Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1920, Volume II

711.38/147½

The Haitian Chargé (Blanchet) to the Secretary of State

[Translation²⁰]

Washington, September 8, 1920.

Sir: Under instructions to that effect which I have received, I have the honor to forward herewith to Your Excellency, first, my Government’s answer to the note verbale that was delivered on August 19 last to His Excellency the President of the Republic of Haiti by His Excellency Mr. Bailly-Blanchard, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,²¹ following the cablegram sent by His Excellency the President of Haiti to His Excellency the President of the United States,²² and second, the papers appended to that answer,²³ namely, a statement of receipts and expenditures of the Republic and vouchers numbered from A to E and certified, a copy of the law of July 30, 1919, creating manual training sections, and a copy of the law of July 30, 1919, relative to normal training.

I beg [etc.]

A. Blanchet

[Enclosure—Translation²⁰]

The Haitian Department of State for Foreign Affairs to the Department of State

Reply to the note verbale delivered by His Excellency Mr. Bailly-Blanchard, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, to His Excellency the President of Haiti on August 19, 1920²¹

The Haitian Government was painfully surprised on learning that, in the existing difference between it and the American Minister to Haiti, the Government of the United States regretted only the cause which compelled its representative to take the grave decision of stopping the payment of the salaries of the President of the Republic, the Secretaries of State and the Members of the Council of State.

And what is that cause? The noncooperation of members of the Haitian Government with American officials.

In French “cooperation” means the working together for the completion of a common undertaking so that the work achieved may be the result of the ideas and experience of all of the participants.

It has always been so understood by the Haitian Government.

Hence on all questions which call for the collaboration of American officials in putting into operation the convention of September 16, 1915, it has never failed to communicate its plans, first, to the Financial Adviser for his opinions and recommendations, and secondly, to the Minister of the United States for the information of his Government and, if need be, for a discussion between the two Governments in accordance with the agreement of August 24, 1918, reading as follows:

“The two Governments of the United States of America and Haiti having concluded in 1915 a convention binding them to cooperate in restoring Haitian finances, in maintaining the tranquillity of Haiti and in carrying out a program for the economic development and prosperity of that Republic, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has the honor to inform the Minister of the United States that in accordance with the understanding arrived at between them all bills dealing with one of the objects of the treaty will, before being introduced in the Legislative Body of Haiti, be communicated to the representative of the United States for the information of his Government and, if need be, a discussion between the two Governments.”

The American Minister and the Financial Adviser do not so understand cooperation.

The Minister does not discuss, the Financial Adviser does not recommend. Their decisions are orders which the Government is simply required to present to the Legislative Council and which the Council must pass in their entirety.

When the American Minister and the Financial Adviser do not approve a bill they simply say, without further explanation, “We object.” Sometimes they make no answer and the bill which the Government had drawn up at the cost of long study and great care is buried without further ceremony. The list is long of bills that are so languishing in the files of the American Legation! To cite but one example: A law on rural organization, of greatest importance to Haitian agriculture, has been, since August 1918, in the hands of the American Minister; the Government has never heard anything more about it.

When the American Minister and the Financial Adviser introduce amendments in a Government bill, they require those amendments to be accepted without discussion. When they are acceptable and even if they do not entirely agree with the nation’s wishes, the Government, in its ever conciliatory spirit, accepts them so as not to endanger a reform which it deems necessary. But when they are such as to destroy the intent of the bill or are obviously contrary to the interests of the people or infringe upon the dignity of the Government or, as is often the case, bestow upon the treaty officials unwarranted powers, inconsistent with the convention, the Government rejects them, and then it is charged with “noncooperation”.

If this condition of continual submission which seems always to be imposed upon the Haitian Government is in fact what the American Legation calls “cooperation”, the word has a meaning that the Haitians are unable to grasp.

The Financial Adviser’s understanding of “cooperation” is shown by the following typical instance: Having seen fit to pay the deferred interest on the foreign debt, Mr. McIlhenny proceeded to do so against the written instructions of the Government and without notifying it. It was only through the French press that the Government heard of this transaction of 28,000,000 francs.

The Government cannot admit the universal competency assumed by the American Minister and the Financial Adviser, who believe they have the right of sovereign decision on all questions—legislation, finance, commerce, public works, and public instruction—for a people with whose manners, needs, and aspirations they are unacquainted.

The Government feels that under all circumstances it has shown its good will and sincere desire—which occasionally has gone so far as a sacrifice—to cooperate with American officials. It has achieved much, since all the important bills that could be enacted—often at the cost of great difficulties—come from its own initiative. And that is one of the grounds of complaint: While the bills looking to the economic and moral reorganization of the country are so often rejected without consideration, nothing is ever offered instead that could meet the objects of the convention by making effective the efficacious assistance solemnly pledged to Haiti by the Government of the United States. The only bill since 1915 that emanates from the Financial Adviser is that relative to internal taxes which, with the support of the American Legation, he attempted to force upon the Government without examination; an intricate, complicated bill, several parts of which are inapplicable and against which the Department of Finance set up a counter draft of which it has heard nothing for a year. The inaction shown on this point is characteristic. The Financial Adviser, Mr. Ruan first, and Mr. McIlhenny next, only departed from it to set themselves to search for a loan, the flotation of which was considered by the last-named gentleman as the main object of his mission to Haiti: the loan failed. And now his economic and financial plan, that which is to insure “the happiness and prosperity of the Haitian people”, is the plan which consists in indirectly giving to the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti a monopoly of the commerce in foreign currency. And because the Government, together with the Haitian and foreign merchants, protests, as does the whole nation, against this scheme of “strangulation”, it is charged with unwillingness to cooperate with the American Government.

The Haitian Government cannot bring itself to believe that the Department of State, once acquainted with the true situation of Haiti and the evil consequences that would flow from the proposed measure, could give its approval to the plan consisting in:

1. Making the Financial Adviser the sole judge of the amount of foreign coins needed by the Haitian people for their commerce, their industry, civil obligations of private persons, and the needs of general consumption.

2. Placing the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti, in so far as the importation of foreign currency is concerned, in a privileged situation which would make all other bankers, commercial and industrial, of Haiti—as expressed in the strong protest by the business community—the “humble tributaries of that concern, whose laws and whims they must obey”.

The economic reasons which stand against the measure relative to the prohibition of foreign currency have been fully set forth. Haiti would be the only country in the world to adopt it. All the Republics of America that are in nearly the same financial and economic condition as Haiti have adopted a measure which is the very opposite of that now proposed to the Government; they open a wide door to American gold. The most recent instance is that of Salvador where, after a new monetary unit on the basis of .835 grams .900 fine and represented by bank notes in circulation had been established by a law of September 9, 1919, the gold coin of the United States of America was declared legal tender; as a consequence of this measure, a legislative order of September 16, 1919, abolished all duties on American gold so as to permit it the widest circulation in the country. Circumstances being identical, why should that which is good for Salvador be bad for Haiti?

The American Foreign Banking Corporation justly says in its protest of July 30, 1920:

“The proposed clause constitutes a direct and unwarranted restriction on banking business; it leaves to the discretion of a single official, whose decision is final and who may not be always well informed as to the needs of a bank, the power to grant or refuse permission to import gold. However regrettable his decision may be and however harmful to our interests, it is without appeal.”

