Mr. Shannon to Mr.
Foster.
Legation of the United States,
Costa Rica, Nicaragua,
and Salvador,
Managua, December 15,
1892. (Received December 31.)
No. 258.]Sir: Referring to your No. Ill of the 3d
ultimo, relative to the case of Henry R. Myers, late consul of the
United States at San Salvador, I have the honor to inclose herewith
copies of two notes recently addressed
[Page 175]
by me to his excellency the minister for foreign
affairs of Salvador, repeating the views expressed in your No. 111. One
of these notes refers to the nature and terms of the agreement entered
into by Lieut. Denfield, U. S. Navy, with the secretary-general of the
Provisional Government of Salvador, and the other replies to the
propositions set forth in the note of Dr. Gallegos of the 26th of last
May.
It is now my intention to set out at once for San Salvador in the
execution of your instructions, and expect to reach that capital about
the 19th instant. In due time you will be fully advised of the result of
my efforts to settle the question.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No.
258.]
Mr. Shannon to
Señor Gallegos.
Legation of the United States,
Managua, November 26, 1892.
Mr. Minister: Referring to the courteous
note of your excellency of the 28th of last may, requesting me to
furnish a certified copy of the original of the agreement concluded
between the minister-general of the Provisional Government of that
Republic and Lieut. Denfield of the U. S. Navy, I have the honor now
to state that as certain documents relating to that agreement were
not to be found in the archives of this legation, I was obliged to
refer your excellency’s request to the Department of State at
Washington.
I am now able, after some considerable delay, which I assure your
excellency has been unavoidable, to make reply, and beg to say that
so far as the Department of State is informed there was no formal
written agreement signed by Lieut. Denfield and the Salvadorean
secretary-general. It is true that in my note to your excellency of
May 2, 1892, I stated that the agreement referred to was “expressed
in writing.” But those words had reference simply to the fact that
an agreement was made to carry out certain conditions, which were at
the time in writing, so that every occasion for misunderstanding
with respect thereto was removed.
In order that your excellency may have a full and complete
understanding of the nature of this agreement, I have the honor to
inclose herewith copies of all the documents relating thereto, which
I have this day received from the Department of State.
Your excellency will observe that Lieut. Denfield says in his report,
that after the first two conditions had been complied with, and the
third in so far as the property and archives were remaining, he
“then called on the secretary-general,” who “agreed to comply with
the remaining articles contained in the United States minister’s
letter of instructions.”
That this correctly expresses the understanding which was arrived at,
I believe has never been questioned.
With renewed assurances, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No.
258.]
Mr. Shannon to
Señor Gallegos.
Legation of the United States,
Managua, November 26, 1892.
Mr. Minister: I have the honor to state
that, a translation of your excellency’s courteous note of the 26th
of last May was promptly forwarded by me to the Department of State
at Washington, and if I have not been able before this to make reply
it has been due to causes beyond my control, resulting in an
unavoidable delay, which I trust your excellency will excuse.
In accordance with instructions received this day from Washington, I
beg now to communicate that your excellency’s note above referred to
has received attentive consideration from my Government, though it
fails, I regret to say, to change its
[Page 176]
views with respect to this unfortunate affair
and the proper principles which should govern its settlement.
Inasmuch as your excellency recognizes the “principles of justice
upon which rest the right to an indemnity for all the damage caused
to the American consulate,” and inasmuch as your excellency has
repeated that recognition in the name of the Government of Salvador,
the honorable Secretary of State is unable to understand the
contention of your excellency that the Government of the United
States should be entirely excluded from the determination of its
amount.
The simple statement of the difference between the respective
positions of the two governments furnishes its own comment. The
Government of the United States insists that the question of the
amount of indemnity is one for common agreement between the two
governments; it makes no claim of any right to determine it alone,
but only to participate in its determination. The Government of
Salvador on the other hand maintains it is a question for its own
exclusive settlement through its own tribunals.
Did it promise any good purpose there might be a reconsideration in
detail of all the points that have been so fully elaborated in your
excellency’s note, but as it is evident that this already prolonged
discussion is not serving to bring the views of the two governments
into accord, your excellency will permit me, without reiterating the
views of my Government, which are maintained as heretofore
expressed, to proceed at once to the offers mentioned at the close
of your excellency’s note.
Your excellency proposes to submit to the Salvadorean tribunal of
public credit “to decide regarding the indemnity to be paid, fixing
the amount and the mode of payment.” This proposition I am
instructed to say is no wise different in principle from the general
one which was made in your excellency’s note of January 2, last, to
refer the matter to the tribunals of Salvador. My Government is
necessarily as constrained to refuse the one as it was the other. If
the Government of your excellency desires for its own information to
take the advice of its tribunal of public credit with respect to the
amount of damage which was done, it of course can do so, and should
the sum recommended by that tribunal be thought by my Government to
be reasonably sufficient, it would gladly accept it. But it could
not otherwise.
As to the minor and incidental question with respect to the justice
of making some reparation for the personal injury done to Mr. Myers,
your excellency proposes that this be referred to the arbitration of
a friendly power. My Government always welcomes such a mode of
adjustment of international differences, in every proper case where
such a resort becomes necessary. But I am sure that your excellency
will agree with me that it would be quite futile to refer to
international arbitration simply an incidental feature of this case,
and that its least important one. Then, too, the whole affair is
hardly worthy to be dignified by a proceeding of that
importance.
My Government still feeling confident that your excellency and myself
could, in a personal conference, easily agree upon a settlement of
this matter mutually satisfactory to both governments, I propose
shortly to visit that capital, when, if agreeable to your
excellency, I shall hope to be favored with a personal conference to
that end.
In conclusion I am instructed to say that any reasonable sum
sufficient to reimburse my Government for the destruction of its
property and the property of its consul, and to afford some slight
reparation to Mr. Myers for his injuries, would be entirely
satisfactory. And should the Government of your excellency upon
further consideration desire of itself to propose such a sum, the
spontaneity of such an offer could but strengthen the already
happily existing bonds of friendship uniting the two republics.
With renewed assurances, etc.,
