Section 3102 of the Revised Statutes Is Also Related to This Subject,

and is as follows:

To avoid the inspection at the first port of arrival, the owner, agent, master, or conductor of any such vessel, car, or other vehicle, or owner, agent, or other person having charge of any such merchandise, baggage, effects, or other articles, may apply to any officer of the United States duly authorized to act in the premises to seal or close the same, under and according to the regulations hereinafter authorized, previous to their importation into the United States, which officer shall seal or close the same accordingly; whereupon the same may proceed to their port of destination without further inspection. Every such vessel, car, or other vehicle shall proceed without unnecessary delay to the port of its destination, as named in the manifest of its cargo, freight, or contents, and be there inspected. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to exempt such vessel, car, or vehicle, or its contents, from such examination as may be necessary and proper to prevent frauds upon the revenue and violations of this title.

It will be noticed that section 3005 does not provide for the transit of merchandise through our territory from Canada to ports of the United States for export, nor have I been able to find any other law now in force that does provide for such transit. It would seem, therefore, that as to this concession made by the United States in Article XXIX of the treaty, legislation to put it into force was necessary, and that there is no such legislation unless section 3 of the act of 1873 was saved by the amendment to the joint resolution abrogating the fisheries articles and Article XXX, limiting the repeal to so much of said act as "relates to the articles of said treaty so to be terminated." The joint resolution certainly did not repeal section 3, and if that section has ceased to be operative it is by virtue of the limitation contained in the section itself. I think it did expire by its own express limitation.

The question has presented itself whether section 3 of the act of 1873 (U.S. Revised Statutes, sec. 2866) repealed by implication that section of the act of July, 1866, which is now section 3005 of the Revised Statutes; but I am of the opinion that the last-named section was not repealed. Section 3 of the act of 1873 was expressly intended to carry into effect a treaty obligation and was limited as to time. It contained no express repeal of the act of 1866, and while its provisions were broader than the last-named act, they were not inconsistent, save in the provision that while the act of 1873 was in force the additional ports in the United States at which Canadian goods might be received were to be designated by the President, whereas under the act of 1866 the designation was by the Secretary of the Treasury. The last-named act related also to intercourse with Mexico, and I think was unaffected by the act of 1873.

It will be seen that the law permits merchandise arriving at the ports of New York, Boston, Portland in Maine, and at other ports specially designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, for places in the adjacent British Provinces, to be entered at the custom-house of the port where it is landed and conveyed through the territory of the United States without the payment of duty, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. As these goods come immediately and fully under the inspection of our customs officers at the principal ports, are entered there and remain until they cross our border into Canada fully under our supervision, there is little or no danger involved to our revenue. The regulations prescribed by the Treasury for conducting this traffic seem to me to be adequate.

As to merchandise imported into the United States from a contiguous foreign country, it is provided by section 3102 that the inspection at the first port of arrival in the United States may be avoided if the vehicle in which the same arrives has been sealed or closed by some officer of the United States duly authorized at some point in the contiguous country. When the act of closing or sealing conformably to the regulations of the Treasury has been effected, the car or other vehicle may proceed without unnecessary delay to the port of its destination, as named in the manifest of its cargo, freight, or contents, and be there inspected. This privilege, however, is subject to such examination at the point of entry to the United States as may be necessary to prevent fraud. It is important to be noticed that the merchandise to which this section refers is described in section 3100 as merchandise, etc., "imported into the United States from any contiguous foreign country."

A practice has grown up, and a traffic of considerable dimensions under it, of allowing merchandise from China and Japan, purchased and imported from those countries by our own citizens and landed at ports in the Dominion of Canada, to be there loaded into cars, which, being sealed by an officer of the United States or some one supposed to represent him, are forwarded through the territory of Canada, across the entire continent, and allowed to cross our frontier without other inspection than an examination of the seals. The real fact is that the American consul can not and does not either compare the manifest with the contents of the cars or attach the seals. The agents of the transportation companies are furnished by the consul with the seals and place them upon the cars. The practice of sealing such merchandise, notwithstanding it has been allowed by the Treasury for some years, I think is unauthorized. Such merchandise is not imported from a "contiguous country," but from China and Japan.

