Mr. Loomis to Mr.
Hay.
Legation of the United States,
Caracas, February 23,
1901.
No. 563.]
Sir: I have the honor to inclose a copy and
translation of the answer of the Venezuelan Government to my note
requesting prompt and satisfactory consideration of the Balz case, with
suitable apologies to the consular agent of the United Sates at
Barcelona. The meaning of the inclosed answer is that the case, so far
as this Government is concerned, has been dropped. There will be no
further investigation, in all probability, for this is the usual formula
for denying a request.
* * * * * * *
Referring to your instructions numbered 379, I did not make a demand for
apologies and explanations in this case in the first instance because I
thought a request in so clear and simple a case would be sufficient; but
it seems that I was mistaken, and unless I receive, instructions to the
contrary I will make the demand as indicated in your instructions.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1.]
Mr. Loomis to
Mr. Blanco.
Legation of the United States,
Caracas, January 30, 1901.
Mr. Minister: A few weeks ago I had the
honor, during the course of a conversation at the foreign office, to
invite your attention to the consideration of an incident which
occurred last October. I refer to the arrest of the consular agent
of the United States at Barcelona. I am now directed by my
Government to bring the matter to the attention of your excellency
and to ask for its prompt and earnest consideration.
The facts in the case appear to be as follows:
On the afternoon of October 22, 1900, Mr. I. H. Balz, the consular
agent of the United States at Barcelona, was arrested without due
process of law and cast into prison. It was stated that the minister
of the interior telegraphed the authorities at Barcelona that the
Balz wanted was one who was treasurer under the Government, in that
State, of President Rolando. The authorities knew very well that Mr.
Balz was a peaceful merchant, who never had any connection with the
Government at Barcelona. Notwithstanding that, and despite his
protests, he was arrested, imprisoned, and kept in confinement till
9 o’clock the following morning, when he was released with the
remark that his arrest and incarceration “was a mistake.”
Mr. Russell, upon learning of Mr. Balz’s arrest, at once called upon
your excellency and recited the facts respecting it. Mr. Russell was
informed that the arrest was a mistake and that Mr. Balz had been
released with due explanations and apologies.
Mr. Russell then sent the following telegram to Mr. Balz, which has
not yet reached him. It was sent over the Government lines and was
paid for at the time of filing in the Caracas office:
Consul Americano, Barcelona.
Gobierno me dijo que por equivocación fué arrestado y al saber error
inmediatamente le había puesto en libertad con las debidas excusas.
Conteste.
Russell.
[Page 536]
No satisfactory apology has been made in connection with this arrest,
and it is not the first time Mr. Balz has been subjected to harsh
treatment at the hands of the local authorities at Barcelona.
Referring to the incident in question, I am instructed by my
Government to say that it will protect Mr. Balz while acting as its
consular representative against the arbitrary interference of local
officials, and I am further instructed to request that suitable
apologies be made to Mr. Balz and that sufficient measures be taken
to prevent the recurrence of similar acts.
I think when your excellency reviews this case you will admit that
there has been an oversight in the matter of apology to Mr. Balz,
and that the failure to deliver Mr. Russell’s telegram has not been
at all explained.
Accept, etc.,
[Inclosure
2.—Translation.]
Mr. Blanco to
Mr. Loomis.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
United States of
Venezuela,
Caracas, February 16,
1901.
Mr. Minister: Referring to the affair of
Mr. Balz, mentioned in your excellency’s note of the 30th of last
month, this ministry has asked from the ministry of interior a full
report of the occurrence, and the ministry of fomento has also been
asked to explain the apparent loss of the telegram sent by Mr.
Russell. As to the excuses or explanations referred to in your note,
this ministry is of the opinion that Mr. Balz ought to be satisfied,
as the local authorities were immediately called upon to explain the
motive for the arrest and their report was transmitted through
official channels. The miscarriage of the telegram would, at best,
be an unpleasant incident that would have nothing to do with the
Government’s desire to throw light on the case and explain it
satisfactorily.
The Government took action in this case because it deems that a
consular agent is always worthy of much consideration, but as all
action must necessarily be limited, considering the character of the
official in question, it is not possible to take such action as
would be taken had the incident occurred to a diplomatic
representative. It is useless to attempt to explain to your
excellency the radical differences between the two cases—differences
which make the consular agent subject to civil jurisdiction as far
as his property and person are concerned.a Inviolability is confined to the
office, the flag, the archives, escutcheon, and seals; consequently
complaints from consuls can never be regarded as seriously as
complaints from public ministers.
I make these observations to your excellency in order to inform you
of the measures that have been taken to clear up the affair of Mr.
Balz, who can look for no other action to be taken in his case than
would be taken in similar cases with respect to any person whatever
entitled to the guaranty and protection given by the laws of the
country.
Accept, etc.,
