Mr. Smythe to Mr. Gresham.

No. 47.]


Port au Prince, March 3, 1894. SIR: In the official Moniteur of last Saturday appeared the following: Whereas international law coufers on each independent State the right to expel from its territory foreigners whose actions are dangerous to public tranquillity and order, considering that the presence in Haiti of Messieurs L. Clonchier, Boisson, Chardon, Paul Andreoli, Antoine Duthiers, and George Duthiers is judged to bé dangerous to public safety, on advice of the council of secretaries of state, it is ordered:

Act. 1. The Messieurs L. Clouchier, Boisson, Chardon, Panl Andreoli, Antoine Duthiers, and George Duthiers are expelled from the territory of the Republic of Haiti, and shall be embarked on board the first steamer leaving for a foreign port.

ACT. 2. The chief of the administrative police of the capital is charged with the execution of this order.

All these are French citizens, some of whom have accumulated fortupes here. It has not transpired what proof the Government has, but inasmuch as I have heard of no protest on the part of the French legation, we may take it that sufficient proof existed. On the other hand, it is possible that these parties may have been denounced by personal enemies, and in case American citizens in business here should fall under the displeasure or suspicion of the Government, I hope that instructions will be given me at the earliest moment practicable as to the course to pursue—whether under our treaty I would have the right to demand the production of proof of such citizens' connection with treasonable practices, which would justify the virtual coufiscation of his property (through the ruin of his business). Another phase of the question might be presented. On faith of treaty stipulations, American citizens nave invested large sums of money in business tending to the development of the country, and some of them have loaned large sums of money to the Government. In case one of these should be denounced, might there not exist a right to demand a guaranty for such investments or loans? It is conceded here, and I think in Government circles, that American citizens are never engaged in conspiracies against the existing order, but still I consider that I should be advised as to what course to pursue in case of such an exigency, and especially as American citizens feel more or less uneasiness in the premises.

As at least collaterally bearing on the subject, permit me to say that after a careful study of the subject, under conditions peculiarly favorable to a correct judgment, I can see no probability of a successful movement against the present Government. Men of influence and wealth—without whose aid no revolutionary movement can succeed here—are content with the existing order and would uphold it rather than enter into schemes to destroy it. The Government has good credit, as was evinced recently when merchants here offered a loan of $500,000 at less than the usual rate of interest, and it was declined. I have, etc.,


Mr. Smythe to Mr. Gresham.

No. 50.1

Port au Prince, Haiti, March 8, 1894.

(Received March 19.) SIR: As supplemental to my No. 47, I have to report that I have from absolutely good authority the information that the French Gov. ernment protested against the expulsion of the parties named, and that as soon as the protest was communicated to the Government the President ordered the chief of police to at once embark the parties on board the Dutch steamer then in the harbor. This order was promptly carried out, and since then the French Government has cabled an ultimatum, requiring the Haitian authorities to furnish the evidence upon which this action was based within eight days, “the French Government to determine its sufficiency.” There can be no doubt that my information is correct, and if it is it raises an interesting question in international law, as President Hyppolite contends that there can be no law which discriminates between a powerful government and a weak one, and that France is not asked by other nations (of the first rank) the reasons that impel that power to exercise a similar right. You will please consider this dispatch in connection with my 47, and if you deem any special instructions necessary, transmit them at the earliest possible day. I have, etc.,


Mr. Gresham to Mr. Smythe.

No. 36.


Washington, March 16, 1894. SIR: Your No.47, diplomatic series of the 3d instant, has been received. You therein report the expulsion from Haiti, by executive decree, of six Frenchmen, on the ground that their presence is judged to be dangerous to public safety; and you ask instructions in the event of similar decree affecting citizens of the United States.

This Department does not usually give contingent instructions to meet hypothetical cases, and in the present instance the high tribute you pay to the law-abiding character of the American residents in Haiti makes it unlikely that explicit instructions will be needed. I am, etc.,


Mr. Smythe to Mr. Gresham.

No. 56.]

Port au Prince, Haiti, March 20, 1894.

(Received April 2.) SIR: Following my dispatches numbered 47 and 50, in reference to the expulsion of certain French citizens, I have to report that on the 16th instant the French chargé d'affaires called at this legation and asked me to say to the Haitian foreign secretary (if approached on the question)" that such expulsion should not be allowed except on good and sufficient evidence that the parties were engaged in treasonable practices." I answered that I had asked my Government for instructions for my guidance in case of the possible expulsion of American citizens, but pending the receipt of such instructions, if asked by the secretary my view, that I would be compelled to say to him that if a similar order were issued against an American citizen, I would certainly demand proofs to justify it. The French representative said that he had expressions from the German minister and the English consulgeneral, and that they agreed that “sufficient proof should be adduced.”

I have not been approached in the matter by the foreign secretary and, while the French chargé claims that no proofs exist, have reason to believe the Government will detend its action as justified by international law. Awaiting your reply, I have, etc.,


No. 40.)

Mr. Uhl to Mr. Smythe.


Washington, March 27, 1894. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 50, diplomatic series, of the 8th instant, in which you state that the French Government has protested against the expulsion of the Frenchmen mentioned in your No. 47, and that orders were then given for their instant embarkment. The French Government has since cabled an ultimatum requiring the Haitian Government to furnish the evidence upon which their action was based, to be delivered within eight days, “the French Government to determine its sufficiency.” President Hyppolite con. tends that such demands are never made of nations of the first rank, and that there can be no law which discriminates between a powerful government and a weak one.

