It will be perceived that after quite a full statement of what Mr. St. Victor
conceives to be the international usage, which justifies his opinion that
his Government is not liable, under the circumstances, to our citizens whose
property was destroyed, and after stating that he had believed and felt that
he had a right to believe that I had accepted the doctrine held by his
Government on this subject, and had tacitly accepted the mode of settling
such claims proposed by it, he concludes his dispatch by declaring that he
cannot treat us as a favored nation, but invites attention to a plan of
agreement which constitutes the inclosure of his dispatch. In this plan he
provides for a mixed commission composed of six persons, who shall have
certain powers and discharge certain duties as therein defined and granted,
and whose findings shall be final and binding; and the amounts which they
shall award shall be paid in money of Hayti, under some special law to be
enacted by the corps legislatif.
In my dispatch, a copy of which, dated August 7, 1884, is herewith inclosed
and transmitted, I offer three objections to his plan: (1) That the
commission may not pass upon the question of the nationality or citizenship
of an American claimant; (2) that property destroyed should be estimated and
paid for in American money or its equivalent; and (3) that a day fixed and
certain should be determined, not exceeding
[Page 321]
a reasonable time after the publication of the
findings of the commission, for the payment of the awards which may be
made.
Then, as you will see, I reserve the full and entire right of our Government
to consider and reject any proposition which his Government may make with
respect to any one or all of the points submitted.
[Inclosure 1 in No.
661.—Translation.]
Mr. St. Victor to
Mr. Langston.
Department of State of Foreign Relations,
Port au Prince, July 30, 1884.
Mr. Minister: I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your dispatch of the 15th instant, No. 273, under the
inclosure of which I received two memoranda which you had prepared, one
naming the value of the losses sustained by American citizens during the
events at Port au Prince, on the 22d and 23d of September of last year,
the other fixing the mode which you propose for the settlement of such
indemnities.
In this same dispatch you declare, 1st, that such reclamations are
submitted without prejudice of other similar ones which may be presented
in the future, or of others provoked by insurrectionary movements or
events taking place in any other locality of the Republic, before or
during the year 1883; 2d, that your Government reserves the right, if it
should wish to do so, to employ diplomatic means for all reclamations of
its citizens injured in their natural rights or outraged in their person
by the Haytien authorities.
International law being explicit in a manner clear and precise upon all
these points, I confine myself, Mr. Minister, to giving you the
assurances that my Government will respect the doctrine and the
jurisprudence constantly followed in that regard by all the civilized
nations of the globe.
Thus it is admitted everywhere that Governments are not responsible for
losses and damages sustained by foreigners in case of civil war, since
sound reason refuses to admit that there is more protection due them
than to citizens of the country, who themselves are exposed to all the
perils of similar contingencies.
There exists no longer any controversy of the above, and you know as I,
Mr. Minister, that a number of Governments have not hesitated for some
time to consecrate these principles in their treaties.
So one is able to affirm to-day, without provoking any discussion on the
proposition, that all the nations of Europe and of America, without
exception, reject the indemnity and diplomatic intervention in favor of
foreigners for injuries suffered in case of internal dissension.
I do not doubt at all that the grand Republic which you represent would
not fail in honor to respect on this occasion, a doctrine which one of
its Secretaries of State has contributed to establish, to affirm, and to
generalize by his just refusal to admit the reclamations of Spain in a
riot which took place at New Orleans.
As regards the reserve which you make as to certain acts of abuse of
authority or of personal outrage, I ought besides to assure you that my
Government feels too deeply the sense of duty and justice, not to
conform itself strictly in such case to the provisions of international
law.
I hope, Mr. Minister, that this declaration of principles will give you
complete satisfaction, so that we will not have again, for the time, to
return to the above, disposed as we shall be to apply it vigorously, in
all its parts, when the facts shall be presented for our
examination,
I come to the occurrences at Port au Prince. You know as well as I do the
consideration which led the President of the Republic to act when he
recognized by a laudable spontaniety, and without any diplomatic
pressure, the principles of indemnities to be accorded to foreigners,
victims of such occurrences.
He had shown it more than once in his dispatches to the diplomatic and
consular corps, as well as in his conferences which had taken place at
the same time.
It is not, I ought to repeat it here, that the chief of state would
recognize the responsibility of Governments in case of civil war, but he
has followed on this occasion the example of certain great nations which
have been well disposed to accord, under form of succor, indemnities for
damages sustained in certain exceptional cases of internal troubles.
[Page 322]
It is not then certainly a precedent to be invoked, in the future and in
sound logic, this appreciation, as of a case determined, cannot at all
influence the doctrine above explained.
It is necessary now that I tell you in all candor, Mr. Minister, that I
was painfully impressed at the reading of your dispatch of the 15th
instant. I had a right to think that after the ten months which have
passed since the occurrences at Port au Prince, the correspondence which
yon have exchanged with the President of the Republic, the conferences
held at the national palace, the acceptance of the bases of a definite
settlement by all the powers interested, my circular of instructions to
the Haytien commission, whose labors are well nigh determined, I had a
right to think, I say, that you had tacitly accepted our mode of
procedure whereof you yourself, I believe, had from the first suggested
the idea.
After the reception of your letter of the 28th of May, I commenced to
feel the contrary, and I have been completely disabused in receiving
your plan of special agreement for the American indemnities.
For my Government would this not be to disregard the rules of
international law which establishes equality between the states if it
take engagement to settle these indemnities in an exceptional manner,
and contrary to all that which has been admitted by Great Britain,
France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Denmark?
If I accept your plan of agreement, without any modification, the
Government of these countries, will they not be able to make reproach
against mine for having considered the United States as a privileged
nation, and would they not in that respect be right, in rejecting this
inadmissible procedure, to declare that the labor of the mixed
commission upon the eve of being closed, in that which concerns them,
are annulled, and to demand that they be recommenced upon conditions of
justice and equality?
If I am compelled to take into consideration your plan of agreement, I am
only able to admit and sign it according to the bases arranged with the
other powers.
I have then the honor to propose the counter-plan herewith inclosed,
which embraces within its limits, and in which are found stated, the
principle of law, justice, equality, and reciprocity which cannot be
possibly rejected.
I will await, Mr. Minister, your new communications on this subject, and
I take advantage of this occasion to renew to you the assurances of my
high consideration.
The secretary of state of foreign relations:
