It will be seen that the note professes to give an outline both of the
unsatisfactory relations which have arisen between the two republics of this
island and of the efforts which have been made by the Dominican Government
to improve those relations, and that its recitals and general tenor are such
as to lead to the conclusion that the responsibility for the actual
condition of things between the two republics rests with Hayti. As a whole,
it might be taken as even a bold affirmation of the
[Page 314]
correctness of the statements and apprehensions
somewhat reservedly expressed in my dispatches of recent dates, numbered
498, 507, and 508, and I must give it as my impression that, with few
exceptions, the assertions in the note are fairly reliable.
But I do not think, as it is affirmed in the plenipotentiaries’ note, that
this government has “consented,” although it may have, and probably has,
tacitly permitted and so connived “that armed incursions against, the public
order and tranquillity of the Dominican Republic should have their center
and headquarters of depredatory operations on the frontiers of Hayti.” For
since the ignominious failure of Soulouque to subdue the Dominicans by force
of arms in 1855–’56, the policy of this government in regard to that of
Santo Domingo has, according to the best of my knowledge and belief, been to
keep up before the world an Appearance of friendly relations between the two
republics, while at the same time it has, except under Salnave, steadily,
but covertly, sought to foment discord among the Dominicans, and most
cunningly and secretly to intermeddle in and control their political
affairs. Therefore, whatever provocation the plenipotentiaries may have had
for the assertion, I am sure this government does not wish or intend other
nations to understand or be able to prove that “the Haytian authorities act
toward the Dominicans as if they had not the least international obligation,
according either to the law of nature or the law of nations.”
It has all along been my impression that President Baëz perfectly comprehends
the policy of this government toward his own. And I regard his endeavor,
through the sending of plenipotentiaries hither to settle in an amicable way
the difficulties which have arisen between the two governments, not only as
discreet and wise, but also as one which ought to disarm this government of
all pretext for further clandestine or other interference in the internal
political affairs of the Dominican Republic.
It appears to me, also, that the Dominican plenipotentiaries, in their
argument favoring the recognition of the treaty between the two countries,
had right, justice, and honor on their side.
[Inclosure.—Translation.]
The Dominican
plenipotentiaries to the foreign
representatives at Port-au-Prince.
Dominican Legation,
Port-au-Prince, July 27,
1877.
To the diplomatic or consular
representatives of the United States of America, of France, of
England, and of Spain, at Port-au-Prince:
Messieurs les Représentants: In our quality of
diplomatic envoys of the Government of the Dominican Republic near the
Government of the Republic of Hayti, it is of our greatest interest—an
interest altogether moral and patriotic—to bring to your knowledge both
the actual state of the official relations between the two governments
above mentioned and the results which, in regard to these relations, our
labors in the view of formalizing and fixing them according to the
principles of the law of nations universally admitted, have
obtained.
The Dominican nation, by a spontaneous and unanimous effort, in December,
1876, overthrew the usurped and derisive dictatorship of Mr. Ignacio M.
Gonzales, who imposed himself by surprise and force upon the legitimate
government of Mr. Ulises Espaillat. General Baez was in consequence
invested with supreme power, and the fall of Gonzales responded so
perfectly to the general wish that President Baez in order to establish
his government had no occasion to employ any dictatorial act or to
[Page 315]
combat any resistance. He had
the happiness to insure peace to his fellow-citizens, and to establish
his administration on the basis of eminently liberal principles and
strictest equity.
But the government of Mr. Baez found in its path, from its first day, the
ill will of the Haytian Government, which, in contempt of the treaty
existing between the two nations sought to entice over to Haytian
territory all the discontented who, without constraint of any kind,
chose to withdraw from Dominican authority; and then it consented that
armed incursions against the public order and tranquillity of the
Dominican Republic should have their center of organization and
headquarters of depredatory operations on the frontiers of Hayti.
Prohibitions on the commerce of Dominican produce were established by
the Haytian custom-house regulations to the prejudice and in flagrant
violation of the above-named treaty; and, finally, the Haytian
authorities act toward the legitimate government of the Dominicans as if
they had not the least international obligation, according either to the
law of nature or the law of nations.
The reclamations of the Dominican authorities as to the disorders on the
frontiers are altogether, useless; and, in consequence, a handful of
insurgents hold in check the troops of the Dominican Government, which,
in fact, finds itself under the weight of enormous expenses in order to
face insignificant bands that freely cross and recross the Haytian
frontier. It was in vain that, soon after his elevation to power,
President Baez was pleased to resort to conciliatory measures and to
appeal to reason and justice to bring the Haytian Government to a
respect of the public faith of nations. To this end he caused a
commission to come to Port au Prince in January last, to reclaim arms
belonging to the Dominican Government, and to demand the suppression of
the insurgents, who had just then opened hostile operations on the river
Massacre, near Dajabon. At the same time, the Dominican commissioner
came charged to make the otter of the pacific sentiments of his
government to the Haytian Government, and to seek the strengthening of
good relations by means of the complete execution of the clauses of the
treaty.
The commissioner obtained nothing; a marked coldness, evasive answers,
and insolent demeanor (manifestations
outrageantes) in return for the loyalty of the Dominican
Government, finished by convincing our commissioner, Mr. Cabral, that
there were, on the part of the Haytian Government, a foregone conclusion
(parti pris) and insurmountable prejudices.
It was under these painful impressions that he returned to Santo Domingo
and rendered an account of his mission.
