Mr. Jones to Mr. Hay.
Buenos Ayres, February 3, 1900.
Sir: In connection with my No. 768, of the 29th ultimo, reporting the existence of the bubonic plague at Rosario, I have the honor to inclose herewith copy and translation of a note from the Argentine Government formally apprising the legation of this fact, and a copy of my reply thereto. I likewise beg to inclose copy and translation of the sanitary decree of the 26th ultimo, referred to in my previous dispatch on the subject.
I also inclose copy of the decree of the 24th ultimo, and beg to especially call the Department’s attention to an incident arising in connection therewith, and to ask for instructions for my guidance in the conduct of the legation with respect to that incident.
As will be seen, the first three articles are to the effect that notice is at once to be given either to the minister of the interior or the national board of health of any suspicious case by any functionary in the locality to whose knowledge it may come; that the board of health will thereupon dispatch one or more of its employees to the most convenient spot for seeing to the observance of all measures prescribed by law, and that governors of provinces and these sanitary officials must cooperate in providing for the execution of all necessary measures.
The fourth article says that on the national board of health obtaining scientific proof of the existence of exotic disease anywhere within Argentine territory it is to apprise the minister of the interior thereof without delay, in order that the executive may give official notice of the epidemic, with a statement of the places where it exists, and of its nature, and name, and the character it presents.
The fifth article runs as follows:
Until an official declaration has been made of the existence of an exotic disease in Argentine territory, no national or provincial functionary, nor any foreign agent accredited to the National Government, may affirm in any document the existence of such disease, whatever may be the data or reports which are thought to justify the assertion.
According to the sixth article the office of prefect-general of ports is to advise all subordinate offices that no vessel is to be allowed to leave [Page 2] an Argentine port bearing on its bill of health any statement of the existence of exotic disease in the Republic until the National Executive shall have declared the same by decree.
The seventh article forbids the board of health from supplying any information about investigations carried out for the purpose of diagnosis without permission from the ministry of the interior.
The eighth article provides for the dismissal of any national official who, before declaration of the existence of exotic disease has been made by the President, shall affirm its existence in the press or in any official document, and goes on to say that “the functionaries or agents of foreign nations who commit a similar transgression against the sanitary dispositions of the county will be denounced to the Government in whose service they are in the manner prescribed by international law.”
The remaining articles, 9 to 16, inclusive, are of an administrative character and furnish instructions for the guidance of all persons concerned in dealing with cases in point.
Two days after the publication of the decree in the Boletin Oficial a meeting of all the heads of missions of the diplomatic body at this capital was called by the British minister, its dean, at the instance of the French minister and the chargé d’affaires of Austria-Hungary, whereat strong exception was taken to articles 5 and 8 of the decree on the ground that they infringed upon prerogatives of the diplomatic officer and placed him in the same category with the national official and employee.
After a rather lengthy discussion on the subject, and the motion to address a joint note of protest to the Argentine Government being voted down, it was proposed to choose Mr. Barrington, the British minister; Mr. Cavalcanti, the Brazilian minister, and myself to call on the acting minister of foreign relations and ask in the name of the whole diplomatic body an explanation and rectification of the provisions objected to.
Upon my declining the nomination to be one of the delegates, the following memorandum, for the guidance of the British and Brazilian ministers in their interview with the acting minister of foreign relations, was drawn up:
Les membres du corps diplomatique aprés une échange de vues et avant de demander des instructions á leurs Gouvernements respectifs sur le fonds et la forme du decret 24 Janvier, ou il y a des prescriptions contraires a leur mandats, ont chargé MM. Barrington et Cavalcanti de rechercher avec le ministre des affaires étrangeres les moyens d’établir des formules qui ne portent pas atteinte aux droits qui leur sont reconnus dans tous les pays ainsi qu’aux devoirs qu’ils ont a remplir vis-à-vis de leurs Gouvernements.
In keeping herewith, Mr. Barrington and Mr. Cavalcanti called, on the 30th ultimo, on Dr. Yofre, the minister of the interior and acting minister of foreign relations during the absence of Dr. Alcorta, who is in Paris. They reported at the second meeting of the diplomatic body, held to-day, the result of their proceedings. They pointed out to the minister the unusual form which had been given to the decree, informing him of the feeling of annoyance entertained by the foreign representatives at seeing themselves included in regulations affecting matters of internal administration; at blame being, as it were, imputed to them in advance, and at the minatory language employed in a public document with regard to them in the event of their own sense of duty impelling them to act otherwise than according to the dictation of the Argentine Government.
