Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 3, 1888, Part I
No. 669.
Mr. Rives
to Mr. Thompson.
Washington, October 31, 1888.
Sir: As you will perceive by the inclosed copy of correspondence I had with Mr. Goutier, consul at Cape Haytien, the Department has been constrained to correct his recent repetition of the error into which he fell, in October, 1885, of announcing to the consular agents within his jurisdiction that “the United States Government does not recognize the right of asylum in consulates for political refugees.”
I am, etc.,
Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Goutier to Mr. Rives.
Cape Haytien, October 8, 1888. (Received October 26.)
Sir: I deemed it prudent, at the outset of this revolution, to caution our consular agents at Gonaïves and Port de Paix, against receiving refugees in their consular agencies, and I inclose No. 1, a copy of my letter to Mr. Etéart Dupuy, on that subject.
The people here have protested against the provisional government, and are preparing for secession and civil war, should General Légitime remain a candidate for the Presidency.
I have been doing all that I can to bring about a better feeling, but to no avail. As a last resource, I have just written to our minister, Dr. Thompson, and inclose No. 2, a copy of my letter.
I am, sir, etc.,
United States Consul.
Mr. Goutier to Mr. Dupuy.
Cape Haytien, August 16, 1888.
Sir: In view of the revolutionary state of this country, I deem it my duty to inform you that the United States Government does not recognize the right of asylum in consulates for political refugees; consequently you have no right to receive refugees in your consular agency.
Should you so receive them, and difficulty in consequence arise, you would, in that case, have forfeited all claims to the support of the Government of the United States.
However, as consular officer of a great Christian nation, you may be expected to use, on all proper occasion, judiciously, your good offices in behalf of moderation and humanity, exercising at the same time a wise discretion in seeking to avoid all difficulties and misunderstandings with the authorities of the Government within your consular agency.
I am, etc.,
United States Consul.
Mr. Goutier to Mr. Thompson.
Cape Haytien, October 8, 1888.
Sir: The entire north and northwest are decidedly in earnest in their intention to secede should General Légitime continue to be a candidate for the Presidency. More than this, they are already preparing for it; they are preparing for war.
I can give you no idea of the hostile feelings of the people of Cape Haytien, as well as the country people. There is but one cry for vengeance since the death (but they say the murder) of General Séide Télémaque and a number of his men.
In view of this impending fratricidal war and its disastrous results the consuls here are of opinion that the diplomatic and consular corps at Port au Prince might, by using such means as they deem proper, by appealing to the patriotism of the members of the provisional government, or the existing authorities, induce them to have General Légitime’s name withdrawn from the list of candidates for the Presidency, being that alone can save Hayti from all the horrors of civil war with its direful consequences.
I most respectfully recommend these suggestions, hastily put together, to your earnest consideration and superior knowledge; and I do so with more confidence, knowing your sympathy for this struggling Republic.
I am, etc.,
United States Consul.
Mr. Rives to Mr. Goutier.
Washington, October 31, 1888.
Sir: Your dispatch No. 912, of the 8th instant, transmits your circular instruction of August 16 last, to the consular agents at Gonaïves and Port de Paix, cautioning them as regards the so-called “right” of political asylum.
Your caution was timely, in view of the distressing events then apprehended, and which have since taken place in Hayti; and it is only regretted that you have again fallen into the error of announcing that “the United States Government does not recognize the right of asylum in consulates for political refugees,” which error the Department pointed out and corrected in its instruction to Mr. Thompson, No. 29, of November 7, 1885. That instruction, including your dispatch to the Department of October 14, 1885, No. 757, which called it forth, is printed in the volume of Foreign Relations for 1886: pages 530–531, but in case you should not possess the book, a copy of the correspondence referred to is attached hereto for your convenient information.
The position of this Government, briefly summarized, is this: We do not regard extraterritorial asylum, either in a legation or a consulate, as a right to be claimed under international law. We do not sanction or invite the exercise of asylum in those countries where it actually exists as a usage, but in such cases we recognize and admit its existence, and should circumstances bring about the uninvited resort-of a political refugee for shelter to a consulate or legation of the United States, we should expect equal toleration and privilege in this regard with that allowed by such local usage to any other consulate or legation.
This statement shows the error into which you have fallen in instructing the consular agents that, should they receive political refugees, and difficulty arise in consequence, they would “in that case have forfeited all claims to the support of the Government of the United States.” Only the reported facts of an actual case arising could enable the Department to determine whether an abuse of the local usage had been committed.
The present instruction taken in connection with the memorandum on the subject communicated to you with the Department’s No. 185 of August 23, 1884, will doubtless make this complex and delicate question sufficiently clear for your guidance.
