What is that rule? What is the standard of comparison? Is some one single consideration to fix that standard, or may reference be had to various considerations? M. de Figaniere e Morao's idea is, that the only element of calculation, the only datum to be taken into view, is the quantity of the article; that is to say, he is of opinion, that, if one gallon pays more duty than another gallon, the duty is, for that reason alone, higher in the sense of the treaty. But the undersigned thinks, with all respect, that this may well be questioned; he thinks cost and value may be regarded as forming parts of the basis of calculation and comparison, as well as quantity. It is as reasonable, as it seems to him, to understand the treaty as saying that merchandise from Portugal shall pay no higher duties than similar merchandise from other countries, according to its value, as it is to understand it as saying that it shall pay no higher duties in proportion to its quantity. Cost and value are as reasonable a basis as mere measure, weight, or quantity, in deciding on the comparison of duties. Indeed, it appears to the undersigned that ad valorem duties are likely to be the most unexceptionable of all forms of imposts, so far as stipulations in treaties, like that now under consideration, are concerned. When duties are made specific, they are laid on different classes of the same general article at different rates, according to their respective degrees of cost or value. Cheap wines are not taxed so high as dearer wines; nor can it be considered as any purpose of the treaty to abolish such distinctions; so that cost and value ordinarily constitute either the whole or part of the ground upon which rates of duties are fixed. In the case stated by M. de Figaniere e Morao, the Portuguese wine is assumed as the more costly article. But we may well suppose an opposite case, and a case of specific duties of exactly the same nominal amount, and yet a case in which, as it appears to the undersigned, Portugal might complain with far greater appearance of reason than she now complains of the law of September. There are wines of Portugal, of large consumption, which cost much less than certain wines of France. Let us suppose that a wine of Lisbon cost fifty cents a gallon, and a wine of Bordeaux one dollar, and that each was taxed equally one dollar a gallon in the ports of the United States. Here would be an apparent equality, just such as M. de Figaniere e Morao now thinks ought to exist.

But would there be real equality? Might not the Portuguese producer say that he did not enjoy substantially the same advantage as his French competitor, inasmuch as his capital and labor, producing an article in greater quantity, but of lower price, were really subjected to a burden twice as great as that which fell on the labor and capital of the French producer? Might he not say, Suffer my product, according to its cost and value, to be received into the country upon the same terms, and not other or higher, as the products of other countries? The stipulation contained in the third article of the treaty between the United States and Portugal, and in other treaties to which the United States are parties, is just and liberal, and ought to be observed to the fullest practicable extent; but perhaps it may be found that it is necessarily circumscribed within certain limits, and subjected to qualifications. And this results from the fact that, in a commercial sense, and according to the common understanding of men, the generic word "article" is subdivisible, and its subdivisions are as well known, and are regarded in as independent and substantive a sense, as the ge

neric term itself.

Wine is an article of commerce; but wine of Oporto, wine of Bordeaux, wine of Madeira, wine of Sicily, are separate articles; so regarded in transactions of commerce, so regarded in the duty laws of various governments, and especially in those of the United States.

It would, therefore, not be considered as any infraction of the treaty with Portugal, if Oporto wines were subjected to one duty and Sicily wines to another, since they are, in commercial understanding, different articles. And it may be added, that difference in cost or value may, in many cases, very materially contribute to settle the question of identity or difference be tween two articles; that is to say, in deciding whether two articles are the same, or alike, as the phrase of the treaty is, reference to the cost of each may be very pertinent and important. For example, the teas of China have heretofore been subject to different rates of duties in the United States as separate articles, under separate and specific denominations, as Bohea, Congo, Hyson, &c. Now in a disputed case, whether a particular article of that general kind belonged to one or the other of these classes would be an inquiry, in the prosecution of which one

important element of proof and ground of decision would naturally be the cost of the article, the more especially if the classes bore a considerable resemblance to each other, as is the case with some of them. So, if articles bearing the same general name come from different countries, whether they ought to be regarded as the same article is a question for the solution of which one may look not only to the name, but to their cost and value. And this consideration appears to the undersigned to show, he presumes to say, almost conclusively, that if the duty in a given case be ad valorem, it is, of all forms of laying duties, that which is most strictly in accordance with the provisions of treaties such as that between the United States and Portugal.

