File No. 831.404/10.
The Acting Secretary of State to Minister Northcott.
Washington, February 27, 1912.
Sir: The Department has received the Legation’s No. 134 of the 2nd ultimo, referring to previous correspondence in regard to the extension of the provisions of the law of ecclesiastical patronage to foreign missionary societies, and enclosing copies of a letter presented to the Legation in triplicate by some of the American missonaries established in Venezuela.
The Department has made the subject of mature and careful deliberation, the protest addressed to Mr. Caffery by certain American missionaries established in Venezuela concerning the executive decree of the Venezuelan Government which is stated to apply to the religious organizations which these missonaries represent the Venezuelan Law of Ecclesiastical Patronage of 1824. The grounds of this protest seem to be in the main that the Law of Ecclesiastical Patronage was intended originally to apply only to the Roman Catholic Church, and that it is not applicable or should not be applicable to the churches or missions which these missionaries represent; that the application of this law deprives the missions of the privileges of freedom of worship guaranteed them by the Venezuelan Constitution, and finally that the decree in question is, by reason of lack of approval by the Venezuelan Congress, unconstitutional under Venezuelan law.
The Department also observes that in the promulgation and execution of this decree, the Venezuelan Government seems not to have avowed an intention to abrogate the privileges of religious freedom hitherto enjoyed in Venezuela, and apparently declares simply that the regulation in question is necessary for the due observance of existing Venezuelan law regulating the exercise of these privileges.
Concerning the possible action of this Department in response to the protest submitted to you, it should be observed, first, that while it has ever been the policy of this Government not to interfere with the internal regulations of foreign governments, more especially in questions of religion, this Government, practicing as it does at home the largest principles of freedom of thought and belief, is naturally desirous [Page 1101] to see its citizens enjoy in other countries a reasonable freedom from restrictions or disabilities imposed by reason of religious faith. While recognizing that the determination of the internal policy of a nation is an attribute of its sovereignty, the United States has not hesitated to express this desire in considerate and friendly ways on appropriate occasions which have arisen at various times in different countries. It should be observed, however, that such representations have never been put upon a basis of strict right, for it surely will be appreciated that this Government may not, as a matter of right, demand that another government shall grant to religionists of American nationality in the territory of that government the degree of freedom or privilege which it might desire to see extended to them. This consideration is particularly applicable to the present situation, for the reason that there is at present no treaty provision in effect between the Government of the United States and that of Venezuela prescribing the rights as to religious liberty to be enjoyed by the citizens of one country in the territory of the other.
Accordingly it must be observed that with all desire to do what it properly may to assist the American missionaries who have addressed the protest to you, in view of this Government’s practice and policy as outlined above, the Department’s opportunity for affirmative action in the matter is necessarily somewhat limited.
Recurring to the specific grounds of the protest, it should be stated, first, that the arguments concerning the invalidity and unconstitutionality of the decree in question would seem to be such as should properly be addressed to the appropriate Venezuelan tribunal, should an actual case arise in which it might be maintained that action by the Venezuelan authorities had illegally abrogated privileges guaranteed the complainant by the Venezuelan laws or constitution. In this connection, it should be further observed that, according to the Department’s present information, at least, it would seem that no actual hardship or injury has yet been suffered by the individuals who have made protest. As it is the Department’s invariable rule not to take action upon hypothetical cases of anticipated injury, it would seem that no action may properly be taken by it in the present case unless a showing is made that the injury apparently anticipated by the missionaries who have solicited the Legation’s assistance, is actually sufficiently imminent and substantial to make action at this time clearly necessary. In this same connection, the Department can only say that should it eventually appear that the enforcement of the decree in question will, as a matter of fact, terminate the privileges of freedom of worship hitherto guaranteed under Venezuelan law, the Department will, of course, be glad to bring the matter to the attention of the Venezuelan Government with the expression of its hope that Venezuela will continue to exhibit the same tolerance in regard to the regulation of the practice of different religions in its territory which has previously characterized its conduct in this regard. Finally it would seem not inappropriate to observe in this connection that the final action of the responsible Venezuelan authorities, concerning the injury and inconvenience suffered by the Reverend David E. Finstrom, to which the petitioners have referred, would appear to evidence a disposition on the part of the Venezuelan Government to afford due and considerate protection to alien religionists within [Page 1102] its territory and to promise well perhaps for its future attitude in this regard.
I am [etc.]