tribunals of Haiti. The American Government, in view of the disposition of the Haitian minister and the pledge on the part of his Government to observe the rights of American citizens under the treaty, on the 9th day of June sent an instruction to its minister at Port au Prince as follows:

The Government agrees no longer to insist upon the settlement of said claims against the Haitian Government (referring to the license taxes) which, on its part, pledges itself to see that the rights which the treaty grants to American citizens in Haiti be strictly observed. This approval is, however, subordinate to Mr. Metzger's right to demand indemnity for the illegal seizure and sale of his goods, and does not exclude the right of diplomatic intervention in case of a denial of justice.

On October 1, 1898, the Secretary of State of the United States, in an extended note summarizing the position of his Government upon various matters, among other things, said:

If the agreement then made for redress of Mr. Metzger's grievance over the water supply had been promptly and faithfully performed, the Government might have had no occasion to intervene diplomatically in regard to the indemnity confessedly due Mr. Metzger for the illegal seizure and sale of his goods; for the Haitian Government has admitted the illegality of the license taxes, as being in violation of the treaty, and there can, therefore, be no question of the right of Mr. Metzger to such indemnity.

On October 5 the minister of Haiti at Washington replied to this note, and while he maintained the understanding that the remedy of Metzger & Co. should first be exhausted in the local tribunals of Haiti before diplomatic intervention could be considered, he did not deny nor in anywise controvert the statement above quoted from the note of October 1 of the American Secretary of State. Thus the diplomatic correspondence seems to establish the fact that the claim of Metzger & Co. presented conditions which brought it within the provisions of the treaty in existence between the two nations. The stipulations of this treaty, so far as relevant to the present case, in articles 5 and 6 thereof, provide:

Article 5. The citizens of each of the high contracting parties residing or established in the territory of the other shall be exempt from all compulsory military duty by sea or by land, and from all forced loans or military exactions or requisitions; nor shall they be compelled to pay any contributions whatsoever higher or other than those that are or may be paid by native citizens.

Article 6. The citizens of each of the contracting parties shall be permitted to enter, sojourn, settle, and reside in all parts of the territories of the other, engage in business, hire and occupy warehouses, provided they submit to the laws, as well general as special, relative to the rights of traveling, residing, or trading.

It will be seen that by article 5 it is expressly provided that the citizens of the high contracting parties residing or established in the other's territory shall not be compelled to pay any contribution whatever higher or other than those which are or may be paid by native citizens. By the sections of the law passed October 24, 1876, above quoted, it is expressly provided that the license tax imposed upon foreigners shall be double that imposed upon native workmen. This law contains no exception in favor of American citizens residing in Haiti whose rights are thus carefully conserved by the treaty between the two countries. This law, so far as it affects American citizens, is in direct violation of the stipulations of the treaty. In practice it is shown that these license taxes were seldom enforced against workmen in Haiti. By direct enactment of law the solemn obligations of the treaty are ignored and discriminating burdens imposed upon foreign

ers without exception. When this condition of affairs was diplomatically called to the attention of the authorities of the Republic of Haiti, it is to the credit of that Government that it promptly conceded that American citizens had rights under the treaty which deserve protection and which the Government of Haiti undertook to see were duly guarded, leaving Metzger & Co. to pursue their remedy for the infraction of their rights already sustained. Regarding this state of facts as established by the diplomatic understanding of the two governments, we have a case in which, notwithstanding the provisions of the treaty placing American citizens upon the same plane in this regard as natives, a tax is levied upon them of double the amount of that imposed upon natives, and when not paid the employers of such workmen are subject to a summary seizure and sale of their goods. It is strongly urged in the able argument submitted by the minister of Haiti that the remedy of the claimants should be sought in the local courts of Haiti, and that such remedy is exclusive. Numerous precedents are cited to the proposition that governments will not intervene diplomatically when such remedy is given. As a general proposition, it is settled international law that a government will not intervene in claims against foreign governments when redress may be had in the courts of that country. If there has been a substantial denial of justice, or a gross miscarriage thereof, sanctioned and approved by the opposing government, a nation will then intervene. The arbitrator in this case, however, is given jurisdiction of the differences between the two governments by the terms of the arbitral agreement, giving him jurisdiction and authority to determine certain differences. It is expressly provided in the protocol:

That the question of the liability of the Republic of Haiti to pay an indemnity in each of said cases, and if so found by the arbitrator, the further question of the amount of the said indemnity to be awarded shall be referred to the Hon. William R. Day, sometime Secretary of State of the United States, and now judge of the circuit court thereof, who is hereby appointed to hear said causes and to determine the questions of said liability and the amount of said indemnity, if any is found by said arbitrator to be justly due.

