To Thomas Jefferson from Albert Gallatin, 23 June 1804
From Albert Gallatin
Treasury Department June 23d. 1804.
Sir,
I have the honor to enclose the copy of a correspondence of the Collector of Norfolk with this Department and the Spanish Consul there, respecting a right claimed by Spanish Subjects to relade on board of a different Vessel without securing the duties, the cargo of a Vessel which had put in Norfolk from distress and was afterwards condemned as not being sea-worthy.
The 10th. Article of the Spanish Treaty under which the privilege is claimed is in the following words—“When any Vessel of either party shall be wrecked, foundered, or otherwise damaged, on the coasts or within the dominion of the other, their respective subjects or citizens shall receive, as well for themselves as for their vessels and effects, the same assistance which would be due to the inhabitants of the country where the damage happens, and shall pay the same charges and dues only as the said inhabitants would be subject to pay in a like case: And if the operations of repair would require that the whole or any part of the cargo be unladen, they shall pay no duties, charges or fees on the part which they shall relade and carry away.”
The sixtieth Section of the collection law, passed March 2d. 1799 provides generally for the case of any Vessel (American or foreign), which may be compelled by distress to put into a Port of the United States, and permits, under the restrictions necessary for the safety of the revenue, to relade the cargo on board the said ship or vessel; in which case the said ship or vessel may proceed free from any other charge than for the storing and the usual fees to the Officers of the Customs. But whether the vessel be american or belonging to subjects of a foreign nation, the cargo cannot, by the general provisions of the law, be exempted from securing the duties, if the cargo shall arrive or be disposed of in any other manner than that designated by the 60th. Section, which is only an exception to the general rule. Thus in case of shipwreck, where the vessel perishes before she enters the port, any part of the cargo which may be saved, must pay the duties though re-exported on board of another Vessel; and in case of condemnation of the vessel as not being sea-worthy, where she perishes after having entered the port, the cargo must likewise pay the duties though re-exported on board of another vessel. The reshipping of the goods on board the vessel which brought them is made by the law a necessary condition to the privilege of exporting without paying or securing the duties.
It is proper to add that the inconvenience resulting in that case to the party consists, first in being obliged to find sureties that the goods shall not be relanded in the United States, and 2dly. in paying 13½ Per cent on the amount of the duty imposed on their importation. Thus a cargo imported in that manner in a Spanish Vessel and consisting of articles of 10,000 Dollars in value, and liable to pay a duty of 15 Per cent ad valorem, would be charged with the following duty: Vizt.
| 15 Per Cent on 10,000 Dollars | 1,500. | ||
| 10 Per Cent addit. on the duty, the goods being imported in a foreign vessel. |  |
150. | |
| 1,650. | |||
| The drawback allowed would be only the item | 1,500. | ||
| (as the 10 Per cent addit. is never returned) subject to a deduction of 3½ per cent. Vizt. | 52.50 | 1,447.50 | |
| making the charge payable on the cargo | 202.50. |
The letter of the 11th. instant from the Secretary to the Collector was, as is evident from the date, written and sent before the correspondence between the Collector and the Spanish Consul had been received.
The decision of the Secretary was altogether grounded on the law, which did not seem to leave any alternative, and which had never been construed in a different way; and it must be observed that the Legislature in passing that law were fully aware of the existence of treaties with foreign nations, and of the necessity of specific legislative provisions for carrying into effect such articles of those treaties as contemplated privileges and exceptions to the general revenue system, since several sections of that law are expressly introduced for the purpose of sanctioning such privileges and exceptions.
Nor does it seem to me that the 10th. Art. of the treaty with Spain provides for greater privileges than those granted by the 60th. Section of the collection law. The only case in which it is declared that no duties or charges shall be paid on the part of the cargo which shall be reladen and carried away, is that where the operations of repair (of the vessel) require that the cargo be unladen. (in the Spanish “and if it shall be necessary para componer el buque). But if the cargo is unladen not for repairing the vessel, but because the vessel is not sea-worthy, the case falls no longer within the exception contemplated by this part of the article, but on the contrary, becomes assimilated to that of an absolute loss of the vessel by shipwreck, in which it is only provided that the same charges and dues shall be paid as the inhabitants would be subject to pay in a like case.
