Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President, Transmitted to Congress December 2, 1895, Part II

Mr. Olney to Mr. Young.

Department of State,
Washington, January 30, 1896.

No. 263.]

Sir: The Department has carefully gone over the claim of J. H. Hollander against the Republic of Guatemala with intent to dismiss it or press it to a settlement, according to its merits.

The admitted facts are, as outlined in the instruction to you of May 6, 1893, as follows:

In the year 1888 Mr. Hall was the minister of the United States at Guatemala. Mr. Hosmer was the United States consul-general there, and Hollander, an American citizen, was residing there publishing a newspaper by license of the Government of Guatemala. During that year Mr. Hollander made affidavit before Mr. Hosmer that Mr. Hall and certain high officials of Guatemala had been beneficiaries of a fraudulent overissue of bonds of that Government; that Mr. HalFs participation therein was shown by the books of certain bankers there, and that a certificate of a prominent citizen, Mr. Herrera, showed the complicity of the Guatemalan officials. Hollander filed the alleged certificate with Mr. Hosmer. Mr. Hall, hearing of these charges, asked Mr. Hosmer for Hollander’s affidavits, the alleged certificate of Herrera, etc. These were refused, but copies were given him, and he (Mr. Hall) brought the matter to the attention of the Guatemalan Government, asking an investigation. The investigation was held and resulted in Hollander’s arrest and imprisonment on February 8, 1889, on a charge of calumny and forgery. Before Hollander’s trial came on and while he was in prison, he was, on May 14, 1889, expelled from the country by an Executive decree. The expulsion followed immediately on the decree, and he was not even allowed to see his family, or to make any business arrangements whatever.

Upon this state of facts this Government demanded a reasonable indemnity for Hollander, upon the ground that the harsh and hasty manner of his expulsion was in violation of international law. In its reply of December 22, 1893, the Guatemalan Government said:

It is impossible to lay aside the right which the Government had to expel Mr. Hollander at the hour and in the conditions that, according to its judgment, were convenient. The Government was not under obligation to allow him more or less time to get out of the country, nor to accommodate him in any way. All the practices of international jurisprudence, supposing them to be certain and indisputable, fall down before a law clear that comes immediately from the sovereignty of a nation. The stranger who lands on our shore knows, or ought to know, that he is exposed to those eventualities, if he does not observe a convenient behavior, and he who puts in practice a right, as the Government of Guatemala has done, does not cause injury nor violate other people’s rights. Whatever may be the consequences of Mr. Hollander’s expulsion he must blame himself only, and lament them as the result of his want of prudence. This is an argument that, in my opinion, can never be answered satisfactorily. I shall say no more about it, because it seems unnecessary to explain a point in itself so clear. It is contradictory not to allow that the Government had the right to expel Mr. Hollander, and to want indemnity for a legal act.

“The practices of international law * * * fall down before a law clear that comes immediately from the sovereignty of a nation.” The logical result of that proposition is that whatever a State by legal formula wills to do, it may do; and that international obligations are annulled, not infringed, by legalized administrative action in contravention of those obligations. The United States is unwilling to accept that proposition as seriously presented by Guatemala. I construe the language used to mean that as a rule of international law the right of expulsion is absolute and inherent in the sovereignty of a State; and that no other State, can question the exercise of this right nor the manner of exercising it. It is possible some authority may be found in support of that view, and that it obtained in the earlier practice of nations; but the modern theory and the practice of Christian nations is believed to be founded on the principle that the expulsion of a foreigner is justifiable only when his presence is detrimental to the welfare of the State, and that when expulsion is resorted to as an extreme police measure it is to be accomplished with due regard to the convenience and the personal and property interests of the person expelled.

In 1888 Rolin Jacquemyns, the secretary general of the Institute of International Law, made a report to that body on the “Right of expulsion of foreigners,” which is published in the Revue de Droit International (Vol. XX, p. 498, and following). The report was in answer to a call by the association for an examination of the question “In what manner and within what limits governments may exercise the right of expulsion of foreigners?” This jurist says:

The first condition of the existence of a state is not only the existence of a group of citizens who recognize its sovereignty, but also the existence of a territory on which this sovereignty is exercised, as a matter of fact and of right, to the exclusion of any other sovereign authority. But this sovereignty would be compromised if it were possible for persons under no political obligation to the state which they enter, who contribute nothing in the way of personal service, and whose country, in short, is elsewhere, to install themselves there and defy the local authorities, by whom their presence is regarded as dangerous or injurious to the community.

Upon this principle of territorial sovereignty he formulates the fundamental rule that—

Every state may limit the admission and the residence of foreigners upon its territory by such conditions as it deems necessary. But [he adds] there is another consideration which tends, not to annul, but to restrain this exercise of territorial sovereignty. The individual expelled has the double quality of being a man and a citizen of another state. As a human being, he has the right to be exempt from needless harsh treatment and from unjust detriment to his interests; in his quality of citizen of another state, he has a right to invoke the protection of his country against unduly rigorous treatment and against spoliation of his property. The act of expulsion ought to conform to its direct, essential object, which is to relieve the soil of an obnoxious guest. The right of national sovereignty does not require nor permit more. Generally an official order to leave the country within a specified time is sufficient. If not, force may be employed. But forcible eviction should never assume a gratuitously vexatious character.

This author makes a practical distinction, furthermore, between the treatment of a transient visitor and that due a resident foreigner who has established a business or acquired property interests which would be ruined by sudden expulsion.

In the latter ease it is especially important [he says] that the government which expels should exercise every indulgence, and accord all delay consistent with the public interests, if it would escape the charge of cruelty and masked persecution.

In closing his report, Mr. Rolin-Jaequemyns offers the following as one of five “conclusions:”

Even in the absence of treaty, the state to which the expelled person belongs has a right to know the reason for the expulsion, and the communication of the reason can not be refused. Moreover, the expulsion should be accomplished with special regard for humanity and respect for acquired rights. Except in cases of special urgency, a reasonable time should be allowed to the expelled person to adjust his affairs to the new conditions. Lastly, except in cases of extradition, the expelled person ought to be allowed to depart by the route which he prefers.

Professor Bar (Journal Dr. Int. Privé, 1886, vol. 13, p. 5) quotes with approval Bluntschli’s opinion that “the right to expel foreigners should not be considered as an unqualified right; if so, international relations would be impossible,” and adds that, without denying the right of a state in certain contingencies to refuse foreigners access to its territory and to expel them from it, he confines himself to affirming “that the exercise of such a power should be limited to exceptional cases rigorously justified, and should not be at variance with the principles of international, law and of the necessities of the case, nor in contravention of the practice of nations. * * * Any other course finds its condemnation in Vattel (Dr. Int., II, 8, 104) who says: ‘The sovereign has no right to grant an entrance into his state for the purpose of drawing foreigners into a snare.’”

At a later meeting of the Institute of International Law (1891), in which a set of rules was formulated for the regulation of expulsion, Professor Bar said, in criticising one of the proposed rules which provided for diplomatic reclamation in favor of the expelled foreigner:

I do not doubt that the government of the expelled person may sometimes demand an indemnity in his behalf; but this is only an application of the general and unquestioned principle of the law of nations which prohibits the unjust treatment of foreigners, a principle that needs not the sanction of an express regulation. (Inst. Dr. Int. Annuaire, Vol. XI, p. 310.)

Calvo (Dictionnaire de Droit International, title Expulsion) says:

But when a Government expels a foreigner without cause, and in a harsh, inconsiderate manner (avec des formes blessantes), the State of which the foreigner is a citizen has the right to base a claim upon this violation of international law and to demand adequate satisfaction.

To the same effect is Bluntschli (Droit Int. Codifié, art. 384.)

Some investigation has been made of the laws and practice of other powers touching the expulsion of foreigners, and they have been found to comport generally with the principles advocated by the jurists above quoted. These writers, Bar, Bluntschli, Oalvo, and Rolin-Jacquemyns, are specialists in the science of international law, and the opinions of no modern jurists are entitled to greater respect. Their utterances were made as statements of principle and without reference to any controversy in which their sympathies were engaged or by which their judgment might be biased.

