711.38/125: Telegram

The Minister in Haiti (Bailly-Blanchard) to the Secretary of State

Department’s July 13, 4 p.m. …

Referring to my cable of June 26, 4 p.m., not having received the memorandum in question, at the reception referred to in my June [July] 13, 5 p.m.,5 I recalled the matter to the President who expressed surprise that such had not yet reached me and at once asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs who was present for an explanation. Mr. Borno stated that he had been very much occupied, excused [himself] for the delay and stated that he contemplated calling at the Legation the next day in reference to this matter.

On the morning of July 1st Mr. Borno called and produced the document which I had delivered to the President as per Department’s June 22, 6 [2] p.m. remarking that this should have been addressed to him. I told him that the document, in pursuance of the Department’s instructions, had been delivered, as he knew, to the [Page 308]President who was fully in accord therewith. He suggested that I address a similar memorandum to him to which he would reply, as the delivery of the one to the President was not official. This I declined to do. He then remarked that the document was undated. As the document had been delivered to the President by me personally I had not considered it necessary to date it. However, I told Mr. Borno I would give it the date of its delivery to the President which I did.

Mr. Borno then attempted to enter into a discussion as to the details which I declined to entertain again reminding him that the matter had already been decided with the President and all that remained to be done was to furnish the memorandum as promised by the President to be exchanged between the Haitian Government and this Legation after approval by the Department.

Mr. Borno then promised that he would send me the memorandum that afternoon which he did.

Upon examination of the same I found that Mr. Borno had worded the memorandum as if the matter had been treated upon with him rather than the President advising me that “in conformity with the understanding had between us, etc.”, and further not in a form for exchange.

This did not seem to me to be in conformity with Department’s instructions and I therefore prepared a form of memorandum which I communicated to him and to which both the President and he agreed. This form was forwarded to the Department for its consideration in my July 3, noon.

Am I to understand from Department’s July 13, 4 p.m. that the Department desires me to recommence the whole procedure with the Minister of Foreign Affairs by means of an exchange of notes?

Blanchard
  1. Not printed.