a succinct memorandum founded on this dispatch, set the question forth on its merits, as aiming to facilitate a needed reform rather than as aggressively combating an assumed intent to adhere to an obnoxious system." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, min. to Venezuela, No. It appeared that by the Venezuelan law the Venezuelan consuls were See, also, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, min. to Vene- The representations of the United States were supported by Great Britain, and the subject was submitted to the Venezuelan Congress and referred to a committee. (For. Rel. 1883, 897, 904, 919, 921, 931.) The United States continued to urge a modification of the law. (For. Rel. 1885, 902, 912, 914, 916, 928; For. Rel. 1888, II. 1642, 1644, 1646; MS. Inst. Venez. IV. 81; For. Rel. 1893, 736, 737; For. Rel. 1899, 779, 780, 782, 784, 788, 791.) June 13, 1899, a revolution being then in progress in Venezuela, the attention of the legation of the United States at Caracas was again directed to the question of the custody of ship's papers, in consequence of a complaint of the consul at Maracaibo of the embarrassment caused him by the detention of the papers of American vessels by the port authorities." The President of Venezuela admitted, when the matter was laid before him, that the Venezuelan law was at fault and promised to bring the matter to the attention of the Congress." November 7, 1899, Mr. Loomis, then United States minister in Venezuela, reported that on the arrival of the American mail steamer Philadelphia at La Guayra, on the first of the month, her register was received by the commander of the U. S. S. Detroit, and by him placed in the possession of the United States consul, with a view to the protection of the steamer and avoidance of delays and annoyances, the collector of customs having informed the agent of the line, in a manner that was deemed offensive, that no steamer would be cleared for Puerto Cabello, and that the Philadelphia would be obliged to land Puerto Cabello cargo at La Guayra. This was confirmed by a decree of the Castro government of October 31, 1899, declaring Puerto Cabello to be closed to commerce, and requiring merchandise for that port to be landed at La Guayra. By the same a Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Loomis, min. to Venezuela, June 13, 1899, MS. Inst. Venez. IV. 648; For. Rel. 1899, 779. Mr. Loomis, min. to Venezuela, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, June 30, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 780. decree, which was not promulgated till twelve hours after the register of the Philadelphia had been taken by the commander of the Detroit, Puerto Cabello was declared to be blockaded. Mr. Loomis subsequently learned that the British minister had arranged with the captain of a British man-of-war at La Guayra to receive and turn over to the British consul the register of a British merchant vessel, for the same reason as in the case of the Philadelphia, and that when the vessel was ready to sail she was cleared by the captain of the man-of-war. Mr. Loomis added that the incident of the Philadelphia was closed, so far as the Venezuelan Government was concerned, by the collector of customs going aboard the Philadelphia as she was leaving for Curaçao, and presenting her with clearance papers with Gen. Castro's compliments. In 1892, under somewhat similar circumstances, she was fined $10,000, which was afterwards remitted. Mr. Loomis cited numerous instances of the arbitrary control exercised over foreign vessels through detention of their papers." On receiving Mr. Loomis's despatch, the Government of the United States replied: "Insist on ship's papers being delivered to the United States consul, in accordance with practice of modern nations. Invite coincident action by other ministers.” с November 20, 1899, Mr. Loomis reported that General Castro had, with the concurrence of his cabinet, decided to amend the law; and on the 28th of November Mr. Loomis enclosed to his Government a decree of the 22nd of the month, which, after referring to article 44, law 16 of the Finance Code, to the complaints of foreign governments, and to the fact that the Venezuelan law required the masters of Venezuelan ships to deposit their papers with the consul, declared that "the supreme chief of the republic, animated by a desire to extend to commerce the greatest facilities," had "seen fit to repeal temporarily said article, so that hereafter the consuls shall take charge of their ships' papers, instead of the chiefs of the custom-houses: Provided always, That said papers shall be first presented to the customs authorities." This resolution was to remain in force till the legislative power should consider and definitely dispose of the matters. Mr. Loomis stated that the customs authorities would at no time have the a Mr. Loomis, min. to Venezuela, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, Nov. 7, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 784-788. November 14, 1899, Messrs. H. L. Boulton & Company, agents of the Red D Line, to which the Philadelphia belonged, reported that Mr. Goldschmidt, United States consul at La Guayra, had that day imposed on Captain Woodrick of the American steamer Caracas, belonging to the same line, a fine of $500 for having delivered the register of the ship to the custom-house authorities in compliance with the Venezuelan law. They stated that unless they complied with that law they were not only subject to heavy fines, but that the custom-house authorities denied them legal clearance. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Loomis, min. to Venezuela, tel., Nov. 18, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 791. c For. Rel. 1899, 791. ships' papers in their custody, but would exercise their right of inspection on board the vessel." "There has been at times an effort on the part of certain of the South American Republics to require the master of a foreign vessel to deposit the ship's papers with the port authorities, instead of with the consul of his nation. This contention has been uniformly resisted by the United States, as well as by other governments, on the ground of its inconvenience, its inconsistence with the spirit of international law and with the express or implied stipulations of treaties. Colombia and Venezuela both receded from their position. You will find the correspondence with Colombia published in For. Rel. 1879 and 1880; that with Venezuela in For. Rel. 1882 and 1883. "You will observe from Mr. Buchanan's dispatch that the Government of France is understood to have protested at Rio de Janeiro against the practice of the Brazilian consul-general at Buenos Ayres. "The Department will be glad to have you present its views on this subject to the Government of Brazil, pointing out the inconvenience, if not the impropriety, of the course pursued by its officer, which it trusts will be abandoned." Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Conger, min. to Brazil, Dec. 3, 1897, For. Rel. 1897, 42, referring to the reported refusal of the Brazilian consul-general at Buenos Ayres to furnish an American bark with a bill of health to enable it to clear his vessel for Rio de Janeiro, unless the master presented the original of the ship's articles to him for certification, and to be by him affixed to the manifest. Shipment and discharge of seamen. In reply to your request for an answer to your note of September 8, 1873, in which you informed me that you were instructed to bring certain sections of the British shipping acts to my notice, with a view of learning whether this Government may not be willing that all or some of the provisions in question should be applied to vessels of the United States when in British ports, I have the honor to say that the sections of the British shipping act of 1854, to which you particularly called my attention, seem to provide for the shipment and discharge. of seamen, and for other matters connected with the employment of seamen, while at the same time similar acts in force in the United States contain provisions for the same purpose. If, therefore, it were in any view competent to assent that the law of Great Britain should be applied to American vessels, when in the ports of that Kingdom, the fact that the provisions of the British act would be in conflict with the terms of an act of Congress would make it impossible." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Sir E. Thornton, Brit. min., Feb. 28, 1877, a For. Rel. 1899, 792. "I transmit a copy of a dispatch from our consul-general at Havana, reporting that whenever any discharged or destitute American sailors are sent home to the United States in American vessels by that consulate-general (in accordance with art. 16, par. 271, Consular Regulations), he is compelled by the local police to obtain, first, the visa of the civil governor of the province to his consular certificate before the consignees of said American vessels will issue passage tickets to his office for the American seamen concerned, and furnishing a statement of such consignees, by which it appears that they act in obedience to Cuban authorities. "This report illustrates the exceptional and vexatious character of the Cuban passport regulations. By general maritime law, and particularly by the statutes of the United States, the discharge of seamen is under the direct control of the Government of the country under whose flag they ship, and its certificate, duly issued, is the highest evidence of their status as American seamen. To claim that, in addition to such certificate, the seamen must also present a national passport, is an anomalous attempt to assimilate his condition to that of a voluntary traveler. Moreover, in the case of a seaman not a citizen of the United States, but discharged from an American vessel, this rule would seem to require that he should be furnished not only with the lawful certificate of discharge as an American seaman, but also with a passport issued by the authority of the nation of which he is a subject. "The point to be emphasized is that a discharged American seaman in a foreign port is under the direct charge of the Government of the United States, which assumes the duty of sending him home to the United States. This duty is performed wholly independently of the citizenship of the seaman." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Curry, min. to Spain, May 31, 1887, "I inclose herewith a copy of a dispatch, No. 173 of the 22d ultimo, from the United States consul at St. John, New Brunswick, in relation to the shipment of seamen on American vessels in that port. "The laws of the United States provide that all seamen shipped on board of American vessels in foreign ports shall sign articles before the United States consular officers there. This provision is enforced with appropriate penalties. "By section 126 of the Canadian seaman's act of 1876 the requirement of shipment of crews before a Canadian shipping-master is extended to the shipping of seamen on foreign vessels; but there is a saving clause in favor of vessels belonging to countries between which and Great Britain there is a treaty to prevent such extension. "It is supposed that it has been under this clause and in consideration of the reciprocity existing in our ports that it has not been the practice in Canadian ports to require American vessels to ship seamen before Canadian shipping-masters and upon Canadian articles. If any American master has so shipped seamen he has failed to comply with our law in so doing, and no consul has been warranted in authenticating articles so entered into. The Department, therefore, on recently being informed that the consul at St. John, New Brunswick, had in some instances authenticated articles of shipment entered into and signed by masters and seamen of American vessels before the Canadian shipping-master at that port, directed him to abstain from such a course in the future, since it was unauthorized and illegal. "Being so instructed the consul on a recent occasion shipped seamen on an American vessel at his consulate in accordance with the laws of the United States; objection was made by the Canadian shipping-master, who claimed the sole right to ship the seamen under Canadian articles, whereupon the consul informed him of the instructions he had received from this Department to abstain in future from authenticating such articles. "This announcement called forth the letter from the shippingmaster to the consul of the 21st ultimo, inclosed in the latter's dispatch of the 22d the same month, in which the shipping-master informs the consul that if hereafter seamen required for American vessels are not shipped in the former's office he shall be obliged to take such legal steps as will enforce compliance with the Canadian act as applied at the port of St. John. "Under these circumstances and as the subject is one of widespreading importance I deem it expedient to bring the matter to the attention of Her Britannic Majesty's Government with a view to secure corrective action in the premises without waiting for a case of controversy to arise. "It is believed to be an accepted doctrine that the right of a vessel to be governed in repect of her internal discipline by the laws and regulations of her own country is not forfeited by her entrance into the port of a foreign country. The position of the Canadian Government in regard to the shipment of seamen at St. John would not only deprive a vessel of that right while in that port, but would by necessary consequence destroy the right until she had shipped another crew in another port, under the laws and regulations of her own. country, for which in the meantime would be substituted the laws and regulations to the Dominion of Canada. "While under a strict construction of the terms of sections 4511 and 4512 of the Revised Statutes shipments of seamen on foreign vessels in ports of the United States might be required to be made before United States shipping commissioners, yet I am informed by the Treasury Department that the law has never been so applied, and that such shipments have invariably been allowed to be made before |