A copy of this correspondence will be sent to the legation at Port au Prince for its information.
I am, etc.,
Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Bayard to Mr. Thompson.
Washington, November 7, 1885.
Sir: The subject of asylum in Hayti, to which reference was made in my instruction No. 28 of the 3d instant, is again brought to the Department’s attention by the representations of Mr. Goutier, United States consul at Cape Haytien, a copy of whose dispatch, No. 757, of the 14th ultimo, is herewith inclosed for your information.
Mr. Goutier sets out with an erroneous summing up of the position taken by this Government in the premises. He says in one place that “the United States does not recognize the right of asylum in her consulates;” and, further, that “it is plainly set forth that this right is not admitted.”
The statement properly should be that the Government of the United States does not claim for its legations abroad any extraterritorial privileges of asylum, and consequently makes no such claim in respect of consular offices, or private residences of American citizens, or American merchant vessels in port. If, as a custom, in any country, the practice of asylum prevails, and is tacitly or explicitly recognized by the local authorities in respect of legations, consulates, private dwellings, or vessels of another nationality, the exercise of the consuetudinary privilege by Americans could not be deemed exceptional; and if, under any circumstances, refugees find their way to places of shelter under the American flag, or in the domicile of American citizens, we should certainly expect such privileges as would be accorded were the like shelter under the flag or domicile of another power. But we claim no right or privilege of asylum; on the contrary, we discountenance it, especially when it may tend to obstruct the direct operation of law and justice.
[Page 939]Mr. Goutier next refers to the case of the insurgent who took refuge on the French hark Panama, and says that with the Department’s instructions in view he would have been much perplexed had the vessel been American, for, says he, “it would have been my duty to allow the authorities to go on board and arrest that Haytian insurgent.” And Mr. Goutier goes on to argue that if any other power claims the right of asylum in a given case, the United States could not forego a similar claim without loss of prestige.
As we understand the case of the Panama, the local authorities applied to the consul for permission to go on board and take the fugitive. In a case which recently arose in Cuba, where application was made to a consul to order the delivery of a person then on board an American vessel in port, who was accused of common crimes, and where the consul, after examining the charge against the person, ordered the captain to deliver him up, this Department held that the consul had no authority to order such surrender.
* * * * * * *
It does not seem pertinent to the present instruction to discuss the ethics of humanity, to which Mr. Goutier adverts. Section 48 of the Department’s lately issued personal instructions to its diplomatic agents abroad is abundant evidence that the principles of common humanity, where arbitrary pursuit of merely political offenders is concerned, have not been overlooked in its ruling.
This instruction will enable yon to answer Mr. Goutier, and you are requested to do so. It will also serve for your guidance in dealing with questions of this nature which may hereafter arise.
I am, sir, etc.,
Mr. Goutier to Mr. Hunter.
Cape Haytien, October 14, 1885.
Sir: We have been instructed that the Government of the United States does not recognize the right of asylum in her consulates, and in the confidential memorandum sent last year to the German minister at Washington in relation to the views of our Government on the right of asylum in Hayti, it is plainly set forth that this right is not admitted.
If that Haytian insurgent who had taken refuge on board of the French bark Panama, as related in my No. 756 of the 12th instant, and the French vice-consul would not permit the authorities to go on board for the purpose of arresting him, had taken refuge on board of an American vessel, with these instructions in view, I would have been much perplexed, for it would have been my duty to allow the authorities to go on board and arrest that Haytian insurgent.
His doom would have been sealed! Still it seems to me that a consul of the United States ought to occupy in Hayti the same position as that occupied by the consuls of the other great powers. For such a difference in affording protection in this country would be looked upon by the ignorant masses as a mark of inferiority, and would give a certain prestige, even to consuls of second-class powers, not enjoyed by those of the American nation.
I know that the action of the French vice-consul in refusing to permit the authorities to go on board the French bark Panama to arrest that Haytian insurgent, as well as the so called right of asylum in Hayti, are in direct violation of international law and usage.
Still* ** we can not be surprised to find the great powers rather reluctant to relinquish a course of action which, in some instances, has been abused; but these abuses fade to insignificance when placed beside the countless good they have accomplished.* * * I shall endeavor to keep my consulate free of refugees, without it be in exceptional cases where human life is wantonly destroyed. Then, as consul of a great Christian nation, obeying the supreme law of humanity, I would be impelled to save as many lives as I possibly could.
I would be thankful should the Department be pleased to outline some general instructions, in order that I might act knowingly, especially should Haytians seek protection on board of American vessels in this port.
* * * * * * *
I am, etc.,
United States Consul.