No. 59.
Mr. Evarts to Mr. Neyt.
Washington, August 13, 1880.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 22d ultimo, writ ten from Shelter Island, New York, in relation to the exchange of the ratification of the consular convention between the United States and Belgium, signed by Mr. Delfosse and myself on the 9th of March last, wherein you make special reference to the action of the Senate of the United States in qualifying its approval of that instrument by suppressing the word “alone” in the sixteenth line of the XIIth article, and at the instance of your government request to be informed of the motives for the omission of that word, which is found in the previous convention of 1868. You also desire, if possible, to be furnished with the minutes of the debate which took place in the Senate respecting this change in the text of the convention.
[Page 74]In reply I hasten to inform you that, in view of the independent and co-ordinate function of the Senate of the United States, under the Constitution, in the completion of treaties, the proceedings of that high body in executive session are held under the seal of secresy, and the results alone of its deliberations are communicated to the executive branch of the government. Hence my inability, which I regret, to communicate to you the information you desire. To understand, however, the motive for the omission of the word “alone” from the XIIth article of the present convention, it can only be necessary to go back to the like article of the previous convention of 1868 and examine the respective contexts. We find that formerly the word “alone” was qualified by the addition of the phrase, “without the exaction of any oath from the consular officers,” showing that no formality was needed save the written request, without other support, in order to secure the return of deserters from national ships. In the revised convention, among other modifications suggested by experience, the qualifying clause quoted above was omitted as redundant. This redundancy extends to the word “alone,” which, besides being superfluous to the sense of the clause where it occurs, is, in the English text, ambiguous. It will be perceived that, as it now stands, it may mean either that such written request, so supported, will be sufficient warrant for surrender, or that any other mode of procedure is inadmissible; and it follows that, while the first of these readings conforms with the sense of the French equivalent, either interpretation is redundant. It is, therefore, in my judgment, apparent that the motive for the action of the Senate, in striking out the word “alone” from the clause in question, is found in the desire to remove, not merely a redundancy, but an ambiguity which had persisted, unnoticed before, from the previous redaction now abandoned, and thus to leave the article free from all obscurity of interpretation as to the sufficiency or necessity of the formality prescribed.
If, as I take it, the equivalent word “seule” in the Belgian text is redundant merely, without ambiguity, the question of its retention or suppression may very properly be left to the good judgment of your government. Speaking in behalf of the Government of the United States, I, for my part, cannot perceive that in either case; whether “seule” be retained or suppressed, any question as to the proper interpretation of the clause under consideration could arise.
Trusting that the explanation thus tendered may be entirely satisfactory to your government, and remove all obstacle to the speedy exchange of the ratifications of the convention, I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you, sir, the assurances of my high consideration.