In certain countries, of which Belgium is an example, the law relating to expulsion provides safeguards against abuse and injurious consequences, by requiring previous notice, by conceding the right of choice of the way out of the country, etc. In others, as in France, the law permits immediate expulsion, but the administration of it is tempered by executive regulation. In an Executive order of December 17, 1885, the French minister of the interior deprecated and forbade harsh execution of the law by subordinate functionaries. “Whatever may be the necessities,” he said, “which in the interest of public order are imposed on the superior authorities, I believe that the Government of the Republic should be actuated in matters of this nature only by considerations of impartial humanity consistent with the wholesome enforcement of the law.” Referring to certain instances of harsh execution of the law by the police authorities near the frontiers, he says:

This is, in my opinion, a misconception of the sentiment of humanity to which I alluded above, and an application of the letter of the law with a rigor which a free republican government like France can not afford to exercise toward foreigners of any nationality. (Journal de Dr. Int. Privé, vol. 13, 16, and 497.)

Expulsion is a police measure, having for its object the purging of the State of obnoxious foreigners. It is a preventive, not a penal process, and it can not be substituted for criminal prosecution and punishment by judicial procedure. (See Inst. Dr. Int. Ann., 286, 300.)

In no instance has an example been found of treatment such as that to which Hollander was subjected. Hollander had been admitted to residence in the Republic of Guatemala and encouraged to engage in business there. He lived for a long time in amity and intimacy with the high officers of the Republic, and those relations continued until he made the charge reflecting upon the integrity of certain of these officials. With the aid and support of the ruling powers he had built up a thriving newspaper and job-printing enterprise, which was in full operation at the time of his expulsion. The judicial powers of the Government of Guatemala at once took cognizance of Hollander’s attack on the officials of the Government, and he was arrested upon the criminal charge of calumny and forgery. A trial and conviction upon that charge would have vindicated the Government and its officers and resulted in the punishment of Hollander if he was guilty of malicious libel and forgery. His acquittal would have been conclusive of his innocence. The circumstances of his expulsion give it the appearance of executive intervention to take the matter out of the hands of the court, and, assuming the fact of his guilt, to administer punishment by way of instant and forcible expulsion. The fact that Hollander was expelled while awaiting trial, and in a manner that defeated the ends of justice judicially administered, is one of the most aggravating of the incidents which make the manner of his expulsion a flagrant violation of Guatemala’s obligations to the United States respecting the treatment of our citizens. This high-handed treatment of Hollander carried also the appearance of discourtesy and unfriendliness toward the United States; and if not so intended, the action of the Executive implied disregard of an unmistakable character for the rights and sensibilities of a neighbor Republic which feels as a wound every injury to its citizens.

The treaty of 1849 between the United States and Guatemala (Art. XII) provides as follows:

Both the contracting parties promise and engage formally to give their special protection to the persons and property of the citizens of each other, of all occupations, who may be in the territories subject to the jurisdiction of the one or of the other, transient or dwelling therein, leaving open and free to them the tribunals of justice for their judicial recourse on the same terms which are usual and customary with the natives or citizens of the county in which they may be; for which they may employ, in defense of their rights, such advocates, solicitors, notaries, agents, and factors as they may judge proper in all their trials at law; and such citizens or agents shall have free opportunity to be present at the decisions and sentences of the tribunals in (all) cases which may concern them, and likewise at the taking of all examinations and evidence which may be exhibited in the said trials.

This treaty was terminable in all its parts relating to commerce and navigation, but in all those parts which relate to peace and friendship Article XXXIII declares that it shall be “perpetually binding on both powers.” Notice of the determination of the treaty was given by Guatemala in 1874, but July 9, 1888, that Government declared in a note to Mr. Hosmer, chargé d’affaires of the United States, that Article XII and some other provisions, being parts of the treaty which relate to peace and friendship and are based on the general principles of popular rights, “are to be completely observed, although no treaty exists which would establish them.” The letter closes with the declaration that “the convention (treaty), except as regards the stipulations of a terminable character which it contains, can not be considered as having terminated.” (Foreign Relations, 1886, pp. 149, 159.)

Without contending that the Guatemalan law of expulsion is in derogation of Article XII of the treaty, and without taking exception to that law as a piece of domestic legislation, but having regard to the manner and circumstances only of Hollander’s expulsion, it was effected in disregard of the rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States by that treaty, and of “the prescription which,” quoting from the Guatemalan letter of June 9, 1888, “can not be denied in any civilized country of the earth.”

Returning to a consideration of the facts, Hollander was held in prison on bail for more than three months, in the power of the Guatemalan authorities, awaiting trial. Then, suddenly and without notice, the judicial proceeding was abandoned and the accused was taken from prison, carried under guard to the coast, and put upon an outgoing vessel under a executive decree of expulsion, leaving his family, his business, and his property unprovided for. He was literally hurled out of the country, leaving behind wife and children, business, property, everything dear to him and dependent upon him. Why that abandonment of the judicial investigation and resort to summary expulsion by administrative decree, I do not inquire. But the United States takes this ground: The Government of Guatemala, whatever its laws may permit, had not the right in time of peace and domestic tranquillity to expel Hollander without notice or opportunity to make arrangements for his family and business, on account of an alleged offense committed more than three months before, Hollander having during the entire interval been in the power of the Government, subject to the proper enforcement of any of its laws, and at the time awaiting trial in the criminal court upon the identical charge upon which he was expelled. If expulsion was lawful and proper on the 14th of May, it was lawful and proper on the 8th of February preceding, when Hollander had already committed the offending act and had been held to answer for it in the courts of the country. After deliberating three months and more, with Hollander absolutely in its power, the executive authority expelled him in a manner that defeated the course of justice in the courts of the country; that violated the rules of international law and the existing provisions of the treaty, and was contrary to the practice of civilized nations. In so doing Guatemala did Hollander, and through him the United States, a grievous injury, which can not be allowed to go without protest. He is entitled, upon the undisputed facts, to a reasonable indemnity, and you are directed to inform the Government of Guatemala that the United States expects it to be paid.

claim for printing and for coffee lands.

Besides the claim for indemnity above considered, the United States has demanded the payment of certain indebtedness to Hollander by the Government of Guatemala for printing, and the value of certain public lands (coffee lands) which he claims to have paid for and preempted according to law.

These two items have been the subject of previous correspondence. They are explained in the instruction of May 6, 1893. Guatemala denies that Hollander did any printing for the Government, and denies that he preempted or paid for any land. It is fair to say that Hollander’s proofs are not perfect. His memorial is explicit and circumstantial throughout, and his previous statement has been supplemented by an affidavit, which is now inclosed. (It was sent here in a letter from his counsel, Mr. R. D. Benedict, dated November 8, 1895.)

Mr. Hollander has in his possession, and has exhibited, public documents (mentioned by title in his affidavit) printed for the Government of Guatemala, which bear the imprint of Hollander’s printing establishment, “La Estrella” There is no question that Hollander printed public documents for the Government of Guatemala. The defect in his proof lies in his inability to establish the amount and value of the work he did and the fact of nonpayment of the price of it. This defect is due largely to the fact and manner of his expulsion and of his enforced absence from Guatemala. His statement disproves the last reply from Guatemala, that all the Government printing had been done at another establishment, and consequently none by Hollander; and in the absence of a more specific and satisfactory answer than has up to now been given, this Government must continue to press this item of the claim. Hollander has made, on oath, an itemized statement of his work for the Government of Guatemala, and produced specimens of that work. He declares that each item was worth a stated amount and that he has not been paid. Circumstances, of which he is the victim and the Government of Guatemala the cause, prevent production by him of corroborative documentary proof. I have no disposition to call on Guatemala to prove Hollander’s claim, but if nothing is due Hollander for printing, that Government must have at hand accounts and records which will prove conclusively that it owes nothing, and it is not unreasonable to request that it rebut, if it can, his prima facie case.

In regard to the coffee lands, the conditions are practically the same. Mr. Hollander’s sworn statement (inclosed) sets forth in detail what he paid and each step in the proceeding by which the lands became his, giving the names of half a dozen men, now supposed to be in Guatemala, who have personal knowledge of the facts which he alleges. These facts, being all official acts of the Government, must, if they exist, be matter of official record and easily ascertainable. Hollander declares that he surrendered to the land office, in accordance with the land laws and regulations, all the papers connected with the proceeding, expecting to get in lieu thereof the Government’s patent or grant of title; that his expulsion intervened, and when he returned more than a year later, under special permission limiting his stay to sixty days, he was informed that his right to the land was forfeited.

The Guatemalan minister has said that the official files contain no evidence of the facts alleged by Hollander; that he paid nothing and took up no public land. This is a general denial in response to a specific and detailed claim naming persons who may be called upon to say whether the specifications are true or false. In the circumstances this Government is of the opinion that the Government of Guatemala should at least take the evidence of the persons named.

