorize the departure of the vessel. a French persons in the United States frequently use the word piaster as equivalent to the American dollar. The dictionary of the French Academy (sixth edition) says that the piastre is a silver coin whose value is about 5 francs. Its value, however, differs in different countries. |