How can we believe indeed that in so complicated a question the Financial Adviser can pass sovereign judgment on the needs of the market; that he can at each moment decide in an infallible manner how much gold coin is needed for all the commercial, industrial, and civil transactions of the whole country? Is not Mr. McIlhenny then liable to err? He has on a recent occasion demonstrated that like all other men he may make mistakes. Being called upon to convert into francs $3,000,000 for the account of the Government at the best possible time and rate—he found in November last that the best time had arrived and that the best rate was available, and he converted at the average rate of 9.20¼ to the dollar. Not long thereafter the franc fell to 17.18. This mistake meant to the Republic of Haiti a loss of several million francs. If an expert financier, as is Mr. McIlhenny, surrounded by the best knowledge, residing in New York and able to watch on the spot the fluctuations of exchange on the principal market of foreign money, could have made such a grievous mistake in his forecast, how can it be believed that he could never make any mistakes in estimating the amount of gold needed on the Haitian market? On what data would he rest his opinion? On that which would be furnished by the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti. One can see at once what would become of other bankers and merchants at the hands of that bank, whose hard dealing in business is well known, and which, not more than a few months back, came near causing a formidable crash in the market by suddenly and ruthlessly stopping all credits.

It may be seen that the advantages of the measure would be incalculable to the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti; no one has yet attempted to show what may be its advantages to the country. Now when all the Haitian and foreign merchants and the whole Haitian people back their Government’s protest against a measure which they unanimously declare to be disastrous, is it conceivable that Mr. McIlhenny and the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti can be right as against everybody else?

The note delivered by the American Minister,²³ in referring to article 5 of the treaty of September 16, 1915, states that the American Government “did not insist upon a strict compliance with the requirements of Article 5, but gave priority to the payment of the current expenses of the Government of Haiti over the payment of the amortization and interest of the Haitian debt.”

And further on: “The Government of the United States has therefore been obliged to take steps to provide for a strict observance of the terms of Article 5 of the Treaty of September 16, 1915 until such time as the Haitian Government shall evidence its desire once more to cooperate with the Treaty officials in the carrying out of the aims and objects of the Treaty.”

The Haitian Government must not make a secret of its inability to see that an application of article 5 of the treaty of September 16, 1915, can be invoked with respect to the forcible withholding of the salaries of members of the Government. The payment of those salaries is made by virtue of a budget discussed with the Financial Adviser and for which all the appropriations have been agreed upon between that official and the Haitian Government; and that budget has been in force without any difficulty for ten months.

The Haitian Government, much to its regret, can only consider the suspension of payment of the salaries of the President of the Republic and of other members of the Government as an unwarranted measure of coercion intended to compel it to adopt financial and other schemes which it regards as absolutely antagonistic to the recognized interests of the Haitian people.

But after making this reservation the Haitian Government declares that it also demands the strict enforcement of article 5 of the treaty of September 16, 1915. The receipts of the Republic of Haiti, as will be readily seen by the statements of receipts and expenditures appended to this note,²⁴ are actually sufficient to cover all Government expenses as set forth in said article 5, including the payment of Haitian officials and employees, although their salaries are the last to be paid out of Haitian funds.

The Department writes that all measures taken in Haiti by its agents are “in the interests and for the happiness of the Haitian people.” Ill informed as to the true situation in Haiti, it does not see the bitter irony there is in that sentence for the Haitian people, who will find it hard to believe that they are subjected to so many annoyances and humiliations for their own good.

It is a matter of grievous sorrow to the Haitian Government that all its grievances and complaints are rejected when it would be so easy for the Department of State to verify their accuracy by having investigations conducted on the ground by impartial and conscientious men.

The Haitian Government does not ask that its assertions be accepted; it asks to have its statements verified and that credit be not given to its accusers’ statements only. Strict justice so demands, and the Government still cherishes too great a confidence in the sentiment of justice which animates the great American people not to remain convinced that its good cause will finally triumph.

Indeed the Haitians trust that the Government of the United States will decide for right and justice, for it was in the defense of those ideals that it launched its enthusiastic youth on the battlefields of Europe, and that so many brave Americans fell at Chateau-Thierry, in the Bois Belleau, and on the plains of Woevre!