The article of the treaty under consideration was designed as a stipulation that no unfriendly legislation should be resorted to by one party against the other, nor any preference given to the products of other countries, with intent to injure or prejudice either party to the treaty. The treaty enjoins the spirit and practice of fair and equal legislation; but neither party supposed itself precluded by its stipulations from the ordinary modes of exercising. its own power of making laws for raising revenue in its accustomed modes; and if it happen, in any case, that, from the operation of laws thus laid with fair intent and for necessary purposes, inconveniences result to either party, that result must be considered as not intended, but as arising from the nature of the case itself, and therefore as unavoidable.

These are the general views which have presented themselves to the undersigned in answer to M. de Figaniere e Morao's note, and he trusts that the government of Portugal will consider them as satisfactory. Portugal is one of the countries with which the United States, in taking their place in the circle of nations, had early friendly commercial and diplomatic intercourse. Happily, nothing has occurred permanently to disturb that intercourse. The two countries have no rivalries, no opposition of interests, no grounds of mutual distrust; and the undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to express his earnest hope that the harmony now insured by the stipulations of a fair and equal treaty may long continue, and to signify, at the same time, the high consideration with which he has the honor to regard M. de Figaniere e Morao.

VOL. VI.

36

DANIEL WEBSTER.

RELATIONS WITH MEXICO.

AMERICAN CITIZENS CAPTURED AT SANTA FÉ.

Mr. Webster to Mr. Ellis.

Department of State, Washington, January 3, 1842. SIR,The friends of Mr. Franklin Coombs, son of General Leslie Coombs, of Kentucky, have applied for the interposition of this government in behalf of that young gentleman, who accompanied the late Texan expedition to Santa Fé, in Mexico, and is supposed to have been captured, and, if alive, to be held in bondage in that country, with the other survivors of the expedition. It has been represented to this department that young Coombs has never been a citizen of Texas; that he did not repair to that country with any intention of relinquishing his allegiance to this government, or of remaining in Texas; but that he went thither in the autumn of 1840, upon private business of his father, and for the benefit which he was assured his feeble health would derive from the milder winter climate of that region. He was, however, detained there by both causes, until about the time when the expedition referred to set out. This he determined to accompany, merely for the object of confirming his health, and gratifying a curiosity, both liberal and natural, in regard to the unknown lands through which the course of the expedition lay.

As there is no reason to doubt the correctness of this infor mation, you will, accordingly, forthwith make the necessary representations to the Mexican government upon the subject, with a view to avert from young Coombs, if he should be alive, the dangers to which he may be or may have been exposed. You will state that, from the respectability of his family, and

for other reasons, there can be no ground for the belief that he would have accompanied the expedition for any other objects than those mentioned; and that, if he had been aware that the views of the Texan government in despatching it had been hostile or predatory, rather than friendly and commercial, as they were understood to have been at the time, he would not have gone in its company. If to this it be objected that the expedition was military in its array, and must, therefore, be presumed to have had warlike designs against the Mexican authorities, it may be answered that the avowed motive of the members of the expedition in bearing arms was to ward off the attacks of hostile Indians, and especially of the Camanches, who, it is well known, roam in great force along and across the track which was to have been pursued. This objection would apply with much less, if with any, force to young Coombs, as he was no soldier, and had never been one; and, if found with arms, there could in his case be no better ground for the opinion that they were to have been used for purposes of attack, and not for those of defence, than if he had accompanied one of the caravans from Missouri to Santa Fé, by means of which, as is well known, an extensive trade is carried on between this country and Mexico, to the mutual advantage of the parties.

Although young Coombs is the only American citizen who accompanied the expedition for whom the interference of this government has been asked, it is understood that there was another who as little deserves to be subjected to any penal proceedings on the part of the Mexican government. This is Mr. George W. Kendall, of New Orleans.

You will press this case with the utmost earnestness on the Mexican government, as the government of the United States feels itself bound to interfere, and to signify its confident expectation that the lives of American citizens will not be sacrificed who have not intentionally done any thing of a hostile character against Mexico. Even if the condnct of young Coombs was indiscreet and ill-judged, yet this government cannot suppose that the government of Mexico would treat him as an armed combatant found among its enemies.

You will spare no pains to impress the Mexican authorities. with the feelings which would be excited in this country if any harsh proceeding should be adopted toward this youth.