From this agreement the authority of the arbitrator is derived. I can not perceive that the competency of the arbitrator can be limited, because of the fact that Metzger & Co. might have sought judicial remedies in the courts of Haiti. This fact may have weight in the determination of the Government when its attention is called to claims against other governments and may be sufficient reason for declining diplomatic intervention until an attempt has been made to obtain judicial redress in the courts of the country where the claimant is domiciled. The fact that such remedy is afforded may be good ground for withholding consent from an offer to arbitrate differences. I am at a loss to perceive how it can afford a valid objection to the arbitrator exercising powers conferred in the protocol of arbitration. The arbitrator is not called upon to decide the question elaborately argued by the honorable representative of Haiti, that under the constitution and laws of Haiti the commune of Port au Prince is alone responsible for the unlawful collection of the license taxes. The question submitted is, Is the Republic of Haiti liable upon this claim; and if so, to what amount? I do not deem it necessary to inquire as to whether the proceedings of the officials were strictly in accordance with local laws. The law which they were attempting to enforce was a law of the

Republic of Haiti in violation of the treaty between the two nations. It need hardly be stated that the obligations of a treaty are as binding upon nations as are private contracts upon individuals. This principle has been too often cited by publicists and enforced by international decisions to need amplification here. I find that the law authorizing double taxation upon foreigners, so far as it relates to American citizens, was in violation of treaty rights, and that the seizure and sale of Metzger & Co.'s goods under the facts established or conceded. in this case was under a law sought to be enforced in violation of treaty rights. About $1,200 worth of their goods was seized and sold under the circumstances hereinbefore detailed. I am of opinion that the Republic of Haiti, in compensation for the goods and reparation for their seizure and sale in the manner herein found, should pay to the claimants, John D. Metzger & Co., the sum of $5,000.

AWARD.

In view of the conclusions reached under the several claims submitted to the arbitrator, I do hereby find and award that the Government of Haiti pay to the claimants, John D. Metzger & Co.:.

For sale of lumber at Jacmel..

For the failure to furnish water to the mill.

For the illegal seizure and sale of their goods..

$3,000

15,000

5,000

In all, $23,000, payable in the gold coin of the United States or its equivalent, within the time provided in the protocol.

Done in duplicate at the city of Canton, Ohio, United States of America, this 27th day of September, A. D. 1900, as witness my hand. on said day and date.

WILLIAM R. DAY,

Arbitrator.

TONNAGE DUES ON AMERICAN VESSELS.

Mr. Adee to Mr. Battiste.

No. 432.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 17, 1900.

SIR: I inclose copy of a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury requesting that you will ascertain from the Haitian Government whether, in view of the new Franco-Haitian commercial treaty, it is their intention to impose higher or other tonnage dues upon American vessels carrying merchandise of French origin to Haiti than upon French vessels carrying the same.

You will invite their attention in this connection to article 10 of the treaty of November 3, 1864, between the United States and Haiti guaranteeing the most-favored-nation treatment to American shipping.

I am, etc.,

ALVEY A. ADEE,
Acting Secretary.

[Inclosure.]

Mr. Spaulding to Mr. Hay.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, September 12, 1900. SIR: I have the honor to invite your attention to the Franco-Haitian commercial treaty published in No. 831, Advance Sheets Consular Reports, September 12, 1900. The second article of that treaty contains the following:

"The same reduction of the surtaxes of 50 per cent and 33 per cent shall be accorded in that which concerns the tonnage dues paid by French sailing vessels and on the merchandise debarked from French steamers, on condition that the said merchandise be of French origin. This origin shall be verified, etc."

I have the honor to request that our minister to Haiti be instructed, if you perceive no objection thereto, to bring this article of the treaty to the attention of the Haitian Government, together with article 10 of the treaty of November 3, 1864, between the United States and Haiti, by which it is provided that no higher or other duties upon tonnage or cargo of vessels of the United States shall be levied or collected than shall be levied or collected on vessels of the most favored nation.

