No. 345.
Mr. Langston to Mr.
Frelinghuysen.
Legation of
the United States,
Port-au-Prince,
Hayti, January 14, 1885.
(Received Jan. 28.)
No. 702.]
Sir: I have the honor, referring to your dispatch
No. 312, dated December 9, 1884, received on the 28th ultimo, to transmit,
as herewith inclosed, copies of the entire correspondence which has passed
between this legation and the Haytian Government as to the imprisonment and
release of Mr. C. A. Van Bokkelen.
It will be perceived from the dispatch of Mr. St. Victor, dated December 5,
1884, on this subject, herewith inclosed, with its translation, that after
acknowledging the receipt of my dispatch of the 4th of the month, denying
that I had had a conversation with him as to Mr. Van Bokkelen’s
incarceration, but stating that it was perhaps with his colleague, the
secretary of state of justice, he agrees to transmit a copy of my dispatch,
referred to, heretofore sent to you, to his colleague for his investigation
and consideration. Accordingly, on the 10th of December, 1884, Mr. St.
Victor addressed me a dispatch, containing under its cover an opinion of the
secretary of state of justice, in which the fact of Mr. Van Bokkelen’s
appeal from the decision of the civil tribunal to the court of cassation, as
regards his right to make an assignment of his property in the interest of
his creditors, is dwelt upon; and his right to make such assignment upon
proper security to the satisfaction of his creditors, since he cannot own
and hold real estate in this country, is admitted by the learned secretary
of state of justice. In view, however, of his colleague’s opinion, Mr. St.
Victor concludes his brief dispatch by holding that the imprisonment of Mr.
Van Bokkelen is made necessary by the condition of his case as it stands
before the courts,
[Page 483]
A copy of Mr. St. Victor’s dispatch, with its translation, and copies of its
inclosures, with their translations, are herewith transmitted. To this
dispatch and the opinion referred to I made a reply on the 11th of December,
1884. A copy of my dispatch is transmitted.
In this dispatch I seek to avoid extended argumentation. I insist
categorically that the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Van Bokkelen are
illegal, and that he should be released without delay. In pressing this view
I state that Mr. Van Bokkelen, after he has remained in confinement for
quite a year, contrary to the treaty existing between the United States and
Hayti, without judgment being rendered against him, and after he had offered
to make surrender of all his property to his creditors, according to the law
of Hayti in such cases provided. I ask his immediate freedom from further
imprisonment in this case.
I state, in concluding my dispatch, that I would like to have an answer so as
to communicate the reply of the Haytian Government to my own on the
following day, and ask it accordingly. But to this dispatch I did not get an
answer from the Haytian Government till the 19th of December last, when I
received a dispatch from Mr. St. Victor containing an Inclosure which
purported to be a full history of the cases in which Mr. Van Bokkelen
appears as a defendant, and in which judgments have been rendered against
him.
Mr. St. Victor, after alluding in his dispatch to his having advised me that
he had referred my dispatch to his colleague, the secretary of state of
justice, and after stating that he makes haste to transmit to me a copy of
the letter addressed to such officer on the subject, in which Mr. Vérité
presents the history of the cases in which Mr. Van Bokkelen figures, as
already stated, concludes by expressing the hope that I will, after
examining the considerations contained in this letter of the commissary of
the Government, renounce the opinion expressed in my dispatch of the 11th
December, and will let justice take its own course in the matter.
The commissary of the Government, Mr. Vérité, shows in his letter that
judgments against Mr. Van Bokkelen have been rendered in favor of some four
parties, as follows:
- (1)
- Messrs. L. Toplitz & Co., New York, for $3,496.86; judgment
rendered in the court of cassation February 15, 1883, and in default
of payment imprisonment is ordered for one year; and Mr. Van
Bokkelen was imprisoned, accordingly, March 5, 1884, on procedure
instituted by Mr. J. Archin, the attorney of the firm named.
- (2)
- The National Bank of Hayti for $400, not including interest,
charges, and expenses, and for $500, on same conditions, judgments
having been rendered in the court of commerce June 25, 1883, and in
default of payment imprisonment is ordered for three years in each
case; and Mr. Van Bokkelen was accordingly imprisoned March 5, 1884,
upon the procedure of the bank.
