File No. 838.516/37.
The Minister of Haiti to the Secretary of State.
Washington, December 29, 1914.
Mr. Secretary of State: Referring to my letter dated December 22 last and to our conversation on Saturday last, December 26, I think that it may not be superfluous, in the presence of the disclosures and comments of the press of the United States, accurately to define the object of the communication which I have been instructed by my Government to make on the subject of the shipment of the funds deposited with the National Bank of Haiti. That institution in so doing assuredly acted most unlawfully and clearly made itself liable to the State which had entrusted it with its Treasury service. The act is all the more reprehensible as the institution could not misunderstand the absolute interdiction placed upon it as to the removal of the funds which, in the express language of the law of August 11, 1903, constituted a sacred deposit in the vaults of the National Bank of Haiti. It was so well aware of the condition of things in this respect, that, when on January 5, 1914, the Central Commission for the Supervision of Redemption, presided over by the Secretary of State for Finance, discovered the shortage mentioned in my last letter, Messrs. John Allen and H. Desrue, joint managers, had no other recourse than a promise to make good the deficiency as soon as the gold the Bank expected from New York arrived, as shown by the protocol which the joint managers unhesitatingly signed and which [Page 378] contains the following positive statement of the aforesaid Central Commission: “We protested against the proceeding of the Bank and declared to the managers of the institution that the funds allotted for redemption constitute a sacred deposit which it is forbidden to touch under any pretext for any use other than that assigned to it by law.”
I may add that it was the Bank itself which in a letter addressed by Mr. H. Desrue to the Secretary of State for Finance on August 1, 1914, reverted to the consideration that had already been presented by his main office on June 26 last, and, averring that those considerations were “reenforced by the present European crisis,” deemed it advisable for the Haitian Government to take prompt measures toward stopping the exchange of gold for exchange notes as required by the law of August 26, 1913, under existing conditions.
It is therefore inconceivable that it could have believed itself authorized to withdraw from its strong boxes and put on board a ship valuables that did not belong to it and are the property of the Republic of Haiti. Furthermore if it thought itself competent to enter into a controversy with the Haitian Government on the subject, all it had to do was to resort to the arbitral jurisdiction provided by Article 23 of the grant contract with that French corporation which article concludes as follows: “Any diplomatic claim is positively barred.”
At all events the Haitian nation was intensely surprised and pained at the Government of the United States passing judgment on internal measures enacted by the Legislature of the Republic of Haiti and lending the cooperation of its sailors in an act which cannot in any way be defended and might prove to be such as to rekindle misunderstandings and apprehensions that had been so happily dispelled by the honest application of the principle of equality among States.
That is the proceeding of which the Haitian Government has just reason to complain while continuing in the conviction that the traditional sense of justice and equity of the United States justifies the expectation of becoming reparation.
Be pleased to accept, [etc.]