Mr. Gresham to Mr. Smythe.
Washington , November 5, 1894 .
Sir: I have received Mr. Terres’s No. 91, of October 6, 1894, relative to the expulsion of one Eugene Wiener, an American citizen, residing at Jeremie, Haiti. The Department has also received from Mr. Wiener himself a letter complaining of his arbitrary expulsion from that country in pursuance of an Executive order dated October 2, 1894, and published the next day in Le Moniteur, the official journal of that Republic.
The contents of the decree, so far as it relates to Wiener, are in substance as follows:
That whereas international law confers on every independent State the right to expel from its territory foreigners whose conduct and acts are dangerous to tranquillity and public order; and whereas Mr. Eugene Wiener, an American, residing at Jeremie, is an active agent of the enemies of order who are plotting in Jamaica and elsewhere against the established Government; and whereas these intrigues are of a character to endanger the public safety, it is ordered that said Wiener, now at Jeremie, be expelled from the territory of the Republic of Haiti; that he be put aboard the first vessel leaving for foreign ports, and the chief of administrative police at Jeremie is charged with the execution of this decree.
Wiener says his first intimation of the Government’s purpose to expel him was received on the 9fch of October from General de la Place, the Délegué du Gouvernement at Jeremie who read the decree of expulsion to him and ordered him to leave by the first steamer.
He was engaged in a general commission business, having transactions with several firms in New York. A large amount of money was due him. He had just completed a new building, and otherwise extended his business. His presence in Haiti was of great importance to him. He asked, therefore, for time to arrange his business affairs, but was refused. He then asked permission to go to Port au Prince, that he might consult the American minister and request the President to let him face his accusers. This, too, was refused. The President declined to receive him. He then wrote to the American consular agent at Jeremie, declaring his innocence of any complicity in the political affairs of the country and protesting against his treatment.
A few days after he was notified of the decree of expulsion a French steamer, bound for Martinique, touched at Jeremie, and the authorities ordered him to leave by that steamer. He asked permission to wait [Page 802] for the New York steamer, which was due in a few days, and requested time to collect some of the money due him, to adjust his accounts, and arrange for the support of his family. All this was denied him, and he was forced to leave by the French vessel on October 12 only three or four days after receiving notice of his expulsion.
Copies of Wiener’s letter to the Department1 and to the United States consular agent at Jeremie1 are herewith inclosed. You will, of course, have no trouble in procuring a copy of Le Moniteur of October 3, which contains the decree of expulsion.
This Government does not propose to controvert the principle of international law, which authorizes every independent State to expel objectionable foreigners or classes of foreigners from its territory. The right of expulsion or exclusion of foreigners is one which the United States, as well as many other countries, has upon occasion exercised when deemed necessary in the interest of the Government or its citizens.
But this right, though based upon recognized principles of international law, has limitations which the same principles impose.
Every state is authorized, for reasons of public order, to expel foreigners who are temporarily residing in its territory. But when a Government expels a foreigner without cause, and in an injurious manner, the State of which this foreigner is a citizen has the right to prefer a claim for this violation of international law, and to demand satisfaction if there is occasion for it. (Calvo’s Dict. of Int. Law, “Expulsion.”)
The United States neither excludes nor expels foreigners except in pursuance of general laws. The provisions of these laws are or may be known in advance to all persons upon whom they are intended to operate. Ample time is given for compliance with the laws looking to the expulsion of foreigners, and for the settlement of the business affairs of individuals to be affected by them, and ample opportunity is afforded them to show that they are not within the operation of the law.
In Germany and other European countries from which Americans have sometimes been expelled, they have always been first accorded a hearing, and have been given a reasonable time for the settlement of their affairs.
There is certainly nothing in the law or practice of this country which can be cited as a precedent for the arbitrary expulsion of foreigners without hearing and without cause. The just rule would seem to be that no nation can single out for expulsion from its territory an individual citizen of a friendly nation without special and sufficient grounds therefor. And even when such grounds exist the expulsion should be effected with as little injury to the individual and his property interests as may be compatible with the safety and interest of the country which expels him.
That universal sense of right and justice which suggests that no man should be condemned without a hearing would seem to require that the person singled out for expulsion should, as a general rule, first be notified of the charges against him and given an opportunity to refute them. If the case is so urgent and the presence of the foreigner so dangerous to the State that this can not with safety be done, the expelling Government is under obligation to the Government of the person expelled to explain the grounds of its action, by not only asserting, but proving, the existence of facts sufficient to justify the expulsion.
Not only is the right of excluding or expelling obnoxious aliens as an attribute of national sovereignty limited by general principles of international [Page 803] law, bat its exercise becomes further importantly modified by conventional obligations, such as are found in the existing treaty between the United States and Haiti, the stipulations of which clearly intend that no citizen of the United States in Haiti shall be deprived of liberty or subjected to punishment save by due process of law.
Under our treaty with Haiti citizens of the United States are entitled to reside and do business in Haiti while conforming to the laws and regulations in force, and to have free access to the tribunals of justice on the same terms as native Haitians; and they can not be deprived of those rights unless they have been forfeited, in which case they are entitled to know the grounds of forfeiture. If forfeiture be claimed for causes other than political, they are entitled to open and fair trial; if for participation in sedition, they should be informed of the charge against them and the evidence in support thereof. This Government can not acquiesce in the arbitrary expulsion of its citizens from the territory of a friendly State on purely political grounds without satisfactory proof that their acts withdraw them from the guaranties of our treaty of 1864; and even were such proof presented and found sufficient, they are entitled to a reasonable time to dispose of any business interests or possessions they may have there acquired.
You will therefore call the attention of the Haitian Government to this case, and request it to furnish this Government with evidence of the acts and conduct alleged against Mr. Wiener, and which he denies.
I am, etc.