The government of President Baez was not disheartened notwithstanding
this unhappy trial. Holding it at heart to give a more convincing
testimony of his moderation and his desire for concord with the
neighboring country, he decided that a new commission should be
furnished, with conciliatory instructions, in order to come to a
reasonable agreement by means of new engagements efficacious enough to
assure the Haytian Government itself as to the point of its injurious
suspicions growing out of imputed projects of Dominican annexation. Upon
us, the undersigned, fell the honor of being selected for this mission
of peace. We have done our best to fulfill our mission; but we have
stranded upon the same prejudices and the same foregone conclusion (parti pris) as those upon which our predecessor
stranded. Furthermore, we have found Mr. Gonzalez established at Port au
Prince working actively to produce new uprisings in favor of his own
restoration to power, and the first effect of his labors was the
insurrectionary attempt which broke out and was crushed at Puerto Plata
the 1st of July instant.
We were under the obligation of causing the Haytian minister of foreign
affairs to feel how pressing was the necessity of putting an end to this
disorder and to these criminal intrigues against the public tranquillity
of the Dominicans, and of faithfully executing the stipulations of the
treaty in vigor; but the minister evaded our reclamations, in objecting
to us that “the national assembly of Hayti having declared null and void
the acts of General Domingue’s government, the Dominico-Haytian treaty
remains struck with the same nullity”; and the same Mr. Ethéart
submitted to us on the 14th of July a verbal communication containing
the conditional bases for new conventions to be entered into; he put in
advance, as one of the dispositions already decided upon by his
government, the proposition here below copied textually:
“The Dominico-Haytian treaty, signed November 9, 1874, between the
government of General Domingue and that of General Gonzales, remains
null and void, as the secretary of foreign affairs of the republic of
Hayti had already caused it to be understood, as well in his collective
note addressed to the (diplomatic) agents accredited in this country as
in the exposition of the situation (President’s message) to the national
assembly. It must be considered that the denunciation (dénonciation) of this treaty is obligatory in some sense upon
this high functionary, the corps legislatif, whose decisions he must
respect, defend, and execute, having consecrated similar dispositions in
the law of October 6, 1876.”
We demanded on the other hand, as was just and natural, that the treaty
should be modified by the common accord of the two contracting parties,
for we could not admit that the public powers of Hayti, of their own
exclusive authority, should put
[Page 316]
aside, by a local law, the international conventions which were
excluded from the local jurisdiction of either of the contracting
parties. We desired very much to begin at once the reform of the treaty,
doing justice, as much as possible, to the pretensions ‘of the Haytian
Government; but we sustain the validity of the treaty, as the necessary
starting point, so that the new conventions might carry in them the
guarantee of the reciprocally guarded faith indispensable to their own
validity and their future solidity. Here, then, is the variation made by
us in the sense and to the letter of the proposition of the Haytian
minister, by form of counter-proposition:
“To proceed to the immediate execution of the treaty in the part which,
by its non-fulfillment,, affects the public peace, the security and the
legal order existing in the Dominican Republic, and to adopt the same
treaty as the starting point for the stipulation of new bases, by the
means of which remain, from that time, in suspense, the clauses judged
prejudicial to the interests of either of the contracting parties, and
in course of execution all the other clauses until the definitive
formation of new conventions.”
“This formula,” we added in our dispatch of July 17th, addressed to the
secretary of foreign affairs, “would offer the advantage of causing to
cease without delay all the causes of distrust, coldness, and
malevolence by which are strained to-day the relations of the two
countries; the principle of the inalienability of the territory would
remain ipso facto, agreed to conformably to what
the government established in the third proposition of the verbal
communication which is in substance the tenor of the third article of
the treaty of 1874, and so also the delimitation of the frontiers would
become obligatory in the same form consecrated by article 4 of the same
treaty.”
The secretary of state, in a conference held with us the 21st, expressed
to us the absolute impossibility of admitting the validity of the
treaty, and promised us a written answer by the 25th. This date passed
without result; we then notified the minister, according to his verbal
declaration of the 21st, that our conscience, our instructions, and the
dignity of the Dominican Republic not permitting us to consent to the
counter-judicial sense of not absolutely recognizing the obligations of
the treaty; having the conviction that all delay not justified in our
negotiations is equivalent to a moral complicity in the revolts and
machinations which flourish in Hayti against our country, we were
obliged to declare the negotiations finished and to return to Santo
Domingo by the occasion fixed upon to-day the 27th, and we have closed
our communication to the Haytian minister with these final
paragraphs:
“Let it be known, Mr. Minister, before the Haytian people, before all the
enlightened nations, before God, and before the civilized world, that
while in Hayti are put aside “the subsidiary obligations, and the
commercial franchises stipulated between the two republics; while in
Hayti a solemn conviction which fraternally united the two sovereign
peoples of the Island, has been disowned and denied; while in Hayti have
been carefully nourished and guarded the elements of the bloody
intestine struggles of the Dominicans in giving illimited asylum and
assuring the impunity of the conspirators; in indefinitely retaining
arms which belong to the Dominican Republic—the Dominican Government has
made two infructuous attempts to re-establish peace, and to cement frank
and loyal relations between the two states.”
The minister answered us under date of yesterday, confirming to us his
verbal declaration relative to the nullity of the treaty.
This is the condition in which the relations of the Dominican Republic
remain with Hayti: The Haytian Government, retrenching itself in a
non-political sense, denies all at once the obligations which the public
faith engaged in a solemn treaty impose upon it, and the simple duties
of good neighborhood according to the law of nations. The treaty
disowned, signifies the reserve of a liberty of illimited action in
maintaining the revolt on the Dominican frontier, and the conspiration
against our republic at the capital of Hayti. We pray you to please take
note of this situation, and to render an account thereof to your
respective governments, so that they may in advance be provided with the
information necessary to appreciate with justice future
eventualities.
We have the honor, Messieurs les Représentants, to offer to you the
assurances of our very distinguished consideration.
- FELIPE D. F. de CASTRO.
- MANUEL de J. GALVAN.