These items of Mr. Hollander’s claim for printing and coffee lands would be withdrawn upon a showing that casts a reasonable doubt upon their validity. There is no disposition to force on Guatemala an unproven claim; but the circumstances are peculiar. Hollander has been deprived by Guatemala of the means of perfecting his proof; Guatemala has all the facts in reach, and the United States is simply acting on the principle which would obtain in a court of justice in litigation between men where evidence in favor of the claimant is alleged to be in the possession of the defendant. If the defendant, having the power, refuses to produce the evidence or fails to show that it does not exist or is not in his possession, a presumption is raised that the evidence is unfavorable to the defendant’s contention. Unless Hollander’s land claim is an entire fabrication, there must be some record of the proceeding; and if it is an entire fabrication the five or six gentlemen named by him in his affidavit as having personal knowledge of the facts can easily refute it by denying his statement.

It must be apparent that the second and third items of Hollander’s claim are a fit matter for arbitration, with power in the arbitrator to take testimony and call for documentary evidence. This Government would be glad to leave the matter to that form of adjustment, and it would have no objection to the inclusion of the first item—indemnity for expulsion—in the arrangement, although no doubt is entertained as to the liability of Guatemala upon the first item.

Accompanying Hollander’s supplemental affidavit inclosed are other letters and sworn statements pertinent to the claim. Copies of all of these may be left with the Guatemalan minister for foreign affairs with a copy of this instruction, which you are directed to read to the minister, with an earnest request for early and serious consideration. The United States wishes to close this matter, and will not insist upon anything beyond simple justice to Mr. Hollander in accordance with the facts as they are ascertained or ascertainable, and with the principles of law which obtain and govern the relations of the two countries.

I am, etc.,

Richard Olney.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 263. ]

Mr. Hollander to Mr. Olney.

New York, November 8, 1895.

The Department of State has desired me to furnish evidence in reference to my claim against Guatemala for the coffee lands, to prove that I “actually did purchase them,” and also to furnish proof with reference to the printing bill which constitutes another part of my claim against Guatemala. I beg leave now to furnish to the State Department such evidence as I can give in reference to each of the said items of my claim:

First. In reference to the claim for the coffee lands. The following is a detailed statement of the facts in relation to my application to the Government of Guatemala for those lands and my payment for them. And I solemnly swear that the facts as herein stated are true:

In the month of November, 1887, I made application for a tract of land situated in the department of Alta Vera Paz, district of Coban, and more particularly described in the said application, which was in writing. I addressed my application to the jefe politico, or governor, of the department of Coban, who was then Col. Juan Francisco Rubio.

My application was drawn up by a lawyer, Jose Maria Marroquin, residing then in the city of Guatemala. It was drawn on stamped paper, in accordance with the law, and it specified the locality of the land, together with the names of the witnesses to the facts required by section 598 of the fiscal code, and showed that the property was national land (terrenos baldios). This application was forwarded by one, through one Luis Estrany, a resident of Guatemala, to Colonel Rubio, the governor of Coban, and I received from Colonel Rubio an acknowledgment of the receipt of the same, stating that the proper steps would have to be taken in conformity with the fiscal code of the Republic.

That application should be recorded in the office of the jefe político of Coban. I have no copy of it, but I have no doubt that if I were not excluded from the country by the Government of Guatemala I could obtain a copy of it.

Section 599 of the fiscal code requires that in such matters a notice of the application must be published for thirty days in the departmental newspaper, if there is one. At that time there was such a paper published in the department of Coban, and the legal notice of my application was published in such paper. If I were not excluded from Guatemala by order of the Government, I could obtain from the files of such paper copies of the notice so published, of which I have no copy.

A survey of the land was made, by order of the governor of the department, by one Mr. Samayoa, his charge therefor being $183.50, which was paid him, and for which he gave a receipt in October, 1888.

Mr. Estrany, together with the agent of my newspaper at Coban, Mr. Mejia, attended to various matters connected with the business in the department, such as paying for the advertisement and the survey, and sundry other expenses which I can not at this moment recall, amounting in all to $428.50.

After these requirements had been fulfilled, Governor Rubio, in accordance with article 614 of the fiscal code, had the property appraised and put up at public auction, the upset price being $50 per caballeria, at which price 60 caballerias were bought for me, the sale and the purchase being recorded at Coban in the office of the jefe politíco.

I received official notification from Colonel Rubio that the land had been sold to me for $3,000, or $50 for each caballeria. The money was paid over by me through Mr. Estrany to the jefe politico of Coban. This amount was paid, $1,900 in silver and the rest in “pagares,” or bills against the Government for printing which I had done for it, for which orders on the treasury for payment had been duly countersigned thereon by the proper officers, which “pagares” were accepted as cash. The proper receipt, bearing the seals of the governor of Coban and the collector of revenue, was given for that money when paid over. There were four other parties who had also made denouncements of land in the Coban district, one of whom was Louis Estrany, above named.

On July 23, 1888, I addressed a letter to Colonel Rubio, requesting him to hasten the dispatch of those five denouncements of land which had been made, including my own. I have in my letter book a press copy of that letter, which I will exhibit to the Department with this affidavit, which letter was written in Spanish and a translation of which is as follows:

City of Guatemala, July 23, 1888.

Señor Coronel Don Juan Francisco Rubio,
Jefe Politíco de la Alta Verapaz, Coban.

My Dear Sir and Esteemed Friend: It is now many months that I have not seen yon; owing to your many occupations in Coban, you have not the time to rest for recreation in the capital. God grant it that you may be able to send me some data from Coban and from your jefatura, in order to publish the same in La Estrella.

The principal object of this my letter, after having affectionately saluted you, is to solicit the quick dispatch of the live denouncements of lands for Messrs, José Ma. Bustamente, Augusto Mulet Chambo, Luis Estrany, Federico Lanzer, and the undersigned, because we desire to cultivate cacao (cocoa), rubber, and sarsaparilla on our lands; and besides, we have written to the United States in order to bring several head of cattle, in order to propagate the race in this country, and we shall have the answer from that place within a very few days, awaiting solely your expeditious dispatch of the matter.

Giving you thanks in anticipation for all, and with a thousand salutations, I am,

Your affectionate friend and servant,

J. H. Hollander.

Thereafter, but after long delay, a communication was addressed to the Government by Colonel Rubio, stating that all the requirements of law, as far as his department was concerned and the specifications of the general laws of the country were concerned, had been complied with, and that the Government could extend title to me for the lands. I saw such communication.

All the receipts and necessary documents, together with the official notice of my having legally acquired the land, were sent to me from Colonel Rubio, the jefe político at Coban, through Messrs. Estrany and Mejia. As soon as I had them all, accompanied by Mr. Estrany, I went to the office of the under secretary of the interior and to the land office in March, 1889, in order to comply with the law and to satisfy the Guatemalan Government that the proper title could be extended to me for the lands that I had purchased. Mr. Mandujano, the assistant secretary of the interior, went with us to the land office, and there all of the documents relating to the land, including the receipts for moneys expended, surveys of the land, letters from the governor, application, and all other documents, were handed over to Mr. Flavio Galvez, who was then chief of the land office.

It is absolutely necessary that every document relating to the negotiation for the purchase of Government lands be deposited with the Government in order that a proper deed and title should be extended to the interested party. I was compelled to comply with said law and hand over everything I had in order that the Guatemalan Government might give me the proper title. I did this in the same manner that our own people here in the United States would deposit with the registrar of deeds and mortgages a deed or mortgage for recording purposes, merely having the recording officer note on the back where and to whom the mortgage or deed is to be returned. No receipt or memorandum of any kind is ever given for such papers when deposited, and no receipt or memorandum showing their deposit was given to me; and I had no more thought of there being any necessity of my asking for a receipt or taking copies of such papers than I would think it necessary to take a receipt for or copy of a mortgage which I should have left in a recording office in the United States.

In anticipation of delivery of the title deeds to me, I had, with the permission of the jefe político, had a portion of the land cleared and planted with coffee trees. This was done under the direction of Mr. Estrany, and I contributed money to pay the laborers who did the agricultural work. Mr. Estrany supplied me with a number of young trees, which were there set out. Owing to this expenditure, the land in question became enhanced in value, and in view of the fact that about that time the price of coffee rose nearly 200 per cent in Guatemala, coffee lands were eagerly sought for, so that the value of $4.75 per acre placed on the land at the time of my expulsion is in no way excessive.