It has never become subject to the Canadian revenue laws as an importation from Japan to Canada, but by force of the treaty or by the courtesy of that government has been treated as subject to the revenue laws of the United States from the time of landing at the Canadian port. Our Treasury seal has been placed upon it; Canada only gives it passage. It is no more an importation from Canada than is a train load of wheat that starts from Detroit and is transported through Canada to another port of the United States. Section 3102 was enacted in 1864, two years before sections 3005 and 3006, and could not have had reference to the later methods of importing merchandise through one country to the other.

The practice to which I have referred not only equalizes the advantages of Canadian seaports with our own in the importation of goods for our domestic consumption, but makes the Canadian ports favored ports of entry. The detentions under this system at the Canadian ports are less than when the merchandise is landed at a port of the United States to be forwarded in bond to another port therein. Full effect should be given to section 3102 as to merchandise imported into the United States from Canada, so far as the appropriations enable the Treasury to provide the officers to do the work of closing and sealing. It will, however, be required that all this kind of work be done, and carefully done, by an officer of the United States, and that the duty shall in no case be delegated to the employees of the transportation companies. The considerations that it is quite doubtful whether a fraud committed in Canada by one of our agents upon our revenue would be punishable in our courts, and that such a fraud committed by anyone else certainly would not be, and that even if such acts are made penal by our statutes the criminal would be secure against extradition, seem to me to be conclusive against the policy of attempting to maintain such revenue agents in Canadian territory.

I come now to discuss another element of this international traffic, namely, the transportation of merchandise from one "port" in the United States to another "port" therein over the territory of Canada. This traffic is enormous in its dimensions, and very great interests have grown up in the United States in connection with it. Section 3006 authorizes this traffic, subject to "such rules, regulations, and conditions as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe;" but the important limitation is from "port" to "port." Section 3007 of the Revised Statutes, which exempts sealed cars from certain fees, preserves the terms of the preceding section--from "port" to "port." It seems to me that sections 3006 and 3007 contemplate the delivery of the sealed cars at a "port" of the United States, there to be examined by a revenue officer and their contents verified; but in practice the car, if the seal is found at the border to be intact, is passed to places not "ports" and is opened and unloaded by the consignee, no officer being present. The bill or manifest accompanying the merchandise and the unbroken seal on the car may furnish prima facie evidence that the amount and kind of merchandise named in the manifest and said to be contained in the car came from a port in the United States, but certainly it was not intended that the merchandise should go to the owner without an official ascertainment of the correspondence between the bill and the actual contents of the car.

I pass at this point any discussion of the question whether as a national policy this traffic should be promoted. It is enough to say that as the law stands it is authorized between "ports" of the United States, and that the rules, regulations, and conditions to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury must not, in view of this declaration of the legislative will, be further restrictive of the traffic than may reasonably be necessary to protect the revenues of the United States. In determining whether further regulations are reasonably necessary to prevent frauds against our revenue it is not conclusive, at least, to say that frauds against the revenue under the existing system have not been discovered. The question is, Are the regulations such as to provide proper safeguards against fraud, or are they such as to make fraud easy to those who have the disposition to commit it? If all cars carrying this merchandise are carefully and honestly inspected at the point of lading and are securely closed during the transit, the revenue would be secure, for the proper lading of these cars is not subject to duty. Frauds can only be perpetrated by introducing products not subject to free entry. In practice the seals and locks provided by the Treasury Department do not give security that these cars, in the long transit in which they are free from observation by officers of the revenue, may not be opened and dutiable merchandise added.

The duplication of the seals used, composed of wire and lead, is easy, and the opening of locks scarcely less so. If, however, the cars, when they arrive in the United States, either at the point where our boundary is crossed or at some other port of the United States, were subject to the inspection of a revenue officer before the delivery to the consignee or owner, the manifest could be verified. The inspection, however, is now limited to an examination of the lock or seal. The car is not weighed or opened to verify its contents. I do not think this is an adequate protection against the surreptitious introduction into the cars, while on foreign territory, of dutiable articles. It will be seen by the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury that grain the product of the United States is now largely transported in American vessels to Canadian lake ports, and after being there placed in elevators is sent east in cars sealed by agents of the Treasury.