As a complement to the note handed to the Haitian Government under the instructions of the Department of State, the Legation of the United States at Port au Prince adds that the American Minister is quite ready to pay the salaries, so forcibly withheld, of the members of the Government and the Council of State, on condition that the Haitian Government will immediately pledge itself to repeal eleven laws enumerated under numbers 1 to 11 and to procure the enactment of four other laws mentioned under the letters a, b, c, and d.

The greater part of the laws whose repeal is demanded, as for instance that on surveys and that on firearms and munitions, which were never promulgated, was only mentioned to swell the number and lengthen the list of grievances which the Legation of the United States has been pleased to bring against the Haitian Government.

Yet in further evidence of its good faith, if it were needed, and to give additional proof of its wish to agree with the Government of the United States, the Haitian Government will now furnish the most complete explanations about the eleven laws, the repeal of which would be forced upon it:

1. Law relative to the right of foreign residents to hold real estate in Haiti

The law of July 21, 1920, relative to the right of foreigners residing in Haiti to hold real estate was communicated as a matter of mere courtesy to the Legation of the United States at Port au Prince in a note dated June 9, 1920. That communication was only acknowledged to the Department of Foreign Affairs in a letter dated July 21st which was not delivered until the 27th of the same month, after the law had been promulgated on July 24th.

It is quite clear that if the Legation of the United States at Port au Prince did not offer its remarks in good time, the blame lies upon others than the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The Legation of Haiti at Washington was instructed to deliver a note on the subject to the Department of State.²⁴ And in that note the Haitian Government, in order once more to give evidence of its desire for harmony and understanding with the American Government, repeated what it has always stated when writing to the American Legation, namely, “that it is ready to entertain and discuss with the Government of the United States any amendment or objection to any of the clauses of the law.”

2. Law returning to Germans their sequestrated property

The American Legation probably means by that the law creating the Office of Compensation and Verification.

The law was introduced under section 3 of part X of the Treaty of Versailles, and was communicated to the Legation of the United States, which declared it had no objections to offer. The Council of State, however, in its vote on the law added two new articles to the bill that had been placed before it. The Department of Foreign Affairs immediately, by note of July 17, 1920, acquainted the Legation of the United States with the two additions made by the Council of State, and drew its attention to article 63 of the Constitution which sets the time limit within which the President of the Republic may exercise his right to veto a law that has been passed.

On July 21 the American Minister wrote to the Department of Foreign Affairs informing it that as the law was of very great interest to the American Government, he had cabled the text of the two articles for instructions thereon, and that pending the receipt of instructions, the American Legation asked that the law be not promulgated.

Having heard nothing further up to August 10, the Department of Foreign Affairs again wrote to the Legation of the United States advising it that under article 64 of the Constitution the law must be promulgated if, within the time specified by article 63 of the Constitution, the President of the Republic had not exercised his right of veto.

The United States Legation’s answer to that further communication was that on the request of the Department of State it had despatched by courier the text of the two articles added to the law by the Council of State and that as soon as an answer came from the Department of State it would inform the Haitian Government, and again it renewed its request that the law be not promulgated.

And the Haitian Government has not promulgated the law notwithstanding the embarrassing position in which it is placed in meeting the requirements of the Constitution.

3. Pension law

The Civil Pension Law of August 10, 1894, provides by its article 18: “Any citizen who shall have reached the age of 50 years and, during 25 years at least, performed duty in any one of the legislative, judicial or executive offices enumerated in the table of the law of November 19, 1864, will be entitled to a pension on the Public Treasury.”

The Government considered that the act of a citizen, who was an official or former official, in applying for a settlement of his pension should be considered as placing him ipso facto on the retired list and consequently as the resignation on his part of any further public employment.

The Government further considered that a citizen when fifty years old is still possessed of enough strength and energy to work and that it was therefore necessary to advance the age at which he would be qualified to become a pensioner. The new law calls for 60 years instead of 50 years as provided by article 18 of the law of 1894. This is a real saving to the Public Treasury. In Haiti as elsewhere there must be fewer men of 60 than of 50 years of age. But it was fair at the same time to return to the officials and employees at least the twelfth part of their salaries upon their assuming office, previously deducted from them under the law of September 24, 1884, especially when no deduction is made on the salaries of the high officials, Cabinet members, senators or deputies, who are entitled to the largest pensions.