[Page 3]Dr. Yofre at once said that nothing was further from his thoughts than any idea of wounding the susceptibilities of diplomats accredited to the Argentine Government; that he would willingly try to arrange some means of conciliation, and that, as a matter of fact, the decree, though it might be somewhat faulty in wording, was never meant to apply to them at all, and certainly not to exercise any sort of control over the correspondence they might address to their Governments. The expression, “any document,” occurring in the fifth article, applied solely to ships’ papers, including bills of health, and the whole purpose of the clauses affecting foreign functionaries was to prevent consular representatives from issuing foul bills of health when the existence of an epidemic had not been formally recognized by the Argentine Government. He could not, however, do anything without previous consultation with the President, and Mr. Barrington and Mr. Cavalcanti left him with the understanding that they would have another interview subsequently.
The British minister having occasion to see the President the next day about another matter, also took advantage of it to allude to this conversation with Dr. Yofre, and to say that he thought it was much to be regretted that the decree had been drawn up in such terms as to raise the objections that were entertained by the foreign representatives here. He remarked, as he tells me, that the right of the Argentine Government to complain of any of them could not be contested, and that in the case of consuls—should such an extreme measure be judged necessary—it was within the powers of the Executive to withdraw their exequaturs. But the President, too, protested that there had been no intention of giving offense, and said that Dr. Yofre would do what he could to come to some compromise.
When Mr. Barrington and Mr. Cavalcanti again saw the acting minister of foreign relations, they again repeated most of the arguments previously employed, and also urged the special difficulties in which diplomatic representatives found themselves who were at the same time discharging consular functions, such as the Italian minister, the French minister, and others. They also pointed out that official instructions on the subject of bills of health varied in different countries, and that those whose duty it was to fill them up might be under the necessity, if not delivering a foul bill, at any rate of recording suspicious circumstances, which might merely entail closer observation of a vessel on arrival at her port of destination. Dr. Yofre, however, maintained that the decree itself could not be changed, and that the phrases to which the diplomatic body took exception were meant to prevent consuls from pleading ignorance of the attitude assumed by the Government as regards the manifestation of an epidemic or exotic disease. He finally stated that he would be quite ready to afford a written explanation of this sort in answer to any note Mr. Barrington might address him on behalf of the diplomatic body, but that he did not see any other way open to him to meet the objections entertained by its members.
Upon this rather unsatisfactory result of Mr. Barrington and Mr. Cavalcanti’s interviews being learned, it was eventually decided that, as the Argentine Government maintained that the decree itself could not be altered, an exchange of notes would lead to no practical result, the essence of the objections raised to its terms remaining untouched, and that it would, therefore, be preferable for each representative to refer [Page 4] the matter to his government and ask for telegraphic instructions in the event of their being deemed requisite under the circumstances.
In conformity with this conclusion, I have considered it my duty to submit the above, and beg to ask the Department for explicit instructions, telegraphic if possible, concerning the attitude to be taken by this legation in the matter. At the meetings of the diplomatic body I have declined to sign any collective note and sought to pursue a conciliatory policy, not wishing in any way to lessen or impair the friendly attitude of the officials of the Argentine Government toward the legation on the one hand and toward me personally on the other.
At the same time it can not be denied that, though the passages of the decree objected to may have been drafted without that intent, yet they, notwithstanding, officially express a quasi denial of the extraterritorial attributes of diplomatic officers, which, if allowed to pass without further notice on the part of the governments who are diplomatically represented here, would more than likely tend to lessen the prestige of their representatives.
The reference to foreign agents in the decree appears to me, moreover, entirely superfluous, inasmuch as the Argentine Government has the incontestable right to protest against or complain of them to their own governments, and such right needs, therefore, no special emphasis in a decree. At the same time such reference imputes to the diplomatic or consular officer a looseness of official action which can not be considered other than discourteous to him.
I furthermore beg to draw the Department’s attention to section 4 of the quarantine law of the United States approved February 15, 1893, wherein a consular officer is especially enjoined to report weekly the sanitary condition of the port or place at which he is stationed. The question arises here as to the sources from which he is to derive his information. Shall he solely report the official declarations of the Argentine Government to his government, which in some cases are liable to be issued tardily in order to avert or postpone as long as possible the deleterious effect such declarations must have upon the trade and commerce of the country, or shall he, in his own judgment, where good and reliable private and even public information is available, report also the facts as they come to him through the latter sources? Would he not be hampered in the full exercise of his official duty to his own government, and might he not endanger the health conditions of his own country if he should not have the right of reporting sanitary information other than official? And yet the above decree deprives him of this right, and explicitly prescribes for him the moment when he may issue “a document” intended to warn his government of impending danger from infection.
I believe, therefore, that a more pronounced action than the diplomatic body has been able to take without instructions would be commendable, with a view to obtaining from the Argentine Government a declaration in the Boletin Oficial offering an explanation, and, if possible, making a withdrawal of the passages complained of.
I also beg to enclose extracts from the daily press, which I regret not to have had time to render into English, but which in substance criticise the Argentine Government for great negligence in the drafting of the decree, and recommend a ratification of the error it has committed.
I have the honor, etc.,