This letter only reached me to-day.
[Inclosure.]
Mr. Goldschmidt
to Mr. Loomis.
Consulate of the United States,
La Guaira, May
20, 1900.
Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your
note of May 18, with inclosure of copies (dispatches to General
Castro) by Jefes Civiles Rivas and Casañas.
You request me to let you know in detail and at once whether they
depart from the facts of the case.
In reply thereto I take the liberty to refer you to my previous
dispatches on the matter and judge whether they are truthful or
not.
However, to prove to you that the statements of both jefes civiles
“depart from the facts,” I will begin by dissecting that of Senor
Rivas first and point out some of its inconsistencies:
- 1.
- There was no disagreeable quarrel between me and the young
man, “a minor,” by the name of Golding.
- 2.
- I simply defended myself from insult to myself and wife
and after being obliged to squeeze my way through a crowd of
men who obstructed the whole street (purposely, I
think).
- 3.
- I did not strike Golding until he jumped back and
threatened to pull a weapon from his pocket.
- 4.
- I did not use offensive language (and certainly would not
use such in presence of my wife), nor am I able to use such,
as my command of Spanish is limited.
- 5.
- The above matter was considered closed, as per statement
of Jefe Civil Rivas, who seems to deplore that the elder
brother of Golding (who is very little older) threatened my
life.
- 6.
- When the jefe civil says “the quarrel thus provoked” he
“departs from the facts” again, as I had never before met
this Golding who threatened to shoot me.
- 7.
- The police did not take immediate action against Golding
No. 2, but permitted him to roam free and unmolested from
the 9th until the 11th of May, when I personally saw him,
and not before the 12th at night did the jefe civil report
to Mr. Schunck that he was arrested, leaving out the
probability that he was in church the 13th, when Mrs.
Schunck saw him.
I have no reason to doubt Mrs. Schunck.
As to the jefe civil “sparing me a police trial” at which, in his
mind, I would not have had the best part, shows conclusively
prejudice against me, as, according to the jefe civil’s own
statement, the first matter was settled, and I believe that the
attempt against my life by Golding No. 2 was entirely a different
matter, which, far from receiving the apparent sanction of the jefe
civil, should have been condemned and the culprit should have been
punished, which I here again reiterate was not done.
He did not, as he says, “take the necessary measures to prevent the
repetition of the threat before mentioned,” because he allowed the
fellow his freedom from the 9th to the 11th undoubtedly.
During these two days he might again have attempted the same
crime.
Now I will take up the dispatch of Señor Casañas, who finds that “a
personal quarrel took place between them, with fault on both
sides.”
I will again say that the first time I ever met Golding No. 2 was
when he faced me, Mrs. Goldschmidt, Mrs. Schunck, and two children
with a revolver directly pointed at us, a fact which might have had
serious consequences had a man not taken his arm in time.
Señor Casañas “departs from the facts” when he states that the man
had suffered six days’ arrest, because I met him at 3 p.m. of the
11th instant, and in his (Casañas’s) reply to my note of the same
date, May 16 (their own statement), “y que dicho Señor ha recobrado
su libertad con el afrecimiento de que partiá manana para Barlovento
en el vapor de esa línea.”
He again “departs from the fact’:” when he says that I agreed to
letting Golding free in our interview, as my note to him and his
reply thereto clearly demonstrates that I was to see him again
before he should do this, after talking to my minister.
He showed indecent haste in liberating a criminal, which he should
not have done for my safety and in respect to his promise.
I will make no further remarks on the case, except to here again
reiterate that the local authorities here have denied me the right
of protection due to a citizen, and particularly when that citizen
is a consul of a foreign nation.
To this end I will but quote a few lines from Wharton’s International
Law, volume 1, Chapter IX, page 1211
(Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State, to Mr. Hunter, April 14, 1837,
etc.):
“Ministers and consuls of foreign nations are the means and agents of
communication between us and those nations, and it is of the utmost
importance that while residing in the country they should feel a
perfect security so long as they faithfully discharge their
respective duties and are guilty of no violation of our laws. This
is the admitted law of nations, and no country has a deeper interest
in maintaining it than the United States. Our commerce spreads over
every sea and visits every clime, and our ministers and consuls are
appointed to protect the interests of that commerce, as well as to
guard the peace of the country and maintain the honor of its flag.
But how can they discharge these duties unless they be themselves
protected and, if protected, it must be by the laws of the country
in which they reside. And what is due to our own public
functionaries residing in foreign nations is exactly the measure of
what is due to the functionaries of other Governments residing here.
As in war the bearers of flags of truce are sacred, or else wars
would be interminable, so in peace embassadors, public ministers,
and consuls charged with friendly national intercourse are objects
of especial respect and protection, each according to the rights
belonging to his rank and station.”
I am, etc.,
Louis Goldschmidt,
United States Consul.