Article 5 of the new law affords another saving: the pension is due under that article only when the case is disposed of. Under the law of 1894 it began to run from the date of the application filed by the person entitled to the pension.

Be that as it may, the law of June 9, 1919, amending certain provisions of previous laws relative to civil pensions is not one of those contemplated in the notes exchanged between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the American Legation on the subject of the application of the convention of September 16, 1915.

4. Lam concerning customs duties on automobiles, tppewriting machines, etc.

The Government can only confirm its previous statements in its memorandum of July last in answer to that from the Financial Adviser delivered to the President of the Republic by the American Minister at Port au Prince on the 19th of the same month:

On May 14, 1919, the Council of State, on the motion of Councillor Pierre Hudicourt enacted a law placing import duties on automobiles, trucks, typewriting machines, automobile tires, and air chambers.

That law was criticized by the Receiver General, who imparted his criticism to the Department of Finance and Commerce, pointing out that those duties were too light. The Receiver General concluded by proposing that the Government exercise its right to veto the Hudicourt Law and introduce in the Council of State a bill laying a 10 percent duty on imported automobiles, typewriting machines, etc. This was done.

But the Council of State, in the exercise of the initiative conferred upon it by article 55 of the Constitution, modified the rate as proposed and brought it down to 7 percent. This change made in a Haitian bill by the body now exercising legislative power in Haiti caused the law to be ignored by the American Legation, the Financial Adviser, and the Receiver General. And in spite of that law a 20 percent ad valorem duty is levied on automobiles, typewriting machines, etc.

The Department was constrained to draw the Receiver General’s attention to that excessive and unlawful duty upon certain protests filed by an American importer, and also to the fact that in the Dominican Republic automobiles are liable to a duty of only 5 percent, and motor trucks are imported duty free.

5. Law relative to trade marks

The Haitian Government also confirms the statements made in its memorandum of July last in which it replied to that of the Financial Adviser delivered to the President of the Republic by the American Minister at Port au Prince on the 19th of the same month.

The law relative to trade marks does not come under article 9 of the convention of September 16, 1915. It creates new resources for the public fund. The actual work (registration of marks) which yields those resources finally devolves upon the Chamber of Commerce. It was only fair that the law grant to the Chamber one-half of the fees collected on each registration. Such allowance is not a favor or bounty of the law by which the Chamber of Commerce profits; it simply covers expenses (rent, books, physical work of registration, correspondence, etc.).

6. Law relative to mines and mining concessions

This law is not one of those that must previously be communicated to the Government of the United States before being submitted to a vote, in order to give that Government an opportunity to offer suggestions. Indeed it is a law which in its object does not relate to any clause of the treaty signed with the United States and does not imply a burden on the Haitian Treasury. It has always existed in our law and the new act, against which the American Legation protests, is amendatory of that of 1860 which was in a manner defective.

Discussed and adopted by the Council of Secretaries of State between the 20th of July and the 1st of August, 1918, it was immediately referred to the Council of State and passed on February 14, 1919.

It was promulgated in the official journal on the 19th of the same month and it was not until the 19th of August, that is to say more than six months after it had become operative, that objections came from the American Legation.

It has been learned from experience that it was urgent to enact further provisions of law for the better protection of the interests of the State by clearly establishing the rights of the concessionaires as well as their responsibility when they filed an application for a mining concession.

7. Law relative to the preparation of primary teachers

The two laws referred to in the note of the Minister of the United States have been promulgated by the President of the Republic since July 31st of last year.

The law of July 30, 1919, relative to normal courses grants the option, in accordance with appropriations, to organize in certain primary schools already existing normal sections for the preparation of teachers, especially in the country.

