[Inclosure in No.
37.—Translation.]
Mr. Saint
Hilaire to Mr. Morton.
Paris, September 15,
1881.
Sir: You are kind enough to leave with me a
copy of the dispatch addressed to your legation on the 23d of July
last, by the Secretary of State at Washington, in relation to the
difference which has arisen between France and Venezuela. The point
is therein insisted upon that the misunderstanding arises from the
neglect of the Government of Venezuela to pay promptly and in good
faith, the amount which it should have paid annually according to
the convention of 1864, to its French creditors. Mr. Blaine,
moreover, endeavors to show that the French Government has no reason
to consider the debt due to it as entitled to preference over that
which is due to other countries, the mere priority of a claim not
being sufficient to secure decision in favor of one creditor to the
exclusion of the others.
In regard to this latter point, it seems not to be out of place to
lay before the United States Government the text of the treaty
stipulation which places Venezuela under obligations to France.
Article IV of the treaty of July 29, 1864, is as follows:
“The Government of the United States of Venezuela specially hypothecates, as a guaranty of the execution of
the present treaty, 10 per cent, of the total amount of the annual
customs duties, both ordinary and extraordinary, that shall he
collected at La Guayra, Porto Cabello, Maracaibo, and Ciudad
Bolivar.”
We do not, therefore, base our claim upon priority, but upon the
precise text of a convention regularly and publicly concluded
between the two countries. From this evidently results the right of
preference for the French claims, for which provision was made in
1864, a kind of privilege which we cannot now renounce.
The delays which have taken place, moreover, in the payment of our
debt of 1864, do not constitute, as is apparently thought, the only
or the essential cause of the pending difficulties. The case
arising, it might perhaps not be impossible, either by adding to the
principal still due on this ground a sum designed to represent the
whole or a portion of the interest stipulated by another treaty
concluded in 1867, or by some similar arrangement to be devised
hereafter, it might not be impossible, I say, to conclude an
arrangement that would permit the Government of the French Republic
to renounce its privilege without prejudice to its citizens, who
would then be placed in the same category with the other creditors.
However, as we remarked in our note of the 13th of May last, the
Venezuelan Government has openly declared its intention to pay no
more heed to the treaties concluded between the two, countries. It
has refused, in total disregard of its solemn engagements, to
liquidate the claims not comprised in the arrangements of 1864,
1867, and 1868; and lastly, it has appeared determined not to
increase the sum finally appropriated to the payment of its
diplomatic debt, the amount of which is increasing, by reason of the
new debts already recognized or hereafter to be recognized.
The purpose which has been shown by the Venezuelan Government to
disregard, henceforth, its treaty obligations, is the true cause of
the attitude which we have reluctantly assumed, and so long as this
purpose shall be manifested we cannot advantageously examine any
proposals implying a resumption of the relations between the two
countries. We are, however, none the less sensible to the evidences
of good will
[Page 1226]
shown to us
by the Government of the United States, in endeavoring to devise the
bases of an acceptable arrangement, and we have never had an idea of
forestalling the effect of its good offices by any premature
action.
Accept, &c.
