Mr. Terres to Mr.
Uhl.
Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince Haiti, June 5,
1895. (Received Jane 17.)
No. 149.]
Sir: I beg leave to report to you that on the
24th of April last the second installment of the indemnity awarded Mr.
Richard Allen became due, and that on the 9th ultimo an order on the
National Bank of Haiti for the amount, $7,375, was sent to this
legation, but on presenting the order at the bank payment was refused on
the grounds that there was an attachment (opposition judiciaire) thereon
made by a Mr. M. Devot.
Mr. Smythe communicated this fact to the secretary of state for foreign
relations in a dispatch dated May 11 (inclosure No. 1), and at an
interview had a few days later spoke of the affair to Mr. Faine, who
informed him that his colleague of the department of finance could not
give an order for the payment overruling the judicial opposition, and
that they must respect the said legal attachment. Mr. Smythe referred to
a similar case of an attachment made on the Yan Bokkelen award which was
overruled by Mr. Firmin, at that time secretary of finance, to which Mr.
Faine replied that while such was a fact, yet the council of secretaries
of state did not agree with Mr. Firmin in this action, and that,
moreover, the Government of Haiti had been obliged to pay to the parties
making the attachment the amount of their claims against the Van
Bokkelen estate.
Later Mr. Smythe transmitted to the department for foreign relations a
dispatch (inclosure No. 2), to which a reply (inclosure No. 3) was
received and to which he replied (inclosure No. 4).
I would be thankful for any instructions the Department might deem
pertinent in the matter.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No.
149.]
Mr. Smythe to Mr.
Faine.
Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince, May
11, 1895.
My Dear Mr. Secretary: In response to my
verbal communication in relation to the second installment of the
indemnity accorded to Richard Allen, an American citizen, by
diplomatic agreement, I have received an order on the Banque
Nationale for the sum due.
On the presentation of this order it was marked “opposition
judiciaire” and payment withheld. It has been held heretofore,
notably in the case of Yan Bokkelen, that it would not be in accord
with the dignity of either Government to allow any interference with
the full compliance with the terms of such agreements.
You are therefore requested to secure from your colleague of finance
his order for the payment of said installment, notwithstanding the
opposition judiciaire.”
I am, etc.,
[Page 815]
[Inclosure 2 in No.
149.]
Mr. Smythe to Mr.
Faine.
Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince, May
22, 1895.
Sir: Your verbal communication at our last
interview to the effect that your office sustained the seizure of an
installment of Mr. Allen’s indemnity money while in transit to this
legation has been the subject of thought and investigation, and I am
convinced that it would be in derogation to the dignity of my
Government and of yours to permit any interference with the terms of
the agreement entered into between your office and this legation. If
that is still your opinion, be kind enough to put it in writing, so
that I can transmit it to my Government for instruction.
Please accept, etc.,
[Inclosure 3 in No.
149—Translation.]
Mr. Faine to Mr.
Smythe.
Department of State for Foreign Relations,
Port ate Prince, May
30, 1895.
Mr. Minister: I have the honor to reply to
your letter of the 22d instant, by which you request me to confirm
in writing the opinion of my Government, which I made known to you
during the course of our last interview, in regard to the seizure
made by a third party of the indemnity granted by the Haitian
Government to Mr. Richard Allen. I said to you, and of this I am
convinced, that it does not appertain to my Government to oppose in
any manner the free exercise of the rights of a third party. The
common law of all nations permits all creditors to seize the goods
of his debtor in whomsoever’s hand he may find it.
It seems to me, moreover, that the Government has not the quality to
intervene in such instances between the creditor and the debtor.
Please accept, etc.,
[Inclosure in No. 149.]
Mr. Smythe to Mr.
Faine.
Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince, May
30, 1895.
Sir: Your dispatch of 30th of May has been
received in regard to the indemnity of Mr. Richard Allen. I am sure
that the views contained in my preceding dispatch will be sustained
by my Government, and must insist that the indemnity which was in
transit to this legation shall not be interfered with by any local
tribunal. If any liabilities exist against Mr. Allen they must be
settled by the local courts; and permit me again to say, Mr.
Secretary, that your Government and mine have already agreed that it
would be against the dignity of either to interfere with a
diplomatic arrangement of the character of this on record in this
legation and in your office. As much as I regret that our views in
this behalf are not the same, I must insist that the payment of the
indemnity be made to this legation; and, Mr. Minister, so
[Page 816]
far as I know, there was
no stipulation that this money should be paid through the bank of
Haiti, but should be paid into the legation of the United
States.
In the sincere hope that the views expressed herein after
consideration will commend themselves to you,
I have, etc.,