No observation is taken of this grain until its arrival in Canada, where only the amount and grade are noted by a Treasury agent, and a like amount in grade and quantity (though it may be not the identical grain) is by such agent billed and sealed in cars for carriage to the United States. I do not find any statute authorizing this practice. Section 3006, which authorizes this interstate trade through Canada, is limited to merchandise passing from "port" to "port" of the United States, and plainly means that such merchandise shall be taken up by our revenue officers at a "port" of the United States as a starting point.

The following are the conclusions at which I have arrived:

First. That Article XXIX of the treaty of Washington has been abrogated.

Second. That even if this article were in force there is no law in force to execute it.

Third. That when in force the treaty imposed no obligation upon the United States to use the concessions as to transit made by Canada, and no limitation upon the powers of the United States in dealing with merchandise imported for the use of our citizens through Canadian ports or passing from one place in the United States to another through Canada, upon the arrival of such merchandise at our border.

Fourth. That therefore, treaty or no treaty, the question of sealing cars containing such merchandise and the treatment of such sealed cars when they cross our border is and always has been one to be settled by our laws, according to our convenience and our interests as we may see them.

Fifth. That the law authorizing the sealing of cars in Canada containing foreign merchandise imported from a contiguous country does not apply to merchandise imported by our own people from countries not contiguous and carried through Canada for delivery to such owners.

Sixth. That the law did not contemplate the passing of sealed cars to any place not a "port," nor the delivery of such cars to the owner or consignee, to be opened by him without the supervision of a revenue officer.

Seventh. That such a practice is inconsistent with the safety of the revenue.

The statutes relating to the transportation of merchandise between the United States and the British possessions should be the subject of revision. The Treasury regulations have given to these laws a construction and a scope that I do not think was contemplated by Congress. A policy adapted to the new conditions, growing in part out of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, should be declared, and the business placed upon a basis more just to our people and to our transportation companies.

If we continue the policy of supervising rates and requiring that they shall be equal and reasonable upon the railroads of the United States, we can not in fairness at the same time give these unusual facilities for competition to Canadian roads that are free to pursue the practices as to cut rates and favored rates that we condemn and punish if practiced by our own railroads.

I regret that circumstances prevented an earlier examination by me of these questions, but submit now these views in the hope that they may lead to a revision of the laws upon a safer and juster basis.

I transmit herewith the correspondence between the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney-General upon some phases of this question.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 6, 1893.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, dated 4th instant, accompanied by an agreement concluded by and between the Turtle Mountain Indians and the commission appointed under the provisions of the Indian appropriation act of July 13, 1892, to negotiate with the Turtle Mountain band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota for the cession and relinquishment to the United States of whatever right or interest they have in and to any and all lands in said State to which they claim title, and for their removal to and settlement upon lands to be hereafter selected and determined upon by the Secretary of the Interior upon the recommendation of the proposed commissioners, subject to the approval of Congress.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 6, 1893.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith, as desired by the resolution of the Senate of the 4th instant, a report from the Secretary of State of the 6th instant, with its accompanying correspondence, in relation to the draft of an uncompleted treaty with Hawaii made in 1854.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1893.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith the eighth annual report of the Commissioner of Labor. This report relates to industrial education in the United States and foreign countries.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, D.C., February 14, 1893.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a special report of the Commissioner of Labor relating to compulsory insurance of workingmen in Germany and other countries.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 14, 1893.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 13th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting copy of reports of Lieutenants Brown, Gurovits, and Suplee, United States Army, who were charged with the duty of inspecting the Navajo country, so that the Interior Department could be advised as to the practicability of restraining the Navajoes within their present reservations and of furnishing irrigation and water for their flocks, together with report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs upon the matter with draft of an item of appropriation to carry the same into effect.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 15, 1893.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a treaty of annexation concluded on the 14th day of February, 1893, between John W. Foster, Secretary of State, who was duly empowered to act in that behalf on the part of the United States, and Lorin A. Thurston, W.R. Castle, W.C. Wilder, C.L. Carter, and Joseph Marsden, the commissioners on the part of the Government of the Hawaiian Islands. The provisional treaty, it will be observed, does not attempt to deal in detail with the questions that grow out of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. The commissioners representing the Hawaiian Government have consented to leave to the future and to the just and benevolent purposes of the United States the adjustment of all such questions.