This Department desires to ascertain whether it is the purpose of the Haitian Government to impose higher or other tonnage dues upon American vessels carrying merchandise of French origin to Haiti than upon French vessels carrying the same. Respectfully, O. L. SPAULDING, Acting Secretary.

Mr. Battiste to Mr. Hay.

No. 822.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Port au Prince, Haiti, October 10, 1900. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of dispatch No. 432, of September 17 last, transmitting copy of letter of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, requesting information relative to intention of the Haitian Government in regard to dues to be paid by American vessels carrying merchandise of French origin to Haiti, and also instructing me to invite the attention of this Government in this connection to article 10, of the treaty of November 3, 1864, between the United States and Haiti guaranteeing the most-favored-nation treatment to American shipping.

Herewith inclosed I beg to transmit the reply of this Government, with a translation, to my dispatch fulfilling such instructions. I am, etc.,

ALEXANDER BATTISTE, In charge.

[Inclosure.-Translation.]

Mr. St. Victor to Mr. Battisie.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS,

REPUBLIC OF HAITI, Port au Prince, October 6, 1900.

Mr. CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES: By your dispatch of the 27th of the month of September last you request me to inform you whether, in consequence of the new commercial agreement made between Haiti and France, the Government of the Republic has the intention of imposing on American vessels transporting to our ports merchandise of French origin higher tonnage dues than those paid by French vessels loaded with merchandise from the same province.

In reply to this communication I have the honor to announce to you that the minister plenipotentiary of Haiti at Washington will soon be charged to discuss the matter with the Department of State.

You kindly, in concluding, called my attention to Article X of the treaty of November 3, 1864, which provides that there shall not be collected on the tonnage or the cargo of vessels of the United States higher or other dues than those imposed on vessels of the most favored nation.

*

In the first place, I would beg you to observe that the clearly determined reciprocity character of the new Haitian-French agreement withdraws it from the influence of the "most-favored-nation clause." Then, to the provisions of Article X of the treaty of 1864, that you invoke, I would ask of you permission to oppose the very precise stipulations of Article II of the same diplomatic document, reading thus: "The Republic of Haiti and the United States of America desiring, etc., * * have agreed that any favor, exemption, privilege, and immunity whatever, in matters of commerce or of navigation, which either of them has granted or may hereafter grant, to the citizens or subjects of any other government, nation, or state, shall extend, in identity of cases and circumstances, to the citizens of the other contracting party; gratuitously, if the concession in favor of that other government, nation, or state shall have been gratuitous, or in return for an equivalent compensation, if the concession shall have been conditional."

Now, you are certainly not ignorant that if certain tariff concessions have been agreed in favor of French merchandise it was on the express condition that our principal products would profit of the lowest duties on their entrance in French ports. Besides, do you think, Mr. Chargé d'Affaires, that notwithstanding all its kindly dispositions toward the Republic of Haiti, the Federal Government could agree to waive the restrictive clause set forth in the second paragraph of Article II and ever agree, without compensation, not to levy "on the importation into the United States of any article the growth, production, or manufacture of Haiti or her fisheries; and no higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into Haiti of any article the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States or her fisheries than are or shall be payable on the like articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country or its fisheries," with which the United States would be bound by a reciprocity treaty. (Article XIII of the treaty of 1864.)

I think it superfluous, in giving these considerations to the equitable appreciation of your legation, to insist on the provisions so clearly explicative, and take the occasion to renew to you, Mr. Chargé d'Affaires, the assurances of my very distinguished consideration.

B. ST. VICTOR, Secretary of State for Foreign Relations.

Mr. Hill to Mr. Powell.

No. 452.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 8, 1901. SIR: Referring to your No. 822, of October 10, last, relative to the alleged right of the Haitian Government to impose higher duties on United States vessels carrying French goods than on French vessels, I have to say that you may advise the Government of Haiti that this Government is of opinion that Article X of the convention of 1864 between the United States and Haiti is quite independent of Article XI and creates absolute rights, which this Government can not fail to insist upon. Should, therefore, any higher charges be collected on American tonnage than that of any other country they will be reclaimed.

I am, etc.,

DAVID J. HILL,

Acting Secretary.

No. 883.]

Mr. Powell to Mr. Hay.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Port au Prince, Haiti, February 18, 1901.

SIR: In reply to dispatch No. 452 I have the honor to inclose copy of a dispatch forwarded to-day to the Haitian foreign office, according to Department's instruction.

I remain, etc.,

W. F. POWELL.