My previous relations with the Government of Guatemala had been very friendly. In the fall of 18871 had been sent by President Barillas on a special mission to Salvador, and I had free access to visit him at the executive palace at all times. I filed with the Department of State on or about May 5, 1890, the affidavit of Dr. Charles W. Fitch, who was chief of staff of President Barillas at Guatemala, to which I refer, from which will be seen how close had been my relations with the Government officials. Those relations continued, although not so close, nearly up to the time of my expulsion. It is true that the criminal charge had been made against me in February, 1889, but bail in $1,000 had been given for me, and I was attending to my regular business of publishing my paper and attending to my printing office during February, March, and April, 1889, and I had repeated interviews during those months with President Barillas in reference to different matters of business.

And I had not the slightest idea when I deposited my papers in March, 1889, to obtain the title to the coffee lands, that there would ever be any difficulty about it, or that I should ever need a copy of one of the papers which I so deposited, all the more, as I was assured by Sen or Galvez at the time that the office would dispatch the matter and that the title would be furnished me as quick as possible.

And I further aver that when I went to the land office on my temporary return to Guatemala in November and December, 1890, and demanded of Señor Mandujano, the under secretary of the interior, that the title should be given to me for the land in question, the answer that was given to me by Señor Mandujano was not a denial of my having denounced the land, but a statement that, as I had been expelled from Guatemala, the Government would not allow the title to the land to be given to me. I demanded of him that my papers which I had deposited should be returned to me or a receipt given me, but this was refused. I reported this demand of mine and this refusal to Mr. Mizner, the American minister.

I have a memorandum, which I made in a small memorandum book, as to the papers which I deposited for the purpose of obtaining title to the lands in question. I can not, after this lapse of time, tell when I made it, except that it was made while I was in Guatemala and before I was expelled from that country. That memorandum gives a list of such papers as follows, in Spanish:

[Cohan terrenos—Memo. Marzo, 1889.]

Documentos dados al Sr. Estrany para la espedieion de los títulos.

1. Suplica al Sr. Rubio.

2. Reconocirniento y aviso al público en periódico oficial de Coban.

3. Medida por el Ing. Samayoa, Octubre 1888, con su correspondiente recibo, $183.50.

4. Recibos, varios gastos de testigos, y viajes á la capital, 8 recibos, $428.50.

5. Recibo por $3,000 del Sr. Rubio á razon cle $50 por cada caballería.

Entregados al Sr. Mandujano quien se les entregó al Sr. Galvez encargado de la seccion de tierras.

Translated it is as follows:

[Coban lands—Memorandum, March, 1889.]

Documents given to Sr. Estrany for tbe procuring of the titles.

1. Application to Sr. Rubio.

2. Acknowledgment and notice to the public in the official paper of Coban.

3. Measurement by the surveyor Samayoa, October, 1888, with his corresponding receipt.

4. Receipts, various expenses of witnesses, and travel to the capitol; 8 receipts, $428.50.

5. Receipt for $3,000 from Sr. Rubio at the rate of $50 for each caballeria.

Delivered to Sr. Mandujano that they might be delivered to Sr. Galvez, in charge of the land office.

I have not been able to find among the papers in my possession any copy of any of the above papers, or any other papers in reference to the said coffee lands. But I solemnly swear that I paid, as above stated, $3,000 at the office of the jefe politico of Coban for that land, besides the expenses, and that I did deposit the papers in said memorandum mentioned for the purpose of procuring the land to which I was entitled. The written evidence of my right still exists in Guatemala in the records of the Government, unless it has been destroyed. And the destruction of the same, if it has been destroyed, or the suppression of the same, if it still exist, is only a continuation of the oppression from which I have been so long suffering at the hands of the Government of Guatemala.

The Government of Guatemala has taken my money for land. It has aken my papers which I deposited with it for the purpose of procuring the title which I was entitled to have, relying as I did on the duty and honor of the officers of that Government. It now refuses to give me the land or return me the money or return the papers. Such an act by an individual would be an act of dishonesty, if not a robbery. I am powerless to help myself. And if the Government of the United States, of which I have always been a faithful subject, will do nothing to aid me against such oppression—if it will take the word of the spoliator against mine, if it will allow the fact of my having no written evidence, which the Government of Guatemala by force prevents me from procuring, to avail to overthrow my solemn oath as to the truth of the facts which I aver—I shall have only to submit to the oppression and injustice, but under solemn protest. I shall not believe until I am compelled to that the Government of the United States will suffer such injustice to be successfully perpetrated.

Second. I now speak of my bill for printing done by me for the Government of Guatemala.

I understand the minister of foreign affairs of Guatemala, in his letter of January 10, 1895, to intend to be understood as denying that I did any printing whatever for the Government of Guatemala, and alleging that a printing office called La Union was the only one which did any printing for the Government.

I think it proper, therefore, to give a somewhat full statement of my relations with the Government of Guatemala, out of which arose the various works of printing which I did for that Government.

In the month of June, 1885, I published the first number of my newspaper, La Estrella, in the city of Guatemala, under a special permission from the Government of that Republic, a copy of which has been already submitted to the Department. The paper is a weekly one, printed in both Spanish and English, and printed in a local printing office of the capital. The success of my paper was assured, and within less than a year I had transformed it into a daily, with an English edition once a week. I had obtained a sufficient outfit wherewith to publish the paper myself, besides having a job printing office. Toward the beginning of 1887 I had further enlarged my plant into a first-class printing office. Toward the middle of 1887 a complete change in the Government of the country and its political views brought into the cabinet of President Barrillas many men whom I had personally befriended through my paper, and it rose in the favor of the President himself. And thereafter I began to do considerable work for the Government of Guatemala through orders given by the President and by members of the cabinet who were personal friends of mine.

A special instance of really important work done by me for the Government was on or about the 6th day of September, 1887, at a time when opposition was made by the archbishop, Cassanova, regarding the civil marriage act, which resulted in the expulsion of the said archbishop from the country. A secret cabinet council was held, lasting until close upon midnight, as a result of which special executive decrees were issued in writing for the expulsion of the archbishop, and which, in order to be thoroughly legal, would have to be printed before 6 o’clock on the following morning. The Government applied at the printing office of La Union, formerly El Progreso, to have these decrees printed and to have a special edition of El Guatemalteco (the official newspaper) printed in time for distribution at 6 a.m. The aforesaid printing office flatly refused, on religious scruples, to have anything to do with the printing of any matter connected with the archbishop’s expulsion. President Barrillas sent for me that night at 11 o’clock, and I appeared there before him and his cabinet. He asked me if I could publish the decree and the special edition of El Guatemalteco, referring to the archbishop’s expulsion, and could have the paper and decrees ready before 6 o’clock in the morning, as the archbishop was to leave the country, escorted by General Jose Maria Eeina Barrios, of the Guatemalan army, who is now the President of Guatemala, leaving the capital city for the seacoast that night. I agreed to the President’s request, got my employees together, and was able to hand to the Government corrected proof sheets of the decree before 1.30 a.m., so that a certified copy of the same could be placed in the archbishop’s hands before he left for the seacoast. The balance of the work was completed, printed, and distributed by me at the Government’s request, to the extent of 6,000 copies, before 6 o’clock in the morning. My own paper, La Estrella, also devoted several columns to the matter, at the request of the Government. I was complimented by the President for the quick work and the annoyance that it saved him and the Government through my prompt action.

This action of mine, with others, put me on still more friendly relations with the President and members of his cabinet, such as are set forth in the affidavit of Dr. Fitch, before referred to, of which I attach a copy marked Exhibit 1, which led not only to my being sent as a confidential agent to Salvador by the President of Guatemala, but as a matter of course led to the giving to me of considerable printing to be done for the various departments.

As to the statement, incorporated in the letter of the Guatemalan minister of foreign affairs, by Señor Mandujano, that at some time (the dates he does not state) “a contract with the owners of the printing establishment, La Union, was in force, according to which the establishment was to do the official printing for all the Government departments of the capital, and neither Mr. Hollander nor any other person, except the owners of the aforesaid establishment, was to do any work of this kind,” I have this to say: The alleged contract is not set forth, and in view of the amount of the printing which I actually did for the Government, I do not believe that any such exclusive contract ever existed. I know that the establishment, La Union, did printing work for the Government; but I also know that my own establishment also did work for it.