I do not deem it necessary to discuss at any length the conditions which have resulted in this decisive action. It has been the policy of the Administration not only to respect but to encourage the continuance of an independent government in the Hawaiian Islands so long as it afforded suitable guaranties for the protection of life and property and maintained a stability and strength that gave adequate security against the domination of any other power. The moral support of this Government has continually manifested itself in the most friendly diplomatic relations and in many acts of courtesy to the Hawaiian rulers.

The overthrow of the monarchy was not in any way promoted by this Government, but had its origin in what seems to have been a reactionary and revolutionary policy on the part of Queen Liliuokalani, which put in serious peril not only the large and preponderating interests of the United States in the islands, but all foreign interests, and, indeed, the decent administration of civil affairs and the peace of the islands. It is quite evident that the monarchy had become effete and the Queen's Government so weak and inadequate as to be the prey of designing and unscrupulous persons. The restoration of Queen Liliuokalani to her throne is undesirable, if not impossible, and unless actively supported by the United States would be accompanied by serious disaster and the disorganization of all business interests. The influence and interest of the United States in the islands must be increased and not diminished.

Only two courses are now open--one the establishment of a protectorate by the United States, and the other annexation full and complete. I think the latter course, which has been adopted in the treaty, will be highly promotive of the best interests of the Hawaiian people, and is the only one that will adequately secure the interests of the United States. These interests are not wholly selfish. It is essential that none of the other great powers shall secure these islands. Such a possession would not consist with our safety and with the peace of the world. This view of the situation is so apparent and conclusive that no protest has been heard from any government against proceedings looking to annexation. Every foreign representative at Honolulu promptly acknowledged the Provisional Government, and I think there is a general concurrence in the opinion that the deposed Queen ought not to be restored.

Prompt action upon this treaty is very desirable. If it meets the approval of the Senate, peace and good order will be secured in the islands under existing laws until such time as Congress can provide by legislation a permanent form of government for the islands. This legislation should be, and I do not doubt will be, not only just to the natives and all other residents and citizens of the islands, but should be characterized by great liberality and a high regard to the rights of all people and of all foreigners domiciled there. The correspondence which accompanies the treaty will put the Senate in possession of all the facts known to the Executive.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 16, 1893.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State of the 15th instant, covering a report, with accompanying correspondence, respecting relations between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands from September, 1820, to January, 1893.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 20, 1893.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith a report submitted by the Acting Secretary of State in response to the resolution of the Senate of February 2 last, relating to the building of the Ozama River bridge at Santo Domingo City by American citizens.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 21, 1893.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the Secretary of State, transmitting the official report of the American delegates to the International Monetary Conference convened at Brussels on November 22, 1892, with its accompaniments.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 25, 1893.

To the Senate of the United States:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, I return herewith the bill (S. 3811) entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to grant to the Mobile and Dauphin Island Railroad and Harbor Company the right to trestle across the shoal water between Cedar Point and Dauphin Island,' approved September 26, 1890."

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 27, 1893.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I herewith transmit, for the information of Congress, a communication from the Acting Secretary of State, forwarding certain bulletins of the Bureau of the American Republics.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, D.C., March 1, 1893.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith the fifth special report of the Commissioner of Labor. The report relates to the so-called "Gothenburg system" of regulating the liquor traffic, the system prevailing in Norway and Sweden.

BENJ. HARRISON.

VETO MESSAGE.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 27, 1893.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without my approval an act (H.R. 9612) entitled "An act to prescribe the number of district attorneys and marshals in the judicial districts of the State of Alabama."

