Office of the Historian

Mr. Sampson to Mr. Hay.

Legation of the United States,
Quito, September 1, 1899.
No. 138.]

I hereby inclose copy of a letter sent to the minister of foreign relations of Ecuador, July 28, 1899, which is self-explanatory.

The date of its delivery I was assured I should have speedy answer, but none has yet come. To-day in a conversation with said minister, he claimed that there was no cause of complaint on the part of the United States; that it was an offense for the officer to enter the consulate to serve a summons on the consul-general, but no greater or different offense from that if he had entered any private residence in the city for such a purpose; that he is liable to punishment, but only by the local law as in other cases; that the subcommissary of police, in using abusive, insulting language about said consul-general, was guilty of no other or greater offense than if he had so abused any of his fellow-citizens.

The consul-general feels greatly outraged at the invasion of his consulate, especially as the officer brought with him a drunken discharged employee who had robbed him of about two hundred sucres. * * * What can I do further in this matter? If I had Wharton’s International Law here I could decide, but in its absence must appeal to you for advice.

Second. If an American citizen should enter, uninvited, the consulate and insult or assault the consul-general, would he be subject to any other or greater punishment than a citizen of this country?

An answer specially important.

I have, etc.,

Archibald J. Sampson.
[Inclosure in No. 138.]

Mr. Sampson to Mr. Peralta.

United States Legation,
Quito, Ecuador, July 28, 1899.
No. 90.]

Sir: I am just advised that Subcommissary of Police Landin, of Guayaquil, issued a summons in a civil suit against the United States consul-general in Guayaquil, requiring him to appear before him and answer certain complaints in debt (I am assured [Page 262] most unjust demands), and when he did so appear used insulting and abusive language of and toward him. Said summons was served by an officer entering, without permission, the consulate-general.

Appeal was made to the governor, who had failed to afford relief.

Will you see that said Officer Landin is punished according to your law for insult offered the consul-general, and the officer for violating the sanctity of the consulate-general?

I have, etc.,

Archibald J. Sampson.

I have since learned that the consul-general did not appear before the subcommissary of police, but his secretary did, and heard the abusive statements.

A. J. Sampson, Minister.