And whether the work which my establishment did for the Government should be paid for by the Government in no way depends upon any contract between the Government and La Union. Notwithstanding that contract, if it existed, a large amount of Government printing was done at my establishment, La Estrella; for some of which work I have been paid by the Government of Guatemala, and for the rest of which I ought to be paid.

Before going into the details of the printing work done by me for the Government for which I claim to be paid, I pause to refer to a part of the statement of Senor Mandujano, embodied in the letter of the foreign minister, as to an alleged gift to me of “several presses with their appurtenances,” in return for which he states that I agreed “to write in favor of the Government of Guatemala in the Estrella de Guatemala.”

Señor Mandujano has forgotten or misstated the facts. I beg leave to give herewith a correct statement of them, and the Department of State will find in them strong corroboration of my statements as to my friendly relations with the Government and as to the fact of my doing printing work for its departments.

In the year 1887 I began the printing for the Government of a paper called La Democracia, which was of a semiofficial character. For the work of printing and publishing this paper the Government agreed to give me the sum of $600 per month. This paper was published until the 1st of January, 1888, when the name of the publication was changed to El Dia, under a new editor. The same arrangement was made with me for the printing and publication of El Dia, which continued up to the time of my expulsion.

During the year 1887 the Government had in its possession a press which was not in use, and this press was furnished to me by the Government, not with reference to my paper La Estrella, but for the purpose of facilitating the printing of the papers in question. In order to use it I was compelled to put repairs on it to a considerable amount. And it was used as well for the printing of La Democracia as for the printing of El Dia.

In the spring of 1888 one Dr. Juan Padilla, with others, was planning the starting of another paper, and in pursuance of that proposition they obtained from the minister of the interior (gobernacion y justica), Senor Anguiano, an order that I should deliver that press to Dr. Padilla. I annex a translation of that order (marked Exhibit 2), dated May 24, 1888, of which I have the original, written on department paper, and signed by Minister Anguiano himself. On receipt of it I wrote a letter to the minister, stating the circumstances, and that the press was in use in the printing of El Dia; moreover, that it was not just to take the press from me without the repayment to me of the sums which I had expended to put it in condition. I annex a copy of that letter, taken from my press copy letter book, marked Exhibit 3.

I thereupon received a second letter from the minister, under date of 28th of May, 1888, a translation of which I also attach (marked Exhibit4), and the original of which, on department paper, and signed by the minister himself, is in my possession, by which the minister withdrew the previous order and stated that I might retain the press until further orders. And thereafter the press remained in use in my printing office until the time of my expulsion from Guatemala.

The Department will easily see that here is proof over the signature of the minister of the interior himself that I was printing for the Government. The printing of La Democracia and El Dia are items on account of which the Government of Guatemala is still indebted to me, and if my relations with the Government had not been more than usually friendly it would certainly never have allowed me the use of that press, as it did, for about a year and a half.

I have already stated that I did considerable printing for the Government of Guatemala for which I have been paid. I do not take time to specify it. A considerable amount of it was schoolbooks printed for the department of public instruction, and a considerable part of that for which I have not been paid was of a similar character. The following is a list of the various publications printed by me for the Gautemalan Government for which I have not been paid and for which I claim payment:

1.	Act of Independence, printed in black and gold, size 27 by 36 inches, 14,000 copies, at 10 cents		$1,400.00
	This was ordered by Señor Angniano, the secretary of the interior (gobernacion y justica), in accordance with instructions from President Barillas himself, as the President himself informed me. It was ordered about January 1, 1889, to be ready about March 1, at the opening of the annual session of the Legislative Congress. The copies were delivered at the office of the secretary of the interior.
2.	Four schoolbooks for the department of public instruction:
	Eclectic Sillabary, 40.000 copies, at 15 cents	$6,000.00
	First Reader. 20,000 copies, at 22 cents	4,400.00
	Second Reader. 10,000 copies, at 37½ cents	3,750.00
		14,150.00
	Less royalty to José M. Vela, the author, deducted by Government order	2,000.00
			12,150.00
	Compendium of Universal History—this was to be in two volumes; only one of them was completed—5,000 copies, at $1.20	6,000.00
	On account of this I have been paid	2,800.00
			3,200.00
3.	Message of President Barillas of October 1, 1887, with a translation, to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly on March 1, 1888:
	1,000 copies, in gold	250.00
	4,000 copies, plain	600.00
		850.00
	Less paid on account	250.00
			600.00
4.	Special ordinances and programmes for the Government polytechnic or military school, 5,000 copies, at 40 cents		2,000.00
5.	Monthly circular of the minister of foreign affairs, addressed to the consuls and others, with translation, at $60 per month for ten months, beginning with July, 1888		600.00
6.	Tratado Sobre Derecho International Privado, 3,000 copies		25.00
7.	Fortnightly memorial for the polytechnic school from November 30, 1887, to May 1, 1889, afterwards changed to a monthly edition. The Government was to pay me $300 a month for 5,000 copies, making	$5,100.00
	On which they paid	700.00
	Leaving a balance due me of		4,400.00
8.	Reprint of the decree No. 394, regarding the settlement of national debt, with translation, in March, 1888, 10,000 copies		500.00
9.	Report of the Guatemala School of Arts and Sciences, July 13 to September 18, 1887, 500 copies		80.00
10.	In March, 1889, amendment to the penal code, 10,000 copies, ordered by the minister of the interior (gobernaction y justcia)		300.00
11.	Collection of Government circulars, from July, 1887, for presentation to assembly on March 1, 1888, based on decree No. 380, wherein President Barillas declared himself dictator of the country and ordered by the President himself. 7.000 ponies, art 60 cents	$4,200.00
	From which is to be deducted	2,200.00
			2,000.00

Besides the works above mentioned there was also newspaper printing done by me for the Government, as follows:

12.	The Government gave to my own paper, La Estrella (The Star), a subvention at the rate of $200, which was afterwards increased to $300 a month; at the time of my expulsion there was due me from the Government of this account		$400.00
13.	La Democracia, a daily semiofficial newspaper, printed for the Government from July, 1887, to the end of the year. I was to receive for this $600 a month, and there still remains due on this account.		100.00
14.	At the end of the year 1887 the title of the paper was changed to El Dia, and I continued to publish it from January, 1888, to May, 1889, under a similar arrangement at $600 a month. Of this amount there remains due the sum of		2,344.00
15.	There was also on my books at the time of my expulsion several small bills for various work done for various departments, as follows:
	January 1, 1889. School of Arts	$32.00
	January, 1888. Police department	75.00
	August and October, 1889. Polytechnic school	70.00
	October 3, 1888. National treasury	10.00
	February 8, 1888. Commandancia de armas	4.00
	April and May, 1889. National Assembly	58.75
	January 1, 1889. Ministry of foreign affairs	40.00
	January 22, 1889. Ministry of fomento (public works)	37.50
	January 11, 1888. El Dia jobs	10.00
			337.25

I had no written contract for any of the above work. The orders for it came to me from the various departments and from the President himself.

It will easily be imagined that I could not obtain so large an amount of printing as this, and that which I had previously done, for which I was paid, without being compelled to share the profits of it.

I have no wish to specify the persons to whom I was compelled to pay over part of the profits which I received, although I can do so if it is insisted upon by the Department.

By reason of this fact it was necessary to keep the details of that Government business out of the general books of my business, which must, of course, be open to the inspection of my employees; and I kept the details of that business, therefore, in a separate book, in which I made the entries myself. I regret to say that I am unable to produce that book. I was compelled, of course, to leave it behind when I was expelled; but on my return to Guatemala in the fall of 1890 I had it and used it in making up the account of the printing done for the Government, which I gave to our minister, Mr. Mizner, and I supposed that it was brought away in the confused mass of books and papers which I hastily gathered together, boxed up, and brought away from Guatemala. Whether in some way it got into the mass of refuse books and papers which I sold as waste paper there, or whether it has in some way been mislaid during the various changes of my habitation and movings of my furniture since my return, I am unable to say. I have made diligent search for it and for other papers, in corroboration of my statements, but I have not been able to find it.

