Mr. Planten to Mr. Gresham. NEW YORK, September 27, 1894. SIR: In connection with my letter of September 25, last, I have the honor to inclose translation of a letter of the governor of Curaçao in regard to the laws on the importation of salt in the Netherlands West Indian Islands, addressed to me. J. R. PLANTEN. Accept, etc., [Inclosure.] [Translated abstract from letter of September 13, received by Hon. John R. Planten, consul-general of the Netherlands at New York, from the governor of Curaçao.] By decree of August 28, 1888, the import duties on salt for the entire colony of Curaçao (comprising Curaçao, Oruba, Buen Ayre, Little Curaçao, Little Buen Ayre, St. Martin, St. Eustatius, and Saba) were abolished and they have never been reimposed. It is probable that the Washington authorities were misled by consulting the tariff laws of 1892, in which, as is the case every year, also the article salt is mentioned, and they must have overlooked the fact that these published tariff laws refer as well to export as to import duties; and, for instance, as St. Martin and Buen Ayre pay export duties, the mention of the duties as regards salt simply refers to these export duties and not to import duties, which latter were abolished since 18-, and never reimposed. Mr. Planten to Mr. Gresham. NEW YORK, October 2, 1894. SIR: It has been brought to the knowledge of our minister of foreign affairs at The Hague and to my notice that, on sugar imported from the Netherlands in different parts of the United States a duty of one-tenth of a cent additional per pound had been levied, on the supposition that the Netherlands pay an export bounty on sugar. In order to remove all doubts on the subject I hereby inclose a copy of a note handed, in September, 1891, by the chief administrator of cus toms to Mr. Thayer, at that time minister of the United States at The Hague, about our sugar laws, and containing a further explanation of a note addressed by our minister of foreign affairs, dated August 10, 1891, to Mr. Thayer, copy of which you will also find inclosed, the result. of which was, as you are aware, that under the McKinley law the additional duty of one-tenth of a cent per pound was not levied on Dutch sugars, and consequently ought not to be imposed now either under the new tariff. Requesting you to inform the Honorable Secretary of the Treasury of the foregoing news of my Government, I beg you to accept the assurance of my high consideration. J. H. PLANTEN. [Inclosure.] The law of the Netherlands concerning sugar. A manufacturer of beet sugar is at liberty to choose between the "exercice" (a tax on sugars intended for consumption without bounty, drawback, or refund of duties when the sugar is exported) and the system of "prise en charge" for a fixed quantity of sugar in proportion to the quantity and the density of the juice previous to defecation. This "prise en charge" amounts to 1.45 or 1.40 kilograms of refined sugar per hectoliter and degree of (density of the?) juice, according as the defecation takes place before or after the end of the year. Manufacturers are required to pay an additional tax when they subject the juices to osmosis, or to separation by the Steffen method. As the cultivation of beets and the beet-sugar industry have made decided progress, while the "prise en charge" has remained unchanged since 1867, it follows that the actual yield of sugar exceeds the quantity which is charged to the manufacturer (for the collection of duty thereon) and the manufacturer receives a bounty more or less large according to the richness of the beets used and the care taken by him in the process of manufacture. This advantage, the only one of the kind that is granted by law to the sugar industry, is enjoyed by all manufactured sugar products, and, even considering as a bounty on exportation that which is enjoyed, together with others, by sugars intended for exportation after or before being refined, the law takes no account of this shade of color, the drawback on raw and bastard sugars being calculated according to their richness, as demonstrated by analysis (i. e., as shown by the polariscope, with the coefficients 2 for glucose and 4 for ashes). Mr. Uhl to Mr. Planten. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 2d instant, relative to the duty imposed on Dutch sugar imported into the United States, and to inform you that the matter has been referred to the Secretary of the Treasury for his consideration. Accept, etc., Mr. Uhl to Mr. Planten. EDWIN F. UHL, Acting Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Referring to previous correspondence relative to the question as to whether a duty is imposed upon salt imported into certain West Indian possessions of the Netherlands, I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 27th ultimo on the subject, and to inform you that a copy of your note has been sent to the Secretary of the Treasury for his information. Accept, etc., EDWIN F. UHL, Acting Secretary. Mr. Uhl to Mr. Planten. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Referring to your note of the 27th ultimo, inclosing a translation of a letter from the governor of Curaçao concerning the laws as to the importation of salt into the Netherlands West Indian Islands, I have the honor to inform you that I have received a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 8th instant, stating that instructions have been issued to the collectors of customs at New York, Bos ton, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Chicago authorizing the admission free of duty of salt imported from the islands in question into the United States. Accept, etc., EDWIN F. UHL, Mr. Planten to Mr. Gresham. NEW YORK, October 13, 1894. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your note of 11th instant, in regard to the instructions which have been issued by the Secretary of the Treasury to the collectors of customs authorizing the admission free of duty of salt from the Netherlands West Indian Islands. I beg you to convey to the Secretary of the Treasury my thanks for his prompt action in the matter. J. R. PLANTEN. Accept, etc., Mr. Uhl to Mr. de Weckherlin. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 22d instant, inclosing for your use a form of a "Certificate on sugar exported for drawback of tax paid or with rebate or discharge of tax." Accept, etc., [Inclosure.] EDWIN F. UHL, Acting Secretary. Mr. Hamlin to Mr. Gresham. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, December 22, 1894. