File No. 838.111/50.]

The American Minister to the Secretary of State .

No. 1012.]

Sir: In reference to my No. 989 of December 19, 1911, I have the honor to enclose herewith copies of further correspondence with the Haitian Government relative to the refusal of licenses to certain American firms.

There is also enclosed copy and translation of a note on the same subject which, under date of January 3, 1912, was sent to the Haitian Government by the representatives of Great Britain, France, Cuba, Santo Domingo, Austria and Italy.

I delayed sending my note until the 8th in the hopes that the mail from the States arriving on the 7th would bring me definite instructions from the Department.

I have [etc.]

H. W. Furniss.
[Inclosure 1.—Translation]

The Haitian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Minister .

Mr. Minister: I have had the honor to receive the note of December 18 current by which you advise me of the notice inserted in the “Moniteur” of the 9th of this month, relative to certain merchants who, being refused licenses, [Page 528] have been requested to liquidate their business in a given time. You add that such a measure was brought about by a series of acts tending to exclude a certain category of foreigners from exercising commerce, that it is of a nature to cause the ruin of a certain number of your nationals; that it does not conform to the spirit of justice and equity nor to international treaties and usages. Finally, you request me to indicate the reasons for which the Haitian Government has taken such a decision which, you assure us, it should have no interest to maintain.

In reply, permit me to affirm to you that there was not in the act to which you have been kind enough to call my attention, anything of a nature to make the slightest change in the excellent cordial relations which so happily exist between our two countries. And you will agree with me that every State is forced to protect its own nationals. Surely it is that duty of protection that has obliged the United States to adopt measures towards foreigners engaged abroad by contract, and towards the Chinese measures of exclusion which everybody knows of. And no one, to my knowledge at any rate, has up to now found these measures contrary to the spirit of justice and equity or not conforming with international treaties and usages. They have, rather, been considered as a strong means of defense against a competition judged prejudicial to the interests of their nationals. It is the same means of defense which the Republic of Cuba, inspired no doubt by the suggestions of the United States, has found it a duty to employ. You can not find it wrong, then, that Haiti in her turn seeks to protect her nationals against the Syrians. And, as you know, the Government of the United States only considers the origin of the Chinese, considering with reason, no doubt, that the latter would easily evade the laws of exclusion by means of naturalization winch they would hasten to obtain to be allowed either to enter or to dwell in its territory.

To the preceding reasons I shall request permission to add that the license granted by the President of the Republic is, in the terms of the law now in force, good only for one year. All those who solicit this license know that they can be granted or refused; there is therein a contingency which they surely do not lose sight of. The obligation to request a license and the privilege of granting or refusing it are not peculiar to the Republic of Haiti; they are to be found, for some industries, in other bodies of laws, especially in the laws of certain states of the United States.

The Government brings, in the execution of the existing laws, all the spirit of justice and equity possible. I am pleased to hope that you will agree with me and, in the meanwhile, I take [etc.].

J. N. Léger.
[Inclosure 2.—Translation]

Identic Note of the Ministers to the Haitian Minister for Foreign Affairs. 1

Me. Secretary of State: I have received your letter dated December 28 [26?] replying to that which I had the honor to address you the 18th of the same month on the subject of the notice inserted in the “Moniteur” of the 9th, which constituted a general refusal to renew licenses to all classes of foreigners residing in Haiti among which are a certain number of my citizens.

I can not acquiesce in the manner in which it is set forth by your excellency, nor leave without reply that which, to me, appears to support the arguments presented.

Your excellency brings up the duty of every State to protect its nationals and cites in support of this ground of conduct the example of the United States and Cuba. Now, from my information, in these two countries the measures proclaimed with regard to certain foreigners and particularly to the Chinese treat only of the regulation of the conditions of admission of the new arrivals and does not in any way affect the situation of immigrants already established.

Likewise, in that which concerns the issuance of licenses, if this formality exists in certain States of the American Union, it is a simple mode of proceeding, intended to allow a control of the conduct of the industrials, but its refusal is never a capricious act on the part of the competent authority, it [Page 529] should be delivered in the regular way and based on special grounds setting forth the reasons for which it is opposed, in any case it does not invest it with a collective character and can only arbitrarily and without justified grievance be prejudicial to existing conditions.

No similarity can be drawn from these provisions to furnish support of the measure of exclusion, retroactive and in mass, published in the “Moniteur” of December 9th.

In principle commerce is free in the United States; it is equally so in other countries of which certain of the citizens are included in that act of ostracism. Haitians can freely carry on there like or such other commerce or industry. It is, therefore, really only a minimum of reciprocity to justify the respect of all the establishments set up by fellow-citizens working peaceably in Haiti.

They can not believe themselves liable so that the privilege of carrying on commerce, which has been repeatedly granted to them agreable to the laws and by the Government of this country, could be thus abruptly withdrawn without any reason of reproach therefor. In their legitimate confidence in the established state of affairs, they have established places of business wherein capital of a considerable amount is employed and to which the application of such a measure would be their ruin. It would constitute a violation, disastrous for them, of an acquired right, and would thus be in contradiction to the principle of non-retroactivity universally admitted in the matter of law and administration and particularly proclaimed by the Haitian Constitution (Article 17).

Your excellency sets forth in your letter that: “the license granted by the President of the Republic is only valid for one year and may be granted or refused.” But I must observe to you on this subject that it would be absolutely abnormal that the refusal could be made by the fact of the existence of a Presidential prerogative and without any special and justified cause which may be charged against the merchant thus struck by so serious a measure.

Finally, and above all the detailed arguments and discussion of texts, this affair is particularly dominated by the high sense of justice, equity and conformity with international usages, such as affirm themselves more and more in modern civilization. I again invoke, and most earnestly, these considerations for the defense of my fellow-citizens.

Basing myself on what I have just had the honor to set forth to you, it becomes my duty to protest against the possibility of the application of a measure so unfriendly to foreigners. I shall make a report of the situation to my Government and if the decision in question is maintained, I must notify it of the utility of giving the greatest publicity to the fact that the liberty and security of commerce had received a serious blow in Haiti.

Please accept [etc.].

  1. The American Minister’s note is not inclosed with the despatch. The following is the inclosed translation of the identic note of the other Ministers.