- (3)
- Mr. J. Archin, his judgment being for $635.68, rendered April 7,
1884, in the court of commerce, and in case of default of payment
imprisonment is ordered for three years.
- (4)
- Mr. St. Aude fils, for the restoration of 160 bonds upon the
caisse d’amortissement, the judgment rendered November 20, 1883, in
the civil tribunal, and Mr. Van Bokkelen was proceeded against for
imprisonment by Mr. St. Aude fils on the 31st day of March, 1884;
the court, however, does not seem to have fixed the time of
imprisonment in case of default as to its judgment.
As regards the “cession de biens” brought before the civil tribunal by Mr.
Van Bokkelen in favor of his creditors, Mr. Vérité says he believes
[Page 484]
that such tribunal rejected it by
its decision made May 27, 1884, against which Mr. Van Bokkelen has appealed
to the court of cassation, the supreme court of the country; and he
concludes his letter by expressing the hope that the information which he
furnishes will enable the secretary of state of foreign relations to reply
fully to my dispatch.
Copy of the dispatch of Mr. St. Victor, with its translation, and the letter
of Mr. Vérité, with its translation, are herewith transmitted.
This letter of Mr. Vérité states this whole matter of Mr. Van Bokkelen from
the Haytian standpoint in the strongest possible light in favor of that
Government against our citizen, and perhaps all that is said is true so far
as the proceedings which have been had against him are concerned.
His case, however, as regards the matter of his right to make an assignment
of his property in the interest of his creditors, and his right thereupon to
immediate release from imprisonment, under the law and the treaty of 1864
existing between our country and Hayti, are stated briefly, but I trust
clearly, in my dispatch of the 22d of December, 1884, a copy of which is
herewith transmitted.
It will be perceived that I claim that Mr. Van Bokkelen, an American citizen,
residing in Hayti, under the treaty of 1864 and Haytian law, which should be
construed and enforced in his case in the light of the treaty, according,
certainly, to the precedents of France, from whose legal provisions the very
language of the Haytian statutes is borrowed, has the same right to make an
assignment of his property in the interests of his creditors, and upon the
same conditions, that a Haytian has, and thus relieve himself from bodily
constraint.
It is well-nigh to the same conclusion that the honorable secretary of state
of justice comes in his learned opinion transmitted herewith, with his brief
note which accompanies it, and which indorses the general doctrine of the
opinion, as inclosures to Mr. St. Victor’s dispatch of the 10th of December,
1884. He would agree with me exactly did he not maintain the very absurd
doctrine that Mr. Van Bokkelen, unlike a Haytian, may be required, in the
matter of his assignment, to furnish security to the satisfaction of his
creditors, when no such requirement is made generally, and never of a
Haytian.
Referring to article 6 of the treaty, he uses the words, “the securities
required by his creditors,” as if these words had any application in a case
like this of Mr. Van Bokkelen. And then again, referring to article 9 of the
treaty, admitting that according to it an American citizen residing in Hayti
may dispose of his effects by sale, gift, testament, or otherwise, the
secretary seeks to discuss the question as to whether Mr. Van Bokkelen is
able to dispose at present of such amount of movable property as to
constitute a serious pledge, as he phrases it, which his creditors would
accept; as if such matter had legal significance, or as if such question was
ever debated in the case of a Haytian.
Another thing the honorable secretary entirely forgets to consider is the
term for which our citizen is to be imprisoned. The imprisonment of Mr. Van
Bokkelen aggregates in its duration, in the cases in which it is ordered by
the courts, ten years, each term, except that on the judgment in favor of
Toplitz & Co., being double the term which would be imposed in case of a
Haytian. And besides he forgets to indicate upon what authority Mr. Van
Bokkelen is now detained, in which one of the cases decided against him,
pending the consideration of his appeal in the matter of his denial of the
right in the civil tribunal to make an assignment on the sole ground of his
American nationality. On what judgment is he imprisoned?
[Page 485]
On the 27th day of December, 1884, Mr. St. Victor acknowledged the receipt of
my dispatch of the 22d of that month, and advised me that he had referred it
to the secretary of state of justice for his consideration of the objections
I offered to his view of the case, with the request that his response be
made as soon as possible. His dispatch to such effect, with its translation,
is herewith transmitted.
