The Secretary of State to the Minister in Haiti (Munro)
Sir: The Department has examined the plan for the Haitianization of the Treaty Services prepared by the Haitian Government transmitted with your despatch No. 14 of December 5, 1930.2 In connection therewith especial consideration has been given to the recommendations and suggestions submitted in your several subsequent telegrams and despatches.
The specific proposals presented in the memorandum of December 2, 1930, submitted to you by the Haitian Minister for Foreign Affairs,3 involve procedures which, because of the abrupt manner in which they would have been applied and because of their broad scope, obviously are neither desirable nor practical. The Department accordingly has been gratified to note in your reports that the Haitian Government had not expected that its proposals would receive serious consideration by this Government, but had merely submitted them to serve as a basis for discussion.
It is the Department’s opinion that detailed arrangements affecting each of the Treaty Services can best be worked out in Haiti, where the actual operations of those Services can most easily be studied and where authoritative opinion, based on the first hand knowledge of the Treaty Officials, regarding the practicability of the suggestions advanced can be determined. For this reason the Department approves the course you have already taken, as outlined in your personal and confidential communication to the Haitian Minister for Foreign [Page 404] Affairs dated December 20, 1930,4 and as described, with respect to the Service Technique, in your telegram No. 256 of December 24, 12 noon.5
You are, accordingly, authorized to initiate formal discussions with the Haitian Government with respect to the Haitianization of the Treaty Services, as contemplated in Item 1 of the paragraph relating to sequent steps submitted in the Report of the President’s Commission for the Study and Review of Conditions in the Republic of Haiti,6 along the following lines. It is desired, however, that so soon as substantial agreement shall have been reached with respect to the Haitianization program affecting each Treaty Service you shall communicate that fact to the Department, together with a succinct description of the terms of the agreement, to the end that final approval or comment with respect to desired changes therein may be furnished you by the Department:
1) Garde d’Haiti.
The Department is gratified to learn of the steps already taken toward the Haitianization of the Garde d’Haiti, particularly with respect to the measures in excess of those contemplated in the plan for the progressive Haitianization of that organization, and with respect to the success which has attended the reestablishment of the military school in accordance with the recommendation of the President’s Commission, and the delivery to Haitian control of the entire Department of the Center.
It is believed that these measures, as well as those contemplated in the plan for the progressive Haitianization of the Garde d’Haiti, constitute the maximum advance toward the Haitianization of the Garde d’Haiti which should at this time be undertaken, and that the Haitian Government will not desire to proceed beyond them.
2) Office of the Financial Adviser-General Receiver.
The Department concurs in the opinion of the Financial Adviser, with which you state you are inclined to agree, that further extensive Haitianization of this Service should not be attempted. Nevertheless, it appears desirable to defer to the wishes of the Haitian Government in so far as such action would not be incompatible with the major interests of the Haitian Government itself which the Service of the Financial Adviser-General Receiver is designed to safeguard. Consequently, if during the course of your discussions it should appear advisable to make concessions with respect to the administration of the office of the Financial Adviser-General Receiver, there would appear to be no vital objection to the relinquishment of the administration of state lands.[Page 405]
On the other hand, however, notwithstanding the apparent opinion of the Government of Haiti that the Protocol of October 3, 1919,7 and the loan contracts do not constitute obstacles to the further Haitianization of the office of the Financial Adviser-General Receiver, as reported in your telegram No. 263 of December 31, 12 noon,8 the Department considers that such further Haitianization—which presumably would consist of the Haitianization of essential personnel branches, as described in the memorandum of December 2, 1930, and the removal of the Internal Revenue Service from American control—would be inadvisable and impractical, not only because of the injurious effect it would have upon Haitian revenues but also because of imperative obligations arising out of the Protocol of 1919.
It does not appear that the provisions of Article 8 of the Protocol of October 3, 1919, contemplated the collection of the Haitian internal revenues under American supervision until after the expiration of the Treaty of September 16, 1915.9 Nevertheless, as is described in the enclosed memorandum dated January 3, 1931, entitled “American Control of the Internal Revenue System of Haiti”,10 it was decided by the Government of Haiti that such control should be exercised prior to the date of its obligatory initiation. It obviously would be inadvisable to discontinue this arrangement at this time, when it must inevitably be reestablished upon the expiration of the Treaty notwithstanding the difficulties which would then presumably accompany such action. Considerations of sound procedure would seem to counsel the retention of this control.
3) Public Works Service.
The measures already effected and those described in your despatch No. 21 dated December 22, 1930,11 for the Haitianization of this Service would appear to meet any reasonable requirements of the Haitian Government. Nevertheless, in view of its statement that it desires a more rapid Haitianization of the Service, as reported in your telegram No. 263 already referred to, the Department will be glad to have you discuss with the appropriate Treaty Officials, with a view to satisfying the requirements of the Government, such measures as they may consider it possible to take beyond those now contemplated.[Page 406]
4) Public Health Service.
The Department concurs in your opinion that the Districts of Port au Prince and Cape Haitien should not be removed from American control so long as any large number of American civilians and officials continue to reside in those cities.
The program already initiated by the Director General of the Service, as described in your despatch No. 21, of December 22, 1930, would appear to meet any reasonable requirements of the Haitian Government, and the Department does not feel that any more rapid pace should be set in the Haitianization of this Service than may be readily agreed to by the Director General, whose views as to what measures may be taken without crippling the splendid and essential work which it carries on should be given the greatest weight.
5) Service Technique.
The Department approves the general outline for the reorganization of the Service Technique de l’Agriculture submitted in your telegram No. 256 of December 24, 12 noon, subject to the definite understanding that coincidentally with and as a part of the arrangement for such reorganization the appointment of Mr. Colvin will be consummated by the Haitian Government.
Very truly yours,
- Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. iii, p. 261.↩
- Ibid., p. 263.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. iii, p. 273.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. iii, pp. 217, 237.↩
- ibid., 1919, vol. ii, p. 347.↩
- Not printed; see note of December 30, 1930, from the Haitian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Minister (par. e), ibid., 1930, vol. iii, p. 277.↩
- Treaty between the United States and Haiti relating to the finances, economic development, and tranquillity of Haiti; for text, and supplementary agreements and protocols signed in 1916, see ibid., 1916, pp. 328–338; for additional act signed March 28, 1917, extending the duration of the treaty, see ibid., 1917, p. 807.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. iii, p. 266.↩