Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 5, 1899

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 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.