Under the present law there is a district attorney for the southern district of Alabama, a district attorney for the northern and middle districts, a marshal for the northern district, and a marshal for the southern and middle districts.

An examination of the records of the Attorney-General's office as to the amount of business in the courts in these districts leads me to believe that two districts would provide amply for the disposition of all public and private cases. The law creates two new officers, whose aggregate compensation may be $12,000 per annum, without, it seems to me, a justifying necessity. But the most serious objection to the legislation is that it creates at once upon the taking effect of the law the offices of district attorney and marshal for each of the three districts, and the effect, it seems to me, must be to abolish the offices as they now exist.

No provision is made for a continued discharge of the duties of marshal and district attorney by the present incumbents. A serious question would be raised as to whether these officers were not at once legislated out of office and vacancies created. As these vacancies could not be filled immediately, the business of the courts would seriously suffer. The law should at least have contained a provision for the continued discharge of their duties by the incumbents until the new officers were appointed and qualified.

BENJ. HARRISON.

PROCLAMATIONS.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it is provided by section 24 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1891, entitled "An act to repeal timber-culture laws, and for other purposes"--

That the President of the United States may from time to time set apart and reserve in any State or Territory having public land bearing forests, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations; and the President shall by public proclamation declare the establishment of such reservations and the limits thereof.

And whereas it is made to appear, by petition and otherwise, that the interests of the public and the welfare of the people of the State of Colorado will be materially benefited and subserved by the reservation of the public and forest lands hereinafter described:

Now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested by said act, do hereby set apart, reserve, and establish as a public reservation all that tract of land in the State of Colorado embraced in the following boundary and description, to wit:

Beginning at the confluence of the North Fork of the South Platte River with the South Platte River; thence up the middle of the channel of the North Fork of the South Platte River to the range line between township seven (7) south, ranges seventy-four (74) and seventy-five (75) west of the sixth (6th) principal meridian; thence northerly on said range line to the northeast corner of township seven (7) south, range seventy-five (75) west; thence westerly on the township line between townships six (6) and seven (7) south to the northwest corner of township seven (7) south, range seventy-six (76) west; thence southerly on the range line between ranges seventy-six (76) and seventy-seven (77) west to the northeast corner of section thirteen (13), township seven (7) south, range seventy-seven (77) west; thence westerly on the section line between sections twelve (12) and thirteen (13) to the northwest corner of section thirteen (13) of said township and range; thence southerly on the section line between sections thirteen (13) and fourteen (14), twenty-three (23) and twenty-four (24), and twenty-five (25) and twenty-six (26) to the northeast corner of section thirty-five (35) of said township and range; thence westerly on the section line between sections twenty-six (26) and thirty-five (35) and twenty-seven (27) and thirty-four (34) to the northwest corner of section thirty-four (34) of said township and range; thence southerly on the section line between sections thirty-three (33) and thirty-four (34) of said township and range and sections three (3) and four (4), nine (9) and ten (10), and fifteen (15) and sixteen (16), township eight (8) south, range seventy-seven (77) west, to the northeast corner of section twenty-one (21) of said last-named township and range; thence westerly on the section line between sections sixteen (16) and twenty-one (21), seventeen (17) and twenty (20), and eighteen (18) and nineteen (19) to the northwest corner of section nineteen (19) of said township and range; thence southerly on the range line between ranges seventy-seven (77) and seventy-eight (78) west to the northeast corner of section thirteen (13), township nine (9) south, range seventy-eight (78) west; thence westerly on the section line between sections twelve (12) and thirteen (13) and eleven (11) and fourteen (14) to the northwest corner of section fourteen (14) of said township and range; thence southerly on the section line between sections fourteen (14) and fifteen (15) to the southwest corner of said section fourteen (14); thence westerly on the section, line between sections fifteen (15) and twenty-two (22) and sixteen (16) and twenty-one (21) to the northwest corner of section twenty-one (21) of said township and range; thence southerly on the section line between sections twenty (20) and twenty-one (21) and twenty-eight (28) and twenty-nine (29) to the southwest corner of