File No. 838.111/54.
The Acting Secretary of State to the American Minister.
Washington, January 20, 1912.
Sir: The Department acknowledges the receipt of your despatches Nos. 977 and 989, of November 25th, and December 19th, respectively, with regard to the recent action of the Haitian Government in refusing to renew the licenses of Syrian traders and in ordering them to liquidate their business by May 31st of this year.
This question has been under the careful consideration of the Department, which is impelled to conclude as a matter of right, that, if the law of 1903 is to be enforced, you should require that the Syrian firms in Haiti of American nationality be given an adequate time to wind up their affairs. You may also request that the Syrian firms of other nationalities which are acting as agents of or are debtors of American exporting firms be given this adequate time to liquidate their business. The Haitian Government now proposes to allow six months for this process. It has been alleged that this [Page 530] time is wholly insufficient and that it will be impossible to effect liquidation in that time without a great money loss to the Syrian firms and to their American creditors. If upon due investigation and consideration you are convinced that this allegation represents the fact, you will represent that the six month’s period is inadequate and request that an adequate and reasonable time be allowed. It may be pointed out that in addition to Haiti’s general obligation under the principles of international law to enforce such a law as the one in question reasonably, Haiti has put itself in justice and equity under an additional obligation to grant such a reasonable time for liquidation by its eight or nine years’ permission to Syrians to do business in Haiti, notwithstanding the provisions of the law of 1903.
Should you find that discrimination is being exercised in the enforcement of the law of 1903,—that is to say, that the Haitian Government is permitting certain of the Syrians to do business in Haiti and denying the right to others—you are instructed to object to such discrimination and to demand an explanation of the Haitian Government, insisting that the law be uniformly enforced or not enforced at all.
In connection with this Government’s general right in the matter your attention is called to a recent case in Panama in which the Government of Panama asserted its right to prohibit the entry into Panama of a naturalized citizen of the United States of Syrian nativity and the Department instructed the Legation that while it might exert all proper effort to obtain for the naturalized Syrian the most respectful and considerate treatment consonant with the necessary enforcement of the Panaman Immigration Law, the Department did not feel it advisable to take issue with the Government of Panama as to its right to enforce against naturalized American citizens of the designated nationalities of origin (Turkish, Chinese and Syrian) such an immigration law as the one in question, assuming that it was enforced without unnecessary hardship to the persons against whom it was directed. The Legation’s attention was directed to the fact, referred to by the Panaman Foreign Office, that under its present immigration laws, it is the practice of the United States strictly to enforce the exclusion regulations directed against the Chinese, for example, irrespective of the consideration that the Chinese seeking admission to our territory may, at the time, owe allegiance to a power whose native subjects are insured the freest access to the United States territory.
In reply to your inquiry as to whether the Department entered into an understanding with Mr. Leger when he was Minister to the United States consenting to the exclusion from Haiti of any Americans of Syrian origin, you are informed that a careful search of the archives of the Department has produced no written evidence of such an understanding although it would appear not unlikely the Department may have made some such admission.
For your information and guidance in this matter there is enclosed herewith a copy of a memorandum of the Solicitor of this Department in which the rights of this Government are discussed at length.1
[Page 531]As a matter of policy, of course, this Government has a deep interest in the present situation because of the fact that a very large percentage of American export trade carried on in Haiti is actually done through merchants of Syrian origin, and the enforcement of the present measures adopted by the Haitian Government would probably more severely injure American trade than any other foreign commerce. You therefore should informally endeavor to discourage the enforcement of this legislation, refraining carefully from asserting any position from which it might be necessary subsequently to recede because of the refusal on the part of the Haitian Government to acquiesce in your views.
I am [etc.]
- Not printed.↩