[A similar message was sent to the Senate in compliance with a request
of that body.]
WASHINGTON, _March 23, 1846_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
I transmit, for your consideration, a correspondence between the
minister of Her Britannic Majesty in Washington and the Secretary of
State, containing an arrangement for the adjustment and payment of the
claims of the respective Governments upon each other arising from the
collection of certain import duties in violation of the second article
of the commercial convention of 3d of July, 1815, between the two
countries, and I respectfully submit to Congress the propriety of making
provision to carry this arrangement into effect.
The second article of this convention provides that "no higher or other
duties shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of any
articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of His Britannic Majesty's
territories in Europe, and no higher or other duties shall be imposed on
the importation into the territories of His Britannic Majesty in Europe
of any articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United
States, than are or shall be payable on the like articles being the
growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country."
Previous to the act of Parliament of the 13th of August, 1836, the duty
on foreign rough rice imported into Great Britain was 2s. 6d. sterling
per bushel. By this act the duty was reduced to 1 penny per quarter (of
8 bushels) on the rough rice "imported from the west coast of Africa."
Upon the earnest and repeated remonstrances of our ministers at London
in opposition to this discrimination against American and in favor of
African rice, as a violation of the subsisting convention, Parliament,
by the act of 9th July, 1842, again equalized the duty on all foreign
rough rice by fixing it at 7s. per quarter., In the intervening period,
however, of nearly six years large importations had been made into Great
Britain of American rough rice, which was subjected to a duty of 2s. 6d.
per bushel; but the importers, knowing their rights under the
convention, claimed that it should be admitted at the rate of 1 penny
per quarter, the duty imposed on African rice. This claim was resisted
by the British Government, and the excess of duty was paid, at the first
under protest, and afterwards, in consequence of an arrangement with the
board of customs, by the deposit of exchequer bills.
It seems to have been a clear violation both of the letter and spirit of
the convention to admit rough rice "the growth" of Africa at 1 penny per
quarter, whilst the very same article "the growth" of the United States
was charged with a duty of 2s. 6d. per bushel.
The claim of Great Britain, under the same article of the convention, is
founded on the tariff act of 30th August, 1842. Its twenty-fifth section
provides "that nothing in this act contained shall apply to goods
shipped in a vessel bound to any port of the United States, actually
having left her last port of lading eastward of the Cape of Good Hope or
beyond Cape Horn prior to the 1st day of September, 1842; and all legal
provisions and regulations existing immediately before the 30th day of
June, 1842, shall be applied to importations which may be made in
vessels which have left such last port of lading eastward of the Cape of
Good Hope or beyond Cape Horn prior to said 1st day of September, 1842."
The British Government contends that it was a violation of the second
article of the convention for this act to require that "articles the
growth, produce, or manufacture" of Great Britain, when imported into
the United States in vessels which had left their last port of lading in
Great Britain prior to the 1st day of September, 1842, should pay any
"higher or other duties" than were imposed on "like articles" "the
growth, produce, or manufacture" of countries beyond the Cape of Good
Hope and Cape Horn.
Upon a careful consideration of the subject I arrived at the conclusion
that this claim on the part of the British Government was well founded.
I deem it unnecessary to state my reasons at length for adopting this
opinion, the whole subject being fully explained in the letter of the
Secretary of the Treasury and the accompanying papers.
The amount necessary to satisfy the British claim can not at present be
ascertained with any degree of accuracy, no individual having yet
presented his case to the Government of the United States. It is not
apprehended that the amount will be large. After such examination of the
subject as it has been in his power to make, the Secretary of the
Treasury believes that it will not exceed $100,000.
On the other hand, the claims of the importers of rough rice into Great
Britain have been already ascertained, as the duties were paid either
under protest or in exchequer bills. Their amount is stated by Mr.
Everett, our late minister at London, in a dispatch dated June 1, 1843,
to be £88,886 16s. 10d. sterling, of which £60,006 4d. belong to
citizens of the United States.
As it may be long before the amount of the British claim can be
ascertained, and it would be unreasonable to postpone payment to the
American claimants until this can be adjusted, it has been proposed to
the British Government immediately to refund the excess of duties
collected by it on American rough rice. I should entertain a confident
hope that this proposal would be accepted should the arrangement
concluded be sanctioned by an act of Congress making provision for the
return of the duties in question. The claimants might then be paid as
they present their demands, properly authenticated, to the Secretary of
the Treasury.