File No. 711.38/71
I am therefore at your excellency’s disposal regarding the said exchange
of ratifications.
[Inclosure 3—Translation]
Interpretative Commentary.—Annex to the Convention
of September 16, 1915, between Haiti and the United States.
article i
1. The aid “will aid” of the United States under consideration is a
formal engagement made by that Government. It is not optional but
obligatory. Else there would be no occasion for the convention.
2. By good offices “bons offices,” the convention means that the
Government of the United States will use the influence it commands
to give us active assistance. It will, for instance, facilitate in
the American market such loans as may be needed; it will use its
influence in developing our agricultural, mining and commercial
resources.
3. The American Government does not propose to appropriate to itself
a monopoly of mining operations. The companies owning regular
concessions will hold them.
The good offices of the American Government will place the Republic
of Haiti in a situation which will win the confidence of
capitalists. The Haitian Government will be able to consolidate its
debts by means of an advantageous loan, the Government of the United
States affording by the institution of a receivership that will
insure the service of the loan a positive guarantee that our
engagements will be carried out.
article ii
4. The Receiver General personifies the cooperation of the Government
of the United States. He is nommé “appointed”
by the President of Haiti on the proposition
“nomination” of the President of the United States. In the American
administrative vernacular “nomination” is translated into French by
“proposition”.
5. Does the President of Haiti hold the power to reject nominees of
the President of the United States or even to dismiss them?
In the intention of the contracting parties, he may not do so ad mutum, “at will”. Those officials come
under a contract; their situation must be considered in that special
light.
If the Receiver General, in charge of the Receivership, should draw
upon himself dismissal because of malfeasance in office, it is
obvious that the President of the United States could not but
concur. The delinquent could even be amenable to an action at law.
The police laws are binding on all who live within the territory of
the Republic.
6. The customs force is Haitian and exclusively and directly
appointed by the President of Haiti.
[Page 324]
The “aides et employés” provided by Article 2 are auxiliaries of the
Receiver; they do not compose the customs force. They are delegated
to the customhouses by the Receivership and supervise the customs
transactions. At the Receiver’s office they collect, receive and
apply the customs duties. They apply (“apply,” make payments to) in
the form and manner indicated and set forth in Article 5 of the
convention.
7. The Financial Adviser is no longer here the comptroller placed
above the Executive and Legislative Powers. He is nothing but an
official attached to the Ministry of Finance where he collaborates
with his work and advice.
8. The Financial Adviser in no wise supersedes the Chambre des
Comptes (Board of Auditors).
The Financial Adviser’s work is special, technical; he is an expert,
as it were. He enlightens the two Governments. His part, as stated
in Article 2, consists in “elaborating an adequate system of public
accounting, promoting an increase of revenues, etc.”
As is seen the duties of the Chambre des Comptes and of the Financial
Adviser bear on two different absolutely distinct lines. The Adviser
does not apply, he confines himself to pointing out, enlightening,
recommending, suggesting, prompting. Whatever in his system is at
variance with the Constitutional law will not be adopted.
9. As for the nationality of the officials, Receiver General and
Financial Adviser, there is no absolute stipulation in the text in
that respect.
10. What becomes of the Banque Nationale de la République d’ Haiti
whose establishment was unofficially opposed with such foresight by
the Government of the United States?
This question is now the subject of an exchange of views between the
Government of the United States, the Embassy of France at Washington
and the Bank’s management. The latter does not object to the
convention. The dispute between the Government and the Bank will be
adjusted by our Commissioners in Washington, with good offices of
the American Government which good offices will always be of
advantage to us in our various difficulties with the foreign
legations.
article iii
11. This article substitutes a Receivership for the Banque Nationale
de la République d’ Haiti.
Taxes not collected by the Receiver remain out of the scope of the
convention; they constitute a special fund of the Haitian
Government. This leaves a department to be created unless we should
intrust the Receivership itself with that service.
That special fund, different from that of the Receivership, will
receive from the Receiver General the balance referred to in Article
5 for current expenses and the payment of salaries.
article vi
12. The 5% stands for a maximum that cannot be exceeded, but the
disbursements provided by this article may be kept below 5%.
The Receivership in fact will draw up yearly an estimate of salaries
that is to be determined by “previous agreement” with the
Government, as is said in Article 5.
This shows that there is no question of a lump sum drawn without the
Haitian Government’s supervision.
article ix
13. The clause in this article does not at all stand in the way of a
gradual reduction or even the removal of our customs duties subject
however to the condition that our increased resources will permit of
so doing. It merely provides that we relinquish the right to impair
our creditors’ securities.
On the contrary the American Legation gives the assurance that its
Government will in the future concur in any reduction of tariff
rates that will not infringe the treaty rights.
[Page 325]
article xiii
14. There is nothing positive in the text as to the nationality of
the engineers. The President of the United States proposes
“nominates” but it is the President of Haiti who appoints. What
matters is to have competent men.
article xvi
15. The renewal of the treaty is no longer left to the discretion of
one of the two Governments. A discussion, should occasion arise,
will be opened at the end of the tenth year between the two
contracting parties to weigh the value of the “precise reasons
formulated by either party” in case “the views and objects of the
convention should not be fulfilled” (if for specific reasons
presented by either of the high contracting parties, the purpose of
the treaty has not been fully accomplished.)
16. What is the jurisdiction competent to pass upon possible disputes
arising about the execution of the treaty?
Although the convention is silent on this point, the Arbitral
Tribunal of the Hague is that previously agreed upon by Haiti and
the United States of America.
17. Which of the two texts would prevail in case of a difference in
the interpretation of one?
When two texts in different languages, as in this case are brought
forth together, they are equivalent, the one elucidates the other,
as a rule. But certain divergences may arise in interpreting this or
that phase and it is then of absolute importance that one of the two
texts should prevail. It was to prepare for this that the
contracting parties adopted the English text.
