838.51/2528: Telegram
The Chargé in Haiti (Heath) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 1—2:45 a.m.]
118. Reference Department’s telegram No. 65, September 28, 5 p.m.31 I believe that the issuance at this time of the statement transmitted in the telegram referred to would help the present efforts of the Haitian Government to convince public opinion of the need and advantage of the new treaty or similar agreement. I do not believe, however, that there is any possibility of the Government resubmitting the treaty signed September 3, 1932, to the Haitian Legislature either at a special session or at the regular session beginning next April in view of the strong stand taken by that body against the treaty. I believe that only the exercise of great executive pressure, to which course the President obviously disinclined, could [Page 687] in the near future persuade the present Legislature, which is now in office until 1936, to change its attitude.
The President said to me yesterday afternoon that he was inclined to consider the treaty a dead issue in view of its rejection and that with the arrival of Mr. Armour he hoped that the United States would renew conversations looking toward a new agreement. Such proposition is made in the Haitian note referred to in my telegram 117, September 29, 9 p.m. He was careful, however, not to state that the Government had definitely abandoned the idea of resubmitting the treaty of September 3. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has several times said that such an action was a possibility but only a very remote one provided that the Government was successful in its efforts to convince legislative and public opinion of the necessity of a new agreement although the point was not greatly stressed in the legislative debates and in the press. One of the reasons for the rejection “in principle” of the new treaty by the legislative body was that such a step would be in violation of the attitude taken in the Bellerive resolution of last year which declared that the treaty of 1915 was no longer in existence since the “additional act” of 1917 providing for its extension had never been submitted to it for approval. Therefore members of Legislature who were actively opposed to the treaty took the position that they could not logically approve an agreement which had as its object the “liquidation” of a treaty which they had declared nonexistent. Press comment on the treaty still continues and a favorite present argument of the opposition is that it is unnecessary to conclude a new treaty because after 1936 there would no longer be any legal basis for the continuance of military or financial control. This argument is apparently having some effect on public opinion as calmest proponents naturally avoid any mention of the loan contracts or of the protocol of 1919.
The President and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were somewhat careful in yesterday’s conversations to refrain from offering any suggestions as to what modification of the treaty of September 3rd could be effected. Early yesterday, however, in a conversation with the Financial Adviser and General Receiver over the budget the President and the Deputy Minister of Finance informed their representative that new treaty was desired which would contain the essential stipulations of the one of September 3rd by [but?] which should contain some modifications which would render it more acceptable to the Haitian point of view and would facilitate its ratification; such would be regarded as an engagement by the United States to continue its good offices in the development of Haiti’s economic resources and to obtain chiefly its aid for the protection [Page 688] of Haiti against territorial aggression. The President asked the Financial Adviser whether he could not informally discuss this proposal in the Department during the latter’s stay in Washington. The Financial Adviser reports that he replied that he had no competence in political matters and could not accede to their request.
I feel that it is important that no declaration should be made which might be interpreted as closing the door to negotiations for any modification of treaty of September 3rd. I find nothing in the contemplated statement which might be so interpreted. On the other hand, until the situation is clarified I see no advantage in definitely committing ourselves as to the nature of future negotiations.
While I believe that the Haitian Government could not object to the release of the Department’s proposed statement, I recommend that I be authorized to inform Mr. Blanchet and the President of its general nature prior to publication.
- Not printed.↩