With respect to the treatment of citizens of the United States, it will suffice now to instruct you that their rights of residence and business are defined by the treaty of 1864, and they are expressly guaranteed by the sixth article thereof, “ to enter, sojourn, settle, and reside in all parts of” Haiti; there to “engage in business, hire and occupy warehouses, provided they submit to the laws, as well general as special, relative to the rights of traveling, residing, or trading." The fifth and seventh articles of the treaty are also pertinent, and these provisions taken together constitute a solemn guaranty of unmolested residence of our citizens in Haiti, so long as they shall obey the laws.

You will continue to advise the Department of what may transpire touching the questions arising between Haiti and France. I am, etc.,


Acting Secretary.

Mr. Smythe to Mr. Gresham.
No. 67.1

Port au Prince, Haiti, April 24, 1894.

(Received May 15.) SIR: I have received your No. 40 of diplomatic series in response to my No. 50 relating to the recent expulsion of certain French subjects from Haiti. I have unofficial information that the matter has been

settled, and that the French Government has either acknowledged the right of expulsion or has been satisfied of the justuess of the measure. I do not anticipate any action of this kind as against American citi. zens, because they pursue quietly their avocations and do not show any disposition to meddle with the politics of the country that affords them protection.

I note your instructions as to the rights guaranteed by the convention of 1864, and you may be assured that I will leave nothing undone to secure their strict and literal observance. It would give, however, an incorrect impression to your Department if by this assurance I conveyed or suggested a doubt of the absolute good faith of this Government. I observe your instructions, and will promptly report as directed. Iam, etc.,



Mr. Durham to Mr. Gresham.

No. 244.]

Port au Prince, Haiti, September 14, 1893.

(Received September 23.) SIR: I have received application from Stanislas Goutier, esq., our consul at Cape Haitian, to renew for his son, Stanislas Goutier, jr., who is attending school at this capital, a paper which he received from the Honorable Frederick Douglass, formerly'minister resident of the United States. I inclose a copy of the paper. While I am sure that the Department would not hesitate to recognize the son of Consul Goutier as an American citizen, I can find no authority for the form of the paper inclosed. I therefore respectfully ask to be instructed by you whether such certificate may be issued by this legation, or what should be done to protect Stanislas Goutier, jr., a minor, during his absence from his home, Cape Haitian. I have, etc.,


Mr. Adee to Mr. Terres.

No. 142.


Washington, September 26, 1893. SIR: I have received Mr. Durham's No. 244, of the 14th instant, reporting the request addressed to him by Mr. Goutier, consul of the United States at Cape Haitian, for the renewal of the certificate of citizenship given to his son by Mr. Douglass when minister to Haiti.

The only certification of United States citizenship permissible is by a regular passport issued in compliance with law and the regulations of this Department. It sometimes happens in Spanish-American countries that an alien is required to deposit bis passport with the legation or a consulate and receive a certificate of registry according to local formula, but Mr. Durham's dispatch does not intimate that the certificate was given to Mr. Goutier's son under such circumstances. I am, etc.,


Acting Secretary.



Mr. Uhl to Mr. Terres.

No. 57.]


Washington, August 24, 1894. SIR: I have received your dispatch No. 82,' of the 1st instant, concerning the recently revived Haiti law of September, 1864, relative to the arrival of persons from foreign countries in the open ports of the Republic or who depart therefrom on a voyage to foreign countries.

In reply, I have to say that there is no provision in the treaties between the United States and Haiti exempting citizens of the United States from any obligation to produce passports, or other evidence of nationality and identity, on entering Haitian territory. The requirement that arriving foreigners shall produce passports, formerly general in the intercourse of nations, is still retained by several important governments, and their right to prescribe such a requirement is inherent in their sovereignty and can not be contested.

The fee authorized to be collected for a visa attached to a passport by a consular representative of Haiti is one-half of a Spanish dollar, and can not be regarded as excessive. The fee prescribed by the United States Consular Regulations is $1 in United States gold

or its equivalent. The fee of $4 prescribed for the issuance of the Haitian certifi. cate of travel and residence is presumably what is objected to by persons resorting to Haiti, but as this is a purely municipal tax imposed indiscriminately, there is no ground for contesting it.

The renewed application of the Haitian law in question will be given to the press for the information of the traveling public. I am, etc.,


Acting Secretary.


Mr. Durham to Mr. Gresham.

No. 235.1

Port au Prince, Haiti, August 28, 1893.

(Received September 4.) SIR: I beg leave to inclose the accompanying project, which has been presented in the chamber of deputies here for legal enaction. It is a discriminating tax against foreigners in Haiti engaged in any active employment, and so far as it would affect American citizens would seem to violate the treaty between Haiti and the United States.

The feeling of antipathy for foreigners which seems to animate this project has caused some alarm among the foreign merchants. To the inquiries of American citizens, I have replied that so long as the pro. posed law remains a mere communication from the Executive to the legislative branch of the Government, this legation can not officially take cognizance of its existence without previous instructions from the Department.

Substance of this dispatch was printed in Consular Reports for September, 1894,

p. 144.

« ForrigeFortsett »