838.51/937
The Department of State to the Haitian Legation
Aide-Mémoire
The Third Assistant Secretary of State received on August 2 two notes dated July 30 which the Chargé d’Affaires of Haiti handed to him by instruction of his Government. In the two notes referred to Mr. Blanchet informed the Department of State that the Haitian Government felt constrained to complain of the action of the Financial Adviser to the Haitian Government in postponing consideration of the Budget, due chiefly, the Financial Adviser was reported to have stated, to the refusal of the Haitian Government to approve the modification of the bank charter which prohibits the importation of foreign currency into the Republic of Haiti. The Chargé d’Affaires of Haiti stated further that the Financial Adviser was supported in the position which he had taken by the American Minister and the Chief of the Occupation, who likewise were reported to have demanded the repeal of the law construing Article 5 of the Constitution, the non-publication of a law relating to the Compensation Bureau, and the dismissal of the Cabinet. The Chargé d’Affaires of Haiti likewise by instruction of his Government asked for the appointment of Agents by the Government of the United States to investigate the situation in question.
In conversation with the Chargé d’Affaires of Haiti, the Third Assistant Secretary of State stated that before coming to any decision regarding an investigation of the situation, the Department of State felt obliged to request full and frank information from the Government of Haiti as to the reasons for the change in the attitude of the Haitian Government regarding the modifications of the bank charter (of which the prohibition of the importation of foreign currency is one) which were approved by the Department of State, representatives of the Haitian Government and the National City Bank, as being in the best interests of the Haitian people. He asked whether the Haitian Government, if assured that such prohibition of the importation of foreign currency would not limit the investment of foreign capital in Haiti, would still oppose that particular modification of the bank charter, or whether the reported protests of the British Legation in Port au Prince against the approval of this modification would continue to influence the position taken by the Haitian Government. He added that the approval of the Department of State to the said modifications was given after careful consideration and with the consent of the Haitian Minister of Finance, in the belief that they formed [Page 770] integral parts of an economic plan essential to the prosperity of the Haitian people, and that the position taken could not be changed regarding any one modification without prejudice to the efficacy of the plan as a whole. Reconsideration of the entire economic plan, of necessity, could not if at all be attempted without full and explicit information from the Haitian Government proving why the plan was, in its opinion, likely to be detrimental to the welfare of the Haitian Republic. The Third Assistant Secretary of State also asked full information as to why the Haitian Government now refused to put into effect Article 15 of the contract of the Retrait, why it refused to enact the Land Law approved by the Department of State as being essential to the wellbeing of the Haitian Republic, why it had offered a law making the ownership of real property by Haitians [non-Haitians?] practically impossible, and why it has passed other legislation, reported by the Financial Adviser of the Haitian Government as being unsound and improper, as rendering impossible a sound administration of Haitian affairs, and which was contrary to the spirit of the Treaty of September 26 [16], 1915.
The Third Assistant Secretary of State also added that advice received by the Department of State did not confirm the report that the Financial Adviser, the American Minister and the Chief of the Occupation had demanded the dismissal of the Cabinet. The Third Assistant Secretary of State also said that the Department of State, basing its opinion only upon the information now at its disposal, believed the Financial Adviser was acting for the best interests of the Haitian Republic.
In conclusion the Third Assistant Secretary of State stated that the Department of State was desirous of obtaining complete information regarding the situation referred to in the two notes received from the Haitian Chargé d’Affaires, but in connection with considering the advisability of making any special investigation it felt obliged to ask that the Haitian Government enlighten it fully regarding the matters enumerated above.