I have the honor to be with great respect, Sir, Your obedt. Servt.
Albert Gallatin
RC (DLC); in a clerk’s hand, signed by Gallatin; at foot of text: “The President of the United States”; endorsed by TJ as received from the Treasury Department on 24 June and “goods in a condemned vessel” and so recorded in SJL, but as received 23 June. Enclosures: (1) Antonio Argote Villalobos, Spanish consul in Norfolk, to Wilson Cary Nicholas, 7 June, asking whether the owners of the Spanish brig Nuestra Señora de la Merced, alias Nancy, originally bound for Cadiz but condemned as unseaworthy in Norfolk, are required to pay duties on cargo landed in the United States and later reshipped in a different vessel (FC in ViHi, Papers of the Spanish Consulate in Norfolk, 1795-1846; addressed to “Col. John Nicholas Collector of the District of Norfolk & Portsmouth”). (2) Nicholas to Argote Villalobos, Norfolk, 8 June, responding that an American vessel in the same circumstances would have to enter the cargo and pay the duties at the custom house before a permit could be granted for reshipment on a different vessel, and that he has forwarded a statement of the case to the Treasury secretary (RC in same). (3) Argote Villalobos to Nicholas, Norfolk, 11 June, detailing his interpretation of the tenth article of the Pinckney Treaty to support the claim that the owners of the distressed Spanish brig do not have to pay any duties or fees on goods landed from a distressed vessel and later reshipped in a different vessel (FC in same). (4) Gallatin to Nicholas, Treasury Department, 11 June, responding to an earlier letter from Nicholas, dated 5 June, informing the collector that the law has been previously interpreted to hold that the exemption to import duties only applies to goods reshipped in same vessel, “But if that construction of the Treaty be thought erronious it can only be altered by legislative interference” (Tr in same). (5) Possibly Nicholas to Argote Villalobos, Norfolk, 14 June, informing the Spanish consul that Nicholas has forwarded their correspondence to Gallatin for further consideration (RC in same).
Gallatin quoted the entirety of the tenth article of the 1795 treaty with Spain (, 2:325-6).
collection law: “An Act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage,” approved 2 Mch. 1799 (, 1:627, 672-3).
para componer el buque: for the repair of the ship.
On or about this date, TJ received a “List of Warrants issued by the Secretary of the Treasury” for the period 18 to 23 June 1804 inclusive, with information on 12 warrants, Nos. 4915 to 4926, totaling $453,454.80. Five warrants under the category “Domestic Debt,” totaling $443,750, were dividend payments sent to state loan commissioners. Three under “Miscellaneous,” totaling $4,096, were for pension payments to invalids and $30 to William Potts for “Services in relation to impeachmt. of S. Chase.” The remaining warrants included two under “Dutch Debt” totaling $5,378.61, one for $7.31 under “Civil Departmt.” for stationery, and one for $222.88 under “Domestic Depmt.” for the relief of American seamen at Leghorn (MS in DLC: TJ Papers, 141:22498-9; in a clerk’s hand, addressed by Gallatin: “The President of the United States”; endorsed by TJ as a document of 23 June received from the Treasury Department and “Warrts”). A short time later, TJ probably received a “List of Warrants issued by the Secretary of the Treasury” for the period from 25 to 30 June 1804 inclusive, with information on 12 warrants, Nos. 4927 to 4938, totaling $561,316.14. Seven warrants under the category “Domestic Debt,” totaling $440,093.60, were for dividend payments sent to state loan commissioners, the Bank of the United States, the Office of Discount and Deposit in Washington, and the commissioners of the sinking fund and navy pension fund. Three under “Naval Departmt,” totaling $120,000, were for payroll; navy yards, docks, and wharves; and the “Protection of Commerce agt. the Barbary Powers.” The remaining two warrants included one for $722.54 under “Civil Departmt.” for contingent expenses of the postmaster general’s office and another for $500 under “Miscellaneous” to Isaac Briggs for surveying lands south of Tennessee (MS in same, 141:24536; in a clerk’s hand, addressed by Gallatin: “The President of the United States”; endorsed by TJ as a document of 30 June received from the Treasury Department and “Warrants”).