I have, however, been able to find and I am ready to produce the following original papers and documents in reference to the foregoing items of work, which I state by numbers as follows:

• No. 1. I present a copy of the work itself, in black and gold, for the inspection of the Department.
• No. 2. I present copies of the Eclectic Sillabary, and of the Second Reader, and of the Compendium of History.
• I present also a receipt signed by S. Sta. Cruz, chief clerk of the department and under the seal of the department of public instruction, for the last 1,100 of 20,000 copies of the Eclectic Sillabary, which were delivered in April, 1888, a copy of which is annexed, marked Exhibit 5.
• No. 3. I present three copies of the document in question, one printed in gold and the two others in different styles, with the imprint of La Estrella.
• No. 4. I present a copy of the work as printed with the imprint of La Estrella. It has on its face the coat of arms of the Government, which is never allowed to be used except on official documents. The electrotype of it was furnished to me by the Government.
• No. 5. I present a copy of the work printed for the month of July, 1888, with the translation.
• I present also the original copy sent me from which to print, written on Government paper by Jorge Prado, the chief clerk in the ministry of foreign affairs, and signed by him with his rubric.
• I present also a receipt for 500 copies of it, signed by Manuel Montufar, the undersecretary of foreign affairs, with the seal of the department of foreign affairs. I annex a copy, marked Exhibit 6.
• No. 6. I present a copy of the pamphlet with the imprint of La Estrella.
• No. 7. I present a copy of the pamphlet for January 1, 1889, with the imprint of La Estrella.
• No. 8. I present a copy of the decree and the translation with the imprint of La Estrella upon it.
• No. 9. I present a copy of the memorial with the imprint of La Estrella.
• No. 10. I present a copy of the amendment with the imprint of La Estrella.
• No. 11. I present a copy of the collection of circulars. The title page is missing, but upon it was the imprint of La Estrella.
• No. 12. As to this, I present a decree of February 2, 1886, awarding to me a subvention of $200 a month, and the decree of April, putting an end to the subvention. And I annex copies, marked Exhibits 7 and 8.
• No. 13. I present one number of La Democracia.
• No. 14. I present the two letters of the minister of the interior, stating that the press was furnished to me and used by me for the publication of El Dia, of which I annex copies marked Exhibits 2 and 4.
• No. 15. The various bills included in this item of $327.25 are all of them taken from my ledger, which can be exhibited if desired.

In addition to the above, as confirmatory of my statements in it as to the amount of printing done by me for the Government, I beg leave to refer also to the letter of Col. James B. Hosmer, who was consul-general of our Government and secretary of legation in Guatemala at the time, addressed to my counsel, E. D. Benedict, esq., of which letter I attach a copy, marked Exhibit 9.

All of the above amounts, which together amount to $30,436.25, are justly due me from the Government of Guatemala, together with $11,835 interest thereon from May 12, 1889, the date of my expulsion, amounting in all to $42,271.25.

And to the truth of the above averments I solemnly make oath.

J. H. Hollander

United States of America,
City, County, and State of New York, ss:

I, John H. Hollander, being duly sworn, do depose and say that the allegations of the foregoing statement by me subscribed are true.

J. H. Hollander.

Sworn to before me this 8th day of November, 1895. Witness my Land and official seal.

[seal.]

Wm. B. Jones
Notary Public for Kings County, N Y.

Exhibit 1.

Affidavit of Charles Wellington Fitch.

State of Connecticut,
City of Bridgeport, County of Fairfield, ss:

Charles Wellington Fitch, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

I have resided for more than ten years in Central America, and was in the States of Guatemala and Salvador from the time of the arrival, in January, 1885, of J. H. Hollander in Guatemala, up to the end of January, 1889, and was during all that time intimately acquainted with the said Hollander.

My present occupation is that of the practice of medicine (being a graduate of Yale Medical College in 1874), at No. 151 Fairfield avenue in this said city of Bridgeport. I was also acting assistant surgeon in the United States Regular Army, at the time of my going to Guatemala at the request of the late President J. R. Barrios, and held respectively from him my commissions of lieutenant-colonel, colonel, and acting surgeon-general of the Guatemalan army. I was on the personal staff of General Barrios and also on the staff of the present President, General Barillas, holding the position as chief of staff under the latter for a considerable time, from April, 1885, until the middle of 1887, when I accepted service under the Government of Salvador, receiving my commission there as a brigadier-general. I was chief of special service in Salvador, and resigned my post to return to my home in New Haven, Conn., of which State I am a native. I knew Mr. Hollander very well in Guatemala. There was no one, either among the foreigners or natives in the place, who was more universally liked and respected and received more consideration from every one than Mr. Hollander; he was on most intimate and friendly terms with President Barillas, who had constant intercourse with him.

In my capacity as chief of the President’s staff, it was my duty to permit or refuse audience to visitors to the President, according to the orders of the latter, and one of my special orders was to admit Mr. Hollander to the President’s presence at whatever hour of the day or night he might call. And I know of repeated occasions when Mr. Hollander has been specially sent for to be consulted by the President of Guatemala, and have also been personally present when President Barillas, upon the announcement that Mr. Hollander wished to see him, has left his cabinet council to confer with Mr. Hollander. I also have been present when the said President spoke of Mr. Hollander, and it was always in the most glowing and friendly terms. There was no change in this regard as long as I was in Guatemala. In October and November, 1887, while in my capacity as general in Salvador, and in the confidence of President Menendez, of Salvador, I was personally present and know of my own personal knowledge that Mr. Hollander visited the Republic of Salvador, sent upon a very delicate diplomatic confidential mission by President Barillas, in a matter where the latter was loath to confide in a native of Guatemala. Mr. Hollander was there and then received with every honor, both by the President of Salvador and by his cabinet; and President Menendez, in speaking to me on more than one occasion about Mr. Hollander, referred to him in only the highest terms of praise, and said that Guatemala had done well in trusting the mission to Mr. Hollander.

During my entire stay in Central America I never heard Mr. Hollander’s character impeached in any way whatsoever; he had always been regarded both by myself and everyone I knew there as one of the men in that country who would not lend himself to do a mean or dishonorable action. In 1887, as I personally know, Mr. Hollander was mainly instrumental, both through his paper and personally, in effecting an amicable arrangement with the British bondhonders and the Government of Guatemala by effecting a recognition of Guatemala’s debt to Great Britain, and thus avoiding a threatened rupture between the two countries.

Mr. Hollander was also on very friendly terms with nearly everyone connected with the Government of Guatemala.

I have repeatedly visited Mr. Hollander’s printing establishment in Guatemala, and knew it very well during my stay in Guatemala, which place I last visited at the end of January, 1889, shortly before Mr. Hollander’s first arrest.

Mr. Hollander, during his sojourn in Salvador, there bought and carried with him to Guatemala two “plants” of printing material, consisting of several printing presses and type, etc., from printing offices which were compelled to close from lack of business.

And besides the foregoing property, Mr. Hollander had other printing machinery in Guatemala of his own, and when the whole property was placed in working order, some little time after his return from San Salvador, I considered it the finest private printing establishment in all Central America, and as far as I could judge it was worth from $50,000 to $60,000. Every description of work could be done, and his machines were run by steam power.

It is only quite recently that I learned of Mr. Hollander’s troubles with Guatemala, and having communicated with his lawyer, Mr. Robert D, Benedict, I make this statement because I desire to see justice done.

C. W. Fitch

Sworn to before me in Bridgeport, this 1st day of May, 1890.

[seal.]

Stiles Judson, Jr.,
Notary Public.

Exhibit 2.

[Translation.]

Palace of the Government,
Guatemala, May 24, 1388.

Mr. Anguiana to Mr. Hollander.

[Imprint of the Secretary of the Interior.]

Sr. Don J. H. Hollander, Present:

You will please deliver to Sr. Don Juan Padilla M. the press, with its corresponding accessories, belonging to the Government, and which from the National Institute was delivered to you for the printing of the newspaper El Dia.

I am, your obedient servant,

Anguiana.

Exhibit 3.

May 24, 1888.

Mr. Hollander to Mr. Anguiana.

Sr. Dr. Don Francisco Anguiana,
Minister of the Interior, Guatemala, present:

Sir: Under date of to-day I received the attentive note of your department, which literally says as follows: “You will please deliver to Sr. Don Juan Padilla M. the press, with its corresponding accessories belonging to the Government, and which from the National Institute was delivered to you for the printing of the newspaper El Dia,” and in reply to it I have to say:

• First. That I have received no press from the National Institute, but I have from the School of Arts and Trades.
• Second. The press, to which the foregoing article refers, was not given to me only for the printing of the newspaper El Dia, but it was also given for such other uses which I might have for it, in consideration of the services that I have lent to the Government during the affair of the reactionary party; and with the stipulation that I should put the same in good order at my own expense, and that it would remain in my possession with the intention of the Government to give it to me as my property or to reimburse me for the expenses of repairs which the press needed.
• Third. I have spent nearly $600 in repairing the press, placing new wheels, new rubbers, and other things, besides having to replace several portions of said press that were lacking.
• Fourth. I am constantly using the aforesaid press, and its removal from my printing office will cause much injury to my printing office.
• Fifth. And besides all that has been said, I have the honor to remind the señor minister the words addressed by your excellency to me last week relative to favoring my printing office in all that was possible, whereas the withdrawal of the said press will injure me considerably.