After waiting quite long enough for such promised answer from the honorable
secretary of state, I addressed him a brief dispatch to-day, asking him that
he let me hear from him without longer delay. I have the honor to transmit,
as herewith inclosed, a copy of my dispatch.
It will be observed that in my dispatch of the 22d of December last I
emphasize the fact that, in the court of cassation, so far by reason of an
apparent indisposition and non-action on its part, the appeal which Mr. Van
Bokkelen made and perfected therein long ago from the civil tribunal having
reference to his right to make an assignment of his property in the interest
of his creditors, has not been considered, as it ought to have been, and
disposed of; and to-day I beg to add, I find no promise of an early,
reasonable, and just consideration of the appeal in such court. Meantime,
our citizen, as I believe and maintain, is illegally restrained of his
liberty, and I have demanded his freedom. It does not matter that, by reason
of the feeble condition of his health, on my demands, he is permitted to
occupy quarters miserable enough at the military hospital of this city.
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No.
702.—Translation.]
Mr. St. Victor to
Mr. Langston.
Department of State of Foreign Relations,
Port-au-Prince, December 5, 1884.
Mr. Minister: I have the honor of acknowledging
the receipt of the dispatch which you addressed me yesterday, by which,
in referring me to a conversation which we have had, you say, on the
subject of the incarceration of Mr. C. A. Van Bokkelen, you protest
against the prolongation of his imprisonment, notwithstanding his
sickness, and contrarily, you think, to the law and to the usages of the
country, and you demand an “immediate examination” of this fact.
Permit me to observe to you that you are mistaken in suggesting that we
have had a conversation on the subject. Perhaps it may have been with my
colleague of the department of state of justice that you had such
interview.
Nevertheless I hasten to transmit to my colleague a copy of your
dispatch, with request to let me know the state of the affair of Mr. Van
Bokkelen. I will have the honor to transmit to you his answer as soon as
it reaches me.
Please accept, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No.
702.—Translation.]
Mr. St. Victor to
Mr. Langston.
Department of State of Foreign Relations,
Port-au-Prince, December 10, 1884.
Mr. Minister: I have the honor of confirming my
dispatch of the 5th instant in answer to yours of the 4th instant, on
the subject of the affair of Mr. C. A. Van Bokkelen.
The secretary of state of justice, whom I had begged to inform me of the
state of the question, responded to my demand on the 6th instant.
[Page 486]
Herewith is a copy of his dispatch, and of the one which he addressed to
you on the 18th of November last, in answer to the communications which
you had made to him directly on the same affair.
I invite your entire attention to these two documents, particularly the
last, which, while furnishing you all the information necessary, lead to
the conclusion that the prolongation of the imprisonment of Mr. Van
Bokkelen, detained at the hospital, is inherent in the state of his
affair before the courts.
Accept, &c.,
[Inclosure 3 in No.
702.—Translation.]
The secretary of state of the
department of justice to the secretary
of state of foreign relations.
Republic of Hayti,
Port-au-Prince, December 6,
1884.
My Dear Colleague: In answer to your dispatch
of yesterday, No. 231, inclosing copy of a letter that the minister of
the United States has addressed to you relative to the imprisonment of
Mr. C. A. Van Bokkelen, I forward to you under this cover, being unable
to make any other answer, copy of my dispatch to Mr. Langston on the
18th of November last, No. 554, which is based on the principles of the
laws.
My compliments.
A true copy.
The chief clerk of the division of foreign relations,
[Inclosure 4 in No.
702.—Translation.]
The secretary of state of the
department of justice to Mr. Langston.
Republic of Hayti,
Port-au-Prince, November 18,
1884.
Mr. Minister: I have the honor of returning to
you the two memoranda which you have had transmitted to me concerning
Mr. A. Van Bokkelen, applicant in judicial assignment of goods.
After an examination of these two documents, I find that according to the
terms of Article 794 of the code of civil procedure, which does not
admit strangers to the benefit of assignment, the civil court of this
place has rejected the request presented by Mr. Van Bokkelen, and this
decision has been deferred to the appreciation of the court of appeals
to be annulled, as having misinterpreted the spirit and text of the
sixth and ninth articles of the treaty between Hayti and the United
States of America. Moreover, I have remarked that one of the memoranda
says that in presence of this violation it is the duty of the Government
of Hayti to call the serious attention of the court of appeals to this
affair.
