Mr. Hart to Mr. Hay.
Bogotá, August 23, 1902.
Sir: Referring to the Department’s No. 407, of June 28, 1902, just received, in the matter of the forcible expropriation by the Colombian military authorities at Santa Marta, without compensation, of the property of American citizens, I have the honor to submit the following:
On Thursday last, 21st instant, being the one day of the week fixed for the reception of diplomatic agents accredited to this Government, [Page 309] I called at the foreign office to lay before the minister the several matters of complaint communicated to me in the Department’s instructions bearing June dates. The assistant secretary said that the minister had been called to a cabinet meeting and had left word that any minister who desired to discuss any matter might do so with the assistant secretary. This was far from satisfactory, but, in order to lose no time, I opened to the assistant secretary, among other things, the case now under consideration, which I promised to set forth fully in a note to the minister for foreign affairs. The assistant secretary said that of course his Government learns always with regret of such unlawful acts, unhappily of too frequent occurrence during the present civil war, and he had no doubt that a prompt and thorough inquiry would be made. * * *
Assuming the truth of the statements in the Santa Marta matter, this is not the first case of its kind during the present civil war; and, if the war continue, it will not be the last, unless more impressive steps shall be taken to arouse the Colombian Government to a realizing sense of its responsibility. In my conversation, above referred to, with the assistant secretary of the foreign office, he said that unfortunately the military and police do as they please, and the more remote from the capital the more difficult it is to check them. He admitted that many so-called cases of expropriation are no more than common thefts committed in the interests of the seizing officers. The assistant secretary agreed with me that this does not relieve his Government of responsibility for the acts of its agents.
In my dispatches to the Department during the present civil war in Colombia I have frequently called attention to the free-handed way in which the property of foreigners is seized by the Colombian military authorities. During my absence in the United States, on leave, Mr. Beaupré, in No. 605, of May 5, 1902, laid before the Department a good specimen case of an outrage committed against an American citizen under the very thin disguise of an expropriation for military purposes. I take the liberty to recall Mr. Beaupré’s dispatch to the Department’s attention, because the act therein reported was committed at this capital and under circumstances which made Mr. Beaupré familiar at once with all the details. We have here a case that can not be lost in a distant Department, nor swept away by anybody’s denial, nor justified on the ground of pressing public necessity—that can not be belittled nor befogged in any way whatsoever. Yet, if the matter be allowed to rest as it is, the American citizen whose property was taken will be paid, if ever, the ridiculously inadequate price arbitrarily fixed by the officer who arbitrarily took his property.
In the Santa Marta case there was forcible expropriation by the Colombian military authorities, without compensation and without receipt for the property taken.
In the Bogotá case there was forcible expropriation by the Colombian military authorities, without compensation, receipt being given for a ridiculously small part of the value of the property taken.
Cases of each kind are of frequent occurrence. Where they involve the property of American citizens, what can this legation do to extend the protection which the circumstances seem to warrant? And what is “due compensation?” If by “due compensation” is meant a fair price paid at the time of taking the property, and if the Colombian Government be notified of the intention to exact these conditions, the [Page 310] seizure of American property for military purposes will come quickly to an end. Compensation fixed capriciously and delayed indefinitely can not be “due compensation.”
The Colombian Government announces that while the war lasts it will not pay claims growing out of expropriations, so that the use of good offices in this behalf must almost certainly be unavailing.
I respectfully ask definite instructions in respect of the expropriation of the property of American citizens, so that, if there be a way to do so, I may know how the Department would have me proceed to extend to American citizens the protection which they ask, and, failing this, that I may secure for them promptly the compensation to which they may be entitled.
I am, etc.,