For all that I have now said I hope that you will be pleased to reconsider your letter of today, in view of what I have explained to you.

I am, your excellency, your attentive and obedient servant,

J. H. Hollander.

Exhibit 4.

[Translation.]

Palace of the Government,
Guatemala, May 28, 1888.

Mr. Anguiana to Mr. Hollander.

[Imprint of the minister of the interior.]

Sr. Don J. H. Hollander:

There has been given to you the order that you deliver to Sr. Don Juan Padilla M. the press which, with its corresponding accessories, belongs to the Government, and in the conception that it was no longer of any use to you, as this office of the minister was informed; but as this is not so, as you manifest in your note of the 24th instant, you can continue with it.

In order to avoid mistakes and difficulties which in the future might arise, I manifest to you that the Government never has had the intention to make you proprietor of the said press, but that it has placed you in charge of the same to hold it on deposit and at its order. You can use it as long as you like, but you should deliver it immediately, and always when it (the Government) might require it, to the person to whom the Government might send for it.

The expenses which you assure having made in improvements to the same will not be credited to you, because nothing was agreed at the time it was given to you; neither should you retain it for one moment in your possession in order to reimburse yourself for such expenses (repairs) when the order is given to return it.

With these elucidations you can, as I have already said in the beginning, continue to make use of the aforesaid press until the Government shall dispose otherwise, and I subscribe myself,

Your attentive and obedient servant,

Anguiana.

Exhibit 5.

[Translation.]

Guatemala, April 7, 1888.

Sr. Director de la Imprenta de Estrella:

There have been received in this office of the minister 1,100 copies of the Eclectic Sillabary, by Don Juan Ma. Vela, by which is completed the quantity of 20,000.

S. Sta. Cruz.

[Seal of the minister of public instruction.]

Exhibit 6.

Received of La Estrella printing office 500 copies.

[Rubric]

Manuel Montufar.

[Secretary of state and of the office of foreign relations. Coat of arms of the Republic of Guatemala, Central America.]

Exhibit 7.

[Translation.]

Guatemala, February 2, 1886.

Concessions to Mr. Hollander.

[Republic of Guatemala, office of the secretary of public works, palace of executive power.]

The solicitation presented by Mr. J. H. Hollander asking certain special favors for the paper owned by him, called La Estrella de Guatemala, having been duly noted and believing it convenient to authorize such concessions, the general in charge of the Presidency decrees:

• First. The superintendent of telegraphs will communicate with Mr. Hollander, without exacting any remunerative therefor, the cables and news that he may receive.
• Second. The copies and special paper which may be sent to the departments of the Republic or abroad shall be charged no postage.
• Third. There is hereby conceded to the same paper the subvention of two hundred dollars monthly which will be paid by the national treasury.
• Fourth. Mr. Hollander will place at the disposal of the Government two hundred copies of his paper during the time such appears as a weekly sheet, reducing said number to one hundred copies if he deems it convenient to publish his paper daily with a weekly edition.
• Fifth. The concessions and privileges authorized by this decree will cease whenever the Government deems it convenient.

Let it be communicated.

Rubricated by the General President. Herrera (minister of public works.) Stamp of the office of the Government and justice. Republic of Guatemala, C. A.

Exhibit 8.

[Translation.]

Government Palace,
Guatemala, April 26, 1889.

Mr. J. H. Hollander, present:

Yesterday the following decree was issued, saying: “Owing to the difficulty and circumstances of the national treasury, the President of the Republic decrees that the effects of the Government decree of the 6th of July last, relative to taking subscriptions of the newspaper of this capital, called the La Estrella de Guatemala and Guatemala Star, do hereby cease. Let it be communicated. Rubricated by the President. Anguiana.”

I am, your obedient servant,

Anguiana.

Exhibit 9.

New York, September 16, 1895.

Mr. Hosmer to Mr. Benedict.

Robert D. Benedict, Esq., Counsellor at Law.

My Dear Sir: Referring to our interview this morning in relation to Mr. Hollander’s claim against the Guatemalan Government for printing in behalf of that Government, I beg leave to say that during my official connection with Guatemala as one of the representatives of our Government, I frequently visited the printing establishment of Mr. Hollander, and remember to have seen there a large mass of printed matter which related to the educational branch of its Government.

Mr. Hollander informed me on more than one occasion that the Guatemalan Government had employed his services in that connection, and that a considerable sum of money was due to him for such services rendered.

This printed matter covered a variety of subjects, some of which were in leaves for binding in book form, and some, as near as I can remember, were apparently official documents emanating from that Government.

Should it be required, I am ready and willing to make an affidavit as to the above statements.

I am, dear sir, yours, faithfully,

James R. Hosmer.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 263.]

Mr. Benedict to Mr. Olney.

New York, January 3, 1896.

Since my interview with Mr. Faison, Solicitor of the Department? on the 16th of December, in reference to the claim of John H. Hollander against Guatemala, my attention has been called to the decree of the President of Guatemala, No. 491, in relation to the status of foreigners in Guatemala, published in Foreign Relations of the United States for 1894, on pages 317 to 331.

This appears to be only an Executive decree, and not a law passed by the legislative department of Guatemala, and, as a matter of course, it can have no binding effect in relation to the case of Mr. Hollander, which occurred five years before the adoption of the decree. But, nevertheless, there are various portions of that decree to which I beg leave to call the attention of the Department, for it may well be considered as being an Executive declaration by the Government of Guatemala as to what ought to be the rights of foreigners and their status in Guatemala, and as such it throws a reflected light upon the action of that Government in Mr. Hollander’s case.

T beg leave to point out some of the articles of this decree 491, commenting upon them as I proceed, with reference to their bearing upon Mr. Hollander’s case.

Title 2, article 9: Foreigners in Guatemala may be (1) residents or domiciled persons, (2) nonresidents or sojourners, and (3) immigrants.

Mr. Hollander, at the time of his expulsion, had been resident and domiciled in Guatemala for several years.

Title 2, article 12: The law recognizes no difference between a Guatemalan and a foreigner, as regards the acquisition and enjoyment of civil rights.

Under this provision, it is plain that the civil rights of a Guatemalan, under the constitution of Guatemala, and the civil rights of a foreigner should be the same. And there is no question that under the constitution of Guatemala no such action could be taken by the Government against a Guatemalan as was taken against Mr. Hollander.

Title 4, article 43: Foreigners residing in Guatemala as domiciled persons or sojourners shall have their rights guaranteed, to the security and protection of their persons, property, dwellings, and correspondence, in the same manner as native citizens. * * * To have justice administered to them by the courts and authorities in such cases and in such ways as are provided for by the laws which define the competency of the said courts and authorities.

Under the first of the above provisions, Mr. Hollander would have had the same right to the security and protection of his person and his property as a native Guatemalan citizen; but, as has been above stated, no native Guatemalan citizen could have been treated as Mr. Hollander was, under the constitution of Guatemala. Moreover, Mr. Hollander did not have justice administered to him by the courts in such ways as were provided for by the laws. In proof of this, allow me to recall to the attention of the Department dispatch No. 970 of Mr. Hosmer, our chargé d’affaires in Guatemala, dated in Guatemala on the 18th of May, 1889, in which it was stated that Mr. Hollander was detained in jail for eighteen days before the bail he had offered at the time of his arrest was accepted; that he was afterwards again arrested by two policemen, without their showing any warrant for his arrest; that Mr. Hosmer called upon the minister of foreign affairs to inquire if new bail would not be accepted for Mr. Hollander, who replied that it was entirely optional with the judge of the court (whereas it was a matter of right under the constitution of Guatemala); that Mr. Hollander was removed from the jail to the penitentiary; that new bail was offered, including an offer to deposit a sum of money equal to the amount of bail, and that “although the law distinctly permits it, bail was refused,” and the judge informed Mr. Hosmer privately to the effect that he would not receive anyone as bondsman, even if twenty of the most responsible people of Guatemala should present themselves for the purpose.