Allow me to observe to you, Mr. Minister, that this superior court having
taken up the affair of Mr. C. A. Van Bokkelen, will not fail, as it ever
has done, to conform to the law in rendering its decision, and that I am
no wise authorized, in my quality of secretary of state of justice, to
intervene to trace a course to be followed in this circumstance.
From my point of view, Mr. Minister, I think that article 6 of the treaty
gives to American citizens resident in Hayti the free access to the
courts of the Republic in all cases where they are interested, under the
same conditions as natives, but with this restriction, “furnishing securities required in the case.”
Now, to enjoy the benefit of assignment to which a stranger is not
admitted, conformable to article 794 of the code of procedure, by reason
that if he was admitted to this benefit, not having any real estate
guarantee to furnish, he might by disappearing render illusory all
pursuit that might be directed against him, it is necessary, as in this
case, that the American defendant furnish, according to the provision of
article 6, the securities required by his
creditors.
I also see that according to article 9 of the same treaty, the American
citizen may dispose of his movable goods by sale,
donation, testament, or otherwise. Relying on this last word, Mr. C. A.
Van Bokkelen in the present case would be able to make an assignment of
his movable property so as to enjoy the benefit of assignment in
question,
[Page 487]
but it remains to
know if this debtor can dispose of at ibis moment movable goods
sufficient to be a serious guarantee which his creditors would accept.
This is a question to be settled.
I take this opportunity, &c.,
A true copy.
The employé of first class,
A true copy.
The chief clerk of division of foreign relations,
[Inclosure 5 in No. 702.]
Mr. Langston to Mr.
St. Victor.
Legation of the United States,
Port-au-Prince, Hayti, December 11, 1884.
Sir: I beg to state, after acknowledging the
receipt of your dispatch of the 10th instant, with its inclosures, in
reference to the arrest and detention of Mr. C. A. Van Bokkelen, that
neither your dispatch nor the dispatch of the honorable minister of
public justice is responsive to my dispatch on the subject in any way or
sense.
It is admitted that Mr. Van Bokkelen has been arrested, and that he is
now in confinement. But I insist that his arrest and confinement are
both illegal, and hence Mr. Van Bokkelen should be released; and in
obedience to the instruction of my Government, I have brought the case
to the consideration of the Government of Hayti.
Now, Mr. Minister, in view of the law of the case, under the treaty made
and existing between Hayti and the United States of America, after Mr.
Van Bokkelen has remained in confinement for quite a year without
judgment being rendered against him, and after he has offered to make
surrender of all the property which he owns in the interest of his
creditors, according to the law of Hayti in such cases provided, I have
the honor, in the most respectful but earnest manner, to ask that your
Government direct his immediate freedom from further imprisonment in
this case.
I desire, Mr. Minister, to communicate to-morrow your decision in the
case to my Government, and therefore ask your immediate reply to this
dispatch.
Renewing, &c.,
[Inclosure 6 in No.
702.—Translation.]
Mr. St. Victor to
Mr. Langston.
Department of State of Foreign Relations,
Port-au-Prince, December 18, 1884.
Mr. Minister: In answer to your dispatch of the
11th instant on the affair of Mr. Van Bokkelen, I have the honor of
informing you that I submitted that dispatch to the secretary of state
of justice, begging him to make it possible for me to answer you as soon
as possible.
I hasten, therefore, to transmit herewith copy of a letter by which the
commissary of government of the capital gives to my colleague the
history of this affair.
I hope that after having well examined the considerations contained in
this letter of the commissary of government, you will renounce your
manner of viewing it expressed in your dispatch of the 11th instant, and
let justice take its course in the affair in debate.
Accept, &c.
[Inclosure 7 in No.
702.—Translation.]
The commissary of government of
the civil court of Port-au-Prince to the secretary of state of justice.
Port-au-Prince, December 18,
1884.
Mr. Secretary of State: Conforming to the
instructions contained in your dispatch of the 13th instant, I hasten to
bring to your knowledge that which follows:
Mr. Charles Adrien Van Bokkelen some time ago drew on the firm of L.
