No. 378.
Mr. Bayard to Mr.
Thompson.
Department
of State,
Washington, July 20,
1885.
No. 13.]Sir: I inclose, with a reference to instructions of
the 25th and 26th ultimo in the case, a copy of a letter from Mr. C. A. Van
Bokkelen, who was released on the 27th May last (by what means does not
appear) from confinement in the jail at Port-au-Prince, where he had been
restrained at the suit of Toplitz & Co. for debt, some fifteen months,
in which letter he intimates that, in view of the apparent success of
Toplitz & Co. in securing their debt, which he assumes to be a fact,
other parties will pursue a similar course. I also inclose a copy of a
letter from the father, Mr. W. K. Van Bokkelen, of New York.
I have informed both father and son of the date of the general instructions
to you of June last on the subject.
As you are aware, your instructions fully cover the question of securing to
Van Bokkelen the treaty rights of procedure in the courts, whether as
plaintiff or defendant, on the same footing as a citizen of Hayti. If the
situation created by the Toplitz suit is to be renewed at the suit of other
creditors, you will use your utmost exertions to have Mr. Van Bokkelen’s
treaty rights duly respected. But no claim for damages for imprisonment is
to be presented by you without specific instructions of the Department.
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 13.]
Mr. C. A. Van
Bokkelen to Mr. Bayard.
Port-au-Prince, Hayti, June 25,
1885.
Mr. Secretary: Set at liberty on the 27th of
May last, I am up to this writing unable to state from any positive
knowledge or fact by whom or how.
I am only able to suppose that the Government of Hayti did it through its
secret agents, for the only possible way to obtain my release was by
paying the debt for which I was held, the Government of Hayti most
positively refusing to acknowledge that the position taken by the
previous administration, as well as the present, was correct, and that
my arrest and confinement was a positive violation of treaty rights, of
which refusal your Department must have long since been informed by our
late minister.
[Page 532]
Thus, after fifteen mouths of illegal and arbitrary detention, a citizen
of the United States finds himself on the streets of Port-au-Prince,
health destroyed from having been confined in a prison not fit for human
beings, obliged to render it habitable at his own expense. My credit in
business has been ruined, subject to arrest and imprisonment again for
similar cause, a party in New York having sent instructions to their
lawyer to proceed against me, although I have at this time $50,000 due
me by Haytians, part of same being in judgments.
I now ask of the Department that if it is its intention and
determination, as I believe it is, to have my rights respected, that
such measure will be taken at once that the Haytian Government shall
give to our minister here some public acknowledgment of my release
through it, and the right of Americans to make an assignment in virtue
of our treaty; for if it is not done, and that speedily, the same thing
may be gone over again, and at any moment my incarceration in the filthy
pen be my fate.
I addressed myself to the Hon. Mr. Thompson, asking him if he had
received any positive instructions in my case, as I wished to know what
my position was, being subject at any time to rearrest and confinement.
He informed me he had none, and awaited instructions before acting. You
cannot imagine how strange this sounded to me, after having read the
articles in the various papers relative to the active and strong steps
being taken by the administration to protect the rights of its citizens;
from which all foreigners here thought that at once an American could
walk the streets proudly, saying, “My Government knows the rights of its
citizens, and in every clime they shall be respected.”
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 13.]
Mr. W. K. Van
Bokkelen to Mr. Bayard.
504 Clinton Avenue,
Brooklyn, July 14,
1885.
Mr. Secretary: Dates from Port-au-Prince of
June 27 inform me that my son was still confined to his house, resulting
from effects of his long and illegal confinement by the Haytian
authorities.
In your communication of May 20 you informed me that all efforts would be
made to protect his interest, and that the newly-accredited minister
would receive special instructions in regard to this case.
My son writes me that he addressed himself to Minister Thompson on his
affairs, asking what disposition he would take to have guaranteed him
his liberty and due indemnity for the illegal act and violation of
treaty rights.
Mr. Thompson replied that he could take no action in the matter without
instructions from the Department, as he had none.
What a burlesque this is. I am informed that the minister goes with
instructions. He tells my son he has none.
Of course the Department is aware that the claim of Toplitz & Co. has
been paid by some one other than my son, or through any influence of
his, the presumption being that their lawyer, holding high position
under the Government, has, from the Government, obtained a
settlement.
The Government of Hayti still positively refuse to acknowledge that my
son, or any American, has the rights which you claim they are entitled
to in virtue of articles 6 and 9 of treaty; and if the influence
(private) which our late minister, J. Mercer Langston, had with the
President had not been brought into use, my son, so far as his
Government went, might have died in jail.
Messrs. Bertram Brothers, of New York, seeing that by the steps taken by
Toplitz & Co. the debt was paid, have written to their attorney
there to proceed against my son for a claim they have. Now, Mr.
Secretary, allow me to ask, is this thing to go on and my son, although
by your own showing, not liable to arrest and confinement, to be again
thrown into prison? Or will his Government once and forever firmly
establish his rights, and let all know that to be an American is to be a
man?
I am, &c.,
Pelletier gets his claim, but has gone where claims are of no use;
have it not so with Charles A. Van Bokkelen.