For further particulars as to unlawful proceedings taken in Mr. Hollander’s case, I beg leave to refer to his own memorial, sworn to on June 18, 1889, and on file in the records of the State Department.

It can not be pretended that these proceedings against Mr. Hollander were the administration of justice to him by the courts in such ways as are provided for by the laws of Guatemala.

Title 5, article 47: Foreigners shall enjoy in Guatemala all the civil rights that the laws grant to Guatemalans.

Here is another statement under which it is plain that the rights of Mr. Hollander were violated by the Government of Guatemala, for, under the constitution of Guatemala, no citizen of Guatemala could be lawfully either treated as Mr. Hollander was by the courts of Guatemala or expelled from Guatemala by its Government as he was.

Title 6, article 72: There is a denial of justice * * * when any law has clearly and undoubtedly been violated, and, legal means of redress having been exhausted, it has not been possible to secure a reversal of the decision or reparation of the damage done.

As I have before stated, the law of Guatemala was clearly violated in the proceedings taken against Mr. Hollander, and all legal means of redress were exhausted, or rather prevented, by the expulsion of Mr. Hollander from the country. And it has not been possible as yet to secure a reversal of the decision or reparation of the damage done.

Title 8, article 96: The Government exercises over foreigners all the rights of inspection and vigilance which belong to it according to the laws and police regulations, which foreigners, without exception, are required to obey.

So should any right of inspection and vigilance over Mr. Hollander have been exercised “according to the laws and police regulations;” but the proceedings against Mr. Hollander were not in conformity to those laws.

It is not pretended that Mr. Hollander ever refused to obey the laws of Guatemala.

Article 97: If foreigners who have taken refuge in Guatemala shall (misusing the right of asylum) conspire against the country or endeavor to overthrow or modify its institutions, or to disturb in any way the public tranquillity or peace of a friendly nation, the Government may order their expulsion from the national territory.

This article has no application whatever to Mr. Hollander’s case, for he was not a foreigner who had taken refuge in Guatemala. But there is no pretense that any act of Mr. Hollander was such as is forbidden by this article.

Article 99: A foreigner temporarily residing in the country, or an immigrant who endangers public tranquillity by his conduct, or who has been prosecuted for or convicted in any country of one of the crimes for which extradition is granted, may be compelled by the Government to leave a determinate place, or to reside in such place as may be assigned to him, or finally to leave the Republic.

Mr. Hollander was a foreigner temporarily residing in the country” of Guatemala, but it is not pretended that in any way his conduct in the slightest degree endangered public tranquillity. Eo suggestion of that kind is contained in the decree of his expulsion.

Article 106: The person whom the order of expulsion concerns shall in all cases be notified thereof, and at least twenty-four hours shall be allowed him in which to obey it.

The matter is small, but as characterizing the action of the Government in his case, you will note that while the decree for Mr. Hollander’s expulsion was only communicated to him on the night before he was taken from Guatemala, he was, as stated by Mr. Hosmer in his letter before referred to, taken from the city of Guatemala at 3 o’clock a.m., on the following morning.

Article 131: The provisions of this law shall in no wise impair the immunities and guarantees which are secured to diplomatic and consular officers by international law, and by the treaties or conventions which the Government has concluded; nor shall they impair the rights granted by such treaties in particular to foreigners of a determinate nation.

This law is a plain declaration on the part of the Government of Guatemala of the correctness of the view which I have earnestly urged upon the attention of the Department of State, namely, that the rights of an American citizen in Guatemala as given to him by the treaty between Guatemala and the United States should be fully preserved to him, and that a mere executive decree contrary to such treaty could not be accepted by the Government of the United States as any justification of a violation of those rights by Guatemala. It is true that decree No. 67, under which it was claimed that the expulsion of Mr. Hollander was authorized, did not contain any similar provision with reference to the rights of foreigners under treaty. But it seems to me plain that the insertion of the provision by the Government of Guatemala in this new decree is a recognition that such a provision should have been inserted in decree No. 67; and that the Government of the United States can not recognize that decree No. 67, or any order of expulsion issued under it, as justifying a violation by the Government of Guatemala of the rights which were assured to American citizens by the treaty between the United States and Guatemala.

It has seemed to me advisable that in any other correspondence between the State Department and the Government of Guatemala the declaration of the Government in the above-mentioned decree No. 491 might properly be dwelt on as a condemnation out of its own mouth of its operative action toward Mr. Hollander.

I remain, your obedient servant,

Robert D. Benedict,
Attorney for J. H. Hollander.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 263.]

Mr. Benedict to Mr. Olney.

New York, January 9, 1896.

Sir: On further examination of the Foreign Relations of the United States for 1894, I see upon pages 312 to 315 a correspondence in relation to the case of three American citizens wrongfully arrested in Guatemala in August, 1894. The correspondence shows so close a similarity between that case and the case of Mr. Hollander that I beg leave to call your attention to the points of similarity, as well as to some points of difference, referring to Mr. Young’s letters for the facts in the recent case, and to the dispatches of Mr. Hosmer, our chargé d’affaires at Guatemala, dated May. 18, 1889, and October 7, 1889, for the facts in Mr. Hollander’s case.

Mr. Young states that the three men “were arrested and placed in the penitentiary.” Mr. Hosmer states that Mr. Hollander was arrested and placed in the Santa Catarina jail;” and again, that he was arrested and marched off to jail” and “removed from the jail to the penitentiary.”

Mr. Young states that the men were “arrested without warrant.” Mr. Hosmer states that Mr. Hollander was arrested by two policemen, without showing their warrants for his arrest.”

Mr. Young states that he went to the minister of war, who accompanied him to the President, and that he stated to the President that he was ready to give any bond that might be named for their appearance in court at any time, but he declined to interfere. Mr. Hosmer states that he called to see the President, but was unable to see him;” that on the following day he called upon the minister of foreign affairs, to inquire if new bail would not be accepted for Mr. Hollander, who replied that it was entirely optional with the judge of the court; that he afterwards saw the President, who stated that he did not feel justified in interfering with the action of the court and could not recommend the judge to accept bail.

Mr. Young states that the prisoners were brought before the judge, and he went to the judge and tendered bond, but it was declined. Mr. Hosmer stated that Mr. Hollander “applied to the court to be admitted to bail, having a responsible person who was ready and offered to deposit in the keeping of the court a sum of money equal to the amount originally accepted as bail,” and adds, although the law distinctly permits it bail was refused, and the judge informed me privately to the effect that he would not receive anyone as bondsman, even if twenty of the most responsible people of Guatemala should present themselves for the purpose.”

Mr. Young states that the men were kept under arrest from the 25th day of August to the 6th of September. Mr. Hosmer states that Mr. Hollander, after his first arrest, was kept in prison some fifteen or sixteen days.” And further, that on the 5th of May Mr. Hollander was arrested, on the 6th was removed to the penitentiary, and on the morning of the 17th was removed from the penitentiary under guard and taken out of the city of Guatemala.

The Department will see that the above furnish points of similarity between the two cases. There appear to have been the following points of dissimilarity:

(1) These three men appear to have been laboring men. Mr. Hollander was a man in large business and occupying a prominent position in Guatemala.

(2) One of the men appears to have been beaten. Mr. Hollander was banished from the country and ruined.

I understand that a third point of difference is that the Guatemalan Government has made atonement to all the three men by payment of damages, whereas no atonement whatever has been made to Mr. Hollander for what must be conceded by everyone to have been a case of very much more atrocious oppression.

Mr. Young, in his letter, adopts as his own the question put by one of the men, “Is there really any security for the life, limb, and property of any American in this Republic if this injury is not atoned for!” That is the very question which Mr. Hollander has been asking for the last seven years, and as long as the injury to him remains unatoned for that question will remain a permanent and burning question.

I remain, etc.,

Robert D. Benedict,
Attorney for John H. Hollander.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 263.]

Mr. Darr to Mr. Benedict.

December 20, 1895.

My Dear Sir: When I was vice-consul at Guatemala city it was my opinion, and I am sure it was general also, that Mr. Hollander was very close to the Government officials under President Barillas, and I was sure that all the printing for the Government that could be discreetly given to Hollander was thrown his way. It is now so long ago that I can not say precisely what he did print for the Government, but I feel reasonably sure that I saw piles of printed documents in his printing office ready for delivery to the authorities.

Yours, very truly,

Francis J. A. Darr.