339.115 General Motors Export
Co./117
The Minister in the Dominican Republic
(
Schoenfeld
)
to the Secretary of
State
No. 2483
Santo
Domingo
, May 10, 1935.
[Received May
13.]
Sir: Referring to the Department’s telegraphic
instruction No. 23 of May 9, 1935, directing me to make a representation
to the Dominican Government in writing in relation to the fine imposed
upon the Dominican Tobacco Company, C. por A., on May 4 by a local court
for alleged violation of certain Dominican internal revenue laws, I have
the honor to enclose for the Department’s information a copy of a note
under today’s date to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the sense
directed. The Department will observe that the second paragraph of the
enclosed note is somewhat more comprehensive than it would have been had
I adhered strictly to the second paragraph of the Department’s
telegraphic instruction under acknowledgment. The inclusion in the
enclosed note of a reference to Article 44 of Executive Order No. 197 of
August 19, 1918, known as the Law of Internal Revenue, was deemed
desirable because of a reference to it in the decision of the court, of
which a copy was enclosed with my despatch No. 2474 of May 7.14
I beg leave to add that a study of the Court’s decision in the case and a
more extensive examination of Executive Order No. 197, disclose that the
pertinent citation of the latter is Article 44, and not Article 9, as
suggested my despatch No. 2474. Article 44 of the Executive Order
provides for a fine of two hundred to two thousand dollars, but does not
mention a penalty of imprisonment, although Article 51 prescribes
alternative imprisonment in the event of failure to pay a fine.
It will be noted from the copy of the decision transmitted with the
despatch last cited that the Dominican Tobacco Company was also
“condemned” to pay the costs of the proceeding and that the imprisonment
of the company’s president, Mr. Amadeo Barletta, was adjudged by the
court in language to the effect that the company was condemned “to
suffer the penalty of two years of correctional imprisonment, executable
also in the person of the same president-treasurer, Mr. Amadeo
Barletta.” In other words, it was the American-owned company which was
condemned and not the individual personally. Barletta was apparently
sentenced to imprisonment, not in his personal capacity but solely in
his capacity as president of the American-owned company.
[Page 490]
In view of these facts, I respectfully suggest that I be authorized by
telegraph to supplement the note to the Foreign Office herewith
enclosed, so as to cover these two points by using language similar to
that of the last paragraph of the enclosed note, requesting also
remission of the costs of the proceedings assessed upon the company and
remission of the penalty against the company “executable” by
imprisonment in the person of its president-treasurer.
Respectfully yours,
[Enclosure]
The American Minister (
Schoenfeld
) to the Dominican Minister for Foreign Affairs
(
Logroño
)
No. 205
Santo
Domingo
, May 10, 1935.
Mr. Secretary: I have the honor to refer to
a proceeding before the Court of First Instance of the local
judicial district (Penal Chamber) on May 4, 1935, against the
Dominican Tobacco Company, C. por A., a corporation in which, as I
have previously had the honor to point out to Your Excellency,
American nationals have a majority stock interest. My Government has
been informed that as a result of the proceeding in question a fine
of $2,000 was assessed against the company and a sentence of two
years imprisonment imposed upon the president of the company, Mr.
Amadeo Barletta.
My Government now instructs me to state to Your Excellency that, as
the acts in connection with which the severe penalties imposed on
the Dominican Tobacco Company, according to the report of inspectors
of internal revenue of Your Excellency’s Government, on the basis of
which the judicial action was brought, were admittedly committed
prior to the enactment of Laws Nos. 855 and 858 of March 13, 1935,
prescribing the penalties imposed, the court was obviously precluded
by Title 7, Section I, Article 42 of the Constitution of the
Dominican Republic from convicting the company and its president
under such laws. Your Excellency’s Government will, of course,
recognize that the penalties prescribed in the proceedings by virtue
of the laws enacted last March were more severe than those
prescribed in Article 44 of Executive Order No. 197, of August 19,
1918, under which even the maximum penalties could not have been the
fine and sentence of imprisonment imposed in this case.
I am instructed by my Government further to point out the summary
nature of the proceedings, the lack of notice thereof to the
company, the right of the company to be represented by counsel, the
impossibility under the circumstances for the accused to present
defense [Page 491] and the haste with
which the decision of the court mentioned was announced. The facts
supporting these respective statements are as well known to Your
Excellency as they are to my Government. My Government directs me to
point out also that the twenty-four page decision which was handed
down by the court mentioned within a few minutes after the case was
called for hearing, is regarded as having special significance as to
the nature of the judicial proceedings in this case.
I am directed to state to Your Excellency with emphasis that the
Government of the United States is deeply interested in seeing and
must insist that its nationals be accorded all rights in the
Dominican Republic to which they are entitled by established
principles of international law and especially that they do not
suffer a denial of justice or of just procedure.
The Government of the United States instructs me to request the
prompt remission of the fine imposed upon the company and to
reserve, in behalf of American interests, all rights growing out of
any loss that may have been sustained by the company through this
incident.
I avail myself [etc.]