Toplitz
[Page 488]
& Co., of New
York, two drafts, amounting to the sum of three thousand four hundred
and ninety-six piasters, eighty-six cents value, which he should
reimburse in a fixed delay. At the expiration of this delay, Mr. Van
Bokkelen not having satisfied Messrs. Toplitz & Co., they encharged
Mr. Joseph Archin, lawyer of the bar of this city, to enter a law-suit
against the said Van Bokkelen to obtain payment. Mr. J. Archin set to
work and obtained in last resort of the two sections united of the court
of appeals of the Republic a decision pronounced in solemn session on
the 15th of February, 1883, condemning the said Mr. Van Bokkelen to pay
without delay to the said Messrs. Toplitz & Co. the above, with
interest, costs, and expenses, and in case of non-payment fixed one
year’s imprisonment, the duration of the bodily restraint exercised
according to the terms of article 8 of the decree of the 22d of May,
1843.
The said Mr. Van Bokkelen, not having acquitted, in contempt of the order
which had been given to him, he was confined in the prisons of this city
on the 5th of March of this year, by a bailiff’s clerk, on the request
of the said Messrs. L. Toplitz & Co.
Such was the state of affairs when the other creditors of Mr. Van
Bokkelen, who are mentioned below, hastened to recommend him on the
register of confinement of the prison, by virtue of judgment which had
acquired the authority of things adjudged emanating both from the court
of commerce and the civil tribunal of Port-au-Prince.
The said Mr. Van Bokkelen was recommended on the 5th of March of the
present year by the National Bank of Hayti, represented by Mr. J. C.
Antoine, lawyer of the bar of this city, in execution of a peremptory
judgment rendered on the 25th of June, 1883, by the court of commerce of
this place, condemning the said Mr. C. A. Van Bokkelen to pay to the
said bank the sum of four hundred piasters, not including interest,
cost, and expenses, amount of a note protested, subscribed by the said
Van Bokkelen to J. B. Souffront, and indorsed to the order of the said
bank, which judgment fixed at three years’ imprisonment the duration of
bodily restraint to be exercised in virtue of article 8 of the decree
aforementioned.
He was recommended on the same date, March 5, by the same bailiff, at the
request of the said National Bank of Hayti, in execution of another
judgment of the same court, condemning the said Mr. Van Bokkelen to pay
without delay to the said bank the sum of five hundred piasters, not
including interest, cost, and expenses, amount of another note
subscribed by the said Mr. Van Bokkelen to J. B. Souffront and indorsed
to order of the said bank, and in case of non-payment fixed the duration
of bodily restraint to be exercised, always in virtue of article 8 of
the decree above mentioned, to three years’ imprisonment.
He was recommended the 30th of April, 1884, by Joseph Archin, in virtue
of a judgment rendered by default the 7th of April of the current year
by the court of commerce of this place, condemning the said Mr. Van
Bokkelen to pay to the said Mr. J. Archin the sum of six hundred and
thirty-five piasters, sixty-eight cents, including interest, cost, and
expenses, amount of a note subscribed by Mr. Van Bokkelen, February 6,
1884, to Mr. H. Dalencourt, passed to the order of the said Archin,
fixing at three years’ imprisonment the duration of the bodily restraint
to be exercised in case of non-payment.
He was again recommended, March 13 of this year, by St. Aude fils, in
virtue of a peremptory judgment of the civil court of this place, at the
date of November 20, 1883, which condemns him to restore to the said St.
Aude one hundred and sixty bonds of the caisse d’amortissement,
&c.
Such, Mr. Secretary of State, is the precise information that I am called
to furnish to you on the motives determining the detention in prison of
this city of this stranger.
Now, as to what regards his demand of assignment of property brought
before the civil court of this place by the said Mr. Van. Bokkelen, in
favor of his creditors, I believe, to my knowledge, the said court has
rejected, by its decision of the date of May 27 of this year, decision
against the said Van Bokkelen, who has had recourse to an appeal to the
court of cassation. This supreme court has not yet rendered its
decision.
I would be happy if these informations here inclosed may enable your
colleague of foreign relations to answer, with full understanding of the
case, the diplomatic note of Mr. Langston, minister resident of United
States of America.