8. Law relative to occupational training schools

The law of July 30, 1919, relative to manual training schools empowers the Secretary of State for Public Instruction, in accordance with appropriations, to organize in the primary schools already existing courses in manual trades.

Those two laws are purely technical in their character and have no connection whatever with the convention of September 1915, as a perusal of those laws, copies of which are hereto appended, will clearly show.

The American Minister nevertheless hampered the creation of some of those classes and sections although the appropriations therefor had been made in full accord with the Financial Adviser who had recognized their urgent necessity. Those laws have since been communicated to the American Minister, who has never answered the communication.

9. Law relative to steam railways and street railways

What has been said about the law on mines also applies to that on railways. Yet, although that last-named law is not included in the category of those referred to in the note of August 24, 1918, it was sent to the Department of Foreign Affairs to be communicated to the American Legation by way of simple information. The Legation, which received it in October 1918, held it until August 1919 without comment. It might be inferred from that silence and on good grounds that it had no objections to make.

10. Law relative to firearms and ammunition

In 1919, General Williams, then Chief of the Gendarmerie recommended to the Government a law relative to firearms and ammunition. After several exchanges of views with the Chief of the Gendarmerie, the bill was introduced in the Council of State and passed. The Government thought that the Chief of the Gendarmerie had communicated a draft of the bill to the Minister. But it learned otherwise only when the American Minister protested against the law and asked to have it amended. The amendments introduced in the Council of State were partly accepted and partly rejected. The American Minister again protested against the promulgation and the publication of the law. Therefore this law can only be repealed after having been promulgated and published.

11. Law relative to survey

The bill relative to survey was introduced in the Council of State in May 1919 and passed on June 16, 1920.

It may be remarked that this law, which is of a purely technical character, goes no further than adding a few provisions which experience showed to be necessary to the old law of September 1, 1845, particularly in respect to: (1) the number of surveyors and the conditions for their examination, (2) their residence, (3) the fee to be collected. As for the method of operations of the surveyors, it remains with few differences what it was at the time of the law of 1845. A few sanctions were added which were lacking in the earlier texts.

This law cannot be included among those which, under the agreement of August 24, 1918, must be communicated.

With regard to the four laws hereinbelow, the enactment of which is demanded, the Haitian Government hastens to furnish the following information:

A.—Law putting into operation section 15 of the contract of retrait and confirming the gourde as being the legal currency of Haiti

The note of the Minister of the United States calls upon the Government to adopt article I of the bill of the Financial Adviser, worded as follows: “In accordance with the law, the gourde is and remains the national monetary unit and as such is legal tender throughout the Republic.”

The Government does not know to what law the Adviser refers.

No monetary unit can be established without specifying the weight and fineness. So the franc, the French monetary unit, is defined by the law of Thermidor 28, year III of the French Revolution: “The value of 5 grams of a silver alloy .900 fine.”

The United States dollar is a gold coin weighing 1.6718 grams and .900 fine (Revised Statutes of the United States and act of March 14, 1900, section I²⁵). It is essential to state the weight in precious metal and the fineness of the alloy in determining the unit of value. That is what the monetary legislation of every country has done. That is what was done by article 2 of the Haitian law of April 16, 1913, fixing as follows the national monetary unit: “On and after January 1, 1914, the national monetary unit shall be the gold gourde, the weight and fineness of which shall be identical with the weight and fineness of the quarter dollar of the United States of America in gold, namely, .418 grams .900 fine with .100 copper, with an allowance of .002 in fineness. The gourde is divided into one hundred parts or centimes.”

The Government agrees upon the reduction of the monetary unit of Haiti from a quarter to a fifth of the gold dollar of the United States by substituting in the foregoing article fifth for quarter and .3348 grams for .418 grams.

The national currency can only be gold. It was that to which the Government pledged itself in its contract with the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti. Article 12 of the contract with the bank runs as follows: “For the purpose of promoting transactions by stabilizing currency, the Government undertakes to establish in the country a national monetary unit on a gold standard”.