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that the minister of the Netherlands, with the consent of your Department, has submitted an inquiry as to what certificate of his Government would be sufficient under the first proviso to paragraph 1824, act of August 28, 1894. The Department, under the advice of the Attorney-General, decides that the inclosed form of certificate will be sufficient under said proviso. Respectfully, yours, C. S. HAMLIN, NICARAGUA. BRITISH DEMANDS.1 Lord Kimberley to Dr. Barrios. [Handed to the Secretary of State by the Nicaraguan minister.] FOREIGN OFFICE, February 26, 1895. SIR: Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered the voluminous documents inclosed in your note of the 22d of November last, which you have communicated to me, in justification of the proceedings of the Nicaraguan Government in regard to Mr. Hatch, British proconsul, and certain other British subjects who were arrested in August last in the Mosquito Reserve, imprisoned, and expelled from Nicaragua not only without any form of trial, but without any communication to them of the charges against them, so as to afford them an opportunity of absolving themselves. Before proceeding to examine the statements made in those documents, I may observe that, although Mr. Hatch was not strictly speaking an officer in Her Majesty's consular service, it might have been expected that the Nicaraguan authorities in the Reserve, who carried on a correspondence with him and made use of his services in a consular capacity whenever and so long as it suited their convenience to do so, would, as a matter of ordinary courtesy, have communicated with Her Majesty's Government before resorting to so extreme a measure as the arrest of that gentleman. The British subjects who were arrested on the 16th of August and taken to Managua were, besides Mr. Hatch, British pro-consul: Mr. W. B. C. Brown, Mr. H. Brownrigg, Mr. J. W. Cuthbert, Mr. S. A. Hodgson, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. John O. Thomas, Mr. Markland Taylor, and Mr. W. Glover. On the 23d of August two more British subjects were arrested-Mr. G. P. Hall and Mr. Hubert O. Bodden-and another British subject, Mr. Joseph P. Moody, was arrested on the 30th of August. There were also further arrests of persons said to be British subjects, viz, Green, Martin, Thompson, and Joel Bodden. The object of much that is contained in the papers communicated by the Nicaraguan Government appears to be to connect Mr. Hatch and other British subjects arrested with the disturbances which took place on the Mosquito Reserve in July last. Messrs. Hatch, Brown, Brownrigg, Cuthbert, S. A. Hodgson, John Taylor, Markland Taylor, and Glover, in a statement made on the 7th of September, have sworn that they did not in any way, directly or indirectly, participate in or encourage the riots in the Reserve. Mr. J. O. Thomas also denies any complicity in the riots. As to Mr. G. P. Hall, who was kept in prison for six days and only released on giving an undertaking to leave the country, he states that, as police magistrate, he endeavored to quiet the people on the 5th of July, but was shot at and went home, and resigned the next day. His statement is supported by sworn statements made by two of the police, British subjects. Mr. Hubert O. Bodden, who was kept in prison three days and was released on the intervention of the captain of the U. S. S. Marblehead, but was exiled, is in ignorance of the causes of his arrest and exile. Mr. J. P. Moody states that he is in ignorance of the causes of his arrest and banishment. Amongst the depositions which are brought forward by the Nicaraguan Government as proofs against Mr. Hatch are those of J. W. Cuthbert, S. A. Hodgson, and Charles Patterson, when under detention. The first-named person is represented to have deposed that it was Mr. Hatch who encouraged the movement against the Nicaraguan authorities, and that he was always in the midst of the insurgents. S. A. Hodgson is represented to have stated that the meetings of the Mosquito council from the 5th to the 7th of July were held in the house of Mr. Hatch, and that he was present at them then and afterwards when they were held elsewhere. Charles Patterson is represented to have affirmed that Mr. Hatch was nearly always present at the meetings of the council and advised them what to do. Now, two of these deponents, Messrs. Cuthbert and Patterson, in a statement made to Consul Bingham, while swearing that they did not in any way participate in or encourage the riot of the 5th of July and did not furnish or import arms or ammunition for use in the disturbances, further say that "certain questions were asked us at the bluff by the minister of war, and written in Spanish, which was signed by us, but we can not say that it is correct, not knowing the language, but compelled to sign." The third deponent, S. A. Hodgson, in a sworn statement made on the 17th of September, affirms that, while under arrest at Bluefields Bluff, he stated, in reply to questions by General Portocarrero respecting Mr. Hatch, that Mr. Hatch did not to his knowledge have a gathering of people at his business-house door on the 6th of July; that he did not instigate or advise the Jamaicans to take up arms, but that he warned them not to do so, and posted up notices to the same effect; that the Chief Clarence, after he was reinstated, did not reside at Mr. Hatch's house, but at that of Mr. Forbes; that no meeting of the council was held at Mr. Hatch's house, and that, except beseeching the people to keep quiet, Mr. Hatch had nothing to do with the affairs of the 5th and 6th of July; that he (Hodgson) was asked to sign the statement, but requested to have it read to him in English, which was refused, and after waiting an hour he was compelled to sign it. Hubert O. Bodden, who is another of the deponents quoted in the documents communicated by the Nicaraguan Government, states in a sworn statement that he was arrested on the 23d of August, and asked questions tending to implicate Mr. Hatch and others in the disturbances; that on his pleading ignorance the judge said he was lying, and that "if you do not speak the truth you shall be shot;" that he was then sent back to prison, where he remained three days, when he was released on the intervention of the captain of the U. S. S. Marblehead, the judge informing him that he was exiled, but that he ought to be shot. With regard to the other depositions produced by the Nicaraguan Government, the evidence as to Mr. Hatch's conduct at the time of the |