In this expectation, I have the honor, &c.,
A true copy.
The chief clerk of division (S),
A true copy.
The head clerk of the bureau of foreign relations,
[Page 489]
[Inclosure 8 in No. 702.]
Mr. Langston to Mr.
St. Victor.
Legation of the United States,
Port-au-Prince, Hayti, December 22, 1884.
Sir: After acknowledging the receipt of your
dispatch of the 18th instant, with its in closures, regarding the
imprisonment of Mr. C. A. Van Bokkelen, I have the honor, without
discussing with you at this time the historical statement with respect
to the several judgments rendered in your courts against him, as made by
Mr. Vérité, to state that Mr. Van Bokkelen is now deprived of his
liberty solely on the ground of his nationality, in contravention of the
plain provisions of the treaty of 1864, existing between the United
States of America and Hayti, and against the law of Hayti as the same
should be expounded and enforced in the case of a foreigner in debt, and
who seeks, by assignment of his property in the interests of his
creditors, to secure his release from prison.
Mr. Van Bokkelen is a foreigner—in the language of your law, a
“stranger”—but he is an American citizen, and, although this be true as
regards his status under our treaty, he is given the same rights and
immunities as regards and concerns the “cession de biens” as the Haytian
himself under the law of his country.
The language of the provisions of the law of Hayti upon this subject is
taken from the provisions of the law of France upon the same subject,
and in the French courts, as regards the construction of the words of
the law as applicable to foreigners seeking to avail themselves of the
right to make assignment of their goods, as Mr. Van Bokkelen does, the
right is never denied, but always conceded to them.
Under the treaty certainly, whether we consider simply the sixth and
ninth articles thereof, or its general text even as the same bears
indirectly on this matter, with the law of Hayti construed and applied
in the light thereof, Mr. Van Bokkelen is entitled to the immediate
decision of your court of cassation upon his appeal thereto, after being
denied such right in your civil tribunal almost a year ago, and
meantime, during such delay as may be required to arrive at such
decision, to his liberty, as he has tendered under the law the
assignment of all his effects of every kind and sort in the interest of
his creditors.
Now, Mr. Minister, is Mr. C. A. Van Bokkelen, an American citizen,
residing in Hayti, and doing business under the treaty of 1864
subsisting between our Governments, according to the law of Hayti as
properly construed, entitled to the right and privilege of making as a
Haytian an assignment of his property in the interest of his creditors,
and thus release himself from his present confinement?
It is this question which he sought to have answered in his appeal to
your court of cassation, an appeal made and perfected long ago, but to
this hour not considered by the court; which all the while discovers a
purpose not to hear and decide the case; and hence my demand, after so
long a time, with Mr. Van Bokkelen deprived of his freedom by
indisposition, apparently, and non-action on the part of the court, that
he be released from confinement while the court consults its convenience
as to when and how it
shall consider and determine the matter.
What else, Mr. Minister, can be done? Shall Mr. Van Bokkelen be held
longer, under the circumstances, deprived of his liberty?
Awaiting your answer, Mr. Minister,
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 9 in No.
702.—Translation.]
Mr. St. Victor to
Mr. Langston.
Department of State of Foreign Relations,
Port-au-Prince, December 27, 1884.
Mr. Minister: I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of the dispatch which you addressed me on the 22d instant,
in answer to mine of the 18th instant, which transmitted to you the
history of the affair of Mr. Van Bokkelen.
I have submitted your dispatch to the secretary of state of justice,
begging him to let me have as soon as possible, to be addressed to you,
his opinion on the objections which you present in regard to this
document.
Accept, &c.,
[Page 490]
[Inclosure 10 in No. 702.]
Mr. Langston to Mr.
St. Victor.
Legation of the United States,
Port-au-Prince, Hayti, January 14, 1885.
Sir: In acknowledging the receipt of your
dispatch of the 27th of last month, having relation to the affair of Mr.
C. A. Van Bokkelen, I have the honor to advise you that I await
impatiently the response which you therein promise to make to my
dispatch addressed to you on the 22d of December, 1884.
Be pleased, Mr. Minister, to let me hear from you without further
delay.
I am, &c.,