It was for the purpose of achieving that result that the Haitian people underwent the costly sacrifice of the loan of 1910. The Financial Adviser’s proposal would lead us to adopt as the sole national currency the paper money consisting of notes issued by the bank. Those notes are legal tender under the contract of concession with the bank and under the convention of August [April?] 12, 1919.²⁶ No new law is required to impart that character to them.

B.—Law providing for long-term leases

The bill relative to long-term leases was not proposed by the Department of State of the United States. It was drawn up by the Haitian Government last year and communicated to the American Legation, which made therein amendments investing the Financial Adviser, as is done moreover in all the special laws, with more extensive powers than are conferred upon him by the convention.

C.—Law concerning the ten modifications in the contract with the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti

The Haitian Government is only aware of the modifications signed ad referendum at Washington on February 6, 1920, by Mr. Féquière, Minister of Finance,²⁷ and dealt with in the following letter from the Secretary of State, Mr. Bainbridge Colby:²⁸

Department of State

Washington, May 22, 1920.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of May 4, 1920,²⁹ setting forth certain counter proposals to the amendments recommended by the Department of State in the charter of the National Bank of Haiti in the event of this bank coming under the control of the National City Bank of New York.

The amendments proposed by the Department of State were prompted by the desire to promote the development and interests of Haiti. They have accordingly been carefully elaborated with the advice of the Financial Adviser to Haiti, and were accepted ad referendum by Mr. Féquière, Minister of Finance, on the occasion of his presence in Washington at the Second Pan-American Financial Congress. In these circumstances I feel unable to consent to their modification.

Accept [etc.]

(Signed) Bainbridge Colby

D.—Law approving the transfer of the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti to the new National Bank of the Republic of Haiti, a Haitian corporation

The Department of Finance in behalf of the Haitian Government has constantly said and written to the Financial Adviser that it was ready to adhere to the transfer of the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti, a French corporation, to the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti, a Haitian corporation.

So great is the Government’s desire to see that transfer carried out, that when on August 2, 1920, the Financial Adviser wrote to the Secretary of Finance “to announce that he had been informed by his Government that taking into account the constant delays in obtaining the consent of the Haitian Government to the transfer to the new bank, of the concession contract amended in accordance with the agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the National City Bank, the Government of the United States of America had consented to let the operations of the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti continue indefinitely under the now existing French contract without amendment”, the Secretary of State for Finance informed the Financial Adviser on August 3, that while taking note of the foregoing communication, he informed him that “the Government is still ready to give its assent to the transfer of the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti to the National City Bank; to the incorporation of the latter under the Haitian law; and to the modifications in nine articles to be introduced in the contract of the said National Bank of the Republic of Haiti just as they were decided on in Washington on February 6 of this year by the Minister of Haiti to the American Government, you, and myself, and just as they were accepted by the Haitian Government when submitted to it.” And the Secretary of State for Finance added that “it only depends upon the National Bank of the Republic of Haiti to carry out the agreement, thus decided upon, to which the Government has never refused to adhere.”

How can it be said after that that the transfer is delayed by the Haitian Government?

20. File translation revised.
21. See telegram no. 64, Aug. 12, to the Minister in Haiti, p. 774.
22. Ante, p. 771.
23. Appended papers not printed.
20. See telegram no. 64, Aug. 12, to the Minister in Haiti, p. 774.
21. File translation revised.
23. See telegram no. 64, Aug. 12, to the Minister in Haiti, p. 774.
24. Not printed.
24. Note of Aug. 21, 1920, from the Haitian Chargé, p. 777.
25. Rev. Stat. 696; 31 Stat. 45.
26. Convention of Apr. 12, 1919, printed in Foreign Relations, 1919, vol. ii, p. 362.
27. Post, p. 816.
28. The letter was addressed to the Haitian Chargé.
29. Not printed.